the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture, reason, and tradition. the first part in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation in the books called consensus veterum and nubes testium, &c. stillingfleet, edward, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing s estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture, reason, and tradition. the first part in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation in the books called consensus veterum and nubes testium, &c. stillingfleet, edward, - . the second edition. , [ ] p. printed for w. rogers ..., london : . written by edward stillingfleet. cf. wing. advertisement on p. [ ] at end. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng gother, john, d. . -- nubes testium. sclater, edward, - ? -- consensus veterum. transubstantiation -- early works to . trinity -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - jonathan blaney sampled and proofread - jonathan blaney text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . the first part . wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called consensus veterum , and nubes testium , &c. the second edition . imprimatur . ex aedib . lambeth . jan. . . guil. needham rr. in christo pat. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. à sacris . london , printed for w. rogers at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . m dc lxxx viii . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . pr. i remember your last words at parting were , farewel ; and god give his holy spirit to instruct you . which have run much in my mind : for if the holy spirit instruct us , what need is there of an infallible church ? i hope those were not only words of course with you . pa. no ; but i meant that the holy spirit should instruct you about the authority of the church . pr. was this indeed your meaning ? then you would have me believe the church infallible , because the holy spirit which is infallible will instruct me about it , if i seek his directions . p. yes . pr. but then i have no reason to believe it ; for the holy spirit after my seeking his instructions , teaches me otherwise . and if the holy spirit is infallible which way soever it teaches , then i am infallibly sure there is no such thing as infallibility in what you call the catholick church . p. come , come ; you make too much of a sudden expression at parting ; i pray let us return to our main business , which is to shew , that there is the same ground from scripture , reason , and tradition , to believe transubstantiation , as there is to believe the trinity . and this i affirm again , after reading the answers to the former dialogue ; and i now come somewhat better prepared to make it out . pr. so you had need . and i hope i shall be able not only to defend the contrary , but to make it evident to you , that there is a mighty difference in these two doctrines , as to scripture , reason , and tradition . but i pray keep close to the point : for i hate impertinent trifling in a debate of such consequence . p. i must confess , i over-shot my self a little in the former dialogue , when i offer'd to prove the doctrine of the trinity unreasonable and absurd : for no church can make such a doctrine , which is unreasonable and absurd in it self , not to be so to me ; no church can make three and one to be the same , if they be repugnant in themselves . but my meaning was , that mens disputes about these things will never be ended , till they submit to the authority of the church . pr. and then they may believe three , or three hundred persons in the trinity , as the church pleases . is that your meaning ? p. no. but i said to my carnal reason it would appear so ; but not to my reason as under the conduct of an infallible guide . pr. then an infallible guide can make three hundred to be but three ; which is a notable trick of infallibility . p. no ; i tell you i meant only that we are not to follow carnal reason , but the church's authority , i. e. we are not to search into mysteries above reason , but only believe what the church delivers . and i intend now to argue the point somewhat closely with you . do you believe that there are any mysteries in the christian doctrine above reason , or not ? if not , you must reject the trinity ; if you do , then you have no ground for rejecting transubstantiation , because it is above reason . pr. you clearly mistake us ; and i perceive were very little acquainted with our doctrine : for we do not reject any doctrine concerning god , meerly because it is above our reason , when it is otherwise clearly proved from scripture . for then we own our selves bound to submit in matters of divine revelation concerning an infinite being , though they be above our capacity to comprehend them . but in matters of a finite nature , which are far more easie for us to conceive , and which depend upon the evidence of sense , we may justly reject any doctrine which overthrows that evidence , and is not barely above our reason , but repugnant to it . p. i do not well understand you . pr. so i believe ; but i will endeavour to help your understanding a little . and i pray consider these things : . that there is a great difference in our conceptions of finite and infinite beings . for , whatsoever is infinite , is thereby owned to be above our comprehension , otherwise it would not be infinite . the attributes of god which are essential to him , as his wisdom , goodness and power , must be understood by us , so far as to form a true notion of that being which is infinite ; but then the infinity of these attributes is above our reach . and so his infinite duration , which we call eternity ; his infinite presence which we call his immensity ; the infinite extent of his knowledg , as to future contingencies ; all these must be confessed to be mysteries , not above our reason , but above our capacity . for we have great reason to own them , but we have not faculties to comprehend them . we cannot believe a god , unless we hold him to be infinite in all perfections : and if he be infinite , he must be incomprehensible ; so that religion must be overthrown , if something incomprehensible be not allowed . and as to finite beings , so far as they run into what we call infinite , they are so far out of our reach ; as appears by the insuperable difficulties about the infinite divisibility of quantity . . that we have certain notions of some things in the visible world ; both that they are , and that they have some attributes essential to them . we daily converse with things visible and corporeal ; and if we do not conceive something true and certain in our minds about them , we live in a dream and have only phantasms and illusions about us . if we are certain that there are real bodies , and not meer appearances , there must be some certain way of conveying such impressions to our minds , from whence they may conclude , this is a horse , and this a man , and this is flesh , and this blood , and this is wood , and this stone ; otherwise all certainty is gone , and we must turn meer scepticks . . that in examining the sense of scripture we may make use of those certain notions of visible things which god and nature have planted in us ; otherwise we are not dealt with as reasonable creatures . and therefore we must use those faculties god hath given us , in reading and comparing scriptures , and examining the sense that is offered by such notions which are agreeable to the nature of things . as for instance , the scripture frequently attributes eyes and ears and hands to the almighty : must we presently believe god to have an human shape because of this ? no ; we compare these with the necessary attributes of god , and from thence see a necessity of interpreting these expressions in a sense agreeable to the divine nature . so if other expressions of scripture seem to affirm that of a body which is inconsistent with the nature of it ; as , that it is not visible , or may be in many places at once , there is some reason for me to understand them in a sense agreeable to the essential properties of a body . . there is a difference between our not apprehending the manner how a thing is , and the apprehending the impossibility of the thing it self . and this is the meaning of the distinction of things above our reason , and contrary to our reason . if the question be , how the same individual nature can be communicated to three distinct persons ? we may justly answer , we cannot apprehend the manner of it , no more than we can the divine immensity , or an infinite amplitude without extension . but if any go about to prove there is an impossibility in the thing , he must prove that the divine nature can communicate it self no otherwise than a finite individual nature can : for all acknowledg the same common nature may be communicated to three persons , and so the whole controversie rests on this single point as to reason ; whether the divine nature and persons are to be judged and measured as human nature and persons are . and in this , i think we have the advantage in point of reason of the anti-trinitarians themselves , although they pretend never so much to it . p. good night , sir ; i perceive you are in for an hour ; and i have not so much time to spare , to hear such long preachments . for my part , talk of sense and reason as long as you will , i am for the catholick church . pr. and truly , she is mightily obliged to you for oppoposing her authority to sense and reason . p. call it what you will , i am for the churches authority ; and the talk of sense and reason is but canting without that . pr. the matter is then come to a fine pass ; i thought canting had rather been that which was spoken against sense or reason . but i pray , sir , what say you to what i have been discoursing ? p. to tell you truth , i did not mind it ; for as soon as i heard whither you were going , i clapt fast hold of the church , as a man would do of a mast in a storm , and resolved not to let go my hold . pr. what! altho you should sink together with it . p. if i do , the church must answer for it ; for i must sink or swim with it . pr. what comfort will that be to you , when you are called to an account for your self ? but if you stick here , it is to no purpose to talk any more with you . p. i think so too . but now we are in , methinks we should not give over thus ; especially since i began this dialogue about the trinity and transubstantiation . pr. if you do , we know the reason of it . but i am resolved to push this matter now as far as it will go ; and either to convince you of your mistake , or at least to make you give it over wholly . p. but if i must go on in my parallel , i will proceed in my own way . i mentioned three things , scripture , reason , and tradition . and i will begin with tradition . pr. this is somewhat an uncouth method ; but i must be content to follow your conduct . p. no , sir , the method is very natural ; for in mysteries above reason , the safest way is to trust tradition . and none can give so good account of that as the church . pr. take your own way : but i perceive tradition with you is the sense of the present church ; which is as hard to conceive , as that a nunc stans should be an eternal succession . p. as to comparing tradition , i say , that the mystery of the trinity was questioned in the very infancy of the church , and the arians prevail'd much against it in the beginning of the fourth age ; but transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet for a long time ; and when it came into debate , there was no such opposition as that of arius , to call in question the authority of its tradition ; the church received it unanimously , and in that sense continued till rash reason attempted to fathom the unlimited miracles and mysteries of god. pr. i stand amazed at the boldness of this assertion : but i find your present writers are very little vers'd in antiquity ; which makes them offer things concerning the ancient church , especially as to transubstantiation , which those who had been modest and learned , would have been ashamed of . p. i hope i may make use of them to justify my self , tho you slight them , i mean the consensus veterum , the nubes testium , and the single sheet about transubstantiation . pr. take them all , and as many more as you please , i am sure you can never prove transubstantiation to have been , and the trinity not to have been the constant belief of the primitive church . p. let me manage my own argument first . pr. all the reason in the world. p. my argument is , that the doctrine of the trinity met with far more opposition than transubstantiation did . pr. good reason for it , because it was never heard of then . you may as well say , the tradition of the circulation of the blood lay very quiet , from the days of hippocrates to the time of parisanus . who was there that opposed things before they were thought of ? p. that is your great mistake ; for transubstantiation was very well known , but they did not happen to speak so much of it , because it was not opposed . pr. but how is it possible for you to know it was so well known , if they spake not of it ? p. i did not say , they did not speak of it , but not so much , or not half so express ; because it is not customary for men to argue unquestionable truths . pr. but still how shall it be known that the church received this doctrine unanimously , if they do not speak expresly of it ? but since you offer at no proof of your assertion , i will make a fair offer to you , and undertake to prove , that the fathers spake expresly against it . p. how is that ? expresly against it ? god forbid . pr. make of it what you please , and answer what you can : i begin with my proofs . p. nay , then , we are in for all night . i am now full of business , and cannot hearken to tedious proofs out of the fathers , which have been canvassed a hundred times . pr. i will be as short as i can ; and i promise you not to transcribe any that have hitherto written , nor to urge you with any spurious writer , or lame citation at second or third hand ; and i shall produce nothing but what i have read , considered , and weighed in the authors themselves . p. since it must be so ; let me hear your doubty arguments , which i cannot as well turn against the trinity ; for that is my point . pr. i leave you to try your skill upon them . the first shall be from the proofs of the truth of christ's incarnation ; and i hope this will not hold against the trinity . and those arguments which they brought to prove christ incarnate , do overthrow transubstantiation effectually . so that either we must make the fathers to reason very ill against hereticks ; or , if their arguments be good , it was impossible they should believe transubstantiation . for can you suppose that any can believe it , who should not barely assert , but make the force of an argument to lie in this , that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecration ? and this i now prove , not from any slight inconsiderable authors , but from some of the greatest men in the church in their time . i begin with st. chrysostom , whose epistle to coesarius is at last brought to light by a learned person of the roman communion ; who makes no question of the sincerity of it , and faith , the latin translation which only he could find entire , was about five hundred years old ; but he hath so confirm'd it by the greek fragments of it , quoted by ancient greek authors , that there can be no suspicion left concerning it . p. what means all this ado before you come to the point ? pr. because this epistle hath been formerly so confidently denied to be st. chrysostom's ; and such care was lately taken to suppress it . p. but what will you do with it now you have it ? pr. i will tell you presently . this epistle was written by him for the satisfaction of caesarius a monk , who was in danger of being seduced by the apollinarists . p. what have we to do with the apollinarists ? do you think all hard words are akin , and so the affinity rises between apollinarists and transubstantiation ? pr. you shall find it comes nearer the matter than you imagined . for those hereticks denied the truth of the human nature of christ after the union , and said that the properties of it did then belong to the divine nature ; as appears by that very epistle . p. and what of all this ? do we deny the truth of christ's human nature ? pr. no ; but i pray observe the force of his parallel . he is proving that each nature in christ contains its properties ; for , saith he , as before consecration we call it bread , but after it by divine grace sanctifying it through the prayer of the priest , it is no longer called bread , but the body of our lord , altho the nature of bread remains in it ; and it doth not become two bodies , but one body of christ ; so here the divine nature being joyned to the human , they both make one son , and one person . p. and what do you infer from hence ? pr. nothing more , but that the nature of bread doth as certainly remain after consecration , as the nature of christ doth after the union . p. hold a little . for the author of the single sheet , saith , that the fathers by nature and substance do often mean no more than the natural qualities , or visible appearances of things . and why may not st. chrysostom mean so here ? pr. i say , it is impossible he should . for all the dispute was about the substance , and not about the qualities , as appears by that very epistle ; for those hereticks granted , that christ had all the properties of a body left still ; they do not deny that christ could suffer , but they said , the properties of a body after the union belonged to the divine nature , the human nature being swallowed up by the union . and therefore st. chrysostom , by nature , must understand substance , and not qualities ; or else he doth by no means prove that which he aimed at . so that st. chrysostom doth manifestly assert the substance of the bread to remain after consecration . p. but doth not st. chrysostom suppose then , that upon consecration , the bread is united to the divinity , as the human nature is to the divine ; else what parallel could he make ? pr. i will deal freely with you by declaring , that not st. chrysostom only , but many others of the fathers , did own the bread after consecration to be made the real body of christ ; but not in your sense , by changing the substance of the elements into that body of christ which is in heaven ; but by a mystical union , caused by the holy spirit , whereby the bread becomes the body of christ , as that was which was conceived in the womb of the blessed virgin. but this is quite another thing from transubstantiation ; and the church of england owns , that after consecration , the bread and wine are the body and blood of christ. p. but altho this be not transubstantiation , it may be something as hard to believe or understand . pr. by no means . for all the difficulties relating to the taking away the substance of the bread , and the properties of christ's body , are removed by this hypothesis . p. let us then keep to our point : but methinks this is but a slender appearance yet ; st. chrysostom stands alone for all that i see . pr. have but a little patience , and you shall see more of his mind presently . but i must first tell you , that the eutychians afterwards were condemned in the council of chalcedon for following this doctrine of apollinaris ; and that council defines , that the differences of the two natures in christ were not destroyed by the union ; but that their properties were preserved distinct and concur to one person . and against these , the other fathers disputed just as st. chrysostom had done before against the apollinarists . theodoret brings the same instance , and he affirms expresly , that the nature of the elements is not changed , that they do not lose their proper nature , but remain in their former substance , figure and form , and may be seen and touched as before . still this is not to prove any accidental qualities , but the very substance of christ's body to remain . p. but was not theodoret a man of suspected faith in ●he church ? and therefore no great matter can be made of his testimony . pr. yield it then to us ; and see if we do not clear theodoret ; but your own learned men never question him , as to this matter ( at least ) and the ancient church hath vindicated his reputation . and he saith no more than st. chrysostom before him , and others of great esteem ●fter him . p. who were they ? pr. what say you to a pope , whom you account head of the church ? pope gelasius writing against the same hereticks , produces the same example ; and he expresly saith , the substance of the bread and wine doth not cease . p. i thought i should find you tripping . here you put a fob-head of the church upon us . for the author of the single sheet saith , this was another gelasius , as is prov'd at large by bellarmin . pr. in truth , i am ashamed of the ignorance of such small authors , who will be medling with things they understand not . for this writer , since bellarmin's time , hath been evidently proved from testimonies of antiquity , such as fulgentius and john the second , to have been pope gelasius , and that by some of the most learned persons of the roman communion , such as cardinal du perron , petavius , sirmondus , and others . p. have you any more that talk at this rate ? pr. yes . what think you of a patriarch of antioch , who useth the same similitude for the same purpose ; and he affirms , that the sensible substance still continues in the eucharist , tho it hath divine grace joyned with it ? and i pray , now tell me seriously , did the tradition of transubstantiation lie unquestion'd and quiet all this while ? when we have three patriarchs , of constantinople , rome , and antioch , expresly against it ; and one of them owned by your selves , to be head of the church ; and held by many to be infallible , especially when he teaches the church ; which he doth , if ever , when he declares against hereticks . p. i know not what to say , unless by nature and substance they meant qualities and properties . pr. i have evidently proved that could not be their meaning . p. but i am told monsieur arnaud in his elaborate defence against claude goes that way , and he saith , the eutychians and apollinarists did not absolutely deny any substance to remain in christ's body , but not so as to be endued with such properties as ours have . pr. i grant this is the main of his defence ; but i confess , monsieur arnaud hath not so much authority with me , as a general council which declared the contrary ; viz. that the eutychians were condemned for not holding two substances or natures in christ after the union . and domnus antiochenus , who first laid open the eutychian heresie , saith , it lay in making a mixture and confusion of both natures in christ , and so making the divinity passible ; and to the same purpose others . there were some who charged both apollinaris and eutyches with holding , that christ brought his body from heaven , and that it was not con-substantial with ours ; but apollinaris himself , in the fragments preserved by leontius , not only denies it , but pronounces an anathema against those that hold it . and vitalis of antioch , a great disciple of his , in discourse with epiphanius , utterly denied a coelestial body in christ. vincentius lerinensis saith , his heresie lay in denying two distinct substances in christ. st. augustin saith , he held but one substance after the union ; so that he must deny any substance of a body to remain after the union , which he asserted to be wholly swallowed up , and the properties to continue : which was another kind of transubstantiation ; for no more of the substance of christ's body was supposed to remain after the union , than there is supposed to be in the elements after consecration . but in both cases the properties and qualities were the same still . and it is observable , that in the acts of the council of chalcedon , eutyches rejected it , as a calumny cast upon him , that he should hold that christ brought a body from heaven . but the eutychian doctrine lay in taking away the substance of the body , and making the divinity the sole substance , but with the accidents and properties of the body . and for this they produced the words of saint john , the word was made flesh ; which they urged with the same confidence that you now do , this is my body . and when they were urged with difficulties , they made the very same recourse to god's omnipotency , and the letter of scripture , and made the same declamations against the use of reason that you do ; and withal , they would not have the human nature to be annihilated , but to be changed into the divine ; just as your authors do about the substance of the bread. so that it is hard to imagin a more exact parallel to transubstantiation than there is in this doctrine ; and consequently there can be no more evident proof of it , than the fathers making use of the instance of the eucharist , to shew , tha● as the substance of bread doth remain after consecration ; so the substance of christ's body doth continue after the union . and when the fathers from the remaining properties do prove the substance to remain , they overthrow the possibility of transubstantiation . for , if they might be without the substance , their whole argument loses its force , and proves just nothing . p. but all this proves nothing as to the faith of the church ; being only arguments used by divines in the heat of disputes . pr. do you then in earnest give up the fathers as disputants to us ; but retain them as believers to your selves ? but how should we know their faith but by their works ? p. i perceive you have a mind to be pleasant ; but my meaning was , that in disputes men may easily over-shoot themselves , and use ineffectual arguments . pr. but is it possible to suppose they should draw arguments from something against the faith of the church . as for instance ; suppose now we are disputing about tran substantiation , you should bring an argument from the human nature of christ , and say , that as in the hypostatical union the substance is changed , and nothing but the accidents remain ; so it is in the elements upon consecration . do you think i should not presently deny your example , and say , your very supposition is heretical ? so no doubt would the eutychians have done in case the faith of the church had then been , that the substance of the elements was changed after consecration . and the eutychians were the most sottish disputants in the world , if they had not brought the doctrine of transubstantiation to prove their heresy . p. methink you are very long upon this argument ; when shall we have done at this rate ? pr. i take this for your best answer ; and so i proceed to a second argument , which i am sure will not hold against the trinity ; and that is from the natural and unseparable properties of christ's body ; which are utterly inconsistent with the belief of transubstantiation . and the force of the argument in general lies in this , that the fathers did attribute such things to the body of christ , which render it uncapable of being present in such a manner in the sacrament as transubstantiation supposes . and no men who understand themselves , will assert that at one time , which they must be bound to deny at another ; but they will be sure to make an exception or limitation , which may reconcile both together . as if you should say , that the body of christ cannot be in more places than one at once , upon the doctrine of st. thomas ; ye would presently add , with regard to the sacrament , i. e. not in regard of its natural presence , but in a sacramental it may : so , if the fathers had an opinion like yours as to the body of christ , they would have a reserve , or exception , as to the sacrament . but it appears by their writings , that they attribute such properties in general to the body of christ , as overthrow any such presence , without exceptions or limitations . but that is not all : for i shall now prove , . that they do attribute circumscription to christ's body in heaven , so as to exclude the possibility of its being upon earth . . that they deny any such thing , as the supernatural existence of a body after the manner of a spirit . p. what do you mean ? i am quite tired already ; and now you are turning up the other glass . pr. since you will be dabling in these controversies , you must not think to escape so easily . i have been not a little offended at the insolence of some late pamphlets upon this argument ; and now i come to close reasoning , you would fain be gone . p. i am in a little haste at present ; i pray come quickly to the point . pr. as soon as you please . what think you , if a man now should bring an argument to prove a matter of faith from hence , that christ's body could not be in heaven and earth at once , would this argument hold good ? yet thus vigilius tapsitanus argues against those who denied two natures in christ ; for , saith he , the body of christ when it was on earth , was not in heaven ; and now it is in heaven , it is not upon earth ; and it is so far from being so , that we expect him to come from heaven in his flesh , whom we believe to be now present on earth by his divinity . how can this hold , if the body of christ can be in heaven and earth at the same time ? p. he speaks this of the natural presence of christ's body , and not of the sacramental . pr. the argument is not drawn from the manner of the presence , but from the nature of a body , that it could not be in heaven and earth at the same time . and so st. augustin said , that christ was every where present as god ; but confined to a certain place in heaven according to the measure of his true body . p. this is only to disprove the ubiquity of christ's body ; and not his being in several places at the same time . pr. then you yield it to be repugnant to the nature of a body to be every where present . p. yes . pr. but what if there be as great a repugnancy from st. augustin's argument , for a body to be present in several places at once ? p. i see no such thing . pr. no ? his argument is from the confinement of a true body to a certain place . and if it be in many places at once , it is as far from being confined , as if it took up all places . and there are some greater difficulties as to a body's being distant from it self , than in asserting its ubiquity . p. i perceive you are inclined to be a lutheran . pr. no such matter . for i think the essential properties of a finite and infinite being are incommunicable to each other , and i look on ubiquity as one of them . p. then the same argument will not hold as to presence in several places , for this is no infinite perfection . pr. you run from one argument to another . for these are two distinct ways of arguing ; and the argument from the repugnancy of it to the nature of a body , doth as well hold against ubiquity , as that it is a divine perfection . and st. augustin in that excellent epistle doth argue from the essential properties and dimensions of bodies , and the difference of the presence of a spirit , and a body . i pray read and consider that epistle , and you will think it impossible st. augustin should believe transubstantiation . p. st. augustin was a great disputant , and such are wont while they are eager upon one point , to forget another . but st. augustin elsewhere doth assert the presence of christ's real body in the sacrament . pr. then the plain consequence is , that he contradicted himself . p. but he doth not speak of a sacramental presence . pr. what again ? but st. augustin makes this an essential difference between a divine and corporal presence ; that the one doth not fill places by its dimensions as the other doth ; so that bodies cannot be in distant places at once . what think you of this ? p. i pray go on . pr. what think you of the manichees doctrine , who held that christ was in the sun and moon when he suffered on the cross ? was this possible or not ? p. what would you draw from hence ? pr. nothing more , but that st. augustin disproved it , because his body could not be at the same time in the sun and moon , and upon earth ? p. as to the ordinary course of nature , st. augustin's argument holds , but not as to the miraculous power of god. pr. there is a difference between the ordinary course of nature , and the unchangeable order of nature . p. let me hear this again ; for it is new doctrine to us . pr. that 's strange ! those things are by the ordinary course of nature , which cannot be changed but by divine power ; but imply no repugnancy for god to alter that course ; but those are by the unchangeable order of nature , which cannot be done without overthrowing the very nature of the things ; and such things are impossible in themselves , and therefore god himself cannot do them . p. it seems then you set bounds to god's omnipotency . pr. doth not the scripture say , there are some things impossible for god to do ? p. yes ; such as are repugnant to his own perfections ; as it is impossible for god to lye . pr. but are there no other things impossible to be done ? what think you of making the time past not to be past ? p. that is impossible in it self . pr. but is it not impossible for the same body to be in two different times ? p. yes . pr. why not then in two or more different places ; since a body is as certainly confined , as to place , as it is to time ? p. you are run now into the point of reason , when we were upon st. augustin's testimony . pr. but i say , st. augustin went upon this ground , that it was repugnant to the nature of a body to be in more places than one at the same time . and so likewise cassian proves , that when christ was upon earth he could not be in heaven , but in regard of his divinity . is there not the same repugnancy for a body in heaven to be upon earth , as for a body upon earth to be in heaven ? p. these are new questions , which i have not met with in our writers , and therefore i shall take time to answer them . but all these testimonies proceed upon a body considered under the nature of a body ; but in the sacrament we consider christ's body as present after the manner of a spirit . pr. that was the next thing i promised to prove from the fathers , that they knew of no such thing , and therefore could not believe your doctrine . have you observed what the fathers say about the difference of body and spirit ? p. not i ; but i have read our authors , who produce them for our doctrine . pr. that is the perpetual fault of your writers , to attend more to the sound of their words , than to the force of their reasonings . they bring places out of popular discourses intended to heighten the peoples devotion , and never compare them with those principles which they assert , when they come to reasoning ; which would plainly shew their other expressions are to be understood in a mystical and figurative sense . but i pray tell me , do you think the fathers had no distinct notion of a body and spirit , and the essential properties of both ? p. yes doubtless . pr. suppose then they made those to lye in such things as are inconsistent with the presence of christ's body in the sacrament after the manner of a spirit ; do you think then they could hold it to be so present ? and if they did not , they could not believe transubstantiation . p. very true . pr. what think you then of st. augustin , who makes it impossible for a body to be without its dimensions and extension of parts ? but you assert a body may be without them ; or else it cannot be after the manner of a spirit , as you say it is in the sacrament . p. i pray shew that st. augustin made it inconsistent with the nature of a body to be otherwise . pr. he saith , that all bodies how gross or subtle soever they be , can never be all every where ( i. e. cannot be indivisibly present after the manner of a spirit ) but must be extended according to their several parts , and whether great or little , must take up a space , and so fill the place , that it cannot be all in any one part. is this possible to be reconciled with your notion of a body being present after the manner of a spirit ? p. to be present after the manner of a spirit , is with us , to be so present , as not to be extended , and to be whole in every part . pr. but this st. augustin saith , no body can be ; and not only there , but elsewhere he saith , take away dimensions from bodies , and they are no longer bodies . and that a greater part takes up a greater space , and a lesser a less ; and must be always less in the part than in the whole . p. but he speaks of extension in it self , and not with respect to place . pr. that is of extension that is not extended ; for if it be , it must have respect to place ; but nothing can be plainer , than that st. augustin doth speak with respect to place . and he elsewhere saith , that every body must have place , and be extended in it . p. but he doth not speak this of the sacrament . pr. but he speaks it of all bodies wheresoever present ; and he doth not except the sacrament , which he would certainly have done , if he had believed as you do concerning it . p. st. augustin might have particular opinions in this , as he had in other things . pr. so far from it , that i shall make it appear , that this was the general sense of the fathers . st. gregory nazianzen saith , that the nature of bodies requires , that they have figure and shape , and may be touched , and seen , and circumscribed . st. cyril of alexandria saith , that if god himself were a body , he must be liable to the properties of bodies , and he must be in a place , as bodies are . and all those fathers , who prove , that god cannot be a body , do it from such arguments as shew , that they knew nothing of a bodies being after the manner of a spirit : for then the force of their arguments is lost , which are taken from the essential properties of a body , such as extension , divisibility , and circumscription . but if a body may be without these , then god may be a body after the manner of a spirit ; and so the spirituality of the divine nature will be taken away . p. i never heard these arguments before , and must take some time to consider . pr. the sooner the better ; and i am sure if you do , you will repent being a new convert . but i have yet something to add to this argument ; viz. that those who have stated the difference between body and spirit , have made extension , and taking up a place , and divisibility , necessary to the very being of a body ; and that what is not circumscribed , is incorporeal . p. methinks your arguments run out to a great length . i pray bring them into a less compass . pr. i proceed to a third argument from the fathers , which will not take up much time ; and that is , that the fathers knew nothing of the subsistence of accidents without their substance , without which transubstantiation cannot be maintained : and therefore in the roman schools , the possibility of accidents subsisting without their subjects , is defended . but on the contrary , maximus , one of the eldest of the fathers , who lived in the second century , affirms it to be of the essence of accidents to be in their substance . st. basil saith , nature doth not bear a distinction between body and figure , altho reason makes one . isidore p●lusiota , saith , that quality cannot be without substance . gregory nyssen , that figure cannot be without body , and that a body cannot be conceived without qualities : and that if we take away colour , and quantity , and resistance , the whole notion of a body is destroy'd . take away space from bodies , saith st. augustin , and they can be no where ; and if they can be no where , they cannot be : and so he saith , if we take away bodies from their qualities . and in plain terms , that no qualities , as colours , or form , can remain without their subject . and that no accidents can be without their subject , is in general affirmed by isidore hispalensis , boethius , damascen , and others , who give an account of the philosophy of the ancients . p. all this proceeds upon the old philosophy of accidents : what if there be none at all ? pr. what then makes the same impression on our senses when the substance is gone , as when it was there ? is there a perpetual miracle to deceive our senses ? but it is impossible to maintain transubstantiation , as it is defined in the church of rome , without accidents : they may hold some other doctrine in the place of it , but they cannot hold that . and that other doctrine will be as impossible to be understood . for if once we suppose the body of christ to be in the sacrament , in place of the substance of the bread , which appears to our senses to be bread still : then suppose there be no accidents , the body of a man must make the same impression on our senses , which the substance of bread doth , which is so horrible an absurdity , that the philosophy of accidents cannot imply any greater than it . so that the new transubstantiators had as good return to the old mumpsimus of accidents . p. i suppose you have now done with this argument . pr. no : i have something farther to say about it , which is , that the fathers do not only assert , that accidents cannot be without their subject , but they confute hereticks on that supposition ; which shew'd their assurance of the truth of it . irenoeus overthrows the valentinian conjugations , because truth can no more be without a subject , than water without moisture , or fire without heat , or a stone without hardness ; which are so joined together , that they cannot be separated . methodius confutes origen's fancy about the soul having the shape of a body without the substance , because the shape and the body cannot be separated from each other . st. augustin proves the immortality of the soul from hence , because meer accidents can never be separated from the body , so as the mind is by abstraction . and in another place he asserts it to be a monstrous absurd doctrine , to suppose that , whose nature is to be in a subject , to be capable of subsisting without it . claudianus mamertus proves , that the soul could not be in the body as its subject ; for then it could not subsist when the body is destroy'd . p. i hope you have now done with this third argument . pr. yes ; and i shall wait your own time for an answer . i go on to a fourth : and that is from the evidence of sense asserted and allowed by the fathers , with respect to the body of christ. p. i expected this before now . for , as the author of the single sheet observes : this is the cock-argument of one of the lights of your church ; and it so far resembles the light , that like it , it makes a glaring shew , but go to grasp it , and you find nothing in your hand . pr. then it 's plain our senses are deceived . p. not as to transubstantiation : for he believes more of his senses than we do : for his eyes tell him there is the colour of bread , and he assents to them ; his tongue , that it has the taste of bread , and he agrees to it : and so for his smelling and feeling : but then he hath a notable fetch in his conclusion : viz. that his ears tell him from the words spoken by christ himself , that it is the body of christ , and he believes these too . is not here one sense more than you believe ? and yet you would persuade the world , that we do not believe our senses . pr. this is admirable stuff ; but it must be tenderly dealt with . for i pray what doth he mean when he saith , he believes from christ's own words , that it is the body of christ ? what is this it ? is it the accidents he speaks of before ? are those accidents then the body of christ ? is it the substance of bread ? but that is not discerned by the senses , he saith : and if it were , will he say , that the substance of bread is the body of christ ? if neither of these , then his believing it is the body of christ , signifies nothing ; for there can be no sense of it . p. however , he shews , that we who believe transubstantiation , do not renounce our senses , as you commonly reproach us : for we believe all that our senses represent to us , which is only the outward appearance . for , as he well observes , if your eyes see the substance of things , they are most extraordinary ones , and better than ours . for our parts , we see no farther than the colour or figure , &c. of things which are only accidents , and the entire object of that sense . pr. is there no difference between the perception of sense , and the evidence of sense ? we grant , that the perception of our senses goes no farther than to the outward accidents ; but that perception affords such an evidence by which the mind doth pass judgment upon the thing represented by the outward sense . i pray tell me , have you any certainty there is such a thing as a material substance in the world ? p. yes . pr. whence comes the certainty of the substance , since your senses cannot discover it ? do we live among nothing but accidents ? or can we know nothing beyond them ? p. i grant we may know in general that there are such things as substances in the world. pr. but can we not know the difference of one substance from another , by our senses ? as for instance , can we not know a man from a horse , or an elephant from a mouse , or a piece of bread from a church ? or do we only know . there are such and such accidents belong to every one of these ; but our senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the substances under them ? i pray answer me one question , did you ever keep lent ? p. what a strange question is this ? did you not tell me , you would avoid impertinencies ? pr. this is none , i assure you . p. then i answer , i think my self obliged to keep it . pr. then you thought your self bound to abstain from flesh , and to eat fish. p. what of all that ? pr. was it the substance of flesh you abstained from , or only the accidents of it ? p. the substance ? pr. and did you know the difference between the substance of flesh and fish by your tast ? p. yes . pr. then you have an extraordinary tast , which goes to the very substance ? p. but this is off from our business , which was about the fathers , and not our own judgment about the evidence of sense . pr. i am ready for you upon that argument . and i only desire to know whether you think the evidence of sense sufficient , as to the true body of christ , where it is supposed to be present ? p. by no means ; for then we could not believe it to be present , where we cannot perceive it . pr. but the fathers did assert the evidence of sense to be sufficient , as to the true body of christ ; so irenoeus , tertullian , epiphanius , hilary , and st. augustin . i will produce their words at length , if you desire them . p. it will be but lost labour , since we deny not , as cardinal bellarmin well saith , the evidence of sense to be a good positive evidence , but not a negative , i. e. that it is a body , which is handled , and felt , and seen ; but not , that it is no body which is not . pr. very well ! and i pray then what becomes of your single sheet man , who so confidently denies sense to be good positive evidence as to a real body ; but only as to the outward appearance ? p. you mistake him ; for he saith , we are to believe our senses , where they are not indisposed , and no divine revelation intervenes , which we believe there doth in this case ; and therefore , unless the fathers speak of the sacrament , we have no reason to regard their testimonies in this matter . but we have stronger evidence against you from the fathers , for they say we are not to rely on the evidence of sense , as to the sacrament . so st. cyril , st. chrysostom , and st. ambrose . pr. i am glad you offer any thing which deserves to be considered . but have you already forgot bellarmin's rule , that sense may be a good positive evidence , but not a negative , i. e. it may discover what is present as a body , but not what is not , and cannot be so present , viz. the invisible grace which goes along with it ; and as to this the fathers might well say , we are not to trust our sense . p. this is making an interpretation for them . pr. no such matter . it is the proper and genuine sense of their words ; as will appear from hence . ( . ) they assert the very same , as to the chrism and baptism , which they do as to the eucharist . ( . ) that which they say , our senses cannot reach , is something of a spiritual nature , and not a body . and here the case is extremely different from the judgment of sense , as to a material substance . and if you please , i will evidently prove from the fathers , that that wherein they excluded the judgment of sense in the eucharist , was something wholly spiritual and immaterial . p. no , no , we have been long enough upon the fathers , unless their evidence were more certain one way or other . for my part , i believe on the account of divine revelation in this matter , this is my body ; here i stick , and the fathers agreed with us herein , that christ's words are not to be taken in a figurative sense . pr. the contrary hath been so plainly proved in a late excellent discourse of transubstantiation , that i wonder none of your party have yet undertaken to answer it ; but they write on , as if no such treatise had appear'd : i shall therefore wave all the proofs that are there produced , till some tolerable answer be given to them . p. methinks you have taken a great liberty of talking about the fathers , as tho they were all on your side ; but our late authors assure us to the contrary ; and i hope i may now make use of them , to shew that transubstantiation was the faith of the ancient church . pr. with all my heart , i even long to hear what they can say in a matter , i think , so clear on our side . p. well , sir , i begin with the consensus veterum , written by one that professed himself a minister of the church of england . pr. make what you can of him , now you have him ; but i will meddle with no personal things , i desire to hear his arguments . p. what say you to r. selomo , interpreting the . psal. v. . of wafers in the days of the messias ; to r. moses haddarsan , on gen. . . and on psal. . , to r. cahana , on gen. . . who was long before the nativity of christ ; r. johai , on numb . . . and to r. judas , who was many years before christ came . pr. can you hold your countenance when you repeat these things ? but any thing must pass from a new convert . what think you of r. cahana , and r. judas , who lived so long before our saviour , when we know that the jews have no writings preserved near to our saviour's time , besides the bible , and some say the paraphrasts upon it . i would have been glad to have seen these testimonies taken from their original authors , and not from galatinus , who is known to have been a notorious plagiary , as to the main of his book , and of little or no credit as to the rest . but it is ridieulous to produce the testimonies of jewish rabbins for transubstantiation , when it is so well known that it is one of their greatest objections against christianity , as taught in the roman church , as may be seen in joseph albo , and others . but what is all this to the testimony of the christian fathers ? p. will not you let a man shew a little jewish learning upon occasion ? but if you have a mind to the fathers , you shall have enough of them ; for i have a large catalogue of them to produce , from the consensus veterum , nubes testium , and the single sheet , which generally agree . pr. with coccius or bellarmin , you mean ; but before you produce them , i pray tell me what you intend to prove by them ? p. the doctrine of our church . pr. as to what ? p. what have we been about all this while ? pr. transubstantiation . will you prove that ? p. why do you suspect me before i begin ? pr. i have some reason for it . let us first agree what we mean by it . do you mean the same which the church of rome doth by it , in the council of trent ? p. what can we mean else ? pr. let us first see what that is . the council of trent declares , that the same body of christ , which is in heaven , is really , truly and substantially present in the eucharist after consecration , under the species of bread and wine . and the roman catechism saith , it is the very body which was born of the virgin , and sits at the right hand of god. ( . ) that the bread and wine after consecration , lose their proper substances , and are changed into that very substance of the body of christ. and an anathema is denounced against those who affirm the contrary . now if you please , proceed to your proofs . p. i begin with the ancient liturgies of st. peter , st. james , and st. matthew . pr. are you in earnest ? p. why ; what is the matter ? pr. do not you know , that these are rejected as supposititious , by your own writers ? and a very late and learned dr. of the sorbon , hath given full and clear evidences of it . p. suppose they are , yet they may be of antiquity enough , to give some competent testimony as to tradition . pr. no such matter : for he proves st. peter 's liturgy , to be later than the sacramentary of st. gregory ; and so can prove nothing for the first years ; and the aethiopick liturgy , or st. matthew's , he shews to be very late . that of st. james , he thinks to have been some time before the five general councils ; but by no means to have been st. james's . p. what think you of the acts of st. andrew , and what he saith therein , about eating the flesh of christ ? pr. i think he saith nothing to the purpose . but i am ashamed to find one , who hath so long been a minister in this church , so extreamly ignorant , as to bring these for good authorities , which are rejected with scorn by all men of learning and ingenuity among you . p. i am afraid you grow angry . pr. i confess , ignorance and confidence together , are very provoking things ; especially , when a man in years pretends to leave our church on such pitiful grounds . p. but he doth produce better authorities . pr. if he doth , they are not to his purpose . p. that must be tried ; what say you to ignatius ? i hope you allow his epistles ? pr. i see no reason to the contrary . but what saith he ? p. he saith , that some hereticks then would not receive the eucharist and oblations , because they will not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our saviour christ. and this is produced by both authors . pr. the persons ignatius speaks of , were such as denied christ to have any true body , and therefore did forbear the eucharist , because it was said to be his body . and in what ever sense it were taken , it still supposed that which they denied , viz. that he had a true body : for , if it were figuratively understood , it was as contrary to their doctrine , as if it were literally . for a figure must relate to a real body , as tertullian argued in this case . and ignatius in the same epistle , mentions the trial christ made of his true body , by the senses of his disciples , take hold of me , and handle me , and see , for i am no incorporeal doemon ; and immediately they touched him , and were convinced . which happen'd but a few days after christ had said , this is my body ; and our saviour gave a rule for judging a true body , from an appearance , or spiritual substance ; a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have . therefore it is very improbable that ignatius so soon after , should assert that christ's true and real body was in the eucharist , where it could be neither seen nor felt : for then he must overthrow the force of his former argument . and to what purpose did christ say , that a spirit had not flesh and bones , as they saw him to have ; if a body of christ might be so much after the manner of a spirit , as tho it had flesh and bones , yet they could not possibly be discerned ? but after all , suppose ignatius doth speak of the substance of christ's flesh , as present in the eucharist ; yet he saith not a word of the changing of the substance of the bread into the substance of christ's body ; which was the thing to be proved . p. but justin martyr doth speak of the change , and his words are produced by all three . and they are thus rendred in the single sheet . for we do not receive this as common bread , or common drink , but as by the word of god , jesus christ our redeemer being made man , had both flesh and blood for our salvation ; so also , we are taught that this food , by which our blood and flesh are by a change nourished , being consecrated by the power of the word , is the flesh and blood of jesus christ incarnate : what say you to this ? pr. i desire you to consider these things . ( . ) that justin martyr doth not say , that the bread and wine are by consecration changed into the individual flesh and blood , in which christ was incarnate ; but that , as by the power of the word , christ once had a body in the womb of the virgin ; so by the power of the same word , upon consecration , the bread and wine do become the flesh and blood of christ incarnate ; so that he must mean a parallel , and not the same individual body , i. e. that as the body in the womb became the body of christ by the power of the holy spirit ; so the holy spirit after consecration , makes the elements to become the flesh and blood of christ , not by an hypostatical union , but by divine influence , as the church is the body of christ. and this was the true notion of the ancient church , as to this matter , and the expressions in the greek liturgies to this day confirm the same . ( . ) he doth not in the least imply that the elements by this change do lose their substance ; for he mentions the nourishment of our bodies by it ; but he affirms , that notwithstanding their substance remain , yet the divine spirit of christ , by its operation , doth make them become his body . for we must observe , that he attributes the body in the womb , and on the altar , to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or divine word . for he did not think hypostatical union necessary , to make the elements become the body of christ , but a divine energy was sufficient , as the bodies assumed by angels are their bodies , tho there be no such vital union , as there is between the soul and body of a man. p. i go on to irenoeus , from whom two places are produced , one by the consensus veterum , where he saith , that which is bread from the earth , perceiving the call of god , now is not common bread , but the eucharist , consisting of two things , one earthly , and the other spiritual . pr. very well ! then there is an earthly , as well as a spiritual thing in the eucharist , i. e. a bodily substance , and divine grace . p. no ; he saith , the earthly is the accidents . pr. doth irenoeus say so ? p. no ; but he means so . pr. there is not a word to that purpose in irenoeus ; and therefore this is downright prevarication . i grant irenoeus doth suppose a change made by divine grace ; but not by destroying the elements , but by super-adding divine grace to them ; and so the bread becomes the body of christ , and the wine his blood. p. the other place in irenoeus is , where he saith , that as the bread receiving the word of god , is made the eucharist , which is the body and blood of christ , so also our bodies being nourished by it , and laid in the earth , and there dissolved , will arise at their time , &c. pr. what do you prove from this place ? p. that the same divine power is seen in making the eucharist the body and blood of christ , which is to be in the resurrection of the body . pr. but doth this prove , that the substance of the bread is changed into the substance of christ's body ? p. why not ? pr. i will give you a plain argument against it ; for he saith , our bodies are nourished by the body and blood of christ. do you think that irenoeus believed the substance of christ's body was turned into the substance of our bodies , in order to their nourishment ? no ; he explained himself just before in the same place ; de calice qui est sanguis ejus , nutritur ; & de pane qui est corpus ejus ; augetur : so that he attributes the nourishment to the bread and wine ; and therefore must suppose the substance of them to remain , since it is impossible a substantial nourishment should be made by meer accidents . and withal , observe , he saith expresly , that the bread is the body of christ ; which your best writers ( such as bellarmin , suarez and vasquez ) say , is inconsistent with transubstantiation . p. my next author is tertullian , who is produced by the consensus veterum , and the single sheet , but omitted by the nubes testium ; but the other proves , that bread which was the figure of christ's body in the old testament , now in the new , is changed into the real and true body of christ. pr. this is a bold attempt upon tertullian , to prove , that by the figure of christ's body , he means his true and real body . for his words are , acceptum panem & distributum discipulis corpus illum suum fecit , hoc est corpus meum dicendo , id est , figura corporis mei . he took the bread , and gave it to his disciples , and made it his body , saying , this is my body ; i. e. this is the figure of my body . how can those men want proofs , that can draw transubstantiation from these words , which are so plain against it ? p. you are mistaken ; tertullian by figure meant , it was a figure in the old testament , but it was now his real body . pr. you put very odd figures upon tertullian : i appeal to any reasonable man , whether by the latter words he doth not explain the former ? for he puts the sense upon corpus meum , by adding dicendo to them ; i. e. this is the meaning of that speech , when he calleth the bread his body . p. doth not tertullian say , that it had not been the figure , unless it had been the truth ? pr. this is again perverting his words , which are , figuratum non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus ; i. e. there had been no place for a figure of christ's body , unless christ had a true body . for he was proving against marcion , that christ had a true body ; and among other arguments he produces this from the figure of his body , which he not only mentions here , but in other places ; where he saith , that christ gave the figure of his body to the bread ; which cannot relate to any figure of the old testament . p. but doth not tertullian say afterwards , that the bread was the figure of christ's body in the old testament ? pr. what then ? he had two designs against marcion ; one to prove , that christ had a true body , which he doth here from the figure of his body : and the other , that there was a correspondency of both testaments : and for that purpose he shews , that the bread in jeremiah , was the figure of christ's body . p. but the author of the single sheet , cites another place of tertullian , where he saith , that our flesh feeds on the body and blood of christ , that our soul may be filled with god. pr. by the body and blood of christ , he means there , the elements , with divine grace going along with them ; as appears by his design , which is , to shew how the body and soul are joyned together in sacramental rites . the flesh is washed , and the soul is cleansed ; the flesh is anointed , and the soul consecrated ; the flesh is signed , and the soul confirmed ; the flesh hath hands laid upon it , and the soul enlighten'd ; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of christ , that the soul may be filled with god. now unless tertullian meant the elements , the parallel doth not proceed ; for all the rest are spoken of the external symbols ; and so this doth not at all contradict what he saith elsewhere , no more than the passage in the second book aduxorem doth . for there he speaks of christ , with respect to the invisible grace , as he doth here , as to the outward symbols . p. clemens alexandrinus saith , that melchisedeck gave bread and wine in figure of the eucharist . pr. and what then ? what is this to transubstantiation ? p. origen saith , when you eat and drink the body and blood of our lord , then our lord enters under your roof , &c. pr. are you sure that origen said this ? but suppose he did , must he enter with his flesh and bones , and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his grace ? for is it not origen who so carefully distinguishes the typical and symbolical body of christ , from the divine word , and so expresly mentions the material part of the elements after consecration , which pass into the draught , &c. is all this meant of the accidents only ? p. what say you to st. cyprian de coena domini ? pr. i beg your pardon , sir ; this is now known and acknowledged to be a late author , in comparison , and cannot come within your years ; and therefore is not ancient enough to be considered . p. but in his genuine writings he speaks of those who offer'd violence to the body and blood of our lord in the eucharist . pr. and i pray what follows ? that the substance of the elements is gone : where lies the consequence ? but st. cyprian saith , the bread was his body , and the wine his blood ; therefore their substance must remain . p. what say you to eusebius emesenus ? pr. that he is not within our compass ; and withal , that he is a known counterfeit . p. i perceive you are hard to please . pr. you say very true , as to supposititious writers . p. i hope you have more reverence for the council of nice . pr. but where doth that speak of transubstantiation ? p. it calls the eucharist the body of christ. pr. and so doth the church of england ; therefore that holds transubstantiation . i pray bring no more such testimonies , which prove nothing but what we hold . p. i perceive you have a mind to cut me short . pr. not in the least , where you offer any thing to the purpose . but i pray spare those who only affirm , that the eucharist is the body and blood of christ after consecration . for i acknowledg it was the language of the church , especially in the fourth century , when the names of the elements were hardly mention'd to the catechumens ; and all the discourses of the fathers to them , tended to heighten the devotion and esteem of the eucharist . by which observation you may easily understand the meaning of the eloquent writers of that age , who speak with so much mystery and obscurity about it . if you have any that go beyond lofty expressions , and rhetorical flights , i pray produce them . p. i perceive you are afraid of s. greg. nazianzen , and s. basil , but especially s. chrysostom , you fence so much beforehand against eloquent men. pr. as to the other two , there is nothing material alledged by any to this purpose ; but s. chrysostom , i confess , doth speak very lofty things concerning the sacrament in his popular discourses , but yet nothing that doth prove transubstantiation . p. what think you of his homilies , and . on s. mat. . homily on s. john . homily on st to the corinth . the homilies on philogonius and the cross ? are there not strange things in them concerning the eucharist ? about eating christ , and seeing him lie before them slain on the altar ; about touching his body there , and the holy spirit , with an innumerable host , hovering over what is there proposed , with much more to that purpose . pr. you need not to recite more ; for i yield that st. chrysostom delighted in the highest flights of his eloquence , on this subject , in his homilies ; and he tells for what reason , to excite the reverence and devotion of the people . but yet himself doth afford us a sufficient key to these expressions , if we attend to these things concerning his manner of speaking : ( . ) that he affirms those things which no side can allow to be literally understood . as when he so often speaks of our seeing and touching christ upon the altar , which is inconsistent with the doctrine of transubstantiation : for christ is utterly invisible on the altar , even by divine power , saith suarez . he is invisible in the sacrament . saith bellarmin ; and he saith also , that he cannot be touched . what then is to be said to such expressions of s. chrysostom ? behold thou seest him , thou touchest him , thou eatest him . it is not his sacrament only which is offer'd us to touch , but himself . what if you do not hear his voice , do you not see him lying before you ? behold christ lying before you slain . christ lies on the holy table , as a sacrifice slain for us . thou swearest upon the holy table where christ lies slain . when thou seest our lord lying on the table , and the priest praying and the by-standers purpled with his blood. see the love of christ ; he doth not only suffer himself to be seen by those who desire it , but to be touched and eaten , and our teeth to be fixed in his flesh. now these expressions are on all sides granted to be literally absurd and impossible ; and therefore we must say of him as bonaventure once said of s. augustin , plus dicit sanctus & minus vult intelligi ; we must make great allowance for such expressions , or you must hold a capernaitical sense . and it is denied by your selves , that christ is actually slain upon the altar ; and therefore you yield , that such expressions are to be figuratively understood . ( . ) that he le ts fall many things in such discourses which do give light to the rest : as , ( . ) that flesh is improperly taken when applied to the eucharist . ( . ) he calls the sacrament the mystical body and blood of christ. ( . ) that the eating of christ's flesh is not to be understood literally , but spiritually . ( . ) he opposes christ's sacramental presence , and real corporal presence to each other . ( . ) he still exhorts the communicants to look upwards towards heaven . and now if you lay these things together , this eloquent father will not , with all his flights , come near to transubstantiation . p. no! in one place he asserts the substance of the elements to be lost . pr. thanks to the latin translators , for the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as the criticks observe , doth not signify to destroy , but to refine , and purify a substance . but i do not rely upon this ; for the plain answer is , that s. chrysostom doth not there speak of the elements upon consecration , but what becomes of them , after they are taken down into the stomach . st. chrysostom thought it would lessen the peoples reverence and devotion , if they passed into the draught , as origen affirmed ; and therefore he started another opinion ; viz. that as wax , when it is melted in the fire , throws off no superfluities , but it passes indiscernably away ; so the elements , or mysteries , as he calls them , pass imperceptibly into the substance of the body , and so are consumed together with it . therefore , saith he , approach with reverence , not supposing that you receive the divine body from a man , but as with tongs of fire from the seraphims : which the author of the consensus veterum translates , but fire from the tongues of seraphims . s. chrysostom's words are , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : and the sense is , that the divine body ( i. e. the eucharist , after consecration , being by the divine spirit made the divine body , as in st. chrysostom's liturgy , there is a particular prayer for the holy ghost to come , and so make the bread to be the divine body , or the holy body of christ ) , is to be taken , not with our mouths , which can only receive the elements , but after a divine manner , as with tongs of fire from seraphims ; by which he expresses the spiritual acts of faith and devotion , as most agreeable to that divine spirit which makes the elements to become the holy body of christ. but that st. chrysostom did truly and firmly believe the substance of the bread to remain after consecration , i have already proved from his epistle to coesarius . p. i pray let us not go backward , having so much ground to run over still . pr. i am content , if you will produce only those who speak of the change of substance , and not such as only mention the body and blood of christ after consecration , which i have already told you , was the language of the church ; and therefore all those testimonies are of no force in this matter . p. then i must quit the greatest part of what remains , as optatus , gaudentius , s. jerom , and others ; but i have some still left which will set you hard . what say you then to gregory nyssen , who saith , the sanctified bread is changed into the body of the word of god. and he takes off your answer of a mystical body ; for he puts the question , how the same body can daily be distributed to the faithful throughout the world , it remaining whole and entire in it self ? pr. gregory nyssen was a man of fancy , and he shewed it in that catechetical discourse : however , fronto ducoeus thought it a notable place to prove transubstantiation , which i wonder at , if he attended to the design of it ; which was to shew , that as our bodies , by eating , became subject to corruption , so by eating they become capable of immortality ; and this he saith , must be by receiving an immortal body into our b dies , such as the body of christ was : but then , saith he , how could that body , which is to remain whole in it self , be distributed to all the faithful over the whole earth ? he answers , by saying , that our bodies do consist of bread and wine , which are their proper nourishment ; and christ's body being like ours , that was so too ; which by the uni●n with the word of god , was changed into a divine dignity . but what is this to the eucharist , you may say ? he goes on therefore , so i believe the sanctified bread , by the power of the word of god , to be changed into the body of god the word . not into that individual body , but after the same manner , by a presence of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or god the word in it ; and that this was his meaning , doth evidently appear by what follows . for , saith he , that body , viz. to which , he was incarnate , was sanctified by the inhabitation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , dwelling in the flesh ; therefore , as the bread was then changed into a divine dignity in the body , so it is now ; and the bread is changed into the body of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( not of jesus christ ) as it was said by the word , this is my body . and so by receiving this divine body into our bodies , they are made capable of immortality . and this is the true account of gregory nyssen's meaning , which if it prove any thing , proves an impanation , rather than transubstantiation . p. but hilary's testimony cannot be so avoided ; who saith , that we as truly eat christ's flesh in the sacrament , as he was truly incarnate ; and that we are to judg of this ; not by carnal reason , but by the words of christ , who said , my flesh is meat indeed , and my blood is drink indeed . pr. i do not deny this to be hilary's sense . but yet this proves nothing like to transubstantiation . for it amounts to no more than a real presence of the body of christ in the sacrament ; and you can make no argument from hence , unless you can prove that the body of christ cannot be present , unless the substance of the bread be destroy'd , which is more than can be done , or than hilary imagined . all that he aimed at , was to prove a real union between christ and his people , that christ was in them more than by meer consent ; and to prove this , he lays hold of those words of our saviour , my flesh is meat indeed , &c. but the substantial change of the bread into the substance of christ's body , signifies nothing to his purpose ; and bellarmin never so much as mentions hilary in his proofs of transubstantiation , but only for the real presence . but i must add something more , viz. that hilary was one of the first who drew any argument from the literal sense of john . i do not say , who did by way of accommodation , apply them to the sacrament , which others might do before him . but yet , there are some of the eldest fathers , who do wholly exclude a literal sense , as tertullian look'd on it , as an absurdity that christ should be thought truly to give his flesh to eat . quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset . and origen saith , it is a killing letter , if those words be literally understood . but this is to run into another debate , whereas our business is about transubstantiation . if you have any more , let us now examine their testimonies . p. what say you then to st. ambrose , who speaks home to the business , for he makes the change to be above nature , and into the body of christ , born of the virgin ? there are long citations out of him , but in these words lies the whole strength of them . pr. i answer , several things for clearing of his meaning . ( . ) that st. ambrose doth parallel the change in the eucharist , with that in baptism ; and to prove regeneration therein , he argues from the miraculous conception of christ in the womb of the virgin ; but in baptism no body supposes the substance of the water to be taken away ; and therefore it cannot hold as to the other , from the supernatural change ; which may be only with respect to such a divine influence , which it had not before consecration . ( . ) he doth purposely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter , as the fathers were wont to do to those , who were to be admitted to these mysteries . sometimes one would think he meant that the elements are changed into christ's individual body born of the virgin : and yet presently after , he distinguishes between the true flesh of christ , which was crucified and buried , and the sacrament of his flesh. if this were the same , what need any distinction ? and that this sacramentum carnis , is meant of the eucharist , is plain by what follows ; for he cites christ's words , this is my body . ( . ) he best explains his own meaning , when he saith , not long after , that the body of christ in the sacrament , is a spiritual body , or a body produced by the divine spirit ; and so he parallels it with that spiritual food , which the israelites did eat in the wilderness : and no man will say , that the substance of the manna was then lost . and since your authors make the same st. ambrose , to have written the book de sacramentis , there is a notable passage therein , which helps to explain this ; for there he saith expresly , non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus , sed ille panis vitoe eternoe qui animoe nostroe substantiam fulcit . it is not the bread which passes into the body , but the bread of eternal life , which strengthens the substance of our soul. where he not only calls it bread after consecration , which goes to our nourishment ; but he distinguishes it from the bread of eternal life , which supports the soul , which must be understood of divine grace , and not of any bodily substance . p. i perceive you will not leave us one father of the whole number . pr. not one . and i hope this gives an incomparable advantage to the doctrine of the trinity in point of tradition , above transubstantiation : when i have not only proved , that the greatest of the fathers expresly denied it , but that there is not one in the whole number who affirmed it . for altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the eucharist was the body and blood of christ ; yet not one of them hitherto produced , doth give any countenance to your doctrine of transubstantiation , which the council of trent declared to have been the constant belief of the church in all ages ; which is so far from being true , that there is as little ground to believe that , as transubstantiation it self . and so much as to this debate , concerning the comparing the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation , in point of tradition ; if you have any thing to say further , as to scripture and reason , i shall be ready to give you satisfaction the next opportunity . finis . books lately printed for w. rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented ; in answer to a book , intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . third edition . an answer to a discourse , intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants to . second edition . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply . to . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the first part ; wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called , consensus veterum , and nubes testium , &c. quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition , in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the second part ; wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both . quarto . a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry ; in which the bishop of oxford's true and only notion of idolatry is considered and confuted . to . the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . to . a letter to the superiours , ( whether bishops or priests ) which approve or license the popish books in england , particularly to those of the jesuits order , concerning lewis sabran a jesuit . a preservative against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . the first part. the fourth edition . the second part of the preservative against popery ; shewing how contrary popery is to the true ends of the christian religion . fitted for the instruction of unlearned protestants . the second edition . a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery ; in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit . a discourse concerning the nature , unity aed communion of the catholick church ; wherein most of the controversies relating to the church , are briefly and plainly stated . the first part. to . these four last by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . imprimatur , guil. needham rr. in christo p. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. a sac. dom. ex aedib . lambeth , feb. . . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition , in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . the second part . wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both . london : printed for william rogers at the sun in fleet-street , over against st. dunstan's church . mdc lxxx vii . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , &c. pr. i hope you are now at leisure to proceed with your parallel between the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation , as to scripture and reason . p. yes , and am resolved to make good all that i have said , as to both those . pr. and if you do , i will yield the cause . p. i begin with scripture . and the whole dispute as to both , depends on this : whether the scripture is to be understood literally or figuratively . if literally , then transubstantiation stands upon equal terms with the trinity ; if figuratively , then the trinity can no more be proved from scripture , than transubstantiation . pr. as tho there might not be reason for a figurative sense in one place , and a literal in another . p. it seems then , you resolve it into reason . pr. and i pray , into what would you resolve it ? into no reason ? p. into the authority of the church . pr. without any reason ? p. no : there may be reason for that authority , but not for the thing which i believe upon it . pr. then you believe the doctrine of the trinity , meerly , because the church tells you it is the literal sense of scripture which you are to follow . but suppose a man sees no reason for this authority of your church ; ( as for my part , i do not ) have you no reason to convince such a one that he ought to believe the trinity ? p. not i. for i think men are bound to believe as the church teaches them , and for that reason . pr. what is it , i pray , to believe ? p. to believe , is to give our assent to what god reveals . pr. and hath god revealed the doctrine of the trinity to the church in this age ? p. no ; it was revealed long ago . pr. how doth it appear ? p. by the scripture sensed by the church . pr. but whence come you to know that the church is to give the sense of the scriptures ? is it from the scripture , or not ? p. from the scripture doubtless , or else we could not believe upon the churches testimony . pr. but suppose the question be , about the sense of these places which relate to the churches authority , how can a man come to the certain sense of them ? p. hold a little , i see whither you are leading me ; you would sain draw me into a snare , and have me say , i believe the sense of scripture from the authority of the church , and the authority of the church from the sense of scripture . pr. do you not say so in plain terms ? p. give me leave to answer for my self . i say in the case of the churches authority , i believe the sense of scripture without relying on the churches authority . pr. and why not as well in any other ? why not as to the trinity , which to my understanding , is much plainer there , than the churches authority ? p. that is strange : is not the church often spoken of in scripture ? tell the church . upon this rock will i build my church , &c. pr. but we are not about the word church , which is no doubt there , but the infallible authority of the church ; and whether that be more clear in the scripture than the doctrine of the trinity . p. i see you have a mind to change your discourse , and to run off from the trinity to the churches authority in matters of faith ; which is a beaten subject . pr. your church doth not tell you so ; and therefore you may upon your own grounds be deceived ; and i assure you that you are so ; for i intended only to shew you , that for points of faith we must examine and compare scripture our selves , and our faith must rest on divine revelation therein contained . p. then you think the trinity can be proved from scripture ? pr. or else i should never believe it . p. but those places of scripture you go upon , may bear a figurative sense , as john . . i and my father are one ; and john . . and those three are one ; and if they do so , you can never prove the trinity from them . pr. i say therefore , that the doctrine of the trinity doth not depend merely on these places , but on very many others , which help to the true sense of these ; but transu●stantiation depends upon one single expression , this is my body , which relates to a figurative thing in the sacrament ; and which hath other expressions joined with it , which are owned to be figurative ; this cup is the new testament in my blood ; and which in the literal sense cannot prove transubstantiation , as your own writers confess , and which is disproved by those places of scripture , which assert the bread and the fruit of the vine to remain after consecration . p. shew the literal sense as to the trinity to be necessary ; for i perceive you would fain go off again . pr. will you promise to hold close to the argument your self ? p. you need not fear me . pr. i pray tell me , were there not false religions in the world when christ came into it to plant the true religion ? p. yes ; but how far is this from the business ? pr. have a little patience ; did not christ design by his doctrine to root out those false religions ? p. that is evident from scripture and church history . pr. then christs religion and theirs were inconsistent . p. and what then ? pr. wherein did this inconsistency lie ? p. the gentiles worshipped false gods instead of the true one. pr. then the christian religion teaches the worship of the true god instead of the false ones . p. who doubts of that ? pr. then it cannot teach the worship of a false god instead of the true one. p. a false god is one that is set up in opposition to the true god , as the gods of the heathens were . pr. is it lawful by the christian doctrine to give proper divine worship to a creature ? p. i think not ; for christ said , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve : which our church understands of proper divine worship . pr. but the scripture requires proper divine worship to be given to christ ; which is to require proper divine worship to be given to a creature , if christ be not true god by nature . p. may not god communicate his own worship to him ? pr. but god hath said , he will not give his glory to another , isa. . . and the reason is considerable , which is there given ; i am the lord , that is my name ; which shews that none but the true jehovah is capable of divine worship : for adoration is done to god only on the account of his incommunicable perfections , and therefore the reason of divine worship cannot reach to any creature . p. not without gods will and pleasure . but may not god advance a mere creature to that dignity , as to require divine worship to be given to him by his fellow-creatures ? pr. wherein lies the nature of that which you call proper divine worship ? p. in a due esteem of god in our minds , as the first cause and last end of his creatures , and such acts as are agreeable thereto . pr. then proper divine worship doth suppose an esteem of god as infinitely above his creatures ; and how then is it possible for us to give the same worship to god , and to a creature ? for if the distance be infinite between god and his creatures , and we must judg of things as they are , then we must in our minds suppose a creature to be infinitely distant srom god ; and if we do so , how is it possible to give the same divine worship in this sense to god , and to any creature ? p. and what now would you infer from hence ? pr. do not you see already ? viz. that god cannot be supposed to allow divine worship to be given to christ , if he were a mere creature ; and therefore since such divine worship is required by the christian doctrine , it follows , that those expressions which speak of his being one with the father , cannot be figuratively understood . p. but where is it , that such divine worship is required to be given to christ in scripture ? for , according to my principles , the church is to set the bounds and measures of divine worship , and to declare what worship is due to god ; what to christ ; what to saints and angels ; what to men upon earth ; what to images , sacraments , &c. and if we depart from this rule , i know not where we shall fix . pr. i pray tell me , doth the difference between god and his creatures , depend on the will of the church ? p. no. pr. is it then in the churches power to give that to a creature , which belongs only to god ? p. i think not . pr. who then is to be judg what belongs to god , and what not ? god or the church ? p. god himself , if he pleases . pr. then our business is to search what his will and pleasure is in this matter , by reading the scriptures , wherein his will is contained : and there we find it expressed , that all men should h●nour the son , even as they honour the father , john . . let all the angels of god worship him , heb. . . blessing , and honour , and glory , and power be unto him that sitteth on the throne , and to the lamb for ever and ever , revel . . . that at the name of jesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven , and things in earth , &c. phil. . . if it were gods great design , by the christian doctrine , to restore in the world a due sense of the infinite distance between god and his creatures ; could any thing be more repugnant to it , than in the same doctrine to advance a creature to a participation of the same divine honour with himself ? so that in plain truth , the idolatry of the world lay only in a bad choice of the creatures they were to worship , and not in giving proper divine worship to a creature ; for that christianity it self not only allows , but requires , on supposition that christ were god merely by office , and was originally a creature , as we are . but i pray observe the force of the apostles argument , speaking of the gentile idolatry ; he saith it lay in this , that they did service unto them , which by nature are no gods , gal. . . p. you know , i must now personate the anti-trinitarian ; and he answers , that by nature no more is implied , than truly and really , i. e. god did not advance those creatures among the gentiles to that worship and honour , which he hath done christ. pr. then you make it lawful by the gospel to believe christ to be a mere creature , and at the same time to give him divine worship , which supposes him not to be a creature ; and so you must believe him to be a creature , and not to be a creature , at the same time . p. how do you make that appear ? pr. from your own words ; for you say , proper divine worship lies in a due esteem of god in our minds , as the first cause and last end , and in actions agreeable thereto ; then to give divine worship to god , we must believe him to be above all creatures as to his nature and being ; and theresore to give christ divine worship , must imply our believing him not to be a creature , and to be a creature at the same time . p. but the meaning of divine worship here must not then relate to acts of the mind , but to outward acts of adoration in the church . pr. were the gentiles guilty of idolatry in that respect , or not ? p. yes ; but not those , whom god requires to worship in such a manner . pr. then the sin of gentile-idolatry lay only in giving divine worship to a creature without gods command ; which lessens it to that degree , as to make will-worship and idolatry the same ; and to blame the apostles , for making such a dreadful sin of it , and disswading christians so much from returning to the practice of it : for they had the priviledg of giving divine worship to a creature by gods command , which others were damned for doing without a command ; which makes the christian religion not to appear so reasonable , as the anti-trinitarians contend it is . but here are four foul mistakes in point of reason , which they are guilty of . ( . ) in making the sin of idolatry so arbitrary a thing ; which depends not on the nature of the object which is worshipped , but on the will and pleasure of god. ( . ) in making the gentiles guilty of a great sin , meerly in wanting a divine command , which was out of their power . ( . ) in making the christian religion to set up the worship of a creature , when its design was to root out idolatry . ( . ) in making a fictitious god , or a creature to be advanced to the throne of god. which i think is far more contradictious to reason , than a trinity of persons in the unity of the same nature . for nothing can be more absurd than to make that to be god , which wants all the essential attributes and perfections of god ; as every creature must do : such as self-existence , eternity , independency , immensity , omnipotency , &c. what a contradiction is it , to suppose a weak , impotent , depending , confined , created god ? and such every creature must be in its nature , or else it is no creature . i do not at all wonder to find the socinians after this , to lessen the natural knowledg of god , and his infinite perfections , both as to power and knowledg ; for it was their concernment to bring the notion of god as low as possible , that a creature might be in the nearer capacity of being made god. but those who consider and know what god is , and what he must be , if he be god , will find far greater difficulty in making man to be god , than in believing god to be made man. for this implies no greater difficulty , than meerly as to our conception , how an infinite being can be so united to a finite , as to become one person ; which implies no repugnancy , but only some thing above our capacity to comprehend . and we confess our selves puzled in the manner of conceiving how a finite spitit , which can pass through a body , can be so united to it , as to make a man by that union ; yet we all acknowledg the truth of this . but to suppose a creature capable of being made god , is to overthrow the essential difference between god and his creatures , and the infinite distance between them . which is of very pernicious consequence , as to the great ends of the christian religion , which were to reform the world , and to restore the distinction between god and his creatures ; which by the prevalency of idolatry was almost lost in the world : the supreme god being hardly discerned in such a croud of created and fictitious gods. and this very argument is enough to turn my stomack against socinianism or arianism . p. i had thought all men of sense among you , had been socinians ; i have often heard them charged with being so . pr. you see how grosly you are deceived , notwithstanding your pretence to infallibility . i do not pretend to any deep reach , but i see reason enough to be no socinian . p. let us return to our matter in hand . what say you to those texts which are said to be inconsistent with the literal sense of those before mention'd , which relate to the unity between father and son ? pr. what texts do you mean ? p. what say you to joh. . from the . to the ? pr. i wonder what it is produced for . p. it is said , joh. . . i and my father are one ; now it is highly unreasonable to interpret these words literally , because of those which follow . pr. how doth that appear ? for v. . it is said , that the jews took up stones to stone him : which shews , that they look'd on him as speaking blasphemy . but what blasphemy was it for christ to declare an unity of consent between him and his father ; which in truth is nothing , but doing his father's will ? therefore it is plain that the jews did apprehend more in those words of our saviour . and they explain themselves , v. . what they understood by them , because that thou being a man , makest thy self god. which shews that they thought not an unity of consent , but of nature , was meant . p. but christ's answer shews , that he speaks only of a god by office , and not by nature , v. . jesus answered them , is it not written in your law , i said ye are gods ? pr. i pray go on , and see how christ argues , v. , . if he called them gods , unto whom the word of god came , and the scripture cannot be broken ; say ye of him , whom the father hath sent into the world , thou blasphemest , because i said i am the son of god ? p. this only shews that christ had greater reason to be called god , but not that he was so by nature . pr. i pray go on still , v. , . if i do not the works of my father , believe me not . but if i do , tho ye believe not me , believe the works , that ye may know and believe that the father is in me , and i in him . p. is it not said elsewhere , that he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him , and he in him ? joh. . . would you hence infer an unity of nature between christ and believers ? pr. i do not lay the weight on the phrase , but as it is the conclusion of the dispute between christ and the jews . and it ought to be observed , that this was the end of the third conference between christ and the jews upon this argument . the first was john . and then from christ's saying , the father worketh hitherto , and i work , v. . the jews infer'd v. . that he made himself equal with god. in the second conference , john . he said , before abraham was , i am , v. . and then the jews took up stones to cast at him . after this followed this third conference , john. . and this runs again into the same point , that he being a man , made himself god. and these conferences were all publick , in or near the temple , and this last was in solomons porch , john . . a place of great resort , and near the place where the sanhedrim sate , who were the judges in the case of blasphemy . now the force of my argument from hence , lies in these things : ( . ) that christ certainly knew , that the jews did think by his discourse , that he made himself equal with god. . that if it were not true , it was notorious blasphemy , and so esteemed by the jews . . that such a mistake ought to have been presently corrected , and in the plainest manner ; as we find it was done by st. paul , when the men of lystra said , the gods are come down to us in the likeness of men ; for he ran in presently among them , and said , we are men of like passions with you , acts . , . it is impossible for me to think , that if christ had known himself to be a meer man , he would have suffered the jews to have run away with such a mistake as this , without giving them the clearest and plainest information ; whereas in all his answers he vindicates himself , and endeavours rather to fasten those impressions upon them , as appears by this conclusion of the last conference , that ye may know and believe , that the father is in me , and i in him . doth this look like correcting a dangerous mistake in the jews ? and is it not rather a justification of that sense , which they took his words in ? and in the first conference , john . our saviour is so far from doing as st. paul did , that he challenges divine honour as due to himself , that all men should honour the son , as they honour the father , v. . from whence it follows , that christ must be charged as one , who being a meer man , did affect divine honour ; or else , that being god as well as man , he looked on it as justly due to him . i pray tell me what sense do your friends the socinians make of those words of st. paul , phil. . , . who being in the form of god , thought it not robbery to be equal with god , but made himself of no reputation , &c. p. the sense they give , is this , that he did not make a shew or ostentation of his own greatness , but studiously concealed it , and therein shewed his great humility . pr. but is there any greatness like that of divine honour ? and yet this he challenged to himself . p. but he knew what the father designed him for , and so spake those things by way of prediction . pr. he knew no creature could deserve divine worship , and he deliver'd that as part of his own doctrine ; and therefore those words , where he is said , to make himself equal with god , must be understood of nature , and not of office. p. but st. john . . saith , that christ prayed to his father , for his disciples , that they may be one , as we are one ; and that is not by unity of nature . pr. i grant it . but our saviour there speaks of a true , but a lower kind of unity ; or else the socinians must think every believer as capable of divine honour , as christ himself , if they take those words strictly , that they may be one , as we are one . p. st. paul saith , he that planteth , and he that watereth , is one , cor. . . pr. who doubts but there are other sorts of unities , besides that of nature ? but , doth this prove that there is no unity of nature between the father and the son ? if we have no better arguments against transubstantiation , we will give over disputing . p. i know you have other arguments for the trinity , but they prove as little without the authority of the church ; as from those places where christ is called god , as joh. . , . rom. . , &c. pr. and i think the argument from those places , very good and strong , especially from john . , , . and it seems directly contrary to the whole design of scripture to call any one god over all , blessed for evermore , as christ is called , rom. . . but he that is god by natuce . p. how do you prove that john . . relates to any thing beyond the beginning of the gospel , and that christ the word , was before john the baptists preaching ? pr. i desire any one to read the text impartially , and he will find the socinian sense to be unnatural , forced , obscure and jejune , proving a thing of no moment at that time ; but the sense we give , to be strong , weighty , consistent , and of very great consequence at that time , when the cerinthians denied the divinity of christ. the sentences are short , the words lofty and significant , the manner of beginning unusual ; so that any one would expect some great and extraordinary matter to be said in these few verses ; but what a frustration were this , if after all , they intended no more , than that altho john baptist preached in publick before christ , yet that christ was in being before that ? which is a sense so mean , so remote from the occasion of his writing , as it is deliver'd by the ancients , that nothing but a miserable necessity could make men of wit and subtilty to put such a sense upon st. john's words . p. but they deny there was any such occasion of st. john's writing , as the cerinthians heresy at that time . pr. i know socinus doth so ; but he might as well have denied that there was any such person as cerinthus . and i think the cerinthian heresy not only to have been the occasion of st. john's writing , but that the understanding of it , gives the greatest and truest light to the words of the evangelist , shewing the force and importance of them . p. wherein i pray , did that heresy consist ? pr. i shall not meddle with other parts of it , but only what relates to the present subject ; and that lay in these things . ( . ) that there was a supreme and unknown father , who was before the beginning , and therefore they called him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , who was the fountain of all emanations . iren. l. . c. . . ( . ) that the world was not made by him , but by a power at a distance from him , called demiurgus , iren. l. . c. . and in the egyptian school where cerinthus was educated , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word , was one of the intermediate emanations between the father , and the demiurgus , iren. l. . c. . ( . ) that this world was in a state of darkness and confusion , as to the supreme father of all ; only some few had some beams of light from him , by which they knew him . ( . ) that jesus was a mere man , born as other men are , of joseph and mary , but of extraordinary goodness , wisdom , and sanctity . ( . ) that the supreme father at his baptism did send down a divine power upon him , in the shape of a dove , which enabled him to declare the unknown father , and to work miracles , which returned to its own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or fulness above , when jesus suffer'd . this is a short scheme of that heresy , as delivered by the ancient fathers . and now let any one compare st. johns words with it ; and he will find his design was to countermine this heresy by two things . ( . ) that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 word , was eternal . for the cerinthians said , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in the beginning , but made a great space of time between the eternal being of the father , and the emanation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , wherein he was in perfect silence , as irenoeus expresses it ( l. . c. . ) and so in the beginning , doth imply the eternity of the word . but that is not all , for he saith , it was with god , and was god , and was the demiurgus , or the maker of the world , and the revealer of god to mankind , joh. . , , , , , , . and so there was no place for those several emanations between god and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and demiurgus , as the cerinthians said . ( . ) that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or word , was incarnate , which he affirms , v. . and the word was made flesh , and dwelt among us , &c. and was the only begotten son of the father ; and so he not only cuts off the other emanations , but declares that jesus was far from being a mere man. and to this purpose he brings in the testimony of john baptist , v. . and applies what he had said to the person of jesus christ , v. . now this being st. johns design , his words afford a demonstration to us of the union of the divine and human nature in christ , when he saith , the word was made flesh. p. but doth not the scripture in other places imply that there is a subordination in christ to his father , which is not consistent with such an equality of nature ; see heb. . , . cor. . , . — . , . rev. . . pr. the first place is a proof for the divinity of christ ; for the words are ; but unto the son , he saith , thy throne , o god , is for ever and ever , &c. it is true , in the next verse , it is said with respect to his office , therefore god , even thy god hath anointed thee , &c. but we do not deny that christ was anointed as mediator , and in that respect , god was his god ; but doth this prove that he that is mediator , cannot have a divine nature in conjunction with the human ? the second place , i suppose , is mistaken , cor. . not . and . but verse , but unto us , there is but one god the father , of whom are all things , and we in him ; and one lord jesus christ , by whom are all things , and we by him . and this is one of the strongest holds of the socinians . but two considerations will take off the seeming force of it . ( . ) that the apostle in his disputes with the gentile idolaters , concerning whom he speaks , v. , . doth utterly deny any divinity in the beings they worshipped instead of god , when he saith , an idol is nothing in the world , and that there is none other god but one . he knew very well that they worshipped many , v. . as there be gods many , and lords many among them ; but unto us ( christians ) there is but one god , and one lord : i. e. we have but one supreme god , to whom we give divine worship ; and instead of the multitude of mediators , we have but one mediator ; and so his design is in opposition to their many gods , to assert the unity of the divine nature , ( not so as to exclude a distinction of persons , but thereby to exclude other gods as the proper object of worship ) , and the unity of a mediator , in opposition to their many lords . ( . ) that if this place excludes christ from the unity of nature with god , it doth exclude him from being the object of divine worship ; for it saith , that there is no other god , but one ; therefore no creature can be made god : and to us there is but one god , the father ; therefore the son cannot be god. if therefore the name lord be taken in opposition to god , then christ cannot be god in any sense ; for we must have but one god : but the plain meaning of the apostle was , that by one lord he meant one mediator , by whom alone we have , in this new frame of things by the gospel , access unto god the father . the third place , cor. . , . speaks plainly of christs kingdom , as mediator . the fourth place , rev. . . where christ speaks several times of my god , proves no more than his words on the cross , my god , my god , why hast thou forsaken me : for surely christ might own a particular relation to god , and interest in him , as he was in human nature , without overthrowing the divine nature in him . p. but he owns , that though he is to be our judg , he knows not the time , mark . . which seems inconsistent with the divine nature , which knoweth all things . pr. the son there spoken of , was christ , as endued with a human soul , when he was upon earth ; which could not understand a secret so much out of the reach of mans understanding , without immediate revelation . but it was not necessary by virtue of the union of both natures , that the divine nature should communicate to the human soul of christ all divine mysteries : but as the human body was notwithstanding subject to passions and infirmities incident to it , so the human soul might continue ignorant of the day of judgment in this state ; both to let us know how great that secret is , and that christ had the proper capacity of a human soul , which could not extend to such things without divine revelation . p. there is one argument more , which seems to prove christs divinity , and doth not ; viz. the making of all things visible and invisible , being attributed to him , john . . heb. . . col. . , , , . pr. now i confess this doth more than seem to me to be a very strong argument ; and that for this reason , the apostle saith , the invisible things of him from the creation of the world , are clearly seen , being understood by the things which are made , even his eternal power and godhead , rom. . . was this argument of the apostle good or not ? p. no doubt it was . pr. then the creation of the world is an invincible proof of the true god. p. what follows ? pr. then if the making of all things be attributed to christ , he must be true god ; but this is plain in the new testament , in which the making of all things is as clearly attributed to the son , as it is to the father ; all things saith st. john , were made by him , and without him was not any thing made , that was made , john . . for by him were all things created , saith st. paul , that are in heaven , and that are in earth , visible and invisible , whether they be thrones , or dominions , or principalities , or powers , all things were created by him , and for him , col. . . thou , lord , in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth , and the heavens are the work of thy hands , heb. . . now compare these expressions with those wherein the creation is attributed to the father , the world is said to be made by bim , rom. . . that he hath created all things , rev. . . that of him , and for him , and to him , are all things , rom. . . and let any impartial mind discern the difference . therefore we have as much reason from scripture to believe christ to be god , as we have from the creation of things to believe a god. p. but you do not take notice of the different expressions in scripture , concerning the father and the son ; all things are said to be of the father , and by the son , cor. . . and that the father created all things by jesus christ , eph. . . which proves no more , than that the son was gods instrument in the creation . pr. what do you mean by gods instrument in the creation ? do you think one creature can create another ? how then can the creation prove an infinite power ? if you believe the instrument uncreated , then you must assert him to be true god by nature ; and then we have all we desire . p. but the socinians do not like this answer of the arians , and therefore they interpret these places , of the state of things under the gospel , and not of the creation of the world. pr. they have not one jot mended the matter ; for , ( . ) where the new creation is spoken of , some circumstances are added , which limit the sense to it , as when st. paul saith , we are created in christ jesus unto good works that we shoul walk in them . eph. . . vvho could possibly understand this of the old creation ? and so , if any man be in christ jesus , he is a new creature , cor. . . but in the other places the same expressions are used , which are attributed to the old creation , without limitation from circumstances , or from the context and occasion of them . ( . ) there are some things said to be created by christ jesus , which cannot relate to the new creation ; for by him were all things created , that are in heaven , and that are in earth , visible and invisible , whether they be thrones , or dominions , or principalities or powers . col. . . how are these created by preaching the gospel , when they are uncapable of the proper means of it , which are the doctrine of the remission of sins upon repentance , and the renewing and sanctifiing grace of god ? p. but st. paul doth not mention the heaven and earth , but only intellectual beings , angels , and men , and therefore he speaks of the new creation . pr. a mighty argument indeed ! do not all things comprehend the heaven and earth ? and the particular enumeration of angels by several denominations , shews that he speaks of another creation distinct from that by the gospel preached to the vvorld ; for the apostles were christs instruments in this new creation , which they could not be to the invisible powers above . p. we have now gone through the true and only grounds of the doctrine of the trinity . pr. you are extreamly mistaken . for we have other grounds besides these , although these may be sufficient . p. name one more . pr. i will name several , which you cannot disallow . p. what are they ? pr. the several heads of arguments made use of by cardinal bellarmin , to prove the divinity of christ : who alone is a convincing evidence of the vast disparity between the proofs of this doctrine , and of transubstantiation from scripture . for , . he proves christ's divinity from those places of the old testament , which are expounded in the new ; being in the old testament , spoken of the true god ; and in the new applied to christ. as numb . . , . compared with cor. . . exod. . . with jude . psal. . . with eph. . , . psal. . . & . , . with heb. . , , . isa. . , . with john . . and revel . . . isa. . . with luke . . and rom. . . isa. . . with mat. . . mark . . luke . . john . . — isa. . . with rom. . . — isa. . . with revel . . , . mal. . . with mat. . . . from the places of the old testament , which attribute to christ those things which belong to god ; as power and adoration , psal. . , , . being the first and last , isa. . . , . working miracles , isa. . . being the god of israel , isa. . , . the only god , isa. . , . the lord of hosts , zach. . , , , . jehovah , zach. . . pouring out of the spirit , zach. . . . from the places of the new testament , which attribute divinity to christ. as when he is called , the son of the living god , mat. . . the only begotten son of god , john . . his own son , rom. . . his true son , joh. . . his dear son , col. . . his son above all others , heb. . . the express image of his person , heb. . . making himself equal with god , john . . being one with the father , joh. . . lord and god , john . . god blessed for ever , rom. . . who thought it no robbery to be equal with god , phil. . . one with the father and spirit , john . . the true god , john . . . from the proper names of god , isa. . . john . . acts . . rom. . . revel . . . john . . the name jehov●● , jer. . , . isa. . . the lord , by which the lxx render jehovah , mat. . . joh. . . the most high , psal. . . a name above every name , phil. . . the invisible one , tim. . , & . . the god of glory , act. . . cor. . . psal. . , , . king of kings and lord of lords , tim. . . revel . . . & . . the one lord , cor. . . the true god , john . . the only lord , jud. . the great god and our saviour , titus . . . from the proper attributes of god ; as eternity , prov. . , . mic. , . joh. . , — . . immensity , john . . mat. . . omnipotency , rev. . . — . . — . . wisdom , colos. . . joh. . . majesty and adoration , heb. . . mal. . . invocation , joh. . . acts . . & . . cor. . . cor. . . joh. . . from the proper works of god : as not only creation , ( of which already ) but conservation , heb. . . colos. . . salvation , matth. . . foretelling future events , joh. . . pet. . . rev. . . working miracles by his own power , mark. . . and giving power to others to work them , mat. . . what think you now of the proofs of the trinity in scripture ? do you think bellarmin could produce any thing like this for transubstantiation ? no ; so far from it , that where he sets himself in a whole chapter to prove it from scripture , he produces a first without a second . the first argument , saith he , is taken from christ's words , this is my body . very well ! but where is the second ? for no more could be produced , but this one single passage , about which he spends his whole chapter , and then betakes himself presently to the fathers . p. but one plain and clear place is sufficient , if we be certain of the sense of that one ; for we are as much bound to believe god when we are sure he speaks it once , as an hundred times . pr. we have been all this while comparing these two doctrines as to scripture , and now you see the disproportion so very great , as to number and variety , you say , one is as good as an hundred ; but that one had need to be wonderfully clear , which this is very far from , since many of your own writers do confess transubstantiation cannot be drawn from it ; as bellarmin himself owns , and he affirms it not to be improbable , that no place of scripture is so clear and express for transubstantiation , but learned and acute men may doubt whether it can be drawn from it , setting aside the churches declaration . but neither bellarmin , nor any one who attends to the force of the former proofs of the divinity of christ , can say , that any reasonable man can doubt of it ; and that he must at last resolve all into the church's authority . p. have not learned and acute men doubted of the divinity of christ , as of transubstantiation ? and therefore in that respect they are both alike . pr. we do not insist upon men's bare doubting , but on the reason of their doubting . and when but one single place is produced , which is yeilded not to be sufficient of it self to prove the doctrine ; there is much more cause of doubting , than where such multitudes of places are produced ; and no doubt is made by those who favour transubstantiation , but that they do fully prove the divinity of christ. p. it seems then we must come to reason at last . and for my part , i must tell you , i i think that parallel much the easiest . for , that three distinct persons should be in one individual nature , and that the most pure and simple being , seems to me to be more absurd than transubstantiation . pr. let us set aside the comparing absurdities at present , and only examin in point of reason , the great absurdity of three persons being in one individual divine nature . p. i did hardly believe you would have the courage to defend the doctrine of the trinity in point of reason ; but i see you are a bold man , and will venture farther than wiser men. pr. it may be others have not had the leisure or curiosity to examine a mystery believed to be so much out of the reach of our understanding ; or have confounded themselves and others so much with school-●erms , as to leave the matter rather more obscure than it was before . but i shall endeavour to make things as clear as they will bear . and that which i insist upon is , that the absurdities are not to appearance so great as those of transubstantiation . and therefore i desire you to produce those which appear the most dreadful . p. i shall reduce all to these two , which comprehend the rest . . how there can be three persons and but one god. . how these can agree in a third , and not agree among themselves . for the first , it seems very absurd , that there should be three persons really distinct , whereof every one is god , and yet there should not be three gods ; for nothing is more contradictions than to make three not to be three , or three to be but one . pr. i hope now you will give me leave to make an answer to your difficulty , as distinct as possible . we do not say , that three persons are but one person , or that one nature is three natures ; but that there are three persons in one nature . if therefore one individual nature be communicable to three persons , there is no appearance of absurdity in this doctrine . and on the other side , it will be impossible there should be three gods , where there is one and the same individual nature ; for three gods must have three several divine natures , since it is the divine essence which makes a god. but to make this more plain , do you make any difference between nature and person ? p. yes . pr. wherein lies it ? p. excuse me , sir , for you have undertaken to explain these things . pr. i will begin with person . which name was originally taken among the romans from some remarkable distinction of one from another ; either by some outward appearance , as a vizard or habit , or some particular quality or disposition . and from hence it came to be applied to those inward properties , whereby one intelligent being is distinguished from another ; and from those properties , to the person who had them . thus person is used even by tully himself , at least twenty times in his books of rhetorick : and the old civil law speaks of personal rights and personal actions . so that the criticks , such as valla , and others , had no cause to find fault with boethius , for applying the notion of a person , to an intelligent being subsisting by it self , ( and so the soul is no person in men , but the man consisting of soul and body ) having some incommunicable properties belonging to him . therefore i cannot but wonder at the niceness of some late men , who would have the names of person , and hypostasis , and trinity , to be laid aside ; since themselves confess boëthius his definition of a person to be true enough ; but they say , it belongs to the creatures , and not to god , for it would make three gods. which is to suppose , without proving it , that the divine nature can communicate it self after no other manner than a created nature can . this is now to be more strictly enquired into . and it is very well observed by boëthius , de trin. l. . principium pluralitatis alteritas est : that diversity is the reason of plurality : and therefore in the trinity , so far as they are different , they are three , i. e. in regard of personal properties and relations ; but so far as they agree , they are but o n e , that is , as to the divine nature . it is very true , that according to arithmetick , three cannot be one , nor one three ; but we must distinguish between the bare numeration , and the things numbred . the repetition of three units , certainly makes three distinct numbers ; but it doth not make three persons to be three natures . and therefore as to the things themselves , we must go from the bare numbers to consider their nature . where-ever there is a real distinction , we may multiply the number , tho the subject be but one. as suppose we say the soul hath three faculties , understanding , will and memory ; we may , without the least absurdity say , there are three and one ; and those three not confounded with each other , and yet there is but one soul. p. but the socinians object , that there is a difference between three properties , and three distinct persons ; because a person is an individual being ; and so three persons must be three individual beings ; and therefore as there is but one divine being , there can be but one person . pr. this is the main strength of the cause ; to which i answer , that altho a person be an individual being , yet it implies two things in it ; ( . ) something common with others of the same nature ; as three men have one and the same nature , tho they be three persons . ( . ) something peculiar and incommunicate to any other ; so that john cannot be peter , nor peter , james . p. but what is it which makes one not to be the other , when they have the same common nature ? pr. you ask a hard question , viz. about the principle of individuation ; but if it be so hard to resolve it , as to created beings , there is certainly far less reason for us to be unsatisfied , if it appear difficult to clear the difference of nature and person in an infinite being . yet all mankind are agreed in the thing , viz. that there is a community of the same nature , and a real distinction of persons among men , tho they cannot tell what that is which discriminates the humane nature in john , from the same humane nature in peter and james . and it is observable , that as beings arise in perfection above each other , it is still so much harder to assign that which is called the principle of individuation . in gross and material beings we can discern a number of accidents , or peculiar modes and properties , which distinguish them from each other ; but it is much harder to assign it in spiritual and intellectual beings , whose natures and differences lie not so open to our understandings . if so be then it appears more difficult in an infinite and incomprehensible being , what cause have we to wonder at it ? but we must always make a difference between what we have reason to believe , and what we have a power to conceive . altho we have all the reason in the world to believe that there is a god , i. e. a being infinite in all perfections ; yet we must yield that his essential attributes are above our comprehension . as for instance ; ( . ) we must believe god to be eternal , or we cannot believe him to be god. for , if he once were not , it is impossible he should ever be . and therefore we conclude necessary existence to be an essential attribute of the divine nature . but then , how to conceive that a being should be from it self , is at least as hard , as how one and the same individual nature should be communicated to three distinct persons ; nay , it is somewhat harder , since we see something like this in other beings ; but we can see no manner of resemblance of a thing that hath its being wholly from it self . ( . ) we must allow god to be omnipresent , or else we must suppose him so confined and limited to a certain place , as to be excluded from any other ; and if he can act in all places , he must either be present in them , or his power must be larger than his being , which is infinite ; but after this , we have not a power to conceive how a being should be present in the whole world , and not to be extended ; and if it be extended , how it should be uncapable of being divided into parts ; which is certainly repugnant to the divine nature . i therefore produce these two instances , to let the antitrinitarians see , that what they object in point of reason as to the incomprehensibility of the mystery of the trinity , will in consequence overthrow the divine nature . but as there is the highest reason to believe there is a god , tho we cannot comprehend his perfections ; so there may be great reason to believe the doctrine of the trinity , tho we cannot comprehend the manner of it . p. i had thought you intended to explain the mystery of it , and now you tell us it is incomprehensible . pr. it is a good step to our believing it , to make it plain , that the difficulty of our conception ought not to hinder our faith. and i have made some advance towards the explication of it , by shewing , that since mankind are agreed about the difference between nature and person , the whole difficulty comes to this , that the same common nature in mankind makes three persons ; but that it is the same individual nature in all the persons of the trinity . and now let us consider the infinite perfection and simplicity of the divine nature ; and we shall think it unreasonable that it should be so bounded as to the manner of its communication , as the nature of man is . every individual man hath not only individual properties , but an individual nature , i. e. the common nature of man , limited by some unaccountable principle , that doth make him different from all other men having the same nature with himself . the difficulty then doth not lie in a community of nature , and a distinction of persons , for that is granted among men , but in the unity of nature with the difference of persons . and supposing the divine nature to be infinite in its perfection , i do not see how it is capable of being bounded , as the common nature of man in individuals is ; and if it be not capable of being bounded and limited , it must diffuse it self into all the persons in the same individual manner ; and so this doctrine of the trinity is not repugnant to reason . p. but what say you to the athanasian creed ; is not that repugnant to humane reason ? pr. i think not ; but that it is a just explication of the doctrine of the trinity rightly understood . p. i see now you are upon hard points , you will stick at nothing , and transubstantiation it self will down with you anon . pr. i doubt that ; but at present we are upon the athanasian creed . and i desire but one principle to clear it , which follows from what is said already , viz. that what is affirmed of the divine nature , as such , must be common to all three persons ; but whatever is affirmed of the several persons , as such , must be peculiar to themselves . now this is a clear principle of reason , and hath no appearance of absurdity in it . and from hence the athanasian creed will easily be cleared . for eternity , incomprehensibility , omnipotency , belonging to the divine nature , as such , we ought to say , that they are not three eternals , three incomprehensibles , three almighties , but one eternal , one incomprehensible , one almighty . because the attributes belonging to the persons , by reason of the divine nature , and the attributes being really the same with it , the nature is the proper subject of them ; which being but one , we are not to distinguish them as to essential attributes , but only as to personal relations and properties . p. but if the three persons be coëternal , how is it possible to conceive there should not be three eternals ? pr. this seems the hardest expression in the whole creed ; but it is to be interpreted by the scope and design of it : which is , that the essential attributes are not to be distinguished , though the persons be . and so eternity is not taken as a personal attribute , but as essential ; and so they are not three eternals , but one eternal . and the great design of the creed was , to shew , that the christian church did not believe such a trinity as consisted of three persons , unequal and different in nature , and substance , and duration . p. but what say you to the damning all those who do not believe it , in the beginning and end of it ? pr. this is off from our business . but to let you see i will not avoid the difficulties you offer , i will give an answer even to this . the meaning is not , that every one is damned who doth not conceive aright of the difference of nature and person in the trinity , or of the essential and personal attributes ; but that those who set up in opposition to it the worship of a meer creature as god , or the worship of more gods than one , or who wilfully reject this article of the christian faith , when it is duly proposed to them , are guilty of a damning sin. for even the disbelief of christianity it self , is not supposed to be the cause of mens damnation , but where the doctrine of the gospel hath been proposed in a way of credibility . if when this doctrine of the trinity is proposed to mens minds , they will not consider it , nor weigh the arguments on both sides impartially , but with scorn and contempt reject it , and endeavour to bring reproach upon christianity for the sake of it , and disturb the peace of the church about it ; such cannot be said to receive or believe it faithfully , and by such sins they do run the hazard of perishing everlastingly . p. i see you have a mind to smooth every thing relating to the trinity , i wish you would do the same about transubstantiation . but yet you have not answer'd the other great difficulty in point of reason , viz. that those things which agree or disagree in a third , must agree or disagree one with the other . and therefore if the father be god , the son god , and the holy ghost god ; then the father must be son and holy ghost , and the son and holy ghost must be the father . if not , then they are really the same , and really distinct ; the same as to essence , distinct as to persons ; and so they are the same , and not the same , which is a contradiction . pr. and now i think you have drawn out the most refined spirits of socinianism , to make the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation parallel , because you say , it implies a contradiction ; which is the nearest parallel you have yet offered at . but this terrible argument is grounded on the same supposition , viz. that the divine essence is no more capable of communicating it self to three distinct persons , than any created being is . the reason of that axiom being , that created things , by reason of their finite nature , cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one ; and therefore those which agree in a third , must agree together ; but supposing it possible that the same finite nature could extend it self to several individuals , it would be presently answered , the axiom did hold only , where they did adequately and reciprocally agree , and not where they did agree only in essence , but differ'd in the manner of subsistence . for where a different manner of subsistence is supposed possible , in the same individual nature , the agreement in that cannot take away that difference which is consistent with it ; which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the divine nature . p. but you can bring no other instance but the thing in question ; and therefore this is a petitio principii , or taking that for granted which is in dispute . pr. i do not think it to be so , where the reason is assigned from the peculiar properties of the divine nature , to which there can be no parallel . and i think it very unreasonable in the socinians , to send us to created beings for the rules and measures of our judgment concerning a being acknowledged to be infinite . p. are not the divine persons infinite , as well as the divine nature ? and therefore as created persons do take in the whole nature , so infinite persons will do the infinite nature . pr. no question , but the persons are infinite in regard of the nature which is so ; but if an infinite nature be communicable to more persons than one , every such person cannot appropriate the whole nature to it self . p. if the difference be on the account of infinity , then there must be an infinite number of persons in the divine essence . pr. i answer , that infiniteness of number is no perfection ; and as to the number of persons , we follow not our own conjectures , nor the authority of the church ; but divine revelation , which hath assured us , that there is but one god , and yet there are three that are one . which depends not meerly on the place of st. john , but the form of baptism is remarkable to this purpose , which joyns together the father , the son , and the holy ghost ; without any other distinction besides that of order and relation . and it is against the fundamental design of christianity , to joyn any created beings together with god in so solemn an act of religion . and st. paul joyns them together in his benediction : the grace of our lord jesus christ , and the love of god , and the communion of the holy ghost be with you all . amen . cor. . . from whence the christian church hath always believed a trinity of persons in the unity of the divine nature . p. you have taken a great deal of pains to clear the doctrine of the trinity from any absurdity in point of reason , why should you not do as much now as to transubstantiation ? pr. in plain truth , because i cannot ; for here lies a vast difference between them . in the trinity we consider'd an infinite being , to which no bounds can be set without destroying its nature ; but in transubstantiation , we suppose a true finite body , which hath its natural bounds and limits to one certain place , and yet you will and must suppose this body to be equally present in many thousand distant places at the same time ; which implies so great a repugnancy to the very nature of a body , that i can by no means give my assent to it . p. alas ! is this it which chokes your reason , so that you cannot swallow the doctrine of the church in this matter ? you do not consider , that tho we allow nothing infinite in the body it self ; yet we suppose an infinite power to be imploy'd about it : and an infinite power may produce things above our comprehensions , about bodies in themselves finite . pr. this is the utmost your cause will bear ; but i pray tell me , is there any such thing as a repugnancy in the nature of things or not ? i. e. are there not some things which are endued with such properties , that if you alter them , you destroy their very nature ; as , to suppose an indivisible line , a triangle without lines , a body without dimensions ? p. hold a little ; a body must have dimensions belonging to it , but it is not necessary it should have those dimensions where-ever it is present . for it may be present in one place as a body , and in another after the manner of a spirit . pr. you might as well have said , a body may be consider'd two ways ; as it is a body , and as it is not a body : for there can be no body , where there are no dimensions proper to it . p. see how you are mistaken ; for it is 〈…〉 the dimensions which seem to hinder a body being in 〈◊〉 places at once , but its unity ; as bellarmin well observe● . pr. i say both of them 〈◊〉 . for 〈◊〉 body can no more be without it● dimensions , than a line without divisibility . p. i grant , that naturally it cannot , but by divine power it may . pr. will you make the power of god to change the essential properties of things , while the things themselves remain in their true nature ? you may as well say , that naturally man is a reasonable creature ; but by divine power he may be a true man , and yet want the faculty of reasoning : that naturally two and two make four , but god can make two and two to be joyned together in a supernatural manner , so as that four shall not result from them ; that tho , naturally speaking , white-washing a wall makes it look white , yet by an extraordinary power , there may be the presence of all things which make a wall white , yet it shall not do so ; just so it is to make a body present , and yet to have no dimensions of a body . is there any real difference between the nature of a body and spirit ? wherein lies it ? is it not as repugnant for a body to be after the manner of a spirit , as for a body and spirit to be the same ? p. all this proceeds upon not considering the difference between the essential extension of a body , and that which is quantitative , and hath relation to place . pr. the essential extension of a body without quantity , is non-sense , and a contradiction . for it is to make a body extended and not extended , at the same time . i pray tell me what you mean by a body , as it is opposed to a spirit ? p. i mean as all mankind do , such a substance which consists of parts extended and divisible . pr. then being extended and divisible , are the natural and essential properties of a body . and therefore , to suppose a body not to be extended and divisible , is to suppose it not to be a body , which is a plain contradiction . p. you are to distinguish between the intrinsecal quantity , which is an inseparable property of a body , and the extrinsecal relation it hath to a place . pr. intrinsecal quantity without relation to place , is intrinsecal non-sense . for , how is it possible for extended parts to have no relation to place ? p. by relation to place , i mean , when the parts of a body answer to the parts of a place : but by intrinsecal quantity , i mean , that there is the real order and proportion of parts in the body it self , but it doth not fill up the place . pr. then you do suppose the body of christ in the eucharist , to have all the distinct parts of a body , with their due order and proportion , but to be in the sacrament after an indivisible manner . p. why not ? pr. do you think it possible for the real and entire body of a man to be crouded into the compass of a wafer , with all the difference of its parts , so that no true part of the body be missing ? p. yes , by divine power . pr. do you think a far less thing possible than that , viz. that a man's head , and shoulders , and arms , should be contained entire and distinct under the nail of his little finger ? p. why not ? pr. then why may not the greatest body be within the least ? why may not an elephant be caught in a mouse-trap , and a rhinoceros be put into a snuff-box ? for either there is a repugnancy in the nature of the thing , for a greater body to be within a less , or there is not ; if not , then these mentioned instances are possible ; if there be , then the supposition of divine power can give no relief , unless you suppose , that god can do things repugnant in themselves , i. e. that he can do things which cannot be done . but i pray tell me , if the very body of christ be by transubstantiation in the wafer , with all its parts in their due order , then the head must be distant from the feet , and all other organs in their proper places ; but this cannot possibly be supposed , where there is no measure of distance as place is , and the whole body is in a point . p. i say again , there is the just order of parts considered in themselves , but not with respect to place . pr. then it is impossible there should be any distance ; without which it is impossible there should be the order of parts in a human body . thus , there is a repugnancy in the very supposition of christ's body being in the wafer , tho there were but one single wafer ; but when to this we add , that it is equally thus present in thousands of wafers at what distance of place soever , the absurdities do increase and multiply so fast upon us , that it is hardly possible to imagin any thing concerning a body , which doth imply more than this doth . as that one and the same body should be indivisibly present in many places , where it must be divided from it self , by so many bodies interposing : so that it is impossible to apprehend how two bodies can be divided from one another more effectually , than such a body must be from it self , if it be present in many places at once . p. i pray stop here ; for reckon up as many absurdities as you will , they are all but the effects of carnal reason , and we must captivate our understanding to the obedience of faith. pr. then it is to no purpose to argue any farther , on the point of reason ; and i thought you designed this for one part of your parallel . p. so i did ; and i still say , there are things as hard to make out about the trinity , which you have not yet taken notice of . pr. i pray let us hear them , that we may put an end to this discourse . p. what say you then to one and the same nature being in three distinct persons , which bellarmin saith , is more wonderful , than that one body should be in many places ; because the nature is identified with the persons , but the body is not so with the places in which it is present . if therefore the same nature be not divided from it self in the persons of the trinity , how much more easily may one body be present in several places , and not be divided from it self ? pr. it is strange neither bellarmin nor you should discern the difference . for the reason why a body must be divided from it self , being in several places , is , because it is finite ; and there being no penetration of dimensions in bodies , the interposing of other bodies must needs divide the same body in distant places ; but the reason why the same divine nature may be in several persons , is , because it is infinite ; and therefore nothing can bound or discontinue it . p. you have talked much of contradictions ; is there any greater about transubstantiation , than that of eternal generation of the son in the mystery of the trinity ? for , if it be not proper generation , then you cannot infer from it , that the son is of the same substance with the father ; if it be , then it must be a proceeding from not being to being , and so an eternal generation is a contradiction . pr. it is a rule in common reason , that all attributes must be understood according to the nature of the subjects . and therefore , if the subject here spoken of , be of such a nature , as to be uncapable of proceeding from not being to being , then whatever is affirmed of it , must be so understood , as not to destroy its nature . the term of generation alone is not , it may be , sufficient to prove the son co-essential with the father , because it might have been used improperly and metaphorically . but when from the scripture , it otherwise appears that the son of god being the word , was in the beginning with god , and was god , john . . and we soon after find him called the only begotten of the father , ver. . and the only begotten son , ver. . we have reason to infer from hence his eternal generation . which must not be understood in such a mean sense as is agreeable to creatures , but as it is consistent with the essential attributes of god , of which necessary existence is one . so that by eternal generation , no more can be meant , than such an emanation of the son from the father , as doth suppose them to have the same nature and co-existence : which is best represented by the rays of the sun coming from the fountain of light , if they were permanent , and not successive . p. what say you then to the mystery of the incarnation ? is it not more wonderful , as bellarmin observes , that there should be one hypostasis in two natures , than one body in two places ? since the union is greater between the hypostasis and the natures , than between the body and the places it is in ; the one being intrinsecal and substantial , the other extrinsecal and accidental . and that hypostasis is the same with the divine nature , and yet is most closely united with the human nature , which is so different from the divine ; so that it is incomprehensible by us , how in that union the natures are not confounded , or the hypostasis divided . pr. suppose now we grant all this , that there is an incomprehensible mystery in the incarnation , what follows from thence ? have i not hitherto owned , that there must be something incomprehensible by us , in what relates to the divine nature ? and it is the less wonder it is so in the incarnation , wherein an union is implied between an infinite and finite nature ; when the union of the soul and body , though both finite , is above our comprehension , though we our selves consist of souls and bodies so united ? but what consequence is it , if we are not able to explain this , that then we must admit that the same body may be not meerly in two , but in ten thousand places at the the same time ? i. e. if we cannot explain the hypostatical union , then all manner of absurdities must go down with us , that relate to things of a very different nature from it . p. i am glad to find you are set at last , and that now you have a difficulty before you which you can never get through . pr. be not too confident ; i have only hitherto denied the consequence as to the difficulties of transubstantiation . but it is possible , that setting aside the confusion of school-terms , i may be able to give a far more intelligible and reasonable account of the incarnation it self , than you can ever do of transubstantiation . p. first shew that it is possible , and then explain the manner of it . pr. but let us in the first place agree what we mean by it . p. by the incarnation , i mean , the union of the divine and humane nature , so as to make one person in christ. pr. if this be not possible , it must either be , . because two natures different from each other , cannot be united to make one person : the contrary whereof appears in the union of soul and body to the person of a man. or , . because it is impossible that an infinite nature should be united to a finite . p. how can there be an union possible , between two beings infinitely distant from each other ? pr. not in that respect wherein the distance is infinite ; but if there be nothing destructive to either nature in such an union , and the infinite nature do condescend to it , why may it not be so united to an intelligent finite being , as to make one person together with it ? for in respect of union , the distance is not so great between finite and infinite , as between body and spirit . p. the distance is infinite in one case , but not in the other . pr. i do not speak of them , with respect to perfections , but to union ; and an infinite distance in that must imply an absolute repugnancy , which you can never prove : for , since body and spirit may be united to make one person , an infinite spirit may be united to a finite nature . p. but the manner of the hypostatical union is impossible to be conceived . pr. let the thing be granted possible , and the difficulty of conceiving the manner may be as great in the union of soul and body . will you undertake to explain that to me ? and yet i hope you believe it . but , let us hear your difficulties again , which you object from bellarmine . p. that there should be but one hypostasis in two natures ; and that in the union the natures should not be confounded , nor the hypostasis divided . pr. all these difficulties arise from the sense of the word hypostasis . which originally signifies a real being , and not such which depends only on fancy and imagination ; from thence its signification was enlarged , not only to things real , ( in opposition to meer appearances , and creatures of the mind ) but to such a thing which did subsist of it self , and had not its subsistence in another , as accidents had . so that an hypostasis was a real substance which had subsistence in it self . but such are of two kinds , as the greek fathers observe . ( . ) such as are real substances in themselves , but yet are capable of being joined with another , to make up a person ; thus the soul and body have two different hypostases , and make up but one person of a man. ( . ) it is taken , for a compleat individual subsistence , which is not joined with any other as a part ; and so hypostasis is the same with a person , which is nothing else but a compleat , intelligent , individual hypostasis . and in this sense there can be but one hypostasis in christ , i. e. one person , tho there be two natures . p. but our divines say , that the humane nature after the union hath no hypostasis , it being swallowed up by the divine . pr. i know they do ; but if they mean that the humane nature , after the union , loses that subsistence which is proper to the humane nature , it is impossible for them to avoid the eutychian heresy , condemned by the council of chalcedon ; but if they mean no more than that there is a true nature , but no person , save only that which results from both natures ; they then agree with the sense of the church , which condemned the eutychians . for as much as the heresies of nestorius and eutyches differ'd in themselves , they were both built on the same ground , viz. that there could be no true nature , but there must be a person ; and that two natures could not make one person . from whence nestorius asserted there were two persons in christ ; and eutyches denied that there were two natures . p. what doth all this signify , but that the authority of the church must determine whether there be two natures , or two persons in christ ? pr. it seems then , the whole business wherein the general councils were so warmly concerned , was only to make an ecclesiastical dictionary , and to appoint what words are to be used , and what not . do you think then , there were no such real heresies as nestorianism and eutychianism , but only they happened to take the words nature and person in another sense than the church would have men use them ? p. i trust the church for all these things . pr. then if the church would have you affirm two persons and one nature , or two natures and one person , it were all one to you . p. why not ? since the church must determine . pr. what if you had been to dispute with nestorius and eutyches ? p. i would have told them , they must submit to the church about the use of words . pr. and they would have laughed at you for your pains : for the controversy was really about the truth of christ's incarnation , ( as the fathers proved , and the councils determined ) which in consequence was rejected by both of them ; as i will evidently prove , if you have any longer patience . p. i beg your pardon , sir , i have heard enough of all conscience already . pr. i think so too , to make you ashamed of your parallel between the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation . and methinks , for the sake of our common christianity , you should no more venture upon such bold and unreasonable comparisons . do you in earnest think , it is all one , whether men do believe a god , or providence , or heaven , or hell , or the trinity and incarnation of christ , if they do not believe transubstantiation ? we have heard much of late about old and new popery ; but if this be the way of representing new popery , by exposing the common articles of faith ; it will set the minds of all good christians farther from it than ever . for upon the very same grounds , we may expect another parallel between the belief of a god and transubstantiation ; the effect of which will be , the exposing of all religion . this is a very destructive and mischievous method of proceeding ; but our comfort is , that it is very unreasonable ; as i hope , hath fully appeared by this discourse . finis . errata omitted in the former dialogue . page . line , dele not . . l. , dele not . . marg. l. . read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . in this dialogue . page . line . read viz. the sacrament . . l. . for done , r. due . . l. . for fictitious , r. factitious . . l. . r. doubted as well . books printed for william rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented ; in answer to a book intituled , a papist mis-represented and represented , &c. quarto . an answer to a discourse intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of invocation of saints , and the worship of images , occasioned by that discourse . quarto . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversy between the representer and the answerer , with an answer to the representer's last reply ; in which are laid open some of the methods by which protestants are misrepresented by papists . quarto . a discourse against transubstantiation , in octavo . price d. sermons and discourses , some of which never before printed ; the third volume . by the reverend dr. tillotson dean of canterbury . . a manuel for a christian soldier . written by erasmus , and translated into english. twelves . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . the first part. wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called consensus veterum , & nubes testium , &c. quarto . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . the second part. wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both . quarto . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e sicut enim antequam sanctificatur panis , panem nominamus , divinâ autem illum sanctificante grati● , mediante sacerdote , liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis , dignus autem habitus est dominici corporis appellatione , etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit , & non duo corpora , sed unum corpus filii praedicatur , sic & hic divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in graec. exemplar . ep bigot . ) id est inundante corporis natura unum filium , unam personam utraque haec fecerunt . papist misrepresented , and represented , part. ch . . p. . concil . chalced . act. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dial. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dial. . certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis domini divina res est , propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur consortes naturae , & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini . gelas. in biblioth . patr. to. . pag. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ephraem . antioch . ap . phot. cod. . tom. . . . c. , , , , , . ap. facund . . . c. . ap. canis . antiq . lection . to. . p. , , . epiph. haer . . vincent . common . aug. de haeres . c. . concil . chal. . ced . act. . theodor. dial. . & . nam quando in terra fuit , non erat ubique in coelo . et nunc quia in coelo est , non est ubique in terra , & in tantum non est , ut secundum ipsam ( carnem ) christum spectemus esse venturum de coelo● quem secundum verbum nobiscum esse credimus in terra . cont. eutych . l. . n. . et ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam deum — & in loco aliquo coeli propter veri corporis modum . ad dardan . non enim corpora sunt quorum amplior sit in tribus quam in singulis magnitudo , nec loca suis molibus tenent , ut distantibus spatiis simul esse non possint . ad dardan . secundum praesentiam verò coporalem simul & in sole & in luna & in cruce esse non posset . c. faust. l. . c. . et cum in terra loquitur in coelo utique nisi per dei infinitatem esse non possit . de incarn . l. . c. . sive ista crassiora , sivesubtiliora , sed tamen corpora , quorum nullum potest esse ubique totum , quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat necesse est . et quantumcunque sit corpus , seu quantulumcunque corpusculum , loci occupet spatium , eundemque locum sic impleat , ut in nullâ ejus parte sit totum . ad volusian , quanquam si hoc demas corporibus , quantum mea opinio est , neque sentiri possunt , neque omnino corpora esse rectè existimarem . de quant . animae , c. . quod per loci spatium aliqua longitudine , latitudine , altitudine ita sistitur vel movetur , ut majore sui parte majorem locum occupet , & breviore breviorem , minusque sit in parte quam in toto . ad hieron . ep. . non omnino potest esse aliquod corpus , sive coeleste , sive terrestre , sive aereum , sive humidum , quod non minus sit in parte quam in toto , neque ullo modo possit in loco hujus partis simul habere aliam partem , sed aliud hic , aliud alibi habens per quaelibet spatia locorum distantia & dividua , vel potius ut ita dicam , sectili more distenditur . c. epist. manich. c. . omne corpus locale est , & omne locale corpus est . . quaest. c. . corpus quodlibet per localia spatia porrectum est . . quaest. c. . orat. . & in ep ad cledon . dial. . de trin. claud. mamert . de statu animae , l. . c. , , . l. . c. . apud euseb. de praep. evangel . l. . c. . basil. epist. . isidor . epist. l. . ep. . greg. nyssen . in hexaem . p. de hom. opificio . c. . aug. ep. ad dardanum . cont . julian . l. . c. . isid. origin . l. . c. . boeth . de praedic . damascen dial. c. . alcuin . dial. c. , . iren. l. . c. . apud . phot. cod. . aug. de immort . anim. c. . soliloq . l. . c. . de statu animo . l. . c. . iren. l. . . . . tertul. decarne christi , c. . advers . marc. l. . c. . l . c. , . epiphan . haer . , . hilar. in psal. . aug. c. faust. l. . c. . l. . c. . . quaest. c. . serm. . de euch. l. . c. . cyril . mystag . , & , . catech. . chrysost. in matt. hom . ambros. de his qui initiantur , c. . consensus veterum , p. , , . consens . vet. p. . nouvelle biblioth . des antienes ecclesiastiques par ellies du pin. . p. . p. . consens . p. . consens . veter p. . nubes testium , p. . tertull. c. marcion . l. , c. . apol. . p. . iren. l. . c. . iren. l. . c. . con. marcion . l. . c. . con. marcion . l. . c. . l. . c. . de resur . c. . strom. . hom. . in divers . loc . comment . in matth. . cypr. de lapsis . epist. . n. . nubes testium . p. . &c. consens . vet. p. , &c. disp. . sect. de euch. l. . c. . hom. . in mat. hom. . in mat. in heb. hom. . in rom. hom. . ad pop. antioch . hom. . de sacerd. l. . in joh. hom. . hom. in gal. c. . hom. de resur . to. . hom. . in joh. hom. . in . ep. ad corinth . hom. . in . ad corinth . hom. . in hebr. hom. de poenit . to. . p. . eucholog . p. . greg. nyssen . orat. catech. . nubes testium , p. . tertul de resur . carn . c. . orig. hom . . in levit. ambros. de his qui initiantur , c. . c. . de sacram. l. . c. . notes for div a -e rom. . , , . cor. . , . joh. . . bell. de christo . l. . c. , &c. bell. de euch. l. . c . cap. . a discourse concerning transubstantiation and idolatry being an answer to the bishop of oxford's plea relating to those two points. burnet, gilbert, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing b estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) a discourse concerning transubstantiation and idolatry being an answer to the bishop of oxford's plea relating to those two points. burnet, gilbert, - . p. [s.n.], london : . first published in two tracts, the first titled "a second part of the enquiry into the reasons offered by sa. oxon [bp. parker] for abrogating the test", the second, "a continuation of the second part of the enquiry." reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng parker, samuel, - . -- reasons for abrogating the test imposed upon all members of parliament. catholic church -- controversial literature. transubstantiation. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - olivia bottum sampled and proofread - olivia bottum text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a discourse concerning transubstantiation and idolatry . being an answer to the bishop of oxford's plea relating to those two points . london , printed in the year , . an answer to the reasons of the bishop of oxford , &c. this author would perswade the world , that transubstantiation is but a nicety of the schools , calculated to the aristotelian philosophy ; and not defined positively in the church of rome ; but that the corporal and real presence of the substance of christ's body and blood in the sacrament was the doctrine of the universal church in the primitive times ; and that it is at this day the generally received doctrine by all the different parties in europe , not only the roman catholicks and lutherans , but both by the churches of switzerland and france , and more particularly by the church of england : so that since all that the church of rome means by transubstantiation , is the real presence , and since the real presence is so universally received , it is a heinous thing to renounce transubstantiation ; for that is in effect the renouncing the real presence . this is the whole strength of his argument , which he fortifies by many citations , to prove that both the antient fathers , and the modern reformers , believed the real presence ; and that the church of rome believes no more . but to all this i shall offer a few exceptions . i. if transubstantiation is only a philosophical nicety concerning the manner of the presence , where is the hurt of renouncing it ? and why are the roman catholicks at so much pains to have the test repealed ? for it contains nothing against the real presence : indeed , if this argument has any force , it should rather lead the rom. catholicks to take the test , since , according to the bishop , they do not renounce in it any article of faith , but only a bold curiosity of the school-men . yet after all , it seems they know , that this is contrary to their doctrine , otherwise they would not venture so much upon a point of an old and decried philosophy . ii. in order to the stating this matter aright , it is necessary to give the true notion of the real presence , as it is acknowledged by the reformed . we all know in what sense the church of rome understands it , that in the sacrament there is no real bread and wine ; but that under the appearance of them we have the true substance of christ's glorified body . on the other hand , the reformed , when they found the world generally fond of this phrase ; they by the same spirit of compliance , which our saviour and his apostles had for the iews , and that the primitive church had ( perhaps to excess ) for the heathens , retained the phrase of real presence : but as they gave it such a sense as did fully demonstrate , that tho they retained a term that had for it a long prescription , yet they quite changed its meaning : for they always shewed , that the body and blood of christ , which they believed present , was his body broken , and his blood shed , that is to say , his body , not in its glorified state , but as it was crucified . so that the presence belonging to christ's dead body , which is not now actually in being , is only his death that is to be conceived to be presented to us , and this being the sense that they always give of the real presence , the reality falls only on that conveyance , that is made to us in the sacrament , by a federal right of christ's death as our sacrifice . the learned answerer to the oxford discourses has so fully demonstrated this from the copious explanations which all the reformed give of that phrase , that one would think it were not possible either to mistake or cavil in so clear a point . the papists had generally objected to the reformers , that they made the sacrament no more than a bare commemoratory feast ; and some few had carried their aversion to that gross presence , which the church of rome had set up , to another extreme , to which the people by a principle of libertinism might have been too easily carried , if the true dignity of the sacrament had not been maintained by expressions of great majesty : so finding that the world was possessed of the phrase of the real presence , they thought fit to preserve it , but with an explanation that was liable to no ambiguity . yet it seems our reformers in the beginning of queen elizabeth's reign had found , that the phrase had more power to carry men to superstition , than the explanations given to it , had to retire them from it , and therefore the convocation ordered it to be laid aside , tho that order was suppressed out of prudence : and the phrase has been ever since in use among us , of which dr. burnet has given us a copious account , hist. reform . vol. d book . iii. the difference between the notion of the sacraments being a meer commemoratory feast , and the real presence , is as great , as the value of the king's head stamped upon a meddal differs from the current coin , or the impression made by the great seal upon wax differs from that which any carver or graver may make . the one is a meer memorial , but the other has a sacred badg of authority in it . the paschal lamb was not only a remembrance of the deliverance of the people of israel out of egypt , but a continuance of the covenant , that moses made between god and them , which distinguished them from all the nations round about them , as well as the first passover had distinguished them from the egyptians . now it were a strange inference , because the lamb was called the lord's passover , that is , the sacrifice upon the sprinkling of whose blood the angel passed over or passed by the houses of the israelites , when he smote the first-born of the egyptians , to say , that there was a change of the substance of the lamb : or because the real faith of a prince is given by his geat seal , printed on wax , and affixed to a parchment , that therefore the substance of the wax is changed : so it is no less absurd to imagine , that because the bread and wine are said to be the body and blood of christ as broken and shed , that is , his death really and effectually offered to us , as our sacrifice , that therefore the substance of the bread and wine are changed . and thus upon the whole matter , that which is present in the sacrament is christ dead , and since his death was transacted above years ago , the reality of his presence can be no other than a real offer of his death made to us in an institution and federal symbol . i have explained this the more fully , because with this all the ambiguity in the use of that commonly received phrase falls off . iv. as for the doctrine of the antient church , there has been so much said in this enquiry , that a man cannot hope to add any new discoveries to what has been already found out : therefore i shall only endeavour to bring some of the most important observations into a narrow compass , and to set them in a good light , and shall first offer some general presumptions , to shew that it is not like , that this was the doctrine of the primitive times , and then some positive proof of it . . it is no slight presumption against it , that we do not find the fathers take any pains to answer the objections that do naturally arise out of the present doctrine of the church of rome . these objections do not arise out of profound study , or great learning , but from the plain dictates of common sense , which make it hard ( to say no more ) for us to believe , that a body can be in more places than one at once ; and that it can be in a place after the manner of a spirit : that accidents can be without their subject ; or that our senses can deceive us in the plainest cases . we find the fathers explain some abstruse difficulties , that arise out of other mysteries , that were less known , and were more speculative : and while they are thought perhaps to over-do the one , it is a little strange that they should never touch the other : but on the contrary , when they treat of philosophical matters , they express themselves roundly in opposition to those consequences of this doctrine : whereas since this doctrine has been received , we see all the speculations of philosophy have been so managed , as to keep a reserve for this doctrine . so that the uncautious way in which the father 's handled them ( in proof of which volumes of quotatations can be made ) shews they had not then received that doctrine , which must of necessity give them occasion to write otherwise than they did . . we find the heathens studied to load the christian religion with all the heaviest imputations that they could give it . they objected to them the believing a god that was born , and that died , and the resurrection of the dead , and many lesser matters , which seemed absurd to them : they had malice enough to seek out every thing that could disgrace a religion which grew too hard for them : but they never once object this , of making a god out of a piece of bread , and then eating him : if this had been the doctrine of those ages , the heathens , chiefly celsus and porphiry , but above all iulian , could not have been ignorant of it . now it does not stand with common sense to think , that those who insist much upon inconsiderable things , could have passed over this , which is both so sensible , and of such importance , if it had been the received belief of those ages . . it is also of weight , that there were no disputes nor heresies upon this point during the first ages ; and that none of the hereticks ever objected it to the doctors of the church . we find they contended about all other points : now this hath so many difficulties in it , that it should seem a little strange , that all mens understandings should have been then so easie and consenting , that this was the single point of the whole body of divinity , about which the church had no dispute for the first seven centuries . it therefore inclines a man rather to think , that because there were no disputes concerning it , therefore it was not then broached : since we see plainly , that ever since it was broached in the west , it has occasioned lasting disputes , both with those who could not be brought to believe it , and with one another concerning the several ways of explaining and maintaining it . . it is also a strong prejudice against the antiquity of this doctrine , that there were none of those rites in the first ages , which have crept in in the latter ; which were such natural consequences of it , that the belief of the one making way for the other , we may conclude , that where the one were not practised , the other was not believed . i will not mention all the pomp which the latter ages have invented to raise the lustre of this doctrine , with which the former ages were unacquainted . it is enough to observe , that the adoration of the sacrament was such a necessary consequence of this doctrine , that since the primitive times know nothing of it , as the greek church does not to this day , it is perhaps more than a presumption , that they believed it not . v. but now i come to more positive and convincing proofs : and , . the language of the whole church is only to be found in the liturgies , which are more severely composed than rhetorical discourses ; and of all the parts of the office , the prayer of consecration is that , in which we must hope to find most certainly the doctrine of the church : we find then in the fourth century , that in the prayer of consecration the elements were said to be the types of the body and blood of christ , as st. basil informs us from the greek liturgies , and the figure of his body and blood , as st. ambrose informs us from the latin liturgies : the prayer of consecration , that is now in the canon of the mass , is in a great part the same with that which is cited by st. ambrose , but with this important difference , that instead of the words , which is the figure of the body and blood of christ , that are in the former , there is a petition added in the latter , that the gifts may be to us the body and blood of christ. if we had so many of the mss. of the ancient liturgies left , as to be able to find out the time in which the prayer of the consecration was altered , from what it was in st. ambrose's days , to what it is now , this would be no small article in the history of transubstantiation : but most of these are lost ; since then the antient church could not believe otherwise of the sacrament , than as she expressed her self concerning it in the prayer of consecration ; it is plain , that her first doctrine concerning it was , that the bread and wine were the types , and the figure of the body and blood of christ. . a second proof is from the controversy , that was began by the apollinarists , and carried on by the eutichians , whether christ's humanity was swallowed up of his divinity or not ? the eutychians made use of the general expressions , by which the change in the sacrament seemed to be carried so far , that the bread and wine were swallowed up by it ; and from this they inferred , that in like manner the human nature of christ was swallowed up by his divinity : but in opposition to all this , we find chrysostome the patriarch of constantinople , ephrem the patriarch of antioch , gelasius the pope , theodoret a bishop in asia the less , and facundus in africk , all within the compass of little more than an age , agree almost in the same words , in refuting all this : asserting , that as the human nature in christ remained still the same that it was before , notwithstanding its union with the divine nature ; even so the bread and wine retained still their former nature , substance and form , and that they are only sanctified , not by the change of their nature , but by adding grace to nature . this they do in terms plain , and beyond all exception ; and theodoret goes over the matter again and again , in two different treatises ; so that no matter of fact can appear more plainly , than that the whole church east , and west , and south , did in the th and th centuries believe , that the sanctification of the elements in the sacrament did no more destroy their natures , than the union of the two natures in christ did destroy his humane nature . . a third proof is taken from a practice , which i will not offer to justify , how ancient soever it may have been : it appears indeed in the ancientest liturgies now extant , and is a prayer , in which the sacrament is said to be offered up in honour of the saint of the day , to which a petition is added , that it may be accepted of god by the intercession of the saint . this is yet in the missal , and is used upon most of the saints days : now if the sacrament was then believed to be the very body and blood of christ , there is nothing more crude , not to say prophane , than to offer this up to the honour of a saint , and and to pray that the sacrifice of christ's body may be accepted of god thrô the intercession of a saint . therefore to give any tolerable sense to these words , we must conclude , that tho these prayers have been continued in the roman church , since this opinion prevailed ; yet they were never made in an age in which it was received . the only meaning that can be given to these words is , that they made the saints-days days of communion , as well as the sundays were ; and upon that they prayed , that the sacrament which they received that day , to do the more honour to the memory of the saint , might be recommended to the divine acceptance by the intercession of the saint : so that this superstitious practice shews plainly , that the church had not , even when it began , received the doctrine of the change of the elements into the body and blood of christ. i will not pursue the proof of this point farther , nor will i enter into a particular recital of the sayings of the fathers upon this subject ; which would carry me far : and it is done so copiously by others , that i had rather refer my reader to them , than offer him a lean abridgment of their labours . i shall only add , that the presumptions and proofs that i have offered , are much more to be valued , than the pious and rhetorical figures , by which many of the fathers have set forth the manner of christ's presence in the sacrament . one thing is plain , that in most of them they represent christ present in his dead and crucified state , which appears most eminently in st. chrysostome ; so that this agrees with that notion of a real presence , that was formerly explained . men that have at the same time all the heat in their imaginations that eloquence can raise , and all the fervour in their heart which devotion can inspire , are seldom so correct in their phrases and figures , as not to need some allowances : therefore one plain proof of their opinions from their reasonings , when in cold blood , ought to be of much more weight than all their transports and amplifications . from this general view of the state of the church during the first centuries , i come next to consider the steps of the change which was afterwards made . i will not offer to trace out that history , which mr. larrogue has done copiously , whom i the rather mention , because he is put in english. i shall only observe , that by reason of the high expressions , which were used upon the occasion of the eutychian controversy formerly mentioned , by which the sanctification of the elements was compared to the union of the humane nature of christ with his divinity , a great step was made to all that followed . during the dispute concerning images , those who opposed the worship of them , said , according to all the ancient liturgies , that they indeed acknowleged one image of christ , which was the sacrament ; those who promoted that piece of superstition ( for i refer the calling it idolatry to its proper place ) had the impudence to deny , that it had ever been called the image of christ's body and blood ; and said , that it was really his body and blood. we will not much dispute concerning an age , in which the world seemed mad with a zeal for the worship of images ; and in which rebellion , and the deposing of princes , upon the pretence of heresy , began to be put in practice : such times as these we willingly yeild up to our adversaries . yet damascene , and the greek church after him , carried this matter no farther than to assert an assumption of the elements into an union with the body and blood of christ. but when the monk of corbie began to carry the matter yet farther , and to say , that the elements were changed into that very body of christ that was born of the virgin , we find all the great men of that age , both in france , germany and england , writ against him : and he himself owns that he was looked upon as an innovator ; those who writ against him , chiefly rabanus maurus , and bertram or ratramne , did so plainly assert the ancient opinion of the sacraments being the figure of the body and blood of christ , that we cannot express our selves more formally than they did : and from thence it was , that our saxon homily on easter-day was so express in this point . yet the war and the northern invasions that followed , put the world into so much disorder , that all disputes were soon forgot , and that in the th century this opinion , which had so many partisans in the th , was generally decried and much abandoned . vi. but with relation to those ages in which it was received , some observations occur so readily to every one that knows history , that it is only for the sake of the more ignorant that i make them . . they were times of so much ignorance , that it is scarce conceivable to any but to those who have laboured a little in reading the productions of those ages , which is the driest piece of study i know : the stile in which they writ , and their way of arguing , and explaining scripture , are all of a piece , both matter and form are equally barbarous . now in such times , as the ignorant populace were easily misled , so there is somewhat in incredible stories and opinions , that makes them pass as easily , as men are apt to fancy they see sprights in the night : nay the more of mystery and darkness that there is in any opinion , such times are apt to cherish it the more for that very reason . . those were ages in which the whole ecclesiastical order had entred into such conspiracies against the state , which were managed and set on with such vigor by the popes , that every opinion which tended to render the persons of church-men sacred , and to raise their character , was likely to receive the best entertainment , and the greatest incouragement possible . nothing could so secure the persons of priests , and render them so considerable , as to believe that they made their god : and in such ages no armour was of so sure a proof , as for a priest to take his god in his hands . now it is known that p. gregory the th , who condemned berengarius , laid the foundations of the ecclesiastical empire , by establishing the deposing power ; so p. innocent the d , who got transubstantiation to be decreed , in the th council of the lateran , seemed to have compleated the project , by the addition made to the deposing power , of transferring the dominions of the deposed prince to whom he pleased ; since before this the dominions must have gone to the next heirs of the deposed prince . it is then so plain , that the doctrine of transubstantiation was so suitable to the advancing of those ends , that it had been a wonder indeed , if it being once set on foot , had not been established in such times . . those ages were so corrupt , and more particularly the clergy , and chiefly the popes were by the confession of all writers so excessively vicious , that such men could have no regard to truth in any of their decisions . interest must have carried all other things before it with such popes , who according to the historians of their own communion , were perhaps the worst men that ever lived . their vices were so crying , that nothing but the credit that is due to writers of their own time , and their own church , could determine us to believe them . . as the ignorance and vices of those times derogate justly from all the credit that is due to them ; so the cruelty which followed their decisions , and which was employed in the execution of them , makes it appear rather a stranger thing that so many opposed them , than that so many submitted to them . when inquisitors or dragoons manage an argument , how strong soever the spirit may be in opposing , it is certain the flesh will be weak , and will ply easily . when princes were threatned with deposition , and hereticks with extirpation , and when both were executed with so much rigour , the success of all the doctrines that were established in those days ought to make no impression on us , in its favour . vii . it is no less plain , that there was a great and vigorous opposition made to every step of the progress of this doctrine . when the eutychians first made use of it , the greatest men of that age set themselves against it . when the worshippers of images did afterwards deny , that the sacrament was the image of the body and blood of christ , a general council in the east asserted , according to the ancient liturgies , the contrary proposition . when paschase radbert set on foot the corporal presence in the west , all the great men of the age writ against him . berenger was likewise highly esteemed , and had many secret followers , when this doctrine was first decreed : and ever since the time of the council of the lateran , that transubstantiation was established , there have been whole bodies of men that have opposed it , and that have fallen as sacrifices to the rage of the inquisitors . and by the processes of those of tholouse , of which i have seen the original records , for the space of twenty years , it appears , that as transubstantiation was the article upon which they were always chiefly examined ; so it was that which many of them did constantly deny , so far were they on both sides from looking on it only as an explanation of the real presence . viii . the novelty of this doctrine appears plainly by the strange work that the schools have made with it , since they got it among them , both in their philosophy and divinity , and by the many different methods that they took for explaining it , till they had licked it into the shape , in which it is now : which is as plain an evidence of the novelty of the doctrine as can be imagined . the learned mr. alix has given us a clear deduction of all that confusion , into which it has cast the school-men , and the many various methods that they fell on for maintaining it . first , they thought the body of christ was broken by the teeth of the faithful : then that appearing absurd , and subjecting our saviour to new sufferings , the doctrine of a body's being in a place after the manner of a spirit was set up . and as to the change , some thought that the matter of bread remained , but that it was united to the body of christ , as nourishment is digested into our bodies : others thought , that the form of bread remained , the matter only being changed : and some thought , that the bread was only withdrawn to give place to the body of christ , whereas others thought it was annihilated . while the better judges had always an eye either to a consubstantiation , or to such an assumption of the bread and wine by the eternal word , as made the sacrament in some sense his body indeed ; but not that body which is now in heaven . all these different opinions , in which the school-men were divided ▪ even after the decision made by pope innocent , in the council of the lateran , shew , that the doctrine , being a novelty , men did not yet know how to mould or form it : but in process of time the whole philosophy was so digested , as to prepare all scholars in their first formation to receive it the more easily . and in our age , in which that philosophy has lost its credit , what pains do they take to suppress the new philosophy , as seeing that it cannot be so easily subdued to support this doctrine , as the old one was ? and it is no unpleasant thing to see the shifts , to which the partisans of the cartesian philosophy are driven , to explain themselves : which are indeed so very ridiculous , that one can hardly think , that those who make use of them , believe them ; for they are plainly rather tricks and excuses than answers . ix . no man can deny , that transubstantiation is the doctrine of the church of rome ; but he that will dispute the authority of the councils of the lateran and trent . now tho some have done the first avowedly , yet as their number is small , and their opinion decried ; so for the council of trent , tho i have known some of that communion , who do not look upon it as a general council , and tho it is not at all received in france , neither as to doctrine nor discipline , yet the contrary opinion is so universally received , that they who think otherwise , dare not speak out ; and so give their opinion as a secret , which they trust in confidence , rather than as a doctrine which they will own . but setting aside the authority of these councils , the common resolution of faith in the church of rome being tradition , it cannot be denied , that the constant and general tradition in the church of rome , these last years , has been in favour of transubstantiation , and that is witnessed by all the evidences by which it is possible to know tradition . the writings of learned men , the sermons of preachers , the proceedings of tribunals , the decisions of councils , that , if they were not general , were yet very numerous , and above all by the many authentical declarations the popes have made in this matter . so that either tradition is to be for ever rejected as a false conveyance , or this is the received doctrine of the church of rome , from which she can never depart , without giving up both her infallibility , and the authority of tradition . x. there is not any one point , in which all the reformed churches do more unanimously agree , than in the rejecting of transubstantiation ; as appears both by the harmony of their confessions , and by the current of all the reformed writers . and for the real presence , tho the lutherans explain it by a consubstantiation , and the rest of the reformed by a reality of vertue and efficacy , and a presence of christ as crucified ; yet all of them have taken much pains to shew , that in what sense soever they meant it , they were still far enough from transubstantiation . this demonstrates the wisdom of our legislators , in singling out this to be the sole point of the test for imployments : since it is perhaps the only point in controversy , in which the whole church of rome holds the affirmative , and the whole reformed hold the negative . and it is as certain , that transubstantiation is the doctrine of the church of rome , as that it is rejected by the church of england ; it being by name condemned in our articles . and thus , i hope , the whole plea of our author in favour of transubstantiation is overthrown in all its three branches : which relate to the doctrine of the primitive church , the doctrine of the church of rome , and the doctrine of the church of england , as well as of the other reformed churches . i have not loaded this paper with quotations , because i intended to be short : but i am ready to make good all the matters of fact asserted in it , under the highest pains of infamy , if i fail in the performance : and besides , the more voluminous works that have been writ on this subject , such as albertines , clauds answer to mr. arnaud , and f. nonet , larrogues history of the eucharist , there have been so many learned discourses written of late on this subject , and in particular , two answers to the bishops books , that if it had not been thought expedient , that i should have cast the whole matter into a short paper , i should not have judged it necessary to trouble the world with more discourses on a subject that seems exhausted . i will add no more , but that by the next i will give another paper of the same bulk upon the idolatry of the church of rome . an ansvver to that part about idolatry , &c. the words of the test that belong to this point are these , the invocation or adoration of the virgin mary , or any other saint , and the sacrifice of the mass , as they are now used in the church of rome , are superstitious and idolatrous ; upon which our author fastens this censure , that since by this the church of rome is charged with idolatry , which both forfeits mens lives here , and their salvation hereafter , according to the express words of scripture : it 's a damnable peice of cruelty and uncharitableness , to load them with this charge , if they are not guilty of it ▪ and upon this he goes to clear them of it not only in the two articles mentioned in the test , the worship of saints , and the sacrifice of the mass , but that his apology might be compleat , he takes in , and indeed insists chiefly on the worship of images , tho , that is not at all mentioned in the test , he brings a great many quotations out of the old testament , to shew the idolatry prohibited in it , was the worshipping the sun , moon , and stars , or the making an image to resemble the divine essence , upon which he produces also sōme other authorities . and in this consists the substance of his plea for the church of rome . but upon all this he ought to have retracted both the license that himself gave some years ago to dr. stillingfleet's book , of the idolatry of the church of rome , and his own hasty assertion in condemning both turk and papist as guilty of idolatry ; the one for worshipping a lewd impostor , and the other for worshipping a sensless piece of matter . it seems he is now convinced , that the latter part of this charge that falls on the papists , was as false as the former that falls on the turks certainly is ; for they never worshipped mahomet , but hold him only in high reverence , as an extraordinary prophet , as the iews do moses . it 's very like that if the turks had taken vienna , he would have retracted that , as he has now in effect done the other : for i believe he is in the same disposition to reconcile himself to the mufti , and the pope , but the ottoman empire is now as low as popery is high : so he will brave the turk still to his teeth , tho he did him wrong , and will humble himself to the papist , tho he did him nothing but right : but now i take leave of the man , and will confine my self severely to the matter that is before me . and , . how guilty soever the church of rome is of idolatry , yet the test does not plainly assert that ; for there is as great a difference between idolatrous and idolatry , as there is in law between what is treasonable and what is treason . the one imports only a worship that is conformable to idolatry , and that has a tendency to it , whereas the other is the plain sin it self . there is also a great difference between what is now us'd in that church , and the explanations that some of their doctors give of that usage . we are to take the usage of the church of rome from her publick offices , and her authorised practices ; so that if these have a conformity to idolatry , and a tendency tō it , then the words of the test are justified , what sense soever some learned men among them may put on these offices and practices ; therefore the test may be well maintained , even tho we should acknowledg that the church of rome was not guilty of idolatry . . if idolatry was a crime punishable by death under the old testament , that does not at all concern us : nor does the charge of idolatry authorize the people to kill all idolaters ; unless our author can prove , that we believe our selves to be under all the political and judiciary precepts of the law of moses ; and even among the jews the execution of that severe law belonged either to the magistrate , or to some authorized and inspired person , who as a zealot might execute the law , when the magistrate was wanting to his duty ; so that this was writ inviduously only , as it seems , to inflame the papist the more against us . but the same calvinist prince , that has exprest so just an aversion to the repealing the test , has at the same time shewed so merciful an inclination towards the ro. catholicks , that of all the reproaches in the world , one that intended to plead for that religion ought to have avoided the mentioning of blood or cruelty with the greatest care . . it 's true we cannot help believing that idolatry is a damnable sin , that shuts men out of the kingdom of heaven ; and if every sin in which a man dies without repentance does it , much more this , which is one of the greatest of all sins . but yet after all , there is mercy for sins of ignorance upon mens general repentance ; and therefore since god alone knows the degrees of mens knowledg and of their ignorance , and how far it is either affected on the one hand , and invincible on the other , we do not take upon us to enter into god's secrets , or to judg of the salvation or damnation of particular persons , nor must we be byassed in our enquiry into the nature of any sin , either by a fond regard to the state of our ancestors , or by the due respect that we owe to those who are over us in civil matters . in this case things are what god has declared them to be ; we can neither make them better nor worse than he has made them ; and we are only to judg of things , leaving persons to the merciful as well as the just and dreadful judgment of god. . all the stir that our author keeps with the examining of the idolatry committed by the iews under the old testament , supposing it were all true , will serve no more for acquitting the church of rome , than a plea would avail a criminal , who were arraigned of high treason for coyning mony , or for counterfeiting the king's seal , in which one should set forth , that high treason was the murdering the king , or the levying war against him , and that therefore the criminal who was guilty of neither of these two , ought to be acquitted . idolatry , as well as treason , is a comprehensive notion , and has many different branches : so that tho the worshipping the host of heaven , or the worshipping an image as a resemblance of the divinity , may be acknowledged to be the highest degrees of idolatry , yet many other corruptions in the worship of god are justly reducible to it , and may be termed not only idolatrous , but idolatry it self . . our saviour in his sermon on the mount has shewed us how many sins are reducible to the second table of the law , besides those of murder , adultery , &c. that are expresly named in it ; and tho the jews in that time having delivered themselves entirely from the sin of idolatry , to which their fathers were so prone , gave him no occasion of commenting on the first and second commandment , yet by the parity of things we may conclude , that many sins are reducible to them , besides those that are expresly named ; and tho we have not so compleat a history of the idolatry of the neighbouring nations to iudea before the captivity , yet we do certainly know what was the idolatry of which the greeks and romans were guilty when the new testament was writ , and the greatest part of the new testament is written chiefly with relation to the jews , whose freedom from idolatry gave no occasion to treat of it , yet in those few passages which relate to the heathen idolatry then on foot , the holy writers retain the same phrase and style , that were used in the old testament , which gives us just reason to believe , that the idolatry was upon the matter and in its main stroak the same under both , and if so , then we have a door opened to us to discover all our author 's false reasonings ; and upon this discovery we shall find that all the inspired writers charged the heathen worship with idolatry , not so much with relation to the glosses that philosophers and other political men might put on their rites , but with relation to the practice in it self . . but since idolatry is a sin against a moral and unchangeable law , let us state the true notion of the right worship of god , and by consequence of idolatry ( tho this is done with that exactness by the worthy master of the temple , that it should make a man afraid to come after him . ) our ideas of god , and ▪ the homage of worship and service that we offer up pursuant to these , are not only to be considered as they are just thoughts of god , and acts suitable to those thoughts , but as they are ideas that tend both to elevate and purifie our own natures ; for the thoughts of god are the seeds of all truth and vertue in us , which being deeply rooted in us , makes us become conformable to the divine nature . so that the sin of idolatry consists in this , that our ideas of god being corrupted , he is either defrauded of that honour , which , tho due to him , is transferred to another , or is dishonoured by a worship unsutable to his nature , and we also by forming wrong ideas of the object of our worship , become corrupted by them . nothing raises the soul of man more than sublime thoughts of god's greatness and glory ; and nothing perfects it more than just notions of his wisdom and goodness . on the contrary , nothing debases our natures more , than the offering our worship and service to a being that is low and unworthy of it ; or the depressing the supreme being in our thoughts or worship to somewhat that is like our selves , or perhaps worse ; therefore the design of true religion being the forming in us such notions as may exalt and sanctify our natures , as well as the raising a tribute to the author of our being , that is in some sort unworthy of him , the sin of idolatry is upon this account chiefly forbidden in scripture , because it corrupts our ideas of god , and by a natural tendency this must likewise corrupt our natures , when we either raise up an idol so far in our thoughts as to fancy it a god , or depress god so far as to make him an idol , for these two species of idolatry have both the same effect on us : and as a wound in a man's vitals is much more destructive , than any , how deep and dangerous soever , that is in his limbs , since it is possible for him to recover of the one , but not of the other ; so idolatry corrupts religion in its source : thus idolatry in its moral ▪ and unchangeable nature is the honouring any creature as a god , or the imagining that god is such a being as the other ▪ creatures are ; and this had been a sin , tho no law against it had ever been given to mankind but the light and law of nature . . but after all this there are different degrees in this sin : for the true notion of god being this , that he comprehends all perfections in his essence ; the ascribing all these to a creature is the highest degree of idolatry : but the ascribing any one of these infinite perfections , or ( which is all one with relation to our actions ) the doing any thing which imports , or is understood to import it , is likewise idolatry , tho of a lower degree of guilt ▪ so likewise the imagining that the true god is no other than as an idol , represents him to be , is the highest degree of the other species of idolatry , but the conceiving him as having a body in which his eternal mind dwells , or fancying that any strange virtue from him dwells in any body to such a degree , as to make that body the proper object of worship , unless he has assured us that he is really united to that body , and dwells in it ; which was the case of the cloud of glory under the old testament , and much more of the humane nature of christ under the new ; this is likewise idolatry , for in all these it is plain that the true ideas of god , and the principles of religion are corrupted . . there are two principles in the nature of man that make him very apt to fall into idolatry , either inward or outward . the first is the weakness of most peoples minds , which are so sunk into gross phantasms and sensible objects , that they are scarce capable to raise their thoughts to pure and spiritual ideas : and therefore they are apt either to forget religion quite , or to entertain it by objects that are visible and sensible : the other is , that mens appetites and passions being for the most part too strong for them , and these not being reconcileable to the true ideas of a pure and spiritual essence , they are easily dispos'd to embrace such notions of god as may live more peaceably with their vices : and so they hope by a profusion of expence and honour , or of fury and rage , which they employ in the worship of an imaginary deity , to purchase their pardons , and to compensate for their other crimes , if not to authorise them . these two principles that are so rooted in our frail and corrupt natures , being wrought on by the craft and authority of ambitious and covetous men , who are never wanting in all ages and nations , have brought forth all that idolatry , that has appear'd in so many different shapes up and down the world , and has been diversified according to the various tempers , accidents and constitutions of the several nations and ages of the world. . i now come to examine the beginnings of idolatry as they are represented to us in the scripture , in which it will appear , that our author's account of it shews him guilty , either of great ignorance or of that which is worse : he pretends , that the first plain intimation that we have of it in palestine , is , when iacob after his conversation with the schechemites , commanded his family to put away their strange gods ; whereas we have an earlier and more particular account of those strange gods in the same book of genesis , chap. . where when iacob fled away from laban , it is said , ver . . that rachel stole her father's images or teraphim : and these are afterwards call'd by laban his gods , ver . . and these very images are called by ioshua . v. . strange gods : so that the strange gods from which iacob cleansed his family , gen. . . were no other than the teraphim ; so that in the teraphim we are to seek for the true original of idolatry , and for the sense of the phrase of other gods , or strange gods , which is indeed the true key to this whole matter . these were little statues , such as the dii laris or penates were afterwards among the romans , or the pagods now in the east , in which it was believed , that there was such a divine virtue shut up , that the idolaters expected protection from them : and as all people in all times are apt to trust to charms , so those who pretended to chain down the divine influences to those images , had here a great occasion given them to deceive the world ; of this sort was the palladium of troy , and the ancille of rome ; and this gave the rise to all the cheats of tolesmes and talismans that came afterwards , these were of different figures : and since our author confesses , p. . that cherubim and teraphim are sometimes used promiscuously for one another , it is probable that the figure of both was the same ; and since it is plain from ezekiel that the cherubim resembled a calf ( compare ezek. . . with chap. . . where what is called in the first the face of an ox , is called in the other the face of a cherub ) from hence it is probable that the teraphim , or at least some of them were of the same figure . in these it was also believed , that there were different degrees of charms : some were believed stronger than others ; so that probably pharaoh thought that moses and aaron had a teraphim of greater virtue than his magicians had , which is the clearest account that i know of his hardening his heart against so many miracles : and this also seems to be the first occasion of the phrase of the gods of the several nations , and of some being stronger than other ; that is , the teraphim of the one were believed to have a higher degree of enchantment in them , than the others had . this then leads us to the right notion of aaron's golden calf , and of the terms of graved and carved images in the second commandment , and even of the other gods in the first commandment : for we have seen that both in the stile of moses and ioshua the images were those teraphim , which they also called strange gods , when the israelites thought that moses had forsaken them , they came to aaron desiring him to make them god's , that is , teraphims , yet they prescribed no form to him , but left that wholly to him , and so the dream of their fondness of the egyptian idolatry vanishes ; for it was aaron's choice that made it a calf : perhaps he had seen the divine glory , as a cloud between the cherubims when he went up into the mountain ; exod. . , . for a pattern being shewed to moses of the tabernacle that he was to make , it is probable aaron saw that likewise , and this might dispose him to give them a seraphim , in that figure : this is also the most probable account both of the calves of dan and bethel set up by ieroboam , and also of the israelites worshipping the ephod that gideon made ▪ iud. . . of the idolatry of micah and the danites who robbed him , iud. . . and of the israelites offering incense to the brazen serpent , kings . . which seemed to have all the solemnities of a teraphim in it , so that it is plain , the greatest part of the idolatry under the old testament was the worship of the teraphim . . but to compleat this argument with relation to the present point , it is no less plain , that the true jehovah was worshipped in those teraphim . to begin with the first , it is clear that laban in the covenant he made with iacob , appeals not only to the god of abraham , gen. . . but likewise to iehovah , ver . . for though that name was not then known , yet moses by using it on that occasion , shews us plainly that laban was a worshipper of the true god ; aaron shews the same by intimating that feast which he appointed to iehovah , exod. . . ( which our author thought not fit to mention ) the people also by calling these , ver . . the gods that brought them out of egypt , shew that they had no thoughts of the egyptian idolatry : but they believed that moses had carried away the teraphim , in the virtue of which it seems they fancied that he had wrought his miracles , and that aaron , who they believed knew the secret , had made them new ones : and this is the most probable account of their joy in celebrating that feast . and as for ieroboam , the case seems to be plainly the same ; he made the people believe that the teraphim which he gave them in dan and bethel , were as good as those that were at ierusalem : for as his design was no other than to hinder their going thither , kings . . so it is not likely that either he would or durst venture upon a total change of their religion , or that it could have passed so easily with the people , whereas the other had nothing extraordinary in it . it is also plain , that as ieroboam called the calves the gods that brought them out of egypt , v. . so he still acknowledged the true iehovah : for the prophets both true and false in his time prophesied in the name of iehovah , king. . , , . and when his son was sick , he sent his wife to the prophet of iehovah , ch . . the story of the new idolatry , that achab set up of the baalim , shews also plainly that the old worshippers of the calves adhered to the true iehovah : for elijah states the matter , as if the nation had been divided between iehovah and baal , king. . , . and the whole story of iehu confirms this , kings . , , . he was anointed king in the name of iehovah : and assoon as the captains that were with him , knew this , they acknowledged him their king ; he likewise speaking of the fact of the men of samaria , cites the authority of iehovah , kings . , , . which shews that the people acknowledged it still : and he called his zeal against the worship of baal , his zeal for iehovah , and yet both he and his party worshipped the calves . it is no less clear that micah , who called his teraphim his gods , judg. . . was a worshipper of the true iehovah , judg. . . and there is little reason to doubt that this was the case of gideon's ephod , and of the brazen serpent . it were needless to go about the proving that all these corrupt ways of worship were idolatrous : the calf is expresly called an idol by st. stephen , acts . . and the thing is so plain that it is denied by none that i know of ; so here we have a species of idolatry plainly set forth in scripture , in which the true god was worshipped in an image ; and i fancy it is scarce necessary to insorm the reader , that wherever he finds lord in capitals in the english bible , it is for iehovah in the hebrew . . it is very true that the great and prevailing idolatry of all the east grew to be the worship of the host of heaven , which seems to have risen very naturally out of the other idolatry of the teraphim , which probably was the ancienter of the two , for when men came to think that divine influences were tied to such images , it was very natural for them to fancy that a more soveraign degree of influence was in the sun , and by consequence that he deserved divine adoration much more than their poor little teraphim . but it is also clear , that this adoration which they offered to the sun , was not with relation to the matter of that shining body , but to the divinity , which they believed was lodged in it . this appears not only from the greek writers , zenophon and plutarch , but from the greatest antiquity that is now in the world ; the bas reliefs that are in the ruins of the temple of persepolis , which are described with so much cost and care , by that worthy and learned gentleman sir iohn chardin , and which the world expects so greedily from him , he favoured me with a fight of them , and in these it appears , that in their triumphs , of which a whole series remains intire , they carried not only the fire , which was the emblem of the body of the sun , but after that the emblem of the divinity that it seems they thought was in it under the representation of a head environed with clouds , which is the most natural emblem that we can fancy , of an intelligent and incomprehensible being . it 's true , as idolatry grows still grosser and grosser , the intelligent being was at last forgot , tho it seems it was remembred by their philosophers , since the greeks came to know it , and all their worship was paid to the sun , or to his emblem the fire , so that even this idolatry was most probably the worship of the true god at first , under a visible representation ; and that this was an effect of the former idolatry is confirmed from what was said by moses , deut. . to . where he plainly intimates the progress that idolatry would have , if they once came to worship graven or molten images , or make any sort of similitude for the great god ; this would carry them to lift up their eyes to heaven , and worship and serve the host of heaven . . the next shape that idolatry took , was the worshipping some subordinate spirits their genies , which were in effect angels , or departed men and women , and this filled both greece and rome , and was the prevailing idolatry when the new testament was writ : but that all these nations believed still one supreme god , and that they considered these just as the roman church does now angels and saints ( mutatis mutandis ) has been made out so invincibly by the learned dr. stillingfleet , that one would rather think that he had over-charged his argument with too much proof , than that it is any way defective , and yet this worship of those secondary deities is charged with idolatry both in the acts and in the epistles , so often , that it is plain the inspired writers believed , that the giving any degrees of divine worship to a creature , tho in a subordinate form , was idolatry ; and st. paul gives us a comprehensive notion of idolatry , that it was the giving divine service ( the word is dulia ) to those that by nature were not gods , gal. . . and he throws off all lords as well as all the gods of the heathen as idols , and in opposition to these , reduces the worship of the christians to the object of one god the father , and of one lord jesus christ , cor. . , . so that the greek and roman idolatry being strictly that which is condemned in the new testament , of which we have such a copious evidence from their writings , it is plain that even inferiour degrees of worship , when offered up to creatures , tho angels , is idolatry ; and tho the heathens thought neither iupiter nor mercury the supreme deities , yet the apostles did not for all that forbear to call them idols , acts . . . our author pretends to bear a great respect to antiquity , and therefore i might in the next place send him to all that the fathers have writ against the greek and roman idolatry , in which he will find that the heathens had their explainers as well as the church of rome has ; they denied they worshipped their images , but said they made use of them only to raise up their minds by those visible objects ; yet as st. paul begun the charge against the athenians of idolatry , acts . . for their gods of gold , silver , wood and stone , it was still kept up and often repeated by the fathers , tho the philosophers might have thrown it back upon them with all that pomp of dreadful words , which our author makes use of against those that fasten the same charge upon the church of rome . the same might be said with relation to the fathers , accusing them of polytheism , in worshipping many gods , and of idolatry , in worshipping those that had been but men like themselves : for it is plain that at least all the philosophers and wise men believed , that these were only deputed by the great god to govern some countries and cities ; and that they were mediators and intercessors between god and men ; but all this , that appears so fully in celsus , porphiry , and many others , did not make the fathers give over the charge . dr. stillingfleet has given such full proofs of this , that nothing can be made plainer than the matter of fact is . we know likewise that when the controversy arose concerning the god-head of jesus christ , athanasius and the other fathers , made use of the same argument against the arrians , who worshipped him , that they could not be excused from the sin of idolatry , in worshipping and invocating him whom they believed only to be a creature ; which shews that it was the sense of the christians of that age , that all acts of divine worship , and in particular , all prayers that were offered up to any that was not truly and by nature god , and the eternal god , were so many acts of idolatry . so that upon the whole matter it is clear , that the worshipping the true god under a corporeal representation , and the worshipping or invocating of creatures , tho in an inferior degree , was taxed by the apostles and by the primitive church as idolatrous . when they accuse them for those corruptions of divine worship , they did not consider the softning excuses of more refined men , so much as the acts that were done , which to be sure do always carry the stupid vulgar to the grossest degrees of idolatry ; and therefore every step towards it is so severely forbid by god , since upon one step made in the publick worship , the people are sure to make a great many more in their notions of things , therefore if we should accuse the church of rome for all the excesses of the past ages , or of the more ignorant notions in the present age , such as spain and portugal , even this might be in some degree well grounded , because the publick and authoris'd offices and practices of that church has given the rise to all those disorders ; and even in this we should but copy after the fathers , who always represent the pagan idolatry ; not as cicero or plutarch had done it , but according to the grossest notions and practices of the vulgar . . all that our author says concerning the cherubims , deserves not an answer ; for what use soever might be made of this , to excuse the lutherans for the use of images , without worshipping them , ( tho after all , the doing such a thing upon a divine commandment , and the doing it without a command , are two very different things ) yet it cannot belong to the worship of images , since the israelites paid no worship to the cherubims . they paid indeed a divine worship to the cloud of glory , which was between them , and which is often in the old testament called god himself , in all those expressions in which he is said to dwell between the cherubims . but this being a miraculous symbol of the divine presence , from which they had answers in all extraordinary cases , it was god himself , with any image or representation , that was worshipped in it ; as we christians pay our adorations to the human nature of christ , by virtue of that more sublime and ineffable in-dwelling of the god-head in him , in which case it is god only that we worship , in the man christ : even as the respect that we pay to a man terminates in his mind , tho the outward expressions of it go to the body , to which the mind is united ; so in that unconceivable union between the divine and human natures in christ , we adore the god-head only , even when we worship the man. . the general part of this discourse being thus stated , the application of it to the church of rome will be no hard matter : i will not insist much on the article of image-worship ; because it is not comprehended in the test , tho our author dwells longest on it , to let us see how carefully , but to how little purpose he had read dr. spencer's learned book . but if one considers the ceremonies and prayers with which images ▪ and particularly crosses , are to be dedicated by the roman pontifical , and the formal adoration of the cross on good-friday ; and the strange virtues that are not only believed to be in some images by the rabble , but that are authoriz'd not only by the books of devotion publickly allowed among them , but even by papal bulls and indulgences , he will be forced to confess that the old notions of the teraphim are clearly revived among them . this could be made out in an infinite induction of particulars , of which the reader will find a large account in the learned dr. brevint's treatise , entituled , saul and samuel at endor . but i come now to the two branches mentioned in the test. . one is the sacrifice of the mass ; in which if either our senses that tell us it is now bread and wine , or the new testament in which it is called both bread , and the fruit of the vine , even after the consecration ; or if the opinion of the first seven centuries , or if the true principles of philosophy , concurring altogether , are strong enough , we are as certain as it is possible for us to be of any thing , that they are still according to our author 's own phrase , a sensless piece of matter ; when therefore this has divine adoration offered to it , when it is called the good god , carried about in solemn processions , and receives as publick and as humble a veneration as could be offered up to the deity it self , if it appear'd visibly . here the highest degree of divine worship is offered up to a creature ▪ nor will such worshippers , believing this to be truly the body of christ , save the matter , if indeed it is not so . this may no doubt go a great way to save themselves , and to bring their sins into the class of the sins of ignorance : but what large thoughts soever we have of the mercies of god to their persons , we can have no indulgence for an act of divine adoration , which is directed to an object that we are either sure is bread , or we are sure of nothing else . . as for the invocation and adoration of the blessed virgin and the saints , i shall offer only three classes of instances to prove it idolatrous . . in the office of the mass on many of the saints days , that sacrifice which is no other than the body and blood of christ , according to them is offered up to the honour of the saints , and they pray to god to accept of it through the saints intercession , one would think it were enough to offer up the sacrifices of prayers and praises to them ; but here is a sacrifice , which carries in the plain words of it the most absurd idolatry that is possible , which is the offering up the creator to the honour of a creature . . in the prayers and hymns that are in their publick offices , there are petitions offered up to the saints , that in the plain sense of the words import their pardoning our sins , and changing our hearts : the daily prayer to the virgin goes far this way ; tu nos ab hoste protege , & hora mortis suscipe ; do thou protect us from our enemy , and receive us in the hour of death . another goes yet further ; culpas nostras ablue , ut perennis sedem gloriae , per te redempti , valeamus scandere ; wash thou away our sins , that so being redeemed by thee , we may ascend up to the mansions of glory . that to the angels is of the same nature ; nostra diluant jam peccata prestando supernam coeli gloriam ; may they wash away our sins , and grant us the heavenly glory . i shall to this add two addresses to two of our english saints ; the first is to s. alban , te nunc petimus patrone preco sedule , qui es nostra vera gloria sive precum votis , servorum scelera ; we implore thee , our patron , who art our true glory , do thou take away the crimes of thy servants , by thy prayers . and the other relates to thomas becket , whom i believe our author will not deny to have been as great a rebel , as either coligny or his faction , and yet they pray thus to christ , tu per thomae sanguinem , quem pro te effudit , fac nos christe , scandere quo thomas ascendit ; do thou , o christ , make us by the blood of thomas , which he shed for thee , to ascend up whither he has ascended : and the hymn upon him is that verse of the th psalm ; thou hast crowned him with glory and honour , and hast set him over all the works of thy hands . one would think it were no bold thing to pronounce all this and innumerable more instances which might be brought to the same purpose , to be idolatrous . if we are sent by our author to the sences that may be put on those words , i shall only say with relation to that that the test condemns the devotions as they are used in the roman church ; so this belongs to the plain sence of the words , and if it is confessed that these are idolatrous , as ascribing to creatures the right of pardoning sins , and of opening the kingdom of heaven , which are main parts of the divine glory , then the matter of the test is justified . a third sort of instances is in the prayer that comes after the priest has pronounced the words of absolution , passio domini nostri iesu christi , merita b. mariae virginis , & omnium sanctorum , & quicquid benefeceris , vel mali sustinueris , sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum , augmentum gratiae & proemium vitae aeternae : may the passion of our lord iesus christ , the merits of the b. virgin , and all the saints , and all the good thou hast done , or the evil thou hast suffered , be to thee effectual for the remission of thy sins , the increase of grace , and the reward of eternal life . absolution in its true and unsophisticated meaning , being the declaration made to a penitent of the mercies of god in christ , according to the gospel , i would gladly know what milder censure is due to the mixing the merits of the virgin and the saints , with the passion of christ , in order to the obtaining this gospel-pardon , with all the effects of it , than in this of our test , that it is idolatrous . i have now examined the two points , in which our author thought fit to make an apology for the church of rome , without descending to the particulars of his plea more minutely . i have used him in this more gently than he deserves ; for as i examined his reasonings , i found all along both so much ignorance and such gross disingenuity , that i had some difficulty to restrain my self from flying out on many occasions : but i resolved to pursue these two points , with the gravity of stile which the matter required , without entangling the discourse with such unpleasant digressions , as the discovery of his errors might have led me to . and i thought it enough to free unwary readers from the mistakes into which his book might lead them , without encreasing the contempt belonging to the writer , who has now enough upon him ; but i pray god grant him repentance , and a better mind . finis . advertisement . the reader is desired to take notice , that the author did not know of the death of the bishop of oxford , till this answer was printed . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e def. of his eccl. pol. p. , . the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated johnson, samuel, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing j estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated johnson, samuel, - . johnson, samuel, - . second five year's struggle against popery and tyranny. the second edition. xv, p. : ill. printed for william rogers, london : . attributed to s. johnson by wing. this item also appears as pages [ ]- in samuel johnson's second five year's struggle against popery and tyranny (wing j ) at reel : . reproduction of original in the union theological seminary library, new york. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - tcp staff (michigan) sampled and proofread - tcp staff (michigan) text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur , liber cui titulus , [ the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . ] maij . . guil. needham rr. in christo p. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep . cant. a sacr. dom. the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . the second edition . london , printed for william rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleetstreet . m dc lxxxviii . the preface . upon a careful review of this ensuing discourse , i find no cause to make any abatement from the title of it , which promises to the reader no less than strict demonstration . if any of the following arguments should happen to fall short of these pretensions to the highest and clearest sort of proof that can be , it is wholly my fault , and i will mend it upon the first notice of it . for i am sure that the subject-matter is capable of the most rigorous demonstration that ever was ; and it has always been held , that the essential properties and affections of a body , such as quantity , figure , and its relation to place , &c. are the proper subject of demonstration . and let me here add , that such a doctrine as transubstantiation , neither is , nor can be a matter of revelation . for scripture was given us , either ( i st ) to reveal things which were unknown to us by natural light : such as the manner of the creation of the world , and the greater and more amazing secret of the redemption of it , wherein all heaven was engaged ; the father sent the son , and the son afterwards sent the holy ghost ; upon which occasion we have a clear and manifest declaration of that doctrine , which is commonly called the trinity of persons in the godhead , which was not so express before , under the old testament . to these may be added , the assurance which is given us of a resurrection , and of a future iudgment , and of the different portion of good and bad men ; of the one in happiness with all the blessed company of heaven , and of the other in eternal torments prepared for the devil and his angels . now these are things which are vndiscoverable by natural light ; but being revealed , are very agreeable to it , and in nowise contradict it . or ( dly ) to furnish us with an history of providence , and of god's government of the world : wherein most of the divine attributes are visibly displayed . his holiness and justice are to be seen in his judgments , his mercy in deliverances , his power in miracles ; his knowledg , faithfulness and truth , in prophesies ; and the like . now this part of scripture does only clear up and exemplify our natural knowledge of god ; and our reason is so far from being distressed , that it is very much strengthened and confirmed by it : as to compare great things with small , the grammar rule is proved and confirmed by the example . or ( dly ) it was given us to improve our natural notices , and inforce our natural obligations to those duties , which we owe to god , our neighbour and our selves . and here our reason triumphs , and is made perfect . or ( thly ) to establish certain religious ordinances and institutions ; such as are the sacraments , religious assemblies , preaching , and the like : which our very reason does subscribe and approve as wise and holy appointments , and as highly instrumental to a good life . now these are matters worthy of god , and such as all the wisdom in the world would expect should be the contents of a divine revelation . if god should vouchsafe to make new discoveries to the world , a man would look for somewhat of this nature , which should improve us , and supply the defects of human vnderstanding , and tend to the perfecting of our nature . but no man would expect that god should send after us from heaven to unteach us all that ever he had taught us in the day of our creation , and to bless us with such discoveries as these . that the same body is in the same place , and is not in the same place at the same time . that the duration of hours is the duration of tears . that a miles distance , and the distance of miles is equal . that the same thing may exist , and not exist at once . that the self-same single thing may have two contrary natures at the same time , and not be what it is ; together with the rest of the mysteries of transubstantiation . we are sure that a divine revelation cannot contradict the common sense and reason of mankind ; for that would be to pronouce them false witnesses of god , when by these alone we know that there is a god , and are led to the discovery of his eternal power and godhead ; which must be known before we can think of revelation . for it is in vain to talk of the word of god , till we know that there is a god whose word this revelation is . in short , if any supposed revelation should contradict the plain principles of reason , it would be the same thing , or rather worse , than if that revelation should contradict it self . for if a revelation should contradict it self , we could not indeed receive it upon those terms , because we should be bound to believe it and disbelieve it at once , and therefore we could not believe it at all ; but if this revelation should contradict the plain principles of reason , then it would overthrow that vnderstanding which we are sure we received from the hands of god : and therefore if we should renounce our reason to believe such a revelation , we must in that case part with a certainty for an uncertainty . for we cannot know ( unless we will receive it blindfold , and then we know nothing ) that ever any revelation came from god , till our reason has made it out to us that it did : and therefore to abandon our reason for the sake of any revelation , is to make our selves surer of the thing proved , than of the proof it self , which is very absurd ; for that which makes us certain of another thing , must needs be first and best known to us . i should not have put such a case as this , for it is an impossible case , but that the papists themselves have put it , and have decided it the wrong way , and have made axiomes and self-evident principles out of the false determination of it . so cartes concludes his first book of principles ; that we must fix this in our minds as the chief and principal rule , that those things which are revealed to us by god , are to be believed as the most certain of all others : and although perchance the most clear and evident light of reason that can be , should seem to suggest to us the contrary , yet we must believe divine authority alone , rather than our own judgment . now this i say is an impossible case ; for we have not a more clear and evident proof , than the most clear and most evident light of reason that can be , either that god has revealed any one doctrine in particular , or made any revelation at all , or that there is a god. and therefore if any revealed doctrine in particular can be supposed to contradict the most clear and most evident light of reason that can be , so that it ought to be set aside and disbelieved as false ; then that doctrine does therein overthrow both its own credit , and the belief of a revelation in general , and even of a deity : and consequently it is , as i said , an impossible case , and a perfect inconsistency ; for at once it supposes the belief of a divine revelation , and yet destroys the belief of any such thing . the gentlemen of the port royal , in their logick or art of thinking , have advanced this rule of cartes to the state and degree of an axiome , or undoubted principle : for in part . chap. . they make this , together with two other axiomes which usher it in , to be the foundation of faith. i shall consider them all three . axiome viii . a man ought not to deny that which is clear and evident , for not being able to comprehend that which is obscure . this is but a lame axiome ; for tho it be truth , yet it is not the whole truth in this matter : for a man ought not to deny that which is clear and evident upon any acceunt what soever . he ought not to go against known truth , ( for that is the english of what is clear and evident ) for the sake of any thing , either known or unknown . axiome ix . it is of the nature of a finite mind , not to be able to comprehend that which is infinite . this is an undoubted truth , and no man can gainsay it ; only it has the misfortune to be found here in bad company , and to be applied to false purposes , as we shall see by and by . axiome x. the testimony of a person infinitely powerful , infinitely wise , infinitely good , and infinitely true , ought to have more force to persuade our minds , than the most convincing reasons . but i ask again , have we any more than the most convincing reasons , to persuade us that there is any such person thus qualified ? or that this infinitely credible and adorable being has given any testimony at all ? if not , then i say , that this axiome is an inconsistency , it supplants it self , and undermines the very ground on which it stands . that must needs be a very tottering and ruinous foundation of faith , which is established upon a contrariety and opposition to the most convincing reasons : but an absurd religion may be glad of such axiomes as it can get , and must be content to be served with an absurd logic. the messieurs promise us here to say somewhat more of faith afterwards , which accordingly they do , chap. ii. and therefore thither we will follow them , and see how they apply these axiomes to establish transubstantiation . where first they inculcate their former axiome in these words , il est certain , &c. it is certain that divine faith ought to have more power over our minds , than our own reason . and this is certain , even by reason it self , which shews us , that we ought always to prefer that which is more certain , before that which is less certain ; and that it is more certain that what god says , is true , than what our reason persuades us ; because god is more uncapable of deceiving us , than our reason of being deceived . now , if what reason persuades us , be not certain , when , for instance , it persuades us that there is a god , then there is no possible certainty of a revelation , which shall stand in competition with reason , and be preferred before it . and therefore this is the old enchantment over again , which perfectly turns the reason of mankind into a stone , so that it cannot move one step either forward or backward . for if the most clear and evident light of reason that can be , ( as cartes's word is ) , if the most convincing reasons ( as the port-royal word is ) may be false , then it is impossible for us us to know any thing : nay , it is impossible for us so much as to know , that we know nothing . but in the very next words they relent , and tell us quite another story . neanmoins a considerer , &c. nevertheless to consider things exactly , that which we evidently perceive , both by reason , or by the faithful report of our senses , is never contrary to that which divine faith teaches us . but that which makes us believe so , is , that we take no heed where it is that the evidence of our reason and of our senses ought to stop , and to go no further . methinks men should consider things exactly before they lay down axiomes and first principles , and not after : for now it seems that revelation is never contrary to the evidence of reason , or the faithful report of our senses , ( for if they are never contrary to that , then that is never contrary to them ) and therefore the opposition which was supposed to be betwixt them , and the renouncing of reason , and cleaving to faith , which followed thereupon , proves to be wholly a mistake . so that they have plainly given up their th axiome for nonsense ; and now they are upon a new question , which is concerning the just bounds and full extent of sense and reason , and to shew how short sighted they both are in discerning a bit of bread. their next words are these : par exemple , &c. for example , our senses shew us clearly in the sacrament some roundness and whiteness ; but our senses do not teach us whether it be the substance of bread which causes our eyes to perceive this roundness and whiteness : and thus faith is not contrary to the evidence of our senses , when it tells us , that this is not the substance of bread , which is abolished , having been changed into the body of jesus christ by the mystery of transubstantiation , and that we see nothing more than the species and appearances of bread which still remain , although the substance be abolished , and be no more . when the papists are disposed to make themselves merry with the follies of us poor hereticks , there is no such happy subject of their drollery as this , that we pretend to see substances , and have such exquisite senses as will penetrate farther and deeper than all other mens . now on the other hand we can tell them very seriously , that we never saw roundness or whiteness in our lives , nor can any of our senses shew us any such rarities : we cannot deny but that we have seen round and white substances or bodies , or pieces of matter , call them what you will ; but as for roundness and whiteness , we believe them to be objects so dazling , that they would certainly blind us . the roundness , and whiteness , and sweetness which they see and tast in the sacrament without a subject , are the round , and white , and sweet nothings which we never yet saw nor tasted , tho we sometimes promise them to our children for fairings . but substances we continually see , and cannot look beside them : for every thing which is seen , heard , smelt , tasted , or felt , is a substance , and which is more , it is a gross material substance , or else it could not affect and make an impression upon such gross material organs of sense as ours are . what is it that so fēelingly moves our senses , and resists our touch , but a body or material substance ? for ten thousand roundnesses and whitenesses will not make up one object of sense . and as for the instance which lies before us , of a piece of bread , it is a substance the most familiar , and best known to us of all others . we can see , and taste , and seel , and smell it , and know it blindfold and not only we , but most of the creatures about us can see , and taste , and smell the substance of bread as well as we , and know it very distinctly , and will single it out from twenty other round and white substances whatsoever . and their senses were certainly given them to discern substances and not accidents , for otherwise a round and white stone , or a round and white chip , would serve their turn as well ; but figure and colour are not their business , but a substance , which will nourish them , and which will be altered and assimilated into the substance of flesh and blood. and therefore whether the substance of a wafer be bread , or whether it be a humane body , i will refer it wholly to all the animals in the world , which love bread , and will not seize upon a living man ; for they are competent and indifferent judges in this matter : always excepting those animals which are the masters of the school of the eucharist ; for they are all parties and bigots , and especially the dog of lisbon . in short , i challenge all the world to tell me what there is belonging to the substance of bread , which we do not see and discern by our senses , and which is not faithfully reported to us by them . and therefore - when our senses evidently shew us , that a wafer is the substance of bread , and on the other hand , the popish faith teaches us that it is not the substance of bread , but the substance of a human body , that faith is plainly contrary to the evidence of our senses ; which because the messieurs said before , divine faith never is , it leaves their faith under a different character from that which is divine . they proceed in the following words , nostre raison de mesme , &c. our reason in like manner shews us that one single body is not at the same time in divers places , nor two bodies in one and the same place ; but this ought to be understood of the natural condition of bodies , because it would be a desect of reason for a man to imagine that our mind being finite , is able to comprehend how far the infinite power of god reaches . and therefore when hereticks , in order to destroy the mysteries of faith , as the trinity , incarnation and eucharist , do object those pretended impossibilities which they draw from reason , in this very thing they themselves do visibly depart from reason , in pretending to be able to comprehend in their finite mind the infinite extent of the power of god. in this short passage there are many things liable to exception . for ( st , ) our reason does not only shew us , that one single body is not at the same time in divers places , but it shews us also that it cannot be in divers places at once , for this reason , because in that case one single body would be divers bodies , which is a contradiction . and therefore ( dly , ) the limitation which follows , is false , that this ought to be understood of the natural condition of bodies , and restrained only to that . for whether bodies be in a natural condition , or supernatural , one single body cannot be divers bodies at the same time , for then it is no longer one single body . no supernatural case or condition can make a contradiction to be true . for instance , st. john baptist told the jews that god was able of those stones , which lay upon the banks of jordan , to raise up children unto abraham . in their natural condition they were stones , but in this supernatural condition they would have been men ; but in no condition was it possible for them to be both stones and men at the same time , because it is a repugnancy , for to say , a stone is a man , is to say a stone is not a stone , that is to say , it is not , or it is nothing at all , which i hope no man will say is the work of an infinite power . and therefore ( ly , ) in saying , that one body cannot be in divers places at once , we do not thereby imagine that a finite mind can comprehend how far the infinite power of god reaches ; this is both a false charge , and a false inference . for what has omnipotency to do with nothing ? to effect nothing , is a derogation to all power , much more is it beneath that which is infinite . when therefore we vindicate the divine power , and assert the infinity of it , and say it is removed at the greatest distance from all defect , is this to say that a finite mind can comprehend it ? no ; god forbid that our heads should be filled with such cross popish contradictions , as to say , that every contradiction is impossible , and yet this contradiction is possible ; that a finite may hold an infinite , and that the greater may be contained by the less . we admire and adore the infinite power of god , and we are sensible of it every minute , for in him we live and move and have our being , and yet we do not comprehend it ; neither have we the least thought or imagination of comprehending it ; for we know that this is utterly inconsistent with the necessary imperfection and limitation of a creature state . the infinite power of god stands like a great mountain . now we can see a great mountain only by parts , and cannot view it all round at once , much less can we grasp or comprehend it , and take it up in our arms. but yet as we know and see , that this incomprehensible mountain ( which is an object too big for our senses ) is not a valley ; so we are full as sure that perfection is not imperfection , and that infinite power ( tho we never pretended to measure the extent of it ) is free from all impotency , and cannot atchieve impossibilities and nothings . as we know by his necessary existence that god cannot cease to be , and by his infinite wisdom that he cannot err , and by his infinite truth that it is impossible for god to lye : so we are assured by his insinite power that he cannot make a contradiction , a nothing , an inconsistency , which is always unmade again as fast as it is made . if god should create and annihilate a thing at once , he would plainly effect neither , and nothing would follow upon such an impossible act. ( thly , ) the messieurs insinuate , as if the impôssibilities which are brought against transubstantiation were of the same sort , and as false and pretended , as those which are objected against the trinity , and the incarnation of our saviour ; but i shall leave that to the judgment of every indifferent reader , after he has weighed and considered the following discourse . and thus i have at least-shaken those axiomes , which were purposely erected as strongholds , to cover and shelter the absurd doctrines of the church of rome , and especially that of trasubstantiation , by feigning that revelation and reason are at variance , and that in that case reason is to be abandoned . it may justly be admired that cartes , a man of clear sense , should begin such rules ; but it is to be remembred , that he was to make some amends for the bold truths he had elsewhere delivered ; and likewise , that he was able to complement the church of rome , as well as he did particular persons , without being a slave to his complement : for when he was pressed with what he had said upon such occasions , and with his own very words ; he used to tell them , urbanitas styli gallici te fesellit , you did not understand a french complement . i doubt not but the learned men of the port royal did very well understand it ; but it is their craft to make silver shrines for diana ; and all the commendation we can give them , is to say , that they are very able workmen , and masters of their trade , such a one as it is . to conclude , reason is that whereby we chuse our religion , and judg whether it be a revelation which came from god , and whereby we distinguish betwixt the bible and the alchoran . and , as cartes says , if a turk or a heathen , being induced by some false reasonings , should embrace christianity , and did not know that it came from god , he would not thereupon be a christian , but rather he would be guilty of a sin , in not using his reason aright . reason is that whereby we interpret a revelation ; or else a man can give no reason why he interprets it in that manner , rather than in another . and as st. paul speaks in another case , do ye not know that the saints shall judg the world ? &c. do ye not know that reason must judg of the sum of religion ? and if the whole must be judged by it , is it unworthy to judg in the smallest matters , such as a phrase , or a figure ? shall it not judg in so plain and so easie a case as this ? that christ's body on which the woman poured her alabaster box of ointment , matth. . . was his living natural body ; and the body which joseph of arimathea begged and buried , matth. . . was his dead natural body ; and the body of christ which is to be edified , eph. . . is the church , or society of all christian people ; and the body of christ which is to be eaten , matth. . . is the sign , or sacrament , or memorial of his body ? if reason may not judg in this case , by considering and examining these several places , but is to be set aside or renounced , and the letter of scripture is to determine it ; then i am sure , that if the communicant , by virtue of those words , this is my body , eats the natural body of christ either dead or alive , at the same time he also eats up all christian people by virtue of st. paul's words , who in like manner expresly calls them the body of christ. in a word , whatsoever is believed or done in religion , must be by reason , or else it is an irrational belief and practice . for reason is the principle of a man ; and whatsoever is not done by it , is not done by the man , it is not an humane act , but the act of a brute . whenever therefore i become a scholar in the school of the eucharist , and renounce the reason which god has given me , to embrace the romish doctrine of transubstantiation , i am fully resolved to keep a decorum in it , and i will certainly go over to that church upon all four. i have not thus much insisted upon reason , because we are destitute of scripture-proof , to shew that transubstantiation is false ; for we have not a clearer and fuller evidence from revelation , that our saviour came into the world , than we have that his body , even since his resurrection , is such , as cannot possibly be present in form of bread . as to name no more , luke . . behold my hands and my feet , that it is i my self : handle me and see , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have . these are the scripture-marks of our saviour's body , which he himself gave on purpose to know it by . but can we possibly behold hands and feet in a wafer ? can we handle and see flesh and bones in it ? if we cannot , then it is not he himself ; otherwise these are fallacious marks of him , for roundness and whiteness , and no hands and feet , and no flesh and bones , might have been the marks as well . but i was hereby willing to shew , that as scripture is against transubstantiation , so the primitive light of reason is against it too , the unwritten as well as the written word of god : and that as transubstantiation tends to the destruction of all that is man or christian in us ; so on the other hand , common sense , reason , christianity , and all that is within us , does rise up in opposition against so monstrous and mischievous a doctrine . the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . transubstantiation is not the name of one single absurdity , but it signifies as legion does , many thousands in one . for which reason it is very hard to draw them up , or put them into any good order , which however i shall endeavour to do under these two heads : first , of intellectual absurdities . and secondly , of practical absurdities . . the first head is of intellectual absurdities ; by which i mean such falshoods as are repugnant to the common reason and understanding of mankind . and i purposely wave all those absurdities of transubstantiation which contradict our senses , because if a man be bent upon it , and will outface me out of all my senses , as i cannot believe him , so i cannot disprove him : if he says the sun does not shine , when at the same time i am really dazled with the light and brightness of it , i can only say as i find , and appeal to his own senses , and desire him to do me right . in case a romanist should bear me down , that the bible in my hand is not a book , but the living judg of controversie , pope innocent the eleventh , and all the bishops of the christian world sitting together in council ; i cannot help my self : especially if he pretend to have chang'd the book into such , and so many living men by saying some powerful charming words over it ; and further , if in condescension and compliance with the frailty of human sense , he likewise acknowledges that it looks like a printed and bound book , and is cloath'd with all the accidents and properties of a book , and that one part of the enchantment lies in this , that tho in all appearance it is a book , yet it is in reality pope innocent the eleventh , and an assembly of living bishops ; in this case i cannot plead my senses , because he has already foreclosed the use and evidence of them . but if he goes on to tell me utter impossibilities , and after having affirm'd to me that the two epistles of st. peter are nothing else but pope innocent in person ; and that the very same holy father ( whom i have in my hand at london ) is also at the self same time personally present at rome , and at paris , and at vienna , and in ten thousand other very remote places ; he then puts me into a way to break the enchantment , and to overthrow his delusion with such arguments , as will not be satisfied by saying , that the senses may be deceived , and cannot dive into the essence of things . it is not such a light and ludicrous cheat as this i have been now speaking of , which the church of rome has put upon the world for many ages together ; for then i question whether i should ever have employed my pen against it ; ( though it is an indignity to mankind to impose upon them , to deceive and make children of them ) but the romish delusion is of an higher nature , for it is the cheat of a bit of bread which you must believe to be a man's body , nay to be a god : and accordingly if you will not worship and bow down to this bit of bread , and acknowledg it to be your maker , then shall you be condemned for an heretick ; then will they zealously tell you , that they will no more pray for you than they will for a dog ; and that as your body fries in a smithfield fire , so your soul shall for ever burn in hell. and therefore it is of as great consequence to men , as their souls and bodies are worth , to know the truth of this matter ; for which cause i earnestly intreat them to weigh and ponder the arguments , and carefully to attend to the demonstrations , which i shall here lay down before them . to proceed with the more strength and clearness in this matter , and to avoid needless repetitions , and such like incumbrances of a discourse , i shall here premise some very reasonable demands , which without any man's leave i shall take for granted : . that a doctrine which consists of impossibilities , is an impossible doctrine . . that omnipotency it self cannot make an impossibility ; for what cannot be done at all , cannot be done by almighty power . supposing an infinite excess of power , ( as we are sure there is in god ) yet it cannot do what cannot be done . . that a contradiction is an impossibility . from these premises i shall infer , that every contradiction which is contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation , is an undoubted proof of the impossibility of it ; so that it never was , is , or can be true , and that the pretence of omnipotency it self cannot support it . to avoid the force of this and such like demonstrations , the representer of popery tells us , that christ gives to his body a supernatural manner of existence , by which being left without extension of parts , and rendred independent of place , it may be one and the same in many places at once , and whole in every part of the symbols , and not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies . thus far he . it may be , a few new-devised terms , and half a dozen inconsistent words contradictiously jumbled together , are able to overthrow a demonstration . we will try whether they can or no. as for the privileges and prerogatives of this body ( which it must always be carefully remembred is an organized human body ) to exist without extension of parts , to be whole in every part of the symbols , and not to be obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies , they are mysteries which will keep cold , and we shall consider them by and by . the thing to be thought of at present , is a supernatural manner of existence , whereby this body is rendred independent of place , and may be one and the same in many places at once . this body which exists in a supernatural manner , must either , ( r. ) be every where , and in all places ; which manner of existence is immense and infinite , and peculiar to god alone . it is a divine attribute ; and where there is one divine attribute , there are all the rest . but if by an impossible supposition this manner of existence were communicable to a body , yet it would not serve their purpose ; for then this body would be in too many . places at once , in all other places out of the sacrament , as well as in it ; and so there would be no need of priests to make christ's body in the sacrament , which would be a thing very inconvenient at least for that order of men. or else ( . ) this body which is independent of place , must be in no place ; and then with its supernatural manner of existence , it does not exist at all ; for that which is no-where , is nothing . or ( dly and lastly ) it must be somewhere ; for let the manner of existence be what it will , natural , or supernatural , or infinite , still this body , which is independent of place , must either be every where , or somewhere , or no where . if this body be every where , as was shewed before , it would be infinite , which is blasphemy ; for if a body may have divine attributes , and be a god , then god may be a body . and then again , if this body be no-where , it is non-existent and nothing . and therefore it remains that it be somewhere : and this is easily granted ; for it is said to be in many places at once , which is many some-wheres . well , if it may be in many places at once , it may be in one of those many places : this is undeniable , and must be granted us . let us make use therefore once again of the former scheme , and let this one place be a , and d the body in it ; and now at last , though this body d be independent of place , yet we are sure of it in one place , for it is in a. but it seems , it may be in several other places at the same time : be it so , and let b and c be two of those other places , and let d be the self-same independent body in those places ; and then we are haunted again with all the former contradictions . d is in a , and at the same time d is not in a , for it is in b , which is not in a. again , d is wholly in b , and d is wholly out of b at the same time , for it is in c , which is wholly out of b. so that this pretended supernatural manner of existence , is full of contradictions , that is to say , it is impossible . which was to be demonstrated . in this foregoing demonstration i have taken the word place in the largest sense , so as to contain angels and spirits , who are somewhere , and who cannot be elsewhere at the same time . and this i did on purpose to shew , that though the body of christ should be present after the manner of a spirit , without filling a place , or having any relation to the dimensions of it , ( which was the old hypothesis , before the representer came with his new jargon ) ; and though it took up no more room than a thought does in a man's mind , yet it were impossible for it to be in many places at once . so that if we should grant matter to be immaterial , and a body to be a spirit , yet the papists are so intangled in the absurdity of this doctrine , that it would do them no good to allow them half a score contradictions , neither would it any way relieve them , or free them from the rest . whereas on the other hand , a body is known to fill and possess the place in which it is , and is circumscribed by the bounds and limits of the place , which is commensurate to the magnitude and figure of the body : so that if a body should be in many places at once , it might not only have quite contrary situations , and be east , west , north , and south of it self , be above it self , and below it self all at once ; but also it would be circumscribed and not circumscribed at the same time ; which is a very plain and open contradiction . . the second head of contradictions are those which attend the doctrine of transubstantiation in point of time. every thing that has now a being , either always had a being , and is eternal ; which only god is ; or else it had a beginning of its being , in which it has continued ever since ; which is the condition of all creatures ; and this continuance of a creature in being we call the duration of it , which is so essential to all substances , whether material or immaterial , that it is absolutely inseparable from them : for when their being began , their duration began ; and when their duration ceases , their being ceases . this duration is counted by days , months , and years , and such like greater or lesser portions of time ; which time is nothing else but the measure of duration , whereby we reckon how long a substance has continued or persevered in being . and now we have a test in our hands , to try whether it be not absolutely impossible for the transubstantiation-body in the sacrament to be the very body of christ , which was born of the virgin mary . the body which was born of the virgin mary has continued in being years ; whereas the body which the priest a made yesterday , has continued in being but one day ; but the duration of one day only , cannot be the duration of years : and the duration of years is now inseparable from the body of christ born of the virgin mary , for the duration of a substance is inseparable from the substance ; therefore the body which the priest made yesterday , cannot be the body which was born of the virgin mary . which was to be demonstrated . again ; if the body in the sacrament which was made , that is , began to be yesterday , is the same body which has continued years , then the same body continued years , and upwards , before it began to be ; but before it began to be , it was not in being ; and consequently , in every minute during that years , the same body was in being , and was not in being . which amounts to millions of contradictions . once more . it must be granted , that the cause is in being before the effect ; and it would be a double repugnancy to say the contrary ; for then the effect would be both before it self , for it is not an effect till it be caused ; and also before its cause , and so would be caused by that which is not . now the causes of the transubstantiation-body are these amongst others . . the bread out of which it is produced ; which is so necessary , that this change cannot be wrought out of any other substance in the world , flesh nor fish , pillar nor post , nor any thing else that can be named ; and therefore this is the necessary matter of the transubstantiation . body , or the cause out of which it is made . ly , the baker by whom the bread was made ; for he that is a cause of the cause , is a cause of the thing caused . ly , the marvellous operator , the priest , who makes the body , together with his intention . ly , which seems to be an instrumental cause , his pronouncing these words , hoc enim est corpus meum , in one breath . ly , the consideration which moved him to say a mass at that time . but neither the bread nor the baker , nor the priest nor his intention , nor his voice nor his breath , nor the proposal , suppose of twelve-pence , to him to say a mass ; neither all nor any of these , which were the causes of that transubstantiation-body , which was made yesterday , and did contribute more or less to the producing of it ; i say , none of these causes were in being an hundred years ago : and if the causes were not in being , much less was the effect in being , otherwise the effect must be before the cause , which is impossible . but the body of christ , born of the virgin mary , was in being years ago , which is more than one hundred years ago , and this is impossible for the transubstantiation-body which was made yesterday ; therefore it is impossible for the transubstantiation-body to be the body of christ born of the virgin mary . q. e. d. i wonder , that when the representer's hand was in , and he had made christ's body independent of place , he had not likewise made it independent of time , for that was full as necessary to be done as the other . . the third head of contradictions are those which relate to quantity ; under which head i was going to demonstrate , that the same body cannot at the same time be bigger and less than it self ; that it cannot be an organized humane body , five foot and an half long , and at the same time bestowed within the compass of a wafer no bigger than a six-pence , nay within the compass of every crumb of that wafer , though not so big as a pins-head . but i am interrupted from proceeding any further in this attempt ; for by a slight conveyance , the very subject-matter of my demonstration is taken away ; and instead of a solid body , with figure and dimensions , with different and distinct parts , divisible and measurable , they have left me only the appearance of a body , which no demonstration can fasten upon . for they say , that this body is induced with a supernatural manner of existence , by which being left without extension of parts , it may be whole in every part of the symbols , and not obuoxious to any corporeal contingencies . now though we cannot demonstrate any property of such an incomprehensible body as this is , ( no more than we can draw the picture of a non-entity , or weigh it in a pair of scales ) for it scorns and tramples upon all the principles and axioms of euclid ; yet we may a little consider the terms of art by which it is exprest . . it is a body without extension of parts . so that it is a whole which has parts , though those parts are without extension ; and accordingly as it follows , it may be whole in every part of the symbols . but if the parts be without extension , so is the whole , for the whole is nothing else but all the parts put together . now at this rate , a part is as big as the whole , and has as much extension , because either of them has none at all . is this indeed the body which the wonder-working priest produces ! a body without extension is a mere nothing , and a perfect contradiction in terms ; for extension is the very essence of a body , and the foundation of all the other properties that are in it ; the dimensions , as also figure , divisibility , and impenetrability , do all flow from it . again ; so much as you add to the quantity of a body , so much you add to the substance ; and so much of the extension as you take away , just so much of the substance goes along with it . in a word , body and extension are reciprocal , for every body is an extended substance , and every extended substance is a body ; so that they are but different names for the same thing . . this body is whole in every part of the symbols , that is of the elements of bread and wine . but the bread has , suppose , an hundred distinct parts , one of which is not the other , and therefore this body being whole in every distinct part , has an hundred distinct wholes , one of which is not the other , and yet is but one body all the while , which , as i take it , is contradiction by whole-sale . . this body is not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies . if it be a body , what may happen to one body , may happen to another . to use terence's words in this case , homo sum nihil humanum a me alienum puto : i am a man , and what is incident to a man , is incident to me . and so if a body could speak , it would say , corpus sum nihil corporeum a me alienum puto ; i am a body , and what belongs to a body , belongs to me . whatever body is subject to be eaten , is subject to be pressed and grinded with the teeth , to be swallowed down , and afterwards voided ; and i suppose this last clause was added on purpose to avoid such inconveniencies , and to save the honour of this body , which they call god's body : but in my opinion it was a needless clause , for a body without extension can never take hurt , nor come to any damage at all . for a man may bite till his jaws ake , and grind all his teeth out of his head , before he can fasten upon that which is not , and which never yet had any existence in the world , save in a parcel of insignificant words ill put together on purpose . it is an endless thing to encounter shadows , and to oppose these manifest impossibilities , which are so contrary to the reason of manking , that the papists themselves own they would not hold them , were it not for the sake of revelation : which is to be believed , they say , before reason , and ought to outweigh all other reasons . they are over-ruled , they say , in this case , by the express words of our saviour , who in the same night in which he was betrayed , took bread , and said , take , eat , this is my body , do this in remembrance of me ; and who has all power in heaven and earth to make his words good . we allow these words to be our saviour's ; neither do we question his power , but conclude , that he accomplished all that he intended , and did make the bread his body in that sense in which he meant it should be . so far we are agreed on both sides . the question therefore in short is this , what he did to the bread , when he said , this is my body ? whether he metamorphosed and changed the nature of it ? or only altered the use of it , that it might be a token of his body , and serve to remember him by , to all those excellent purposes of religion , which we acknowledg to be design'd by him . the latter is undoubtedly the true sense , considering all the circumstances of the place . as ( st . ) considering that our saviour was upon his departure , at which time men use to leave memorials of themselves with their friends , to be remembred by in their absence . ( ly . ) considering that the frequent use of the world is , imports no more than signifies . as in very many places , where the scripture says one thing is another , it means only that that thing must be expounded by the other , it signifies or stands for the other : and consequently , this is my body , i. e. this signifies my body , is the literal sense . and ( ly , ) considering that clause which shews the end and meaning of this whole passage , and is the very key to unlock it , do this in remembrance of me . for it is an absurd speech to say , take my body in remembrance of my body ; take me for a token to remember me by . so that if there were not one contradiction or impossibility , or any such rock to be shunned in the doctrine of transubstantiation , yet every thing in the text leads us into this sense , which i have now delivered : we are plainly determined to this sense , by reasons taken out of the very bowels of the text ; the text expounds its self . but still the papists are very urgent and pressing upon us , and say , that unless we believe the bread to be changed into christ's real and natural body , when he says it is his body , we make him a lyar. take heed of that . for our saviour calls many things by the name of those things , into which they never were substantially changed . he called his body a temple , when he said , destroy this temple , and in three days i will rear it up : and yet his body was never substantially changed into a pile of building . and so likewise when that temple was in destroying , and our blessed redeemer was hanging upon the cross , we have a marvellous tender passage of his dutiful care to provide for his mother , when he was in the extremity of his sufferings , john . , . seeing his mother and his disciple john standing together by the cross , he said to her , woman , behold thy son. which was equivalent to this proposition , that man is thy son. and he said to john , behold thy mother ; wherein he calls the virgin mary , john's mother , which she was not . but upon this john took her for his mother , and carried her home to his own house . and so in this present case , this is my body . look not upon this as common bread , for it stands for my body ; consider it under that notion , and remember me by it . behold thy mother : repute her as such . but if it be a reflection upon our saviour to say that it is bread , when he calls it his body , is it not the same reflection upon saint paul to say , that it is not bread , when he calls it bread three or four times over ? cor. . no , no , it was not scripture which led the papists into the doctrine of transubstantiation ; but by engaging themselves in the defence of image-worship , they were betrayed into it ; and were driven to take shelter and sanctuary in it , to avoid the force of an argument which they could not otherwise answer . every body knows , that when image-worship was first set up , there was a great number of christians who stoutly opposed it , and gathered councils to condemn it ; and these went by the name of image-breakers . on the other side , the image-worshippers were furiously bent upon it , and gathered councils to maintain it , particularly that famous one of blessed memory , the second nicene council . in these oppositions and disputes , one argument which the image-breakers made use of in reference to the images of our saviour , was this . if our saviour has left one image of himself , which is of divine institution , then it is not lawful to erect other images of him which are of humane invention ; but he has left one image of himself , ( namely in the sacrament ) which is of divine institution , ergo. to make it good , that the sacrament was an image of our saviour of his own appointment , they shew that all the ancient fathers had called it the image , the figure , the type , the antitype , the resemblance or representation of our saviour . this very argument was used by the preceding council at constantinople , and is recited by the nicene council , which was presently after . but how does the nicene council answer it ? they could not deny the major proposition , and therefore they were forced to break through the minor after this fashion : they say that the sacrament is not the image , resemblance , figure , type , antitype of our saviour , but his own body ; for he himself expresly says , hoc est corpus meum . it is not therefore an image or figure of him , but it is he himself in person . and thus they rescued and disengaged themselves from a very close and distressing argument , and so their show of image-worship went on . this is the first time that the literal interpretation , as they call it , of hoc est corpus meum , is to be met with , which it is plain likewise the former council was not aware of ; for if they could have foreseen so full and so ready an answer , common sense would never have suffered them to make use of that argument . now after the literal interpretation was thus broached to serve a present turn , and they had used it as a man does the next thing that comes to hand , to stop a gap , it was yet a long time before transubstantiation was imposed as a doctrine of faith : it had done good service in solving an argument , and the image-breakers were all broken and destroyed themselves , and therefore there was no further occasion for it . but in process of time they could not but discover many other advantages in it ; as , amongst the rest , that it would deck the priesthood with the highest honour in the world , and advance them above all thrones and crowned heads , if it were once believed that they could make their maker when they pleased . and therefore it is no wonder that they were so very sharp upon berengarius , when he set himself to oppose it . and from that time forwards they were forming this doctrine into shape , and at last , four hundred and odd years after the first invention of it , it was made an article of faith in the great lateran council , and christened by the name of transubstantiation . this was done by a good token in king john's time , when the pope made himself landlord of the realm of england , and put it under a servile tribute , which lasted for several kings reigns . thus you see the rise of transubstantiation , which came not into the world by the papists sticking close to the scripture ; but by their cleaving to the idolatry of image-worship ; whereby they are faln , according to david's imprecation , from one wickedness to another ; and to the worship of their holy images , they have joyned the idolatry of host-worship . but what we call an idol , that they say is god's body , which they affirm to be the plain and literal sense of those words , this is my body ; let us therefore see at last what their literal exposition is . now it runs after this manner . this which i now give you to eat was lately bread , but i have changed the substance of the bread into the self-same body with which i now deliver it to you : i tell you the late bread is i my self , it is mine own body . * for in that which you now have in your hands , assure your selves there † is whole christ ; i am there body and soul , yea , and my divinity is there also : so that there is contained under the appearance of that bit of bread , my divine nature , and my whole humane nature which consists of my soul , and all the parts of my body , together with my blood. my true real natural body which was born of the virgin mary is there , together with whatsoever belongs to a true humane body , as bones and sinews . you will say that notwithstanding all that i have said , it appears to be bread still . that is true ; for though the substance of the bread be gone , yet the figure , colour , smell , taste , and all the other qualities and conditions of the bread remain , and † hang by geometry . || and this i have most wisely ordered : for these accidents of bread disguise my body , that it may the better go down , and that you may not be filled with horror at the eating of man's flesh , which humane nature detests . and then besides , what would the infidel world say , if they saw you devouring your lord , and eating him up in his own shape ? and lastly , this way of receiving of my body , the more remote it is from your senses , the better it is for the improvement of your faith , and will make it the more meritorious . but you will wonder , especially now i am by in person , and you have an opportunity of comparing this one same body together , how this large body which you see is at least five foot and a half long , and of a proportionable bulk , can be contained at the same time within the compass of a small crumb of bread , without any alteration at all ; for it is the self-same body within the sacrament , as it is without . now you may soon be satisfied in that point . † for as i am now sitting at table , i am in the condition of other bodies which are in a place , which are always endued with magnitude ; but the other same i which am in the sacrament , am not as in a place , but i am there as a substance , and under that notion i am neither big nor little , for that belongs to quantity , which is in another predicament . for the substance of the bread is turned into my substance , not into my magnitude or quantity . now no body doubts but a substance may be contained in a little room as well as in a great . for both the substance of air , and its whole nature , must be alike in a small portion of air as in a greater , as also the whole nature of water no less in a small pitcher , than in a river . seeing therefore that my body succeeds and comes in the place of the substance of the bread , you must acknowledg , that my body is in the sacrament plainly after the same manner , as the substance of the bread was before the consecration . but to say , whether the substance of the bread was under a greater bulk , or under a less , was nothing at all to the thing . now this exposition of these words , this is my body , is an authentick and infallible exposition , for it is the very interpretation of them which the romish church delivers to all her parish priests in the trent-catechism , which was written on purpose for their instruction ; so that i have taken it from the fountain head , and have it at the first hand . this they say is the meaning of those words of our saviour , this is my body ; and therefore they make our saviour to say all this : which is such a sense of his words , as any considerate christian would sooner die , than put it upon them . is this the literal sense and proper meaning of na organized human body , that it has no magnitude , and is neither little nor big ? that it is a solid , massy bulk , consisting of flesh and blood , bones and sinews , and yet can be perceived by no sense ; can neither be seen , felt , nor understood , but only believed ? that it has a head , trunk , and four large limbs , which may all be contained in the compass of a pins-head ; which , according to the letter , will not hold the fourth part of a little finger nail ? methinks these are all strange figures , and the most harsh abuses of speech imaginable . at this rate , the literal sense of east , is west , and the literal sense of noon-day is midnight . the private spirit never made such expositions as these , neither would any man alive receive them , if he were not first practis'd upon , and his belief widened for that purpose . we have an instance of these preparatory arts in the d section , where the pastors are charged if they cannot otherwise avoid discoursing of these matters , to remember in the first place that they fore-arm the minds of the faithful , with that saying , luke . . for with god nothing shall be impossible . this is neither better nor worse than one of their pious frauds ; for i am sure they know , that this scripture is very deceitfully applied to the case of transubstantiation . the virgin mary scrupled the possibility of her being a mother when she knew not a man , and asked , how this thing could be ? upon this the angel told her , that the most high would employ his power in it , and bring it to pass in an extraordinary way , to whom nothing was impossible : and the omnipotence of god was a just ground of her belief upon this occasion , who very well knew , that as god had made the first adam , so if he pleased he could make the second , without the concurrence of either man or woman ; and as he had formed eve of her husband's rib , so he could make the messiah of the substance of his mother . so that tho this was beside the common course of nature , yet god was not tyed to that ; for what he had done , he might do again . but what argument is this to induce the belief of transubstantiation , which involves manifold contradictions , which the papists themselves acknowledg do not fall under the divine power ? they themselves know full well that the scripture says , it is impossible for god to lye , to whom nothing is impossible : and he who can do all things , cannot deny himself , because these are contradictions to his own being . and for the like reason they know that he cannot make a contradiction in any kind , because a contradiction destroys it self , it has within it self an utter repugnance to being . to make a thing to be , and not to be , at the same time , is such an inconsistency , that one part of it overthrows the other ; and therefore it is no act of possibility , but is an utter impossibility , which is the contradiction of all power , even of that which is infinite . methinks st. austin very well lays open the reason , why an almighty power cannot make a contradiction . contra faustum l. . c. . quisquis dicit , si omnipotens est deus , faciat ut quae facta sunt facta non fuerint , non videt hoc se dicere , si omnipotens est , faciat ut ea quae ver a sunt , eo ipso quo vera sunt , falsa sint . whosoever says , if god be almighty , let him make those things which have been done , never to have been done , does not see that he says this in other words , if he be almighty , let him make the things which are true , to be false , even wherein they are true. so that the angel does not tell us in this text , that the doctrine of transubstantiation shall not be impossible with god ; he does not tell us that god can make a heap of contradictions : no , for if all the angels of heaven ( according to st. austin's expression ) should say , that a thing may be false , even wherein it is true ; so may what they say be , and consequently there is no believing of them , nor indeed of any being in the world upon those terms . we are able therefore to bring their expositions of scripture upon this occasion , to this infallible test. if they contain in them things contradictious and impossible , then they are not the true sense and meaning of that revelation which came from god , for if he cannot do an impossibility , neither can he say it . and just such as their divinity expositions are , so deceitful are their philosophical illustrations : as particularly , when they shew , how the whole body of christ may be in the least particle , or crumbling of the bread , by the two instances of air and water . their words are these , the substance of bread is turned into the substance of christ , not into his magnitude or quantity . now no body doubts but a substance may be contained in a little room as well as in a great . for both the substance of air , and its whole nature , must be alike in a small portion of air , as in a greater ; as also the whole nature of water , no less in a small pitcherful , than in a river . in these words there are no less than two egregious fallacies . for , . their instances are of homogeneous or similar bodies , that is such bodies whose parts are all alike , and which have the same name and nature ; so every part of air is air , and every drop of water is water , and has the whole nature of water in it , as well as that aggregate body of it , which is in the ocean : but these instances are very deceitfully applied to an heterogeneous dissimilar organized body , as a human body is , which consists of parts altogether unlike , and of different names and natures . for bone is not flesh , nor either of them blood , nor any of them brain . the thumb-nail has not the whole nature of the eye , nor the skull of the cawl : the hand is not the heart , nor the head the foot. and as these parts are of different natures , so there is a necessity of their keeping a considerable distance in their situation , because there are many essential parts of the body interposed betwixt them , which would otherwise be swallowed up . but ly , suppose a human body were no compound , but as pure element as air or water , yet the same substance could not be contained in a less room as well as in a greater . for the air which is contained in a bubble , is indeed a substance of air , but it is not the same substance of air as fills a chamber , for it is not the hundredth part of that substance . nor is a spoonful of water the same substance with an hogshead of water ; for an hogshead of water cannot be contained in a spoon , but is at least a thousand spoonfuls : and in common arithmetick , units are not the same with thousands . so that when they bring air and water to prove that the same substance may be contained in a little room , as well as in a greater , their proofs seem to partake of the nature of those two elements , for they are as light as the one , and as weak as the other . this tedious digression , which has proceeded to an unexpected length , has not been wholly unprofitable ; for i have again recovered materials out of the infallible exposition it self , to furnish my intended demonstration , which i shall now re-assume . in the st section we are told , that the real body of christ is in the sacrament , and whatsoever belongs to the nature of a body , as bones and sinews : and that all the parts of the body are contained in it ; and in the smallest crumb of it , sect. . from whence i gather , that if all the parts of the body are contained in the smallest crumb , then the hand is , which is one of the parts of the body ; and if the whole hand , then all the fingers and thumb , for they are parts of the hand , which is part of the body ; and for the same reason if all the fingers , then all the joynts of those fingers . now i want but one joynt of any one finger to manifest the contradictions and absurdities of this doctrine ; nay , the bone in the first joynt of the fore finger will serve the turn . now a bone is a solid firm hard substance , which as to its use serves to strengthen the fabrick of the body . and if it have not these properties , it is not a bone , it is not the thing we speak of ; for a fluid loose or soft substance is not a bone , neither will it serve for the above-mentioned use in the body . having therefore these properties , it consists of parts extended impenetrable and firmly joined together , so that they cannot be separated without great force , and consequently they resist the touch , and feel hard. besides , this bone in particular is of a cylindrical figure , an inch long , and as much in compass round about . now if any of the parts of this bone be diminished , then all the parts of the body are not there , for the parts of this bone which are parts of the body , are not there : and if the parts be altered , the nature of the thing is destroyed , and it is not a bone . so that with much ado we have gained a bone entire , of an inch in magnitude , which according to the infallible doctrine is contained in a crumb of the sacrament of the compass of a pins-head . now the fortieth part of this bone is equal to that crumb , as is manifest either by applying them to one another , or by their filling the same place ; but the crumb is greater than the whole bone , for it contains it , and therefore the fortieth part of the bone is greater than the whole bone , which is impossible . so that the whole bone cannot possibly be contained in that crumb , but yet it is contained in it , which is a plain contradiction . q. e. d. corollary . now if that bone cannot be contained in such a crumb of the sacrament , much less can the whole body , for that bone is not the five hundredth part of the whole body ; which we have proved , by the hypothesis , to be there full and entire , and in its just dimensions ; because all the parts of the body are there , and consequently every part of every member of the body , which make up the integrity of the whole . so that we have here at once about twenty thousand contradictions , that is to say , so many impossibilities . again , this is an everlasting truth , those things which are equal to one and the same thing , are equal to one another : insomuch that all the syllogisms and demonstrations in the world are in a manner built upon this axiome : and whoever gainsays it , must assert one of these two things , either that one and the same thing is not the same ; or else that what is equal , is not equal at the same time . now a body of five foot and an half long , and one foot diameter , is equal to the natural body of christ ; but a crumb of bread less than a pins-head is equal to the self-same natural body of christ , for a crumb of bread as big as a pins-head is bigger than the natural body of christ , and contains it , therefore a crumb of bread less than a pins-head , is equal to a body of five foot and an half long , and one foot diameter . furthermore , by another undeniable maxim , which says , if of equal things you take as much from the one as from the other , the remainders shall be equal , let us take the quantity of a pins-head from the body of five foot and an half long , and there remains a body of five foot , five inches , and two barley corns , and somewhat better : let us likewise take the same quantity of a pins-head from the crumb of bread which is less than a pins-head , and there remains transubstantiation , that is to say , something worse and less than nothing . nevertheless , because they are the equal remainders of equal bodies , as much having been taken away from the one as from the other , i say that the remainder of the crumb is equal to the remainder of the body of five foot and an half long , which is clearly impossible . q. e. d. in this last demonstration , for dispatch sake , i have been forced to do as the papists do , and to lay contradictions and impossibilities upon heaps , because i hasten to proceed to other heads : only i must stay to demonstrate some gross contradictions , which may be referred either to this head of quantity , or to the former of place . supposing christ's natural body to be five foot and an half long , and one foot diameter , if the self-same body be in another place at the same time , where ever it is , the self-same body must have the self-same dimensions , as we † have already proved ; and consequently if it be in four several places at once , it is but five foot and an half long , and at the same time it is four times five foot and an half long , which is two and twenty foot long : and so likewise it is but one foot diameter , and at the same time it is four times one foot diameter , which is two foot diameter . and by the vast number of places in which the papists have bestowed it , it will be but five foot and a half long , and one foot diameter , and at the same time it will be as big as mount atlas , or pen men maur , or the pic of tenariff . . the fourth head of contradictions are those which relate to number , in spight of which the papists make ten thousand several bodies to be but one and the same body . now as we have already proved it to be impossible for one and the same body to be in several distant places , so we shall here demonstrate that it is equally impossible for what is in several distant places to be one and the same body . the unity of a body consists in this , that it be undivided from it self , and divided from all other bodies ; so that if a body be an individual body , that is to say , one and the same , it must be undivided from it self . now if : christ's body in the pix at limestreet be the same individual body which is in the pix at st. james's , or at posnanie in the higher poland , then the self-same individual body is both undivided from it self , and divided from it self . for in the former case the same individual body is divided from it self not only by two * wonderful coverlets of the accidents of bread , and by the less wonderful covers of two pixes , but also by the greatest part of two great cities , london and westminster . and in the latter case of posnanie in poland , it is divided from it self by vast tracts of land , and a very wide sea ; so that the self-same individual body is undivided from it self , and yet at the same time is divided from it self , which is impossible . q. e. d. on the other hand , there is not any thing which more infallibly proves a real distinction betwixt substances , and shews that they are divers , and that the one is not the other , than this , that the one can be without the other , and that they can exist separately and apart . now christ's body at limestreet in london , and christ's body at rosnanie in poland , do exist separately and apart , for it is a long and weary pilgrimage to go from one to the other : and the one can be without the other , for that body at posnanie was many years without the other , and had raised thirty six persons from the dead , long before the body at limestreet was made . and therefore these are distinct and divers bodies , that is to say , they are not the same body ; and yet they are the same body , which is impossible . which was to be demonstrated . corollary . it is to be supposed , that when anti-christ comes with lying wonders , no body will be so unmannerly as to call them lying wonders , and therefore we shall not question the truth of any one of those miracles which are in the school of the eucharist a : only thus much we gather from the former demonstration , that the good example of the birds ; b beasts and vermin , which worshipped gods body in other ages and countries , is wholly useless to us . for the gods body which is at limestreet , and st. james's , or any where hereabouts to be had , is not the same gods body which those devout creatures meekly worshipped , and which the stubborn black horse c was forced to worship with one knee ; and therefore we are not in a capacity of worshipping the same gods body , if we would . . the next head of contradictions is of those that arise from the consideration of that space or distance which is betwixt one body and another , which is always measured by a straight line drawn from a point of the one body to a point of the other body ; which is the shortest line that can be drawn betwixt them , and consequently there can be but one straight line drawn betwixt the same terms , which measures and describes the just distance of them . now we are allowed to draw a straight line from any one point to another . corollary . from the same demonstration it follows , that st. peter's in rome , corpus christi church at posnanie in poland , and other the remotest places in the world where god's body is , are as near neighbours to the monument in fishstreet as the very mass-house in limestreet is . and there is likewise an infinite variety of other contradictions , which would result from drawing but half a score right lines from god's body which is in so many several quarters , which should all meet together in the point c. for this , as the meanest mathematician easily understands , would not only confound all distances , but also overthrow all the everlasting principles of geometry . . the sixth head of contradictions is in reference to quality , whereby a thing is rendred like or unlike to another . now the self-same body of christ , by the doctrine of transubstantiation has quite contrary qualities , and is like and unlike to it self at the same time . for in heaven it is in form of an human body , and in earth it is in form of bread. and so again upon earth , it has a light about it like a pillar of fire which reaches up to heaven , and it has not such a light about it at the same time . it is stabbed by a jew , and is red with blood , and at the same time the same body has no redness nor mark of blood upon it . it is marked with a crucifix , and at the same time it is not marked with a crucifix , but with i h s and a glory . now these are manifest contradictions , for the self-same thing is affirmed and denied of the self-same body at the self-same time . but before i proceed to demonstrate the contradictions and impossibilities which fall under this head , lest i should lose all my pains in so doing , it will be fit to consider a shuffling answer which the papists have invented to rid their hands of all contradictions of this kind . it is in these words , a body in two places is equivalent to two bodies , and therefore one may say of it the most opposite things without contradiction . it seems this is no new answer , but i confess it was new to me ; for i first met with it in the late six conferences concerning the eucharist , p. . where that very learned and judicious author has answered it , and sent it home again with such arguments ad hominem , as would close the mouths of any body but papists . but because it now also lies just cross my way , i ought likewise to say something to it . st therefore i say , that the supposition of one body in two places at once , is an utter impossibility ; which i have already demonstrated over and over again , both under the st head of place , and also under the th head of number . ly , one body equivalent to two , that is , one body which to all intents and purposes is two , is a contradiction in terms ; for at this rate one and one is three , and three and one is five , and in short , there is a full end of all arithmetick . ly , it is not one body in two places which will serve their turn , but it must be one body in ten thousand places . for it must be one body in form of flesh , and the same body in form of new bread , and the same body in form of old bread , and the same body in form of sweet wine , and the same body in form of sowre wine , and the same body at limestreet , at rome , at avignion , and in a word , in all places , where a bit of bread , a mass priest , and a slate , are to be found together . and this , as i have already shewn , draws after it millions of millions of contradictions . thly , i say , that even the impossible supposition of one body in several places , does plainly deny all difference and dissimilitude in that body ; it allows indeed a multiplication of the same body , but it perfectly excludes any alteration of it : for if it be altered , it is not the body which was supposed to be multiplied . for instance , i will suppose the same pint of milk to be in several places , but then it must be a pint of milk in all those places . for i cannot say , without contradiction , that the same pint of milk in another place is neither pint , half-pint , nor spoonful , but perhaps an unperceivable drop , for then it is a pint and not a pint. and so likewise i cannot say , that it is a pint of milk in this place in the form of milk , and in another place it is a pint of milk in form of aqua vitae , having the smell , taste , colour and virtues of aqua vitae : in another place it is a pint of milk in the form of a pen-full of ink : and in another place it is a pint of milk in the form of a bandelier full of gunpowder . for in these cases it is so altered that it is not milk , it is not the thing we spoke of , and which we supposed to be multiplied : and at the same time though it be neither milk nor measure , yet in the way of transubstantiation it is still a very good pint of milk. these men had better let their contradictions alone , than offer to assoil them , for the doctrine of transubstantiation is perfectly of the nature of birdlime , the more they stir and flutter in it , the faster they are caught . so that this sorry evasion being of the same piece with transubstantiation it self , or rather an aggravation of contradiction , i shall set it aside as if it had never been , and proceed to my intended demonstration . we have not in our minds a clearer and brighter first principle than this is , that , nothing can be present and absent from the same subject at the same time . now the mark of ihs is present to christ's body , being imprinted upon it , and at the same time it is absent from the self-same body , having , instead of ihs , a crucifix upon it ; and therefore the mark of ihs is present to christs body , and absent from the self-same body at the same time , which is impossible . q. e. d. again , god's body in form of bread is not god's body in form of wine ; for if it were , then the form of bread , and the form of wine would be the same ; wine would be bread , and bread would be wine , that is to say , bread would be not bread. but according to the papists , god's body in form of bread , is god's body in form of wine , that is to say , bread is not bread , which is impossible . which was to be demonstrated . . the last head of contradictions arise from this part of the doctrine of transubstantiation , which says , that when the substances of bread and wine are abolished , and wholly cease to be , still all the accidents of bread and wine are seen to remain without any subject at all . for the substances of bread and wine are departed and gone , and these accidents cannot cleave and be united to the body and blood of christ , and therefore it remains , that in a supernatural way they must subsist of themselves . this is their own infallible doctrine , trid. catech. de euch. sect. . & . in which few words there is plenty of contradictions . for ( st , ) i shall demonstrate , that accidents subsisting without a subject , are substances , that is to say , are not accidents . and because the papists themselves are sensible how absurd and impossible this doctrine of theirs is , therefore they fly to miracle and omnipotency , which is no refuge nor sanctuary for contradictions and impossibilities , as we have already shewn . now the very essence of an accident is to subsist in a subject , and the essence of a substance is to subsist of it self without a subject ; so that if god by his omnipotency should make an accident to subsist of it self without a subject , he would give one and the same single thing two contrary natures : whereby the same thing would be what it is , and would not be what it is ; it would subsist in a subject , and not subsist in a subject at the same time , which is impossible . q. e. d. i have been beholden to the great philosopher des cartes , a man of their own communion , for this demonstration , and have gathered it out of his answer to the fourth and sixth objections which were made against his meditations , and out of his notes upon the programma of regius , as i suppose . and it has been heretofore no small diversion to me to see how the papists stood on tiptoe , when that great restorer of natural knowledg appeared , expecting whether his new philosophy would favour their old transubstantiation . but when they found that he was not a man for substantial accidents , and such kind of contradictious stuff , dr. arnault of the sorbonne , puts it home to him in the fourth objections , and tells him , that according to his philosophy , the doctrine of the church concerning the sacrament of the altar could not remain safe and sound ; because it is of faith , that the accidents in the sacrament remain without a subject ; whereas monsieur cartes seemed to hold , ( for he had not as yet spoke out , nor expressed himself fully in that matter ) , that accidents are inseparable from a subject , and that a body , and the affections of that body could not subsist apart , nor be made to exist separately by an infinite power . wherefore monsieur arnauld prays him to take great care , lest that while he is proving a god , and the immortality of the soul , he should endanger that faith by which himself hoped to be saved . here cartes was beset , and forced to declare himself , and therefore was put upon his invention , which was first to contrive a way of solving the appearances of bread and wine which are in the sacrament , by a new hypothesis of the superficies ; which he told them he should more fully make out in his physics : and when he had thus first entertained them with a new hypothesis , then he shews them what impossible absurdities real accidents are , and how full of repugnancy and contradictions ; and that these contradictions made men dissenters from the church of rome . and then he concludes , that he hoped the time would come , when the divines of that church would hiss the doctrine of real accidents out of the world , as an unreasonable , incomprehensible , and unsafe doctrine to be believed ; and that his superficies would be embraced instead of it , as certain and indubitable . monsieur arnault was a man of sense , and therefore i doubt not but he let fall his ears at this answer . and the paris divines sent cartes word afterwards in their sixth objections , scruple the th , that they did not understand his supersicies , and knew not what to make of it : and that though he put them in hope that he would make things plainer in his physics , yet they were inclined to believe they should never part with their old opinion concerning accidents , for his new one . but though they were of this mind , yet we find a very considerable person , epist. vol. . epist. . who had better thoughts of it , and says , that he had happily shewn how the inseparableness of accidents from a substance , might be consistent with the sacrament of the altar ; but then he desires to know of cartes , whether he had bethought himself of a way to reconcile another part of his philosophy with christ's body , being without local extension upon the altar ; for otherwise he would expose to great peril the most sacred thing in the world . upon this cartes stops short , and does not care to give any thing more concerning the sacrament under his hand , but offers to meet him if he pleases , and to tell him his conjectures by word of mouth , ibid. epist. . and was not this a pleasant way of proceeding ? which is in effect as if they had said , sir , you are a great philosopher of our own church , you know we hold the doctrine of transubstantiation , and you your self hope to be saved by it ; see therefore what can be done for it , pray make it as reasonable as you can . it is too like the comical story of the woman , who after she had eaten pig in smithfield , went to rabbi buisy , and prays him to make the eating of pig as lawful as he can . and is it not likewise a neat turn , to quiet them with his doctrine of the superficies ? now the superficies is much such another rationale of transubstantiation , as the following argument is a proof of purgatory . if there be one whose words are recorded in scripture , who when he died went neither to heaven nor hell , then there is such a middle place as purgatory ; but there is one whose words are recorded in scripture , &c. ergo. i have seen a papist catch at this syllogism very greedily , and as impatient to know who that one was , as if he would presently have gone a converting with the argument . but he was as blank when he was told that it was baalam's ass , as i fancy dr. arnault was , when he had read and considered the long story of the superficies ; which , i believe , never yet drew one of those back again to the church of rome , whom cartes complains the doctrine of real accidents drove away . . this proposition , nihili nullae possunt esse affectiones , that nothing cannot possibly have any qualities or affections , is a necessary and everlasting truth ; and it is so clear and self-evident , that all words and discourse about it would but darken the natural light which is in it . now a wafer or singing cake is an extended , round , white substance , having all the qualities and affections of bread ; and when this substance ( a ) wholly ceases to be , it is nothing . but if the extension , roundness , whiteness , and all the bready qualities of it still remain , then at the same time there do remain the extension , the roundness , the whiteness , and the bready qualities or affections of nothing , which is impossible . and that nothing , whose extension , roundness , whiteness and bready qualities are still remaining , is an extended , round , white and bready nothing ; which are so many contradictions and impossibilities . q. e. d. i see that i must either break off abruptly , or never have done . for i find the dividing of the accidents of a wafer into parts , which is one of the operations performed in the mass ; and with the self-same division , the dividing of christ's body into wholes ; and many more of their absurdities coming thick into my head ; and therefore i will here conclude in time . all these demonstrations hitherto are arguments to all mankind . i have now an argument or two ad hominem , or to the papists themselves . and i st , by their own infallible doctrine of concomitancy i shall demonstrate , that there has been never a god's-body , as they call it , upon earth these years ; provided they will allow me , first , that christ's body has been in heaven these years . and ly , that heaven and earth are different and distant places . i reckon that infallibility her self , either has granted me both these postulata already , in these following words , tr. cat. de euch. sect. . but it is plainly impossible , that the body of christ should be in the sacrament , by coming out of one place into another , for so it would come to pass , that the body of christ would be absent from its seat in heaven ; ( now i presume , if it has not been absent from its seat in heaven , to come and be present in the sacrament these years , it has not been absent upon any other account ) : or else i reckon that because the things demanded are very reasonable , she will not now stick at the granting of them . now the rule of concomitancy is this , tr. cat. de euch. sect. . si enim duo aliqua inter se reipsa conjungantur , ubi unum ' sit , ibi alterum etiam esse necesse est . if any two things are really joined together , where the one is , there of necessity the other must be also . that is to say , it is impossible for it to be in any other place . but no two things in the world are more really joined together , than one and the same thing is with it self ; and if it were not so , no one thing could be really joined to another . the union of one and the same thing with it self , is the most close and intimate that can be , and consequently the concomitancy must be the strictest . nay the very reason , ground , bottom , and foundation of the rule of concomitancy is this , because from two single things really joined together , there results one compound . the union is the cause of the concomitancy , becaufe it is impossible for the same thing to be divided from it self . so that if two things which are really joined together , must always of necessity keep company together , then it is utterly impossible for one and the same thing to straggle from it self , but it must ever be its own individual companion . from these premises i say , that christ's body having been in heaven these years , if in that space of time it has been upon altars here on earth , then it has not been at the same time where it has been , but it has broken the rule of concomitancy , and has strangely straggled from it self ; which is impossible . q. e. d. i have studied with all the application of mind of which i am capable , to forecast in my thoughts what fault the papists would find with any of the former reasonings , or with this last in particular , and cannot foresee nor imagine any . for though we should allow christ's body to be independent of place , or to have any other impossible prerogatives which they list to invent , yet still this body must be subject to the rule of concomitancy , because they themselves are forced to make use of it , to prove that the body of christ is under the species of wine , and that the blood of christ is under the species of bread ; and it is the only proof they have . now if of necessity the body must be by concomitancy where the blood is , then by an antecedent necessity the blood must be where the blood is ; for the blood 's being there , is the cause of the bodies being there likewise . so the body being under the form of bread , is the reason that the blood is there also ; but then to be sure the body must be there . from whence , as i shewed before , it undeniably follows , that christ's body is only in heaven ; or else it is not where it is , which overthrows the very foundation of concomitancy . . the second argument shall be drawn from their form of consecration , for this is my body , being the words of our saviour from whence they have wrested the doctrine of transubstantiation . now to give them a samplar of their own , and to shew them how they themselves interpret scripture , i say that it appears by the very words of consecration , that the priest himself is also transubstantiated ; for the body is christ's , and yet the priest says it is my body , which cannot be true , unless the priest and christ be the same : and that cannot be , but by an admirable change and conversion , which the holy catholick church has conveniently and properly named transubstantiation . no , say the papists in great anger , there is no such change at all , for the priest only stands for christ , and a sustains his person ; he only represents him in that action , and is in christ's stead ; so that we are not to look upon the priest in that solemn action as friar john , but as christ himself . and therefore the priest may say with truth , this is my body , tho literally and properly , and in strictness of speech , it is christ's body , and not his. to which i again reply . why this is the very exposition of these words of our saviour , for which the hereticks have all along been burnt , namely , this bread stands for my body , and represents it in this action ; it is instead of my body , and bears the character of it ; and you are not so much to consider it as bread , but to look upon it as the representation of my body , which is given for you . and therefore with truth i can say it is my body , though literally and properly , and in strictnefs of speech , it is bread , and not my natural body . now therefore let the papists give or take . either the bread is not transubstantiated ; or if it be , by virtue of the self-same words the priest is transubstantiated too . for every word in the prolation with one breath , ( except the word enim , sect. . ) does operate as well as signifie , and does what it says , and therefore if the word corpus be effectual to make it a body , then the word meum makes it the priests body . the wit of man cannot find an evasion , and i doubt not but i am able to maintain this argument against all the popish priests in the world . for all the advantage lies clearly on the protestant side . for our saviour visibly took bread , and gave it the office of representing him , and made it the figure of his body , as tertullian's word is ; he erected it as a standing memorial to be used in remembrance or commemoration of him , as s. luke's word is ; to shew forth his death till he come , as s. paul speaks . 't is true , he commanded his disciples to repeat the same action , and to do as he had done ; but where did he bid the priest to personate him ? that he gave us the bread by the name of his body , three of the four gospels witness , and by the name of his broken body , s. paul witnesses ; but where did he ever say , that he himself would always sacrifice himself by the priests hands , and say , hoc est corpus meum , to the end of the world , by the priests mouth ? and further , there is not one word which the papists have said in behalf of the bread being transubstantiated , but holds as strongly for the priests being transubstantiated ; which makes full as much for the dignity and majesty of the sacrament , for the abasing and mortifying of our deceivable senses , and for the improving and exalting our faith , and making it meritorious , as the other can . we have gained such considerable advantages by the foregoing part of our discourse , that now we are able unalterably to renounce the doctrine of transubstantiation . for having demonstrated the impossibility of it , we have thereby demonstrated , that though heaven and earth should pass away , yet that doctrine can never be true. we have likewise at the same time demonstrated the protestant exposition of those words of our saviour , this is my body , to be the true and necessary sense of them ; for either there is a change of the bread into the body of christ , or there is not : but because such a change is an utter impossibility , as we have abundantly proved , therefore it remains , that the protestant doctrine , which asserts there is no such change , is demonstrably true. we have also made it as clear as the light , that neither the letter of a divine revelation , nor the pretence of an infinite power , nor any thing in the world can support one single contradiction ; because if one single contradiction could stand , it would destroy the very being of god himself , and deprive the world of the adorable object of all religion . for supposing it impossible for a being of necessary existence to exist , which is but supposing a contradiction , and we have immediately lost the author of all divine revelation ; and not only so , but the whole universe likewise must presently sink into nothing , or rather indeed it could never have been at all . but more particularly we shall find the benefit of the former demonstrations in the short remainder of our present discourse , for they will add to what we have further to say against transubstantiation all the force and strength which demonstration can give . costerus the jesuit acknowledges , ( and i suppose all papists with him ) that if the bread be not changed into the body of christ , the worship of the host is gross idolatry ; but we are past all iss and and 's , and have demonstrated that there can be no such change of the bread into christ's body : and consequently we have demonstrated , that the papists in worshipping of the host , are guilty of gross idolatry , and the best friends they have in the world cannot free them from it . so likewise it can be no longer a moot-point , or a disputable matter , whether it be criminal to call the host their lord god , their maker , their former , and their creator ; when we have demonstrated that it cannot be so , and that it is only a bit of bread ; and to affirm bread to be a god , if it be not blasphemy , it wants a name in our language . in short , that can never be a divine mystery which is not in a possibility of being a divine truth : and consequently the mystery and miraculousness of transubstantiation , which has been the old and dark stronghold of popery , is utterly demolished : and the papists having lost that shelter , not only all the absurdities of their belief concerning it will fall upon them with their whole weight , but also all their absurd practices in reference to it , to which i shall now proceed . . the second general head is of practical absurdities , by which i mean such unreasonable and unworthy actions , as are done by the papists in pursuance of their doctrine of transubstantiation . and here i can by no means charge them with eating their maker , or eating man's flesh , and drinking man's blood in the sacrament : for i have shewn it to be impossible for them to do either of these . but yet because they intend and profess to do both , perhaps the guilt is no less than if they really did them . and the absurdity of their practice in this behalf is very equally matched with the absurdity and contradictiousness of their belief . for as they hold the sacrament to be the natural body of christ , and yet say it is in several places at once , and is made at several times , and is in the form of bread , whereby it appears to be not the natural body of christ , but a piece of bread ; wherein they say and unsay at once : so likewise they worship and serve , and pray to that which i have demonstrated to be a bit of bread , as if it were a god , and immediately they undo all that they have done , and treat him not at all like a god , but eat him up as if he were a bit of bread. so also they say expresly , that the common nature of mankind abhors the eating of man's flesh , and drinking of man's blood , and yet they eat and drink that , of which they say they have greater assurance that it is man's flesh , and man's blood , than the testimony of all their senses can give them . but omitting these things , and the great indignity which is offered to our blessed saviour by such like practices , i shall ( i st ) take notice of their idolatry in worshipping a piece of bread as if it were god himself . and this practice is unavoidable idolatry if the doctrine of transubstantiation should chance to be false : and if it be not false , then a thousand millions of contradictions must be all of them true . so that if the apostles rent their clothes , when the lycaonians said that the gods were come down in the likeness of men , and were going to give them divine honour ; surely they would hardly spare their flesh , but rend that too , if they should be shewn more than an hundred god almighties together in the form of bread , and should see divine worship paid to them : especially , since the apostles evangelized men to turn away from idolatry to the living god who made heaven and earth ; if moreover the papists should plead gospel for their idolatry , and say that they were evangelized into it . i have often thought what st. paul and barnabas would have said and done in that case . but what they then cried out and said to the lycaonians , sirs , why do ye these things ? for we are men of like passions with you ; methinks the host it self says as loud every day to the papists . sirs , why do ye these things ? for i am no object of worship , but like another piece of bread. i have all the properties , and am subject to all the casualties of any other bit of bread : for either i am presently eaten and swallowed down as any other bread is , or else if i be kept , i grow stale and mouldy . i am put into a box for fear of mischances , for if the mouse gets me , i am gone . alas , i am bread , i am no god. thus to my apprehension the host it self continually cries out and reasons with them . and oh would to god that they would consider to as good purpose as the lycaonians did ! i should be content to endure great hardships to see that happy day . . the reproach which is done to our saviour in the worshipping of the host is intolerable . for would it not be an unsufferable affront to the majesty of earthly princes , to take a bundle of rags , and place it in the throne , and serve it upon the knee , and cry , god save the king , and treat it in every respect like a crown'd head ; and to destroy every good subject that would not join in this contumelious pageantry ? and is it nothing for the great god of heaven to be used in a more reproachful manner ? for i appeal to all mankind , considering the infinite distance there is betwixt the persons , whether it be not a less scorn and indignity to set up a king of clouts , than a breaden god ? a contemptible crumb of dough , which is kneaded , and baked , and crossed , and muttered into the most high god , god over all , blessed for evermore ? i might descend to many more particulars , and enlarge upon them , but this has already been done by learneder hands . and now , o ye papists , i have discharged my conscience ; for it has troubled me that i had not long since laid these things plain and open before you : and if i knew how to incline you to consider them , i would not think much to kneel down at your feet . but if you will not consider them with that evenness of mind which is always necessary to conviction , but rather will consider them with that prejudice and indignation which shall put you upon contradicting and objecting , and using all your subtilties and evasions ; then i beg of you to do this throughly , and spare me not . for i have written this discourse only for the honour of god , and out of love to truth , which never loses any thing by being tried and examined , but still comes the brighter out of the fire . it is the cause of god my saviour who died for me , and i am willing to spend the remainder of my days in it , or lay down my life for it , even which of the two he shall please . and as for you , o ye protestants , you have great reason to bless god , that you were born into the world since the reformation ; whereby you enjoy the benefit of having god's own book in your own vulgar tongue : and thereby are taught to know god and his creatures asunder , and have learnt to distinguish our saviour christ from his sacraments , and to know your maker from a bit of bread. who have the advantage of reading god's pure word , without either romish comments or rhemish annotations which overthrow the text. who are allowed to see with your own eyes , that if scripture should be so forced and wrested as the papists have used it in this case , then we must all be anthropomorphites , and either believe that god is of human shape , or else give him the lye i know not how oft . for the right hand of god , and many other bodily parts of him , are ten times oftner asserted in scripture , than this is my body . if the papists say , that the scripture in affirming that god is a spirit , does sufficiently rectifie all such blockish mistakes ; i say so too : and withal , that our saviour has done abundantly more to prevent and foreclose the no less blameable mistake concerning transubstantiation . for after he had called the cup his blood , he afterwards again called it the fruit of the vine ; and after his resurrection it self , he gave his disciples this test to judg and discern his body , and to know it by , luke . . behold my hands and my feet , that it is i my self : handle me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have . from whence we are bound to conclude , that where we cannot see hands and feet , where we cannot see and feel flesh and bones , where we cannot handle and see christ's body , there it is not he himself : well may there be some sign , or token , or memorial of his body , but it cannot be he himself . i shall not stand to enquire whether this be the criterion to know human bodies from those bodies which angels heretofore assumed ; but we are sure that these are infallible marks to know our saviour's body by , and that is all our present business . but as for the noise they have lately made about our saviour's surprizing the disciples , and entring into the room , when the doors were shut , there never was any thing more incongruous than the sense which the papists have put upon that place , as if our saviour had passed through the doors . for there were two things , as appears by the scripture , which disturbed the disciples ; first , that a person should come into the room without knocking or giving them any warning , when they had made all fast , and kept themselves close for fear of the jews : and the second was , that he entred in such a manner as made them apprehend him to be a spirit . now how did ever angels or spirits enter into a room , or st. peter come out of prison under the conduct of an angel , but by the doors opening before them of their own accord , and shutting again after them ? as in the case of all the apostles , where the officers found the prison shut with with all safety , act. . . and i never yet heard or read of angel or spirit , which entred a room through crannies or keyholes , or through inch-boards . but let that be as it will , if our saviour had entred in any such manner , it had absolutely overthrown the criterion which he gave them at the same time to judg of his body , and to demonstrate that he was not a spirit . for common sense would have taught the disciples to reply , it is true indeed , whatever you are , man or spirit , that you have now a gross human body , and we cannot deny it ; but that , it seems , is only when you please , for you had not such a one a while ago , when you were pleased to come in at the keyhole ; whereas there was nothing at all of this , but they knew and owned him , and were glad to see the lord. but to conclude , is not this a very pertinent proof of transubstantiation , when the doctrine of transubstantiation asserts a thing quite contrary to the passing through doors ? for it asserts that our saviour's body is present in a room , not by being translated , or by passing out of one place into another , but by being produced in all fresh places , and by being within doors , and without doors , at the same time. in short , o my protestant country-men , you see what infinite reason there is , that you should for ever renounce transubstantiation ; for otherwise you owe your saviour but little service , if you will not do him so much right as to say , that he is not a bit of bread. and there is the same reason that you should renounce that church , which employs her infallibility in contradicting the plainest scripture ; in defacing those eternal truths which are deeply engraven upon the minds of men ; and in doing the utmost dishonour to our saviour , by making his religion the scorn of mankind . what averroes said , is recorded by papists ; and is too well known to be repeated upon this occasion ; and for my part i should take it much more patiently to be forced to believe that i my self am a wafer , than that a wafer is my god. so that the blessed martyrs were infinitely in the right , to stake down their lives against this doctrine ; for they plainly saw that it was not a moot point , or a disputable matter , ( against which no wise man would lay down an hair of his head ) ; but they saw that it was a bottomless pit of falshood , which swallows up all the natural and theological verities which ever came from god. and he that dies for so much important truth , most certainly dies for god. you see moreover that the papists are very ill holpen up , when they have recourse to the almighty power of god , to support their doctrine of transubstantiation : for for that very reason , because he is almighty , he is infinitely removed from the imperfection of making an endless number of impossible falshoods . shall that nonsense and inconsistency , which it is a very great imperfection even in imperfect creatures to affirm , be a perfection to make ? no certainly ; for the farther any thing is from truth , the farther it is from god. lastly ; you see what a thick and palpable darkness overspreads the papacy , when you , through the undeserved distinguishing mercy of god , have light in your dwellings . you are happy , if you know your own happiness , and are not weary of it . while you have the light , rejoice in it , and walk worthy of it , and then god will continue it to you and to your posterity . so be it . finis . books lately printed for w. rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented , in answer to a book , intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . third edition . an answer to a discourse , intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants . to . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences between the representer and the answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply ; in which are laid open some of the methods by which protestants are misrepresented by papists . quarto . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , in two parts . sermons and discourses , some of which never before printed : the third volume . by the reverend dr. tillotson , dean of canterbury . vo . a new and easie method to learn to sing by book . a book of cyphers or letters reverst . a perswasive to frequent communion in the sacrament of the lord's supper . by john tillotson , dean of canterbury . in vo . price d. a discourse against transubstantiation . in vo . pricc d. the state of the church of rome when the reformation began . a letter to a friend , reflecting on some passages in a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of his first letter to mr. g. the reflecters defence of his letter to a friend , against the furious assaults of mr. i. s. in his second catholic letter . in four dialogues . . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . the protestant resolved : or , a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of his turning roman catholick for salvation . the d edition . a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry ; in which the bishop of oxford's true and only notion of idolatry is considered and confuted to . a letter to the superiours , ( whether bishops or priests ) which approve or license the popish books in england , particularly to those of the jesuits order , concerning lewis sabran a jesuit . a preservative against popery ; being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . in two parts . a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery . a discourse concerning the nature , unity and communion of the catholick church ; wherein most of the controversies relating to the church , are briefly and plainly stated . the first part. to . these four last by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e resp. ad . obj. art. . notes for div a -e see the book of marryrs in q. marie's reign . a conficiunt christicorpus & sanguinem catech. trid. de euch. ss . . edit . lngdun . . † catech. trid. de euch. sect. . † sect. . ipsa se , nulla alia re nisa , substentant . || sect . nam cum a communi hominum natura maxime abhorreat humanae carnis esca , &c. † sect. sect. . † coroll . . * trent . cat. de euch. sect. . admirabili integumento . a translated into english , and printed at london . b school of the eucharist , pag. , , , . . &c. c preface to the school of the eucharist , pag. . a sect. . ut omnino esse desinant . a sect. . personam suscipiunt personam gerens . of transubstantiation, or, a reply to a late paper, call'd a full answer to dr. tenison's conferences concerning the eucharist tenison, thomas, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing t estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) of transubstantiation, or, a reply to a late paper, call'd a full answer to dr. tenison's conferences concerning the eucharist tenison, thomas, - . sheet ([ ] p.) printed for ric. chiswell ..., london : . broadside. caption title. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng full answer to dr. tenisons conferences, concerning the eucharist. transubstantiation. broadsides -- england -- london -- th century - tcp assigned for keying and markup - aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images - mona logarbo sampled and proofread - mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion of transubstantiation : or , a reply to a late paper , call'd , a full answer to dr. tenison's conferences concerning the eucharist . these transubstantiators , it seems , are as apt to fancy one man , as one thing to be another ; hence it is , that they have turn'd the publisher of the six conferences , lately put out , into a french man ; for such a one , i am assur'd , was the author of those dialogues . and therefore both this gentleman , and his friend , who , he says , was so good at guessing , must guess again . transubstantiation is a doctrine so absurd and groundless , that a man can never want arguments against it . but protestants sensible of the goodness of their cause , will sometimes give overplus in reasoning with their adversaries ; and when they have prov'd that there is no such doctrine as that of transubstantiation , reveal'd , they next endeavour to shew ex abundanti , that 't is impossible it shou'd ; if it were never so possible it shou'd , yet it does not follow that it is . nor can papists ever prove it , till they first prove themselves infallible in interpreting scripture . for , as for those words , this is my body , which is broken for you ; 't is evident that they lye much more easy and naturally to be interpreted in the protestant than popish sense , as some of their own authors have been so ingenuous as to confess . so that here is a desperate hard task still lying upon 'em , were it granted possible that such a thing shou'd be reveal'd . but that that is impossible , may be thus made out . it cannot be reveal'd , but by giving us greater evidence to think it true , than we have to think it false . now we prove it false by the clear evidence , both of sense and reason . of sense , because all our senses tell us , that that is bread , which if their doctrine be true , is not bread , but the body of a man. of reason , because that faculty does assure us as much as it can of any thing , that one and the same body cannot be in several places at once , nor the whole body of a man crowded into the compass of a pins head , and that still divisible into a great many more whole bodies , &c. but here the papists stop us short , catching at one part of the argument . for , sense , say they , may deceive us as it did abraham , who thought he saw men , when he saw angels : and why then , if god will have it so , may not we see the body of christ indeed , when we think we see bread ? i answer , they that appear'd to abraham in the th of genesis , for ought that can be prov'd , did for that time assume the real bodies of men ( it shou'd seem so by their eating . ) and abraham's senses could only tell him that they did appear like men. if he thereupon concluded immediately that they were men , he erred , and was led into the error by his senses , which no one ever denied , but a man might be . but he might know ( and did , 't is like , upon a little reflection ) that the eye alone was not sufficient to inform him at all times , whether what looked like a man , was one , because an angel might assume and actuate a humane body . however , it is certain , that to the making up of that creature which we call a man , there goes something more than what is visible to the eye , viz. a humane soul. and whether that were there or no , or an angel in the room of it , was more than abraham could certainly discern by his senses . but there is not the same case in seeing of a piece of bread , because there is no ground to think there is any thing in a piece of bread , more than what is discernable by sense . to talk of a substance distinct from the colour , tast , smell , and from the very quantity and dimensions also , is but a piece of scholastick nonsence . a body has the name of bread given it , because its matter or quantitative dimensions ( which is all one ) have such a certain colour , tast , smell , &c. from the concurrence or combination of which , we english men agree to call it bread , the latins panis . now to say , that a body having all these , whence by general consent it is wont to be called bread , yet is not bread ; is all one , as to say , that bread is not bread , which ●s nonsence and a contradiction , and we take transubstantiation to be so , from one end to the other . suppose a man shou'd come and shew me a little black dog , and shou'd face me down that it was no dog , but the city of rome , nay , and that that whole city was not onely crowded into so little a compass , but that , cut him into never so many pieces , still every bit was the whole city of rome . if , i say , a man shou'd come and tell me thus , sure this gentleman would give me leave to think he was out of his wits . but suppose then such a man as xaverius , who a. pulton says had the gift of tongues ( tho' he himself complains sadly in one of his epistles that he had it not , and knew not what to do for want of it , ep. iapan . . p. . ) and raised twenty five persons from the dead : suppose , i say , he shou'd come and work all these miracles which a. pulton believes he did work , in my sight , and so as to convince me of the truth of them , and when he had done , shou'd tell me he wrought all these to convince me that that same black cur was no dog , but the whole city of rome , &c. as before . in this case , and upon this mad impossible supposition ( for such we must make , if we would draw a parallel right ) tho' i were never so much convinced of the truth of his miracles before , yet i must needs tell him , sir , you do but confound me . i believed your miracles to be true , because they seemed so when i had examined them by sense and reason as well as i cou'd . but if this intolerable absurdity be that which you wou'd prove by 'em , then i find my sense and reason signify nothing . and believe you , i cannot after all ; because i have as great , if not greater evidence that this is but a dog still , than i had , or could have of the truth of your miracles . now let him shew that can , that in this supposition i have made , there are greater absurdities than what are in transubstantiation . but to make it a parallel case betwixt an angel sometimes appearing in humane shape , and not being discern'd from a man by the eye , and a bit of bread being turn'd in ten thousand places , into the same natural body of our saviour , and every bit of it into the whole body ; and yet to all mens senses appearing to be nothing in the world but bread still ; this certainly is a great extravagance . and i must tell this gentleman , that whereas he says it might have been said to abraham , ask your eyes , ask your nose , ask your hands — they will all tell you , 't is a man you see ; herein he says more than he can prove . for we have no reason to think that abraham did either smell to , or feel the angels ; and unless the angels did really take humane bodies , i suppose , feeling wou'd have discovered the truth ; because our saviour says , handle me and see , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have . but this gentleman charges the doctor ( his falsly supposed author of the conferences ) with great ignorance in logick , for reasoning in this manner . if our senses deceive us in the report they make of the eucharist , they may as well deceive us in every thing else . now i confess i see no ill logick in this ; for the sequel is easily proved thus ; because our senses report nothing with clearer evidence than they do in this matter of the eucharist . and how , i pray , is there here an universal drawn from a particular ? as for comparing transubstantiation with the trinity , i wou'd desire this gentleman to answer what has been already written in some dialogues lately printed on that subject . or let him but shew us as good scripture-proof for transubstantiation , as there is for the trinity ; and try next whether he can load the doctrine of the trinity , as deliver'd in scripture , with as many absurdities as follow from transubstantiation ; and then it will be time to consider , whether we had best believe transubstantiation , or turn socinians . but this will be a long while a doing . in the mean time it is denied that the doctrine of the trinity does at all contradict that maxime , quae conveniunt in un tertio conveniunt inter se , in the true sence of it . as for this gentleman's way of dealing with an infidel , to make him believe transubstantiation ; i must tell him , that if his infidel understood himself , it will prove insufficient . for , . whereas he says that they agree , god sees truths which we cannot understand , and that he can reveal those truths ; his infidel may tell him , that if there be any truths repugnant to the first principles of all humane knowledg , god must give us other faculties , before he can reveal such truths to us . and , . that he can never make it appear , that the moral evidence he talks of , is equal to the moral evidence we have of the falsity of transubstantiation . lastly , as for the threatning conclusion , that the doctor may chance to smart for attempting the destruction of their church ; if he means in this world , let him say it plainly : if he means in the next , he might know we fear not that upon this account . all the danger we fear for opposing that church ( in this way of disputation and reasoning ) is wholly in this world ; in the other we believe they will be more in danger to suffer for defending it . imprimatur , nov. . . guil. needham . london : printed for ric. chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard . m dc lxxxviii . the demonstration of antichrist. by edmund gurnay, bach. theol. p. of harpley norfolke gurnay, edmund, d. . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a stc estc s this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) the demonstration of antichrist. by edmund gurnay, bach. theol. p. of harpley norfolke gurnay, edmund, d. . [ ], , [ ] p. printed by i[ohn] b[eale] for iames boler, and are to be sold at the signe of the marigold in pauls churchyard, london : . printer's name from stc. cf. folger catalogue, which gives signatures: a¹² b⁶. running title reads: ecce antichristum. reproduction of the original in the henry e. huntington library and art gallery. tightly bound. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -- controversial literature -- early works to . transubstantiation -- early works to . popes -- primacy -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images - john pas sampled and proofread - john pas text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the demonstration of antichrist . by edmvnd gvrnay , bach. theol. p. of harpley norfolke . london , printed by i.b. for iames boler , and are to be sold at the signe of the marigold in pauls churchyard . . to the all-hopefvll charles , by the grace of god , prince of wales , &c. it is the glorie of all temporall power to maintaine the glory of christ , and so consequently to confound antichrist , when , therefore , the prouidence of god sends temporall princes into the world , such as can giue any intelligēce toward the discouering this antichrist , cannot be thought ouerhastie in presenting the same vnto them . indeed , the intelligence which this little booke can do in such kind of businesse must needs be thought little ; notwithstanding , it was a little pibble-stone that bored the front of goliah , when the valiant men of israel were afraid to encounter him . also the littlenesse of it may be a meanes to induce gods little ones , the sooner to begin to turne the leaues thereof as they shall begin to awake vnto the day-light of vnderstanding . which happy time of our princes awaking , it resoluing to wait ; the author shall in the meane time beseech the almighty to visit him daily with the light of his countenance , and as his abilities shall grow , to allure them into the most pleasant paths of his most royal● seruice . ecce anti-christvm . hee that professeth himselfe the supreme head of the church of christ , and yet forceth men , vpon paine of death , to blaspheme christ , hee is antichrist . because it cannot be imagined how any power vpon earth can more cunningly , and out of a deeper mysterie doe christ such vniuersall mischiefe . but the pope of rome does professe himselfe the supreme head of the church of christ , ( and that is granted ) and yet forceth men vpon paine of death , ( both temporall and eternall ) to blaspheme christ . and this we thus proue : hee that forceth men vpon paine of death to grant , that there is no other christ but he whose perfit body , soule , and deity hath , for these . yeers last past , beene ordinarily present amongst men vnder that particular forme which immediately before the speaking of a few words was the forme of a senselesse creature , and in that forme does enter into the mouthes of liuing creatures ▪ he forceth men to blaspheme christ . because this position does blaspheme , the manhood of christ . the god-head of christ . the maiesty of christ . the holinesse of christ . the iustice of christ . the mercy of christ . the wisdome of christ . the power and word of christ . first , it blasphemes the manhood of christ ; because it giues him such a body as in the outward eyes of those that are present with him hath no more similitude with the body of a man than a chip or a stone . secondly , it blasphemeth his god-head ; because it supposeth the creator to be ordinarily vnited vnto the forme of a creature . thirdly , it blasphemeth his maiesty ; because it giues him such an outward presence as the vilest and poorest man liuing would be ashamed of , and euen vtterly abhorre . fourthly , it blasphemeth his holinesse ; because it supposeth him to goe through more vncleane passages , than euer liuing man did , and such as of necessity do either reiect or corrupt whatsoeuer they receiue . fifthly , it blasphemeth his iustice ; because it affirmeth him to be ordinarily present amongst men , in a forme nothing like a man ; and yet wee must vpon paine of damnation beleeue that he is a perfit man. sixthly , it blasphemeth his mercy ; because it layes this intolerable burthen vpon the faith of little ones , either to looke for no saluation , or to beleeue that thing to be their sauiour which in all outward appearance is but a morsell of bread . seuenthly , it blasphemeth his wisedome ; because it supposeth him to worke daily multitudes of most incredible and most stupendious miracles , for no other purposes but such as are daily effected without any miracles at all : there being no kinde of benefit redounding vnto mankind by this his supposed bodily presence , but such as daily does redound vnto vs in his bodily absence : for daily does hee giue vs the gift of faith in his bodily absence ; daily does he conuerse with men , sup with men , and dwell with men in his bodily absence ; daily does hee giue all kind of gifts vnto men in his bodily absence ; daily does he send the cōforter in his bodily absence ; for the cōforter wil not come vnles he goes away ; ioh. . . yea ( finally ) daily does e giue vs his flesh to eat in his bodily absence ; for except we eat his flesh , we haue no life in vs , ( ioh. . . ) but hee that beleeueth hath euerlasting life ( ioh. . ● . ) and therefore he that beleeueth , does alwayes ( in his most bodily absence ) eat his flesh . to conclude , what benefit , what grace , what comfort was euer heard of , or can be imagined , but may bee imparted vnto men as well ( not to say incomparably more easily , more sweetly , more credibly ) in his bodily absence , as in this supposed bodily presence , wherunto such stupendious miracles must concurre : namely ( for a taste of them ) these amongst others : . that the perfit body of a man must bee couched and contriued into the forme of a bit of bread . . that the liuing body of one man must wholly enter into the mouth of another . that the same man shall be in infinite places at once . . that the perfit body of man shall ordinarily come downe from heauen , and yet the outward eyes of those which entertain him shall not see it . . that these so vncouth wonders shall be wrought at the call of mortall men ( euery priest ) vnto the end of the world , &c. and is not this a blaspheming of the wisedome of the almighty to make him the de●isor of these so inglorious , and ( to say nothing of the quality of them ) insuperfluous miracles . also wee further adde , that it blasphemeth his power ; because it makes it the instrument of such operations as are dishonourable and repugnant vnto his wisdome , his maiesty , his iustice , and euen all his conditions and attributes ; whereas the power of god on the contrary does so infinitely apply it selfe to the honour and glory of god , as that it doth continually resist , confound and destroy whatsoeuer does offer the least diminution vnto it . last of all , it blasphemeth his word ; and that both his created word , and also his reuealed word . for what is his created word , but the faculties of sense & reason ? what word , or what light had man in his innocency , to shew him which was the middle tree in the garden ( which vpon paine of death he was forbidden to taste of ) but his common sense ? and what other word or light haue men now in the state of recouery , to tell them which is a man , and which is a beast ; which is a fish , and which is a serpent ; and to lay them out their particular taskes , portion ▪ and callings , but their common sense ? this therefore so immediately created and sacred light , if it bee made a notorious lyar , ( for what is it else if it constantly affirmes that to bee a morsell of bread which indeed is the perfit body of a man ? ) is not therein the word of god blasphemed ? and as for his reuealed word , both his originall word ( the scriptures ) and also his deriued word ( the fathers ) are not they also contradicted and blasphemed by this position . for first , concerning the scripture , does not that euery where tell vs , that our sauiour was in euery point like a man ? that he had the face , limbs , and properties of a man ? that hee did eat , drinke , and speake like a man ? also doe not the scriptures expresly say , that the heauens must containe him till all things bee restored ? acts . . and that he shall so descend from heauen ; as hee first ascended vp into heauen ? whereas by this position hee hath for these . yeeres continually descended bodily from heauen , not once in such a manner descend , as hee first ascended : yea , the scripture euery where tells vs that now hee is in the state of glory ; whereas this position contriues him into a more vile forme than euer man had , and tyes him to a more base condition than euer any man ( or indeed any liuing creature ) did vndergoe . for though they seeme to doe him great honour while they carry him about ( in those breaden formes ) in their pompous processions ; yer when withall they professe that in the end he is to be eaten vnder those breaden formes , all the honour they bestow on him is no better honour vnto him , then the guilding the buls hornes when hee is led to be baited , is an honour vnto the bull. finally , the bread which our sauiour termed his body , does not the scripture every where call it still bread notwithstanding , he tooke , brake , blessed , and gaue bread , say all the euangelists ; sometime also saying as much of the cup as of the wine : paul also calling it bread , both in the blessing , and in the eating , and also after the eating : and the acts of the apostles terming these communions ( chap. . . ) a continuance in breaking bread : and ( chap. . . ) a comming together to break bread : and all the fathers for many hundred yeeres together immediately following the first institution , when at any time they made mention of it , as securely calling it bread , as if they neuer imagined that any would euer make question thereof . and for proofe hereof , wee haue thought good to close vp this point with a border of citation● out of them ; leauing the force of their sayings to the applicati●●● of the reader for breuity sake . clemens romanus ( to cite them according to the times wherein they liued ) saith thus of it ; we offer vnto thee our king and our god , this bread and this wine , giuing thee thankes : concil . tom. . ignatius thus ; there is one flesh of our lord iesus , and one bloud , one bread and one cup. epist . . iustine martyr thus ; when prayers are finished , bread and wine is offered : and elsewhere thus ; christ hath giuen the bread to the end wee should remember that he was made a body for such as should beleeue . in dial. contra tryphon . and apolog. . irenaeus martyr thus ; as the eucharist consisting of two natures , the earthly and the heauenly , so our bodies , &c. tertullian thus ; calling the bread his body , to the end you may vnderstand that he hath giuen bread to bee a figure of his body . contra marcion . . . clemens alexandrinus thus ; the wine signifies the bloud allegorically . lib. de paedagog . . . origen thus ; if you take this saying , [ except ye eat the flesh of the sonne of man , &c. ] according to the letter , the letter killeth . hom. . in leuit. & elswhere thus ; after we haue giuen thankes , we eat the loues presented . contra celsun . . cyprian thus ; our lord gaue with his owne hands bread and wine , which he called his body . de vnct . chris . and elswhere thus ; this bread is conuerted into our flesh and bloud , and serueth for our life . epist . . eusebius caesariensis thus ; christ and his ministers doe represent the mysteries of his body and bloud by bread and wine . de demonst . euangel . . . athanasius thus ; how few would his body haue sufficed that it should be meat for all the world . in illud [ quicunque &c. ] concilium nicenum thus ; wee must not basely [ humiliter ] be intent vpon the bread and the eup , but lifting vp our mindes by faith , &c. concil . . macarius egypt , thus ; in the church bread and wine is offered being the figure of his flesh and bloud . homil. . epiphanius thus ; christ speaking of a loafe which is round in figure , and cannot see , heare , nor feele , saith of it , this is my body . in anchor . ambrose thus ; thou sawest the sacraments vpon the altar , and wondredst at the creature ; yet is it a solemne and knowne creature : de sacram. . . and elsewhere thus ; in the law was a shadow , in the gospell an image , in heauen the truth . lib. . ex offic . c. . gregory nissen , thus ; whose hath abundantly drunke of the apostles springs , hath already receiued whole christ . in vi● mos . chrysostome thus ; if it be dangerous to transferre sanctified vessels vnto priuate vses , where in not the true body of christ but onely a mysterie of that body is contained : how much les● ought wee to giue the vessels of our owne bodies to the deuil● which god hath prepared for himselfe to inhabit . in matth. . homil. . and elsewhere thus ; it is counted worthy to be called the lords body , though the nature of bread remaineth there still . ad caesar . monach. citat . à ●arijs author . and againe , thus ; wooll when it is died , is called no longer wooll , but purple or scarlet , though the nature of wooll stil remaineth . in psal . . gregory nazianzen thus ; we ●ow partake the passeouer , ●hough in a figure , yet much more cleare than in the old law. de pasch . orat. . hierome thus ; christ is not corporally in the church . in prou , . ● . and elsewhere thus ; christ left bread and wine , as he that goes ●voyage leaues a gage : in prim . ●d corinth . . and againe , thus ; i take the gospel to be the body of christ , and that more truly than the sacrament . in psal . . austine thus ; if we looke to the visible signes , by which the sacraments are performed , who can bee ignorant that they are corruptible . de bapt. lib. . cap. . and elsewhere thus ; by reason of the resemblance betwixt the sacraments and the things , the sacraments often times take the name of the things . epist . . and elsewhere thus ; this is a perfit rule to vnderstand whether a speech be figuratiue , that whatsoeuer in scripture cannot bee referred vnto integrity o● faith , or verity of manners , that resolue thy selfe is figuratiue . d● doctr . chr. lib. . chap. . where upon hee inferres our sauiour speech , [ of eating his flesh ] to be figuratiue , because according to the letter , it is a sinfull act ; calling it a carnall sense to take figuratiue speeches properly , and a miserable bondage of the soule . theodoret thus ; he honoured the signes which we see , with the name of his body , not changing the nature , but casting grace vpon nature . and elsewhere thus ; the mysticall signes after sanctification doe not depart from their nature , but remaine in their former substance , figure , and ●orme . dial. . cyril thus ; our sacrament a●oucheth not the eating of a man. ad obiect . theod. and elsewhere thus ; he gaue peeces of bread to his disciples . in . io●n . gelasius thus ; by the sacraments we are made partakers of the heauenly nature and yet for all that ceaseth not the nature of bread and wine . contra eutichens . fulgentius thus ; how did he goe vp to heauen but as he is very man , contained in a place ? or how is hee present with the faithfull , but as he is very god without all measure ? ad thrasimach . regul . . ephrem thus ; taking bread into his hands , he blessed it , and brake it for a figure of his body . contra inquis . diuin . natur. vigilius thus ; to goe to his father , and from vs ; was to take from the world that nature which he receiued of vs. contra eutichens . concilium constant . thus ; christ commanded the whole substance of bread , chosen for his image to bee set on the table , lest if it resembled the shape of a man , idolatry might bee committed . extat in concil . nicen. . procopius gazeus thus ; there is now giuen an image , a type , a figure of his body , receiuing no more the bloudy sacrifices of the law. super gen. . beda thus ; hee substituting the sacrament of his flesh in the figure of bread and wine . in luk. . and elsewhere out of austine thus ; that which you see , ●is bread and wine , which your very eyes can tell you . in cor. . druthmarus thus ; wine maketh glad , and increaseth blood ; and therfore the blood of christ is aptly figured thereby . in mat. rhabanus maurus thus ; the sacrament is turned into the bodies nourishment . lib. . chap. . paschasius thus ; what finde they which taste these things , beside bread and wine , otherwise than by faith and hearing ? de corp . & sang . dom. bertramus thus ; the signes , as touching the substance of the creatures , are the same after consecration that they were before . de corp . & sang . dom. bernard thus ; what is it to eat his flesh , and drinke his blood , but to communicate with his passions , and to imitate his conuersation . in psalm . [ qui habitat &c. ] bonauenture thus ; the sacraments are said to containe gods grace , not as a vessell does water , but because they signif● gods grace . in . sentent . dis● . . . and his text-man lumbard thus ; christ offered himselfe vpon the crosse , and his remembrance in the sacrament . lib. . dist . . the glosse vpon the common-law ( a principall witnesse in this cause ) thus ; it is his body improperly after a fashion , not in truth but in signification , quoting austine for it . super canon . hoc est corpus meum . decr. p. . dist . . . most true therfore our ground is , that whosoeuer inforceth men vpon paine of death , to grant that there is no other christ but he which is ordinarily present amongst men in the forme of common bread , he forceth men ●o blaspheme christ . all the na●ures , properties , and attributes of christ being blasphemed by ●uch assertion . but the pope of rome does force men vpon paine of death ( both spirituall and temporall ) so to grant : their tridentine councell inforcing it vpon paine of spiritual death , in these words ; viz. whosoeuer shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist , is truly and really contained the body and bloud , together with the soule and diuinity of our lord iesus christ , and therefore whole christ ; but shall say that it is there onely as in a signe , or in a figure , or vertue , let him be accursed . concil . trident. sess . and one of their synode enioyning berengari● thus to say ; with my mouth and with my heart , i profes● that the bread and the wine afte● consecration , is not onely a sacrament , but also the true body and blood of iesus christ , and sensually in truth is handled and broken with the hands of the priests , and torne ( atteri ) with the teeth of the faithfull . decret . p. . dist . . . ego berengarius , &c. and as for temporall death which the gaine-sayer of this position did thereupon vndergoe ; what nation vnder their authority hath not records thereof written in bloud ? not to cite their secular lawes , which condemne all , heretikes ( amongst which , the resister of this position they count the cheefe ) ad poenam ignis : i.e. to bee burnt to death , and to vndergoe all kinde of penalties beside , in their name , friends , fautors , posterity , goods and fortunes that can bee imagined . summa angelica . litera here●icus . or if our english admirers of rome will beleeue nothing concerning the discipline of that church , but so farre forth as they can be assured thereof within the bounds of england ; they may haue recourse to the six articles established in english parliament ▪ the first whereof enacteth thus ▪ whosoeuer shall say , that in the sacrament of the altar vnder the forme of bread and wine ( after the consecration thereof ) there is not present , really , the naturall body and bloud of our sauiour iesus christ ; conceiued of the virgine mary ; or that after the said consecration there remaineth any substance of bread or wine , or any other substance but the substance of christ , both god and man , &c. then he shall be adiudged an heretike , and suffer death by burning , and shall forfeit to the king , all his lands , tenements , &c. as in case of hye reason . an. . hen. . . for though this law was enacted when the popes authority was suppressed , yet did it take the beginning from the church of rome : and a little after , in the reigne of quene mary , was executed to the full , by vertue of the romish authority . our demonstration therefore is most plaine , and let hea●en and earth bee iudge of it . hee that professeth himselfe the supreme head of the church of christ , and yet forceth men ●pon paine of death ( both temporall and eternall ) to blaspheme christ ; hee is antichrist . but the pope of rome so professeth , and so inforceth . therefore en & ecce antichristum . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e circa an. c. p . an. c. ● . an. . an. . an. c. . an. . an. . an. . an. . an . an. . an. . an. . an. . an. . an. . an. . an. . an. . an. . the history of popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed, the catholick doctrin of holy scripture, the ancient fathers and the reformed churches, about the sacred elements, and presence of christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist / written nineteen years ago in latine, by the right reverend father in god, john, late lord bishop of durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death, at the earnest request of his friends. historia transubstantiationis papalis. english cosin, john, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing c estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) the history of popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed, the catholick doctrin of holy scripture, the ancient fathers and the reformed churches, about the sacred elements, and presence of christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist / written nineteen years ago in latine, by the right reverend father in god, john, late lord bishop of durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death, at the earnest request of his friends. historia transubstantiationis papalis. english cosin, john, - . [ ], , [ ] p., leaf of plates : port. printed by andrew clark for henry brome ..., london : . index: p. [ ]-[ ] at end. epistle dedicatory signed by translator: luke de beaulieu. translation of historia transubstantiationis papalis. reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -- controversial literature -- protestant authors. transubstantiation. lord's supper -- real presence. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - ali jakobson sampled and proofread - ali jakobson text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion effiqies . d. joannis corin episcopi : dunelmensis &c the history of popish transubstantiation . to which is premised and opposed the catholick doctrin of the holy scripture , the ancient fathers and the reformed churches , about the sacred elements , and presence of christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist . written nineteen years ago in latine by the right reverend father in god , john , late lord bishop of durham , and allowed by him to be published a little before his death , at the earnest request of his friends . london , printed by andrew clark for henry brome at the gun at the west end of st. paul's , . to the right honourable , heneage lord finch , baron of daventry , lord keeper of the great seal of england . my lord , the excellency of this book answers the greatness of its author , and perhaps the badness of the version is also proportioned to the meanness of the translator . but the english being for those that could not understand the original that they also might be instructed by so instructive a discourse , i hope with them my good intent will excuse my fault ; only my fear is , i shall want a good plea wherewith to sue out my pardon for having intituled a person of the highest honour to so poor a labour as is this of mine . my lord , these were the inducements which set me upon this attempt , it being the subject of the book , to clear and assert an important truth , which is as a criterion whereby to know the sons of the church of england from her adversaries on both hands , those that adore , and those that profane the blessed sacrament ; these that destroy the visible sign , and those that deny the invisible grace : i thought i might justly offer it to so pious and so great a son of this church , who own'd her in her most calamitous condition , and defends her in her happy and most envied restauration . i was also perswaded that the translation , bearing your illustrious name , would be thereby much recommended to many , and so become the more generally useful . and i confided much in your goodness and affability , who being by birth and merits raised to a high eminency , yet doth willingly condescend to things and persons of low estate . my lord , i have only this one thing more to alledge for my self : that besides the attestation of publick fame which i hear of a long time speaking loud for you , i have these many years lived in a family where your vertues being particularly known are particularly admired and honoured ; so that i could not but have an extraordinary respect and veneration for your lordship , and be glad to have any occasion to express it . if these cannot clear me i must remain guilty of having taken this opportunity of declaring my self your lorships most humble and most obedient servant luke de beaulieu . the publisher to the reader . it is now nineteen years since this historical treatise was made by the right reverend father in god john cosin , when ( in the time of the late accursed rebellion ) he was an exile in paris for his loyalty and religion's sake ; for being then commanded to remain in that city by his gracious majesty that now is , ( who was departing into germany by reason of a league newly made by the french king with our wicked rebels ) he was also ordered by him , as he had been before by his blessed father , charles the first , a prince never enough to be commended , to perform divine offices in the royal chappel , and to endeavour to keep and confirm in the protestant religion , professed by the church of englang , his fellow-exiles , both of the royal family and others his country-men who then lived in that place . now the occasion of his writing this piece was this : when his gracious majesty had chosen colen for the place of his residence , being solemnly invited , he visited a neighbouring potent prince of the empire , of the roman perswasion ; where it fell out , as it doth usually where persons of different religions do meet ; some jesuits began to discourse of controversies with those noblemen and worthies , ( who never forsook their prince in his greatest straights , but were his constant attendants , and imitators of his ever constant profession of the reformed religion ) charging the church of england with heresie , especially in what concerns the blessed sacrament of the lords supper . they would have it , that our church holds no real , but only a kind of imaginary presence of the body and bloud of christ ; but that the church of rome retained still the very same faith concerning this sacred mystery , which the catholick church constantly maintained in all ages ; to wit , that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and bloud of christ , and right-well called transubstantiation by the council of trent . this , and much more to the same purpose was pronounced by the jesuits , in presence of his majesty and the german prince , with as much positiveness and confidence , as if it had been a clear and self-evident truth owned by all the learned . his sacred majesty , and his noble attendants knew well enough that the jesuits did shamelesly belie the church of england , and that their brags about roman transubstantiation were equally false and vain : but the german prince having recommended to the perusal of those honourable persons that followed the king a manuscript wherein ( as he said ) was proved by authentick authors all that had been advanced by the jesuits . they thought it fit to acquaint the reverend dr. cosin with the whole business , and intreat him that he would vindicate the church of england from the calumny , and plainly declare what is her avowed doctrine and belief about the true and real presence of christ in the blessed sacrament . hereupon our worthy doctor , who was ever ready and zealous to do good , especially when it might benefit the church of god , fell presently to work , and writ this excellent treatise as an answer to the prince's manuscript , that if those worthy persons pleased they might repay his highness kindness in kind : yet notwithstanding the solicitations of those that occasioned it , and of others that had perused it , he would not yield to have it made publick while a few months before he died ; because having composed it for particular friends , he thought it sufficient , that it had been useful to them . but the controversie about the presence of christ in the eucharist , being of late years resumed with much vigour , and even now famous by the learned and eloquent disputes of monsieur claude , minister of the reformed church in paris , and monsieur arnold doctor of sorbon , and others , who moved by their example , have entred the lists . the reiterated and more earnest importunities of his friends obtained at last his consent for the publication of this work ; and the rather , because he thought that the error constantly maintained by the famous doctor of sorbon was by a lucky anticipation clearly and strongly confuted throughout this book , for whatever the fathers have said about the true and real presence of the body and bloud of christ in the sacrament , that stout roman champion applies to his transubstantiation , and then crows over his adversaries supposing that he hath utterly overthrown the protestants cause ; whereas there is such a wide difference , as may be called a great gulf fixed betwixt the true or real presence of christ in the lords supper , and the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into his body and bloud . this last is such a prodigie as is neither taught by scripture , nor possible to be apprehended by faith ; it is repugnant to right reason , and contrary to sense ; and is no where to be found in ancient writers : but the other is agreeable to scripture , and to the analogy of faith ; it is not against reason , although being spiritual it cannot be perceived by our bodily senses , and it is back'd by the constant and unanimous doctrine of the holy fathers . for it makes nothing against it , that sometimes the same fathers do speak of the bread and wine of the holy eucharist as of the very body and bloud of christ , it being a manner of speech very proper and usual in speaking of sacraments to give to the sign the name of the thing signified : and however they explain themselves in other places , when they frequently enough call the sacramental bread and wine types , symbols , figures , and signs of the body and bloud of christ ; thereby declaring openly for us against the maintainers of transubstantiation . for we may safely , without any prejudice to our tenet use those expressions of the ancients which the papists think to be most favourable to them , taking them in a sacramental sense , as they ought to be ; whereas , the last mentioned , that are against them , none can use , but by so doing he necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of transubstantiation , it being altogether inconsistent to say , the bread is substantially changed into the body of christ , and the bread is a figure , a sign , and a representation of the body of christ . for , what hath lost its being can in no wise signifie , or represent any other thing : neither was ever any thing said to represent and be the figure and sign of it self . but this is more at large treated of in the book it self . now having given an account of the occasion of writing and publishing this discourse , perhaps the reader will expect that i should say something of its excellent author : but should i now undertake to speak but of the most memorable things that concern this great man , my thoughts would be overwhelmed with their multitude , and i must be injurious both to him and my readers , being confined within the narrow limits of a preface . but what cannot be done here may be done somewhere else , god willing . this only i would not have the reader to be ignorant of , that this learned man and ( as appears by this ) constant professor and defendor of the protestant religion was one of those who was most vehemently accused of popery by the presbyterians before the late wars , and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them , and forced to forsake his country ; whereby he secured himself from the violence of their hands , but not of their tongues ; for still the good men kept up the noise of their clamorous accusation even while he was writing this most substantial treatise against transubstantiation . john durel . chap. i. . the real , that is , true and not imaginary presence of christ in the sacrament of the lords supper is proved by scripture . and . yet this favours not the tenet of transubstantiation , being it is not to be understood grosly and carnally , but spiritually and sacramentally . . the nature and use of the sacraments . . by means of the elements of bread and wine , christ himself is spiritually eaten by the faithful in the sacrament . . the eating and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the truth and substance of the thing . . the manner of presence is unsearchable , and ought not to be presumptuously defined . . those words which our blessed saviour used in the institution of the blessed sacrament of the eucharist , this is my body which is given for you ; this is my bloud which is shed for you , for the remission of sins , are held and acknowledged by the universal church to be most true and infallible : and if any one dares oppose them , or call in question christs veracity , or the truth of his words , or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them , except he be allowed to make a meer figment or a bare figure of them , * we cannot , and ought not , either excuse or suffer him in our churches : for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by divine scripture . and therefore we can as little doubt of what christ saith , joh. . my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed ; which , according to st. paul , are both given to us by the consecrated elements : for he calls the bread , the communion of christs body , and the cup , the communion of his bloud . . hence it is most evident that the bread and wine ( which according to st. paul are the elements of the holy eucharist ) are neither changed as to their substance , nor vanisht , nor reduc'd to nothing ; but are solemnly consecrated by the words of christ , that by them his blessed body and bloud may be communicated to us . . and further it appears from the same words , that the expression of christ and the apostle , is to be understood in a sacramental and mystick sense ; and that no gross and carnal presence of body and bloud can be maintained by them . . and though the word sacrament be no where used in scripture to signifie the blessed eucharist , yet the christian church , ever since its primitive ages , hath given it that name , and always called the presence of christs body and bloud therein , mystick and sacramental . now a sacramental expression doth , without any inconvenience , give to the sign the name of the thing signified : and such is as well the usual way of speaking , as the nature of sacraments , that not only the names , but even the properties and effects of what they represent and exhibite , are given to the outward elements . hence ( as i said before ) the bread is as clearly as positively called by the apostle , the communion of the body of christ . . this also seems very plain , that our blessed saviour's design was not so much to teach , what the elements of bread and wine are by nature and substance , as what is their use and office and signification in this mystery : for the body and bloud of our saviour are not only fitly represented by the elements , but also , by vertue of his institution really offered to all , by them , and so eaten by the faithful mystically and sacramentally ; whence it is , that he truly is and abides in us , and we in him . . this is the spiritual ( and yet no less true and undoubted than if it were corporal ) eating of christ's flesh , not indeed simply as it is flesh , without any other respect ( for so it is not given , neither would it profit us ) but as it is crucified and given for the redemption of the world ; neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of the thing , that this eating of christ's body is spiritual , and that by it the souls of the faithful , and not their stomachs , are fed by the operation of the holy ghost : for this none can deny , but they who being strangers to the spirit and the divine vertue , can savour only carnal things , and to whom , what is spiritual and sacramental , is the same as if a meer nothing . . as to the manner of the presence of the body and bloud of our lord in the blessed sacrament , we that are protestant and reformed according to the ancient catholick church , do not search into the manner of it with perplexing inquiries ; but , after the example of the primitive and purest church of christ , we leave it to the power and wisdom of our lord , yielding a full and unfeined assent to his words : had the romish maintainers of transubstantiation done the same , they would not have determined and decreed , and then imposed as an article of faith absolutely necessary to salvation , a manner of presence , newly by them invented , under pain of the most direful curse , and there would have been in the church less wrangling , and more peace and unity than now is . chap. ii. , , and , &c. the unanimous consent of all protestants with the church of england , in maintaining a real , that is , true , but not a carnal presence of christ in the blessed sacrament , proved by publick confessions and the best of authorities . . so then , none of the protestant churches doubt of the real ( that is , true and not imaginary ) presence of christ's body and bloud in the sacrament ; and there appears no reason why any man should suspect their common confession , of either fraud or error , as though in this particular they had in the least departed from the catholick faith . . for it is easie to produce the consent of reformed churches and authors , whereby it will clearly appear ( to them that are not wilfully blind ) that they all zealously maintain and profess this truth , without forsaking in any wise the true catholick faith in this matter . . i begin with the church of england ; wherein they that are in holy orders are bound by a law and canon , never to teach any thing to the people to be by them believed in matters of religion , but what agrees with the doctrine of the old and new testament , and what the catholick fathers and ancient prelates have gathered and inferred out of it : vnder pain of excommunication if they transgress , troubling the people with contrary doctrine . it teacheth therefore , that in the blessed sacrament , the body of christ is given , taken and eaten ; so that to the worthy receivers , the consecrated and broken bread is the communication of the body of christ , and likewise the consecrated cup the communication of his bloud : but that the wicked , and they that approach unworthily the sacrament of so sacred a thing , eat and drink their own damnation , in that they become guilty of the body and bloud of christ . and the same church in a solemn prayer , before the consecration prays thus ; grant us , gracious lord , so to eat the flesh of thy dear sonjesus christ , and to drink his bloud , that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body , and our souls washed through his most precious bloud , and that we may evermore dwell in him , and he in us . the priest also , blessing or consecrating the bread and wine saith thus , hear us o merciful father , we most humbly beseech thee , and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine , according to thy son our saviour jesus christ's holy institution , in remembrance of his death and passion , may be partakers of his most blessed body and bloud : who in the same night that he was betrayed took bread , and when he had given thanks , he brake it , and gave it to his disciples , saying , take , eat , this is my body which is given for you , do this in remembrance of me . likewise after supper he took the cup , and when he had given thinks he gave it to them , saying , drink ye all of this , for this is my bloud of the new testament , which is shed for you , and for many for the remission of sins : do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me . the same , when he gives the sacrament to the people kneeling , giving the bread , saith ; the body of our lord jesus christ which was given for thee , preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life . likewise when he gives the cup , he saith , the bloud of our lord jesus christ which was shed for thee , preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life . afterwards , when the communion is done , follows a thanksgiving ; almighty and ever living god , we most heartily thank thee , for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us , who have duly received these holy mysteries , with the spiritual food of the most precious body and bloud of thy son our saviour jesus christ ; with the hymn , glory be to god on high , &c. also in the publick authorized catechism of our church , appointed to be learned of all , it is answered to the question concerning the inward part of the sacrament , that it is the body and bloud of christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lords supper . and in the apology for this church , writ by that worthy and reverend prelate jewel bishop of salisbury , it is expresly affirmed , that to the faithful , is truly given in the sacrament , the body and bloud of our lord , the life-giving flesh of the son of god which quickens our souls , the bread that came from heaven , the food of immortality , grace and truth , and life : and that it is the communion of the body and bloud of christ , that we may abide in him , and he in us ; and that we may be ascertained that the flesh and bloud of christ is the food of our souls , as bread and wine is of our bodies . . a while before the writing of this apology , came forth the dialectick of the famous dr. poinet bishop of winchester ; concerning the truth , nature , and substance of the body and bloud of christ in the blessed sacrament , writ on purpose to explain and manifest the faith and doctrine of the church of england in that point . in the first place it shews , that the holy eucharist is not only the figure , but also contains in it self the truth , nature , and substance of the body of our blessed saviour ; and that those words , nature and substance ought not to be rejected , because the fathers used them in speaking of that mystery . secondly , he inquires whether those expressions , truth , nature , and substance were used in this mystery by the ancients , in their common acceptation , or in a sense more particular and proper to the sacraments ? because we must not only observe what words they used , but also what they meant to signifie and to teach by them . and though with the fathers he acknowledged a difference , betwixt the body of christ in its natural form of a humane body , and that mystick body present in the sacrament , yet he chose rather to put that difference in the manner of presence and exhibition , than in the subject it self , that is , the real body and bloud of our saviour ; being it is most certain , that no other body is given to the faithful in the sacrament than that which was by christ given to death for their redemption . lastly , he affirms , according to the unanimous consent of the fathers , that this matter must be understood in a spiritual sense , banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts . . to bishop poinet succeeded in the same see the right reverend doctors t. bilson and l. andrews , prelates both of them , throughly learned , and great defenders of the primitive faith , who made it most evident by their printed writings , that the faith and doctrine of the church of england is in all things agreeable to the holy scriptures , and the divinity of the ancient fathers . and as to what regards this mystery , the a first treats of it , in his answer to the apology of cardinal alan , and the b last in his answer to the apology of cardinal bellarmine , where you may find things worthy to be read and noted as follows . christ said , this is my body ; in this , the object , we are agreed with you , the manner only is controverted . we hold by a firm belief that it is the body of christ , of the manner how it comes to be so there is not a word in the gospel ; and because the scripture is silent in this , we justly disown it to be a matter of faith : we may indeed rank it among tenets of the school , but by no means , among the articles of our christian belief . we like well of what durandus is reported to have said , [ we hear the word , and feel the motion , we know not the manner , and yet believe the presence : ] for we believe a real presence no less than you do . we dare not be so bold as presumptuously to define any thing concerning the manner of a true presence , or rather , we do not so much as trouble our selves with being inquisitive about it ; no more than in baptism , how the bloud of christ washeth us ; or in the incarnation of our redeemer , how the divine and humane nature were united together . we put it in the number of sacred things or sacrifices , ( the eucharist it self being a sacred mystery ) whereof the remnants ought to be consumed with fire , that is , ( as the fathers elegantly have it ) ador'd by faith , but not searcht by reason . . to the same sense speaks is . causabon , in the epistle he wrote by order from king james to cardinal perron ; so doth also hooker in his ecclesiastical polity , book . § . . john bishop of rochester in his book , of the power of the pope ; r. mountague bishop of norwich against bullinger ; james primate of armach in his answer to the irish jesuit ; francis bishop of eli , and william laud archbishop of canterbury , in their answer to fisher ; c john overall bishop of norwich , and many others in the church of england , who never departed from the faith and doctrine of the ancient catholick fathers , which is by law established , and with great care and veneration received and preserved in our church . . to these also we may justly add that famous prelate antonius de domino archbishop of spalato , a man well versed in the sacred writings , and the records of antiquity ; who having left italy ( when he could no longer remain in it , either with quiet or safety ) by the advice of his intimate friend paulus venetus , took sanctuary under the protection of king james of blessed memory , in the bosome of the church of england , which he did faithfully follow in all points and articles of religion : but being daily vex'd with many affronts and injuries , and wearied by the unjust persecutions of some sour and over-rigid men , who bitterly declaimed every where against his life and actions , he at last resolved to return into italy with a safe conduct . before he departed , he was , by order from the king , questioned by some commissionated bishops what he thought of the religion and church of england , which for so many years he had owned and obeyed , and what he would say of it in the roman court : to this query he gave in writing this memorable answer , i am resolved , even with the danger of my life , to profess before the pope himself , that the church of england is a true and orthodox church of christ . this he not only promised but faithfully performed , for though , soon after his departure , there came a book out of the low countries , falsly bearing his name , by whose title many were deceived even among the english , and thereby moved to tax him with apostacy , and of being another eubolius ; yet when he came to rome ( where he was most kindly entertained in the palace of pope gregory the fifteenth , who formerly had been his fellow-student ) he could never be perswaded by the jesuits and others who daily thronged upon him , neither to subscribe the new-devised-tenets of the council of trent , or to retract those orthodox books which he had printed in england and germany , or to renounce the communion of the church of england , in whose defence he constantly persisted to the very last . but presently after the decease of pope gregory , he was imprisoned by the jesuits and inquisitors in castle st. angelo , where , by being barbarously used , and almost starved , he soon got a mortal sickness , and died in a few days , though not without suspicion of being poysoned . the day following his corps was , by the sentence of the inquisition , tyed to an infamous stake , and there burnt to ashes ; for no other reason , but that he refused to make abjuration of the religion of the church of england , and subscribe some of the lately-made-decrees of trent , which were prest upon him as canons of the catholick faith. i have taken occasion to insert this narration , perhaps not known to many ; to make it appear , that this reverend prelate , who did great service to the church of god , may justly ( as i said before ) be reckoned amongst the writers of the church of england . let us hear therefore what he taught and writ , when he was in england , in his books de rep●b . eccl. lib. . cap. . num. . for a thousand years together ( saith he ) the holy catholick church content with a sober knowledge of divine mysteries , believed soberly , and safely did teach , that in the sacrament duly consecrated , the faithful did own receive , and eat the body and bloud of christ , which by the sacred bread and wine are given to them , but as to the particular manner how that precious body and bloud is offered and given by that mysterious sacrament , the church did humbly and religiously acknowledge her ignorance : the real thing with its effects she joyfully own'd and received , but meekly and devoutly abstained from inquiring into the manner . item ( numb . . ) the true and real body of christ is most certainly and undoubtedly given in the holy sacrament , yet not carnally , but spiritually . again ( numb . . ) i doubt not , but all they that believe the gospel , will acknowledge that in the holy communion we receive the true nature of the flesh of christ , real and substantial . we all teach that the body of christ is present as to its reality and nature , but a carnal and corporal manner of presence we reject with st. bernard , and all the fathers . and in appen . ad ambrosium , numb . . i know and acknowledge that with the bread still remaining bread , the true and real body of christ is given , yet not corporally : i assent in the thing , but not in the manner . therefore though there is a change in the bread , when it brings into the souls of worthy communicants , the true body of christ which is the substance of the sacrament : yet it doth not follow that the bread loseth its own , to become the substance of the body of christ , &c. these , and much more to the same purpose , agreeable to the religion and church of england , and all other protestant churches , you may find in the same chapter , and in a treatise annext to the sixth book , against the famous jesuit , suarez , who had writ against king james , and the errors ( as he calls them ) of the church of england : in the second chapter our prelate proves clearly , according to its title , that those points which the papists maintain against the protestants belong not in any wise to the catholick faith , ( as transubstantiation , &c. ) . as for the opinion and belief of the german protestants , it will be known chiefly by the augustan confession , presented to charles the fifth by the princes of the empire and other great persons . for they teach , that not only the bread and wine , but the body and bloud of christ is truly given to the receivers ; or , as it is in another edition , that the body and bloud of christ are truly present , and distributed to the communicants in the lords supper , and refute those that teach otherwise . they also declare , that we must so use the sacraments , as to believe and embrace by faith those things promised which the sacraments offer and convey to us . yet we may observe here , that faith makes not those things present which are promised ; for faith ( as it is well known ) is more properly said to take and apprehend , than to promise or perform : but the word and promise of god , on which our faith is grounded ( and not faith it self ) make that present which is promised ; as it was agreed at a conference at st. german betwixt some protestants and papists : and therefore it is unjustly laid to our charge by some in the church of rome , as if we should believe , that the presence and participation of christ , in the sacrament , is effected meerly by the power of faith. . the saxon confession , approved by other churches , seems to be a repetition of the augustan : therein we are taught , that sacraments are actions divinely instituted , and that although the same things or actions in common use have nothing of the nature of sacraments , yet when used according to the divine institution , christ is truly and substantially present in the communion , and his body and bloud truly given to the receivers ; so that he testifies that he is in them ; as st. hillary saith , these things taken and received make us to be in christ , and christ to be in us . . the confession of wittemberg , which in the year was propounded to the council of trent , is like unto this : for it teacheth , that the true body and bloud of christ are given in the holy communion , and refutes those that say , that the bread and wine in the sacrament are only signs of the absent body and bloud of christ . . the bohemian confession also , that is of them who by contempt , and out of ignorance , are called by some picards and waldenses , presented to king ferdinand by the barons and nobles of bohemia , and approved by luther , and melancthon , and the famous university of wittemberg , teacheth , that we cought from the heart to believe , and to profess by words , that the bread of the lords supper is the true body of christ which was given for us , and the wine , his true bloud that was shed for us : and that it is not lawful for any person to bring or add any thing of his own to the words of christ , or in the least to take any thing from them . and when this their confession was defamed and abused by some of their adversaries , they answered , that they would ever be ready to refute the calumniators , and to make it appear by strong arguments , and a stronger faith , that they never were , and by gods grace , never would be what their adversaries represented them . . in the same manner , the conciliation of the articles of the lords supper , and the mutual agreement betwixt the churches of the greater and lesser polonia in the synod of sendomiris , we hold together ( say they ) the belief of the words of christ , as they have been rightly understood by the fathers ; or to speak more plain , we believe and confess , that the substantial presence of christ is not only signified in the lords supper , but also that the body and bloud of our lord is truly offered and granted to worthy receivers , together with those sacred signs which convey to us the thing signified , according to the nature of sacraments , and lest the different ways of speaking should breed any contention , we mutually consent to subscribe that article concerning the lords supper which is in the confession of the churches of saxony , which they sent to the council of trent ; and we hold and acknowledge it to be sound and pious . then they repeat the whole article , mentioned and set down a little before . . luther was once of opinion that the divines of basil and strasbourg did acknowledge nothing in the lords supper besides bread and wine . to him bucerus , in the name of all the rest , did freely answer , that they all unanimously did condemn that error ; that neither they , nor the switzers ever believed or taught any such thing ; that none could expresly be charged with that error , except the anabaptists : and that he also had once been perswaded , that luther in his writings attributed too much to the outward symbols , and maintained a grosser union of christ with the bread than the scriptures did allow ; as though christ had been corporally present with it , united into a natural substance with the bread ; so that the wicked as well as the faithful were made partakers of grace by receiving the element : but that their own doctrine and belief concerning that sacrament was , that the true body and bloud of christ was truly presented , given , and received together with the visible signs of bread and wine , by the operation of our lord , and by vertue of his institution , according to the plain sound and sense of his words ; and that not only zuinglius and oecolampadius had so taught , but they also , in the publick confessions of the churches of the vpper germany , and other writings , confest it ; so that the controversie was rather about the manner of the presence or absence , than about the presence or absence it self ; all which bucer's associates confirm after him . he also adds , that the magistrates in their churches had denounced very severe punishments to any that should deny the presence of the body and bloud of christ in the lords supper . bucerus did also maintain this doctrine of the blessed sacrament in presence of the landgrave of hesse and melancthon , confessing , that together with the sacrament we truly and substantially receive the body of christ . also , that the bread and wine are conferring signs , giving what they represent , so that together with them the body of christ is given and received . and to these he adds , that the body and bread are not united in the mixture of their substance , but in that the sacrament gives what it promiseth , that is , the one is never without the other ; and so they agreeing on both parts , that the bread and wine are not changed , he holds such a sacramental union , luther having heard this , declared also his opinion thus , that he did not locally include the body and bloud of christ with the bread and wine , and unite them together by any natural connexion ; and that he did not make proper to the sacraments that vertue whereby they brought salvation to the receivers ; but that he maintained only a sacramental vnion betwixt the body of christ and the bread , and betwixt his bloud and the wine ; and did teach , that the power of confirming our faith , which he attributed to the sacraments , was not naturally inherent in the outward signs , but proceeded from the operation of christ , and was given by his spirit , by his words , and by the elements . and finally , in this manner he spake to all that were present ; if you believe and teach that in the lords supper the true body and bloud of christ is given and received , and not the bread and wine only ; and that this giving and receiving is real and not imaginary , we are agreed , and we own you for dear brethren in the lord. all this is set down at large in the twentieth tome of luthers works , and in the english works of bucer . . the next will be the gallican confession , made at paris in a national synod , and presented to king charles ix . at the conference of poissy . which speaks of the sacrament on this wise : although christ be in heaven , where he is to remain until he come to judge the world , yet we believe that by the secret and incomprehensible virtue of his spirit , he feeds and vivifies us by the substance of his body and bloud received by faith : now we say that this is done in a spiritual manner ; not that we believe it to be a fancy and imagination , instead of a truth and real effect , but rather because that mystery of our vnion with christ is of so sublime a nature , that it is as much above the capacity of our senses , as it is above the order of nature . item , we believe that in the lords supper god gives us really , that is , truly , and efficaciously , whatever is represented by the sacrament , with the signs we joyn the true possession and fruition of the thing by them offered to us : and so , that bread and wine which are given to us , become our spiritual nourishment , in that they make it in some manner visible to us that the flesh of christ is our food , and his bloud our drink . therefore those fanaticks that reject these signs and symbols are by us rejected , our blessed saviour having said , this is my body , and this cup is my bloud . this confession hath been subscribed by the church of geneva . . the envoyes from the french churches to worms made a declaration concerning that mystery , much after the same manner : we confess ( say they ) that in the lords supper , besides the benefits of christ , the substance also of the son of man , his true body , with his bloud shed for us , are not only figuratively signified by types and symbols , as memorials of things absent ; but also , truly and certainly presented , given , and offered to be applied , by signs that are not bare and destitute , but ( on gods part , in regard of his offer and promise ) always undoubtedly accompanied with what they signifie , whether they be offered to good or bad christians . . now follows the belgick confession , which professeth it to be most certain , that christ doth really effect in us what is figured by the signs , although it be above the capacity of our reason to understand which way ; the operations of the holy ghost being always occult and incomprehensible . . the more ancient confession of the switzers , made by common consent at basil , and approved by all the helvetick-protestant churches , hath it , that while the faithful eat the bread , and drink the cup of the lord , they , by the operation of christ working by the holy spirit , receive the body and bloud of our lord , and thereby are fed unto eternal life . but notwithstanding that , they affirm , that this food is spiritual , yet they afterwards conclude ; that by spiritual food they understand not imaginary , but the very body of christ which was given for us . . and the latter confession of the switzers , writ and printed in . affirms as expresly the true presence of christs body in the eucharist , thus : outwardly the bread is offered by the minister , and the words of christ heard , take , eat , this is my body , drink ye all of this , this is my bloud . therefore the faithful receive what christs minister gives , and drink of the lords cup : and at the same time , by the power of christ working by the holy ghost , are fed by the flesh and bloud of our lord unto eternal life , &c. again , christ is not absent from his church celebrating his holy supper . the sun in heaven , being distant from us , is nevertheless present by his efficacy ; how much more shall christ the sun of righteousness , who is bodily in heaven , absent from us , be spiritually present to us by his life-giving virtue , and as he declared in his last supper he would be present , joh. . , . whence it follows that we have no communion without christ . now to this confession , not only the reformed switzers did subscribe , but also the churches of hungary , pannonia , or transilvania , poland , and lithuania , which follow neither the augustan nor bohemian confessions : it was subscribed also by the churches of scotland and geneva . . lastly , let us hear the renowned declaration of the reformed churches of poland , made in the assembly of thoran , whereby they profess , that as to what concerns the sacrament of the eucharist , they assent to that opinion which in the augustan confession , in the bohemian , and that of sendom . is confirmed by scripture . then afterwards in another declaration they explain their own mind , thus saying : . that the sacrament consisteth of earthly things , as bread and wine ; and things heavenly , as the body and bloud of our lord ; both of which , though in a different manner , yet most truly and really , are given together at the same time ; earthly things , in an earthly , corporal , and natural way ; heavenly things , in a mystick , spiritual , and heavenly manner . . hence they in fer , that the bread and wine are , and are said to be , with truth , the very body and bloud of christ ; not substantially indeed , that is , not corporally , but sacramentally and mystically , by vertue of the sacramental union ; which consisteth not in a bare signification or obligation only , but also in a real exhibition and communication of both parts , earthly and heavenly , together at once , though in a different manner . . in that sense they affirm with the ancients , that the bread and wine are changed into the body and bloud of christ , not in nature and substance , but in use and efficacy ; in which respect the sacred elements are not called what they are to sense , but what they are believed and received by faith grounded on the promise . . they deny to believe the signs to be bare , inefficacious , and empty , but rather such as truly give what they seal and signifie , being efficacious instruments and most certain means whereby the body and bloud of christ , and so , christ himself with all his benefits , is set forth and offered to all communicants , but conferred and given to true believers , and by them received as the saving and vivifying food of their souls . . they deny not the true presence of the body and bloud of christ in the lords supper , but only the corporal manner of his presence . they believe a mystical vnion betwixt christ and us , and that , not imaginary , but most true , real , and efficacious . . thence they conclude , that not only the vertue , efficacy , operation , or benefits of christ are communicated to us , but more especially the very substance of his body and bloud , so that , he abides in us , and we in him . . now because great is the fame of calvin ( who subscribed the augustan confession , and that of the switzers ) let us hear what he writ and believed concerning this sacred mystery : his words in his institutions and elsewhere are such , so conformable to the stile and mind of the ancient fathers , that no catholick protestant would wish to use any other . i understand ( saith he ) what is to be understood by the words of christ ; that he doth not only offer us the benefits of his death and resurrection , but his very body , wherein he died and rose again . i assert that the body of christ is really ( as the usual expression is ) that is , truly given to us in the sacrament , to be the saving food of our souls . also in another place , item , that word cannot lie , neither can it mock us ; and except one presumes to call god a deceiver be will never dare to say , that the symbols are empty , and that christ is not in them . therefore if by the breaking of the bread our saviour doth represent the participation of his body , it is not to be doubted but that he truly gives and confers it . if it be true that the visible sign is given us , to seal the gift of an invisible thing , we must firmly believe , that receiving the signs of the body , we also certainly receive the body it self . setting aside all absurdities , i do willingly admit all those terms that can most strongly express the true and substantial communication of the body and bloud of christ , granted to the faithful with the symbols of the lords supper ; and that , not as if they received only by the force of their imagination , or an act of their minds , but really , so as to be fed thereby unto eternal life . again , we must therefore confess that the inward substance of the sacrament is joyned with the visible sign , so that , as the bread is put into our hand , the body of christ is also given to us . this certainly , if there were nothing else , should abundantly satisfie us , that we understand , that christ , in his holy supper , gives us the true and proper substance of his body and bloud , that it being wholly ours , we may be made partakers of all his benefits and graces . again , the son of god offers daily to us in the holy sacrament , the same body which he once offered in sacrifice to his father , that it may be our spiritual food . in these he asserts , as clearly as any one can , the true , real , and substantial presence and communication of the body of christ , but how , he undertakes not to determine . if any one ( saith he ) ask me concerning the manner , i will not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too high for my reason to comprehend , or my tongue to express ; or to speak more properly , i rather feel than understand it : therefore without disputing i embrace the truth of god , and confidently repose on it . he declares that his flesh is the food , and his bloud the drink of my soul : and my soul i offer to him to be fed by such nourishment . he bids me take , eat , and drink his body and bloud , which in his holy supper he offers me under the symbols of bread and wine : i make no scruple , but he doth reach them to me , and i receive them . all these are calvins own words . . i was the more willing to be long in transcribing these things at large , out of publick confessions of churches , and the best of authors ; that it might the better appear , how injuriously protestant divines are calumniated by others unacquainted with their opinions , as though by these words , spiritually and sacramentally , they did not acknowledge a true and well-understood - real presence and communication of the body and bloud of christ in the blessed sacrament ; whereas on the contrary , they do professedly own it , in terms as express as any can be used . chap. iii. . what the papists do understand by christ being spiritually present in the sacrament . . what st. bernard understood by it . . what the protestants . . faith doth not cause , but suppose the presence of christ . . the union betwixt the body of christ and the bread is sacramental . . having now , by what i have said , put it out of doubt , that the protestants believe a spiritual and true presence of christ in the sacrament , which is the reason , that according to the example of the fathers , they use so frequently the term spiritual in this subject ; it may not be amiss to consider in the next place , how the roman church understands that same word . now they make it to signifie , that christ is not present in the sacrament , either after that manner which is natural to corporal things , or that wherein his own body subsists in heaven , but according to the manner of existence proper to spirits , whole and entire in each part of the host : and though by himself he be neither seen , toucht , nor moved , yet in respect of the species or accidents joyned with him , he may be said to be seen , toucht , and moved : and so the accidents being moved , the body of christ is truly moved accidentally , as the soul truly changeth place with the body ; so that we truly and properly say that the body of christ is removed , lifted up , and set down , put on the patent , or on the altar , and carried from hand to mouth , and from the mouth to the stomach ; as berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the roman council under pope nicholas , that the body of christ was sensually toucht by the hands , and broken and chewed by the teeth of the priest . but all this , and much more to the same effect , was never delivered to us , either by holy scripture , or the ancient fathers . and if souls or spirits could be present , as here bellarmine teacheth , yet it would be absurd to say that bodies could be so likewise , it being inconsistent with their nature . . indeed bellarmine confesseth with st. bernard , that christ in the sacrament is not given to us carnally , but spiritually ; and would to god he had rested here , and not outgone the holy scriptures , and the doctrine of the fathers . for endeavouring , with pope innocent iii. and the council of trent , to determine the manner of the presence and manducation of christs body , with more nicety than was fitting , he thereby foolishly overthrew all that he had wisely said before , denied what he had affirmed , and opposed his own opinion . his fear was lest his adversaries should apply that word spiritually , not so much to express the manner of presence , as to exclude the very substance of the body and bloud of christ ; therefore ( saith he ) upon that account it is not safe to use too muc● that of st. bernard , the body of christ is not corporally in the sacrament , without adding presently the above-mentioned explanation . how much do we comply with humane pride , and curiosity , which would seem to understand all things ▪ where is the danger ? and what doth he fear , as long as all they that believe the gospel , own the true nature , & the real and substantial presence of the body of christ in the sacrament , using that explication of st. bernard concerning the manner , which he himself , for the too great evidence of truth , durst not but admit ? and why doth he own that the manner is spiritual , not carnal , and then require a carnal presence , as to the manner it self ? as for us , we all openly profess with st. bernard , that the presence of the body of christ in the sacrament , is spiritual , and therefore true and real ; and with the same bernard , and all the ancients , we deny that the body of christ is carnally either present or given . the thing we willingly admit , but humbly and religiously forbear to enquire into the manner . . we believe a presence and union of christ with our soul and body , which we know not how to call better than sacramental , that is , effected by eating ; that while we eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine , we eat and drink therewithal the body and bloud of christ , not in a corporal manner , but some other way , incomprehensible , known only to god , which we call spiritual ; for if with st. bernard and the fathers a man goes no further , we do not find fault with a general explication of the manner , but with the presumption and self-conceitedness of those who boldly and curiously inquire what is a spiritual presence , as presuming that they can understand the manner of acting of gods holy spirit . we contrariwise confess with the fathers , that this manner of presence is unaccountable , and past finding out , not to be searcht and pried into by reason , but believed by faith. and if it seems impossible that the flesh of christ should descend , and come to be our food , through so great a distance ; we must remember how much the power of the holy spirit exceeds our sense and our apprehensions , and how absurd it would be to undertake to measure his immensity by our weakness and narrow capacity ; and so make our faith to conceive and believe what our reason cannot comprehend . . yet our faith doth not cause or make that presence , but apprehends it as most truly and really effected by the word of christ : and the faith whereby we are said to eat the flesh of christ , is not that only whereby we believe that he died for our sins ( for this faith is required and supposed to precede the sacramental manducation ) but more properly , that whereby we believe those words of christ , this is my body ; which was st. austins meaning when he said , why dost thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth ? believe and thou hast eaten . for in this mystical eating by the wonderful power of the holy ghost , we do invisibly receive the substance of christs body and bloud , as much as if we should eat and drink both visibly . . the result of all this is , that the body and bloud of christ are sacramentally united to the bread and wine , so that christ is truly given to the faithful ; and yet is not to be here considered with sense or worldly reason , but by faith , resting on the words of the gospel . now it is said , that the body and bloud of christ are joyned to the bread and wine , because , that in the celebration of the holy eucharist , the flesh is given together with the bread , and the bloud together with the wine . all that remains is , that we should with faith and humility admire this high and sacred mystery , which our tongue cannot sufficiently explain , nor our heart conceive . chap. iv. . of the change of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ , which the papists call transubstantiation . . of gods omnipotency . . of the accidents of the bread. . the sacramental union of the thing signified with the sign . and . the question is stated negatively and affirmatively . . the definition of the council of trent . the bull of pope pius iv. and the form of the oath by him appointed . the decretal of innocent iii. the assertions of the jesuits . . transubstantiation a very monstrous thing . . it is an article of faith in the church of rome , that in the blessed eucharist the substance of the bread and wine is reduced to nothing , and that in its place succeeds the body and bloud of christ , as we shall see more at large § , and . the protestants are much of another mind ; and yet none of them denies altogether but that there is a conversion of the bread into the body ( and consequently of the wine into the bloud ) of christ : for they know and acknowledge that in the sacrament , by vertue of the words and blessing of christ , the condition , use , and office of the bread is wholly changed , that is , of common and ordinary , it becomes our mystical and sacramental food ; whereby , as they affirm and believe , the true body of christ is not only shadowed and figured , but also given indeed , and by worthy communicants truly received . yet they believe not that the bread loseth its own , to become the substance of the body of christ ; for the holy scripture , and the ancient interpreters thereof for many ages , never taught such an essential change and conversion , as that the very substance , the matter and form of the bread should be wholly taken away , but only a mysterious and sacramental one , whereby our ordinary is changed into mystick bread , and thereby designed and appointed to another use , end , and office than before : this change , whereby supernatural effects are wrought by things natural , while their essence is preserved entire , doth best agree with the grace and power of god. . there is no reason why we should dispute concerning gods omnipotency , whether it can do this or that , presuming to measure an infinite power by our poor ability which is but weakness . we may grant that he is able to do beyond what we can think or apprehend , and resolve his most wonderful acts into his absolute will and power , but we may not charge him with working contradictions . and though gods almightiness were able in this mystery to destroy the substance of bread and wine , and essentially to change it into the body and bloud of christ , while the accidents of bread and wine subsist of themselves without a subject , yet we desire to have it proved that god will have it so , and that it is so indeed . for , that god doth it because he can , is no argument ; and that he wills it , we have no other proof but the confident assertion of our adversaries . tertullian against praxias declared , that we should not conclude god doth things because he is able , but that we should enquire what he hath done ; for god will never own that praise of his omnipotency , whereby his unchangeableness and his truth are impaired , and those things overthrown and destroy'd , which , in his word , he affirms to be ; for , take away the bread and wine , and there remains no sacrament . . they that say , that the matter and form of the bread are wholly abolished , yet will have the accidents to remain : but if the substance of the bread be changed into the substance of christs body , by vertue of his words , what hinders that the accidents of the bread are not also changed into the accidents of christs body ? they that urge the express letter , should shew that christ said , this is the substance of my body without its accidents . but he did not say , that he gave his disciples a phantastick body , such a visionary figment as marcion believed , but that very body which was given for us , without being deprived of that extention and other accidents of humane bodies without which it could not have been crucified , since the maintainers of transubstantiation grant that the body of christ keeps its quantity in heaven , and say it is without the same in the sacrament ; they must either acknowledge their contradiction in the matter , or give over their opinion . . protestants dare not be so curious , or presume to know more than is delivered by scripture and antiquity , they firmly believing the words of christ , make the form of this sacrament to consist in the union of the thing signified with the sign , that is , the exhibition of the body of christ with the consecrated bread , still remaining bread ; by divine appointment these two are made one ; and though this union be not natural , substantial , personal , or local by their being one within another , yet it is so straight and so true , that in eating the blessed bread , the true body of christ is given to us , and the names of the sign and thing signified are reciprocally changed , what is proper to the body is attributed to the bread , and what belongs only to the bread , is affirmed of the body , and both are united in time , though not in place . for the presence of christ in this mystery is not opposed to distance but to absence , which only could deprive us of the benefit and fruition of the object . . from what hath been said it appears , that this whole controversie may be reduced to four heads ; . concerning the signs ; . concerning the thing signified ; . concerning the union of both ; and . concerning their participation ; as for the first , the protestants differ from the papists in this , that according to the nature of sacraments , and the doctrine of holy scripture we make the substance of bread and wine , and they accidents only to be signs . in the second , they not understanding our opinion do misrepresent it , for we do not hold ( as they say we do ) that only the merits of the death of christ are represented by the blessed elements , but also that his very body which was crucified , and his bloud which was shed for us , are truly signified and offered , that our souls may receive and possess christ , as truly and certainly as the material and visible signs are by us seen and received . and so in the third place , because the thing signified is offered and given to us , as truly as the sign it self , in this respect we own the union betwixt the body and bloud of christ , and the elements , whose use and office we hold to be changed from what it was before . but we deny what the papists affirm , that the substance of bread and wine are quite abolished , and changed into the body and bloud of our lord in such sort , that the bare accidents of the elements do alone remain united with christs body and bloud . and we also deny that the elements still retain the nature of sacraments when not used according to divine institution , that is , given by christs ministers , and received by his people ; so that christ in the consecrated bread ought not , cannot be kept and preserved to be carried about , because he is present only to the communicants . as for the fourth and last point , we do not say , that in the lords supper we receive only the benefits of christs death and passion , but we joyn the ground with its fruits , that is , christ with those advantages we receive from him , affirming with st. paul , that the bread which we break is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the communion of the body of christ , and the cup which we bless , the communion of his bloud ; of that very substance which he took of the blessed virgin , and afterwards carried into heaven ; differing from those of rome only in this , that they will have our union with christ to be corporal , and our eating of him likewise , and we on the contrary maintain it to be , indeed as true , but not carnal or natural . and as he that receives unworthily , ( that is , with the mouth only , but not with a faithful heart ) eats and drinks his own damnation , so he that doth it worthily , receives his absolution and justification ; that is , he that discerns , and then receives the lords body as torn , and his bloud as shed for the redemption of the world . but that christ ( as the papists affirm ) should give his flesh and bloud to be received with the mouth , and ground with the teeth , so that not only the most wicked and infidels , but even rats and mice should swallow him down , this our words and our hearts do utterly deny . . so then , ( to sum up this controversie by applying to it all that hath been said ) it is not questioned whether the body of christ be absent from the sacrament duly administred according to his institution , which we protestants neither affirm nor believe : for it being given and received in the communion , it must needs be that it is present , though in some manner veiled under the sacrament , so that of it self it cannot be seen . neither is it doubted or disputed whether the bread and wine , by the power of god and a supernatural vertue , be set apart and fitted for a much nobler use , and raised to a higher dignity than their nature bears ; for we confess the necessity of a supernatural and heavenly change , and that the signs cannot become sacraments but by the infinite power of god , whose proper right it is to institute sacraments in his church , being able alone to endue them with vertue and efficacy . finally , we do not say that our blessed saviour gave only the figure and sign of his body ; neither do we deny a sacramental union of the body and bloud of christ with the sacred bread and wine , so that both are really and substantially received together : but ( that we may avoid all ambiguity ) we deny that after the words and prayer of consecration , the bread should remain bread no longer , but should be changed into the substance of the body of christ , nothing of the bread but only the accidents continuing to be what they were before : and so the whole question is concerning the transubstantiation of the outward elements ; whether the substance of the bread be turned into the substance of christs body , and the substance of the wine into the substance of his bloud ; or as the romish doctors describe their transubstantiation , whether the substance of bread and wine doth utterly perish , and the substance of christs body and bloud succeed in their place , which are both denied by protestants . . the church of rome sings on corpus christi-day , this is not bread , but god and man my saviour . and the council of trent doth thus define it , because christ our redeemer said truly , that that was his body , which he gave in the appearance of bread ; therefore it was ever believed by the church of god , and is now declared by this sacred synod , that by the power of consecration the whole substance of the bread is changed into the substance of christs body , and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his bloud , which change is fitly and properly called transubstantiation by the holy catholick ( roman ) church . therefore if any one shall say , that the substance of bread and wine remains with the body and bloud of our saviour jesus christ , and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and bloud of christ , the only appearance and outward form of the bread and wine remaining , which conversion the catholick ( roman ) church doth fitly call transubstantiation , let him be accursed . the pope confirming this council , defines it after the same manner , imposeth an oath and declaration to the same purpose , and so makes it one of the new articles of the roman faith , in the form , and under the penalty following : i. n. do profess and firmly believe all and every the singulars contained in the confession of faith allowed by the holy church of rome ; viz. i believe in one god , &c. i also profess that the body and bloud with the soul and godhead of our saviour jesus christ are truly , really , and substantially in the mass , and in the sacrament of the eucharist , and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body , and of the whole substance of the wine into the bloud of christ , which conversion the roman catholick church calls transubstantiation . i fully embrace all things defined , declared , and delivered by the holy council of trent , and withall i do reject , condemn , and accurse all things by it accurs'd , condemned , or rejected . i do confidently believe that this faith , which i now willingly profess , is the true catholick faith without the which it is impossible to be saved ; and i do promise , vow , and swear , that i will constantly keep it whole and undefiled to my very last breath : so help me god and these holy gospels . afterwards he bravely concludes this decree with this commination : let no man therefore dare to attempt the breaking of this our deed and injunction , or be so desperate as to oppose it . and if any one presumes upon such an attempt , let him know that he thereby incurs the wrath of almighty god , and of his blessed apostles peter and paul. given at rome in st. peters church the thirteenth of november in the year of our lord . the fifth of our pontificat . which is as much as to say , that he had received this his roman faith from pope innocent the third , who first decided and imposed this doctrine of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ , and made it an article of faith , adding this new-devised thirteenth to the ancient twelve articles , for so we find it published in his decretal propounded to the assembly at lateran in . and proclaimed afterwards by his nephew pope gregory the ninth . thus : we firmly believe and simply acknowledge that there is one only true god , &c. and that in the sacrament of the altar the body and bloud of christ are truly contained under the accidents of bread and wine , which are transubstantiated , the bread into the body , and the wine into the bloud . to these definitions of popes i will add only the tenets of three jesuits , which are highly approved by the late followers of the new roman faith. first , of alphonsus salmeron , we must of necessity ( saith he ) hold transubstantiation , that the substance of bread and wine , which luther and some others admit , may be excluded ; that the words of christ ( which yet are most true without that ) may be verified ; that how few of these many are pertinent to their purpose will be seen hereafter ; many testimonies of the fathers , concerning conversion , mutation , consecration , benediction , transformation , sanctification ( for by all these names almost , they have called transubstantiation ) may stand firm , and not be vain and insignificant ; and lastly , that we may maintain a solid presence of the body and bloud of christ . item , as david changed his countenance before abimelech , and then received the shew bread , that was a certain type of the eucharist , so christ in the sacrament seigns himself to be bread , and yet is not bread , though he seems so to be most visibly . secondly , of cardinal francis tolet ; the words of consecration are efficacious instruments whereby to transubstantiate the substance of the bread into the true body of christ ; so that after they are spoken , there remains in the host none of the substance of the bread , but only the accidents of it , which are called the properties of the bread , under which the true body of christ is present . thirdly , and lastly , of cardinal bellarmine , the catholick church ever taught , that by the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ ( which conversion hath been in after times called transubstantiation ) it comes to pass , that the body and bloud of our lord are truly and really present in the sacrament . it would be to no purpose to bring the testimonies of others of the latine or roman church who give to the pope an absolute power of defining what he pleaseth , for they are but the same stuff as these : but if any one hath a mind let him consult gretserus his defence of bellarmine , or his dialogue who first writ against luther , who both reduce the whole matter to the judgment and decree of the pope . . now we leave inquiring what god is able to do , for we should first know his will in this matter , before we examine his power : yet thus much we say , that this roman transubstantiation is so strange and monstrous , that it exceeds the nature of all miracles . and though god by his almightiness be able to turn the substance of bread into some other substance , yet none will believe that he doth it , as long as it appears to our senses , that the substance of the bread doth still remain whole and entire . certain it is , that hitherto we read of no such thing done in the old or new testament , and therefore this tenet , being as unknown to the ancients as it is ungrounded in scripture , appears as yet to be very incredible , and there is no reason we should believe such an unauthorised figment , newly invented by men , and now imposed as an article of christian religion . for it is in vain that they bring scripture to defend this their stupendious doctrine ; and it is not true , what they so often and so confidently affirm , that the universal church hath always constantly owned it , being it was not so much as heard of in the church for many ages , and hath been but lately approved by the popes authority in the councils of lateran and trent , as i shall prove in the following chapters . chap. v. that neither the word nor name of transubstantiation , nor the doctrine or the thing it self is taught or contained in holy scripture , or in the writings of the ancient doctors of the church , but rather is contrary to them ; and therefore not of faith. . the word transubstantiation is so far from being found either in the sacred records , or in the monuments of the ancient fathers , that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth century . for though one stephanus , bishop of autun , be said to have once used it , yet it is without proof that some modern writers make him one of the tenth century ; nor yet doth he say , that the bread is transubstantiated , but as it were transubstantiated , which * well understood might be admitted . . nay , that the thing it self without the word , that the doctrine without the expression cannot be found in scripture , is ingeniously acknowledged by the most learned schoolmen scotus , durandus , biel , cameracensis , cajetan , and many more , who finding it not , brought in by the popes authority , and received in the roman church , till years after christ , yet endeavoured to defend it by other arguments . . scotus confest , that there is not any place in scripture so express as to compel a man to admit of transubstantiation , were it not that the church hath declared for it , ( that is , pope innocent iii , in his lateran council . ) durandus said , that the word is found , but that by it , the manner they contend for cannot be proved . biel affirms , that it is no where found in canonical scriptures . occam declared , that it is easier , more reasonable , less inconvenient , and better agreeing with scripture , to hold that the substance of the bread remains . after him cardinal cameracensis doth also confess , that transubstantiation cannot be proved out of the scriptures . nay , the bishop of rochester saith himself , that there is no expression in scripture whereby that conversion of substance in the mass can be made good . cardinal cajetan likewise , there is not any thing of force enough in the gospel to make us understand in a proper sense these words , this is my body : nay , that presence which the church ( of rome ) believes in the sacrament cannot be proved by the words of christ without the declaration of the ( roman ) church . lastly , bellarmine himself doth say , that though he might bring scripture clear enough , to his thinking , to prove transubstantiation by , to an easie man , yet still it would be doubtful whether he had done it to purpose , because some very acute and learned men , as scotus , hold that it cannot be proved by scripture . now in this , protestants desire no more but to be of the opinion of those learned and acute men . . and indeed , the words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling , that it is with the bread , that the lords body is given , ( as his bloud with the wine ) for christ ; having taken , blessed , and broken the bread , said , this is my body ; and st. paul , than whom none could better understand the meaning of christ , explains it thus , the bread which we break is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , communion or communication of the body of christ , that whereby his body is given , and the faithful are made partakers of it . that it was bread which he reacht to them , there was no need of any proof , the receiver's senses sufficiently convinc'd them of it ; but that therewith his body was given , none could have known , had it not been declared by him who is the truth it self . and though , by the divine institution and the explication of the apostle every faithful communicant may be as certainly assured that he receives the lords body , as if he knew that the bread is substantially turned into it , yet it doth not therefore follow , that the bread is so changed , that its substance is quite done away , so that there remains nothing present , but the very natural body of christ , made of bread : for certain it is , that the bread is not the body of christ any otherwise than as the cup is the new testament , and two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions . therefore as the cup cannot be the new testament but by a sacramental figure , no more can the bread be the body of christ , but in the same sense . . as to what bellarmine and others say , that it is not possible the words of christ can be true , but by that conversion , which the church of rome calls transubstantiation , that is so far from being so , that if it were admitted , it would first deny the divine omnipotency , as though god were not able to make the body of christ present , and truly to give it in the sacrament , whilst the substance of the bread remains . . it would be inconsistent with the divine benediction which preserves things in their proper being . . it would be contrary to the true nature of a sacrament , which always consisteth of two parts . and lastly , it would in some manner destroy the true substance of the body and bloud of christ , which cannot be said to be made of bread and wine by a priest , without a most high presumption . but the truth of the words of christ remains constant , and can be defended , without overthrowing so many other great truths . suppose a testator puts deeds and titles in the hand of his heir , with these words , take the house which i bequeath thee ; there is no man will think that those writings and parchments are that very house which is made of wood or stones , and yet no man will say that the testator spake falsly or obscurely . likewise our blessed saviour , having sanctified the elements by his words and prayers , gave them to his disciples as seals of the new testament , whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and precious legacies which he left to them , as children are of their fathers lands and inheritance , by deeds and instruments signed and delivered for that purpose . . to the sacred records we may add the judgment of the primitive church . for those orthodox and holy doctors of our holier religion , those great lights of the catholick church , do all clearly , constantly , and unanimously conspire in this , that the presence of the body of christ in the sacrament is only mystick and spiritual . as for the entire annihilation of the substance of the bread and the wine , or that new and strange tenet of transubstantiation , they did not so much as hear or speak any thing of it : nay , the constant stream of their doctrine doth clearly run against it , how great soever are the brags and pretences of the papists to the contrary . and if you will hear them one by one , i shall bring some of their most noted passages only , that our labour may not be endless by rehearsing all that they have said to our purpose on this subject . . i shall begin with that holy and ancient doctor , justin martyr , who is one of the first after the apostles times ; whose undoubted writings are come to us . what was believed at rome and elsewhere in his time , concerning this holy mystery , may well be understood out of these his words : after that the bishop hath prayed , and blessed , and the people said amen , those whom we call deacons or ministers give to every one of them that are present a portion of the bread and wine ; and that food we call the eucharist , for we do not receive it as ordinary bread and wine . they received it as bread , yet not as common bread . and a little after , by this food digested , our flesh and bloud are fed , and we are taught that it is the body and bloud of jesus christ . therefore the substance of the bread remains , and remains corruptible food , even after the consecration , which can in no wise be said of the immortal body of christ : for the flesh of christ is not turned into our flesh , neither doth it nourish it , as doth that food which is sacramentally called the flesh of christ . but the flesh of christ feeds our souls unto eternal life . . after the same manner , it is written by that holy martyr irenaeus bishop much about the same time . the bread which is from the earth is no more common bread , after the invocation of god upon it , but is become the eucharist consisting of two parts , the one earthly , and the other heavenly . there would be nothing earthly if the substance of the bread were removed . again , as the grain of wheat falling in the ground , and dying , riseth again much increased , and then receiving the word of god becomes the eucharist ( which is the body and bloud of christ ; ) so likewise our bodies nourished by it , laid in the ground and dissolved , shall rise again in their time . again , we are fed by the creature , but it is he himself that gives it , he hath ordained and appointed that cup which is a creature , and his bloud also , and that bread which is a creature , and also his body . and so when the bread and the cup are blessed by gods word , they become the eucharist of the body and bloud of christ , and from them our bodies receive nourishment and increase . now that our flesh is fed and encreased by the natural body of christ cannot be said without great impiety by themselves that hold transubstantiation . for naturally nothing nourisheth our bodies but what is made flesh and bloud by the last digestion , which it would be blasphemous to say of the incorruptible body of christ . yet the sacred elements which in some manner are , and are said to be the body and bloud of christ , yield nourishment and encrease to our bodies by their earthly nature , in such sort , that by vertue also of the heavenly and spiritual food which the faithful receive by means of the material , our bodies are fitted for a blessed resurrection to immortal glory . . tertullian , who flourished about the two hundredth year after christ , when as yet he was catholick , and acted by a pious zeal , wrote against marcion the heretick , who amongst his other impious opinions taught that christ had not taken of the virgin mary the very nature and substance of a humane body , but only the outward forms and appearances ; out of which fountain the romish transubstantiators seem to have drawn their doctrine of accidents abstracted from their subject hanging in the air , that is , subsisting on nothing . tertullian , disputing against this wicked heresie , draws an argument from the sacrament of the eucharist to prove that christ had not a phantastick and imaginary , but a true and natural body , thus . the figure of the body of christ proves it to be natural , for there can be no figure of a ghost or a phantasm . but ( saith he ) christ having taken the bread , and given it to his disciples made it his body by saying , this is my body , that is , the figure of my body . now , it could not have been a figure except the body were real , for a meer appearance , an imaginary phantasm is not capable of a figure . each part of this argument is true , and contains a necessary conclusion . for . the bread must remain bread , otherwise marcion would have returned the argument against tertullian , saying as the transubstantiators ; it was not bread , but meerly the accidents of bread , which seemed to be bread . . the body of christ is proved to be true by the figure of it , which is said to be bread : for the bread is fit to represent that divine body , because of its nourishing vertue , which in the bread is earthly , but in the body is heavenly . lastly , the realty of the body is proved by that of its figure , and so if you deny the substance of the bread ( as the papists do ) you thereby destroy the truth and realty of the body of christ in the sacrament . . origen also , about the same time with tertullian , speaks much after the same manner , if christ ( saith he ) as these men ( the marcionites ) falsly hold , had neither flesh nor bloud , of what manner of flesh , of what body , of what bloud did he give the signs and images when he gave the bread and wine ? if they be the signs and representations of the body and bloud of christ , though they prove the truth of his body and bloud , yet they being signs , cannot be what they signifie , and they not being what they represent , the groundless contrivance of transubstantiation is overthrown . also upon leviticus he doth expresly oppose it thus : acknowledge ye that they are figures , and therefore spiritual , not carnal , examine and understand what is said , otherwise if you receive as things carnal , they will hurt , but not nourish you . for in the gospel there is the letter , which kills him that understands not spiritually what is said ; for if you understand this saying according to the letter , except you eat my flesh and drink my bloud , the letter will kill you . therefore as much as these words belong to the eating and drinking of christs body and bloud , they are to be understood mystically and spiritually . again , writing on st. matthew , he doth manifestly put a difference betwixt the true and immortal , and the typick and mystical body of christ : for the sacrament consisteth of both . that food ( saith he ) which is sanctified by the word of god and prayer , as far as it is material , descends into the belly and is cast out into the draught ; this he saith of the typick , which is the figure of the true body . god forbid we should have any such thoughts of the true and heavenly body of christ ; as they must that understand his natural body by what origen calls his material and sacramental body , which no man in his wits can understand of meer accidents . . st. cyprian , bishop of carthage , a glorious martyr of christ , wrote a famous epistle to coecilius concerning the sacred chalice in the lords supper , whereof this is the sum : let that cup which is offered to the people in commemoration of christ be mixt with wine ( against the opinion of the aquarii who were for water only ) for it cannot represent the bloud of christ when there is no wine in the cup , because the bloud of christ is exprest by the wine , as the faithful are understood by the water . but the patrons of transubstantiation have neither wine nor water in the chalice they offer ; and yet without them ( especially the wine appointed by our blessed saviour , and whereof cyprian chiefly speaks ) the bloud of christ is not so much as sacramentally present ; so far was the primitive church from any thing of believing a corporal presence of the bloud , the wine being reduced to nothing ( that is to a meer accident without a substance ) for then they must have said , that the water was changed into the people , as well as the wine into the bloud . but there is no need that i should bring many testimonies of that father , when all his writings do plainly declare that the true substance of the bread and wine is given in the eucharist , that , that spiritual and quickning food which the faithful get from the body and bloud of christ , and the mutual union of the whole people joyned into one body may answer their type , the sacrament which represents them . . those words of the council of nice are well known , whereby the faithful are called from the consideration of the outward visible elements of bread and wine , to attend the inward and spiritual act of the mind , whereby christ is seen and apprehended . let not our thoughts dwell low , on that bread and that cup which are set before us , but lifting up our minds by faith let us consider , that on this sacred table is laid the lamb of god which taketh away the sins of the world . — and receiving truly his precious body and bloud , let us believe these things to be the pledges and emblems of our resurrection : for we do not take much , but only a little ( of the elements ) that we may be mindful , we do it not for satiety , but for sanctification . now , who is there , even among the maintainers of transubstantiation , that will understand this , not much , but a little , of the body of christ ? or who can believe that the nicene fathers would call his body and bloud symbols in a proper sense ? when nothing can be an image or a sign of it self . and therefore though we are not to rest in the elements , minding nothing else ( for we should consider what is chiefest in the sacrament , that we have our hearts lifted up unto the lord , who is given together with the signs ) yet elements they are , and the earthly part of the sacrament , both the bread and the wine , which destroys transubstantiation . . st. athanasius , famous in the time , and present in the assembly of the nicene council , a stout champion of the catholick faith , acknowledgeth none other but a spiritual manducation of the body of christ in the sacrament . our lord ( saith he ) made a difference betwixt the flesh and the spirit , that we might understand that what he said , was not carnal , but spiritual . for how many men could his body have fed , that the whole world should be nourished by it ? but therefore he mentioned his ascension into heaven , that they might not take what he said in a corporal sense , but might understand that his flesh whereof he spake is a spiritual and heavenly food given by himself from on high ; for the words that i spake unto you they are spirit , and they are life , as if he should say , my body which is shown and given for the world , shall be given in food , that it may be distributed spiritually to every one , and preserve them all to the resurrection to eternal life . cardinal perron having nothing to answer to these words of this holy father , in a kind of despair , rejects the whole tractate , and denies it to be athanasius's , which no body ever did before him , there being no reason for it . . cyril , bishop of jerusalam , of the same age with st. athanasius , treating of the chrisme , wherewith they then anointed those that were baptized , speaks thus : take heed thou dost not think that this is a meer oyntment only . for as the broad of the eucharist after the invocation of the holy ghost is no longer ordinary bread , but is the body of christ ; so this holy oyntment is no longer a bare common oyntment after it is consecrated , but is the gift or grace of christ , which , by his divine nature , and the coming of the holy ghost , is made ●fficacious ; so that the body is anointed with the oyntment , but the soul is sanctified by the holy and vivifying spirit . can any thing more clear be said ? either the oyntment is transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit and grace of christ , or the bread and wine are not transubstantiated by consecration into the body and bloud of christ . therefore as the oyntment retains still its substance , and yet is not called a meer or common ointment , but the charisme or grace of christ : so the bread and wine remaining so , as to their substance , yet are not said to be only bread and wine common and ordinary , but also the body and bloud of christ . vnder the type of bread ( saith he ) the body is given thee , and the bloud under the type of the wine . this grodecius doth captiously and unfaithfully interpret , under the appearances of bread and wine ; for those meer appearances or accidents subsisting without a subject never so much as entred into the mind of any of the ancients . . much to the same purpose we have in the anaphora or liturgy attributed to st. basil , we have set before you the type of the body and bloud of christ , which he calls the bread of the eucharist after the consecration . if it be the type of the body , then certainly it cannot be the body and nothing else : for ( as we said before ) nothing can be the figure of it self , no more than a man can be his own son or father . there be also prayers in that liturgy , that the bread may become the body of christ for the remission of sins , and life eternal to the receivers . now true it is , that to the faithful the element becomes a vivifying body , because they are truly partakers of the heavenly bread , the body of christ : but to others , who either receive not , or are not believers , to them the bread may be the antitype , but is not , neither doth become the body of christ , for without faith christ is never eaten , as is gathered from the same father . . st. gregory nyssene , his brother , doth clearly declare what change is wrought in the bread and wine by consecration , saying , as the altar naturally is but common stone , but being consecrated becomes an holy table , a spotless altar ; so the bread of the eucharist is at first ordinary , but being mysteriously sacrificed , it is , and is called the body of christ , and is efficacious to great purposes ; and as the priest ( yesterday a lay-man ) by the blessing of ordination , becomes a doctor of piety , and a steward of mysteries , and though not changed in body or shape , yet is transformed and made better as to his soul , by an invisible power and grace ; so also by the same consequence , water , being nothing but water of it self , yet blest by a heavenly grace , renews the man , working a spiritual regeneration in him . now let the assertors of transubstantiation maintain that a stone is substantially changed into an altar , a man into a priest , the water in baptism into an invisible grace , or else that the bread is not so changed into the body of christ : for according to this father there is the same consequence in them all . likewise st. ambrose explaining what manner of alteration is in the bread , when in the eucharist it becomes the body of christ , saith : thou hadst indeed a being , but wert an old creature , but being now baptized or consecrated , thou art become a new creature . the same change that happens to man in baptism , happens to the bread in the sacrament : if the nature of man is not substantially altered by the new birth , no more is the bread by consecration . man becomes by baptism , not what nature made him , but what grace new-makes him ; and the bread becomes by consecration , not what it was by nature , but what the blessing consecrates it to be . for nature made only a meer man , and made only common bread ; but regeneration , of a meer man , makes a holy man , in whom christ dwells spiritually : and likewise the consecration of common bread makes mystick and sacramental bread . yet this change doth not destroy nature , but to nature adds grace : as is yet more plainly exprest by that holy father in the fore-cited place . perhaps thou wilt say ( saith he ) this my bread is common bread ; it is bread indeed before the blessing of the sacrament , but when it is consecrated it becomes the body of christ . this we are therefore to declare , how can that which is bread be also the body of christ ? by consecration . and consecration is made by the words of our lord , that the venerable sacrament may be perfected . you see how efficacious is the word of christ . if there be then so great a power in the word of christ to make the bread and wine to be what they were not , how much greater is that power , which still preserves them to be what they were , and yet makes them to be what they were not ? therefore , that i may answer thee , it was not the body of christ before the consecration , but now after the consecration , it is the body of christ ; he said the word and it was done ; thou thy self wert befere , but wert an old creature ; after thou hast been consecrated in baptism thou art become a new creature . by these words st. ambrose teacheth how we are to understand that the bread is the body of christ , to wit , by such a change that the bread and wine do not cease to be what they were as to their substance ( for then they should not be what they were ) and yet by the blessing become what before they were not for so they are said to remain ( as indeed they do 〈◊〉 what they were by nature , that yet they are changed by grace , that is , they become assured sacraments of the body and bloud of christ , and by that means certain pledges of our justification and redemption . what is there , can refute more expresly the dream of transubstantiation ? . st. chrysostome doth also clearly discard and reject this carnal transubstantiation and eating of christs body , without eating the bread . sacraments ( saith he ) ought not to be contemplated and considered carnally , but with the eyes of our souls , that is spiritually ; for such is the nature of mysteries : where observe the opposition betwixt carnally and spiritually which admits of no plea or reply again . as in baptism the spiritual power of regeneration is given to the material water ; so also the immaterial gift of the body and bloud of christ is not received by any sensible corporal action , but by the spiritual discernment of our faith , and of our hearts and minds . which is no more than this , that sensible things are called by the name of those spiritual things which they seal and signifie . but he speaks more plainly in his epistle to caesarius ; where he teacheth that in this mystery , there is not in the bread a substantial , but a sacramental change , according to the which , the outward elements take the name of what they represent , and are changed in such a sort , that they still retain their former natural substance . the bread ( saith he ) is made worthy to be honoured with the name of the flesh of christ , by the consecration of the priest , yet the flesh retains the proprieties of its incorruptible nature , as the bread doth its natural substance . before the bread be sanctified we call it bread ; but when it is consecrated by the divine grace , it deserves to be called the lords body , though the substance of the bread still remains . when bellarmine could not answer this testimony of that great doctor , he thought it enough to deny , that this epistle is st. chrysostoms a but both he and b possevin do vainly contend that it is not extant among the works of chrysostom . for besides that at florence c and else where it was to be found among them , it is cited in the collections against the severians which are in the version of turrianus the jesuit , in the fourth tome of antiq. lectionum of henry canisius , and in the end of the book of joh. damascenus against the acephali . i bring another testimony out of the imperfect work on st. matthew , written either by st. chrysostome , or some other ancient author ; a book in this at least very orthodox , and not corrupted by the arrians . in these sanctified vessels , ( saith he ) the true body of christ is not contained , but the mystery of his body . . which also hath been said by st. austin above a thousand times ; but out of so many almost numberless places i shall chuse only three , which are as the sum of all the rest . you are not to eat this body which you see , nor drink this bloud which my crucifiers shall shed , i have left you a sacrament which , spiritually understood , will vivisie you . thus st. austin rehearsing the words of christ again ; if sacraments had not some resemblance with those things whereof they are sacraments , they could not be sacraments at all . from this resemblance they often take the names of what they represent . therefore as the sacrament of christs body is in some sort his body ; so the sacrament of faith , is faith also . to the same sense is what he writes against maximinus the arrian . we mind in the sacraments , not what they are , but what they shew ; for they are signs , which are one thing , and signifie another . and in another place speaking of the bread and wine . let no man look to what they are , but to what they signifie , for our lord was pleased to say , this is my body , when he gave the sign of his body . this passage of st. austin is so clear , that it admits of no evasion nor no denial . for if the sacraments are one thing , and signifie another , then they are not so changed into what they signifie , as that after that change they should be no more what they were . the water is changed in baptism as the bread and wine in the lords supper , but all that is changed is not presently abolished or transubstantiated . for as the water remains entire in baptism , so do the bread and wine in the eucharist . . st. prosper , orthodox in all things , who lived almost in the time of austin , teacheth , that the eucharist consisteth of two things , the visible appearance of the elements , and the invisible flesh and bloud of our saviour christ , ( that is , the sacrament , and the grace of the sacrament ) as the person of christ is both god and man. who but the infamous heretick eutyches would say that christ , as god , was substantially changed into man , or as man , into god ? . upon this subject , nothing can be more clear than this of theodor. whence we learn what the primitive church believes in this matter . our saviour , in the institution of the eucharist , changed the names of things , giving to his body the name of its sacrament , and to the sacrament the name of his body . now this was done for this reason , as he saith , that they that are partakers of the divine mysteries , might not mind the nature of what they see , but by the change of names , might believe that change which is wrought by grace . for he that called what by nature is his body , wheat and bread ; he also honoured the elements and signs with the names of his body and bloud , not changing what is natural , but adding grace to it . he therefore teacheth that such an alteration is wrought in the elements , that still their nature and substance continues , as he explains more plainly afterwards . for when the heretick that stands for eutichius , had said , as the sacrament of the lords body and bloud are one thing before the prayer of the priest , and afterwards being changed , become another ; so also the body of our lord after his ascention is changed into the divine substance and nature ( according to the tenet of the transubstantiator this eutychian argument is irrefragable , but ) catholick antiquity answers it thus : thou are entangled in the nets of thine own knitting ; for the elements or mystick signs depart not from their nature after consecration , but remain in their former substance , form , and kind , and can be seen and toucht as much as before : and yet withal we understand also what they become now they are changed . compare therefore the copy with the original , and thou shalt see their likeness . for a figure must answer to the truth . that body hath the same form , and fills the same space as before , and in a word is the same substance ; but after its resurrection , it is become immortal , &c. all this and much more is taught by theodoret , who assisted at the universal councils of ephesus and chalcedon . it is an idle exception which is made by some in the church of rome , as though by the nature and substance of the elements , which are said to remain , theodoret had understood the nature and substance of the accidents , ( as cardinal bellarmine is pleased to speak most absurdly : ) but the whole context doth strongly refute this gloss , for theodoret joyns together nature , substance , form , and figure , and indeed , what answer could they have given to the eutychian argument , if the substance of the bread being annihilated after the consecration , the accidents only remain ? or did christ say concerning the accidents of the bread and wine , these accidents are , or this accident is my body ? but ( though we have not that liberty , yet ) the inventors of transubstantiation may when they please make a creator of a creature , substances of accidents , accidents of substances , and any thing out of any thing . but sure they are too immodest and uncharitable , who , to elude the authority of so famous and so worthy a father as theodoret , alledge that he was accused of some errours in the council of ephesus , though he repented afterwards , as they themselves are forced to confess . fain would they if they could get out at this door , when they cannot deny that he affirmed , that the elements remain in their natural substance , as he wrote in the dialogues which he composed against the eutychian hereticks , with the applause and approbation of the catholick church . and indeed the evidence of this truth hath compelled some of our adversaries to yield that theodoret is of our side . for in the epistle before the dialogues of theodoret in the roman edition , set forth by stephan nicolinus , the popes printer , in the year , it is plainly set down . that in what concern'd transubstantiation his opinion was not very sound , but that he was to be excused , because the church ( of rome ) had made no decree about it . . with theodoret we may joyn gelasius , who ( whether he were bishop of rome or no as bellarmine confesseth , was of the same age and opinion as he , and therefore a witness ancient and credible enough . he wrote against eutyches and nestorius , concerning the two natures in christ , in this manner . doubtless , the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ which we receive , is a very divine thing , whereby , we are made partakers of the divine nature ; and yet it doth not cease to be bread and wine , by substance and nature . and indeed , the image and resemblance of the body and bloud of christ is celebrated in this mysterious action . by this therefore we see manifestly enough , that we must believe that to be in christ , which we believe to be in his sacrament , that , as by the perfecting vertue of the holy ghost , it becomes a divine substance , and yet remains in the propriety of its nature ; so this great mystery the incarnation , of whose power and efficacy this is a lively image doth demonstrate that there is one intire and true christ , consisting of two natures , which yet properly remain unchanged . it doth plainly appear out of these words , that the change wrought in the sacrament is not substantial , for first , the sanctified elements are so made the body and bloud of christ , that still they continue to be , by nature , bread and wine . secondly , the bread and wine retain their natural properties , as also the two natures in christ . lastly , the elements are said to become a divine substance , because while we receive them , we are made partakers of the divine nature , by the body and bloud of christ , which are given to us . these things being so , their blindness is to be deplored who see not that they bring again into the church of rome the same error which antiquity piously and learnedly condemned in the eutychians . and as for their thread-bare objection to this , that by the substance of bread and wine , the true substance it self is not to be understood , but only the nature and essence of the accidents , it is a very strange and very poor shift . there is a great deal more of commendation due to the ingenuity of cardinal contarenus , who yielding to the evidence of truth , answered nothing to this plain testimony of gelasius . . now i add cyril of alexandria , who said , that the body and bloud of christ . in the sacrament are received only by a pure faith , as we read in that epistle against nestorius , which six hundred fathers approved and confirmed in the council of chalcedon . i omit to mention the other fathers of this age , though many things in their writings be as contrary to transubstantiation and the independency of accidents as any i have hitherto cited . . i come now to the sixth century , about the middle whereof ephrem , patriarch of antioch , wrote a book , which was read and commended by photius , concerning sacred constitutions and ceremonies against the eutychians ; therein , that he might prove the hypostatical union , that in christ there is no confusion of natures , but that each retains its own substance and properties , he brings the comparison of the sacramental union , and denies that there should be any conversion of one substance into another in the sacrament . no man ( saith he ) that hath any reason will say that the nature of the palpable , and impalpable , and the nature of the visible and invisible is the same . for so the body of christ which is received by the faithful , remains in its own substance , and yet withal is united to a spiritual grace ; and so baptism , though it becomes wholly spiritual , yet it loseth not the sensible property of its substance ( that 's water ) neither doth it cease to be what it was made by grace . . it is not very long since the works of facundus , an african bishop , were printed at paris , but he lived in the same century . now what his doctrine was against transubstantiation , as also of the church in his time , is plainly to be seen by those words of his , which i here transcribe . the sacrament of adoption may be called adoption , as the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ , consecrated in the bread and wine is said to be his body and bloud ; not that his body be bread , or his bloud wine , but because the bread and wine are the sacrament of his body and bloud , and therefore so called by christ , when he gave them to his disciples . sirmondus the jesuit hath writ annotations on facundus ; but when he came to this place he had nothing to say , but that the bread is no bread , but only the likeness and appearance of bread : an opinion so unlike that of facundus that it should not have been fathered upon him , by a learned and ingenuous man , as sirmondus would be thought to be . for he cannot so much as produce any one of the ancient fathers that ever made mention of accidents subsisting without a subject , ( called by him the appearances of bread. ) and as for his thinking , that some would take the expressions of facundus to be somewhat uncouth and obscure , how unjust and injurious it is to that learned father may easily be observed by any . . isidore , bishop of hispal , about the begining of the seventh century , wrote thus concerning the sacrament , because the bread strengthens our body , therefore it is called the body of christ , and because the wine is made bloud , therefore the bloud of christ is expressed by it . now these two are visible , but yet being sanctified by the holy spirit , they become the sacraments of the lords body . for the bread which we break is the body of christ , who said , i am the bread of life ; and the wine is his bloud , as it is written , i am the true vine . behold , saith he , they become a sacrament , not the substance of the lords body ; for the bread and wine which feed our flesh cannot be substantially , nor be said to be the body and bloud of christ , but sacramentally , they are so as certainly , as that they are so called . but this he declares yet more clearly , lib. . etymol . cap. . for as the visible substance of bread and wine nourish the outward man ; so the word of christ , who is the bread of life , refresheth the souls of the faithful being received by faith. these words were recorded and preserved by bertram the priest , when as in the editions of isidore , they are now left out . . and the same kind of expressions as those of isidorus were also used by venerable bede our country-man , who lived in the eighth century , in his sermon upon the epiphany ; of whom we also take these two testimonies following : in the room of the flesh and bloud of the lamb christ substituted the sacrament of his body and bloud , in the figure of bread and wine . also , at supper he gave to his disciples the figure of his holy body and bloud . these utterly destroy transubstantiation . . in the same century , charles the great wrote an epistle to our alcuinus , wherein we find these words . christ , at supper broke the bread to his disciples , and likewise gave them the cup , in figure of his body and bloud , and so left to us this great sacrament for our benefit . if it was the figure of his body , it could not be the body it self : indeed , the body of christ is given in the eucharist , but to the faithful only , and that by means of the sacrament of the consecrated bread . . but now , about the beginning of the ninth century , started up paschafius , a monk of corbie , who first ( as some say , whose judgment i follow not ) among the latines , taught that christ was consubstantiated , or rather inclosed in the bread & corporally united to it in the sacrament ; for as yet there was no thoughts of the transubstantiation of bread. but these new sorts of expressions not agreeing with the catholick doctrine , and the writings of the ancient fathers , had few or no abettors before the eleventh century . and in the ninth , whereof we now treat , there were not wanting learned men ( as amalarius , archdeacon of triars ; rabanus , at first abbot of fulda , and afterwards archbishop of ments ; john erigena , an english divine ; walafridus strabo , a german abbot ; ratramus or bertramus , first priest of corbie , afterwards abbot of orbec in france ; and many more ) who by their writings opposed this new opinion of pascasius , or of some others rather , and delivered to posterity the doctrine of the ancient church . yet we have something more to say concerning paschasius , whom bellarmine and sirmondus esteemed so highly , that they were not ashamed to say , that he was the first that had writ to the purpose concerning the eucharist , and that he had so explained the meaning of the church , that he had shewn and opened the way to all them who treated of that subject after him . yet in that whole book of paschasius , there is nothing that favours the transubstantiation of the bread , or its destruction or removal . indeed , he asserts the truth of the body and bloud of christs being in the eucharist , which protestants deny not ; he denies that the consecrated bread is a bare figure , a representation void of truth , which protestants assert not . but he hath many things repugnant to transubstantiation , which ( as i have said ) the church of rome it self had not yet quite found out . i shall mention a few of them . christ ( saith he ) left us this sacrament , a visible figure and character of his body and bloud , that by them our spirit might the better embrace spiritual and invisible things , and be more fully fed by faith. again , we must receive our spiritual sacraments with the mouth of the soul , and the taste of faith. item . whilst therein we savour nothing carnal , but we being spiritual , and understanding the whole spiritually , we remain in christ . and a little after , the flesh and bloud of christ are received spiritually . and again , to savour according to the flesh , is death ; and yet to receive spiritually the true flesh of christ , is life eternal . lastly , the flesh and bloud of christ are not received carnally , but spiritually . in these he teacheth , that the mystery of the lords supper is not , and ought not to be understood carnally but spiritually , and that this dream of corporal and oral transubstantiation was unknown to the ancient church . as for what hath been added to this book , by the craft ( without doubt ) of some superstitious forgerer , ( as erasmus complains that it too frequently happens to the writing of the ancients , ) it is fabulous , as the visible appearing of the body of christ in the form of an infant with fingers of raw flesh ; such stuff is unworthy to be fathered on paschasius , who profest that he delivered no other doctrin concerning the sacrament , than that which he had learned out of the ancient fathers , and not from idle and uncertain stories of miracles . . now it may be requisite to produce the testimony of those writers before mentioned to have written in this century . in all that i write ( saith amalarius ) i am swayed by the judgment of holy men and pious fathers ; yet i say what i think my self . those things that are done in the celebration of divine service , are done in the sacrament of the passion of our lord as he himself commanded . therefore the priest offering the bread , with the wine and water in the sacrament , doth it in the stead of christ , and the bread , wine , and water in the sacrament represent the flesh and bloud of christ . for sacraments are somewhat to resemble those things whereof they are sacraments . therefore let the priest be like unto christ , as the bread and liquors are like the body and bloud of christ . such is in some manner the immolation of the priest on the altar , as was that of christ on the cross . again , the sacrament of the body of christ , is in some manner the body of christ : for sacraments should not be sacraments , if in some things they had not the likeness of that whereof they are sacraments : now by reason of this mutual likeness , they oftentimes are called by what they represent . lastly , sacraments have the vertue to bring us to those things whereof they are sacraments . these things writ amalarius according to the expressions of st. austin , and the doctrine of the purest church . . rabanus maurus , a great doctor of this age , who could hardly be matcht either in italy or in germany , publisht this his open confession : our blessed saviour would have the sacrament of his body and bloud , to be received by the mouth of the faithful , and to become their nourishment , that by the visible body , the effects of the invisible might be known : for as the material food feeds the body outwardly , and makes it to grow , so the word of god doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul . also , he would have the sacramental elements to be made of the fruits of the earth , that as he , who is god invisible , appeared visible , in our flesh , and mortal to save us mortals , so he might by a thing visible fitly represent to us a thing invisible . some receive the sacred sign at the lords table to their salvation , and some to their ruine ; but the thing signified is life to every man , and death to none , whoever receives it is united as a member to christ the head in the kingdom of heaven ; for the sacrament is one thing , and the efficacy of it another : for the sacrament is received with the mouth , but the grace thereof feeds the inward man. and as the first is turned into our substance when we eat it and drink it , so are we made the body of christ when we live piously and obediently . — therefore the faithful do well and truly receive the body of christ , if they neglect not to be his members , and they are made the body of christ if they will live of his spirit . all these agree not in the least with the new doctrine of rome , and as little with that opinion they attribute to paschasius , and therefore he is rejected as erroneous by some romish authors , who writ four and six hundred years after him : but they should have considered that they condemned not only rabanus , but together with him all the doctors of the primitive church . . johannes erigena our country-man , ( whom king alfred took to be his , and his childrens tutor , and to credit the new founded university of oxford ) while he lived in france , where he was in great esteem with charles the bald , wrote a a book concerning the body and bloud of our lord , to the same purpose as rabanus , and back'd it with clear testimonies of scripture and of the holy fathers . but entring himself into the monastery of malmsbury , as he was interpreting the book of dyonisius about the heavenly hierarchy , ( which he translated into latine ) and withal censuring the newly-hatcht doctrine of the carnal presence of christ in the eucharist , he was stabb'd b with pen knives by some unworthy schollars of his , set on by certain monks ; though not long after , he was by some c others numbred among holy martyrs . . walasridus strabo , about the same time wrote on this manner . therefore in that last supper whereat christ was with his disciples before he was betrayed ; after the solemnities of the ancient passeover , he gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body and bloud in the substance of bread and wine , — and instructed us to pass from carnal to spiritual things , from earthly to heavenly things , and from shadows to the substance . . as for the opinion of bertram , otherwise called ratramnus , or ratramus , perhaps not rightly , it is known enough by that book which the emperour charles the bald ( who loved and honoured him , as all good men did , for his great learning and piety ) commanded him to write concerning the body and bloud of our lord. for when men began to be disturbed at the book of paschasius , some saying one thing , and some another , the emperour being moved by their disputes propounded himself two questions to bertram . . whether , what the faithful eat in the church , be made the body and bloud of christ in figure and in mystery ? . or whether that natural body which was born of the virgin mary , which suffered , died , and was buried , and now sitteth on the right hand of god the father , be it self dayly received by the mouth of the faithful in the mystery of the sacrament ? the first of these bertram resolved affirmatively , the second negatively , and said , that there was as great a difference betwixt those two bodies , as betwixt the earnest and that whereof it is the earnest . it is evident ( saith he ) that that bread and wine are figuratively the body and bloud of christ . — according to the substance of the elements , they are after the consecration what they were before . — for the bread is not christ substantially . — if this mystery be not done in a figure , it cannot well be called a mystery . — the wine also which is made the sacrament of the bloud of christ by the consecration of the priest , shews one thing by its outward appearance and contains another inwardly . for what is there visible in its outside but only the substance of the wine ? these things are changed , but not according to the material part , and by this change they are not what they truly appear to be , but are some thing else besides what is their proper being : for they are made spiritually the body and bloud of christ ; not that the elements be two different things , but in one respect they are , as they appear , bread and wine , and in another the body and bloud of christ . — hence , according to the visible creature they feed the body , but according to the vertue of a more excellent substance they nourish and sanctifie the souls of the faithful . then having brought many testimonies of holy scripture and the ancient fathers to confirm this , he at last prevents that calumny which the followers of paschasius did then lay on the orthodox , as though they had taught that bare signs , figures , and shadows , and not the body and bloud of christ were given in the sacrament , let it not be thought ( saith he ) because we say this , that therefore the body and bloud of christ are not received in the mystery of the sacrament , where faith apprehends what it believes , and not what the eyes see ; for this meat and drink are spiritual , feed the soul spiritually , and entertain that life whose fulness is eternal . for the question is not simply about the real truth , or the thing signified being present , without which it could not be a mystery , but about the false reality of things subsisting in imaginary appearances , and about the carnal presence . . all this the fathers of trent , and the romish inquisitors could not brook , and therefore they utterly condemned bertram , and put his book in the catalogue of those that are forbidden . but the professors of doway judging this proceeding much too violent , and therefore more like to hurt than to advance the roman cause , went another and more cunning way to work , and had the approbation of the licencers of books , and the authors of the belgick index expurgatorius . that book of bertram ( say they ) having been already printed several times , read by many , and known to all by its being forbidden , may be suffered and used after it is corrected ; for bertram was a catholick priest and a monk in the monastery of corbie , esteemed and beloved by charles the bald. and being we bear with many errors in ancient catholick authors , and lessen , and excuse them , and by some cunning device ( behold the good mens fidelity ! ) often deny them , and give a more commodious sense , when they are objected to us in our disputes with our adversaries ; we do not see why bertram should not also be amended and used with the same equity , lest hereticks cast us in the teeth , that we burn and suppress those records of antiquity that make for them : and , as we also fear , lest , not only hereticks , but also stubborn catholicks read the book with the more greediness , and cite it with the more confidence because it is forbidden , and so it doth more harm by being prohibited than if it was left free . what patch then will they sow to amend this in bertram ? those things that differ are not the same ; that body of christ which died and rose again , and is become immortal , dies no more , being eternal and impassable : but that which is celebrated in the church , is temporal , not eternal ; is corruptible , and not incorruptible . to this last mentioned passage , they give a very commodious sense , namely , that it should be understood of the corruptible species of the sacrament , or of the sacrament it self , and the use of it , which will last no longer than this world . if this will not do , it may not be amiss to leave it all out ; to blot out visibly , and write invisibly . and this , what the creatures were in substance before the consecration , they are still the same after it , must be understood , according to the outward appearance , that is , the accidents of the bread and wine . though they confess that then bertram knew nothing of those accidents subsisting without 〈◊〉 substance , and many other things which thi● latter age hath added out of the scriptures wit● as great truth as subtilty . how much easier had it been at one stroke to blot out the whole book ? and so make short work with it , as the spanish inquisitors did i● their index expurgat . let the whole epistle ( say they ) of udalricus , bishop of ausburg be blotted out , cencerning the single life of the clergy ; and let the whole book of bertram the priest , about the body and bloud of the lord , be supprest . what is this , but , as arnobius said against the heathen , to intercept publick records , and fear the testimoy of the truth ? for , as for that which sixtus senensis , and possevin affirm , that that book of the body and bloud of the lord was writ by oecolampadius under the name of bertram , it is so great an untruth , that a greater cannot be found . . we are now come to the tenth century , wherein , besides those many sentences of catholick fathers against innovaters in what concerns the body and bloud of christ , collected by herigerus abbas lobiensis , we have also an ancient easter homily in saxon english , which then used to be read publickly in our churches : out of which we may gather what was then the doctrine received amongst us , touching this point of religion ; but chiefly out of that part wherein are shewn many differences betwixt the natural body of christ and the consecrated host . for thus it teacheth the people , there is a great difference betwixt that body wherein christ suffered and that wherein the host is consecrated . that body , wherein christ suffered was born of the virgin mary , consisting of bloud and bones , skin and nerves , humane members , and a rational soul : but his spiritual body which we call the host , is made of many united grains of corn , and hath neither bloud nor bones , neither members nor soul . afterwards , the body of christ , which once died and rose again , shall die no more , but remains eternal and impassible ; but this host is temporal and corruptible , divided into parts broken with the teeth , and swallowed down into the stomach . lastly , this mystery is a pledge and a figure : the body of christ is that very truth . what is seen is bread , but what is spiritually understood is life . there is also another sermon of bishop wulfinus to the clergy , bearing the title of a synod of priests wherein the same opinion and doctrine is explained in this manner : that host is the body of christ , not corporally , but spiritually ; not that body wherein he suffered , but that body whereof he spake , when he consecrate● the bread and wine into an host . which to this day , in the church of england we hold to be a catholick truth . . and so hitherto we have produced the agreeing testimonies of ancient fathers for a thousand years after christ , and have transcribed them more at large , to make it appear to every one that is not blind , that the true apostolick doctrine of this mystery , hath been universally maintained for so long by all men ; some few excepted , who more than eight hundred years after christ presumed to dispute against the ancient orthodox doctrine , of the manner of christs presence , and of his being received in the sacrament , though they durst not positively determine any thing against it . now , what more concerns this point we refer to the next chapter , lest this should be too long . chap. vi. shews more at large that the doctrine and practice of the primitive church is inconsistent with transubstantiation ; and answers the romish objections vainly alleadged out of antiquity . . many more proofs out of ancient records might have been added to those we have hitherto brought , for a thousand years , but we , desiring to be brief , have omitted them in each century ; as in the first , after the holy scriptures , the works of a clemens romanus , commended by the papists themselves , and those of b st. ignatius , bishop of antioch and martyr , are much against transubstantiation . in the second likewise , c st. theophilus , fourth bishop of antioch after ignatius ; d athenagoras , and e tatianus , scholars to justin martyr . in the third , f clemens alexandrinus , tutor to origen , and g minutius felix , a christian orator . in the fourth , h eusebius , bishop of cesarea , i juvencus , a spanish priest , k macarius egyptius , l st. hilary , bishop of poictiers , m optatus , bishop of milevis , n eusebius emissenus , o gregorius nazianzenus , p cyrillus alexandrinus , q epiphanius salaminensis , r st. hierom , s theophilus alexandrinus , and t gaudentius , bishop of brixia . in the fifth , u sedulius , a scotch priest , x gennadius massiliensis , and y faustus , bishop of regium . in the sixth , z fulgentius africanus , a victor antiochenus , b primasius bishop , and c procopius gazeus . in the seventh , d hesychius , priest in jerusalem , and e maximus , abbot of constantinople . in the eighth , f johannes damascenus . in the ninth , g nicephorus the patriarch , and h hincmarus archbishop of rhemes . lastly in the tenth , i fulbert bishop of chartres . and to compleat all ; to these single fathers , we may add whole councils of them , as that of k ancyra , of l neocesarea , and besides the first of m nice which i have mentioned , that of n laodicea , of o carthage , of p orleans , the fourth of q toledo , that of r bracara , the sixteenth of s toledo , and that of t constantinople in trullo . out of all these appears most certain , that the infection of the doctrine of transubstantiation was not yet spread over the christian world ; but that the sound doctrine of the body and bloud of christ , and of their true ( yet spiritual not carnal ) presence in the eucharist , with the elements , still the same in substance after consecration , was every where owned and maintained . and though the fathers used both ways of speaking ( that is , that the bread and wine are the true body and bloud of christ , and that their substance still remaining , they are signs , types , resemblances , and pledges of them ; images , figures , similitudes , representations , and samplers of them , ) yet there was no cantrariety or diversity in the sense for they were not so faithless as to believe that these are only naturall elements , or bare signs ; and they were not of so gross and so dull an apprehension , as not to distinguish betwixt the sacramental and mystick , and the carnal and natural presence of christ , as it is now maintained by the patrons of transubstantiation . for in this they understood no other change than that which is common to all sacraments , whereby the outward natural part is said to be changed into the inward and divine , only because it represents it truly and efficaciously , and makes all worthy receivers partakers thereof ; and because by the vertue of the holy spirit , and of christ's holy institution , the elements obtain those divine excellencies and prerogatives , which they cannot have of their own nature . and this is it which was taught and believed , for above a thousand years together , by pious and learned antiquity , concerning this most holy mystery . . there are also some other things whereby we may understand that the ancients did not belief transubstantiation , or that the presence of the body and bloud of christ is so inseparably tyed to the accidents of bread and wine , that christ must needs be present as long as those accidents retain any resemblance of bread and wine , even when they are not put to that use appointed by divine institution . for it is certain , that it was the custom of many of the ancients to burn what remained of the bread and wine after the comunion was ended . and who can believe that any christian should dare or be willing to burn his lord and saviour , in body and bloud , though it were never so much in his power ? doubtless it would have been as horrid and detestable an action as was that of the perfidious jews , for christians , if they believed transubstantiation , to burn that very natural body which the jews crucified , and which was born of the virgin mary . therefore those christians who used anciently to burn those fragments of the bread , and remains of the wine , which were not spent in the celebration of the sacrament , were far enough from holding the present faith and doctrine of rome . the same appears further by the penalty threatned by the canon to every clergy-man , by whose neglect a mouse or any other creature should eat the sacrifice , ( that is , the consecrated bread. ) and who but an idiot , a man deprived of his reason , could ever believe that the natural body of christ can be gnawed and even eaten by rats , or any brute creatures ? this sorely perplext the first maintainers of transubstantiation , who would invent any thing , rather than own it possible ; well knowing how abominable it is , and how dishonourable to christian religion . yet this is not inconsistent with the now roman faith ; nay , it necessarily follows from the tenet of transubstantiation that the body of christ may be in the belly of a mouse a under the accidents of bread. and the contrary opinion is not only disowned now by the papists , but under pain of excommunication forbidden by the b pope ever to be owned ; so that they must believe as an article of faith c , what is most abhorrent to faith. . but yet at last , let us see what props these new builders pretend to borrow from antiquity to uphold their castle in the air , transubstantiation . they use indeed to scrape together many testimonies of the fathers of the first and middle age , whereby they would fain prove , that those fathers believed and taught the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the natural body and bloud of christ , just as the roman church , at this day , doth teach and believe . we will therefore briefly examine them , that it may yet more fully appear that antiquity and all fathers did not in the least favour the new tenet of transubstantiation ; but that , that true doctrin which i have set down in the begining of this book , was constantly owned and preserved in the church of christ . . now , almost all that they produce out of the fathers will be conveniently reduced to certain heads , that we may not be too tedious in answering each testimony by it self . . to the first head belong those d that call the eucharist the body and bloud of christ . but i answer , those fathers explain themselves in many places , and interpret those their expressions in such a manner , that they must be understood in a mystick and spiritual sense , in that sacraments usually take the names of those things they represent , because of that resemblance which they have with them ; e not by the reality of the thing , but by the signification of the mystery , as we have shewn before out of st. austin and others . for no body can deny , but that the things that are seen are signs and figures , and those that are not seen , the body and bloud of christ : and that therefore the nature of this mystery is such , that when we receive the bread and wine , we also together with them receive at the same time the body and bloud of christ , which in the celebration of the holy eucharist , are as truly given as they are represented . hence came into the church this manner of speaking , the consecrated bread is christs body . . we put in the second rank those places that say , that the bishops and priests make the body of christ with the sacred words of their mouth , as st. hierom speaks in his epistle to heliodorus , and st. ambrose and others . to this i say , that at the prayer and blessing of the priest , the common bread is made sacramental bread , which , when broken and eaten is the communion of the body of christ , and therefore may well be called so , sacramentally . for the bread ( as i have often said before ) doth not only represent the body of our lord , but also being received , we are truly made partakers of that precious body . for so saith s. hier. the body and bloud of christ is made at the prayer of the priest , that is , the element is so qualified that being received it becomes the communion of the body and bloud of christ , which it could not without the preceding prayers . the greeks call this , to prepare and to consecrate the body of the lord. as s. chrysostam saith well , these are not the works of mans power , but still the operation of him , who made them in the last supper ; as for us , we are only ministers , but be it is that sanctifies and changeth them . . in the third place , to what is brought out of the fathers , concerning the conversion , change , transmutation , transfiguration , and transelementation of the bread and wine in the eucharist , ( wherein the papists do greatly glory , boasting of the consent of antiquity with them ; ) i answer that there is no such consequence , transubstantiation being another species of change , the enumeration was not full , for it doth not follow , that because there is a conversion , a transmutation , a transelementation , there should be also a transubstantiation ; which the fathers never so much as mentioned . for because this is a sacrament , the change must be understood to be sacramental also , whereby common bread and wine become the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ , which could not be did not the substance of the bread and wine remain , for a sacrament consisteth of two parts , an earthly and a heavenly . and so because ordinary bread is changed by consecration into a bread which is no more of common use , but appointed by divine institution to be a sacramental sign whereby is represented the body of christ , in whom dwelleth the fulness of the godhead bodily ; and being thereby dignified , having great excellencies superadded , and so made what it was not before , it is therefore said by some of the fathers to be changed , to be made another thing . and truly that change is great and supernatural , but yet not substantial , not of a substance which substantially ceaseth to be , into another substance which substantially beginneth to be , but it is a change of state and condition which alters not the natural properties of the element . this is also confirmed by scripture , which usually describes and represents the conversion of men , and the supernatural change of things , as though it were natural , though it be not so . so those that are renewed by the word , and spirit , and faith of christ , are said to be a regenerated , converted , and transformed , to put off the old man , and put on the new man , and to be new creatures ; but they are not said to become another substance , to be transubstantiated : for men thus converted have still the same humane body , and the same rational soul as before , though in a far better state and condition , as every christian will acknowledge . nay , the fathers themselves use those words , transmutation , transformation , transelementations , upon other occasions , when they speak of things whose substance is neither lost nor changed . for those words be of so large a signification , that though sometimes a substantial change is to be understood by them , yet for the most part they signifie only a moral change , a change of qualities , of condition , of office , of use , and the like . to this sense they are used by the greek fathers , ( a irenaeus , b clemens alexandrinus , c origene , d cyril of jerusalem , e basil , f gregory nazianzen , g gregory nyssene , h cyril of alexandria , i chrysostom , k theodoret , theophylact , and occumenius , ) to express the a resurrection of the body , the efficacy b of divine doctrine , the sanctification of a c regenerated person , the immortality d of the flesh after the resurrection , the e repentance of sinners , the f assumption of the humane nature in the person of christ , the g regeneration of saints , the h vertue of the divine grace , the power of baptism i , and the excellency of charity , and lastly the k alteration for the better , the greatness , usefulness , power and dignity of many things . neither are the latine l fathers without such kind of expressions , for they do not make the conversion of the bread and wine in the eucharist more essential or substantial , than in baptism the conversion of man born again to a new life , or ( as they speak ) whose humane natural condition is changed into a nobler , a heavenly state , which is a moral and mystick change , and not natural or substantial . the ancientest of them , m tertullian said , that god had promised to man the body and substance of angels , and that men should be transformed into angels , as angels have been transformed into men . now , who would infer from hence , that angels have been essentially changed into men ; or that humane bodies should be so transformed into an angelical substance , that they should be no longer men nor humane bodies , but properly and essentially angels ? which tertullian himself is expresly against , and saith , that angels were so changed into men that still they remained angels , without quitting their proper substance . as others have spoken of the bread in the eucharist , that it so becomes the body of christ , that still it is what it was , as st. ambrose ; that it looseth not its nature , as theodoret ; that the substance of the bread remains , as gelasius affirms . and doubtless the same meant all the ancients , who according to their way of speaking said any thing of the change of bread and wine . for all the vouchers brought by the papists speak only of an accidental , mystical , and moral ; nothing at all of a substantial change . transubstantiation is taken by its defenders for a material change of one substance into another ; we indeed allow a transmutation of the elements ; but as for a substantial one we vainly seek for it , it is no where to be found . . to the fourth head i refer what the fathers say of our touching and seeing the body of christ , and drinking his bloud in the sacrament , and thereto i answer , that we deny not but that some things emphatical and even hyperbolical have been said of the sacrament by chrysostome , and some others ; and that those things may easily lead unwary men into error . that was the ancient fathers care , as it is ours still , to instruct the people not to look barely on the outward elements , but in them to eye with their minds the body and bloud of christ , and with their hearts lift up to feed on that heavenly meat : for all the benefit of a sacrament is lost , if we look no farther than the elements . hence it is that those holy men , the better to teach this lesson to their hearers , and move their hearts more efficaciously , spake of the signs as if they had been the thing signified , and like orators said many things which will not bear a litteral sense , nor a strict examen . such is this , of an uncertain author under the name of st. cyprian , we are close to the cross , we suck the bloud , and we put our tongues in the very wounds of our redeemer , so that , both outwardly and inwardly we are made red thereby . such is that of a st. chrysostome , in the sacrament the bloud is drawn out of the side of christ , the b tongue is made bloudy with that wonderful bloud . again , c thou seest thy lord saecrificed , and the crouding multitude round about sprinkled with his bloud ; he that sits above with the father is al the same time in our hands . d thou dost see and touch and eat him . e for i do not shew thee either angels or archangels , but the lord of them himself . again , f he incorporates us with himself as if we were but the same thing , he makes us his body indeed , and suffers us not only to see , but even to touch , to eat him , and to put our teeth in his flesh ; so that by that food which he gives us , we become his flesh . such is that of st. austin , let us give thanks , not only that we are made christians , but also made christ . lastly , such is that of b. leo , in that mystical distribution , it is given us to be made his flesh . certainly , if any man would wrangle and take advantage of these , he might thereby maintain , as well that we are transubstantiated into christ , and christs flesh into the bread , as that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into his body and bloud . but protestants who scorn to play the sophisters , interpret these and the like passages of the fathers , with candour and ingenuity , ( as it is most fitting they should . ) for the expressions of preachers , which often have something of a paradox , must not be taken according to that harsher sound wherewith they at first strike the auditors ears ; the fathers spake not of any transubstantiated bread , but of the mystical and consecrated , when they used those sorts of expressions ; and that for these reasons : . that they might extoll and amplifie the dignity of this mystery , which all true christians acknowledge to be very great and peerless . . that communicants might not rest in the outward elements , but seriously consider the thing represented , whereof they are most certainly made partakers , if they be worthy receivers . . and lastly , that they might approach so great a mystery with the more zeal , reverence , and devotion . and that those hyperbolick expressions are thus to be understood , the fathers themselves teach clearly enough , when they come to interpret them . . lastly , being the same holy fathers who ( as the manner is to discourse of sacraments ) speak sometimes of the bread and wine in the lords supper , as if they were the very body and bloud of christ , do also very often call them types , elements , signs , the figure of the body and bloud of christ ; from hence it appears most manifestly that they were of the protestants , and not of the papists opinion . for we can without prejudice to what we believe of the sacraments , use those former expressions which the papists believe , do most favour them , if they be understood , as they ought to be , sacramentally . but the latter none can use , but he must thereby overthrow the groundless doctrine of transubstantiation ; these two , the bread is transubstantiated into the body , and the bread also is the type , the sign , the figure of the body of christ being wholly inconsistent . for it is impossible that a thing that loseth its being should yet be the sign and representation of another ; neither can any thing be the type and the sign of it self . . but if without admitting of a sacramental sense the words be used too rigorously , nothing but this will follow , that the bread and wine are really and properly the very body and bloud of christ , which they themselves disown , that hold transubstantiation . therefore in this change , it is not a newness of substance , but of use and vertue that is produced ; which yet the fathers acknowledged with us , to be wonderful , supernatural , and proper only to gods omnipotency : for that earthly and corruptible meat cannot become to us a spiritual and heavenly , the communion of the body and bloud of christ , without gods especial power and operation . and whereas it is far above philosophy and humane reason , that christ from heaven ( where alone he is locally ) should reach down to us the divine vertue of his flesh , so that we are made one body with him ; therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable , that the fathers should tell us , that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the son of god , when he saith , this is my body ; and that we ought not to measure this high and holy mystery by our narrow conceptions , or by the course of nature . for it is more acceptable to god with an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace the words of christ , than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper sense , and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the capacity of men and angels . thus much in general may suffice to answer those places of the fathers , which are usually brought in the behalf of transubstantiation . he that would have a larger refutation of those objections fetcht from antiquity , may read hospinianus his history of the sacrament , and antonius de dominis in his fifth book of the christian commonwealth , chap. . and in his detection of the errors of suarez , chap. . . that place of ignatius cited by theodoret , out of the epistle to the smyrnenses ( where now it is not to be found ) and objected by some of the romish faith , that the hereticks simoniani and menandriani would have no eucharistical oblations , because they denied the sacrament to be the flesh of our saviour jesus christ , makes nothing for transubstantiation , as bellarmine himself confesseth . for ( saith he ) those hereticks did not oppose the sacrament of the eucharist , so much as the mystery of the incarnation ; and therefore ( as ignatius shews in that place ) they would deny that the eucharist is the flesh of christ , that is , ( as theodoret interprets it ) that the divine mysteries of bread and wine should be the signs of a real body of christ truly existing , because they would not own that christ had taken flesh . and so lest they should be forced to acknowledge the reality of the flesh of christ , they would wholly reject the signs and sacraments of it ; for the signs of the body being given , the true body is given also , because the substance and the type infer one another , and a phantasm or illusion is not capable of a sign or representation . . the words out of justin martyr , whereby they would prove transubstantiation , do strongly disprove it . for ( saith he ) as by the word of god , our saviour was incarnate , so by the prayers of gods word , the eucharist is made , whereby our bodies are nourished , the body and bloud of christ . now when christ took humane flesh , none could say without heresie that he was transubstantiated . . neither is that against the protestants which is brought out of st. cyprian , ( though it be none of his ) of the bread changed not in appearance , but in nature . for he , whoever it was , took not the word nature in a strict sense , or else he was contrary to theodoret , gelasius , and others above-mentioned , who expresly deny that the bread should be thus changed : but at large , as nature is taken for use , qualities , and condition . for by the infinite power of the word the nature of the bread is so changed , that what was before a bare element , becomes now a divine sacrament , but without any transubstantiation ; as appears by what follows in the same period , of the humane and divine natures of christ , where the manhood is not substantially changed into the godhead , except we will follow eutyches the heretick . . the words of cyril , as the roman doctors fay , are so clear for them , that they admit of no evasion : for ( saith he ) he that changed once the water into wine , is he not worthy to be believed that he changed the wine into bloud ? therefore let us with all certainty receive the body and bloud of christ , for his body under the appearance of the bread , and his bloud under the appearance of the wine are given to thee . indeed protestants do freely grant , and firmly believe , that the wine ( as hath often been said ) is changed into the bloud of christ , but every change is not a transubstantiation ; neither doth cyril say that this change is like that of the water , for then it would also appear to our senses ; but that he who changed the water sensibly , can also change the wine sacramentally , will not be doubted by any . as for what he calls the appearances of bread and wine , he doth not thereby exclude , but rather include their substance , and mean the bread and wine it self : for so he intimates by what there follows ; do not look on them as bare bread and wine ; as much as to say , it is bread indeed , but yet not bare bread , but something besides . but that this conversion of the water into wine makes nothing for transubstantiation , may be thus made to appear . that gods omnipotency can change one substance into another , none will deny , and we see it done by christ in the town of cana of galilee , when he changed the water into wine ; and it was a true and proper transubstantiation . but the papists in the lords supper tell us of quite another change , which , if well considered , cannot so much as be understood . for the substance of the bread is not changed into another that had no being , but , as they say , the bread is changed into that body of christ which really existed and had a being these many hundred years , ever since the incarnation : whereas that very wine which christ made of the water , was not in being before the change which he wrought . now it is easie for any to understand , that he who created all things out of nothing , can well make a new wine of water , or any other thing ; but it is more than absurd , that the body of christ , or any other substance already in being , perfect and complete , should be made afresh of another substance , when it really subsisted before . which they well understood who devised an adduction , or bringing of the body of christ into the place of the bread , and that is as much as to deny transubstantiation ; except it can be said that a man is transubstantiated into another , as often as he comes into his place , which no man in his right wits can fancy . . st. ambrose said also that the nature is changed , and indeed it is so ; for other is the nature of the element , and other that of the sacrament ; neither do protestants deny that the element is changed by the blessing , so that the bread being made sacred , is no more that which nature formed , but that which the blessing consecrated , and by consecrating changed . mean while st. ambrose in that place doth not make the words or blessing of christ to have any other operation , than to make that which was , still to be , and yet to be changed ; therefore the bread is not made the body of christ by transubstantiation , but by a sacramental change . he adds , that sacrament which thou receivest is made by the word of christ ; and if the word of elias had so much power as to bring down fire from heaven , shall not the words of christ be efficacious enough to change the properties of the elements ? thou hast read of the creation of all things , that he said the word and it was done ; and shall not that word of christ , which made all out of nothing , change that which is already into that which it was not ? thou thy self wert , but wert the old man , but being baptized , thou art now become a new creature ? now it is as much to give a new nature , as to change the nature of a thing . by these words he plainly declares his opinion that , by vertue of this change , the elements of bread and wine cease not to be what they are by essence , and yet by the consecration are made what before they were not . but where did our transubstantiators learn out of st. ambrose , or any of the fathers , that to make the sacrament is the same as to bring the natural body of christ , and put it under the accidents of the bread , or in the place of its substance which is vanisht away ? they say , that the comparison betwixt the things changed by christ and the prophet would be silly , if there be no more than a sacramental change in the eucharist ; as though the sacramental change were a thing of nought . for ( saith cardinal bellarmine ) what power is there required to do nothing ? but protestants answer , that the greatness , majesty , excellency , and dignity of the sacrament is such , that they admire no less the omnipotency of god in sanctifying the creatures to so high an office , and so holy an use , than in creating the world out of nothing , or changing the nature of things by the ministry of his prophets . for it is not by mans power , but by the divine vertue , that things earthly and mean of themselves , are made to us assured pledges of the body and bloud of christ . and if they urge the letter of those words of st. ambrose , by the word of christ the species of the elements are changed , as bellarmine and others do , why then , they must confess , that not only the substance , but also the species , or accidents ( as they call them ) of the bread and wine , are changed into the body and bloud of christ . and so , being st. ambrose and all the ancients said indifferently , as well that the species of the bread and wine , as that the bread and wine themselves are changed , who will not from hence understand that the groundless fabrick of transubstantiation ( whereby they would have the substance of the elements so abolished in the sacrament , that their meer accidents or appearances remain without any subject ) is strongly battered and utterly ruined ? . all other testimonies of the fathers , if they say that the bread is made the body of christ , are willingly owned by protestants . for they hold that the element cannot become a sacrament , nor the sacrament have a being without the thing which it represents . for the cardinal himself will not affirm that the body of christ is produced out of the pread . this is therefore what we say with st. austin , and endeavour to prove by all means ; that the sacrifice of the eucharist is made of two things , the visible element , and the invisible flesh and bloud of christ , as the person of christ consisteth of the godhead and manhood , he being true god and true man ; for every compound retains the nature of that whereof it is made : now the sacrament is composed of two things , the sign , and the thing signified , that is the body of christ . . let the champions of transubstantiation strut and vapour now , with their two and thirty stout seconds , a who have stood for them , as they say , before the time of pope innocent the third ! for what b innocent the third decreed , and the council of trent c defined , ( that it was ever the perswasion of the catholick church , that the bread is so changed into the body of christ , that the substance of the bread vanishing away , only the flesh of christ should remain under the accidents of the bread , ) is so far from being true , that the doctrine of transubstantiation , not only as to the name , but as to the thing it self , is wholly destitute of the patronage of antiquity , and left to shift for it self . d alphonsus à castro said , that in ancient writers mention was made very seldom of transubstantiation ; had he said never , it had been more true . for so our jesuites e in england confessed , that the business of transubstantiation was not so much as toucht by the ancient fathers ; which is very true , as will appear more at large in the following chapter . chap. vii . of the writers of the eleventh and twelfth century , from whom we may easily deduce and trace the history of papal transubstantiation . . what manner of popes they were in those times . . the unhappy age , wherein divines were divided about the point of the eucharist . . the opinion of fulbertus . . followed by his disciple berengarius , who is opposed by others . , . the doctrine of berengarius defended . . the roaring of leo the ninth against berengarius . . the synod of tours under victor the second , which cleared berengarius as free from error . . pope nicolas the second , gathers another synod against berengarius , who is forced to make a wondrous kind of recantation . . the authors of the ordinary gloss censure the recantation imposed on berengarius . . he saith that he was violently compelled to make it for fear of being put to death . lanfrancus and guitmundus write against him . . of pope hildebrand , and his roman council , wherein berengarius was again cited and condemned in vain . . the doctrine of st. bernard approved . . the opinion of rupertus . . lombard could define nothing of the transubstantiation of the bread , and reasons poorly upon the independency of the accidents . . otho frisingensis and those of his time confest that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist . . p. blesensis and st. eduensis were the first that used the word of transubstantiation . . of the thirteenth century , wherein pope innocent the third published his decree of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ . , and . the wonderful pride of innocent the third . the lateran council determined nothing concerning that point . . the cruelty of the same innocent , who by the rack and the fire sought to establish his new doctrine . . what gerson said of the roman church in his time . many more inventions proceed from transubstantiation . inextricable and unheard of questions . . new orders of monks and of the school-men . . of their fine wrangling and disputing . . the sacrament abused most grosly by the patrons of transubstantiation . , and . holkot , aquinas , albertus magnus , and other schoolmen , though sometimes they be not for transubstantiation , yet they wholly submit to the judgment of the pope . . of the council of constance . which took the cup from the laity . . cardinal cameracensis denies that transubstantiation can be proved by holy scripture . . of the council of florence , and the instruction of the armenians by pope eugenius the fourth . . the papal curse in the council of trent , not to be feared . the conclusion of the book . . we have proved it before , that the leprosie of transubstantiation did not begin to spread over the body of the church in a thousand years after christ . but at last the thousand years being expired , and satan loosed out of his prison , to go and deceive the nations , and compass the camp of the saints about , then to the great damage of christian peace and religion , they began here and there to dispute against the clear , constant , and universal consent of the fathers , and to maintain the new-started opinion . it is known to them that understand history , what manner of times were then , and what were those bishops who then governed the church of rome , sylvester ii , john xix , and xx , sergius iv , benedictus viii , john xxi , benedict ix , sylvester iii , gregory vi , damasus ii , leo ix , nicolas ii , gregory vii , or hildebrand ; who tore to pieces the church of rome with grievous schisms , cruel wars , and great slaughters . for the roman pontificat was come to that pass , that good men being put by , they whose life and doctrine was pious being oppressed , none could obtain that dignity , but they that could bribe best , and were most ambitious . . in that unhappy age the learned were at odds about the presence of the body of christ in the sacrament ; some defending the ancient doctrine of the church , and some the new-sprung up opinion . . fulbert , bishop of chartres , was tutor to berengarius , whom we shall soon have occasion to speak of , and his doctrine was altogether conformable to that of the primitive church , as appears clearly out of his epistle to adeodatus , wherein he teacheth , that the mystery of faith in the eucharist , is not to be lookt on with our bodily eyes , but with the eyes of our mind . for what appears outwardly bread and wine , is made inwardly the body and bloud of christ ; not that which is tasted with the mouth , but that which is relish'd by the hearts affection . therefore ( saith he ) prepare the palate of thy faith , open the throat of thy hope , and inlarge the bowels of thy charity , and take that bread of life which is the food of the inward man. again . the perception of a divine taste proceeds from the faith of the inward man , whilst by receiving the saving sacrament , christ is received into the soul . all this is against those who teach in too gross a manner , that christ in this mystery enters carnally the mouth and stomach of the receivers . . fulbert was followed by berengarius his scholar , archdeacon of anger 's in france , a man of great worth , by the holiness both of his life and doctrine , as platina , vincentius bergomensis , and many more . witness this encomium writ soon after his death by hildebert bishop of mans , a most learned man , is thus recorded by our william of malmsbury . that berengarius who was so admired , although his name yet lives , is now expired ; h' out-lives himself , yet a sad fatal day him from the church and state did snatch away . o dreadful day , why didst thou play the thief ? and fill the world with ruine and with grief ? for by his death , the church , the laws , and all the clergies glory do receive a fall : his sacred wisdom was too great for fame , and the whole world 's too little for his name ; which to its proper zenith none can raise , his merits do so far exceed all praise . then surely thou art blest , nor dost thou less heaven with thy soul , earth with thy body bless . when i go hence , o may i dwell with thee , in thine appointed place where e're it be . now this berengarius was not only archdeacon of anger 's , but also the scholasticus , or master of the chair , of the same church ( which dignity is ever enyoyed by the chancellor of the vniversity , for his office is in great churches to teach the clergy , and instruct them in sound doctrine . ) all this i have produced more at large to manifest the base and injurious calumnies , cast upon this worthy and famous man by latter writers , as a john garetius of lovain , b william alan our country-man , and others ; who not only accuse him of being an heretick , but also a worthless and an unlearned man. . berengarius stood up valiantly in defence of that doctrine which years before , was delivered out of gods word and the holy fathers , in france by bertram , and john erigena , and by others elsewhere , against those who taught that in the eucharist neither bread nor wine remained after the consecration . yet he did not either believe or teach ( as many falsly and shamelesly have imputed to him ) that nothing more is received in the lords supper , but bare signs only , or meer bread and wine ; but he believed and openly profest , as st. austin and other faithful doctors of the church had taught out of gods word , that in this mystery , the souls of the faithful are truly fed by the true body and bloud of christ to life eternal . nevertheless it was neither his mind nor his doctrine , that the substance of the bread and wine is reduced to nothing , or changed into the substance of the natural body of christ , or ( as some then would have had the church believe ) that christ himself comes down carnally from heaven . intire books he wrote upon this subject , but they have been wholly supprest by his enemies , and now are not to be found . yet what we have of him in his greatest enemy lanfrank i here set down ; by the consecration at the altar the bread and wine are made a sacrament of religion ; not to cease to be what they were , but to be changed into something else , and to become what they were not ; agreeable to what st. ambrose had taught . again , there are two parts in the sacrifice of the church ( this is according to st. irenaeus ) the visible sacrament , and the invisible thing of the sacrament , that is , the body of christ . item , the bread and wine which are consecrated , remain in their substance , having a resemblance with that whereof they are a sacrament , for else they could not be a sacrament . lastly , sacraments are visible signs of divine things , but in them the invisible things are honoured . all this agrees well with st. austin and other fathers above cited . . he did not therefore by this his doctrine exclude the body of christ from the sacrament , but in its right administration he joyned together the thing signified with the sacred sign ; and taught that the body of christ was not eaten with the mouth in a carnal way , but with the mind , and soul , and spirit . neither did berengarius alone maintain this orthodox and ancient doctrine ; for a sigibert , b william of malmesbury , c matthew paris , and d matthew of westminster make it certain , that almost all the french , italians , and english of those times were of the same opinion ; and that many things were said , writ , and disputed in its defence by many men ; amongst whom was bruno , then bishop of the same church of anger 's . now this greatly displeaseth the papal faction , who took great care that those mens writings should not be delivered to posterity , and now do write , that the doctrine of berengarius , owned by the fathers , and maintained by many famous nations , sculkt only in some dark corner or other . . the first pope who opposed himself to berengarius was leo the e ninth , a plain man indeed , but too much led by humbert and hildebrand . for as soon as he was desired , f he pronounced sentence of excommunication against berengarius absent and unheard ; and not long after he called a council at verceil , wherein john erigena and berengarius g were condemned , upon this account , that they should say , that the bread and wine in the h eucharist are only bare signs ; which was far from their thoughts , and farther yet from their belief . this roaring therefore of the lion frighted not berengarius , nay , the i gallican churches did also oppose the pope , and his synod of verceil , and defend with berengarius the oppressed truth . . to leo succeeded pope victor the second , who seeing that berengarius could not be cast down and crusht by the fulminations of his predecessor , sent his legate hildebrand into france , and called another council at tours , where berengarius , being cited , did freely appear , and whence he was freely dismist , after he had given it under his hand , that the bread and wine in the sacrifice of the church , are not shadows and empty figures ; and that he held none other but the common doctrine of the church concerning the sacrament . for he did not alter his judgment ( as modern papists give out ) but he persisted to teach and maintain the same doctrine as before , as lanfrank complains of him . . yet his enemies would not rest satisfied with this , but they urged pope nicholas the second , who ( within a few months that stephen the tenth sate ) succeeded victor without the emperours consent , to call a new council at rome against berengarius . for , that sensual manner of presence , by them devised , to the great dishonour of christ , being rejected by berengarius , and he teaching as he did before , that the body of christ was not present in such a sort , as that it might be at pleasure brought in and out , taken into the stomach , cast on the ground , trod under foot , and bit or devoured by any beasts , they falsly charged him as if he had denied that it is present at all . an hundred and thirteen bishops came to the council , to obey the popes mandate , berengarius came also ; and ( as k sigonius and l leo ostiensis say ) when none present could withstand him , they sent for one albericus , a monk of mont cassin , made cardinal by pope stephen , who having asked seven days time , to answer in writing , brought at last his scroll against berengarius . the reasons and arguments used therein to convince his antagonist are not now extant , but whatever they were , berengarius was commanded presently without any delay m to recant , in that form prescribed and appointed by cardinal humbert , which was thus : n i berengarius , &c. assent to the holy roman , and apostolick see , and with my heart and mouth do profess that i hold that faith concerning the sacrament of the lords table which our lord and venerable pope nicholas , and this sacred council , have determined and imposed upon me by their evangelick and apostolick authority ; to wit , that the bread and wine which are set on the altar , are not after the consecration only a saerament , sign , and figure , but also the very body and bloud of our lord jesus christ , ( thus far it is well enough , but what follows is too horrid , and is disowned by the papists themselves ) and that they ( the body and bloud ) are touched and broken with the hands of the priests , and ground with the teeth of the faithful , not sacramentally only , but in truth and sensibly . this is the prescript of the recantation imposed on berengarius , and by him at first rejected , but by imprisonment , and threats , and fear of being put to death , at last extorted from o him . . this form of recantation is to be found entire in a lanfrank , b algerus , and c gracian ; yet the glosser on gratian , d john semeca marks it with this note ; except you understand well the words of berengarius ( he should rather have said of pope nicholas , and cardinal humbertus ) you shall fall into a greater heresie than his was , e for he exceeded the truth , and spake hyperbolically . and so f richard de mediavilla ; berengarius being accused , overshot himself in his justification ; but the excess of his words should be ascribed to those who prescribed and forced them upon him . yet in all this we hear nothing of transubstantiation . . berengarius at last escaped out of this danger , and conscious to himself of having denied the truth , took heart again , and refuted in writing his own impious and absurd recantation , and said , that by force it was exterted from him by the church of malignants , the council of vanity . lanfrank of caen , at that time head of a monastery in france , afterwards archbishop of canterbury , and guitmundus , aversanus answered him . and though it is not to be doubted but that berengarius , and those of his party , writ and replied again and again , yet so well did their adversaries look to it , that nothing of theirs remains , save some citations in lanfrank . but it were to be wisht that we had now the entire works of berengarius , who was a learned man , and a constant follower of antiquity , for out of them we might know with more certainty how things went , then we can out of what his profest enemies have said . . this sacramental debate ceased a while because of the tumults of war raised in apulia and elsewhere by pope nicholas the second ; but it began again as soon as hildebrand , called gregory the seventh , came to the papal chair . for berengarius was cited again to a new council at rome , where some being of one opinion , and some of another , ( as it is in the g acts of that council , writ by those of the popes faction ) his cause could not be so intirely oppressed but that some bishops were still found to uphold it . nay , the ring leader himself , hildebrand , is said to have doubted , h whether what we receive at the lords table be indeed the body of christ by a substantial conversion . but i three months space having been granted to berengarius , and a fast appointed to the cardinals , k that god would shew by some sign from heaven ( which yet he did not ) who was in the right the pope or berengarius concerning the body of the lord ; at last the business was decided without any oracle from above , and a new form of retractation imposed on l berengarius whereby he was henceforth forward to confess , under pain of the popes high displeasure , that the mystick bread ( first made m magical and enchanting by hildebrana ) is substantially turned into n the true and proper flesh of christ , which whether he ever did is not certain . for though o malmesbury tells us , that he died in that roman faith , yet p there are ancienter than he , who q say , that he was never converted from his first opinion . and some relate , that after this last condemnation having given over his studies , and given to the poor all he had , he wrought with his own hands for his r living . other things related of him by some slaves of the roman see , deserve no credit . these things hapned , as we have said , in the year . and soon after berengarius died . . berengarius being dead the orthodox and ancient doctrine of the lords supper which he maintained did not die with him ( as the s chronicus cassinensis would have it : ) for it was still constantly retained by st. bernard , abbot of clairvaux , who lived about the beginning of the twelfth century . in his discourse on the lords supper , he joyns together the outward form of the sacrament , and the spiritual efficacy of it , as the shell and the kernel , the sacred sign , and the thing signified ; the one he takes out of the words of the institution , and the other , out of christs sermon in the sixth of st. john. and in the same place explaining , that sacraments are not things absolute in themselves without any relation , but mysteries , wherein by the gift of a visible sign , an invisible and divine grace with the body and bloud of christ is given , he saith , that the visible sign is as a ring , which is given not for it self or absolutely , but to invest and give possession of an estate made over to one . many things ( saith he ) are done for their own sake , and many in reference to something else , and then they are called signs . a ring is given absolutely as a gift , and then it hath no other meaning ; it is also given to make good an investiture or contract , and then it is a sign : so that he that receives it may say , the ring is not worth much , it is what it signifies , the inheritance i value . in this manner when the passion of our lord drew nigh , he took care that his disciples might be invested with his grace , that his invisible grace might be assured and given to them by a visible sign . to this end all sacraments are instituted , and to this the participation of the eucharist is appointed . now , as no man can fancy that the ring is substantially changed into the inheritance , whether lands or houses , none also can say with truth , or without absurdity , that the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and bloud of christ . but in his sermon on the purification , which none doubts to be his , he speaks yet more plain ; the body of christ in the sacrament is the food of the soul , not of the belly , therefore we eat him not corporally ; but in the manner that christ is meat , in the same manner we understand that he is eaten . also in his sermon on st. martin , which undoubtedly is his also ; to this day ( saith he ) the same flesh is given to us , but spiritually , therefore not corporally . for the truth of things spiritually present is certain also . as to what he saith in another place , that the priest holds god in his hands , it is a flourish of oratory , as is that of st. chrysostom , in comes the priest carrying the holy ghost . . about the same time rupertus , abbot of tuitium , famous by his writings , did also teach that the substance of the bread in the eucharist is not converted , but remains . these be his words ; a you must attribute all to the operation of the holy ghost , who never spoils or destroys any substance he useth , but to that natural goodness it had before , adds an invisible excellency which it had not . he hath b indeed an unwarrantable opinion of the union of the bread and body of christ into one person , but it came ( as some others , as absurd in that age ) from too great a curiosity about determining the manner of christs presence , and of the union of his body with the bread , about which that learned man troubled himself too much . however he neither taught nor mentioned transubstantiation . not long after that algerus , a monk , and some others had had some disputes about this subject , pet. lombard made up his books of sentences , in the fourth whereof he treats of the eucharist , and thinks that it is taught by some sayings of the ancients ; that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the body and bloud of christ . but soon after he adds ; if it be demanded what manner of change that is , whether formal , or substantial , or of any other kind , that i cannot resolve . therefore he did not yet hold transubstantiation as a point of faith : nay , he doth not seem constant to himself in making it a probable opinion , but rather to waver , to say and unsay , and to shelter his cause under the fathers name , rather than maintain it himself . of the accidents remaining without a subject , and of the breaking into parts the body of christ , ( as berengarius was bid to say by pope nicholas ) he reasons strangely but very poorly . . otho , bishop of frisingen , as great by his piety and learning as by his bloud , ( for he was nephew to henry the fourth , and the emperour henry the fifth married his sister , he was also uncle to frederick , and half brother to king conrade ) lived about the same time . he believed and writ , c that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist , as did many more in that age. . as for the new-coyn'd word transubstantiation it is hardly to be found before the middle of this century . for the first that mention it are d petrus blesensis , who lived under pope alexander the third , and stephen eduensis e a bishop , whose age and writings are very doubtful . and those latter authors f who make it as ancient as the tenth century , want sufficient witnesses to prove it by , as i said g before . . the thirteenth century now follows ; wherein the world growing both older and worse , a great deal of trouble and confusion there was about religion ; the bishop of rome exalted himself not only into his lofty chair , over the universal church , but even into a majestical throne , over all the empires and kingdoms of the world . new orders of friers sprung up in this age , who disputed and clamoured fiercely against many doctrines of the ancienter and purer church , and amongst the rest against that of the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ : so that now there remained nothing but to confirm the new tenet of transubstantiation , and impose it so peremptorily on the christian world , that none might dare so much as to hiss against it . this pope innocent the third bravely performed . he succeeding celestin the third at thirty years of age , and marching stoutly in the foot-steps of hildebrand , called a council at rome in st. john lateran , and was the first that ever presumed to make the new-devised-doctrine of transubstantiation an article of faith necessary to salvation , and that by his own meer authority . . how much he took upon himself , and what was the mans spirit and humour will easily appear to any man by these his words which i here set down . to me it is said in the prophet , i have set thee over nations , and over kingdoms , to root out , and to pull down , and to destroy , and to throw down , and to build , and to plant . to me also it is said in the person of the apostle , to thee will i give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . for i am in a middle state betwixt god and man , below god , but above man ; yea , greater than man , being i judge all men , and can be judged by none : h am not i the bridegroom , and each of you i the bridegrooms friend ? the bridegroom i am , because i have the bride , the noble , rich , lofty , and holy church of rome , who is the mother and mistris of all the faithful , who hath brought me a precious and inestimable k portion , to wit , the fulness of things spiritual , and the vastness of temporal , with the greatness and multitude of both — l god made two great lights in the firmament of heaven ; he hath also made two great lights in the firmament of the vniversal church , that is , he hath instituted two dignities which are the papal authority , and the regal . but that which governs the day , that is , spiritual things , is the greater ; and that which governs carnal things the less ; so that it ought to be acknowledged that there is the same difference between the ( roman ) high priest and kings , as between the sun and moon . thus he , when he was become christs vicar , or rather his rival . these things i rehearse that we may see how things went , and what was the face of the latine church , when pope innocent the third propounded and imposed transubstantiation as an article of faith ; m as is plainly and at large set down by a learned author george calixtus who deserves equally to be praised and imitated . . this innocent therefore , who to encrease his power and authority wrought great troubles to the emperour philip , stript otho the fourth of the empire , forced john king of england to yield up into his hand this kingdom , and that of ireland , and make them tributary to the see of rome ; who , under pretence of a spiritual jurisdiction , took to himself both the supreme power over things temporal , and the things themselves ; who was proud and ambicious beyond all men , covetous to the height of greediness ( they are the words of n matthew paris , and ever ready to commit the most wicked villanies so he might be recompenced for it ; this ( i say ) was the man who in his lateran council propounded that transubstantiation should be made an article of faith , and when the council would not o grant it , did it himself by his own arbitrary power , against which none durst open his mouth . for those canons which this day are shewn about under the name of the council , are none of his , but meerly the decrees of pope innocent , first writ by him , and read in the p council , and disliked by many , and afterwards set down in the book of decretals under certain titles , by his nephew gregory the ninth . . the same pope , after he had pronounced them hereticks who for the future should deny that the body and bloud of christ are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar , under the outward form of bread and wine , the bread being transubstantiated into the body , and the wine into the bloud ; delivers them all , of what office or dignity soever , to the secular power q to receive condign punishment , that is , to be burnt , commands those that are suspected to be tried and examined ; and declares them infamous , disabled from making a will , and incapable of any office or inheritance that should favour or entertain them , and sets all other christians against them . then he ordains r that the secular powers shall be compelled by ecclesiastick censures publickly to swear that they will defend ( this ) faith , and endeavour utterly to destroy all whom the church ( of rome ) should note for hereticks . but ( saith he ) if the temporal prince doth neglect this , let him be excommunicated : and if he slights to give satisfaction within a year , let the soveraign pontif be certified of it , that he may absolve his subjects from their allegiance , and expose his territories to be taken and enjoyed without any contradiction by any catholicks ( romans ) that destroy the hereticks , &c. ( that is , those who do not believe transubstantiation . ) thus innocent the third by excommunications , and by arms , by rebellions , by tortures , and by burning alive was pleased to establish his new article of faith. . and truly had he not used such means , they themselves who did cleave to the church of rome would not have embraced this doctrine . for it did not find such acceptance , but that many notwithstanding did now and then oppose it . nay , not only transubstantiation , but even the church ( or rather the court ) of rome , which , if we believe chancellour s gerson , was at this time wholly brutish and carnal , without almost any sense of the things of god , was rejected by many , as it is well known . for certain it is , that transubstantiation being once established , there was a foundation laid to many superstitions and errors , which could neither be suffered nor approved by those that feared god. and among the subscribers to transubstantiation there grew a thicket of thorny and monstrous questions , wherewith the schoolmen were so busie , that it may with great truth be affirmed , that then came so light a divinity concerning the holy sacrament , and the adoration of it , which was not only very new , but very strange also , and never heard of among the fathers . there grew also out of the same stock illusions , and false miracles , deceitful dreams , feined visions , and such like unchristian devices about the corporal presence of christ , as that some did see a child in the host , some flesh , some bloud , any thing that could come into the idle fancies of idle and superstitious men . t one at the point of death durst not receive the body of christ , because he could keep nothing in ; but as he drew nigh to adore it , his breast bare , and his arms open , the host , leaping out of the priests hand , having made it self a passage , entred of its own accord into the place where the dying mans heart lay bid , and the hole being made up again without any thing of a scar , the man lay down and then expired . another u being ready to die begged , that , his side being washt , and covered with a clean cloath , the body of christ might be set on it : which being done , the cloath by degrees gave place to the body of christ , and soon after when that divine body toucht the mans skin , it penetrated to his very heart in the sight of all the by standers . they also tell the story , or rather the fable , how that the body of christ ( for so they call the consecrated bread ) being set in a bushel upon some oats , an horse , an oxe , and an ass bowed their knees , and adored their lord in the host . these , and such like fictions were dayly invented without number by the patrons of transubstantiation , and the impudence and boldness of coyning such forgeries hath from them past upon their successors . this was observed by king james in the writings of x bellarmine himself , who reports of a certain devont mare that worshipped the host kneeling , ( knowing doubtless that by a due consecration it was transubstantiated . ) cesarius the monk , who lived soon after innocent the third , is full of such miracles ; and yet he hath a history which shews that in his time transubstantiation was utterly unknown to a learned priest , canon of a great church . at colen ( saith he ) there was a canon in full orders , called peter , when on a certain day another of the canons was sick , and about to receive the sacrament in his presence , the officiating priest asked the sick man , dost thou believe that this is the true body of the lord which was born of the virgin ? he made answer , i believe it ; peter hearing and observing their words was amazed at them . afterwards he coming alone to everhardus the professor of divinity , who had been also present at the communion , he asked him , did the priest question the sick man aright ? he answered yes , and whoever believes otherwise is an y heretick . then peter , weeping , and smiting his breast , cried out , woe is me wretched priest ! how have i hitherto said mass ? for to this hour i thought that the bread and wine after the consecration were only a sacrament , that is , the sign and representation of the lords body and bloud . . i have already touched it , that , together with the new doctrine of transubstantiation , there sprung up new sects of friers , which indeed in a short time increased beyond belief . for now to the order of dominicans ( whom innocent the third had made his inquisitors to kill and burn z hereticks ) was added the order of begging franciscans ; and the augustine eremits , and the carmelites were set up again . from these came the schoolmen , as we now call them , whose studies ( as studies were in that time ) were all imployed about commencing peter lombard master of the sentences . . these men tired their brains ( as we said ) about unheard of questions , touching transubstantiation , such as pious ears would abhor to hear . for they ask , . whether that be the body of christ which sometimes appears in the form of flesh , or of a child on the altar , and answer that they know not ; because such apparitions happen often , and are caused either by mens juggling , or by the operation of the devil . . whether the mice ( who sometimes feast upon the hosts when they are not well shut up ) eat the body of christ it self ? or if a dog or a hog should swallow down the consecrated host whole , whether the lords body should pass into their belly together with the accidents ? some indeed answer ( other some being otherwise minded ) that , though the body of christ enters not into the brutes mouth as corporal meat , yet it enters together with the appearances by reason that they are inseparable one from the other , ( meer nonsense ) for as long as the accidents of the bread ( i. e. the sha●● , and taste , and colour , &c. ) remain in their proper a being , so long is the body of christ inseparably joyned with them ; wherefore if the accidents in their nature pass into the belly , or are cast out by vomiting , the body of christ it self must of necessity go along with them : and for this cause pious souls ( i repeat their own words ) do frequently eat again with great reverence the parts of the host cast out by vomiting . others answer also ; b that a beast eats not the body of christ sacramentally , but accidentally , as a man that should eat a consecrated host , not knowing that it was consecrated . . they inquire about musty and rotten hosts , and because the body of christ is incorruptible , and not subject to putrefaction , therefore they answer ; c that the hosts are never so , and that though they appear as if they were , yet in reallity they are not ; as christ appeared as a gardener though he was no gardener . . they demand concerning indigested hosts which passing through the belly are cast into the draught , or concerning those that are cast into the worst of sinks , or into the dirt . whether such hosts cease to be the body of christ ? and answer , d that whether they be cast into the sink or the privy , as long as the appearances remain , the body of christ is inseparable from t●●● . and for the contrary opinion , they say that it is not tenable , and that it is not safe for any to hold it , because the pope e hath forbid it should be maintained under pain of excommunication . therefore the modern schoolmen f add , that if any should hold the contrary after the popes determination , he should be condemned by the church ( of rome that is : ) nay , they hold it to be a point of faith which none may doubt of , because the contrary doctrine hath been condemned by pope gregory the eleventh . . they ask concerning the accidents , whether the body of christ be under them when they are abstracted from their subject ? this is against logick . or whether worms be gendred , or mice nourished of accidents ? and this against physick . . whether the body of christ can at the very same time move both upwards and downwards , one priest lifting up the host , and another setting it down . and i know not how many more such thorny questions have wearied and non-plust them and all their school , and brought them to such straights and extremities , that they know not what to resolve , nor what shifts to make . and truly it had been very happy for religion if , as the ancients never touched or mentioned transubstantiation , so latter times had never so much as heard of its name . for god made his sacrament upright ( as he did g man ) but about it they have sought out many inventions . . likewise , this transubstantiation hath given occasion to some most wicked and impious wretches to abuse and profane most unworthily what they thought to be the body of christ . for instances may be brought of some wicked priests , who for filthy lucre have sold some consecrated hosts to jews and sorcerers , who have stabb'd and burnt them , and used them for witchcraft and inchantments . nay , we read h that st. lewis himself ( very ill advised in that ) gave once to the turks and saracens a consecrated host as a pledge of his promise , and an assurance of peace . now , can any one , who counts these things abominable , perswade himself that our blessed saviour would have appointed , that his most holy body should be present in his church in such a manner , as that it should come into the hands of his greatest enemies , and the worst of infidels , and be eaten by dogs and rats , and be vomited up , burnt , cast into sinks , and used for magical poysons and witchcraft ? i mention these with horror and trembling , and therefore abstain from raking any more in this dunghill . . no wonder therefore if this new doctrine of innocent the third , being liable to such foul absurdities and detestable abuses , few men could be perswaded , in the fourteenth century , that the body of christ is really ( or by transubstantiation ) in the sacrament of the altar ; as it is recorded by our country-man i robert holkot , who lived about the middle of that century . as also k thomas aquinas reports of some in his time , who believed that after consecration , not only the accidents of the bread , but its substantial form remained . and albertus magnus himself , who was thomas his his tutor , and writ not long after innocent the third , speaks of transubstantiation as of a doubtful question only . nay , that it was absolutely rejected and opposed by many , is generally known ; for the anathema of trent had not yet backt the lateran decree . . as for the rest of the schoolmen ( especially the modern ) who are as it were sworn to pope innocent's determination , they use to express their belief in this matter with great words , but neither pious nor solid , in this manner ; l the common opinion is to be embraced , not because reason requires it , but because it is determined by the bishop of rome . item , m that ought to be of greatest weight that we must hold with the holy church of rome about the sacraments ; now it holds that the bread is transubstantiated into the body , and the wine into the bloud , as it is clearly said , extra . de fide & summa trinitate . cap. firmiter . again , n i prove that of necessity the bread is changed into the body of christ , for we must hold that declaration of faith which the pope declares must be held . thus among the papists , if it be the pleasure of an imperious pope as was innocent the third , doctrines of faith shall now and then increase in bulk and number , though they be such as are most contrary to holy scripture , though they were never heard of in the primitive church ; and though from them such consequences necessarily follow , as are most injurious to christ and his holy religion . for after innocent the third , the roman faith was thus much o increased by the determination of pope gregory the eleventh p , that if it so happens the body of christ in the consecrated host may descend into a rats belly , or into a privy , or any such foul place . . in the fifteenth century the council of constance ( which by a sacrilegious attempt took away the sacramental cup from the people , and from the priests when they do not officiate ) did wrongfully condemn wiclif , who was already dead , because amongst other things he had taught with the ancients , that the substance of the bread and wine remains materially in the sacrament of the altar ; and that in the same sacrament , no accidents of bread and wine remain without a substance . which two assertions are most true . . cardinal cameracencis , who lived about the time of the council of constance , doth not seem to own the decree of pope innocent as the determination of the church . for that the bread should still remain , he confesseth , a that it is possible : that it is not against reason or the authority of the bible . but concerning the conversion of the bread he says , that clearly it cannot be inferred from scripture , nor yet from the determination of the church , as he judgeth . yet because the common opinion was otherwise , he yielding to the times was fain to follow , though with some reluctancy . . the council of florence , which was not long after , did not at all treat with the greeks about transubstantiation , nor the consecration of the sacrament , but left them undetermined , with many other controversies . but that which is called the armenians instruction ( and in this cause , and almost all disputes is cited as the decree of the general council of florence , by b soto , c bellarmine , and the roman d catechism ) is no decree of the council , as we have demonstrated e somewhere else ; but a false and forged decree of pope eugenius the fourth , who doth indeed in that instruction prescribe to the armenians a form of doctrine about the sacrament , saying , that by vertue of the words of christ , the substance of the bread is turned into his body , and the substance of the wine into his bloud : but that he did it with the approbation of the council , as he often says in his decree , is proved to be altogether false , as well by the acts of the council , as by the unanswerable arguments of f c. de capite fontium , archbishop of caesarea , in his book de necessaria theologiae scholasticae correctione , dedicated to pope sixtus the fifth . for how could the council of florence approve that decree which was made more than three months after it was ended ? it being certain , that after the council was g done , the armenians with the greeks , having each of them signed letters of union , ( which yet were not approved by all , nor long in force after they were subscribed ) departed out of florence july , whereas the instruction was not given while november . therefore by the mutual consent of both parties was nothing here done or decreed about transubstantiation , or the rest of the articles of the new roman faith. but eugenius , or whoever was the forger of the decree , put a cheat upon his reader . perhaps he had seen the same done by innocent the third , or gregory the ninth , in the pretended decrees of the council of lateran , which were the popes only , but not the council's . and certainly it is more likely eugenius did it rather to please himself , than for any hopes he could have that at his command the armenians would receive and obey his instruction sooner than the greeks . for to this day the h armenians believe that the elements of bread and wine retain their nature in the sacrament of the eucharist . . by these any considering person may easily see , that transubstantiation is a meer novelty ; not warranted either by scripture or antiquity ; invented about the middle of the twelfth century , out of some misunderstood sayings of some of the fathers ; confirmed by no ecclesiastick or papal decree before the year . afterwards received only here and there in the roman church ; debated in the schools by many disputes ; linble to many very bad consequences ; rejected ( for there was never those wanting that opposed it ) by many great and pious men , until it was maintained in the sacrilegious council of constance ; and at last in the year . confirmed in the council of i trent , by a few latine bishops , slaves to the roman see ; imposed upon all , under pain of an anathema to be feared by none ; and so spread too too far , by the tyrannical and most unjust command of the k pope . so that we have no reason to embrace it , untill it shall be demonstrated , that except the substance of the bread be changed into the very body of christ , his words cannot possibly be true ; nor his body present . which will never be done . a table of the places of scripture cited in this book . exod xii . , . chap. i. art. eccl. vii . . chap. vii . st. mat. xxvi . . chap. i. st. luk. xxii . . ibid.   st. job . iii. . chap. vi. st. job . iii. . chap. vii . st. job . vi. . chap. i. rom. xii . . chap. vi. cor. iv. . ibid.   cor. x. . chap. i. ● cor. x. , & , ibid.   gal. vi. . chap. vii . eph. iv. . ibid.   pet. i. . ibid.   jude v. . in the preface .   a table of the ancient fathers . century i. clemens romanus chap. vi. art. st. ignatius ibid. century ii. theoph. antioch . chap. vi. justinus martyr . chap. v.   — vi. athenagoras tatianus chap. vi. irenaeus , chap. v.   — vi. , & century iii. tertullian . chap. v.   — vi. origenes , chap v.   ▪ vi. , & cyprian , chap. v.   — vi. , & clem. alexand. chap. vi. , & minutius felix , ibid.   arnobius , chap. v. century iv. euseb . caesar . chap. vi. athanasius , chap. v. cyril . hieros . ibid.   — vi. , & juvencus , macarius , hilarius , optatus , euseb . emiss . greg. naz. cyril . alex. epiphanius , hieronimus , theoph. alex. gaudentius , chap. vi. , & st. basil . chap. v.   — vi. greg nyss . chap. v.   — vi. ambrosius , chap. v.   — vi. , , chrysost . chap. v. art.   — vi. , , century v. st. austin , chap. v. prosper iii. chap. v. leo iv.     theodoret. chap. v.   ▪ vi. gelasius , chap. v. sedulius , gennadius , chap. vi. faustus reg. ibid. century vi. ephrem , chap. v. facundus , ibid. fulgentius . chap. vi. victor antioch . primasius , procop. gaz. chap. vi. century vii . isidorus hispal . chap. v. hesychius , chap. vi. , & maximus , ibid. century viii . vener . beda , chap. v. carol. magnus , ibid. damascenus , chap. vi. century ix . paschasius , chap. v. amalarius , — rabanus maurus , — joh. erigena , — wal. strabo , — bertramus — niceph. patria . hincmarus , chap. vi. art. century x. herigerus , chap. v. fulbertus , chap. vi. century xi . idem fulbertus , chap. vii . berengarius , ibid. , , , &c. hildebertus , chap. vii . theophylact , oecumenius , chap. vi. century xii . bernardus , chap. vii .   — iii. rupertus , chap. vii . a table of the schoolmen . century xiii . lombardus , chap. vii . art. alex. alensis , ibid.   — vi. albertus magnus , ibid. tho. aquinas , ▪ rich. de mediavilla , chap. vii . century xiv . scotus , durandus , occamus , chap. v. baconus , chap. vii . holcotus , — th. argent . — brulifer , — century xv. card. camer . chap. v. art.   — vii . gabriel biel , ibid   century xvi . cajetan , ibid.   dom. soto . chap vii . a table of the councils . nicene i. chap. v art. calced . ibid. ancyran . neocaesarien . laodiceum , carthagin . aurelian . toletánum iv. brac●arense , toletan . vi. constantin . vi. chap. vi. brixiense , chap. vii . anglican . chap v.   — vi. arelatense iii. — vi. vercellense , chap. vii . turonense , ibid. rom. sub nicol. ii. ibid. rom. sub greg. vii . ibid. lateran . sub innoc. iii. ibid. constantiense , ibid. florentinum , ibid. tridentinum , ibid. a table of the popes . leo ix . chap. vii . art. victor ii. — nicholas ii. — gregory vii . — innocent iii. — , , &c. gregory ix . chap. vi. gregory xi . chap. vii . ,   — vi. eugenius iv. ibid. plus iv. 〈◊〉   〈…〉 a table of the historians . photius , chap. v art. trithem . — malmesbury , — ,   — vii . , , antonius , ibid. vincentius , — v , & vii . sigebert , ibid.   — vii . thevet , chap. vii . pap. mass . chap. vii . mat. paris , — , m. westm . ibid.   baronius , — , sigonius , — chron. cassin . — engilb . trevir . — bertold . const . benno card. abbas usperg . ibid.   otho frising . ibid. platina , — tho. walsing . discip . de temp. caesarius monach. ibid. ● leunclavius , — lasicius , — a table of the confessions of reformed churches . anglican . chap. ii. art. augustan . ibid. saxon. — wittemberg . — art. bohem. — polon . — & argentin . & basil . — gallica , — & belgica , — helvet . prior & posterior . ibid. & a table of the reformed authors . i uther , chap. ii. art. bucerus , zuinglius , occolamp . ibid.   poinetus , — juellus , — bilson . — andrews , —   jacobus rex , — hooker . joh. episc . roffens . montacut . armachan . franc. episc . eliens . laud. overal . ibid.   anton. de dom. ibid. calvinus , ibid. colloq . ratisb . chap. v. a table of the papists authors . bellarmin . chap. iii. art. , &   — iv.   — v. , , , ,   — vi. , , ,   — vii . , , salmcron , chap. iv. tolet , chap. iv. roffens . chap. v. perron . ibid. possevin . ibid. ,   — vii . steph. gard. chap. v. greg. de valen. ibid. praefat. in theod. ibid.   sirmond . — tho. walden . —   — vii . index lib. prob . chap. v. indices expurg . ibid.   sixt. senens . ibid.   vasquez . chap. vi.   — vii . direct . inquis . chap. vi.   — vii . alph. à castro , chap. vi. discursus de jesuit . ibid.   watson quodlib . ibid.   garetius , chap. vii . alanus , ibid.   lanfrancus ibid. , , guitmundus ibid. p. blessens . ibid. st. eduens . ibid.   gerson , ibid. catechis . trid. ibid. de capite fontium , ibid.   algerus , ibid. gratiani glossator , ibid. ● finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e mat. . . luk. . ● . * as g. cali●tus writes in some place of his learned exercitations ; and before him m. chemnitius , in exam. con. trid. atque in l●●is t●●ol . cor. . . exod. . . cor. . , . joh. . . mat. . . notes for div a -e in the book of canons publish'd by authority , anno . ch . of preach . artic. of relig. . comm. service . ibid. church catech. a bils . resp . ad card. alan . l. . b andr. resp . ad apol bel. c. . p. caus . ep. to card. perron . ep. ross . praef. ad ●●ct . montac . in antid . art. . c in a manuscript shortly to be printed . the augustan confession of ger● churches collat. s. ger● ▪ . the saxon confession . art. . hil. trin. l. . the confession of wittemb . in the preface . confess . bohem. art. . consensus poloni●us . near the begining . confessio theol. argent . & basil . the french confess . art. . lezat . eccl gall. conf . belg. conf. art. . helvet . confess . prior . ch. . helvet . conf. posterior . conf. thorun . comm. on cor. instit . book . ch. . treat . of the lords supper . inst . ● . . ch. . num. . notes for div a -e bell. de euch l ▪ ● . c ● . §. . reg. & s●qu . ibid. part. . ibid. § . reg. st b●rn . serm de s. martin . aug. super 〈…〉 . tract . . notes for div a -e cor. . . conc. trident . sess . . c. . ibid. can. . bulla pii papae . consir . conc. trident . decret . de sum . trin. & fide cathol . tit. . tom. . tract . . tom. . disp . . in ep. . petri . instr . sacerd . l. ● . c. ● . lib. . ●● euchar. cap. . grets . def beliar. l. . c ● . syl. prior. sub initio . notes for div a -e * see ch . . art . . c. art . . c. . art . , and this ch . art . . scot. in . sent d. . q. . durand . ut suprae . biel in can. missae sect . . occam . cent l. ● . q. . & in . sent d. . q. . cam. in . d . q. . l contra luth de capt babil . c. . cajetan in tho. p . q. . art . ibid. q. . art . . bell. de euch. l. . c. . just . mart. an. dom. . apol. . ad anton. 〈…〉 one 〈…〉 . st. iren. a. d. . lib. . cont. haeres . c. . lib . c. . ibid. tertul. a. d. . contra marcion l . c. . origen . a d. ● . dial. . de hom. christo contra marcion . homil. . in lev. mat. . origen is unjustly numbred by reason of these words among the hereticks called stercoranistae . s. cyprian a. d. . l. . ep. . sive . edit . pamel . con. nice . a. d. . in actis ibid. a gel. cyciz . conscript . st. athan. a. d. . in illud evangelii quicunque dixerit verbum , &c. & in c. . st. joh. qui mandus cat caernem means , &c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . de euch. 〈…〉 . ar . ● . st. cyril of hier. a d. . chatech . myst . . chatech . myst . . thy bodily palate ( saith he ) tasteth one thing there , and thy faith another . st. basil . a. d. . lib. de spir. sanc. lib de bapt. st greg nyss a. d. . orat. de s. baptis . st ambr. a d. . lib de sacram . . cap. . ibid. de init . myst . cap. . de sacr. l. . c. . st chrys . a. d. . hom. . in st. joh. ibid. in ep. ad caesar ▪ contra haeres . apol. a l. de euch. . c . b in appar chrys . c steph. gard. ep. wi●t cont pet m●rt . lib. ● . de euchar. s. austin . a. d. ● . in psal . . epist . . ad bonif. cont max. l. . c. . de doctr. christ . cap. . st. prosp . a. d. . sent. pros . dist . . de cors : cap. hoc est . b. theodoret . dial. . ibid. dial. . l . de euch. c. praes . in dial. theod . st gelas . a. , or . plus minus . de duabus in christo natur , in biblioth . patrum . tom. . bell loco citat baron . a. d. . nota marg. ad verba gelasii in b. b. patrum . in colloq . ratisb . a. . st cyril of alex. the council of calc . circa . an. ● . inter ep. cyr. in con. eph. con. chal. art. . ephrem . ant. . phot. in bibl. n. . ibid. facund . episc . a. d. . lib . c. . isid . hisp . a. d . lib . de off. eccl. cap. . ven bede a. d. . serm. de epiph. com. in luk. . com. in psal . . car. mag. a. d. . ep. ad alcu . de ratione sept. pasch . a. d. . lib. de corp . & sang christi . fell de scrip eccles . verbo pasch . siem . in vita paesc . praef. editione pa risiensi . amal. an. . praef. in libr de eccl. ●ffi● . raban . a. d. . trithem . de script . eccl. rabanus maur. de inst . cler. l. . c. . g. malm. a. . and tho. wall. a. . job . erig . a. . a that book was afterwards condemned under leo ix . two hundred years after by the maintainers of transubstantiation . b anton. tit c. . § . vincent . l c ● . & aln . c maims . de gestis reg. angl . l . wal stra. ●●● ▪ de rebus 〈◊〉 ● . ●● . bertram priest and abbot , a. . lib. de corp . & sang dom part . . ibid. part. . index lib. prob . in sine concil trid. author . pape editus in lit. b. index expur . b●lg . jussu & author . phil . hisp . reg. atque albani ducis concilio concinn . p. . v. bert. index expur . hisp . d. gasp . quirogae , card & inquis . gener . in fine . arnob. l . sixt. sen. praef . in bibl. sanc. possev . prol. in appa . sac. herig . ab. a. d. ● . hom. pasc . angl. sax. a. d. . impressae lond & ms. in publ . cant. acad. bib. homil. sacerd synod . impr . lond. cum homil. paschali . notes for div a -e authors left out in the foregoing chapter . a constit . ap l . c. . & . b epist ad philadel . c ad an●●● . l. . d athenag legat . pro christ . e in diaties . f de stro l. . & de padag . l. . g in octavio h de dem. evan. l . c. . & l. . c. . i juv. de hist . evang . l. . k mac. hom. . l in mat. & de syn. m contra parm l. . n hom de corp. chr. o orat. fun . gorg. p in joh. l. . c. ● . q in ancorato r contra jovin . & in jer. . & in mat. . s epist . pasch . t gaud. in exod . u in epist . st paul. x de dogm . eccl. c. . y homil. . in epith z de fide cap . & epist . ad ferrand . a com. in ma●k ● . b in epist . ad cor. c in gen. d in levit. . . e in hierareh dion . f de fide orthod . g de cherub c. . h in vita s. remig. i epist . ad adeodat . k an. . can. . l a. eodem . can. . m in act. l . can. . n a. . can. . o a. . can. . p a . can. . q a. . can. . r a. . can. . s a. . can. . t a. . can. . hesych . l . in levit. cap. . a. d. . concil . angl. sp●lm . tredicimus inter eos qui bedaetitulum praeferunt , a d. ● . & sub edgaro rege . ibid a. d. ● . conc. arelat . . ci tal . à gratiano de conseor . dist . ● . a. d. . a alex. ales . lib. . q. . m. . art . . & q. . m. . thom. in . q. . art . . & in . d , . q. . b greg. xi . in director . inquis . p. . n. . & p ● . q. . c vasq disp . i . in . c . d answer to the allegations out of iren. orig. cyril hier. gre. naz. st. hier. st. austia and others . e de consecr dist . c sicut . an answer to the proofs out of st. hier. ep. ad heliod . . & ad evag. ●● . & ●● ▪ ambr. de iis qui init c. . &c. ep. . ad evag. st. chrys-hom . . in st. mat. an answer to what is cited out of st. cyp. ambrose , both the cyrills . chrys . gre. nyss . & aliorum . a joh. . . pet. . . cor. . . rom. . . eph. . gal. . . a iren. l. . c. . b clem. alex. l. . strom. c orig. serm. . in diversos . d cyril . hier. catech . . e basil . exhort . ad bapt. & s. chrys . hom . . de poenit. f greg. naz. orat . g greg. nyss . lib . contra eunom . hom. . de resur . ep ad eustath . latin. & ambros . h cyril . alexand. epist . pas●h , . & . i ● . chrysost . hom . in act. apost . idem hom. . in cor. k theod. dial. . theoph. in joh . & oecum in pet. . & alii . a iren. l. . c. . b clem. alex. l. . strom. c orig. serm. . in diversos . d cyril . hier. catech . . e basil . exhort . ad bapt. & s. chrys . hom . . de poenit. f greg. naz. orat . g greg. nyss . lib . contra eunom . hom. . de resur . ep ad eustath . latin. & ambros . h cyril . alexand. epist . pas●h , . & . i ● . chrysost . hom . in act. apost . idem hom. . in cor. k theod. dial. . theoph. in joh . & oecum in pet. . & alii . l st. austin . l. . contra crescon . cap. . st. ambr. de myst . c. . & de sacr. l. . c. . faust . reg. sive eus . emiss . de pas●h . facund . l . c. ult . m contra marc l. . c. . . & . . de carne christi . cap . superius citati . answer to the testimonies of s chry. cyril . alex. and others . serm de coen . dom. a hom. in encoen . b hom. . in mat. c lib. de sacerd. . d hom. & . in mat. e hom. . cor. f hom. . in jo● . & . in mat. tract . . in joh. epist . . lib. . & . a sect. . usque ad . answer to single testimony of fathers . dial. . ex ep. . ignat . de euch. l. . c. . . . dial. . apol. . ad ant imp . serm. de coen . dom. bell l. . de euch. c. . cyril . hieros catec . mystig sensu jam saepius dicto . lib. ● . de san●c . . & de init , myst . c. . bell loco ●itato . lib. . de euch. c. . the rest of the fathers . de consecr . dist . c. hoc est . a card. bellar de euch l. c. . . v. b extra de trin. & side cathol . c. c sess . . ca. . d lib. . contr . haereses indulg . e discurs . modest . de jesuit . p. . & wa●s . quodl . l. . art . . notes for div a -e card. bar. tom. ●o . annal. an . . § . gilb. genebr . chron. sub init . seculi . fulbert bishop of chartres . an. . ep. ad adeod . inter alia ejus opera impressa paris . an. . bereng . archdeacon of anger 's . an. . guliel . malms . de gestis . regum anglorum lib. . a. thevet . vit illust . vir. l. . ● . . pap. mass . annal. franc. l. . a garet . de ver â praesent . in epist . nuncup . & clas . . a. . b alan . de euch. l. . c. . extent apud lan. fr●deverit . corp . dom. in euch. a chron. à miraeo editum . b in contin bedae . c in bist . majori ad an . d ad eundum annum . baron . ad an. . s. . . e a. ● . conc. ver. sub leone papa f lanfr . in libro citato . g but it was about years after the death of this most innocent man. h adelm . in ep. ad bereng . i these of ren. ang leon , dole & maclo . &c. a. . conc. turon . sub vict. papa ii. an . con. rom. sub nicol. papa ii. an. . k de regn. ital l. . an. . l in chro. cassin . l. . c. . m baron . ad a § . n habetur apud gratian . de conse●r . dist . . cap. . o pap. mass . annal . franc. l. . a sub libri quem cont . bereng . scripsit initium . b lib . c . c ubi supra . d in c. ego bereng . de consecrat . dist . . e in c. utrum sub figura . . f in . dist . . prin . . q. . concil . rom sub hila. papa ● . . g excus . cum lanfran . libro , & apud binium . h engilb . arch●ep . trevir . apud goldast . imp. tom. . i bertold . const . chron an. . k benno card in vita hild. l haebetur ista formula apud tho waldens . tom. c. . & in regest . greg . m brix . syn. episc . apud abb. usperg in chron. ad an . n addit formula prescripta in proprictate naturae . o de gest . angl. l. . c. . et post eum ab aliis . vide b●ll . chronol . an. . p pogm . comment . . ad . part . direct . inquisit . q bertol. const . qui tempore brengar . vixit ad an. . r vincent . in spec. l. . c. . baron . ad an. . s. , &c. s chron. cassin . l. . c. . st. bern. an. . se●●● . de coena dom. joh. . , . serm. de purif . b. maria. serm. de s. mart. lib. . de sacerd. rupert . abb. an. . a in exod. l c. . b ex quâ consequabatur , panem esse corpus christi , sed corpus non humanum neque carneum , sed panaceum . pet. lombard an. . sens. l. . dist . . dist . . otho frisingensis . an. . c christ . agric. in antipist . p. . an. . d ep. . e de sacr. altaris in b. b. patrum . f bell. & possev de script . eccl. g chap. . art. . an. . innocen . . papa . the lateran council . innocen . serm. . h idem serm. . i job . . k addit , multae filiae congregaverunt divitias , hac autem sola supergressa est universas . l epist . ad imper. constant . extrà de majorit . & obedientia . c. . m extr● . de transubst . n in hist . johan . regis angliae . o mat. paris in hist . minori . & platin. in vita innocent . . p verba mat. par. in hist . mai. ad an. . extr. de fide & sum . trin. c firmiter credimus . q ibid. r ibid. transubstantiation and the court of rome rejected by many . s gers de concil gener . t thom. walsing . in hypod . neustr . ad an. . u discip . de temp. serm. ●● . x car ecllarm . apol. q . y for so it was decreed by innocent z meaning those that deny transubstantiation . alex. alens . l. . q. . m. . ● . . idem q. . m. . a. . a ibid . . m. . b tho. aq. sum. p. . q. . c. . c alg●r . l. . ● . . d thom. in . dist . . q. 〈…〉 ▪ bruli● in . ●ist . . q. . e g eg . papa xi . f soto in dist . . q. ● . ● . . vasq in . disp . . c. . direct . inquis p ● . n. ● . & p. . q. ● . g eccl. . ● . h leuncl . de rebus turc . n. . i in . q . an. . k . q . a. . l th. argent in . d. . q. . art . . m scot. in . dist . . q. . n bacon in . dist . . q. . a. . o ut supra art. . p a. . the council of constance . an. . card. cameracensis an. . a in . q . a. . the council of florence , an. . instructio ad armen . b in . dist . . q. . art . . c de euch. l. . c. . d part. . c. . num . . e in the history of the canon of scripture , p. . f c de cap. font. ac necess . cor . schol. the. p. , , & . g ex act. conc. flor. h job . lasic . de relig . armeniorum . i concil . trident. sess . . k bulla pii . de prosess . fidei . a relation of a conference held about religion at london by edw. stillingfleet ... with some gentlemen of the church of rome. stillingfleet, edward, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing b estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) a relation of a conference held about religion at london by edw. stillingfleet ... with some gentlemen of the church of rome. stillingfleet, edward, - . burnet, gilbert, - . [ ], p. printed and are to be sold by randal talor ..., london : . written also by gilbert burnet. cf. nuc pre- . reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - john latta sampled and proofread - john latta text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a relation of a conference held about religion , at london , by edw. stillingfleet , d. d. &c. with some gentlemen of the church of rome . london : printed , and are to be sold by randal taylor near stationers-hall . . the preface . there is nothing that is by a more universal agreement decried , than conferences about controversies of religion : and no wonder , for they have been generally managed with so much heat and passion , parties being more concerned for glory and victory , than truth ; and there is such foul dealing in the accounts given of them , that it is not strange to see these prejudices taken up against them . and yet it cannot be denied , but if men of candor and calmness should discourse about matters of religion , without any other interest than to seek and follow truth , there could not be a more effectual and easie way found for satisfying scruples . more can be said in one hour than read in a day : besides that what is said in a discourse discreetly managed , does more appositely meet with the doubtings and difficulties any body is perplexed with , than is possibly to be found in a book : and since almost all books disguise the opinions of those that differ from them , and represent their arguments as weak , and their opinions as odious ; conferences between those of different perswasions do remedy all these evils . but after all the advantages of this way , it must be confessed that for the greater part men are so engaged to their opinions by interest and other ties , that in conferences most persons are resolved before-hand to yield to no conviction , but to defend every thing : being only concerned to say so much as may darken weaker minds that are witnesses , and give them some occasion to triumph ; at least conceal any foil they may have received , by wrapping up some pittiful shift or other , in such words , and pronouncing them with such accents of assurance , and perhaps scorn , that they may seem to come off with victory . and it is no less frequent to see men after they have been so baffled , that all discerning witnesses are ashamed of them , yet being resolved to make up with impudence what is wanting in truth , as a coward is generally known to boast most , where he has least cause ; publish about what feats they have done , and tell every body they see how the cause in their mouth did triumph over their enemies : that so the praise of the defeat given may be divided between the cause and themselves : and though in modesty they may pretend to ascribe all to truth and the faith they contended for , yet in their hearts they desire the greatest part be offered to themselves . all these considerations with a great many more did appear to us , when the lady t. asked us if we would speak with her husband and some others of the church of rome , as well for clearing such scruples as the perpetual converse with those of that religion had raised in the lady ; as for satisfying her husband , of whose being willing to receive instruction she seemed confident . yet being well assured of the ladies great candor and worth , and being willing to stand up for the vindication and honour of our church , whatever might follow on it , we promised to be ready to wait on her at her house upon advertisement : without any nice treating before-hand , what we should confer about . therefore we neither asked who should be there , nor what number , nor in what method , or on what particulars our discourse should run , but went thither carrying only one friend along with us for a witness . if the discourse had been left to our managing , we resolved to have insisted chiefly on the corruptions in the worship of the roman church : to have shewed on several heads that there was good cause to reform these abuses ; and that the bishops and pastors of this church , the civil authority concurring , had sufficient authority for reforming it . these being the material things in controversie , which must satisfie every person if well made out , we intended to have discoursed about them ; but being put to answer , we followed those we had to deal with . but that we may not forestall the reader in any thing that passed in the ladies chamber , which he will find in the following account , we had no sooner left her house , but we resumed among our selves all had passed , that it might be written down , what ever should follow , to be published if need were . so we agreed to meet again three days after , to compare what could be written down , with our memories . and having met , an account was read , which did so exactly contain all that was spoken , as far as we could remember , that after a few additions , we all three signed the narrative then agreed to . few days had passed , when we found we had need of all that care and caution , for the matter had got wind , and was in every bodies mouth . many of our best friends know how far we were from talking of it , for till we were asked about it , we scarce opened our mouths of it to any person . but when it was said that we had been baffled and foiled , it was necessary for us to give some account of it : not that we were much concerned in what might be thought of us , but that the most excellent cause of our church and religion might not suffer by the misrepresentations of this conference . and the truth was , there was so little said by the gentlemen we spoke with , that was of weight , that we had scarce any occasion given us of speaking about things of importance : so that being but faintly assaulted , we had no great cause of boasting , had we been ever so much inclined to it . at length being weary with the questions put to us about it , we shewed some of our friends the written account of it . and that those of the church of rome might have no pretence to complain of any foul dealing on our part , we caused a copy of it to be writ out , and on the . of april sent it the lady t. to be shewed to them . and one of us , having the honour to meet with her afterwards , desired her to let her husband and the others with him know , that as we had set down very faithfully all we could remember that they had said ; so if they could except at any part of this narrative , or would add any thing that they either did say which we had forgot , or should have said which themselves had forgot to say , we desired they might add it to the account we sent them . for we looked on it as a most unreasonable thing , that the credit of any cause or party should depend on their extemporary faculty of speaking , the quickness of their invention , or the readiness of their memory who discourse about it : though it will appear that in this conference they had all the advantage , and we all the disadvantage possible : since they knew and were resolved what they would put us to , of which we were utterly ignorant : save that about an hour before we went thither , we had an advertisement sent us by a third person , that it was like they would assault us about the articles of our church , particularly that of the blessed sacrament . having made this offer to the lady of adding what they should desire , craving only leave that if they added any thing that was not said , we might be also allowed to add what we should have answered if such things had been said , we resolved to publish nothing till they had a competent time given them , both to make such additions to the narrative , and to consider the paper whereby we hope we have made out according to our undertaking , that the doctrine of the church for the first seven or eight ages was contrary to transubstantiation : which we sent to the lady on the seventeenth of april to be communicated to them . and therefore , though our conference was generally talked of , and all persons desired an account of it might be published ; yet we did delay it till we should hear from them . and meeting on the twenty ninth of april with him who is marked n. n. in the account of the conference , i told him , the foolish talk was made by their party about this conference , had set so many on us , who all called to us to print the account of it , that we were resolved on it : but i desired he might any time between that and trinity sunday , bring me what exceptions he or the other gentlemen had to the account we sent them , which he confessed he had seen . so i desired , that by that day i might have what additions they would make either of what they had said but was forgot by us , or what they would now add upon second thoughts : but longer i told him i could not delay the publishing it . i desired also to know by that time whether they intended any answer to the account we sent them of the doctrine of the fathers about transubstantiation . he confessed he had seen that paper : but by what he then said , it seemed they did not think of any answer to it . and so i waited still expecting to hear from him . at length , on the twentieth of may , n. n. came to me and told me some of these gentlemen were out of town , and so he would not take on him to give any thing in writing ; yet he desired me to take notice of some particulars he mentioned , which i intreated he would write down , that he might not complain of my misrepresenting what he said . this he declined to do , so i told him i would set it down the best way i could , and desired him to call again that he might see if i had written it down faithfully , which he promised to do that same afternoon , and was as good as his word , and i read to him what is subjoyned to the relation of the conference , which he acknowledged was a faithful account of what he had told me . i have considered it i hope to the full , so that it gave me more occasion of canvassing the whole matter . and thus the reader will find a great deal of reason to give an entire credit to this relation , since we have proceeded in it with so much candor , that it is plain we intended not to abuse the credulity of any , but were willing to offer this account to the censure of the adverse party ; and there being nothing else excepted against it , that must needs satisfie every reasonable man that all is true that he has here offered to his perusal . and if these gentlemen or any of their friends publish different or contrary relations of this conference , without that fair and open way of procedure which we have observed towards them ; we hope the reader will be so just as to consider , that our method in publishing this account has been candid and plain , and looks like men that were doing an honest thing , of which they were neither afraid nor ashamed : which cannot in reason be thought of any surreptitious account that like a work of darkness may be let flye abroad , without the name of any person to answer for it on his conscience or reputation : and that at least he will suspend his belief till a competent time be given to shew what mistakes or errors any such relation may be guilty of . we do not expect the reader shall receive great instructions from the following conference , for the truth is , we met with nothing but shufling . so that he will find when ever we came to discourse closely to any head , they very dexterously went off from it to another , and so did still shift off from following any thing was suggested . but we hope every reader will be so just to us as to acknowledge it was none of our fault , that we did not canvass things more exactly , for we proposed many things of great importance to be discoursed on , but could never bring them to fix on any thing . and this did fully satisfie the lady t. when she saw we were ready to have justified our church in all things , but that they did still decline the entering into any matter of weight : so that it appeared both to her and the rest of the company , that what boastings soever they spread about as if none of us would or durst appear in a conference to vindicate our church , all were without ground ; and the lady was by the blessing of god further confirmed in the truth , in which we hope god shall continue her to her lifes end . but we hope the letter and the two discourses that follow , will give the reader a more profitable entertainment . in the letter we give many short hints , and set down some select passages of the fathers , to shew they did not believe transubstantiation . upon all which we are ready to joyn issue to make good every thing in that paper , from which we believe it is apparent the primitive church was wholly a stranger to transubstantiation . it was also judged necessary by some of our friends that we should to purpose , and once for all , expose and discredit that unreasonable demand of shewing all the articles of our church in the express words of scripture : upon which the first discourse was written . and it being found that no answer was made to what n. n. said , to shew that it was not possible the doctrine of transubstantiation could have crept into any age , if those of that age had not had it from their fathers , and they from theirs up to the apostles days , this being also since our conference laid home to me by the same person , it was thought fit to give a full account how this doctrine could have been brought into the church , that so a change may appear to have been not only possible , but also probable , and therefore the second discourse was written . if these discourses have not that full finishing and life which the reader would desire , he must regrate his misfortune in this , that the person who was best able to have written them , and given them all possible advantages out of that vast stock of learning and iudgment he is master of , was so taken up with other work cut out for him by some of these gentlemens friends , of which we shall see an excellent account very speedily , that it was not possible for him to spare so much time for writing these ; so that it fell to the others share to do it : and therefore the reader is not to expect any thing like those high strains of wit and reason which fill all that authors writings , but must give allowance to one that studies to follow him though at a great distance : therefore all can be said from him is , that what is here performed was done by his direction and approbation , which to some degree will again encourage the reader , and so i leave him to the perusal of what follows . the relation of the conference . d. s. and m. b. went to m. l. t 's , as they had been desired by l. t. to confer with some persons upon the grounds of the church of england separating from rome , and to shew how unreasonable it was to go from our church to theirs . about half an hour after them , came in s. p. t. mr. w. and three more . there were present seven or eight ladies , three other church-men , and one or two more . when we were all set d. s. said to s. p. t. that we were come to wait on them for justifying our church ; that he was glad to see we had gentlemen to deal with , from whom he expected fair dealing , as on the other hand he hoped they should meet with nothing from us , but what became our profession . s. p. said , they had protestants to their wives , and there were other reasons too to make them wish they might turn protestants ; therefore he desired to be satisfied in one thing : and so took out the articles of the church , and read these words of the sixth article of the holy scriptures ; [ so that whatsoever is not read therein , nor may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith , or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation . ] then he turned to the twenty eighth article of the lord's supper , and read these words , [ and the mean whereby the body of christ is received and eaten in the supper , is faith : ] and added , he desired to know whether that was read in scripture or not , and in what place it was to be found . d. s. said , he must first explain that article of the scripture ; for this method of proceeding was already sufficiently known and exposed ; he clearly saw the snare they thought to bring him in , and the advantages they would draw from it . but it was the cause of the church he was to defend , which he hoped he was ready to seal with his blood , and was not to be given up for a trick . the meaning of the sixth article was , that nothing must be received or imposed , as an article of faith , but what was either expresly contained in scripture , or to be deduced and proved from it by a clear consequence : so that if in any article of our church which they rejected , he should either shew it in the express words of scripture , or prove it by a clear consequence , he performed all required in this article . if they would receive this , and fix upon it as the meaning of the article , which certainly it was ; then he would go on to the proof of that other article he had called in question . m. w. said , they must see the article in express scripture , or at least in some places of scripture which had been so interpreted by the church , the councils or fathers , or any one council or father . and he the rather pitched on this article , because he judged it the only article , in which all protestants , except the lutherans , were agreed . d. s. said , it had been the art of all the hereticks from the marcionites days , to call for express words of scripture . it was well known , the arrians set up their rest on this , that their doctrine was not condemned by express words of scripture ; but that this was still rejected by the catholick church , and that theodoret had written a book , on purpose to prove the unreasonableness of this challenge ; therefore he desired they would not insist on that which every body must see was not fair dealing , and that they would take the sixth article entirely , and so go to see if the other article could not be proved from scripture , though it were not contained in express words . m. b. added , that all the fathers , writing against the arrians , brought their proofs of the consubstantiality of the son , from the scriptures , though it was not contained in the express words of any place . and the arrian council , that rejected the words equisubstantial and consubstantial , gives that for the reason , that they were not in the scripture . and that in the council of ephesus , s. cyril brought in many propositions against the nestorians , with a vast collection of places of scripture to prove them by ; and though the quotations from scripture contained not those propositions in express words ; yet the council was satisfied from them , and condemned the nestorians . therefore it was most unreasonable , and against the practice of the catholick church , to require express words of scripture , and that the article was manifestly a disjunctive , where we were to chuse whether of the two we would chuse , either one or other . s. p. t. said , or was not in the article . m. b. said , nor was a negative in a disjunctive proposition , as or was an affirmative , and both came to the same meaning . m. w. said , that s. austin charged the heretick to read what he said in the scripture . m. b. said , s. austin could not make that a constant rule , otherwise he must reject the consubstantiality which he did so zealously assert ; though he might in disputing urge an heretick with it on some other account . d. s. said , the scripture was to deliver to us the revelation of god , in matters necessary to salvation ; but it was an unreasonable thing to demand proofs for a negative in it ; for if the roman church have set up many doctrines , as articles of faith , without proof from the scriptures , we had cause enough to reject these if there was no clear proofs of them from scripture ; but to require express words of scripture for a negative , was as unjust , as if mahomet had said , the christians had no reason to reject him , because there was no place in scripture that called him an impostor . since then the roman church had set up the doctrine of transubstantiation , and the sacrifice of the mass , without either express scripture or good proofs from it , their church had good cause to reject these . m. w. said , the article they desired to be satisfied in was , if he understood any thing , a positive article , and not a negative . m. b. said , the positive article was , that christ was received in the holy sacrament ; but because they had ( as our church judged ) brought in the doctrine of the corporal presence without all reason , the church made that explanation , to cast out the other ; so that upon the matter it was a negative . he added , that it was also unreasonable to ask any one place to prove a doctrine by ; for the fathers in their proceedings with the arrians brought a great collection of places , which gave light to one another , and all concurred to prove the article of faith that was in controversie : so if we brought such a consent of many places of scripture as proved our doctrine , all being joyned together , we perform all that the fathers thought themselves bound to do in the like case . d. s. then at great length told them , the church of rome and the church of england differed in many great and weighty points ; that we were come thither to see , as these gentlemen professed they desired , if we could offer good reason for them to turn protestants , and as the ladies professed a desire to be further established in the doctrine of the church of england ; in order to which , none could think it a proper method to pick out some words in the obscure corner of an article , and call for express scriptures for them . but the fair and fit way was to examine whether the church of england had not very good reason to separate from the communion of the church of rome ; therefore , since it was for truth , in which our souls are so deeply concerned , that we enquired , he desired they would joyn issue to examine either the grounds on which the church of england did separate from the church of rome , or the authority by which she did it : for if there was both good reason for it , and if those who did it , had a sufficient authority to do it , then was the church of england fully vindicated . he did appeal to all that were present , if in this offer he dealt not candidly and fairly , and if all other ways were not shufling . which he pressed with great earnestness , as that only which could satisfie all peoples consciences . m. w. and s. p. t. said , god forbid they should speak one word for the church of rome ; they understood the danger they should run by speaking to that . d. s. said , he hoped they looked on us as men of more conscience and honesty , than to make an ill use of any thing they might say for their church ; that for himself he would die rather than be guilty of so base a thing , the very thought whereof he abhorred . m. b. said , that though the law condemned the endeavouring to reconcile any to the church of rome , yet their justifying their church when put to it , especially to divines , in order to satisfaction which they professed they desired , could by no colour be made a transgression ; and that as we engaged our faith to make no ill use of what should be said , so if they doubted any of the other company , it was s. p. his house , and he might order it to be more private if he pleased . s. p. said , he was only to speak to the articles of the church of england , and desired express words for that article . upon this followed a long wrangling , the same things were said over and over again . in the end m. w. said , they had not asked where that article was read ; that they doubted of it , for they knew it was in no place of scripture , in which they were the more confirmed , because none was so much as alledged , d. s. said , upon the terms in the sixth article he was ready to undertake the twenty eighth article to prove it clearly by scripture . m. w. said , but there must be no interpretations admitted of . m. b. said , it was certain the scriptures were not given to us , as parrots are taught to speak words ; we were endued with a faculty of understanding , and we must understand somewhat by every place of scripture . now the true meaning of the words , being that which god would teach us in the scriptures , which way soever that were expressed , is the doctrine revealed there ; and it was to be considered , that the scriptures were at first delivered ro plain and simple men , to be made use of by all without distinction : therefore we were to look unto them as they did ; and so s. paul wrote his epistles , which were the hardest pieces of the new testament , to all in the churches to whom he directed them . m. w. said , the epistles were written upon emergent occasions , and so were for the use of the churches to whom they were directed . d. s. said , though they were written upon emergent occasions , yet they were written by divine inspiration , and as a rule of faith , not only for those churches , but for all christians . but as m. w. was a going to speak , m. c. came in , upon which we all rose up till he was set ; so being set , after some civilities , d. s. resumed a little what they were about , and told they were calling for express scriptures to prove the articles of our church by . m. c. said , if we be about scriptures , where is the judge that shall pass the sentence who expounds them aright ; otherwise the contest must be endless . d. s. said , he had proposed a matter that was indeed of weight ; therefore he would first shew , that these of the church of rome were not provided of a sufficient or fit judge of controversies . m. c. said , that was not the thing they were to speak to ; for though we destroyed the church of rome all to nought , yet except we built up our own , we did nothing ; therefore he desired to hear what he had to say for our own church ; he was not to meddle with the church of rome , but to hear and be instructed if he could see reason to be of the church of england , for may be it might be somewhat in his way . d. s. said , he would not examine if it would be in his way to be of the church of england , or not , but did heartily acknowledge with great civility that he was a very fair dealer in what he had proposed , and that now he had indeed set us in the right way , and the truth was we were extream glad to get out of the wrangling we had been in before , and to come to treat of matters that were of importance . so after some civilities had passed on both sides , d. s. said , the bishops and pastors of the church of england , finding a great many abuses crept into the church , particularly in the worship of god , which was chiefly insisted upon in the reformation , such as the images of the blessed trinity , the worship whereof was set up and encouraged ; the turning the devotions we ought to offer only to christ , to the blessed virgin , the angels and saints ; that the worship of god was in an unknown tongue ; that the chalice was taken from the people , against the express words of the institution ; that transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the mass were set up ; that our church had good reason to judge these to be heinous abuses , which did much endanger the salvation of souls ; therefore , being the pastors of the church and being assisted in it by the civil powers , they had both good reason and sufficient authority to reform the church from these abuses , and he left it to m. c. to chuse on which of these particulars they should discourse . m. b. said , the bishops and pastors having the charge of souls were bound to feed the flock with sound doctrine , according to the word of god. so s. paul when he charged the bishops of ephesus to feed the flock , and to guard it against wolves or seducers ; he commends them to the word of gods grace , which is the gospel . and in his epistles to timothy and titus , wherein the rules of the pastoral charge are set down , he commands timothy , and in him all bishops and pastors , to hold fast the doctrine and form of sound words which he had delivered , and tells him , the scriptures were able to make the man of god perfect . if then the bishops and pastors of this church found it corrupted by any unsound doctrine , or idolatrous worship , they were by the law of god and the charge of souls for which they were accountable , obliged to throw out these corruptions , and reform the church ; and this the rather , that the first question proposed in the consecration of a bishop , as it is in the pontifical , is , wilt thou teach these things which thou understandest to be in the scripture , to the people committed to thee , both by thy doctrine and example ? to which he answers : i will. m. c. said , we had now offered as much as would be the subject of many days discourse , and he had but few minutes to spare : therefore he desired to be informed what authority those bishops had to judge in matters which they found not only in this church , but in all churches round about them , should they have presumed to judge in these matters . d. s. said , it had been frequently the practice of many nations and provinces to meet in provincial synods , and reform abuses . for which he offered to prove they had both authority and president . but much more in some instances he was ready to shew of particulars that had been defined by general councils , which they only applied to their circumstances ; and this was never questioned but provincial synods might do . m. c. desired to be first satisfied , by what authority they could cut themselves off from the obedience of the see of rome , in king henry the viii . his days . the pope then was looked on as the monarch of the christian world in spirituals , and all christendom was one church , under one head , and had , been so for many ages ; so that if a province or country would cut themselves from the body of this nation ; for instance , wales , that had once distinct princes , and say we acknowledge no right william the conquerour had , so that we reject the authority of those descended from him ; they might have the same plea which this our church had . for the day before that act of parliament did pass , after the . of henry the viii . the pope had the authority in spirituals , and they were his subjects in spirituals : therefore their declaring he had none , could not take his authority from him , no more than the long parliament had right to declare by any act , that the sovereign power was in the peoples hands , in pursuance of which they cut off the kings head. d. s. said , the first general councils , as they established the patriarchal power , so the priviledges of several churches were preserved entire to them , as in the case of cyprus ; that the british churches were not within the patriarchal jurisdiction of rome ; that afterwards the bishops of rome , striking in with the interests of the princes of europe , and watching and improving all advantages , got up by degrees through many ages into that height of authority , which they managed as ill as they unjustly acquired it , and particularly in england ; where , from king william the conqueror's days , as their illegal and oppressive impositions were a constant grievance to the people , so our princes and parliaments were ever put to struggle with them . but to affront their authority , thomas becket , who was a traitour to the law , must be made a saint , and a day kept for him , in which they were to pray to god for mercy through his merits . it continuing thus for several ages , in the end a vigorous prince arises , who was resolved to assert his own authority . and he , looking into the oaths the bishops swore to the pope , they were all found in a praemunire by them . then did the whole nation agree to assert their own freedom , and their kings authority . and 't was considerable , that those very bishops , that in queen maries days did most cruelly persecute those of the church of england , and advance the interests of rome , were the most zealous assertors and defenders of what was done by king henry the viii . therefore the popes power in england , being founded on no just title , and being managed with so much oppression , there was both a full authority and a great deal of reason for rejecting it . and if the maior generals , who had their authority from cromwell , might yet have declared for the king , who had the true title , and against the usurper ; so the bishops , though they had sworn to the pope , yet that being contrary to the allegiance they ow'd the king , ought to have asserted the kings authority , and rejected the pope's . m. b. said , it seemed m. c. founded the popes right to the authority he had in england chiefly upon prescription . but there were two things to be said to that ; first , that no prescription runs against a divine right . in the clearing of titles among men , prescription is in some cases a good title : but if by the laws of god the civil powers have a supream authority over their subjects , then no prescription whatsoever can void this . besides , the bishops having full authority and jurisdiction , this could not be bounded or limited by any obedience the pope claimed from them . further , there can be no prescription in this case , where the usurpation has been all along contested and opposed . we were ready to prove , that in the first ages all bishops were accounted brethren , colleagues , and fellow-bishops with the bishop of rome . that afterwards , as he was declared patriarch of the west , so the other patriarchs were equal in authority to him in their several patriarchates . that britain was no part of his patriarchate , but an exempt , as cyprus was . that his power as patriarch was only for receiving appeals , or calling synods , and did not at all encroach on the jurisdiction of other bishops in their sees ; and that the bishops in his patriarchate did think they might separate from him . a famous instance of this was in the sixth century , when the question was about the tria capitula , for which the western bishops did generally stand , and pope vigilius wrote in defence of them ; but iustinian the emperour having drawn him to constantinople , he consented with the fifth council to the condemning them . upon which at his return many of the western bishops did separate from him . and as victor , bishop of tunes tells us ( who lived at that time ) that pope was synodically excommunicated by the bishops of africk . it is true , in the eighth century the decretal epistles being forged , his pretentions were much advanced : yet his universal jurisdicton was contested in all ages , as might be proved from the known instance of hincmar , bishop of rheims , and many more . therefore , how strong soever the argument from prescription may be in civil things , it is of no force here . m. c. said , now we are got into a contest of years story , but i know not when we shall get out of it . he confessed there was no prescription against a divine right , and acknowledged all bishops were alike in their order , but not in their jurisdiction ; as the bishop of oxford was a bishop as well as the arch-bishop of canterbury , and yet he was inferiour to him in jurisdiction : but desired to know , what was in the popes authority that was so intolerable . d. s. said , that he should only debate about the popes jurisdiction , and to his question , for one particular , that from the days of pope paschal the ii. all bishops swear obedience to the pope , was intolerable bondage . m. c. said , then will you acknowledge that before that oath was imposed the pope was to be acknowledged ? adding , that let us fix a time wherein we say the pope began to usurp beyond his just authority , and he would prove by protestant writers that he had as great power before that time . m. b. said , whatever his patriarchal power was , he had none over britain : for it was plain , we had not the christian faith from the roman church , as appeared from the very story of austin the monk. s. p. t. said , did not king lucius write to the pope upon his receiving the christian faith ? m. c. said , he would wave all that , and ask , if the church of england could justifie her forsaking the obedience of the bishop of rome , when all the rest of the christian world submitted to it ? d. s. said , he wondered to hear him speak so : were not the greek , the armenian , the nestorian , and the abissen churches separated from the roman ? m. c. said , he wondered as much to hear him reckon the nestorians among the churches that were condemned hereticks . d. s. said , it would be hard for him to prove them nestorians . m. c. asked , why he called them so then ? d. s. answered , because they were generally best known by that name . m. w. said , did not the greek church reconcile it self to the roman church at the council of florence ? d. s. said , some of their bishops were partly trepanned , partly threatned into it ; but their church disowned them and it both , and continues to do so to this day . m. w. said , many of the greek church were daily reconciled to the church of rome , and many of the other eastern bishops had sent their obedience to the pope . d. s. said , they knew there was enough to be said to these things , that these arts were now pretty well discovered : but he insisted to prove , the usurpations of rome were such as were inconsistent with the supreme civil authority , and shewed the oath in the pontificale , by which , for instance , if the pope command a bishop to go to rome , and his king forbid it , he must obey the pope , and disobey the king. m. c. said , these things were very consistent , that the king should be supream in civils , and the pope in spirituals ; so that if the pope commanded a thing that were civil , the king must be obeyed and not he . m. b. said , by the words of the oath , the bishops were to receive and help the pope's legates both in coming and going . now suppose the king declared it treason to receive the legate , yet in this case the bishops are sworn to obey the pope , and this was a case that fell out often . d. s. instanced the case of queen mary . m. c. said , if he comes with false mandates he is not a legate . m. b. said , suppose , as has fallen out an hundred times , he comes with bulls , and well warranted , but the king will not suffer him to enter his dominions , here the bishops must either be traitors , or perjured . m. c. said , all these things must be understood to have tacite conditions in them , though they be not expressed , and gave a simile which i have forgot . d. s. said , it was plain , paschal the second devised that oath on purpose to cut off all those reserves of their duty to their princes . and therefore the words are so full and large , that no oath of allegiance was ever conceived in more express terms . m. b. said , it was yet more plain from the words that preceed that clause about legates , that they shall be an no counsel to do the pope any injury , and shall reveal none of his secrets . by which a provision was clearly made , that if the pope did engage in any quarrel or war with any prince , the bishops were to assist the popes as their sworn subjects , and to be faithful spies and correspondents to give intelligence . as he was saying this , l. t. did whisper d. s. who presently told the company , that the ladies , at whose desire we came thither , entreated we would speak to things that concerned them more , and discourse on the grounds on which the reformation proceeded ; and therefore since he had before named some of the most considerable ; he desired we might discourse about some of these . m. c. said , name any thing in the roman church that is expresly contrary to scriptures ; but bring not your expositions of scripture to prove it by , for we will not admit of these . m. b. asked , if they did not acknowledge that it was only by the mediation of christ that our sins were pardoned , and eternal life given to us . m. c. answered , no question of it at all . m. b. said , then have we not good reason to depart from that church , that in an office of so great and daily use as was the absolution of penitents , after the words of absolution enjoyns the following prayer to be used ( which he read out of their ritual ) [ the passion of our lord jesus christ , the merits of the blessed virgin mary , and of all the saints , and whatever good thou hast done , or evil thou hast suffered , be to thee for the remission of sins , the encrease of grace , and the reward of eternal life ] from whence , it plainly follows , that their church ascribes the pardon of all sins , and the eternal salvation of their penitents , to the merits of the blessed virgin and the saints , as well as the passion of our blessed saviour . m. c. said , here was a very severe charge put in against their church without any reason , for they believed that our sins are pardoned , and our souls are saved , only by the merits of jesus christ ; but that several things may concur in several orders or ways to produce the same effects : so although we are pardoned and saved only through jesus christ , yet , without holiness we shall never see god ; we must also suffer whatever crosses he tries us with . so that these , in another sense , procure the pardon of our sins , and eternal salvation . thus in like manner the prayers of the blessed virgin and the saints are great helps to our obtaining these : therefore though these be all joyned together in the same prayer , yet it was an unjust charge on their church to say they make them equal in their value or efficiency . m. b. said , the thing he had chiefly excepted against in that prayer , was , that these things are ascribed to the merits of the blessed virgin and the saints . now he had only spoken of their prayers , and he appealed to all if the natural meaning of these words was not that he charged on them , and the sense the other had offered was not forced . m. c. said , by merits were understood prayers , which had force and merit with god. m. b. said , that could not be , for in another absolution , in the office of our lady , they pray for remission of sins through the merits and prayers of the blessed virgin : so that by merits must be meant somewhat else than their prayers . m. c. said , that as by our prayers on earth we help one anothers souls , so by our giving alms for one another we might do the same ; so also the saints in heaven might be helpful to us by their prayers and merits . and as soon as he had spoken this he got to his feet , and said he was in great haste , and much business lay on him that day ; but said to d. s. that when he pleased , he would wait on him , and discourse of the other particulars at more length . d. s. assured him , that whenever he pleased to appoint it , he should be ready to give him a meeting . and so he went away . then we all stood and talked to one another , without any great order , near half a hour , the discourse being chiefly about the nags-head fable . d. s. appealed to the publick registers , and challenged the silence of all the popish writers all queen elizabeth's reign , when such a story was fresh and well known : and if there had been any colour for it , is it possible they could keep it up , or conceal it ? s. p. t. said , all the registers were forged , and that it was not possible to satisfie him in it , no more than to prove he had not four fingers on his hand : and being desired to read dr. bramhali's book about it , he said he had read it six times over , and that it did not satisfie him . m. b. asked him , how could any matter of fact that was a hundred years old be proved , if the publick registers , and the instruments of publick notaries were rejected ? and this the more , that this being a matter of fact which could not be done in a corner , nor escape the knowledge of their adversaries , who might have drawn great and just advantages from publishing and proving it ; yet that it was never so much as spoken of while that race was alive , is as ● an evidence as can be , that the forgery was on the other side . d. s. did clear the objection from the commission and act of parliament , that it was only for making the ordination legal in england , since in edw. . time the book of ordination was not joyned in the record to the book of common-prayer ; from whence bishop bonner took occasion to deny their ordination , as not according to law ; and added , that saunders , who in queen elizabeth's time denied the validity of our ordination , never alledged any such story . but as we were talking freely of this , m. w. said , once or twice , they were satisfied about the chief design they had in that meeting , to see if there could be alledged any place of scripture to prove that article about the blessed sacrament , and said somewhat that looked like the beginning of a triumph . upon which , d. s. desired all might sit down again , that they might put that matter to an issue : so a bible was brought , and d. s. being spent with much speaking , desired m. b. to speak to it . m. b. turned to the th chap. of iohn , vers . . and read these words , whose eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , hath eternal life , and added , these words were , according to the common interpretation of their church , to be understood of the sacramental manducation . this m. w. granted , only m. b. had said , all the doctors understood these words so , and m. w. said , that all had not done so , which m. b. did acknowledge , but said it was the received exposition in their church , and so framed his argument . eternal life is given to every one that receives christ in the sacrament . but by faith only we get eternal life ; therefore by faith only we receive christ in the sacrament . otherwise , he said , unworthy receivers must be said to have eternal life , which is a contradiction , for as such they are under condemnation ; yet the unworthy receivers have the external manducation : therefore that manducation that gives eternal life with it , must be internal and spiritual , and that is by faith. a person , whose name i know not , but shall henceforth mark him n. n. asked what m. b. meant , by faith only ? m. b. said , by faith he meant such a believing of the gospel , as carried along with it evangelical obedience : by faith only , he meant faith as opposite to sense . d. s. asked him if we received christ's body and blood by our senses ? n. n. said , we did . d. s. asked which of the senses , his taste , or touch , or sight , for that seemed strange to him ? n. n. said , we received christ's body with our senses , as well as we did the substance of bread ; for our senses did not receive the substance of bread : and did offer some things to illustrate this , both from the aristotelian and cartesian hypothesis . d. s. said , he would not engage in that subtlety which was a digression from the main argument , but he could not avoid to think it a strange assertion , to say we received christ by our senses , and yet to say he was so present there , that none of our senses could possibly perceive him . but to the main argument . m. w. denied the minor , that by faith only we have eternal life . m. b. proved it thus , the sons of god have eternal life , but by faith only we become the sons of god : therefore by faith only we had eternal life . m. w. said , except he gave them both major and minor in express words of scripture , he would reject the argument . m. b. said , that if he did demonstrate that both the propositions of his argument were in the strictest construction possible equivalent to clear places of scripture , then his proofs were good ; therefore he desired to know which of the two propositions he should prove , either that the sons of god have eternal life , or that by faith only we are the sons of god. m. w. said , he would admit of no consequences , how clear soever they seemed , unless he brought him the express words of scripture , and asked if his consequences were infallible . d. s. said , if the consequence was certain , it was sufficient ; and he desired all would take notice that they would not yield to clear consequences drawn from scripture , which he thought ( and he believed all impartial people would be of his mind ) was as great an advantage to any cause , as could be desired : so we laid aside that argument , being satisfied that the article of our church , which they had called in question , was clearly proved from scripture . then n. n. insisted to speak of the corporal presence , and desired to know upon what grounds we rejected it . m. b. said , if we have no better reason to believe christ was corporally present in the sacrament , than the jews had to believe that every time they did eat their pascha , the angel was passing by their houses , and smiting the first born of the aegyptians ; then we have no reason at all ; but so it is that we have no more reason . n. n. denied this , and said we had more reason . m. b. said , all the reason we had to believe it was , because christ said , this is my body ; but moses said of the paschal festivity , this is the lords passover ; which was always repeated by the jews in that anniversary . now the lords passover was the lords passing by the israelites when he slew the first born of aegypt . if then we will understand christs words in the strictly literal sense , we must in the same sense understand the words of moses : but if we understand the words of moses in any other sense , as the commemoration of the lords passover , then we ought to understand christs words in the same sense . the reason is clear ; for christ being to substitute this holy sacrament in room of the jewish pascha , and he using in every thing , as much as could agree with his blessed designs , forms as near the jewish customs as could be , there is no reason to think he did use the words , this is my body , in any other sense than the jews did , this is the lords passover . n. n. said , the disparity was great . first , christ had promised before-hand he would give them his body . secondly , it was impossible the lamb could be the lords passover in the literal sense , because an action that had been past some hundreds of years before could not be performed every time they did eat the lamb , but this is not so . thirdly , the jewish church never understood these words literally , but the christian church hath ever understood these words of christ literally . nor is it to be imagined that a change in such a thing was possible , for how could any such opinion have crept in , in any age , if it had not been the doctrine of the former age ? m. b. said , nothing he had alledged was of any force . for the first , christ's promise imported no more than what he performed in the sacramental institution . if then it be proved that by saying , this is my body , he only meant a commemoration , his promise must only relate to his death commemorated in the sacrament . to the second , the literal meaning of christ's words is as impossible as the literal meaning of moses's words ; for besides all the other impossibilities that accompany this corporal presence , it is certain christ gives us his body in the sacrament as it was given for us , and his blood as it was shed for us , which being done only on the cross above years ago , it is as impossible that should be literally given at every consecration , as it was that the angel should be smiting the aegyptians every paschal festivity . and here was a great mistake they went on securely in ; that the body of christ we receive in the sacrament , is the body of christ , as he is now glorified in heaven ; for by the words of the institution it is clear , that we receive his body as it was given for us when his blood was shed on the cross , which being impossible to be reproduced now , we only can receive christ by faith. for his third difference , that the christian church ever understood christ's words so , we would willingly submit to the decision of the church in the first six ages . could any thing be more express than theodoret , who arguing against the eutychians that the humanity and divinity of christ were not confounded nor did depart from their own substance , illustrates it from the eucharist in which the elements of bread and wine do not depart from their own substance . m. w. said , we must examine the doctrine of the fathers not from some occasional mention they make of the sacrament , but when they treat of it on design and with deliberation . but to theodoret he would oppose s. cyril of ierusalem , who in his fourth mist. catechism says expresly , though thou see it to be bread , yet believe it is the flesh and the blood of the lord jesus ; doubt it not , since he had said , this is my body . and for a proof , instances christ's changing the water into wine . d. s. said , he had proposed a most excellent rule for examining the doctrine of the fathers in this matter , not to canvase what they said in eloquent and pious treaties or homilies to work on peoples devotion , in which case it is natural for all persons to use high expressions ; but we are to seek the real sense of this mystery when they are dogmatically treating of it and the other mysteries of religion where reason and not eloquence takes place . if then it should appear , that at the same time both a bishop of rome and constantinople , and one of the greatest bishops in africk did in asserting the mysteries of religion go downright against transubstantiation , and assert that the substance of the bread and wine did remain ; he hoped all would be satisfied the fathers did not believe as they did . m. w. desired we would then answer the words of cyril . m. b. said , it were a very unreasonable thing to enter into a verbal dispute about the passages of the fathers , especially the books not being before us ; therefore he promised an answer in writing to the testimony of s. cyril . but now the matter was driven to a point , and we willingly undertook to prove , that for eight or nine centuries after christ the fathers did not believe transubstantiation , but taught plainly the contrary : the fathers generally call the elements bread and wine after the consecration , they call them mysteries , types , figures , symbols , commemorations , and signs of the body and blood of christ : they generally deliver , that the wicked do not receive christ in the sacrament , which shews they do not believe transubstantiation . all this we undertook to prove by undeniable evidences within a very few days or weeks . m. w. said , he should be glad to see it . d. s. said , now we left upon that point which by the grace of god we should perform very soon ; but we had offered to satisfie them in the other grounds of the separation from the church of rome : if they desired to be farther informed we should wait on them when they pleased . so we all rose up and took leave , after we had been there about three hours . the discourse was carried on , on both sides , with great civility and calmness , without heat or clamour . this is as far as my memory , after the most fixed attention when present , and careful recollection since , does suggest to me , without any biass or partiality , not having failed in any one material thing as far as my memory can serve me : this i declare as i shall answer to god. signed as follows , gilbert burnet . this narrative was read , and i do hereby attest the truth of it . edw. stillingfleet . being present at the conference , i do , according to my best memory , judge this a just and true narrative thereof . will. nailor . the addition which n. n. desired might be subjoined to the relation of the conference if it were published , but wished rather that nothing at all might be made publick that related to the conference . the substance of what n. n. desired me to take notice of , was , that our eating christ's flesh and drinking his blood doth as really give everlasting life , as almsgiving , or any other good works gives it , where the bare external action , if separated from a good intention and principle , is not acceptable to god. so that we must necessarily understand these words of our saviour with this addition of worthily , that whoso eats his flesh and drinks his blood in the sacrament worthily , hath everlasting life ; for , he said , he did not deny but the believing the death of christ was necessary in communicating , but it is not by faith only we receive his body and blood . for as by faith we are the sons of god , yet it is not only by faith , but also by baptism , that we become the sons of god ; so also christ saith , he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; yet this doth not exclude repentance and amendment of life from being necessary to salvation : therefore the universality of the expression , whoso eats , does not exclude the necessity of eating worthily that we may have everlasting life by it . and so did conclude , that since we believe we have all our faith in the holy scriptures , we must prove from some clear scriptures , by arguments that consist of a major and minor , that are either express words of scripture or equivalent to them , that christ was no otherwise present in the sacrament , than spiritually , as he is received by faith. and added , that it was impertinent to bring impossibilities either from sense or reason against this , if we brought no clear scriptures against it . to this he also added , that when d. s. asked him by which of his senses he received christ in the sacrament , he answered , that he might really receive christ's body at his mouth , though none of his senses could perceive him , as a bole or pill is taken in a syrup or any other liquor ; so that i really swallow it over though my senses do not taste it : in like manner , christ is received under the accidents of bread and wine , so that though our senses do not perceive it , yet he is really taken in at our mouth , and goes down into our stomach . answer . having now set down the strength of n. n. his plea upon second thoughts , i shall next examine it . the stress of all lies in this , whether we must necessarily supply the words of christ with the addition of worthily : he affirms it , i deny it , for these reasons . christ in this discourse was to shew how much more excellent his doctrine was than was moses's law , and that moses gave manna from heaven to nourish their bodies , notwithstanding which they died in the wilderness : but christ was to give them food to their souls ; which if they did eat they should never die , for it should give them life : where it is apparent , the bread and nourishment must be such , as the life was , which being internal and spiritual , the other must be such also : and vers . . he clearly explains how that food was received , he that believeth on me hath everlasting life . now having said before that this bread gives life , and here saying that believing gives everlasting life , it very reasonably follows , that believing was the receiving this food ; which is yet clearer from verse . where the iews having desired him evermore to give them that bread , he answers , verse . i am the bread of life , be that comes to me shall never hunger , and he that believeth on me shall never thirst . which no man , that is not strangely prepossessed , can consider , but he must see it is an answer to their question , and so in it he tells them , that their coming to him , and believing , was the mean of receiving that bread. and here it must be considered , that christ calls himself bread , and says , that a man must eat thereof , which must be understood figuratively ; and if figures be admitted in some parts of that discourse , it is unjust to reject the applying the same figures to other parts of it . in fine , christ tells them this bread was his flesh which he was to give for the life of the world , which can be applied to nothing but the offering up himself on the cross. this did , as it was no wonder , startle the jews , so they murmured , and said , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? to which christs answer is so clear , that it is indeed strange there should remain any doubting about it . he first tells them , except they eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man , they had no life in them . where on the way mark , that drinking the blood is as necessary as eating the flesh ; and these words being expounded of the sacrament , cannot but discover them extreamly guilty who do not drink the blood. for suppose the doctrine of the blood 's concomitating the flesh were true ; yet even in that case they only eat the blood , but cannot be said to drink the blood. but from these words it is apparent christ must be speaking chiefly , if not only of the spiritual communicating : for otherwise no man can be saved , that hath not received the sacrament . the words are formal and positive , and christ having made this a necessary condition of life , i see not how we dare promise life to any that hath never received it . and indeed it was no wonder that those fathers who understood these words of the sacrament , appointed it to be given to infants immediately after they were baptized ▪ for that was a necessary consequence that followed this exposition of our saviours words . and yet the church of rome will not deny , but if any die before he is adult , or if a person converted be in such circumstances that it is not possible for him to receive the sacrament , and so dies without it , he may have everlasting life : therefore they must conclude , that christs flesh may be eaten by faith even without the sacrament . again in the next verse he says , whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , hath eternal life . these words must be understood in the same sense they had in the former verse , they being indeed the reverse of it . therefore since there is no addition of worthily necessary to the fence of the former verse , neither is it necessary in this . but it must be concluded christ is here speaking of a thing without which none can have life : and by which all have life : therefore when ever christs flesh is eaten , and his blood is drunk , which is most signally done in the sacrament , there eternal life must accompany it ; and so these words must be understood , even in relation to the sacrament , only of the spiritual communicating by faith. as when it is said , a man is a reasonable creature : though this is said of the whole man , body and soul ; yet when we see that upon the dissolution of soul and body no reason or life remains in the body , we from thence positively conclude the reason is seated only in the soul ; though the body has organs that are necessary for its operations : so when it is said we eat christs flesh , and drink his blood in the sacrament , which gives eternal life ; there being two things in it , the bodily eating and the spiritual communicating ; though the eating of christs flesh is said to be done in the worthy receiving , which consists of these two , yet since we may clearly see the bodily receiving may be without any such effects , we must conclude that the eating of christs flesh is only done by the inward communicating ; though the other , that is the bodily part , be a divine organ , and conveyance of it . and as reason is seated only in the soul , so the eating of christs flesh must be only inward and spiritual , and so the mean by which we receive christ in the supper is faith. all this is made much clearer by the words that follow , my flesh is meat indeed , and my blood is drink indeed . now christs flesh is so eaten , as it is meat ; which i suppose none will question , it being a prosecution of the same discourse . now it is not meat as taken by the body , for they cannot be so gross as to say , christs flesh is the meat of our body ; therefore since his flesh is only the meat of the soul and spiritual nourishment , it is only eaten by the soul , and so received by faith. christ also says , he that eateth my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in him and he in him . this is the definition of that eating and drinking he had been speaking of ; so that such as is the dwelling in him , such also must be the eating of him : the one therefore being spiritual , inward , and by faith , the other must be such also . and thus it is as plain as can be , from the words of christ , that he spake not of a carnal or corporal , but of a spiritual eating of his flesh by faith. all this is more confirmed by the key our saviour gives of his whole discourse , when the iews were offended for the hardness of his sayings , it is the spirit that quickneth ( or giveth the life he had been speaking of ) the flesh profiteth nothing , the words i speak unto you are spirit , and they are life . from which it is plain he tells them to understand his words of a spiritual life , and in a spiritual manner . but now i shall examine n. n. his reasons to the contrary . his chief argument is , that when eternal life is promised upon the giving of alms , or other good works , we must necessarily understand it with this proviso , that they were given with a good intention , and from a good principle : therefore we must understand these words of our saviour to have some such proviso in them . all this concludes nothing . it is indeed certain when any promise is past upon an external action , such a reserve must be understood . and so st. paul tells us , if he bestowed all his goods to feed the poor , and had no charity , it profited him nothing . and if it were clear our saviour were here speaking of an external action , i should acknowledge such a proviso must be understood ; but that is the thing in question ; and i hope i have made it appear our saviour is speaking of an internal action , and therefore no such proviso is to be supposed . for he is speaking of that eating of his flesh , which must necessarily and certainly be worthily done , and so that objection is of no force . he must therefore prove , that the eating his flesh is primarily and simply meant of the bodily eating in the sacrament ; and not only by a denomination , from a relation to it : as the whole man is called reasonable , though the reason is seated in the soul only what he says to shew that by faith only we are not the sons of god , since by baptism also we are the sons of god , is not to the purpose : for the design of the argument , was to prove that by faith only we are the sons of god , so as to be the heirs of eternal life . now the baptism of the adult ( for our debate runs upon those of ripe years and understanding ) makes them only externally , and sacramentally the sons of god : for the inward and vital sonship follows only upon faith. and this faith must be understood of such a lively and operative faith , as includes both repentance and amendment of life . so that when our saviour says , he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved , that believing is a complex of all evangelical graces ; from which it appears , that none of his reasons are of force enough to conclude that the universality of these words of christ ought to be so limited and restricted . for what remains of that which he desired might be taken notice of , that we ought to prove that christs body and blood was present in the sacrament only spiritually and not corporally by express scriptures , or by arguments whereof the major and minor were either express words of scripture , or equivalent to them : it has no force at all in it . i have in a full discourse examined all that is in the plea concerning the express words of scripture ; and therefore shall say nothing upon that head , referring the reader to what he will meet with on that subject afterwards . but here i only desire the reader may consider , our contest in this particular is concerning the true meaning of our saviours words , this is my body , in which it is very absurd to ask for express words of scripture , to prove that meaning by . for if that be setled on , as a necessary method of proof , then when other scriptures are brought to prove that to be the meaning of these words ; it may be asked how can we prove the true meaning of that place we bring to prove the meaning of this by ? and so by a progress for ever we must contend about the true meaning of every place . therefore when we enquire into the sense of any controverted place ; we must judge of it by the rules of common sense and reason , of religion and piety , and if a meaning be affixed to any place contrary to these , we have good reason to reject it . for we , knowing all external things only by our senses , by which only the miracles and resurrection of christ could be proved , which are the means god has given us to converse with , and enjoy his whole creation ; and evidence our senses give being such , as naturally determines our perswasions , so that after them we cannot doubt : if then a sense be offered to any place of scripture that does overthrow all this , we have sufficient reason on that very account to reject it . if also any meaning be fastened on a place of scripture that destroys all our conceptions of things , is contrary to the most universally receiv'd maxims , subverts the notions of matter and accidents , and in a word , confounds all our clearest apprehensions ; we must also reject every such gloss , since it contradicts the evidence of that which is god's image in us . if also a sense of any place of scripture be proposed that derogates from the glorious exaltation of the humane nature of our blessed saviour , we have very just reasons to reject it , even though we could bring no confirmation of our meaning from express words of scripture : therefore this dispute being chiefly about the meaning of christ's words , he that shews best reasons to prove that his sense is consonant to truth , does all that is necessary in this case . but after all this , we decline not to shew clear scriptures for the meaning our church puts on these words of christ. it was bread that christ took , blessed , brake , and gave his disciples . now the scripture calling it formally bread , destroys transubstantiation . christ said , this is my body , which are declarative , and not imperative words , such as , let there be light , or , be thou whole . now all declarative words suppose that which they affirm to be already true , as is most clear ; therefore christ pronounces what the bread was become by his former blessing , which did sanctifie the elements : and yet after that blessing it was still bread . again , the reason and end of a thing is that which keeps a proportion with the means toward it ; so that christ's words , do this in remembrance of me , shew us , that his body is here only in a vital and living commemoration and communication of his body and blood. farther , christ telling us , it was his body that was given for us , and his blood shed for us , which we there receive ; it is apparent , he is to be understood present in the sacrament ; not as he is now exalted in glory , but as he was on the cross when his blood was shed for us . and in fine , if we consider that those to whom christ spake were jews , all this will be more easily understood : for it was ordinary for them to call the symbol by the name of the original it represented . so they called the cloud between the cherubims , god and iehovah , according to these words , o thou that dwellest between the cherubims : and all the symbolical apparitions of god to the patriarchs and the prophets , were said to be the lord appearing to them . but that which is more to this purpose , is , that the lamb that was the symbol and memorial of their deliverance out of egypt , was called the lord's passover . now though the passover then was only a type of our deliverance by the death of christ , yet the lamb was in proportion to the passover in egypt , as really a representation of it , as the sacrament is of the death of christ. and it is no more to be wondered that christ called the elements his body and blood , though they were not so corporally , but only mystically , and sacramentally ; than that moses called the lamb the lord 's passover . so that it is apparent it was common among the jews to call the symbol and type by the name of the substance and original . therefore our saviour's words are to be understood in the sense and stile that was usual among these to whom he spake , it being the most certain rule of understanding any doubtful expression , to examine the ordinary stile and forms of speech in that age , people , and place , in which such phrases were used . this is signally confirmed by the account which maimonides gives us of the sense in which eating and drinking is oft taken in the scriptures . first , he says , it stands in its natural signification , for receiving bodily food : then because there are two things done in eating , the first is the destruction of that which is eaten , so that it loseth its first form ; the other is the increase and nourishment of the substance of the person that eats : therefore he observes that eating has two other significations in the language of the scriptures : the one is destruction and desolation ; so the sword is said to eat , or as we render it , to devour ; so a land is said to eat its inhabitants , and so fire is said to eat or consume : the other sense it is taken in does relate to wisdom , learning , and all intellectual apprehensions , by which the form ( or soul ) of man is conserved from the perfection that is in them , as the body is preserved by food . for proof of this , he cites divers places out of the old testament , as isa. . . come buy and eat , and prov. . . and prov. . . he also adds , that their rabbins commonly call wisdom , eating ; and cites some of their sayings , as , come and eat flesh in which there is much fat , and that whenever eating and drinking is in the book of the proverbs , it is nothing else but wisdom or the law. so also wisdom is often called water , isa. . . and he concludes , that because this sense of eating occurs so often , and is so manifest and evident , as if it were the primary and most proper signification of the word , therefore hunger and thirst do also stand for a privation of wisdom and understanding , as amos. . . to this he also refers that of thirsting , psal. . . and isa. . . and ionathan paraphrasing these words , ye shall draw water out of the wells of salvation , renders it . ye shall receive a new doctrine with joy from the select ones among the iust , which is farther confirmed from the words of our saviour , iohn . . and from these observations of the learnedest and most judicious among all the rabbins , we see that the iews understood the phrases of eating and eating of flesh in this spiritual and figurative sense of receiving vvisdom and instruction . so that this being an usual form of speech among them , it is no strange thing to imagine how our saviour , being a iew according to the flesh , and conversing with iews , did use these terms and phrases in a sense that was common to that nation . and from all these set together , we are confident we have a great deal of reason , and strong and convincing authorities from the scriptures , to prove christ's words , this is my body , are to be understood spiritually , mystically , and sacramentally . there remains only to be considered what weight there is in what n. n. says . he answered to d. s. that christ might be received by our senses though not perceived by any of them , as a bole is swallowed over , though our taste does not relish or perceive it . that great man is so very well furnished with reason and learning to justifie all he says , that no other body needs interpose on his account . but he being now busie , it was not worth the giving him the trouble , to ask how he would reply upon so weak an answer , since its shallowness appears at the first view : for is there any comparison to be made between an object that all my senses may perceive , if i have a mind to it , that i see with mine eyes , and touch , and feel in my mouth , and if it be too big , and my throat too narrow , i will feel stick there ; but only to guard against its offensive taste , i so wrap or convey it , that i relish nothing ungrateful in it : and the receiving christ with my senses , when yet none of them either do , or can , though applied with all possible care , discern him ? so that it appears d. s. had very good reason to say , it seemed indeed strange to him , to say , that christ was received by our senses , and yet was so present that none of our senses can perceive him : and this answer to it is but mere trifling . here follows the paper we promised , wherein an account is given of the doctrine of the church for the first eight centuries in the point of the sacrament , which is demonstrated to be contrary to transubstantiation ; written in a letter to my lady t. madam , your ladiship may remember , that our meeting at your house on the third instant , ended with a promise we made , of sending you such an account of the sense of the fathers for the first six ages , as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial person , that they did not believe transubstantiation . this promise we branched out in three propositions : first , that the fathers did hold , that after the consecration the elements of bread and wine did remain unchanged in their substance . the second was , that after the consecration they called the elements the types , the antitypes , the mysteries , the symbols , the signs , the figures , and the commemorations of the body and blood of christ ; which certainly will satisfie every unprejudiced person , that they did not think the bread and wine were annihilated , and that in their room , and under their accidents , the substance of the body and blood of christ was there . thirdly , we said , that by the doctrine of the fathers the unworthy receivers got not the body and the blood of christ ; from which it must necessarily follow , that the substance of his body and blood is not under the accidents of bread and wine ; otherwise all these that unworthily receive them eat christ's body and blood . therefore , to discharge our selves of our promise , we shall now give your ladiship such an account of the doctrine of the fathers on these heads , as we hope shall convince those gentlemen , that we had a good warrant for what we said . the first proposition is , the fathers believed that after the consecration the elements were still bread and wine . the proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches : the first shall be , that after the consecration they usually called them bread and wine . secondly , that they expresly assert , that the substance of bread and wine remained . thirdly , that they believed the sacramental bread and wine did nourish our bodies . for proof of the first , we desire the following testimonies be considered : iustin martyr says , these who are called deacons distribute the blessed bread and wine and water to such as are present , and carry it to the absents , and this nourishment is by us called the eucharist . and a little after , we do not receive these as common bread , or common drink ; for as by the word of god iesus christ our saviour being made flesh , had both flesh and blood for our salvation , so we are taught , that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished , by its change , being blessed by the word of prayer which he gave us , is both the flesh and the blood of the incarnate iesus . thus that martyr , that wrote an hundred and fifty years after christ , calls the elements bread and wine , and the nourishment which being changed into flesh and blood nourishes them . and saying , it is not common bread and vvine , he says , that it was still so in substance ; and his illustrating it with the incarnation , in which the humane nature did not lose nor change its substance in its union with the eternal word , shews , he thought not the bread and wine lost their substance when they became the flesh and blood of christ. the next witness is irenaeus , who writing against the valentinians , that denied the father of our lord jesus to be the creator of the world , and also denied the resurrection of the body , confutes both these heresies by arguments drawn from the eucharist . to the first he says , if there be another creator than the father of our lord , then our offering creatures to him , argues him covetous of that which is not his own , and so we reproach him rather than bless him . and adds , how does it appear to any of them , that that bread over which thanks are given , is the body of his lord , and the cup of his blood , if he be not the son of the creator . and he argues against their saying , our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the body and blood of christ : for , says he , that bread which is of the earth , having had the invocation of god over it , is no more common bread , but the eucharist , consisting of two things , an earthly and an heavenly ; so our bodies that receive the eucharist are no more corruptible , having the hope of the resurrection . tertullian ( lib. . adv . marc. c. . ) proving against marcion , that christ was not contrary to the creator , among other proofs which he brings to shew , that christ made use of the creatures , and neither rejected water , oil , milk , or hony , he adds , neither did he reject bread , by which he represents his own body . and further says , ( lib. . adv . marc. c. . ) christ calls bread his body , that from thence you may understand , that he gave the figure of his body to the bread. origen says , ( lib. . cont . celsum . ) we eat of the loaves set before us , with thanks giving and prayers over what is given to us , which by the prayer are become a certain holy body , that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose . st. cyprian says , ( epist. . ) christ calls the bread that was compounded of many grains ioyned together , his body , to shew the union of our people which he bore upon himself ; and calls the wine which is pressed out of many grapes and berries , his blood : he signifies our flock which is joyned together in the mixture of an united multitude . and writing against those who only put water in the chalice , ( epist. . ) he says , since christ said , i am the true vine , the blood of christ is not only water but wine , neither can we see his blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the chalice when wine is not in it , by which the blood of christ is shewed . and that whole epistle is all to the same purpose . epiphanius ( in anchorat ) says , christ in the supper rose and took these things , and having given thanks , said , this is my , &c. now we see it is not equal to it , nor like it , neither to his incarnate likeness , nor his invisible deity , nor the lineaments of his members , for it is round , and without feeling as to its vertue . and this he says , to shew how man may be said to be made after the image of god , though he be not like him . gregory nyssen , ( in orat. de bap. christ. ) shewing how common things may be sanctified , as water in baptism , the stones of an altar and church dedicated to god ; he adds , so also bread in the beginning is common , but after the mystery has consecrated it , is said to be , and is the body of christ ; so the mystical oyl , so the wine before the blessing , are things of little value , but after the sanctification of the spirit , both of them work excellently . he also adds , that the priest by his blessing is separated and sanctified ; from which it appears , he no more believed the change of the substance of the bread and wine , than of the consecrated oil , the altar , or the priest. ambrose ( lib. de bened. patriarc . cap. . ) speaking of bread , which was asher's blessing , says , this bread christ gave his apostles , that they might divide it to the people that believed , and gives it to us to day , which the priest consecrates in his words , this bread is made the food of the saints . st. chrysostome ( homil. . in epist. ad cor. ) on these words , the bread which we brake , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? says , what is the bread ? the body of christ. what are they made who take it ? the body of christ. from whence it appears , he thought the bread was so the body of christ , as the worthy receivers are ; which is not by the change of their substance , but by the sanctification of their natures . st. ierom ( epist. ad hedib . ) says , let us hear the bread which christ brake and gave his disciples , to be the body of our lord. and he says , ( comment . s. mat. c. . ) after the typical pascha was fulfilled , christ took bread that comforts the heart of man , and went to the true sacrament of the pascha , that as melchisedeck in the figure had done offering bread and wine , so he might also represent the truth of his body and blood. where he very plainly calls the elements bread and wine , and a representation of christ's body and blood. st. austin ( as he is cited by fulgentius de baptismo and divers others ) in his exhortation to these that were newly baptized , speaking of this sacrament , says , that which you see is the bread , and the cup which your eyes witness : but that which your faith must be instructed in , is , that the bread is the body of christ , and the cup is his blood. and then he proposes the objection , how that could be ? and answers it thus ; these things are therefore called sacraments , because one thing is seen , and another is understood : what you see has a bodily appearance , but what you understand has a spiritual fruit ; and if you will understand the body of christ , hear what the apostle says to the faithful , ye are the body of christ and his members : if therefore you be the body and members of christ , your mystery is placed on the table of the lord , and you receive the mystery of the lord. and at large prosecutes this , to shew how the faithful are the body of christ , as the bread is made up of many grains ; from whence it appears , that he believed , that the conscrated elements were still bread and wine . and speaking of st. paul's breaking bread at troas , he says , ( epist. . ) being to break bread that night , as it is broken in the sacrament of the body of christ. he also says , ( serm. . de divers . ) the eucharist is our daily bread ; but let us so receive it , that not only our belly but our mind be refreshed by it . besides , in a great many places st. austin calls the eucharist , the sacrament of bread and wine . and speaking of things , made use of to signify somewhat else , he adds for one , ( lib. . de trinit . c. . ) the bread that is made for this , is consumed in our receiving the sacrament . he also says , ( lib. . de civ . dei. ) to eat bread is in the new testament , the sacrifice of christians . he likewise says , ( lib. cont. donat. c. . ) both iudas and peter received a part of the same bread out of the same hand of our lord. and thus from twelve witnesses that are beyond all exception , it does appear , that the fathers believed the elements to be still bread and wine after the consecration . we have not brought any proofs from the fathers that are less known or read , for then we must have swelled up this paper beyond what we intend it . one thing is so considerable , that we cannot forbear to desire it be taken notice of , and that is , that we see those great fathers and doctors of the church call the consecrated elements , without any mincing of the matter , bread & wine ; but when they call it the body and blood of christ , they often use some mollifying and less hardy expression . so st. austin says , ( serm. . de verb. dom. ) almost all call the sacrament his body . and again says , ( lib. . de trinit . c. . ) we call that only the body and blood of christ , which being taken of the fruits of the earth , and consecrated by the mystical prayer , we rightly receive for our spiritual health in the commemoration of the passion of our lord for us . and he says , ( epist. . ad bonifac. ) after some sort the sacrament of the body of christ is his body , and the sacrament of his blood is the blood of christ. and also says , ( serm. . in psal. . ) he carried himself in his own hands in some sort , when he said , this is my body . st. chrysostom says , ( epist. ad caesar. ) the bread is thought worthy to be called the body of our lord. and on these words , the flesh lusteth against the spirit , among the improper acceptions of flesh , says , ( comm. in epist. ad galat. c. . ) the scriptures use to call the mysteries by the name of flesh , and sometimes the whole church , saying , she is the body of christ. tertullian says , ( lib. . cont . marc. c. . ) christ calls the bread his body , and a little after , he names the bread his body . isidore hispal . says , ( orig. lib. . c. . ) we call this after his command the body and blood of christ , which being made of the fruits of the earth , is sanctified and made a sacrament . theodoret says , ( dialog . . ) in the giving of the mysteries , christ called the bread his body , and the mixed cup his blood. and says , ( dialog . . ) he who called his natural body corn and bread , and also calls himself a vine , likewise honoured these visible symbols with the names of his body and blood. but we now go to bring our proofs for the next branch of our first proposition ; in which we assert , that the fathers believed that the very substance of the bread and wine did remain after the consecration . by which all the proofs brought in the former branch will receive a further evidence ; since by these it will appear the fathers believed the substance of the elements remained ; and thence we may well conclude , that wherever we find mention made of bread and wine after consecration , they mean of the substance , and not of the accidents of bread and wine . for proof of this , we shall only bring the testimonies of four fathers , that lived almost within one age , and were the greatest men of the age. their authority is as generally received , as their testimonies are formal and decisive : and these are pope gelasius , st. chrysostom , ephrem patriarch of antioch , and theodoret , whom we shall find delivering to us the doctrine of the church in their age , with great consideration upon a very weighty occasion : so that it shall appear that this was for that age the doctrine generally received both in the churches of rome and constantinople , antioch , and asia the less . we shall begin with gelasius , who , though he lived later than some of the others , yet , because of the eminence of his see , and the authority those we deal with must needs acknowledge was in him , ought to be set first : he says , ( in lib. de duab . nat . christ. ) the sacraments of the body and blood of christ are a divine thing ; for which reason we become , by them , partakers of the divine nature ; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine does not cease to be ; and the image and likeness of the body and blood of christ are indeed celebrated in the action of the mysteries : therefore it appears evidently enough , that we ought to think that of christ our lord , which we profess and celebrate , and receive in his image , that as they ( to wit , the elements ) pass into that divine substance , the holy ghost working it , their nature remaining still in its own property . so that principal mystery , whose efficiency and virtue these ( to wit , the sacraments ) represent to us , remains one entire and true christ ; those things of which he is compounded ( to wit , his two natures ) remaining in their properties . these words seem so express and decisive , that one would think the bare reading them , without any further reflections , should be of force enough . but before we offer any considerations upon them , we shall set down other passages of the other fathers , and upon them altogether make such remarks as , we hope , may satisfy any that will hear reason . st. chrysostom treating of the two natures of christ against the apollinarists , ( epist. ad caesar. monach . ) who did so confound them , as to consubstantiate them , he makes use of the doctrine of the sacrament to illustrate that mystery by , in these words ; as before the bread is sanctified , we call it bread ; but when the divine grace has sanctified it by the mean of the priest , it is freed from the name of bread , and is thought worthy of the name of the lord's body , though the nature of bread remains in it : and yet it is not said there are two bodies , but one body of the son ; so the divine nature being joyned to the body , both these make one son , and one person . next this patriarch of constantinople , let us hear ephrem the patriarch of antioch give his testimony , as it is preserved by photius , ( cod. . ) who says thus : in like manner ( having before treated of the two natures united in christ ) the body of christ , which is received by the faithful , does not depart from its sensible substance , and yet remains inseparated from the intellectual grace : so baptism becoming wholly spiritual , and one , it preserves its own sensible substance , and does not lose that which it was before . to these we shall add , what theodoret ( dialog . . ) on the same occasion says against those , who from that place , the word was made flesh , believed , that in the incarnation the divinity of the word was changed into the humanity of the flesh. he brings in his heretick arguing about some mystical expressions of the old testament , that related to christ : at length he comes to shew , how christ called himself bread and corn ; so also in the delivering the mysteries , christ called the bread his body , and the mixed cup his blood ; and our saviour changed the names , calling his body by the name of the symbol , and the symbol by the name of his body . and when the heretick asks the reason why the names were so changed , the orthodox answers , that it was manifest to such as were initiated in divine things ; for he would have those who partake of the mysteries , not look to the nature of those things that were seen , but by the change of the names , to believe that change that was made through grace ; for he who called his natural body corn and bread , does likewise honour the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood ; not changing the nature , but adding grace to nature : and so goes on to ask his heretick , whether he thought the holy bread was the symbol and type of his divinity , or of his body and blood ? and the other acknowledging they were the symbols of his body and blood : he concludes , that christ had a true body . the second dialogue is against the eutychians ; who believed , that after christ's assumption , his body was swallowed up by his divinity : and there the eutychian brings an argument to prove that change from the sacrament ; it being granted , that the gifts before the priest's prayer were bread and wine . he asks how it was to be called after the sanctification ? the orthodox answers , the body and blood of christ ; and that he believed he received the body and blood of christ. from thence the heretick , as having got a great advantage , argues ; that as the symbols of the body and blood of our lord were one thing before the priestly invocation , and after that were changed , and are different from what they were : so the body of our lord , after the assumption , was changed into the divine substance . but the orthodox replies , that he was catched in the net he laid for others ; for the mystical symbols , after the sanctification , do not depart from their own nature ; for they continue in their former substance , figure and form , and are both visible and palpable , as they were before ; but they are understood to be that which they are made , and are believed and venerated , as being those things which they are believed to be . and from thence he bids the heretick compare the image with the original , for the type must be like the truth , and shews that christ's body retains its former form and figure , and the substance of his body , though it be now made immortal and incorruptible . thus he . and having now set down very faithfully the words of these fathers , we desire it may be considered , that all these words are used to the same effect , to prove the reality of christ's body , and the distinction of the two natures , the divine and the human , in him . for , though st. chrysostom lived before eutyches his days , yet in this point the eutychians and the apollinarists , against whom he writes , held opinions so like others , that we may well say , all these words of the fathers we have set down are to the same purpose . now , first it is evident , that if transubstantiation had been then believed , there needed no other argument to prove against the eutychians that christ had still a real body , but to have declared that his body was corporally present in the eucharist ; which they must have done , had they believed it , and not spoken so as they did ; since that alone well proved , had put an end to the whole controversy . further , they could never have argued from the visions and apparitions of christ , to prove he had still a real body ; for if it was possible the body of christ could appear under the accidents of bread and wine , it was as possible the divinity should appear under the accidents of an humane body . thirdly , they could never have argued against the eutychians , as they did , from the absurdity that followed upon such a substantial mutation of the humane nature of christ into his divinity , if they had believed this substantial conversion of the elements into christ's body , which is liable unto far greater absurdities . and we can as little doubt , but the eutychians had turned back their arguments on themselves , with these answers , if that doctrine had been then received . it is true , it would seem from the last passage of theodoret , that the eutychians did believe some such change ; but that could not be , for they denied the being of the body of christ , and so could not think any thing was changed into that which they believed was not . therefore we are to suppose him arguing from some commonly received expressions , which the father explains . in fine , the design of those fathers being to prove , that the two natures might be united without the change of either of their substances in the person of christ , it had been inexcusable folly in them , to have argued from the sacramental mysteries being united to the body and blood of christ , if they had not believed they retained their former substance ; for had they believed transubstantiation , what a goodly argument had it been , to have said , because after the consecration the accidents of bread and wine remain , therefore the substance of the humanity remained still , tho united to the divine nature in christ ? did ever man in his wits argue in this fashion ? certainly , these four bishops , whereof three were patriarchs , and one of these a pope , deserved to have been hissed out of the world , as persons that understood not what it was to draw a consequence , if they had argued so as they did , and believed transubstantiation . but if you allow them to believe ( as certainly they did ) that in the sacrament the real substances of bread and wine remained , tho after the sanctification , by the operation of the holy ghost , they were the body and blood of christ , and were to be called so ; then this is a most excellent illustration of the mystery of the incarnation , in which the human nature retains its proper and true substance , tho after the union with the divinity , christ be called god , even as he was man , by virtue of his union with the eternal word . and this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend , that because substance and nature are sometimes used even for accidental qualities , they should be therefore understood so in the cited places ; for if you take them in that sense , you destroy the force of the argument , which from being a very strong one , will by this means become a most ridiculous sophisin . yet we are indeed beholden to those that have taken pains to shew , that substance and nature stand often for accidental qualities ; for tho that cannot be applied to the former places , yet it helps us with an excellent answer to many of those passages with which they triumph not a little . having so far considered these four fathers , we shall only add to them the definition of the seventh general council at constantinople , ann. . christ appointed us to offer the image of his body , to wit , the substance of the bread. the council is indeed of no authority with these we deal with : but we do not bring it as a decree of a council , but as a testimony , that so great a number of bishops did in the eighth century believe , that the substance of the bread did remain in the eucharist , and that it was only the image of christ's body : and if in this definition they spake not more consonantly to the doctrine of the former ages , than their enemies at nice did , let what has been set down , and shall be yet adduced , declare . and now we advance to the third branch of our first assertion , that the fathers believed that the consecrated elements did nourish our bodies ; and the proofs of this will also give a further evidence to our former position ; that the substance of the elements does remain : and it is a demonstration that these fathers , who thought the sacrament nourished our bodies , could not believe a transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. for the proof of this branch we desire the following testimonies be considered . first , iustin martyr , as was already cited , not only calls the eucharist our nourishment , but formally calls it that food by which our flesh and blood through its transmutation into them are nourished . secondly , irenaeus ( lib. . adv . heret . c. . ) proving the resurrection of the body by this argument , that our bodies are fed by the body and blood of christ , and that therefore they shall rise again ; he hath these words , he confirmed that cup , which is a creature , to be his blood , by which he encreases our blood ; and the bread , which is a creature , to be his body , by which he encreases our body : and when the mixed cup and the bread , receive the word of god , it becomes the eucharist of the body and blood of christ , by which the substance of our flesh is encreased and subsists . how then do they deny the flesh to be capable of the gift of god , which is eternal life , that is nourished by the body and blood of christ , and is made his member . we hope it will be observed , that as these words are express and formal ; so the design on which he uses them will admit of none of those distinctions they commonly rely on . tertullian says , ( lib. de resur . c. . ) the flesh is fed with the body and blood of christ. st. austin ( serm. . de divers . ) after he had called the eucharist our daily bread , he exhorts us so to receive it , that not only our bellies , but our minds might be refreshed by it . isidore of sevil says , the substance of the visible bread nourishes the outward man ; or , as bertram cites his words , all that we receive externally in the sacrament of the body and blood of christ , is proper to refresh the body . next , let us see what the th council of toledo says in anno . condemning those that did not offer in the eucharist entire loaves , but only round crusts ; they did appoint one entire loaf carefully prepared to be set on the altar , that it might be sanctified by the priestly benediction , and order , that what remained after communion , should be either put in some bag , or , if it was needful , to eat it up , that it might not oppress the belly of him that took it with the burden of an heavy surcharge ; and that it might not go to the digestion , but that it might feed his soul with spiritual nourishment . from which words , one of two consequences will necessarily follow ; either that the consecrated elements do really nourish the body , which we intend to prove from them ; or that the body of christ is not in the elements , but as they are sacramentally used , which we acknowledg many of the fathers believed . but the last words we cited of the spiritual nourishment , shew those fathers did not think so ; and if they did , we suppose those we deal with will see , that to believe christ's body is only in the elements when used , will clearly leave the charge of idolatry on that church in their processions , and other adorations of the host. but none is so express as origen , ( comment . in mat. c. . ) who on these words , 't is not that which enters within a man which defiles a man , says , if every thing that enters by the mouth , goes into the belly , and is cast into the draught ; then the food that is sanctified by the word of god , and by prayer , goes also to the belly , as to what is material in it , and from thence to the draught ; but by the prayer that was made over it , it is useful in proportion to our faith , and is the mean that the understanding is clear-sighted and attentive to that which is profitable ; and it is not the matter of bread , but the word pronounced over it , which profits him that does not eat in a way unworthy of our lord. this doctrine of the sacraments being so digested that some parts of it turned to excrement , was likewise taught by divers latin writers in the th age , as rabanus maurus arch-bishop of mentz , and heribald bishop of auxerre . divers of the greek writers did also hold it , whom for a reproach their adversaries called stercoranists . it is true , other greek fathers were not of origen's opinion , but believed that the eucharist did entirely turn into the substance of our bodies . so cyril of ierusalem says , ( mystic . catech. . ) that the bread of the eucharist does not go into the belly , nor is cast into the draught , but is distributed thorough the whole substance of the communicant , for the good of body and soul. the homily of the eucharist , in a dedication that is in st. chrysostom's works , ( tom. . ) says , do not think that this is bread , and that this is wine ; for they pass not to the draught , as other victuals do : and comparing it to wax put to the fire , of which no ashes remain ; he adds , so think that the m●teries are consumed with the substance of our bodies . iohn damascene is of the same mind , who says , ( lib. . de orthod . fide c. . ) that the body and the blood of christ passes into the consistence of our souls and bodies , without being consumed , corrupted , or passing into the draught , god forbid , but passing into our substance for our conservation . thus it will appear , that tho those last-cited fathers did not believe as origen did , that any part of the eucharist went to the draught ; yet they thought it was turned into the substance of our bodies , from which we may well conclude , they thought the substance of bread and wine remained in the eucharist after the consecration , and that it nourished our bodies . and thus we hope we have sufficiently proved our first proposition in all its three branches . so leaving it , we go on to the second proposition , which is ; that the fathers call the consecrated elements the figures , the signs , the symbols , the types , and antitypes , the commemoration , representation , the mysteries , and the sacraments of the body and blood of christ. tertullian proving against marcion , ( lib. cont . marc. c. . ) that christ had a real body , he brings some figures that were fulfilled in christ , and says , he made the bread which he took and gave his disciples to be his body , saying , this is my body , that is , the figure of my body ; but it had not been a figure of his body had it not been true , for an empty thing , such as a phantasm , cannot have a figure . now had tertullian , and the church in his time , believed transubstantiation , it had been much more pertinent for him to have argued , here is corporally present christ's body , therefore he had a true body , than to say , here is a figure of his body , therefore he had a true body ; such an escape as this is not incident to a man of common sense , if he had believed transubstantiation . and the same father , in two other places before cited , says , christ gave the figure of his body to the bread , and that he represented his own body by the bread. st. austin says , ( com. in psal. ) he commended and gave to his disciples , the figure of his body and blood. the same expressions are also in bede , alcuine , and druthmar , that lived in the eighth and ninth centuries . but what st. austin says elsewhere ( lib. . de doct. chr. c. . ) is very full in this matter , where , treating of the rules by which we are to judg what expressions in scripture are figurative , and what not , he gives this for one rule : if any place seem to command a crime or horrid action , it is figurative ; and to instance it , cites these words , except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man , you have no life in you ; which ( says he ) seems to command some crime , or horrid action , therefore it is a figure , commanding us to communicate in the passion of our lord , and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory , that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us . which words are so express and full , that whatever those we deal with may think of them , we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our doctrine more formally . parallel to these are origen's words , ( homil. . in lev. ) who calls the understanding the words of our saviour , of eating his flesh and drinking his blood according to the letter , a letter that kills . the same st. austin calls the eucharist , a sign of christ's body , in his book against adimantus , ( lib. cont . adimant . manich . c. . ) who studied to prove that the author of the old and new testament was not the same god ; and among other arguments , he uses this , that blood in the old testament is called the life or soul , contrary to the new testament : to which st. austin answers , that it was so called , not that it was truly the soul or life , but the sign of it ; and to shew , that the sign does sometimes bear the name of that whereof it is a sign , he says , our lord did not doubt to say , this is my body , when he was giving the sign of his body . where , if he had not believed the eucharist was substantially different from his body , it had been the most impertinent illustration that ever was , and had proved just against him , that the sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it . for the sacrament being called the type , the antitype , the symbol and mystery of christ's body and blood : the ancient liturgies , and greek fathers use these phrases so frequently , that since it is not so much as denied , we judg we need not laboriously prove it . therefore we pass over this , believing it will be granted ; for if it be denied , we undertake to prove them to have been used not only on some occasions , but to have been the constant style of the church . now that types , antitypes , symbols , and mysteries , are distinct from that which they shadow forth , and mystically hold out , we believe can be as little disputed . in this sense all the figures of the law are called types of christ by the fathers , and both the baptismal water and the chrism are called symbols and mysteries . and tho there was not that occasion for the fathers to discourse on baptism so oft , which every body received but once , and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the year , as they had to speak of the eucharist , which was daily consecrated ; so that it cannot be imagined , there should be near such a number of places about the one as about the other ; yet we fear not to undertake to prove , there be many places among the ancients , that do as fully express a change of the baptismal water , as of the eucharistical elements . from whence it may appear , that their great zeal to prepare persons to a due value of these holy actions , and that they might not look on them as a vulgar ablution , or an ordinary repast , carried them to many large and high expressions , which cannot bear a literal meaning . and since they with whom we deal are fain to fly to metaphors and allegories for clearing of what the fathers say of baptism , it is a most unreasonable thing to complain of us for using such expositions of what they say about the eucharist . but that we may not leave this without some proof , we shall set down the words of facundus , ( desens . conc. chalced. lib. . ) who says , the sacrament of adoption , that is baptism , may be called adoption , as the sacrament of his body and blood , which is in the consecrated bread and cup , is called his body and blood ; not that the bread is properly his body , or the cup properly his blood , but because they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood ; and hence it was that our lord called the bread that was blessed , and the cup which he gave his disciples , his body and blood. therefore as the believers in christ , when they receive the sacrament of his body and blood , are rightly said to have received his body and blood ; so christ , when he received the sacrament of the adoption of sons , may be rightly said to have received the adoption of sons . and we leave every one to gather from these words , if the cited father could believe transubstantiation , and if he did not think that baptism was as truly the adoption of the sons of god , as the eucharist was his body and blood , which these of rome acknowledg is only to be meant in a moral sense . that the fathers called this sacrament the memorial and representation of the death of christ , and of his body that was broken , and his blood that was shed , we suppose will be as little denied , for no man that ever looked into any of their treatises of the eucharist , can doubt of it . st. austin says , ( epist. . ad bonifac. ) that sacraments must have some similitude of these things of which they be the sacraments , otherwise they could not be sacraments . so he says , the sacrament of the body of christ is after some manner his blood. so the sacrament of faith ( that is baptism ) is faith. but more expresly , speaking of the eucharist as a sacrifice of praise , he says , ( lib. . cont . faust. manich. c. . ) the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised before the coming of christ by the sacrifices of the types of it : in the passion of christ , it was done in the truth it self : and after his ascent , is celebrated by the sacrament of the remembrance of it . but he explains this more fully on the th psalm , where he having read , ver . . worship his footstool ; and seeking for its true meaning , expounds it of christ's body , who was flesh of this earth , and gives his flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation , which , since none eats , except he have first adored it ; he makes this the footstool which we worship without any sin , and do sin if we do not worship it . so far the church of rome triumphs with this place . but let us see what follows , where we shall find that which will certainly abate their joy ; he goes on and tells us , not to dwell on the flesh , lest we be not quickened by the spirit ; and shews how they that heard our lord's words were scandalized at them as hard words ; for they understood them , says he , foolishly , and carnally , and thought he was to have cut off some parcels of his body to be given them : but they were hard , not our lord 's saying ; for had they been meek , and not hard , they should have said within themselves , he says not this without a cause , but because there is some sacrament hid there ; for had they come to him with his disciples , and asked him , he had instructed them : for he said it is the spirit that quickens , the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that i have spoken to you are spirit and life . and adds , understand spiritually that which i have said ; for it is not this body which you see , that you are not to eat ; or to drink this blood which they are to shed , who shall crucify me : but i have recommended a sacrament to you , which being spiritually understood , shall quicken you ; and tho it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly , yet it must be understood invisibly . from which it is as plain as can be , that st. austin believed that in the eucharist we do not eat the natural flesh , and drink the natural blood of christ ; but that we do it only in a sacrament , and spiritually , and invisibly . but the force of all this will appear yet clearer , if we consider that they speak of the sacrament as a memorial that exhibited christ to us in his absence : for tho it naturally follows , that whatsoever is commemorated must needs be absent ; yet this will be yet more evident , if we find the fathers made such reflections on it . so gaudentius says , ( tract . in exod. ) this is the hereditary gift of his new testament , which that night he was betrayed to be crucified , he left as the pledg of his presence : this is the provision for our iourney with which we are fed in this way of our life , and nourished till we go to him out of this world ; for he would have his benefits remain with us : he would have our souls to be always sanctified by his precious blood , and by the image of his own passion . primasius ( comm. in epist. ad cor. ) compares the sacrament to a pledg , which one , when he is dying , leaves to any whom he loved . many other places may be brought , to shew how the fathers speak of memorials and representations , as opposite to the truth and presence of that which is represented . and thus we doubt not but we have brought proofs , which , in the judgment of all that are unprejudiced , must demonstrate the truth of this our second proposition , which we leave , and go on to the third , which was ; that by the doctrine of the fathers , the unworthy receivers did not receive christ's body and blood in the sacrament . for this our first proof is taken from origen , ( com. in mat. c. . ) who after he had spoken of the sacraments being eaten , and passing to the belly , adds , these things we have said of the typical and symbolical body ; but many things may be said of the word that was made flesh , and the true food , whom whosoever eats , he shall live for ever ; whom no wicked person can eat : for if it were possible that any who continues wicked , should eat the word that was made flesh , since he is the word , and the living bread , it had never been written , whoso eats this bread , shall live for ever . where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and symbolical body received in the sacrament , and the incarnate word , of which no wicked person can partake . and he also says , ( hom. . in mat. ) they that are good , eat the living bread that came down from heaven ; and the wicked eat dead bread , which is death . zeno , bishop of verona , that , as is believed , lived near origen's time , ( tom. . spir. dach . ) says , ( as he is cited by ratherius bishop of verona ) there is cause to fear , that he in whom the devil dwells , does not eat the flesh of our lord , nor drink his blood , tho he seems to communicate with the faithful ; since our lord hath said , he that eats my flesh , and drinks my blood , dwells in me , and i in him . st. ierom on the th of isaiah , says , they that are not holy in body and spirit , do neither eat the flesh of iesus , nor drink his blood ; of which he said , he that eats my flesh , and drinks my blood , hath eternal life . and on the th chapter of hosea , he says , they eat not his flesh , whose flesh is the food of them that believe . to the same purpose he writes in his comments on the d of ieremy , and on the th of zechariah . st. austin says , ( tract . . in ioan. ) he that does not abide in christ , and in whom christ does not abide , certainly does not spiritually eat his flesh , nor drink his blood , tho he may visibly and carnally break in his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of christ : but he rather eats and drinks the sacrament of so great a matter to his iudgment . and speaking of those , who by their uncleanness become the members of an harlot ; he says , ( lib. . de civ . dei c. . ) neither are they to be said to eat the body of christ , because they are not his members . and besides , he adds , he that says , whoso eats my flesh , and drinks my blood , abides in me , and i in him ; shews what it is , not only in a sacrament , but truly to eat the body of christ , and drink his blood. to this we shall add , that so oft cited passage ; ( tract . . in ioan. ) those did eat the bread that was the lord ; the other ( he means iudas ) the bread of the lord against the lord. by which he clearly insinuates , he did believe the unworthy receivers did not receive the lord with the bread : and that this hath been the constant belief of the greek church to this day , shall be proved , if it be thought necessary , for clearing this matter . and thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove : but if we had enlarged on every particular , we must have said a great deal more ; to shew from many undeniable evidences , that the fathers were strangers to this new mystery . it is clear from their writings , that they thought christ was only spiritually present ; that we did eat his flesh , and drink his blood only by faith , and not by our bodily senses ; and that the words of eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , were to be understood spiritually . it is no less clear , that they considered christ present only as he was on the cross , and not as he is now in the glory of the father : and from hence it was , that they came to order their eucharistical forms so , as that the eucharist might represent the whole history of christ from his incarnation to his assumption . besides , they always speak of christ as absent from us , according to his flesh and human nature , and only present in his divinity and by his spirit ; which they could not have said , if they had thought him every day present on their altars in his flesh and human nature ; for then he were more on earth than he is in heaven , since in heaven he is circumscribed within one place . but according to this doctrine he must be always in above a million of places upon earth ; so that it were very strange to say he were absent , if they believed him thus present . but to give yet further evidences of the fathers not believing this doctrine , let us but reflect a little on the consequences that necessarily follow it : which be , . that a body may be , by the divine power , in more places at once . . that a body may be in a place without extension or quantity ; so a body of such dimensions , as our blessed lord's body , can be in so small a room as a thin wafer ; and not only so , but that the whole body should be entirely in every crumb and point of that wafer . . that a body can be made or produced in a place that had a real being before , and yet is not brought thither , but produced there . . that the accidents of any substance , such as colour , smell , taste , and figure , can remain without any body or substance in which they subsist . . that our senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident representations . . great doubts there are what becomes of the body of christ after it is received ; or , if it should come to be corrupted , or to be snatched by a mouse , or eat by any vermine . all these are the natural and necessary effects of this doctrine , and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching understanding , but are such as stare every body full in the face : and hence it is , that since this was submitted to in the western church , the whole doctrine of philosophy , has been altered , and new maxims and definitions were found out , to accustom the youth while raw and easy to any impression , to receive these as principles , by which their minds being full of those first prejudices , might find no difficulty to believe this . now it is certain , had the fathers believed this , they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other mysteries of our faith , and were so far from being short or defective in it , that they rather over-do it ; and that not only about the mysteries of the trinity and incarnation , but about original sin , the derivation of our souls , the operation of the grace of god in our hearts , and the resurrection of our bodies , should yet have been so constantly silent in those mysteries , tho they ought rather to have been cleared than the other . because in the other heads the difficulties were more speculative and abstracted , and so scruples were only incident to men of more curious and diligent enquiries . but here it is otherwise , where the matter being an object of the senses , every man's senses must have raised in him all or most of those scruples : and yet the fathers neither in their philosophical treatises , nor in their theological writings , ever attempt the unridling those difficulties . but all this is only a negative , and yet we do appeal to any one that has diligently read the fathers , st. austin in particular ; if he can perswade himself , that when all other mysteries , and the consequences from them , were explained with so great care and even curiosity , these only were things of so easy a digestion , that about them there should have been no scruple at all made . but it is yet clearer , when we find the fathers not only silent , but upon other occasions delivering maxims and principles so directly contrary to these consequences , without any reserved exceptions or provisions for the strange mysteries of transubstantiation : they tell us plainly , creatures are limited to one place , and so argued against the heathens believing their inferiour deities were in the several statues consecrated to them : from this they prove the divinity of the holy ghost , that he did work in many places at once , and so could not be a creature , which can only be in one place . nay , they do positively teach us , that christ can be no more on earth , since his body is in heaven , and is but in one place . they also do tell us , that that which hath no bounds nor figure , and cannot be touched nor seen , cannot be a body , and that all bodies are extended in some place , and that bodies cannot exist after the manner of spirits . they also tell us in all their reasonings against the eternity of matter , that nothing could be produced that had a being before it was produced . they also teach us very formally , that none of the qualities of a body could subsist , except the body it self did also subsist . and for the testimonies of our senses , they appeal to them on all occasions as infallible ; and tell us , that it tended to reverse the whole state of our life , the order of nature , and to blind the providence of god ; to say , he has given the knowledg and enjoyment of all his works to liars and deceivers , if our senses be false . then we must doubt of our faith , if the testimony of the eyes , hands and ears were of a nature capable to be deceived . and in their contests with the marcionites and others about the truth of christ's body , they appeal always to the testimony of the senses as infallible : nay , even treating of the sacrament , they say , it was bread as their eyes witnessed , and truly wine , that christ did consecrate for the memory of his blood ; telling , that in this very particular we ought not to doubt the testimony of our senses . but to make this whole matter yet plainer ; it is certain , that had the church in the first ages believed this doctrine , the heathens and jews who charged them with every thing they could possibly invent , had not passed over this , against which all the powers of reason , and the authorities of sense , do rise up . they charge them for believing a god that was born , a god of flesh , that was crucified and buried . they laughed at their belief of a iudgment to come , of endless flames , of an heavenly paradise , and the resurrection of the flesh. the first apologists for christianity , iustin , tertullian , origen , arnobius , and cyril of alexandria , give us a full account of those blasphemies against our most holy faith ; and the last hath given us what iulian objected in his own words , who having apostatized from the faith in which he was initiated , and was a reader in the church , must have been well acquainted with , and instructed in their doctrine and sacraments . he then who laughed at every thing , and in particular at the ablution and sanctification in baptism , as conceiving it a thing impossible that water should cleanse and wash a soul : yet neither he , nor celsus , nor any other ever charged on the christians any absurdities from their belief of transubstantiation . this is , it is true , a negative argument ; yet when we consider the malice of those ingenious enemies of our faith , and their care to expose all the doctrines and customs of christians , and yet find them in no place charge the strange consequences of this doctrine on them ; we must from thence conclude , there was no such doctrine then received : for if it had been , they , at least iulian , must have known it ; and if they knew it , can we think they should not have made great noise about it ? we know some think their charging the christians with the eating of human flesh , and thyestian suppers , related to the sacrament : but that cannot be , for when the fathers answer that charge , they tell them to their teeth it was a plain lie : and do not offer to explain it with any relation to the eucharist , which they must have done if they had known it was founded on their doctrine of receiving christ's body and blood in the sacrament . but the truth is , those horrid calumnies were charged on the christians from the execrable and abominable practices of the gnosticks , who called themselves christians ; and the enemies of the faith , either believing these were the practices of all christians , or being desirous to have others think so , did accuse the whole body of christians as guilty of these abominations . so that it appears , those calumnies were not at all taken up from the eucharist , and there being nothing else that is so much as said to have any relation to the eucharist , charged on the christians , we may well conclude from hence , that this doctrine was not received then in the church . but another negative argument is , that we find heresies rising up in all ages against all the other mysteries of our faith , and some downright denying them , others explaining them very strangely ; and it is indeed very natural to an unmortified and corrupt mind , to reject all divine revelation , more particularly that which either choaks his common notions , or the deductions of appearing reasonings ; but most of all , all men are apt to be startled , when they are told , they must believe against the clearest evidences of sense ; for men were never so meek and tame , as easily to yeild to such things . how comes it then that for the first seven ages there were no heresies nor hereticks about this ? we are ready to prove , that from the eighth and ninth centuries , in which this doctrine began to appear , there has been in every age great opposition made to all the advances for setting it up , and yet these were but dark and unlearned ages , in which implicit obedience , and a blind subjection to what was generally proposed , was much in credit . in those ages , the civil powers being ready to serve the rage of church-men against any who should oppose it , it was not safe for any to appear against it . and yet it cannot be denied , but from the days of the second council of nice , which made a great step towards transubstantiation , till the fourth council of lateran , there was great opposition made to it by the most eminent persons in the latin church ; and how great a part of christendom has departed from the obedience of the church of rome in every age since that time , and upon that account , is well enough known . now , is it to be imagined , that there should have been such an opposition to it these nine hundred years last past , and yet that it should have been received the former eight hundred years with no opposition , and that it should not have cost the church the trouble of one general council to decree it , or of one treatise of a father to establish it , and answer those objections that naturally arise from our reasons and senses against it ? but in the end there are many things which have risen out of this doctrine as its natural consequences , which had it been sooner taught and received , must have been apprehended sooner , and those are so many clear presumptions of the novelty of this doctrine ; the elevation , adoration , processions , the doctrine of concomitants , with a vast superfaetation of rites and rubricks about this sacrament are lately sprung up . the age of them is well known , and they have risen in the latin church out of this doctrine , which had it been sooner received , we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter . now for all these things , as the primitive church knew them not , so on the other hand , the great simplicity of their forms , as we find them in iustin martyr , and cyril of ierusalem , in the apostolical constitutions , and the pretended denis the areopagite , are far from that pomp which the latter ages that believed this doctrine brought in ; the sacraments being given in both kinds , being put in the hands of the faithful , being given to the children for many ages , being sent by boys or common persons to such as were dying , the eating up what remained , ( which in some places were burnt , in other places were consumed by children , or by the clergy ; ) their making cataplasms of it ; their mixing the consecrated chalice with ink to sign the excommunication of hereticks . these , with a great many more , are such convictions to one , that has carefully compared the ancient forms with the rubricks and rites of the church of rome , since this doctrine was set up , that it is as discernable as any thing can be , that the present belief of the church of rome is different from the primitive doctrine . and thus far we have set down the reasons that perswade us that transubstantiation was not the belief of the first seven or eight centuries of the church . if there be any part of what we have asserted , questioned , we have very formal and full proofs ready to shew for them ; though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular proofs of any thing , but what we undertook to make out when we waited on your ladyship . now there remains but one thing to be done , which we also promised ; and that was to clear the words of st. cyril of ierusalem . we acknowledg they were truly cited ; but for clearing of them , we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the authority of that father , though we find but a slender character given of him by epiphanius and others : nor shall we say any thing to lessen the authority of these catechisms , though much might be said . but it is plain , st. cyril's design in these catechisms , was only to possess his neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy symbols . but even in his th catechism he tells them , not to consider it as meer bread and wine , for it is the body and blood of christ. by which it appears he thought it was bread still , though not meer bread. and he gives us elsewhere a very formal account in what sense he thought it was christ's body and blood ; which he also insinuates in this th catechism : for in his first mist. catechism , when he exhorts his young christians to avoid all that belonged to the heathenish idolatry , he tells , that on the solemnities of their idols they had flesh and bread , which by the invocation of the devils were defiled , as the bread and wine of the eucharist before the holy invocation of the blessed trinity was bare bread and wine ; but the invocation being made , the bread becomes the body of christ. in like manner , says he , those victuals of the pomp of satan , which of their own nature are common or bare victuals , by the invocation of the devils become prophane . from this illustration , which he borrowed from iustin martyr his second apology , it appears , that he thought the consecration of the eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the profanation of the idolatrous feasts ; so that as the substance of the one remained still unchanged , so also according to him must the substance of the other remain . or , if this will not satisfy them , let us see to what else he compares this change of the elements by the consecration : in his third mist. catechism , treating of the consecrated oil , he says ; as the bread of the eucharist after the invocation of the holy ghost , is no more common bread , but the body of christ ; so this holy ointment is no more bare ointment , nor , as some may say , common ; but it is a gift of christ , and the presence of the holy ghost , and becomes energetical of his divinity . and from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from st. cyril's testimony . and thus we have performed like wise what we promised , and have given a clear account of st. cyril's meaning from himself ; from whose own words , and from these things which he compares with the sanctification of the elements in the eucharist , it appears he could not think of transubstantiation ; otherwise he had neither compared it with the idol-feasts , nor the consecrated oil , in neither of which there can be supposed any transubstantiation . having thus acquitted our selves of our engagement before your ladyship ; we shall conclude this paper with our most earnest and hearty prayers to the father of lights , that he may of his great mercy redeem his whole christian church from all idolatry ; that he may open the eyes of those , who being carnal , look only at carnal things , and do not rightly consider the excellent beauty of this our most holy faith , which is pure , simple , and spiritual : and that he may confirm all those whom he has called to the knowledge of the truth ; so that neither the pleasures of sin , nor the snares of this world , nor the fear of the cross , tempt them to make shipwrack of the faith and a good conscience . and that god may pour out abundance of his grace on your ladyship , to make you still continue in the love and obedience of the truth , is the earnest prayer of , madam , your ladyship 's most humble servants . edward stillingfleet , gilbert burnet . london , apr. . . a discourse , to shew how unreasonable it is , to ask for express words of scripture in proving all articles of faith : and that a just and good consequence from scripture is sufficient . it will seem a very needless labour to all considering persons , to go about the exposing and baffling so unreasonable and ill-grounded a pretence , that whatever is not read in scripture , is not to be held an article of faith. for in making good this assertion , they must either fasten their proofs on some other ground , or on the words of our article ; which are these , holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation : so that whatsoever is not read therein , nor may be proved thereby , is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith , or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation . now it is such an affront to every mans eyes and understanding , to infer from these words , that all our articles must be read in scripture , that we are confident every man will cry shame on any that will pretend to fasten on our church any such obligation from them . if these unlucky words , nor may be proved thereby , could be but dash'd out , it were a won cause . but we desire to know what they think can be meant by these words ? or what else can they signify , but that there may be articles of faith , which though they be not read in scripture , yet are proved by it . there be some propositions so equivalent to others , that they are but the same thing said in several words ; and these , though not read in scripture , yet are contained in it , since wheresoever the one is read , the other must necessarily be understood . other propositions there are , which are a necessary result either from two places of scripture , which joined together yield a third , as a necessary issue ; according to that eternal rule of reason and natural logick , that where-ever two things agree in any third , they must also agree among themselves . there be also other propositions that arise out of one single place of scripture by a natural deduction ; as if jesus christ be proved from any place of scripture the creator of the world , or that he is to be worshipped with the same adoration that is due to the great god , then it necessarily follows , that he is the great god ; because he does the works , and receives the worship of the great god. so it is plain , that our church by these words , nor may be proved thereby , has so declared her self in this point , that it is either very great want of consideration , or shameless impudence , to draw any such thing from our articles . but we being informed , that by this little art , as shuffling and bare so ever as it must appear to a just discerner , many have been disordered , and some prevailed on ; we shall so open and expose it , that we hope it shall appear so poor and trifling that every body must be ashamed of it . it hath already shewed it self in france and germany , and the novelty of it took with many , till it came to be canvassed ; and then it was found so weak , that it was universally cried down and hiss'd off the stage . but now that such decried wares will go off no-where , those that deal in them , try if they can vent them in this nation . it might be imagined , that of all persons in the world they should be the furthest from pressing us to reject all articles of faith that are not read in scripture ; since whenever that is received as a maxim , the infallibility of their church , the authority of tradition , the supremacy of rome , the worship of saints , with a great many more must be cast out . it is unreasonable enough for those who have cursed and excommunicated us , because we reject these doctrines , which are not so much as pretended to be read in scripture , to impose on us the reading all our articles in these holy writings . but it is impudent to hear persons speak thus , who have against the express and formal words of scripture , set up the making and worshipping of images ; and these not only of saints , ( though that be bad enough ) but of the blessed trinity , the praying in an unknown tongue , and the taking the chalice from the people . certainly this plea in such mens mouths is not to be reconciled to the most common rules of decency and discretion . what shall we then conclude of men that would impose rules on us , that neither themselves submit to , nor are we obliged to receive by any doctrine or article of our church ? but to give this their plea its full strength and advantage , that upon a fair hearing all may justly conclude its unreasonableness , we shall first set down all can be said for it . in the principles of protestants the scriptures are the rule by which all controversies must be judged . now they having no certain way to direct them in the exposition of them , neither tradition , nor the definition of the church : either they must pretend they are infallible in their deductions , or we have no reason to make any account of them , as being fallible and uncertain , and so they can never secure us from error , nor be a just ground to found our faith of any proposition so proved upon : therefore no proposition thus proved , can be acknowledged an article of faith. this is the breadth and length of their plea , which we shall now examine . and first ; if there be any strength in this plea , it will conclude against our submitting to the express words of scripture as forcibly : since all words , how formal soever , are capable of several expositions . either they are to be understood literally , or figuratively ; either they are to be understood positively , or interrogatively : with a great many other varieties , of which all expressions are capable . so that if the former argument have any force , since every place is capable of several meanings ; except we be infallibly sure which is the true meaning , we ought by the same parity of reason to make no account of the most express and formal words of scripture ; from which it is apparent , that what noise soever these men make of express words of scripture ; yet if they be true to their own argument , they will as little submit to these , as to deductions from scripture : since they have the same reason to question the true meaning of a place , that they have to reject an inference and deduction from it . and this alone may serve to satisfy every body that this is a trick , under which there lies no fair dealing at all . but to answer the argument to all mens satisfaction , we must consider the nature of the soul , which is a reasonable being ; whose chief faculty is to discern the connexion of things , and to draw out such inferences as flow from that connexion . now , though we are liable to great abuses both in our judgments and inferences ; yet if we apply thefe faculties with due care , we must certainly acquiesce in the result of such reasonings ; otherwise this being god's image in us , and the standard by which we are to try things , god has given us a false standard ; which when we have with all possible care managed , yet we are still exposed to fallacies and errors . this must needs reflect on the veracity of that god , that has made us of such a nature , that we can never be reasonably assured of any thing . therefore it must be acknowledged , that when our reasons are well prepared according to those eternal rules of purity and vertue , by which we are fitted to consider of divine matters ; and when we carefully weigh things , we must have some certain means to be assured of what appears to us . and though we be not infallible , so that it is still possible for us by precipitation , or undue preparation , to be abused into mistakes ; yet we may be well assured that such connexions and inferences as appear to us certain , are infallibly true . if this be not acknowledged , then all our obligation to believe any thing in religion will vanish . for that there is a god ; that he made all things , and is to be acknowledged and obeyed by his creatures ; that our souls shall out-live their union with our bodies , and be capable of rewards and punishments in another state ; that inspiration is a thing possible ; that such or such actions were above the power of nature , and were really performed . in a word , all the maxims on which the belief , either of natural religion , or revealed , is founded , are such as we can have no certainty about them , and by consequence are not obliged to yield to them ; if our faculty of reasoning in its clear deductions is not a sufficient warrant for a sure belief . but to examin a little more home their beloved principle , that their church cannot err : must they not prove this from the divine goodness and veracity , from some passages of scripture , from miracles and other extraordinary things they pretend do accompany their church ? now in yielding assent to this doctrine upon these proofs , the mind must be led by many arguments , through a great many deductions and inferences . therefore we are either certain of these deductions , or we are not . if we are certain , this must either be founded on the authority of the church expounding them , or on the strength of the arguments . now we being to examine this authority , not having yet submitted to it ; this cannot determine our belief till we see good cause for it . but in the discerning this good cause of believing the church infallible , they must say that an uncontroulable evidence of reason is ground enough to fix our faith on , or there can be no certain ground to believe the church infallible . so that it is apparent we must either receive with a firm persuasion what our souls present to us as uncontroulably true ; or else we have no reason to believe there is a god , or to be christians , or to be , as they would have us , romanists . and if it be acknowledged there is cause in some cases for us to be determined by the clear evidence of reason in its judgments and inferences ; then we have this truth gained , that our reasons are capable of making true and certain inferences , and that we have good cause to be determined in our belief by these ; and therefore inferences from scripture ought to direct our belief . nor can any thing be pretended against this , but what must at the same time overthrow all knowledg and faith , and turn us sceptical to every thing . we desire it be in the next place considered , what is the end and use of speech and writing , which is to make known our thoughts to others ; those being artificial signs for conveying them to the understanding of others . now every man that speaks pertinently ; as he designs to be understood , so he chooses such expressions and arguments as are most proper to make himself understood by those he speaks to ; and the clearer he speaks , he speaks so much the better : and every one that wraps up his meaning in obscure words , he either does not distinctly apprehend that about which he discourses , or does not design that those to whom he speaks , should understand him , meaning only to amuse them . if likewise he say any thing from which some absurd inference will easily be apprehended , he gives all that hear him a sufficient ground of prejudice against what he says . for he must expect that as his hearers senses receive his words or characters , so necessarily some figure or notion must be at th● same time imprinted on their imagination , or presented to their reason ; this being the end for which he speaks ; and the more genuinely that his words express his meaning , the more certainly and clearly they to whom he directs them apprehend it . it must also be acknowledged , that all hearers must necessarily pass judgments on what they hear , if they do think it of that importance as to examin it . and this they must do by that natural faculty of making judgments and deductions , the certainty whereof we have proved to be the foundation of all faith and knowledg . now the chief rule of making true judgments , is , to see what consequences certainly follow on what is laid before us : if these be found absurd or impossible , we must reject that from which they follow as such . further ; because no man says every thing that can be thought or said to any point , but only such things as may be the seeds of further enquiry and knowledg in their minds to whom he speaks ; when any thing of great importance is spoken , all men do naturally consider what inferences arise out of what is said by a necessary connexion : and if these deductions be made with due care , they are of the same force , and must be as true as that was from which they are drawn . these being some of the laws of converse , which every man of common sense must know to be true ; can any man think , that when god was revealing by inspired men his counsels to mankind , in matters that concerned their eternal happiness , he would do it in any other way than any honest man speaks to another , that is , plainly and dinstinctly . there were particular reasons why prophetical visions must needs be obscure : but when christ appeared on earth , tho many things were not to be fully opened till he had triumphed over death and the powers of darkness ; yet his design being to bring men to god , what he spoke in order to that , we must think he intended that they to whom he spake it might understand it , otherwise why should he have spoken it to them ? and if he did intend they should understand him , then he must have used such expressions as were most proper for conveying this to their understandings ; and yet they were of the meaner sort , and of very ordinary capacities , to whom he addressed his discourses . if then such as they were , might have understood him ; how should it come about that now there should be such a wondrous mysteriousness in the words of christ and his apostles ? ( for the same reason by which it is proved that christ designed to be understood , and spake sutably to that design , will conclude as strongly that the discourses of the apostles in matters that concern our salvation , are also intelligible . ) we have a perfect understanding of the greek tongue ; and , tho some phrases are not so plain to us which alter every age , and some other passages that relate to some customs , opinions or forms , of which we have no perfect account left us , are hard to be understood : yet what is of general and universal concern , may be as well understood now as it was then ; for sense is sense still . so that it must be acknowledged , that men may still understand all that god will have us believe and do in order to salvation . and therefore if we apply and use our faculties aright , joyning with an unprejudiced desire and search for truth , earnest prayers , that god by his grace may so open our understandings , and present divine truths to them , that we may believe and follow them : then both from the nature of our own souls , and from the design and end of revelation , we may be well assured that it is not only very possible , but also very easy for us to find out truth . we know the pompous objection against this , is , how comes it then that there are so many errors and divisions among christians ? especially those that pretend the greatest acquaintance with scriptures ? to which the answer is so obvious and plain , that we wonder any body should be wrought on by so fallacious an argument . does not the gospel offer grace to all men to lead holy lives , following the commandments of god ? and is not grace able to build them up , and make them perfect in every good word and work ? and yet how does sin and vice abound in the world ? if then the abounding of error proves the gospel does not offer certain ways to preserve us from it , then the abounding of sin will also prove there are no certain ways in the gospel to avoid it . therefore as the sins mankind generally live in , leave no imputation on the gospel ; so neither do the many heresies and schisms conclude that the gospel offers no certain ways of attaining the knowledg of all necessary truth . holiness is every whit as necessary to see the face of god as knowledg is , and of the two is the more necessary ; since low degrees of knowledg , with an high measure of holiness , are infinitely preferable to high degrees of knowledg with a low measure of holiness . if then every man have a sufficient help given him to be holy , why may we not much rather conclude he has a sufficient help to be knowing in such things as are necessary to direct his belief and life , which is a less thing ? and how should it be an imputation on religion , that there should not be an infallible way to end all controversies , when there is no infallible way to subdue the corrupt lusts and passions of men , since the one is more opposite to the design and life of religion than the other ? in sum ; there is nothing more sure than that the scriptures offer us as certain ways of attaining the knowledg of what is necessary to salvation , as of doing the will of god. but as the depravation of our natures makes us neglect the helps towards an holy life ; so this and our other corruptions , lusts and interests , make us either not to discern divine truth , or not embrace it . so that error and sin are the twins of the same parents . but as every man that improves his natural powers , and implores and makes use of the supplies of the divine grace , shall be enabled to serve god acceptably ; so that tho he fail in many things , yet he continuing to the end in an habit and course of well-doing , his sins shall be forgiven , and himself shall be saved : so upon the same grounds we are assured , that every one that applies his rational faculties to the search of divine truth , and also begs the illumination of the divine spirit , shall attain such knowledg as is necessary for his eternal salvation : and if he be involved in any errors , they shall not be laid to his charge . and from these we hope it will appear , that every man may attain all necessary knowledg , if he be not wanting to himself . now when a man attains this knowledg , he acquires it , and must use it as a rational being , and so must make judgments upon it , and draw consequences from it ; in which he has the same reason to be assured , that he has to know the true meaning of scripture ; and therefore as he has very good reason to reject any meaning of a place of scripture , from which by a necessary consequence great absurdities and impossibilities must follow : so also he is to gather such inferences as flow from a necessary connexion with the true meaning of any place of scripture . to instance this in the argument we insisted on , to prove the mean by which christ is received in the sacrament , is faith ; from these words , whoso eats my flesh , and drinks my blood , hath eternal life . if these words have relation to the sacrament , which the roman church declares is the true meaning of them ; there cannot be a clearer demonstration in the world. and indeed they are necessitated to stand to that exposition ; for if they will have the words , this is my body , to be understood literally , much more must they assert the phrases of èating his flesh , and drinking his blood , must be literal : for if we can drive them to allow a figurative and spiritual meaning of these words , it is a shameless thing for them to deny such a meaning of the words , this is my body : they then expounding these words of st. iohn of the sacrament , there cannot be imagined a closer contexture than this which follows . the eating christ's flesh , and drinking his blood , is the receiving him in the sacrament ; therefore every one that receives him in the sacrament , must have eternal life . now all that is done in the sacrament , is either the external receiving the elements , symbols , or , as they phrase it , the accidents of bread and wine , and under these the body of christ ; or the internal and spiritual communicating by faith. if then christ received in the sacrament , gives eternal life , it must be in one of these ways ; either as he is received externally , or as he is received internally , or both ; for there is not a fourth : therefore if it be not the one at all , it must be the other only . now it is undeniable , that it is not the external eating that gives eternal life . for st. paul tells us , of some that eat and drink unworthily , that are guilty of the body and blood of the lord , and eat and drink iudgment against themselves . therefore it is only the internal receiving of christ by faith , that gives eternal life ; from which another necessary inference directs us also to conclude , that since all that eat his flesh , and drink his blood , have eternal life : and since it is only by the internal communicating that we have eternal life , therefore these words of eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , can only be understood of internal communicating ; therefore they must be spiritually understood . but all this while the reader may be justly weary of so much time and pains spent to prove a thing which carries its own evidence so with it , that it seems one of the first principles and foundations of all reasoning ; for no proposition can appear to us to be true , but we must also assent to every other deduction that is drawn out of it by a certain inference . if then we can certainly know the true meaning of any place of scripture , we may and ought to draw all such conclusions as follow it with a clear and just consequence : and if we clearly apprehend the consequence of any proposition , we can no more doubt the truth of the consequence , than of the proposition from which it sprung : for if i see the air full of a clear day-light , i must certainly conclude the sun is risen ; and i have the same assurance about the one that i have about the other . there is more than enough said already for discovering the vanity and groundlesness of this method of arguing . but to set the thing beyond all dispute , let us consider the use which we find our saviour and the apostles making of the old testament , and see how far it favours us , and condemns this appeal to the formal and express words of scriptures . but before we advance further , we must remove a prejudice against any thing may be drawn from such presidents , these being persons so filled with god and divine knowledg , as appeared by their miracles and other wonderful gifts , that gave so full an authority to all they said , and of their being infallible , both in their expositions and reasonings , that we whose understandings are darkened and disordered , ought not to pretend to argue as they did . but for clearing this , it is to be observed , that when any person divinely assisted , having sufficiently proved his inspiration , declares any thing in the name of god , we are bound to submit to it ; or if such a person , by the same authority , offers any exposition of scripture , he is to be believed without farther dispute . but when an inspired person argues with any that does not acknowledg his inspiration , but is enquiring into it , not being yet satisfied about it ; then he speaks no more as an inspired person : in which case the argument offered is to be examined by the force that is in it , and not by the authority of him that uses it . for his authority being the thing questioned , if he offers an argument from any thing already agreed to ; and if the argument be not good , it is so far from being the better by the authority of him that useth it ; that it rather gives just ground to lessen or suspect his authority , that understands a consequence so ill , as to use a bad argument to use it by . this being premised . when our saviour was to prove against the sadducees the truth of the resurrection from the scriptures , he cites out of the law , that god was the god of abraham , isaac , and jacob ; since then god is not the god of the dead , but of the living : therefore abraham , isaac and jacob did live unto god. from which he proved the souls having a being distinct from the body , and living after its separation from the body , which was the principal point in controversy . now if these new maxims be of any force , so that we must only submit to the express words of scripture , without proving any thing by consequence ; then certainly our saviour performed nothing in that argument : for the sadducees might have told him , they appealed to the express words of scripture . but alas ! they understood not these new-found arts , but submitting to the evident force of that consequence , were put to silence , and the multitudes were astonished at his doctrine . now it is unreasonable to imagine that the great authority of our saviour , and his many miracles made them silent ; for they coming to try him , and to take advantage from every thing he said , if it were possible to lessen his esteem and authority , would never have acquiesced in any argument because he used it , if it had not strength in it self ; for an ill argument is an ill argument , use it whoso will. for instance ; if i see a man pretending that he sits in an infallible chair , and proving what he delievers by the most impertinent allegations of scripture possible ; as if he attempt to prove the pope must be the head of all powers civil and spiritual from the first words of genesis ; where it being said , in the beginning , and not in the * beginnings , in the plural , ( from which he concludes there must be but one beginning and head of all power , to wit , the pope . ) i am so far from being put to silence with this , that i am only astonished how any man of common sense , tho he pretended not to infallibility , could fall into such errors : for an ill argument , when its fallacy is so apparent , must needs heap contempt on him that uses it . having found our saviour's way of arguing to be so contrary to this new method these gentlemen would impose on us ; let us see how the apostles drew their proofs for matters in controversy from scriptures : the two great points they had most occasion to argue upon , were , iesus christ being the true messiah , and the freedom of the gentiles from any obligation to the observance of the mosaical law. now let us see how they proceeded in both these . for the first : in the first sermon after the effusion of the holy ghost , s. peter proves the truth of christ's resurrection from these words of david , thou wilt not leave my soul in hell , nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption . now he shews that these words could not be meant of david , who was dead and buried ; therefore being a prophet , he spake of the resurrection of christ. if here were not consequences and deductions , let every one judg . now these being spoken to those who did not then believe in christ , there was either sufficient force in that argument to convince the jews , otherwise these that spake them were very much both to be blamed , and despised , for offering to prove a matter of such importance by a consequence . but this being a degree of blasphemy against the holy ghost , we must acknowledg there was strength in their argument ; and therefore articles of faith , whereof this was the fundamental , may be proved from scripture by a consequence . we might add to this all the other prophecies in the old testament , from which we find the apostles arguing to prove this foundation of their faith , which every one may see do not contain in so many words that which was proved by them . but these being so obvious , we choose only to name this , all the rest being of a like nature with it . the next controversy debated in that time , was the obligation of the mosaichal law. the apostles by the inspiration of the holy ghost made a formal decision in this matter : yet there being great opposition made to that , st. paul sets himself to prove it at full length in his epistle to the galatians , where , besides other arguments , he brings these two from the old testament ; one was , that abraham was justified by faith before the giving the law ; for which he cites these words , abraham believed god , and it was counted to him for righteousness : from which , by a very just consequence , he infers , that as abraham was blessed , so all that believe are blessed with him ; and that the law of moses , that was years after , could not disannul it , or make the promise of none effect ; therefore we might now be justified by faith without the law , as well as he was . another place he cites , is , the iust shall live by faith , and he subsumes , the law was not of faith ; from which the conclusion naturally follows : therefore the just lives not by the law. he must be very blind that sees not a succession of many consequences in that epistle of st. paul's ; all which had been utterly impertinent , if this new method had any ground for its pretension , and they might at one dash have overthrown all that he had said . but men had not then arrived at such devices as must at once overturn all the sense and reason of mankind . we hope what we premised will be remembred , to shew that the apostles being infallibly directed by the holy ghost , will not at all prove , that tho this way of arguing might have passed with them , yet it must not be allowed us : for their being infallibly directed , proves their arguments and way of proceeding was rational and convincing , otherwise they had not pitched on it . and the persons to whom these arguments were offered , not acquiescing in their authority , their reasonings must have been good , otherwise they had exposed themselves and their cause to the just scorn of their enemies . having therefore evinced that both our saviour and his apostles did prove by consequences drawn from scripture , the greatest and most important articles of faith ; we judg that we may with very great assurance follow their example . but this whole matter will receive a further confirmation : if we find it was the method of the church of god in all ages to found her decisions of the most important controversies on consequences from scriptures . there were very few hereticks that had face and brow enough to set up against express words of scripture ; for such as did so , rejected these books that were so directly opposite to their errors ; as the manichees did the gospel of st. matthew . but if we examine the method either of councils in condemning hereticks , or of the fathers writing against them , we shall always find them proceeding upon deductions and consequences from scripture , as a sufficient ground to go upon . let the epistle both of the council of antioch to samosatenus , and denis of alexandria's letter to him , be considered ; and it shall be found how they drew their definitions out of deductions from scripture . so also alexander , patriarch of alexandria , in his epistle , in which he condemned aerius , proceeds upon deductions from scripture ; and when the council of nice came to judg of the whole matter , if we give credit to gelasius , they canvassed many places of scripture , that they might come to a decision ; and that whole dispute , as he represents it , was all about inferences and deductions from scripture . it is true , f. maimbourg in his romantick history of arrianism ( hist. de l. arrian . l. . ) would perswade us , that in that council the orthodox , and chiefly the great saints of the council , were for adhering closely to what they had received by tradition , without attempting to give new expositions of scripture , to interpret it any other way than as they had learned from these fathers , that had been taught them by the apostles . but the arrians , who could not find among these that which they intended to establish , maintained on the contrary , that we must not confine our selves to that which hath been held by antiquity , since none could be sure about that . therefore they thought that one must search the truth of the doctrine only in the scriptures , which they could turn to their own meaning by their false subtilties . and to make this formal account pass easily with his reader , he vouches on the margin , sozom. cap. . when i first read this , it amazed me to find a thing of so great consequence not so much as observed by the writers of controversies ; but turning to sozomen , i found in him these words , speaking of the dispute about arrius his opinions , the disputation being , as is usual , carried out into different enquiries ; some were of opinion that nothing should be innovated beyond the faith that was originally delivered ; and these were chiefly those whom the simplicity of their manners bad brought to divine faith without nice curiosity . others did strongly , or earnestly contend that it was not fit to follow the ancienter opinions , without a strict trial of them . now in these words we find not a word either of orthodox or arrian ; so of which side either one or other were , we are left to conjecture . that jesuit has been sufficiently exposed by the writers of the port-royal , for his foul dealing on other occasions ; and we shall have great cause to mistrust him in all his accounts , if it be found that he was quite mistaken in this ; and that the party which he calls the orthodox were really some holy , good men ; but simple , ignorant , and easily abused : and that the other party which he calls the arrian , was the orthodox , and more judicious , who readily foreseeing the inconvenience which the simplicity of others would have involved them in , did vehemently oppose it ; and pressed the testimonies of the fathers might not be blindly followed . for proof of this , we need but consider that they anathematized these , who say that the son was the work of the father , as athanasius ( de decret . synod . nicen. ) tells us , which were the very words of denis of alexandria , of whom the arrians ( athan. epist. de sententia dion . alex. ) boasted much , and cited these words from him ; and both athanasius ( de synod . arim. ) and hilary ( hil. lib. de synod . ) acknowledg that those bishops that condemned samosatenus , did also reiect the consubstantial , and st. basil ( epist. . ) says , denis sometimes denied , sometimes acknowledged the consubstantial . yet i shall not be so easy as petavius and others of the roman church are in this matter , who acknowledg that most of the fathers before the council of nice said many things that did not agree with the rule of the orthodox faith ; but am fully perswaded , that before that council , the church did believe that the son was truly god , and of the same divine substance with the father : yet on the other hand it cannot be denied , but there are many expressions , in their writings which they had not so well considered ; and thence it is that st. basil ( epist. . ) observes how denis in his opposition to sabellius had gone too far on the other hand . therefore there was a necessity to make such a symbol as might cut off all equivocal and ambiguous forms of speech . so we have very good reason to conclude it was the arrian party , that studied under the pretence of not innovating , to engage many of the holy , but simpler bishops , to be against any new words or symbols , that so they might still lurk undiscovered . upon what grounds the council of nice made their decree and symbol , we have no certain account , since their acts are lost . but the best conjecture we can make , is from st. athanasius , who , as he was a great assertor of the faith in that council , so also he gives us a large account of its creed , in a particular treatise ( lib. de decret . concil . nicen. ) in which he justifies their symbol at great length out of the scriptures , and tells us very formally they used the word consubstantial , that the wickedness and craft of the arrians might be discovered , and proves by many consequences from scripture , that the words were well chosen ; and sets up his rest on his arguments from the scriptures , tho all his proofs are but consequences drawn out of them . it is true , when he has done that , he also adds , that the fathers at nice did not begin the use of these words , but had them from those that went before them ; and cites some passages from theognistus , denis of alexandria , denis of rome , and origen . but no body can imagin this was a full proof of the tradition of the faith. these were but a few later writers , nor could he have submitted the decision of the whole controversy to two of these , denis of alexandria and origen , ( for the other two , their works are lost ) in whose writings there were divers passages that favoured the arrians , and in which they boasted much . therefore athanasius only cites these passages , to shew the words of these symbols were not first coined by the council of nice . but neither in that treatise , nor in any other of his works , do i ever find that either the council of nice , or he who was the great champion for their faith , did study to prove the consubstantiality to have been the constant tradition of the church : but in all his treatises he at full length proves it from scripture . so from the definition of the council of nice , and athanasius his writings , it appears the church of that age thought that consequences clearly proved from scripture were a sufficient ground to build an article of faith on . with this i desire it be also considered , that the next great controversy , that was carried on chiefly by s. cyril against the nestorians , was likewise all managed by consequences from scripture , as will appear to any that reads s. cyril's writings , inserted in the acts of the council of ephesus , chiefly his treatise to the queens ; and when he brought testimonies from the fathers against nestorius , which were read in the council , ( act. conc. eph. action . ) they are all taken out of fathers that lived after the council of nice , except only s. cyprian , and peter of alexandria . if then we may collect from s. cyril's writings the sense of that council , as we did from s. athanasius that of the council of nice ; we must conclude that their decrees were founded on consequences drawn from scripture ; nor were they so solicitous to prove a continued succession of the tradition . in like manner , when the council of chalcedon condemned eutyches , pope leo's epistle to flavian was read , and all assented to it : so that upon the matter , his epistle became the decree of the council , and that whole epistle from beginning to end , is one entire series of consequences proved from scripture and reason : ( act. conc. chalced. action . ) and to the end of that epistle are added in the acts of that council , testimonies from the fathers , that had lived after the days of the council of nice . theodoret ( theod. in dial. ) and gelasius also ( gelas. de diab . naturis . ) who wrote against the eutychians , do through their whole writings pursue them with consequences drawn from scripture and reason , and in the end set down testimonies from fathers : and to instance only one more , when s. austin wrote against the pelagians , how many consequences he draws from scripture , every one that has read him , must needs know . in the end let it be also observed , that all these fathers when they argue from places of scripture , they never attempt to prove that those scriptures had been expounded in that sense they urge them in by the councils or fathers who had gone before them ; but argue from the sense which they prove they ought to be understood in . i do not say all their consequences or expositions were well-grounded ; but all that has been hitherto set down , will prove that they thought arguments drawn from scripture , when the consequences are clear , were of sufficient authority and force to end all controversies . and thus it may appear that it is unreasonable , and contrary to the practice both of the ancient councils and fathers , to reject proofs drawn from places of scripture , though they contain not in so many words that which is intended to be proved by them . but all the answer they can offer to this , is , that those fathers and councils had another authority to draw consequences from scripture , because the extraordinary presence of god was among them , and because of the tradition of the faith they builded their decrees on , than we can pretend to , who do not so much as say we are so immediately directed , or thar we found our faith upon the successive tradition of the several ages of the church . to this i answer ; first , it is visible , that if there be any strength in this , it will conclude as well against our using express words of scripture , since the most express words are capable of several expositions . therefore it is plain , they use no fair dealing in this appeal to the formal words of scripture , since the arguments they press it by , do invalidate the most express testimonies as well as deductions . let it be further considered , that before the councils had made their decrees , when heresies were broached , the fathers wrote against them , confuting them by arguments made up of scripture-consequences ; so that before the church had decreed , they thought private persons might confute heresies by such consequences . nor did these fathers place the strength of their arguments on tradition , as will appear to any that reads but what st. cyril wrote against nestorius , before the council of ephesus ; and pope leo against eutyches , before the council of chalcedon ; where all their reasonings are founded on scripture . it is true , they add some testimonies of fathers to prove they did not innovate any thing in the doctrine of the church : but it is plain , these they brought only as a confirmation of their arguments , and not as the chief strength of their cause ; for as they do not drive up the tradition to the apostles days , setting only down some later testimonies ; so they make no inferences from them , but barely set them down . by which it is evident , all the use they made of these , was only to shew that the faith of the age that preceded them , was conform to the proofs they brought from scripture ; but did not at all found the strength of their arguments from scripture , upon the sense of the fathers that went before them . and if the council of nice had passed the decree of adding the consubstantials to the creed , upon evidence brought from tradition chiefly , can it be imagined that st. athanasius , who knew well on what grounds they went , having born so great a share in their consultations and debates , when he in a formal treatise justifies that addition , should draw his chief arguments from scripture and natural reason ; and that only towards the end , he should tell us of four writers , from whom he brings passages to prove this was no new or unheard-of thing . in the end , when the council had passed their decree , does the method of their dispute alter ? let any read athanasius , hilary , or st. austin writing against the arrians : they continue still to ply them with arguments made up of consequences from scripture ; and their chief argument was clearly a consequence from scripture , that since christ was , by the confession of the arrians , truly god , then he must be of the same substance , otherwise there must be more substances , and so more gods , which was against scripture . now , if this be not a consequence from scripture , let every body judg . it was on this they chiefly insisted , and waved the authority of the council of nice , which they mention very seldom , or when they do speak of it , it is to prove that its decrees were according to scripture . for proof of this , let us hear what st. austin says ( lib. . cont. max. . ) writing against maximinus an arrian bishop , proving the consubstantiality of the son : this is that consubstantial which was established by the catholick fathers in the council of nice , against the arrians ; by the authority of truth , and the truth of authority , which heretical impiety studied to overthrow , under the heretical emperor constantius , because of the newness of the words , which were not so well understood , as should have been : since the ancient faith had brought them forth ; but many were abused by the fraud of a few . and a little after he adds , but now neither should i bring the cou●il of nice , nor yet the council of arrimini , thereby to prejudg in this matter ; neither am i bound by the authority of the latter , nor you by the authority of the former . let one cause and reason contest and strive with the other from the authorities of the scriptures , which are witnesses common to both , and not proper to either of us . if this be not our plea , as formally as can be , let every reader judg ; from all which we conclude , that our method of proving articles of faith by consequences drawn from scripture , is the same that the catholick church in all the best ages made use of : and therefore it is unreasonable to deny it to us . but all that hath been said will appear yet with fuller and more demonstrative evidence , if we find , that this very pretence of appealing to formal words of scriptures , was on several occasions taken up by divers hereticks , but was always rejected by the fathers as absurd and unreasonable . the first time we find this plea in any bodies mouth , is upon the question , whether it was lawful for christians to go to the theaters , or other publick spectacles ? which the fathers set themselves mightily against , as that which would corrupt the minds of the people , and lead them to heathenish idolatry . but others that loved those diverting sights , pleaded for them upon this ground , as tertullian ( lib. de spect. c. . ) tells us in these words ; the faith of some being either simpler or more scrupulous , calls for an authority from scripture , for the discharge of these sights ; and they became uncertain about it , because such abstinence is no-where denounced to the servants of god , neither by a clear signification , nor by name ; as , thou shalt not kill , nor worship an idol : but he proves it from the first verse of the psalms ; for though that seems to belong to the iews , yet ( says he ) the scripture is always to be divided broad , where that discipline is to be guarded according to the sense of whatever is present to us . and this agrees with that maxim he has elsewhere , ( lib. adv . gnost . c. . ) that the words of scripture are to be understood , not only by their sound , but by their sense ; and are not only to be heard with our ears , but with our minds . in the next place , the arrians designed to shroud themseles under general expressions ; and had found glosses for all passages of scripture . so that when the council of nice made all these ineffectual , by putting the word consubstantial into the creed ; then did they in all their councils , and in all disputes , set up this plea , that they would submit to every thing that was in scripture , but not to any additions to scripture . a large account of this we have from athanasius , who ( de synod . arim. & seleuc. ) gives us many of their creeds . in that proposed at arimini , these words were added to the symbol , for the word substance , because it was simply set down by the fathers , and is not understood by the people , but breeds scandal , since the scriptures have it not , therefore we have thought fit it be left out , and that there be no more mention made of substance concerning god , since the scriptures no-where speak of the substance of the father and the son. he also tells us , that at sirmium they added words to the same purpose to their symbol , rejecting the words of substance or consubstantial , because nothing is written of them in the scriptures , and they transcend the knowledg and understanding of men. thus we see how exactly the plea of the arrians agrees with what is now offered to be imposed on us . but let us next see what the father says to this : he first turns it back on the arrians , and shews how far they were from following that rule which they imposed on others . and if we have not as good reason to answer those so , who now take up the same plea , let every one judg . but then the father answers , it was no matter though one used forms of speech that were not in scripture , if he had still a sound or pious understanding ; as on the contrary an her●tical person , though be uses forms out of scripture , he will not be the less suspected , if his understanding be corrupted ; and at full length applies that to the question of the consubstantiality . to the same purpose , st. hillary ( de synod . adv . arrian . ) setting down the arguments of the arrians against the consubstantiality , the third objection is , that it was added by the council of nice , but ought not to be received , because it is no-where written . but he answers ; it was a foolish thing to be afraid of a word , when the thing expressed by the word has no difficulty . we find likewise in the conference st. austin had with maximinus the arrian bishop , ( lib. . cont . max. arr. epist. ) in the very beginning the arrian tells him , that he must hearken to what he brought out of the scriptures , which were common to them all ; but for words that were not in scripture , they were in no case received by them . and afterwards he says , ( lib. . c. . ) we receive with a full veneration every thing that is brought out of the holy scriptures , for the scriptures are not in our dominion that they may be mended by us . and a little after adds , truth is not gathered out of arguments , but is proved by sure testimonies , therefore he seeks a testimony of the holy ghost's being god. but to that st. austin makes answer , that from the things that we read , we must understand the things that we read not . and giving an account of another conference ( epist. . ) he had with count pascentius that was an arrian , he tells , that the arrian did most earnestly press that the word consubstantial might be shewed in scripture , repeating this frequently , and canvassing about it invidiously . to whom st. austin answers , nothing could be more contentious than to strive about a word , when the thing was certain ; and asks him where the word unbegotten ( which the arrians used ) was in scripture ? and since it was no-where in scripture , he from thence concludes , there might be a very good account given why a word that was not in scripture , might be well used . and by how many consequences he proves the consubstantiality we cannot number , except that whole epistle were set down . and again , in that which is called an epistle , ( epist. . ) but is an account of another conference between that same person and st. austin , the arrian desired the consubstantiality might be accursed , because it was no-where to be found written in the scriptures ; and adds , that it was a grievous trampling on the authority of the scripture , to set down that which the scripture had not said ; for if any thing be set down without authority from the divine volumes , it is proved to be void ; against which st. austin argues at great length , to prove that it necessarily follows from other places of scripture . in the conference between photinus , sabellius , arrius , and athanasius , first published by cassander , ( oper. cass. ) as a work of vigilius , but believed to be the work of gelasius an african ; where we have a very full account of the pleas of these several parties . arrius challenges the council of nice for having corrupted the faith with the addition of new words , and complains of the consubstantial , and says , the apostles , their disciples , and all their successors downward , that had lived in the confession of christ to that time , were ignorant of that word : and on this he insists with great vehemency , urging it over and over again , pressing athanasius either to read it properly set down in scripture , or to cast it out of his confession ; against which athanasius replies , and shews him how many things they acknowledged against the other hereticks , which were not written ; shew me these things , ( says he ) not from conjectures or probabilities , or things that do neighbour on reason , not from things that provoke us to understand them so , nor from the piety of faith , persuading such a profession ; but shew it written in the pure and naked property of words , that the father is unbegotten , or impassible . and then he tells arrius , that when he went about to prove this , he should not say , the reason of faith required this , piety teaches it , the consequence from scripture forces me to this profession . i will not allow you , says he , to obtrude these things on me ; because you reject me when i bring you such like things , for the profession of the consubstantial . in the end he says , either permit me to prove the consubstantial by consequences , or if you will not , you must deny all those things which you your self grant . and after athanasius had urged this further , probus , that fate judg in the debate , said , neither one nor other could shew all that they believed properly and specially in scripture : therefore he desired they would trifle no longer in such a childish contest , but prove either the one or rhe other by a just consequence from scripture . in the macedonian controversy against the divinity of the holy ghost , we find this was also their plea ; a hint of it was already mentioned in the conference betwixt maximinus the arrian bishop , and st. austin , which we have more fully in st. greg. nazianz. ( orat. . ) who proving the divinity of the holy ghost , meets with that objection of the macedonians , that it was in no place of scripture , to which he answers , some things seemed to be said in scripture that truly are not , as when god is said to sleep ; some things truly are , but are no-where said , as the fathers being unbegotten , which they themselves believed , and concludes , that these things are drawn from those things out of which they are gathered , though they be not mentioned in scripture . therefore he upbraids those for serving the letter , and joyning themselves to the wisdom of the jews , and that leaving things , they followed syllables : and shews how valid a good consequence is ; as if a man , says he , speaks of a living creature that is reasonable , but mortal ; i conclude it must be a man : do i for that seem to rave ? not at all ; for these words are not more truly his that says them , than his that did make the saying of them necessary : so he infers , that he might , without fear , believe such things as he either found or gathered from the scriptures , though they either were not at all , or not clearly in the scriptures . we find also in a dialogue between an orthodox and a macedonian , that is in athanasius's works , but believed to be written by maximus , after he had proved by a great many arguments that the attributes of the divine nature , such as the omniscience and omnipresence were ascribed to the holy ghost . in end the macedonian flies to this known refuge , that it was no-where written , that he was god , and so challenges him for saying , that which was not in scripture . but the orthodox answers , that in the scriptures the divine nature was ascribed to the holy ghost , and since the name follows the nature , he concludes , if the holy ghost did subsist in himself , did sanctifie , and was increated , he must be god whether the other would or not . then he asks , where it was written , that the son was like the father in his essence ? the heretick answers , that the fathers had declared the son consubstantial as to his essence but the orthodox replies , ( which we desire may be well considered ) were they moved to that from the sense of the scripture , or was it of their own authority or arrogance , that they said any thing that was not written . the other confesses it was from the sense of the scripture , that they were moved to it ; from this the orthodox infers , that the sense of the scripture teaches us , that an uncreated spirit that is of god , and quickens and sanctifies , is a divine spirit , and from thence he concludes , he is god. thus we see clearly , how exactly the macedonians and these gentlemen agree , and what arguments the fathers furnish us with against them . the nestorian history followed this tract , and we find nestorius both in his letters ( act. syn. eph. ) to cyril of alexandria , to pope celestin , and in these writings of his that were read in the council of ephesus , ( action . ) gives that always for his reason of denying the blessed virgin to have been the mother of god , because the scriptures did no-where mention it , but call her always the mother of christ , and yet that general council condemned him for all that ; and his friend iohn , patriarch of antioch , earnestly pressed him by his letters not to reject but to use that word , since the sense of it was good , and it agreed with the scriptures ; and it was generally used by many of the fathers , and had never been rejected by any one . this was also eutyches his last refuge , ( act. . syn. constantin . in act. . chalcedon . ) when he was called to appear before the council at constantinople , he pretended sickness , and that he would never stir out of his monastery ; but being often cited , he said to those that were sent to him , in what scripture were the two natures of christ to be found ? to which they replied , in what scripture was the consubstantial to be found : thus turning his plea back on himself , as the orthodox had done before on the arrians . eutyches also when he made his appearance , he ended his defence with this , that he had not found that ( to wit , of the two natures ) plainly in the scripture , and that all the fathers had not said it . but for all that , he was condemned by that council which was afterwards ratified by the universal council of chalcedon . yet after this repeated condemnation the eutychians laid not down this plea , but continued still to appeal to the express words of scripture ; which made theodoret write two discourses to shew the unreasonableness of that pretence , they are published in athanasius his works ( tom. . op . athan. ) among these sermons against hereticks : but most of these are theodoret's , as appears clearly from photius ( bibl. cod. . ) his account of theodoret's works ; the very titles of them lead us to gather his opinion of this plea : the th discourse , which by photius's account , is the th , has this title , to those that say we ought to receive the expression , and not look to the things signified by them , as transcending all men . the th , or according to photius , the d , is , to those who say we ought to believe simply as they say , and not consider what is convenient or inconvenient . if i should set down all that is pertinent to this purpose , i must set down the whole discourses ; but i shall gather out of them such things as are most proper . he first complains of those who studied to subvert all humane things , and would not suffer men to be any longer reasonable , that would receive the words of the sacred writings without consideration , or good direction , not minding the pious scope for which they are written : for if ( as they would have us ) we do not consider what they mark out to us , but simply receive their words , then all that the prophets and apostles have written , will prove of no use to those that hear them , for then they will hear with their ears , but not understand with their hearts ; nor consider the consequence of the things that are said , according to the curse in isaias . — and after he had applied this to those who misunderstood that place , the word was made flesh , he adds , shall i hear a saying , and shall i not enquire into its proper meaning , where then is the proper consequence of what is said , or the profit of the hearer ? would they have men changed into the nature of bruits ? if they must only receive the sound of words with their ears , but no fruit in their soul from the understanding of them . contrariwise did st. paul tell us , they who are perfect have their senses exercised to discern good and evil ; but how can any discern aright , if he do not apprehend the meaning of what is said ? and such he compares to beasts , and makes them worse than the clean beasts , who chew the cud ; and , as a man is to consider what meats are set before him , so he must not snatch words stripp'd of their meaning , but must carefully consider what is suitable to god , and profitable to us , what is the force of truth , what agrees with the law , or answers to nature ; he must consider the genuineness of faith , the firmness of hope , the sincerity of love , what is liable to no reproach , what is beyond envy , and worthy of favour ; all which things concur in pious meditations . and concludes thus , the sum of all is , he that receives any words , and does not consider the meaning of them , how can he understand those that seem to contradict others ? where shall he find a fit answer ? how shall he satisfie those that interrogate him , or defend that which is written ? these passages are out of the first discourse , what follows is out of the second . in the beginning he says , though the devil has invented many grievous doctrines , yet he doubts if any former age brought forth any thing like that then broached . former heresies had their own proper errors ; but this that was now invented renewed all others , and exceeded all others . which , says he , receives simply what is said , but does not enquire what is convenient , or inconvenient : but shall i believe without judgment , and not enquire what is possible , convenient , decent , acceptable to god , answerable to nature , agreeable to truth , or is a consequence from the scope , or suitable to the mystery , or to piety ; or what outward reward , or inward fruit accompanies it ; or must i reckon on none of these things . but the cause of all our adversaries errors , is , that with their ears they hear words , but have no understanding of them in their hearts ; for all of them ( and names divers ) shun a trial , that they be not convinced , and at length shews what absurdities must follow on such a method . instancing those places about which the contest was with the arrians , such as these words of christ , the father is greater than i. and shews what apparent contradictions there are , if we do not consider the true sense of places of scripture that seem contradictory , which must be reconciled by finding their true meaning ; and concludes , so we shall either perswade , or overcome our adversary ; so we shall shew that the holy scripture is consonant to its self ; so we shall justly publish the glory of the mystery , and shall treasure up such a full assurance as we ought to have in our souls ; we shall neither believe without the word , nor speak without faith. now i challenge every reader , to consider if any thing can be devised , that more formally , and more nervously overthrows all the pretences brought for his appeal to the express words of scripture . and here i stop ; for though i could carry it further , and shew that other hereticks shrowded themselves under the same pretext , yet i think all impartial readers will be satisfied , when they find this was an artifice of the first four grand heresies , condemned by the first four general councils , and from all has been said , it is apparent how oft this very pretence has been baffled by universal councils and fathers . yet i cannot leave this with the reader , without desiring him to take notice of a few particulars that deserve to be considered . the first is , that which these gentlemen would impose on us has been the plea of the greatest hereticks have been in the church . those therefore who take up these weapons of hereticks , which have been so oft blunted and broken in their hands , by the most universal councils , and the most learned fathers of the catholick church ; till at length they were laid aside by all men , as unfit for any service , till in this age some jesuits took them up in defence of an often baffled cause , do very unreasonably pretend to the spirit or doctrine of catholicks , since they tread a path so oft beaten by all hereticks , and abhorred by all the orthodox . secondly , we find the fathers always begin their answering this pretence of hereticks , by shewing them how many things they themselves believed , that were no-where written in scripture . and this i believe was all the ground m. w. had for telling us in our conference that st austin bade the heretick read what he said . i am confident that gentleman is a man of candour and honour , and so am assured he would not have been guilty of such a fallacy , as to have cited this for such a purpose , if he had not taken it on trust from second hands . but he who first made use of it , if he have no other authority of st. austin's , which i much doubt , cannot be an honest man ; who , because st. austin , to shew the arrians how unjust it was to ask words for every thing they believed , urges them with this , that they could not read all that they believed themselves , would from that conclude , st. austin thought every article of faith must be read in so many words in scripture . this is such a piece of ingenuity as the jesuits used in the contest about st. austin's doctrine , concerning the efficacy of grace : when they cited as formal passages out of st. austin , some of the objections of the semipelagians , which he sets down , and afterwards answers , which they brought without his answers , as his words , to shew he was of their side . but to return to our purpose ; from this method of the fathers we are taught to turn this appeal to express words , back on those who make use of it against us ; and to ask them where do they read their purgatory , sacrifice of the mass , transubstantiation , the pope's supremacy , with a great many more things in the express words of scripture . thirdly , we see the peremptory answer the fathers agree in , is , that we must understand the scriptures , and draw just consequences from them , and not stand on words or phrases ; but consider things : and from these we are furnished with an excellent answer to every thing of this nature they can bring against us . it is in those great saints , athanasius , hilary , gregory nazianzen , austin , and theodoret , that they will find our answer as fully and formally as need be ; and to them we refer our selves . but , fourthly , to improve this beyond the particular occasion that engaged us to all this enquiry , we desire it be considered that when such an objection was made , which those of the church of rome judge is strong to prove , we must rely on somewhat else than scripture , either on the authority of the church , or on the certainty of tradition . the first councils and fathers had no such apprehension . all considering men , chiefly when they are arguing a nice point , speak upon some hypothesis or opinion with which they are prepossessed , and must certainly discourse consequently to it . to instance it in this particular ; if an objection be made against the drawing consequences from scripture , since all men may be mistaken ; and therefore they ought not to trust their own reasonings . a papist must necessarily upon his hypothesis say , it is true , any man may err , but the whole church , either when assembled in a council with the holy ghost in the midst of them , or when they convey down from the apostles , through age to age , the tradition of the exposition of the scriptures cannot err , for god will be with them to the end of the world. a protestant must on the other hand , according to his principles , argue , that since man has a reasonable soul in him , he must be supposed endued with a faculty of making inferences : and when any consequence is apparent to our understandings , we ought and must believe it as much as we do that from which the consequenee is drawn . therefore we must not only read , but study to understand the true meaning of scripture : and we have so much the more reason to be assured of what appears to us to be the true sense of the scriptures , if we find the church of god in the purest times , and the fathers believing as we believe . if we should hear two persons that were unknown to us , argue either of these two ways , we must conclude , the one is a papist , the other a protestant , as to this particular . now i desire the reader may compare what has been cited from the fathers upon this subject : and see if what they write upon it does not exactly agree with our hypothesis and principles . whence we may very justly draw another conclusion that will go much further than this particular we now examine ; that in seeking out the decision of all controversies , the fathers went by the same rules we go by , to wit , the clear sense of scriptures , as it must appear to every considering mans understanding , backed with the opinion of the fathers that went before them . and thus far have i followed this objection ; and have , as i hope , to every reader 's satisfaction made it out , that there can be nothing more unreasonable , more contrary to the articles and doctrine of our church , to the nature of the soul of man , to the use and end of words and discourse , to the practice of christ and his apostles , to the constant sense of the primitive church , and that upon full and often renewed contest with hereticks upon this very head : then to impose on us an obligation to read all the articles of our church in the express words of scripture . so that i am confident this will appear to every considering person , the most trifling and pitiful objection that can be offered by men of common sense and reason . and therefore it is hoped , that all persons who take any care of their souls , will examine things more narrowly than to suffer such tricks to pass upon them , or to be shaken by such objections . and if all the scruple these gentlemen have , why they do not joyn in communion with the church of england , lies in this ; we expect they shall find it so entirely satisfied , and removed out of the way , that they shall think of returning back to that church where they had their baptism and christian education , and which is still ready to receive them with open arms , and to restore such as have been over-reached into error and heresie , with the spirit of meekness . to which i pray god of his great mercy dispose both them and all others , who upon these or such like scruples have deserted the purest church upon earth ; and have turned over to a most impure and corrupt society . and let all men say , amen . a discourse to shew that it was not only possible to change the belief of the church concerning the manner of christ's presence in the sacrament ; but that it is very reasonable to conclude , both that it might be done , and that it was truly changed . there is only one particular of any importance , that was mentioned in the conference , to which we forgot to make any answer at all , which was spoken by n. n. to this purpose ; how was it possible , or to be imagined that the church of god could ever have received such a doctrine as the belief of transubstantiation , if every age had not received it , and been instructed in it by their fathers , and the age that went before it ? this by a pure forgetfulness was not answered ; and one of these gentlemen took notice of it to me , meeting with me since that time , and desired me to consider what a friend of n. n. has lately printed on this subject , in a letter concerning transubstantiation , directed to a person of honour : in which , a great many pretended impossibilities of any such innovation of the doctrine are reckoned up ; to shew it a thing both inconceivable and unpracticable , to get the faith of the church changed in a thing of this nature . this same plea has been managed with all the advantages possible , both of wit , eloquence , and learning , by mr. arnaud of the sorbon ; but had been so exposed and baffled by mr. claud , who , as he equals the other in learning , eloquence , and wit , so having much the better of him in the cause and truth he vindicates , has so foiled the other in this plea , that he seeing no other way to preserve that high reputation which his other writings , and the whole course of his life had so justly acquired him ; has gone off from the main argument on which they begun , and betaken himself to a long and unprofitable enquiry into the belief of the greek church , since her schism from the latine church . the contest has been oft renewed , and all the ingenious and learned persons of both sides , have looked on with great expectations . every one must confess , mr. arnaud has said all can be said in such a cause ; yet it seems he finds himself often pinched , by the bitter ( i had almost said scurrilous ) reproaches he casts on mr. claud , which is very unbecoming the education and other noble qualities of that great man , whom for his book of frequent communion , i shall ever honour . and it is a thing much to be lamented , that he was taken off from these more useful labours , wherein he was engaged so much to the bettering this age , both in discovering the horrid corruption of the jesuits and other casuists , not only in their speculations about casuistical divinity , but in their hearing confessions , and giving easie absolutions , upon trifling penances , and granting absolutions before the penance was performed , and in representing to us the true spirit of holiness and devotion was in the primitive church . but on the other hand , as mr. claud leaves nothing unsaid in a method fully answerable to the excellence of that truth he defends ; so he answers these reproaches in a way worthy of himself , or rather of christ and the gospel . if those excellent writings were in english , i should need to say nothing to a point that has been so canvassed ; but till some oblige this nation by translating them , i shall say so much on this head , as i hope shall be sufficient to convince every body of the emptiness , weakness and folly of this plea. and first of all , in a matter of fact concerning a change made in the belief of the church , the only certain method of enquiry , is , to consider the doctrine of the church in former ages ; and to compare that with what is now received ; and if we see a difference between these , we are sure there has been a change ; though we are not able to shew by what steps it was made ; nay , though we could not so much as make it appear probable that such a change could be made . to instance this in a plain case , of the change of the english language since the days of william the conqueror ; that there has no such swarm of foreigners broke in upon this island , as might change our language : one may then argue thus ; every one speaks the language he heard his parents , his nurses , and others about him speak , when he was a child ; and this he continues to speak all his life , and his children speak as they heard him speak : upon which , a man of wit and phancy might say a great many things , to shew it impossible any such change should ever have been made , as that we now should speak so as not to understand what was said five or six hundred years ago . yet if i find chaucer , or any much ancienter book , so written , that i can hardly make a shift to understand it , from thence , without any further reasoning how this could be brought about , i naturally must conclude our language is altered . and if any man should be so impertinent , as to argue , that could not be ; for children speak as their nurses and parents taught them , i could hardly answer him in patience ; but must tell him it is altered , without more ado . if a child were amused with such pretended impossibilities , i would tell him , that strangers coming among us , and our travelling to parts beyond the seas , made us acquainted with other languages ; and englishmen finding in other tongues , some words and phrases , which they judged more proper than any they had , being also fond of new words , there was an insensible change made in every age , which , after five or six ages , is more discernible . just so , if i find most of all the fathers either delivering their opinions clearly in this matter , against the doctrine of the roman church , or saying things utterly inconsistent with it , i am sure there has been a change made ; though i could not shew either the whole progress of it , or so much as a probable account how it could be done . if men were as machines or necessary agents , a certain account might be given of all the events in all ages ; but there are such strange labyrinths in the minds of men , that none can trace them by any rational computation of what is likely . there is also such a diversity between men and men , between ages and ages , that he should make very false accounts , that from the tempers and dispositions of men in this age , should conclude what were possible or impossible many years ago . in this age , in which printing gives notice of all things so easily and speedily , and by the laying of stages for the quick and cheap conveying pacquers , and the publishing mercuries , gazets , and iournals , and the education of almost all persons to read and write letters , and the curiosity by which all people are whetted to enquire into every thing ; the state of mankind is quite altered from what it was before , when few could read or write , but clergy-men ; so that they must be the notaries of all courts ; who continue from that , to be called clerks to this day ; and that some crimes , otherwise capital , were not punished with death , if the guilty person could but read . when people were so ignorant of what was doing about them , when neither printing , nor stages for pacquets , were in being , at least in europe , and when men were fast asleep in their business , without amusing themselves what was doing about them in the world ; it is the most unjust and unreasonable thing in nature , to imagine , that such things as are now next to impossible , were not then not only possible , but easie . so that all such calculations of impossibilities from the state and temper of this age , when applied to the ages before ours , is the most fallacious way of reckoning that can be . for instance , how improbable , or next to impossible , is this following story , that the bishops of the imperial city of the roman empire , whose first true worth , together with the greatness of that city , which was the head and metropolis of the roman empire , got them much esteem and credit in the world , should from small and low beginnings , have crept up to such a height of power , that they were looked on as the head of all power , both civil and spiritual ; and that as they overthrew all other ecclesiastical jurisdiction , the bishops of that see engrossing it to themselves : so they were masters of almost all the crowns of europe , and could change governments , raise up , and assist new pretenders , call up , by the preachings of some poor beggarly friars , vast armies , without pay , and send them whither they pleased : that they could draw in all the treasure and riches of europe to themselves ; that they brought princes to lie thus at their feet , to suffer all the clergy , who had a great interest in their dominions , by the vast endowments of churches and abbeys , beside the power they had in all families and consciences , to be the sworn subjects of these bishops , and to be exempted from appearing in secular courts , how criminal soever they were ? that all this should be thus brought about without the expence of any vast treasure , or the prevailing force of a conquering army , meerly by a few tricks , that were artificially managed , of the belief of purgatory , the power of absolving , and granting indulgences , and the opinion of their being st. peter's successors , and christ's vicars on earth . and that all this while when on these false colours of impostures in religion , those designs were carried on , the popes were men of the most lewd and flagitious lives possible ; and those who served them in their designs , were become the scandal and scorn of christendom ; and yet in all these attempts , they prevailed for above seven or eight ages . now if any man will go about to prove this impossible , and that princes were always jealous of their authority and their lives , people always loved their money and quiet , bishops always loved their jurisdiction , and all men when they see designs carried on with colours of religion , by men , who in the most publick and notorious instances , shew they have none at all , do suspect a cheat , and are not to be wheedled . therefore all this must be but a fable and a forgery , to make the popes and their clergy odious . will not all men laugh at such a person , that against the faith of all history , and the authority of all records , will deny a thing that was set up over all europe for many ages ? if then all this change in a matter that was temporal , against which the secular interests of all men did oppose themselves , was yet successful , and prevailed ; how can any man think it unreasonable , that a speculative opinion might have been brought into the church , by such arts , and so many degrees , that the traces of the change should be lost ? we find there have been many other changes in sacred things , which will seem no less strange and incredible ; but that we are assured whatsoever really has been , may be : and if things full as unaccountable have been brought about , it is absurd to deny , that other things might not have run the same fate . it is known , that all people are more uneasie to changes in things that are visible , and known to every body , than in things that are speculative , and abstracted , and known and considered but by a few : they are likewise more unwilling to part with things they are in possession of , and reckon their rights , than to suffer new opinions to be brought in among them ; and let their religion swell by additions . for it is undoubted that it is much more easie to imagine how a new opinion should be introduced , than how an ancient practice and right should be taken away . if then it be apparent , that there have been great changes made in the most visible and sensible parts of religious worship , by taking away some of the most ancient customs and rights of the people , over the whole western church , then it cannot be thought incredible , that a new speculative opinion might have by degrees been brought in . this i shall instance in a few particulars . the receiving the chalice in the sacrament , was an ancient constant custom , to which all the people had been long used ; and one may very reasonably on this hypothesis , argue , that could not be ; for would the people , especially in dark ages , have suffered the cup of the blood of christ to be taken from them , if they had not known that it had been taken from their fathers ? upon which it is easie to conceive how many speculative impossibilities an ingenious man may devise ; and yet we know they were got to part with it by degrees ; first , the bread was given dipt in the cup , for an age or two ; and then the people judged they had both together : this step being made , it was easie afterwards to give them the bread undipt , and so the chalice was taken away quite from the laity , without any great opposition , except what was made in bohemia . next to this , let us consider how naturally all men are apt to be fond of their children , and not to suffer any thing to be denied them , by which they conceive they are advantaged : upon which one may reckon , once we are sure it was the universally received custom , for many ages , over the whole latine church , that all children had the eucharist given them immediately after they were baptized . and the rubrick of the roman missal ordered , they should not be suffered to suck after they were baptized , before they had the eucharist given them , except in in cases of necessity . this order is believed to be a work of the eleventh century ; so lately was this thought necessary in the roman church . all men know how careful most parents , even such as have not much religion themselves , are , that nothing be wanting about their children ; and it was thought simply necessary to salvation , that all persons had the eucharist . how many imaginary difficulties may one imagine might have obstructed the changing this custom ? one would expect to hear of tumults and stirs , and an universal conspiracy of all men to save this right of their children ? yet hugo de sancto victore tells us , how it was wearing out in his time ; and we find not the least opposition made to the taking it away . a third thing , to which it is not easie to apprehend how the vulgar should have consented , was , the denying them that right of nature and nations , that every body should worship god in a known tongue . in this island , the saxons had the liturgy in their vulgar tongue ; and so it was also over all the world : and from this might not one very justly reckon up many high improbabilities , to demonstrate the setting up the worship in an unknown tongue , could never be brought about , and yet we know it was done . in end , i shall name only one other particular , which seems very hard to be got changed , which yet we are sure was changed ; this was , the popular elections of the bishops and clergy , which , as is past dispute , were once in the hands of the people ; and yet they were got to part with them , and that at a time when church-preferments were raised very high in all secular advantages ; so that it may seem strange , they should then have been wrought upon to let go a thing , which all men are naturally inclined to desire an interest in ; and so much the more , if the dignity or riches of the function be very considerable ; and yet though we meet in church-history many accounts of tumults that were in those elections , while they were in the peoples hands ; yet i remember of no tumults made to keep them , when they were taken out of their hands . and now i leave it to every reader 's conscience , if he is not perswaded by all the conjectures he can make of mankind , that it is more hard to conceive , how these things , that have been named , of which the people had clear possession , were struck out , than that a speculative opinion , how absurd soever , was brought in , especially in such ages as these were , in which it was done . this leads me to the next thing , which is , to make some reflections on those ages , in which this doctrine crept into the church . as long as the miraculous effusion of the holy ghost continued in the church , the simplicity of those that preached the gospel , was no small confirmation of that authority that accompanied them ; so that it was more for the honour of the gospel , that there were no great scholars or disputants to promote it : but when that ceased , it was necessary the christian religion should be advanced by such rational means as are suitable to the soul of man : if it had begun only upon such a foundation , men would not have given it a hearing ; but the miracles which were at first wrought , having sufficiently alarm'd the world , so that by them men were inclined to hearken to it : then it was to be tried by those rules of truth and goodness , which lie engraven on all mens souls . and therefore it was necessary , those who defended it , should both understand it well , and likewise know all the secrets of heathenism , and of the greek philosophy . a knowledge in these being thus necessary , god raised up among the philosophers divers great persons , such as iustin , clement , origen , and many others , whose minds being enlightned with the knowledge of the gospel , as well as endued with all other humane learning , they were great supports to the christian religion . afterwards many heresies being broached about the mysteries of the faith , chiefly those that relate to the son of god , and his incarnation , upon which followed long contests : for managing these , a full understanding of scripture was also necessary ; and that set all persons mightily to the study of the scriptures . but it is not to be denied , great corruptions did quickly break in , when the persecutions were over ; and the church abounded in peace and plenty ; not but that the doctrine was preserved pure long after that : there were also many shining lights , and great fathers , in that and in the following age ; yet from the fathers of these two ages , and from the great disorders were in some of their councils , as in the case of athanasius , and the second ephesin council , we may clearly see how much they were degenerating from the primitive purity . many contests were about the precedency of their sees , great ambition and contention appeared in their synods , which made nazianzen hate and shun them , expecting no good from them . these and such like things brought very heavy judgments and plagues on the church , and the whole roman empire , in the fifth century : for vast swarms of armies out of germany and the northern nations brake in upon the western empire , and by a long succession of new invaders all was sackt and ruined . the goths were followed by the vandals , the alains , the gepides , the franks , the sweves , the huns , and , in the end , the lombards . those nations were for the greatest part arrians , but all were barbarous and rude ; and their hatred of the faith , joyned to the barbarity of their tempers , set them with a strange fury on destroying the most sacred things . and to that we owe the loss of most of the primitive writings , and of all the authentical records of the first persecutions ; scarce any thing remaining , but what eusebius had before gathered together out of a former destruction was made of such things under dioclesian . nor did the glory of the eastern empire long survive the western , that fell before these invaders : but in europe , by the impression of the bulgars ; and in asia , by the conquests made , first by the saracens , then by the turks , their greatness was soon broken ; though it lasted longer under that oppressed condition , than the other had done . thus was both the greek and the latin church brought under sad oppression and much misery . and every body knows , that the natural effect that state of life brings over the greatest minds , when there is no hope of getting from under it , is to take them off from study and learning ; and indeed to subdue their spirits as well as their bodies . and so it proved , for after that , an ignorance and dulness did to that degree overspread all europe , that it is scarce to be expressed . i do not deny , but there might be some few instances of considerable men , giving an allowance for the time they lived in . for the laity , they were bred up to think of nothing but to handle their arms , very few could so much as read ; and the clergy were not much better ; read they could , but in many that was all ; a corrupt latin they understood , which continued to be the vulgar tongue in italy a great while after : they had heard of greek and hebrew , but understood them as little as we do the mexican or peruvian tongue . they had scarce any knowledge of the greek fathers ; a few very ill translations of some of them was all they had . the latin fathers were read by some of the more learned , but for any distinct understanding of scriptures , or the natures of things , god knows they had it not . i design a short discourse , and therefore shall not stay to make this out , which every body that has but looked a little on the writings of these ages , knows to be true . another effect of their ignorance was , that they were easily imposed on by suppostitious writings , that went under the names of the fathers , but were none of theirs . gelasius threw out a great many that were breaking out in his time ; but the trade was prosperous , and went on to that height , that it cost the criticks of these two last ages much pains to distinguish true from forged , and the genuine from what was interpolated . and indeed the popes were much beholden to the forgery of the decretal epistles , in which work a great many epistles were published by isidore in the eighth century , as the epistles of the popes of the first four centuries after christ : by which they were represented as giving orders , and making definitions over the whole church in a full form , and with the stile of an absolute authority . these were rejected by many , but mightily supported by all the flatterers of the court of rome : so that they were in the end , after some contest , generally received , and held presidents to the succeeding popes , who wrote very skilfully after that copy . many other forgeries were also much cherished , which i shall instance only in one other particular , that relates to what is now in my eye . a sermon of arnold of bonneval ( which is now proved clearly to be his ) was published in st. cyprian's works as his sermon of the supper of our lord , though this arnold lived about nine hundred years after him . now such a sermon being generally read as st. cyprian's , no wonder it gave that doctrine of transubstantiation great credit . these writings are now discovered to be such forgeries , that all considering men of their own church are ashamed of them , and disown them . so do baronius and bellarmin the decretals ; and sirmondus , launnoy , and many more , reject other forgeries . yet here is a high pitch of impudence that most of all their writers of controversie are guilty of , to cite these very writings ( which are now universally agreed to be spurious ) still under those great names , which forgery gave them . as the author of that letter about transubstantiation , cites a passage from st. cyprian's sermon de coena domini , though it is agreed to by sixtus senensis , possevin , bellarmin , raynaud , and labbe , to be none of his ; and the publishers of the office of the sacrament , in the table at the end of it , acknowledge it was written by arnold of bonneval , a friend of st. bernard's . after these authorities it is indeed strange , that such sophisticated stuff should be over and over again offered to us . and it was no wonder , such forgeries were generally received , when that church gave them such authority , as to take many lessons out of the most spurious legends and put them in their breviary . of all these dark ages , the tenth was certainly the midnight of the church : we have scarce any writer for that whole age , so that it is generally called the iron age , an age of darkness and wickedness ; and therefore a very fit time for superstition and errour to work in . and thence we may well infer , that in ages that were so exceeding ignorant , and in which men scarce thought of religion , it was no hard thing to get any errour received and established . but this is not all . these were also ages of great licentiousness and disorder ; for though the barbarous nations were afterwards converted to the orthodox faith , ( though by the way it were easie to shew these conversions had nothing like the first conversion of the world to christianity in them ) yet their barbarity remained with them , and the church-men became so corrupt and vicious , that they could not have a face to reprove them for those vices of which themselves were scandalously guilty . from the sixth century downward what a race of men have the popes been ? chiefly in the ninth and tenth century . and indeed any religion that remained in the world had so retired into cloysters and monasteries , that very little of it remained . these houses were seminaries of some devotion , while they were poor and busied at work , according to their first foundation ; but when they were well endowed , and became rich , they grew a scandal to all christendom . all the primitive discipline was laid down , children were put into the highest preferments of the church , and simony over-run the church . these are matters of fact , that cannot be so much as questioned , nor should i , if put to prove them , seek authorities for them any where else than in baronius ; who , for all his design to serve the interest of that church , yet could not prevaricate so far , as to conceal things that are so openly and uncontestedly true . now , from the darkness and corruption of these ages , i presume to offer some things to the readers consideration . first , ignorance always inclines people to be very easie to trust those , in whom they have confidence ; for being either unwilling to trouble themselves with painful and sollicitous enquiries , or unable to make them , they take things on trust , without any care to search into them ▪ but this general maxim must needs be much more certain , when subjection to the church , and the belief of every thing established , was made a very substantial part of religion , or rather that alone which might compense all other defects . secondly , ignorance naturally inclines people to superstition , to be soon wrought on , and easily amused , to be full of fears , and easie to submit to any thing that may any way overcome these fears . a right sense of god and divine matters , makes one have such a taste of religion , that he is not at all subject to this distemper , or rather monster , begotten by the unnatural commixture of some fear of god and love of sin , both being disordered by much ignorance ; hence sprang most of the idolatrous rites of heathenism , and all people so tempered are fit for the like humour to work upon . thirdly , the interests of churchmen , led them mightily to study the setting this opinion on foot . this alone set them as high , as mortal men could be , and made them appear a most sacred sort of a creature . all the wonders of the prophets and apostles were but sorry matters to it : what was moses calling fo● manna from heaven and water fromm the rock ? elijah's bringing sometimes fire and sometimes rain from heaven ? what ●●re the apostles raising the dead , giving sight to the blind , and feet to the lanie ? to the annihilating the substance of bread and wine , and bringing in their stead , not some other common matter , but the flesh and blood of the ever-blessed jesus . he who could do this , no wonder he were reverenced , enriched , secure from all danger , exempt from all civil jurisdiction , and cherished with all imaginable respect and kindness . so that it is no strange thing , that churchmen were much inclined to favour an opinion , that favoured their interests so much . fourthly , the churchmen of these ages were very likely to be easily drawn to anything , which might so much advance their designs ; that were grown very high , especially from the days of pope gregory the great . they were struggling with the civil powers for dominion , and pursued that for many years , and spared neither labour nor the lives of men to attain it . and it is not to be thought , but men who did prodigally throw away many thousands in a quarrel , would without very nice disputing , cherish any opinion that might contribute toward that end . and as this was of great use to them , so they very much needed both it , and all such like shifts ; for they had none of that sublime sanctity , nor high learning , or lofty eloquence , which former churchmen had , and by which they had acquired great esteem in the world. now the churchmen in these days , having a great mind to preserve or rather to encrease that esteem ; but wanting those qualities which on a reasonable account might have acquired it , or preserved it , must needs think of somewhat else to do it by ; and so found out many arts for it , such as the belief of purgatory , the priestly absolution upon confession , together with the reserved cases , indulgences , and the pope's power of taking souls out of purgatory . and if it be not full as unreasonable , to think the pope should be believed vested with a power of pardoning sin , and redeeming from purgatory , as that transubstantiation should have been received , let any man judge . fifthly , there was such a vast number of agents and emissaries sent from rome , to all the parts of europe , to carry on their designs , that we can hardly think it possible any thing could have withstood them . in such ages , by giving some terrible name to any thing , it was presently disgraced with the vulgar ; a clear instance of this was the fate of the married clergy . gregory the seventh , who as cardinal benno ( who knew him ) represents him , was one of the worst men that ever was born , and first set on foot the pope's pretensions to the civil authority , and the power of deposing princes , and putting others in their places ; did prosecute the married clergy with great vehemency . this he could not do on any pious or chaste account , being so vile a man as he was : but being resolved to bring all princes to depend on him , there was no way so like to attain that , as to have all the clergy absolutely subject to him : this could not be hoped for , while they were married , and that the princes and several states of europe had such a pawn of their fidelity , as their wives and children ; therefore because the persons of the clergy were accounted sacred , and liable to no punishment , that there might be nothing so nearly related to them , wherein they might be punished , as their wives and children , he drave this furiously on ; and , to give them some ill-favoured name , called them nicolaitans , which are represented in the revelation so vile and odious . this was the most unjust thing in the world : they might have called them pharisees or sadducees as well , for all the ancient writers tell us , that nicolas having a beautiful wife was jealous , and the apostles challenging him of it , he said , he was so far from ▪ it ; that he was willing to make her common , and thence some set up the community of wives , and were from him called the nicolaitans . but because women and marriage were in the case , and it was a hateful word , this was the name by which the married clergy were every where made so odious ; and though it was much the interest of princes to have had the marriage of the clergy to be left free , yet the popes were too hard for them in it . thus were the agents of rome able to prevail in every thing they set then selves to . so the opposers of this doctrine were called by the hateful names of stercoranists and panites . sixthly , when all religion was placed in externals , and splendid rites and ceremonies came to be generally looked on as the whole business of religion , peoples minds were by that much disposed to receive any thing , that might introduce external pomp and grandeur into their churches ; being willing to make up in an outward appearance of worshipping the person of christ , what was wanting in their obedience to his gospel . and now i appeal to any honest man , if upon the suppositions i have laid down , it be at all an unaccountable thing , that a great company of ignorant and debauched clergymen , should set themselves to cherish and advance a belief , which would redeem them from all the infamy their other vices were ready to bring upon them ; and they resolving on it , if it was hard for them , especially in a course of some ages , to get an ignorant , credulous , superstitious , and corrupt multitude , to receive it without much noise or ado . i believe no man will deny , but upon these suppositions the thing was very like to succeed . now that all these suppositions are true ( to wit ) that both clergy and laity in those ages , chiefly in the ninth , tenth , and eleventh centuries , were ignorant , and vicious to the height ; is a thing so generally known , and so universally confessed by all their own historians , that i hardly think any man will have brow enough to deny it . but there are many other things , which will also shew how possible , nay feasible such a change may be . first , this having never been condemned by a formal decision in any former age , it was more easie to get it brought in ; for no council or father could condemn or write against any errour , but that which was maintained or abetted by some man , or company of men , in or before their time . since then this had not been broached in the former ages , the promoters of it had this advantage , that no former decision had been made against them ; for none ever thought of condemning any heresie before it had a being . secondly , this errour did in the outward sound agree with the words of the institution , and the forms used in the former liturgies , in which the elements were said to be changed into the true and undefiled body of christ. a doctrine then that seemed to establish nothing contrary to the ancient liturgies , might easily have been received , in an age , in which the outward sound and appearance was all they looked to . thirdly , the passage from the believing any thing in general , with an indistinct and confused apprehension , to any particular way of explaining it , is not at all hard to be conceived , especially in an age , that likes every thing the better , the more mysterious it seem . in the preceding ages , it was in general received , that christ was in the sacrament , and that by the consecration the elements were changed into his body and blood. and although many of the fathers did very formally explain in what sense christ was present , and the elements were changed ; yet there having been no occasion given to the church , to make any formal decision about the manner of it , every one thought he was left at liberty to explain it as he pleased . and we may very reasonably suppose , that many did not explain it at all , especially in these ages , in which there was scarce any preaching or instructing the people . by this means the people did believe christ was in the sacrament , and that the elements were changed into his body and blood , without troubling themselves to examine how it was , whether spiritually or corporally . things being brought to this , in these ages , by the carelesness of the clergy , the people were by that , sufficiently disposed to believe any particular manner of that presence , or change , their pastors might offer to them . fourthly , there being no visible change made in any part of the worship , when this doctrine was first brought in , it was easie to innovate , in these ages , in which people looked only at things that were visible and sensible : had they brought in the adoration , processions , or other consequences of this doctrine along with it , it was like to have made more noise ; for people are apt to be startled when they see any notable change in their worship : but this belief was first infused in the people , and berengarius was condemned . the council of lateran had also made the decree about it , before ever there were any of those signal alterations attempted . and after that was done , then did honorius decree the adoration ; ( greg. decret . lib. . tit . . cap. . ) and urban the fourth , upon some pretended visions of eve , iulian , and isabella , did appoint the feast of the body of christ , called now generally , the feast of god , or corpus christi feast , which was confirmed by pope clement the fifth , ( lib. . tit . . ) in the council of vienna ; and ever since that time they have been endeavouring by all the devices possible , to encrease the devotion of the people to the host. so that mr. arnaud in many places acknowledges they are most gross idolaters if their doctrine be not true ; which i desire may be well considered , since it is the opinion of one of the most considering and wisest , and most learned persons of that communion , who has his whole life set his thoughts chiefly to the examining of this sacrament , and knows as well as any man alive , what is the real sense of the worshippers in that church . but to return to that i am about , it is very unreasonable to think that the people in those dark ages , did concern themselves in the speculative opinions were among divines , so that the vulgar could not busie themselves about it , but when this opinion was decreed , and generally received and infused in the laity , for almost one age together , then we need not wonder to see notable alterations following upon it , in their worship , without any opposition or contest ; for it was very reasonable such consequences should have followed such a doctrine . but that before that time there was no adoration of the elements , is a thing so clear , that it is impudence to deny it ; there was no prostration of the body , or kneeling to be made , either on lords days , or all the time between easter and pentecost , by the twentieth canon of the council of nice . none of the ancient liturgies do so much as mention it ; but the contrary is plainly insinuated by s. cyril of ierusalem . none of that great number of writers about divine offices , that lived in the seventh , eighth , ninth , and tenth centuries , published by hittorpius , so much as mention it : though they be very particular in giving us an account of the most inconsiderable parts of the divine offices , and of all the circumstances of them . honorius when he first decreed it , does not alledge presidents for it ; but commands the priests to tell the people to do it ; whereas , if it had been appointed before , he must rather have commanded the priests to have told the people of their sacrilegious contempt of the body of christ , notwithstanding the former laws and practice of the church : but it is apparent his way of enjoyning it , is in the style of one that commands a new thing , and not that sets on the execution of what was sormerly used : yet this was more warily appointed by honorius , who enjoyned only an inclination of the head to the sacrament ; but it was set up bare-faced by his successor gregory the ninth , who appointed ( as the historians tell us , ( naucler . ad an . . krantz . sex . lib. . cap. . ) though it be not among his decretals ) a bell to be rung , to give notice at the consecration and elevation , that all who heard it , might kneel , and join their hands in adoring the host. so that any passages of the fathers that speak of adoration or veneration to the sacrament , must either be understood of the inward adoration the communicant offers up to god the father , and his blessed son , in the commemoration of so great a mystery of love , as appeared in his death , then represented and remembred . or these words are to be taken in a large sense , and so we find , they usually called the gospels , their bishops , baptism , the pascha , and almost all other sacred things , venerable . and thus from many particulars it is apparent , that the bringing in the doctrine of transubstantiation is no unaccountable thing . but i shall pursue this yet further , for the reader 's full satisfaction , and shew the steps by which this doctrine was introduced . we find in the church of corinth the receiving the sacrament was looked on , but as a common entertainment , and was gone about without great care or devotion , which s. paul charges severely on them ; and tells them what heavy judgments had already fallen on them , for such abuses , and that heavier ones might be yet looked for , since they were guilty of the body and blood of the lord , by their unworthy receiving . upon this the whole christian church was set to consider , in very good earnest , how to prepare themselves aright for so holy an action ; and the receiving the sacrament , as it was the greatest symbol of the love of christians , so it was the end of all penitence , that was enjoyned for publick or private sins , but chiefly for apostacy , or the denying the faith , and complying with idolatry in the times of persecution . therefore the fathers considering both the words of the institution , and s. paul's epistle to the corinthians , did study mightily to awaken all to great preparation and devotion , when they received the sacrament . for all the primitive devotion about the sacrament , was only in order to the receiving it ; and that modern worship of the church of rome , of going to hear mass without receiving , was a thing so little understood by them , that as none were suffered to be present in the action of the mysteries , but those who were qualified to receive ; so if any such had gone out of the church without participating , ( apost . cnn. and can. antioch ) they were to be separated from the communion of the church , as the authors of disorder in it . upon this subject the fathers employed all their eloquence ; and no wonder , if we consider that it is such a commemoration of the death of christ as does really communicate to the worthy receiver his crucified body , and his blood that was shed , ( mark , not his glorified body , as it is now in heaven ) which is the fountain and channel of all other blessings , but is only given to such , as being prepared according to the rules of the gospel , sincerely believe all the mysteries of faith , and live suitably to their belief , both the advantages of worthy receiving , and the danger of unworthy receiving being so great , it was necessary for them to make use of all the faeulties they had , either for awakening reverence and fear , that the contemptible elements of bread and wine , might not bring a cheapness and disesteem upon these holy mysteries , or for perswading their communicants to all serious and due preparation , upon so great an occasion . this being then allowed , it were no strange thing , though in their sermons , or other devout treatises , they should run out to meditations that need to be mollified with that allowance that must be given to all panegyricks or perswasives : where many things are always said , that if right understood , have nothing in them to startle any body ; but if every phrase be examined grammatically , there would be many things found in all such discourses , that would look very hideously . is it not ordinary in all the festivities of the church , as s. austin observed on this very occasion , to say , this day christ was born , or died , or rose again in ? and yet that must not be taken literally . beside , when we hear or read any expressions that sound high or big , we are to consider the ordinary stile of him that uses these expressions ; for if upon all other occasions he be apt to rise high in his figures , we may the less wonder at some excesles of his stile . if then such an orator as s. chrysostome was , who expatiates on all subjects , in all the delighting varieties of a fertile phancy , should on so great a subject , display all the beauties of that ravishing art in which he was so great a master , what wonder is it ? therefore great allowances must be made in such a case . further , we must also consider the tempers of those to whom any discourse is addressed . many things must be said in another manner to work on novices , or weak persons , than were fit or needful for men of riper and stronger understandings . he would take very ill measures , that would judge of the future state , by these discourses in which the sense of that is infused in younger or weaker capacities ; therefore though in some catechisms that were calculated for the understandings of children and novices , such as s. cyril's , there be some high expressions used , it is no strange thing ; for naturally all men on such occasions , use the highest and biggest words they can invent . but we ought also to consider , what persons have chiefly in their eye , when they speak to any point . for all men , especially when their fancies are inflamed with much servor , are apt to look only to one thing at once ; and if a visible danger appear of one side , and none at all on the other , then it is natural for every one to exceed on that side , where there is no danger . so that the hazard of a contempt of the sacrament being much and justly in their eye , and they having no cause to apprehend any danger on the otherside , of excessive adoring or magnifying it : no wonder , if in some of their discourses , an immoderate use of the counterpoise , had inclined them to say many things of the sacrament , that require a fair and can did interpretation . yet after all this , they say no more , but that in the sacrament they did truly and really communicate on the body and blood of christ ; which we also receive and believe . and in many other treatises , when they are in colder blood , examining things , they use such expressions and expositions of this , as no way favour the belief of transubstantiation ; of which we have given some account in a former paper . but though that were not so formally done , and their writings were full of passages that needed great allowances , it were no more than what the fathers that wrote against the arrians , confess the fathers before the council of nice , were guilty of ; who writing against sabellius , with too much veliemence , did run to the opposite extream . so many of s. ciril's passages against nestorius , were thought to favour eutychianism . so also theodoret , and two others , writing against the entychians , did run to such excesses , as drew upon them the condemnation of the fifth general council . the first time we find any contestor canvassing about the sacrament , was in the controversie about images , in the eighth century , that the council of constantinople , in the condenming of images , declared , there was no other image of christ to be received , but the blessed sacrament ; in which , the substance of bread and wine was the image of the body and blood of christ ; making a difference between that which is christs body by nature , and the sacrament , which is his body by institution . now it is to be considered , that whatever may be pretended of the violence of the greek emperors over-ruling that council in the matter of condemning images ; yet there having been no contest at all about the sacrament , we cannot in reason think they would have brought it into the dispute , if they had not known these two things were the received doctrine of the church : the one , that in the sacrament , the substance of bread and wine did remain ; the other , that the sacrament was the image or figure of christ ; and from thence they acknowledged , all images were not to be rejected , but denied any other images besides that in the sacrament . now the second council of nice , being resolved to quarrel with them as much as was possible , do not at all condemn them for that which is the chief testimony for us ( to wit ) that the sacrament was still the substance of bread and wine ; and damascene , the zealous defender of images , clearly insinuates his believing the substance of bread and wine remained , and did nourish our bodies . let it be therefore considered , that when that council of nice was in all the bitterness imaginable canvassing every word of the council of constantinople , they never once blame them for saying , the substance of bread and wine was in the sacrament . it is true , they condemned them for saying the sacrament was the image of christ , denying that any of the fathers had called it so ; alledging that the symboles were called antit pes by the fathers , only before the consecration , and not after ; in which they followed damascene , ( de fid. orth . lib. . cap. . ) who had fallen in the same errour before them . but this is so manifest a mistake in matter of fact , that it gives a just reason for rejecting the authority of that council , were there no more to be said against it : for this was either very gross ignorance , or effronted impudence , since in above twenty fathers that were before them , the sacrament is called the figure and antitype of christ's body ; and at the same time , that damascene , who was then looked on as the great light of the east , did condemn the calling the sacrament , the figure of christ's body . the venerable bede , ( bed. in psal. . & mark . ) that was looked on as the great light of the west , did according to the stile of the primitive church , and in s. austin's words , call it , the figure of christ's body . i shall not trace the other forgeries and follies of that pretended general council , because i know a full account of them is expected from a better pen ; only in this particular i must desire the reader to take notice , that the council of constantinople did not innovate any thing in the doctrine about the sacrament , and did use it as an argument in the other controversie concerning images , without any design at all about the eucharist . but on the other hand , the second council of nice did innovate and reject a form of speech , which had been universally received in the church , before their time ; and being engaged with all possible spight against the council of constantinople , resolved to contradict every thing they had said , as much as could be : so that in this we ought to look on the council of constantinople , as delivering what was truly the tradition of the church , and on the second council of nice , as corrupting it . about thirty years after that council , paschase radbert abbot of corbie , wrote about the sacrament , and did formally assert the corporal presence , in the ninth century . the greatest patrons of this doctrine , such as bellarmin and sirmondus , both jesuites , confess , he was the first that did fully and to purpose explain the verity of christ's body and blood in the eucharist . and paschase himself , in his letter to his friend frudegard , regrates that he was so flow in believing and assenting to his doctrine ; and does also acknowledge , that by his book he had moved many to the understanding of that mystery ; and it is apparent by that letter , that not only frudegard , but others were scandalized at his book , for he writes , i have spoken of these things more fully , and more expresly , because i understand that some challenge me , that in the book i have published of the sacraments of christ , i have ascribed either more or some other thing than is consonant to truth to the words of our lord. of all the writers of that age , or near it , only one ( and his name we know not , the book being anonymous ) was of paschase's opinion . but we find all the great men of that age were of another mind , and did clearly assert , that in the sacrament , the substance of bread and wine remained , and did nourish our bodies as other meats do . these were rabanus maurus , archbishop of mentz , amalarius , archbishop of treves , or as others say , metz , heribald , bishop of auxerre , bertram , iohn scot erigena , walafridus strabo , florus and christian druthmar . and three of these set themselves on purpose to refute paschase . the anonymous writer that defends him , says , that raban did dispute at length against him in an epistle to abbot egilon , for saying it was that body that was born of the virgin , and was crucified , and raised again , that was daily offered for the life of the world. that is also condemned by raban in his penitential , cap. . who refers his reader to that epistle to abbor egilon . and for bertram , he was commanded by charles the bald , then emperor , to write upon that matter , which in the beginning of his book he promises to do , not trusting to his own wit , but following the steps of the holy fathers . it is also apparent by his book , that there were at that time different perswasions about the body of christ in the sacrament ; some believing it was there without any figure ; others saying , it was there in a figure and mystery . upon which he apprehended , there must needs follow a great schism . and let any read paschase's book , and after that bertram's , and if he have either honesty , or at least , shame remaining in him , he must see it was in all points the very same controversie that was canvassed then between them , and is now debated between the church of rome and us. now that raban and bertram were two of the greatest and most learned men of that age , cannot be denied : raban passes without contest amongst the first men of the age ; and for bertram , we need neither cite what trithemius says of him , nor what the disciples of s. austin , in the port-royal , have said to magnifie him , when they make use of him to establish the doctrine of the efficacy of grace . it is a sufficient evidence of the esteem he was in , that he was made choice of by the bishop of france , to defend the latin church against the greeks ; and upon two very important controversies that were moved in that age ; the one being about predestination and grace , the other , that which we have now before us , he , though a private monk , raised to no dignity , was commanded by the emperor to write of both these ; which no man can imagine had been done , if he had not been a man much 〈◊〉 and esteemed ; and way in which he writes , is solid and worthy of the reputation he ha 〈…〉 quired : he proves both from the words of institution , and from st. paul , that the sacrame●● was still bread and wine . he proves from s. austin , that these were mysteries and figures of christ's body and blood. and indeed considering that age , he was an extraordinary writer . the third that did write against paschase , was iohn scot , otherwise called erigena , who was likewise commanded to write about the sacrament , by that same emperor . he was undoubtedly the most learned and ingenious man of that age , as all our english historians tell us , chiefly william of malmsbury : he was in great esteem both with the emperor , and our great king alfred . ( lib. . de gest. reg. ) he was accounted a saint and a martyr ; his memory was celebrated by an anniversary on the tenth of november . he was also very learned in the greek , and other oriental tongues , which was a rare thing in that age. this erigena did formally refute paschase's opinion , and assert ours . it is true , his book is now lost , being years after burned by the c. of vercel ; but though the church of lyons does treat him very severely in their book against him , and fastens many strange opinions upon him , in which there are good grounds to think they did him wrong ; yet they no where challenge him for what he wrote about the sacrament ; which shews they did not condemn him for that ; though they speak of him with great animosity , because he had written against predestination and grace efficacious of it self , which they defended . it seems most probable that it was from his writings , that the homily read at easter by the saxons here in england , does so formally contradict the doctrine of transubstantiation . and now let the reader judge , if it be not clear that paschase did innovate the the doctrine of the church in this point , but was vigorously opposed by all the great men of that age. for the following age , all historians agree , it was an age of most prodigious ignorance and debauchery , and that amongst all sorts of people , none being more signally vicious than the clergy ; and of all the clergy , none so much as the popes , who were such a succession of monsters , that baronius cannot forbear making the saddest exclamations possible concerning their cruelties , debaucheries , and other vices : so that , then , if at any time , we may conclude all were asleep , and no wonder if the tares paschase had sown , did grow up ; and yet of the very few writings of the age that remain , the far greater number seem to favour the doctrine of bertram . but till berengarius his time , we hear nothing of any contest about the eucharist . so here were years spent in an absolute ignorance and forgetfulness of all divine things . about the middle of the th cent. bruno bishop of angiers , and berengarius , who was born in tours , but was arch-deacon and treasurer of the church of angiers , did openly teach , that christ was in the sacrament only in a figure . we hear little more of bruno ; but berengarius is spoken of by many historians , ( sigebert , platma , antonin . sabellicus , chron. mont. cassin . sigonius , vignier , guitmond , and chiefly william of malmsbury ) as a man of great learning and piety , and that when he was cited to the council at rome , before nicolaus the second , none could resist him ; that he had an excellent faculty of speaking , and was a man of great gravity ; that he was held a saint by many : he did abound in charity , humility , and good works , and was so chaste , that he would not look at a beutiful woman . and hildebert bishop of mans , whom s. bernard commends highly , made such an epitaph on him , that notwithstanding all the abatements we must make for poetry , yet no man could write so of an ordinary person . this berengarius wrote against the corporal presence , calling it a stupidity of paschase's and lanfrank's , who denied that the substance of bread and wine remained after consecration . he had many followers , as sigebert tells us , ( edit . antwerp . . ) and william of malmsbury , and matthew paris , tell us his doctrine had overspred all france . it were too long to shew with what impudent corrupting of antiquity those who wrote against him , did stuff up their books . divers councils were held against him , and he through fear , did frequently waver ; for when other arguments proved too weak to convince him , then the faggot , which is the sure and beloved argument of that church , prevailed on his fears ; so that he burnt his own book , and signed the condemnation of his own opinion at rome ; this he did , as lanfrank upbraids him , not for love of the truth , but for fear of death : which shews he had not that love of the truth , and constancy of mind he ought to have had . but it is no prejudice against the doctrine he taught , that he was a man not only subject to , but overcome by so great a temptation ; for the fear of death is natural to all men . and thus we see , that in the th century our doctrine was taught by the greatest writers of that time , so that it was then generally received , and not at all condemned either by pope or council . but in the th century , upon its being defended , it was condemned . can there be therefore any thing more plain , than that there was a change made , and that what in the one age was taught by a great number of writers , without any censure upon it , was in another age anathematized ? is there not then here a clear change ? and what has been done , was certainly possible , from whence we conclude with all the justice and reason in the world , that a change was not only possible , but was indeed made . and yet the many repeated condemnations of berengarius , shew , his doctrine was too deeply rooted in the minds of that age , to be very easily suppressed ; for to the end of the th century , the popes continued to condemn his opinions , even after his death . in the beginning of the th century , honorius of autun , who was a considerable man in that age , did clearly assert the doctrine of the sacraments nourishing our bodies , and is acknowledge by thomas waldensis , to have been a follower of berengarius his heresie . and about the th year of that age , that doctrine was embraced by great numbers in the south of france , who were from ther several teachers called petrobrusrans , henricians , waldenses , and from the countrey , where their number were greatest , albigenses ; whose confession , dated the year , bears , that the eating of the sacramental bread , was the eating of iesus christ in a figure ; iesus christ having said , as oft as ye do this , do it in remembrance of me . it were needless to engage in any long account of these people ; the writers of those times have studied to represent them in as hateful and odious characters , as it was possible for them to devise ; and we have very little remaining that they wrote . yet as the false witnesses that were suborned to lay heavy things to our blessed saviour . charge , could not agree among themselves ; so for all the spite with which these writers prosecute those poor innocents , there are such noble characters given , even by these enemies , of their piety , their simplicity , their patience , constancy , and other virtues ; that as the apologists for christianity , do justly glory in the testimonies pliny , lucian , tacitus , iosephus , and other declared enemies give ; so any that would study to redeem the memory of those multitudes , from the black aspersions of their foul-mouthed enemies , would find many passages among them to glory much in , on their behalf , which are much more to be considered than those virulent calumnies with which they labour to blot their memories : but neither the death of peter de bruis , who was burnt , nor all the following cruelties , that were as terrible as could be invented by all the fury of the court of rome , managed by the inquisitions of the dominicans , whose souls were then as black as their garments , could bear down or extinguish that light of the truth , in which what was wanting in learning , wit , or order , was fully made up in the simplicity of their manners , and the constancy of their sufferings . and it were easie to shew , that the two great things they were most persecuted for , were their refusing subjection to the see of rome , and their not believing the doctrine of the corporal presence ; nor were they confined to one corner of france only , but spred almost all europe over . in that age steven bishop in eduen is the first i ever find cited to have used the word transubstantiation , who expresly says , ( de sacram. altar . c. . ) that the oblation of bread and wine is transubstantiated into the body and blood of christ : some place him in the beginning , some in the middle of that age ; for there were two bishops of that see , both of the same name ; the one , anno . the other . and which of the two it was , is not certain ; but the master of the sentences was not so positive , and would not determine , ( lib. . dist . . ) whether christ was present formally , substantially , or some other way . but in the beginning of the th century , one amalric , or almaric , who was in great esteem for learning , did deny transubstantiation , saying , that the body of christ was no more in the consecrated bread , than in any other bread , or any other thing ; ( anno . c. . ) for which he was condemned in the th council of lateran , and his body , which was buried in paris , was taken up and burnt ; and then was it decreed , that the body and blood of christ were truly contained under the kinds ( or species ) of bread and wine , the bread being transubstantiated into the body , and the wine into the blood. all the while this doctrine was carried on , it was managed with all the ways possible , that might justly create a prejudice against them who set it forward ; for besides many ridiculous lying wonders , that were forged to make it more easily believed by a credulous and superstitious multitude , the church of rome did discover a cruelty and blood-thirstiness which no pen is able to set out to the full . what burnings and tortures , and what croissades as against infidels and mabumetans , did they set on against those poor innocent companies , whom they with an enraged , wolvish and barbarous bloodiness studied to destroy ? this was clearly contrary to the laws of humanity , the rules of the gospel , and the gentleness of christ : how then could such companies of wolves pretend to be the followers of the lamb ? in the primitive church , the bishops that had prosecuted the priscillanists before the emperor maximus , to the taking away their lives , were cast out of the communion of the church ; but now did these that still pretended to be christ's vicars , shew themselves in antichrist's colours , dipt in blood . if then any of that church that live among us , plead for pity , and the not executing the laws , and if they blame the severity of the statutes against themselves , let them do as becomes honest men , and without disguise , disown and condemn those barbarities , and them that were the promoters and pursuers of them ; for those practices have justly filled the world with fears and jealousies of them , that how meekly soever they may now whine under the pretended oppression of the laws , they would no sooner get into power , but that old leaven not being yet purged out of their hearts , they would again betake themselves to fire and faggot , as the unanswerable arguments of their church : and so they are only against persecution , because they are not able to persecute ; but were they the men that had the power , it would be again a catholick doctrine and practice : but when they frankly and candidly condemn those practices and principles , they will have somewhat to plead , which will in reason prevail more than all their little arts can do to procure them favour . it was this same council of lateran , that established both cruelty , persecution and rebellion into a law , appointing , that all princes should exterminate all hereticks , ( this is the mercy of that church which all may look for , if ever their power be equal to their malice ) and did decree , ( cap. . ) that if any temporal lord , being admonished by the church , did neglect to purge his lands , he should be first excommunicated , and if he continued a year in his contempt and contumacy , notice was to be given of it to the pope , who from that time forth should declare his vassals absolved from the fidelity they owed him , and expose his lands to be ivaded by catholicks , who might possess them without any contradiction , having exterminated the hereticks out of them , and so preserve them in the purity of the faith. this decree was made on the account of raimond count of tholouse , who favoured the albigenses , that were his subjects ; and being a peer of france according to the first constitution under hugo capet king of france , was such a prince in his own dominions , as the princes of germany now are . he was indeed the king of france his vassal ; but it is clear from the history of that time , that the king of france would not interpose in that business . yet the popes in this same council of lateran , did , by the advice of the council , give to simon montfort ( who was general of the croissade , that the pope sent against that prince ) all the lands that were taken from the count of tholouse . so that there was an invasion both of the count of tholouse , and of the king of france his rights . for if that prince had done any thing amiss , he was only accountable to the king , and the other peers of france . this decree of the council is published by dom. luc. dachery ; ( tom. . spic . and tom. . of the council , print . anno . p. . ) so that it is plain , that the pope got here a council to set up rebellion by authority , against the express rules of the gospel . this almost their whole church accounts a general council , a few only among us excepted , who know not how io approve themselves good subjects , if they own that a general council , which does so formally establish treasonable and seditious principles . for if it be true , that a general council making a definition in an article of faith , is to be followed and submitted to by all men , the same arguments will prove that in any controverted practical opinion , we ought not to trust our own reasons , but submit to the definition of the church ; for if in this question a private person shall rest on his own understanding of the scriptures , and reject this decree , why may he not as well in other things assume the same freedom ? it is true , the words of the decree seem only to relate to temporal lords that were under soveraign princes , such as the count of tholouse ; and therefore crowned heads need fear nothing from it : but though the decree runs chiefly against such , yet there are two clauses in it that go further ; one is in these words , saving always the right of the principal lord , provided he make no obstacle about it , nor cast in any impediment . whence it plainly follows , that if the soveraign , such as the king of france , in the case of tholouse , did make any obstacle , he forfeited his right . the other clause is in these words , the same law being nevertheless observed about those who have no principal lords . in which are clearly included all those soveraigns , who depend and hold their crowns immediately from god. now it is apparent , the design of these words so couched , was once to bring all soveraigns under that lash , before they were aware of it ; for had they named emperors and kings , they might reasonably have expected great opposition from them ; but insinuating it so covertly , it would pass the more easily : yet it is plain , nothing else can be meant , or was intended by it ; so that it is clear , that the th council of lateran , as it established transubstantiation , so did also decree both persecution and rebellion : therefore the reader may easily judge , what account is to be made of that council , and what security any state can have of those who adhere to it . our saviour when he states the opposition between the children of god , and the children of the devil , he gives this for the character of the latter , that they did the works of their father ; and these he mentions are lying and murdering : we have seen sufficient evidence of the murdering spirit which acted in that church , when this doctrine was set up . but to compleat that black character , let us look over to the council of constance , which decreed that bold violation of the command of christ , drink ye all of it ; by taking the chalice from the laity : and there we find perfidy , which is the basest and worst kind of lying , also established by law : for it was decreed by them , ( sess. . ) that all safe conducts notwithstanding , or by what bonds soever any prince had engaged himself , the council was no way prejudiced , and that the iudge competent might enquire into their errors ; and proceed otherwise duly against them , and punish them according to iustice , if they stubbornly refuse to retract their errours , although trusting to their safe conduct , they had come to the place of iudgment , and had not come without it ; and declare , that whoever had promised any such thing to them , having done what in him lay , was under no further obligation . upon which , sigismund broke his faith to iohn hus and ierome of prague , and they were burnt . so that their church , having in general councils decreed both perfidy and cruelty , it is casie to infer by what spirit they are acted , and whose works they did . if then they did the works of the devil , who was a liar and murderer from the beginning , they cannot be looked on as the children of god , but as the children of the devil . if this seem too severe , it is nothing but what the force of truth draws from me , being the furthest in the world from that uncharitable temper of aggravating things beyong what is just ; but the truth must be heard , and the lamb of god could call the scribes and pharisees , a generation of vipers and children of the devil . therefore if a church be so notoriously guilty of the most infamous violation of all the laws of humanity , and the security which a publick faith must needs give , none is to be blamed for laying open and exposing such a society to the just censure of all impartial persons , that so every one may see what a hazard his soul runs by engaging in the communion of a church that is so foully guilty : for these were not personal failings , but were the decrees of an authority which must be acknowledged by them infallible , if they be true to their own principles . so that if they receive these as general councils , i know not how they can clear all that communion from being involved in the guilt of what they decreed . thus far we hope it hath been made evident enough , that there are no impossibilities in such a change of the doctrine of the church about this sacrament , as they imagine . and that all these are but the effects of wit and fancy , and vanish into nothing when closely canvassed . i have not dwelt so long on every step of the history i have vouched , as was necessary , designing to be as short as was possible , and because these things have been at full length set down by others , and particularly in that great and learned work of albertin a french minister concerning this sacrament ; in which the doctrines of the primitive church , and the steps of the change that was made , are so laid open , that no man has yet so much as attempted the answering him : and those matters of fact are so uncontestedly true , that there can be little debate about them , but what may be very soon cleared , and i am ready to make all good to a tittle when any shall put me to it . it being apparent then , that the church of rome has usurped an undue and unjust authority over the other states and nations of christendom , and has made use of this dominion to introduce many great corruptions both in the faith , the worship , and government of the church ; nothing remains but to say a little to justify this churches reforming these abuses . and , first , i suppose it will be granted , that a national church may judge a doctrine to be heretical , when its opposition to the scripture , reason , and the primitive doctrine is apparent : for in that case the bishops and pastors being to feed and instruct the church , they must do it according to their consciences , otherwise how can they discharge the trust , god and the church commit to their charge ? and thus all the ancient hereticks , such as samosatenus , arrius , pelagius , and a great many more were first condemned in provincial councils . secondly , if such heresies be spread in places round about , the bishops of every church ought to do what they can to get others concur with them in the condemning them ; but if they cannot prevail , they ought nevertheless to purge themselves and their own church , for none can be bound to be damned for company . the pastors of every church owe a charity to their neighbour churches , but a debt to their own , which the stubborness of others cannot excuse them from . and so those bishops in the primitiue church , that were invironed with arrians , did reform their own churches when they were placed in any sees that had been corrupted by arrianism . thirdly , no time can give prescription against truth , and therefore had any errour been ever so antiently received in any church , yet the pastors of that church finding it contrary to truth ought to reform it : the more antient or inveterate any errour is , it needs the more to be looked to . so those nations that were long bred up in arrianism , had good reason to reform from that erronr . so the church of rome will acknowledge that the greek church , or our church ought to forsake their present doctrines , though they have been long received . fourthly , no later definitions of councils or fathers ought to derogate from the ancienter decrees of councils , or opinions of the fathers ; otherwise the arrians had reason to have justified their submitting to the councils of sirmium , arimini , and millan , and rejecting that of nice : therefore we ought in the first place to consider the decrees and opinions of the most primitive antiquity . fifthly , no succession of bishops how clear soever in its descent from the apostles , can secure a church from errour . which the church of rome must acknowledge , since they can neither deny the succession of the greek church , nor of the church of england . sixthly , if any church continues so hardned in their errours that they break communion with another church for reforming ; the guilt of this breach must lie at their door who are both in the errour , and first reject the other , and refuse to reform or communicate with other churches . upon every one of these particulars ( and they all set together , compleat the plea for the church of england ) i am willing to joyn issue , and shew they are not only true in themselves , but must be also acknowledged by the principles of the church of rome : so that if the grounds of controversie , on which our reformation did proceed , were good and justifiable , it is most unreasonable to say our church had not good right and authority to make it . it can be made appear that for above two hundred years before the reformation , there were general complaints among all sorts of persons , both the subtle school-men , and devout contemplatives , both ecclesiasticks and laicks did complain of the corruptions of the church , and called aloud for a reformation both of faith and manners : even the council of pisa a little before luther's days , did decree , there should be a reformation both of faith and manners , and that both of the head and members . but all these complaints turned to nothing , abuses grew daily , the interests of the nephews and other corrupt intrigues of the court of rome was always obstructing good motions and cherishing ill customs , for they brought the more grist to their mill. when a reformation was first called for in germany , instead of complying with so just a desire , all that the court of rome thought on , was how to suppress these complaints , and destroy those who made them . in end , when great commotions were like to follow , by the vast multitudes of those who concurred in this desire of reforming , a council was called , after the popes had frequently prejudged in the matter , and pope leo had with great frankness condemned most of luther's opinions . from that council no good could reasonably be expected , for the popes had already engaged so deep in the quarrel , that there was no retreating , and they ordered the matter so , that nothing could be done but what they had a mind to : all the bishops were at their consecration their sworn vassals : nothing could be brought into the council without the legates had proposed it . and when any good motions were made by the bishops of spain or germany , they had so many poor italian bishops kept there on the pope's charges , that they were always masters of the vote : for before they would hold a session about any thing , they had so canvassed it in the congregations , that nothing was so much as put to the hazard . all these things appear even from cardinal pallavicini's history of that council . while this council was sitting , and some years before , many of this church were convinced of these corruptions , and that they could not with a good conscience joyn any longer in a worship so corrupted ; yet they were satisfied to know the truth themselves and to instruct others privately in it , but formed no separated church ; waiting for what issue god in his providence might bring about . but with what violence and cruelty their enemies , who were generally those of the clergy , pursued them , is well enough known : nor shall i repeat any thing of it , lest it might be thought an invidious aggravating of things that are past . but at length , by the death of king henry the eight , the government fell in the hands of persons well affected to the reformation . it is not material what their true motives were , for iehu did a good work when he destroyed the idolatry of baal , though neither his motives nor method of doing it are justifiable : nor is it to the purpose to examine , how those bishops that reformed could have complied before with the corruptions of the roman church and received orders from them . meletius , and felix , were placed by the arrians , the one at antioch in the room of eustatbius , the other at rome , in liberius his room , who were both banished for the faith : and yet both these were afterwards great defenders of the truth ; and felix was a martyr for it , against these very hereticks with whom they complied in the beginning . so whatever mixture of carnal ends might be in any of the secular men , or what allay of humane infirmity and fear might have been in any of the ecclesiasticks ; that can be no prejudice to the cause : for men are always men , and the power of god does often appear most eminently , when there is least cause to admire the instruments he makes use of . but in that juncture of affairs the bishops and clergy of this church seeing great and manifest corruptions in it , and it being apparent that the church of rome would consent to no reformation to any good purpose , were obliged to reform , and having the authority of king and parliament concurring , they had betrayed their consciences and the charge of souls for which they stood engaged , and were to answer at the great day , if they had dallied longer , and not warned the people of their danger , and made use of the inclinations of the civil powers for carrying on so good at work . and it is the lasting glory of the reformation , that when they saw the heir of the crown was inflexibly united to the church of rome , they proceeded not to extream courses against her ; for what a few wrought on by the ambition of the duke of northumberland were got to do , was neither the deed of the nation , nor of the church , since the representatives of neither concurred in it . but the nation did receive the righteous heir : and then was our church crowned with the highest glory it could have desired , many of the bishops who had been most active in the reformation , sealing it with their blood , and in death giving such evident proofs of holy and christian constancy , that they may be justly matched with the most glorious martyrs of the primitive church . then did both these churches appear in their true colours , that of rome weltring in the blood of the saints and insatiately drinking it up : and our church bearing the cross of christ and following his example . but when we were for some years thus tried in the fire , then did god again bless us with the protection of the rightful and lawful magistrate . then did our church do as the primitive church had done under theodosius , when she got out from a long and cruel persecution of the arrians under those enraged emperours constantius and valens . they reformed the church from the arrian doctrine , but would not imitate them in their persecuting spirit . and when others had too deep resentments of the ill usage they had met with under the arrian tyranny , nazianzen and the other holy bishops of that time did mitigate their animosities : so that the churches were only taken from the arrians , but no storms were raised against them . so in the beginning of queen elizabeth's reign , it cannot be denied that those of that church were long suffered to live at quiet among us with little or no disturbance , save that the churches were taken out of their hands . nor were even those who had bathed themselves in so much blood made examples , so entirely did they retain the meekness and lenity of the christian spirit . and if after many years quiet , those of that religion when they met with no trouble from the government , did notwithstanding enter into so many plots and conspiracies against the queen's person and the established government , was it any wonder that severe laws were made against them , and those emissaries who under a pretence of coming in a mission , were sent as spies and agents among us to fill all with blood and confusion ? whom had they blame for all this but themselves ? or was this any thing but what would have been certainly done in the gentlest and mildest government upon earth ? for the law of self-preservation is engraven on all mens natures , and so no wonder every state and government sees to its own security against those who seek its ruine and destruction : and it had been no wonder if upon such provocations there had been some severities used which in themselves were uniustifiable : for few take reparation in an exact equality to the damage and injury they have received . but since that time they have had very little cause to complain of any hard treatment ; and if they have met with any , they may still thank the officious insolent deportment of some of their own church , that have given just cause of jealousie and fear . but i shall pursue this discourse no further , hoping enough is already said upon the head that engaged me to it , to make it appear , that it was possible the doctrine of the church should be changed in this matter , and that it was truly changed . from which i may be well allowed to subsume , that our church discovering that this change was made , had very good reason and a sufficient authority to reform this corruption , and restore the primitive doctrine again . and now being to leave my reader , i shall only desire him to consider a little of how great importance his eternal concerns are , and that he has no reason to look for endless happiness , if he does not serve god in a way suitable to his will. for what hopes soever there may be for one who lives and dies in some unknown error , yet there are no hopes for those that either neglect or despise the truth , and that out of humour or any other carnal account give themselves up to errours , and willingly embrace them , certainly god sent not his son in the world , nor gave him to so cruel a death , for nothing . if he hath revealed his counsels with so much solemnity , his designs in that must be great and worthy of god : the true ends of religion must be the purifying our souls , the conforming us to the divine nature , the uniting us to one another in the most tender bonds of love , truth , justice and goodness , the raising our minds to a heavenly and contemplative temper , and our living ●s pilgrims and strangers on this earth , ever waiting and longing for our change . now we dare appeal all men to shew any thing in our religion or worship , that obstructs any of these ends ; on the contrary , the sum and total of our doctrine is , the conforming our selves to christ and his apostles , both in faith and life , so that it can scarce be devised what should make any body that hath any sense of religion , or regard to his soul , forsake our communion , where he finds nothing that is not highly suitable to the nature and ends of religion , and turn over to a church that is founded on and cemented in carnal interests : the grand design of all their attempts being to subject all to the papal tyranny , which must needs appear visibly to every one whose eyes are opened . for attaining which end they have set up such a vast company of additions to the simplicity of the faith and the purity of the christian worship , that it is a great work even to know them . is it not then a strange choice ? to leave a church that worships god so as all understand what they do and can say , amen ; to go to a church where the worship is not understood , so that he who officiates is a barbarian to them : a church which worships god in a spiritual and unexceptionable manner ; to go to a church that is scandalously ( to raise this charge no higher ) full of images and pictures , and that of the blessed trinity , before which prostrations and adorations are daily made . : a church that directs her devotions to god , and his son jesus christ ; to go to a church that without any good warrant not only invocates saints and angels , but also in the very same form of words , which they offer up to god and jesus christ , which is a thing at least full of scandal , since these words must be strangely wrested from their natural meaning , otherwise they are high blasphemies : a church that commemorates christ's death in the sacrament , and truly communicates in his body and blood , with all holy reverence and due preparation ; to go to a church that spends all her devotion in an outward adoring the sacrament , without communicating with any due care , but resting in the priestly absolution allows it upon a single attrition : a church that administers all the sacraments christ appointed , and as he appointed them ; to go to a church that hath added many to those he appointed , and hath maimed that he gave for a pledge of his presence when he left this earth . in a word , that leaves a church that submits to all that christ and his apostles taught , and in a secondary order to all delivered to us by the primitive church ; to go to a church that hath set up an authority that pretends to be equal to these sacred oracles , and has manifestly cancelled most of the primitive constitutions . but it is not enough to remain in the communion of our church ; for if we do not walk conform to that holy faith taught in it , we disgrace it . let all therefore : that have zeal for our church , express it chiefly in studying to purify their hearts and lives , so as becomes christians , and reformed christians , and then others that behold us , will be ashamed when they see such real confutations of the calumnies of out adversaries , which would soon be turned back on them with a just scorn , if there were not too many advantages given by our divisions , and other . but nothing that is personal ought to be charged on our church : and whoever object any such things , of all persons in the world , they are the most inexcusable , who being so highly guilty themselves , have yet such undaunted brows , as to charge those things on us which if they be practised by any among us , yet are disallowed ; but among them have had all encouragement and authority possible from the corruptions both of their popes , and casuists . but here i break off , praying god he may at length open the eyes of all christendom that they may see and love the truth , and walk according to it . amen . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e more nevochim par. . c. . notes for div a -e apolog. . lib. . adv . her. c. . notes for div a -e * boniface the th , extrav . lib. . c. . de majoritate & obedientia . after he had studied to prove that the temporal and material sword , as well as the spiritual , was in the power of st. peter , from these words , behold two swords , and our saviour's answer , it is enough . in the end he concludes whosoever therefore resists this power thus ordained of god , resists the ordinance of god : except with manichee he make two beginnings , which we define to be false and heretical : for moses testifies , that not in the beginnings , but in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth . therefore we declare , say , define and pronounce , that it is of necessity to salvation to every human creature , to be subject to the pope of rome : and it is plain this subjection must be , that he had been pleading thorough that whole decretal , which is the subjection of the temporal sword to the spiritual . notes for div a -e ord. rom. in pascha . greg. nazian . orat. . apol. & . orat. chrisost. l. . de sacr . c. . a discourse against transubstantiation tillotson, john, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing t estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) a discourse against transubstantiation tillotson, john, - . [ ], , [ ] p. printed by m. flesher for brabazon aylmer ..., and w. rogers ..., london : . includes bibliographical references. advertisement: p. [ ]-[ ] at end. attributed to john tillotson, archbishop of canterbury. cf. halkett & laing, mcalpin coll. reproduction of original in cambridge university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images - olivia bottum sampled and proofread - olivia bottum text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a discourse against transubstantiation . london , printed by m. flesher , for brabazon aylmer , at the three pigeons against the royal exchange in cornhill : and william rogers , at the sun , over against st. dunstans church in fleetstreet . . a discourse against transubstantiation . concerning the sacrament of the lord's supper , one of the two great positive institutions of the christian religion , there are two main points of difference between vs and the church of rome . one , about the doctrine of transubstantiation ; in which they think , but are not certain , that they have the scripture and the words of our saviour on their side : the other , about the administration of this sacrament to the people in both kinds ; in which we are sure that we have the scripture and our saviour's institution on our side ; and that so plainly , that our adversaries themselves do not deny it . of the first of these i shall now treat , and endeavour to shew against the church of rome , that in this sacrament there is no substantial change made of the elements of bread and wine into the natural body and bloud of christ ; that body which was born of the virgin mary , and suffered upon the cross ; for so they explain that hard word transubstantiation . before i engage in this argument , i cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon , by the bold confidence of our adversaries , to dispute a matter of sense ; which is one of those things about which aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute . it might well seem strange if any man should write a book , to prove that an egg is not an elephant , and that a musket-bullet is not a pike : it is every whit as hard a case , to be put to maintain by a long discourse , that what we see and handle and taste to be bread is bread , and not the body of a man ; and what we see and taste to be wine is wine , and not bloud : and if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof , i do not see why any man , that hath confidence enough to do so , may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is , or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not ; and this without all possibility of being farther confuted . so that the business of transubstantiation is not a controversie of scripture against scripture , or of reason against reason , but of downright impudence against the plain meaning of scripture , and all the sense and reason of mankind . it is a most self-evident falsehood ; and there is no doctrine or proposition in the world that is of it self more evidently true , than transubstantiation is evidently false : and yet if it were possible to be true , it would be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the world , because it would suffer nothing else to be true ; it is like the roman-catholique church , which will needs be the whole christian church , and will allow no other society of christians to be any part of it : so transubstantiation , if it be true at all , it is all truth ; for it cannot be true unless our senses and the senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects ; and if this be true and certain , then nothing else can be so ; for if we be not certain of what we see , we can be certain of nothing . and yet notwithstanding all this , there is a company of men in the world so abandon'd and given up by god to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable errour , and to impose the belief of it upon the christian world under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation . and therefore to undeceive , if possible , these deluded souls , it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a doctrine , and to lay open the monstrous absurdity of it . and in the handling of this argument , i shall proceed in this plain method . i. i shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrine . ii. i shall produce our objections against it . and if i can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it , and that there are invincible objections against it , then every man is not onely in reason excused from believing this doctrine , but hath great cause to believe the contrary . first , i will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrine . which must be one or more of these five . either st . the authority of scripture . or ly . the perpetual belief of this doctrine in the christian church , as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our saviour's words , this is my body , in this sense . or ly . the authority of the present church to make and declare new articles of faith. or ly . the absolute necessity of such a change as this in the sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this sacrament . or ly . to magnify the power of the priest in being able to work so great a miracle . st . they pretend for this doctrine the authority of scripture in those words of our saviour , this is my body . now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence , i shall endeavour to make good these two things . . that there is no necessity of understanding those words of our saviour in the sense of transubstantiation . . that there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . first , that there is no necessity to understand those words of our saviour in the sense of transubstantiation . if there be any , it must be from one of these two reasons . either because there are no figurative expressions in scripture , which i think no man ever yet said : or else , because a sacrament admits of no figures ; which would be very absurd for any man to say , since it is of the very nature of a sacrament to represent and exhibite some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure : and especially since it cannot be denied , but that in the institution of this very sacrament our saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally . when he gave the cup he said , this cup is the new testament in my bloud , which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins . where first , the cup is put for wine contained in the cup ; or else if the words be literally taken , so as to signify a substantial change , it is not of the wine but of the cup ; and that , not into the bloud of christ but into the new testament or new covenant in his bloud . besides , that his bloud is said then to be shed , and his body to be broken , which was not till his passion , which followed the institution and first celebration of this sacrament . but that there is no necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , i will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome in this controversie . a bellarmine , b suazer and c vasquez do acknowledge scotus the great schoolman to have said that this doctrine cannot be evidently proved from scripture : and bellarmine grants this not to be improbable ; and suarez and vasquez acknowledge d durandus to have said as much . e ocham , another famous schoolman , says expresly , that the doctrine which holds the substance of the bread and wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to reason nor to scripture . f petrus ab alliaco cardinal of cambray says plainly , that the doctrine of the substance of bread and wine remaining after consecration is more easie and free from absurdity , more rational , and no ways repugnant to the authority of scripture ; nay more , that for the other doctrine , viz. of transubstantiation , there is no evidence in scripture . g gabriel biel , another great schoolman and divine of their church , freely declares , that as to any thing express'd in the canon of the scriptures , a man may believe that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration : and therefore he resolves the belief of transubstantiation into some other revelation , besides scripture , which he supposeth the church had about it . cardinal h cajetan confesseth that the gospel doth no where express that the bread is changed into the body of christ ; that we have this from the authority of the church : nay , he goes farther , , that there is nothing in the gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of christ , this is my body , in a proper and not a metaphorical sense ; but the church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained : which words in the roman edition of cajetan are expunged by order of pope i pius v. cardinal k contarenus , and l melchior canus one of the best and most judicious writers that church ever had , reckon this doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in scripture . i will add but one more , of great authority in the church , and a reputed martyr , m fisher bishop of rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and bloud of christ in our mass can be proved : so that we need not much contend that this doctrine hath no certain foundation in scripture , when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our adversaries themselves . secondly , if there be no necessity of understanding our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , i am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . whether we consider the like expressions in scripture ; as where our saviour says he is the door , and the true vine ( which the church of rome would mightily have triumph'd in , had it been said , this is my true body ) and so likewise where the church is said to be christ's body ; and the rock which followed the israelites to be christ , . cor. . . they drank of that rock which followed them , and that rock was christ : all which and innumerable more like expressions in scripture every man understands in a figurative , and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense . and it is very well known , that in the hebrew language things are commonly said to be that which they do signify and represent ; and there is not in that language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signify so and so , than to say that it is so and so . thus joseph expounding pharaoh's dream to him , gen. . . says , the seven good kine are seven years , and the seven good ears of corn are seven years , that is , they signified or represented seven years of plenty ; and so pharaoh understood him , and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions ; nor do i beleive that any sensible man , who had never heard of transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our saviour , this is my body , would upon reading the institution of the sacrament in the gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our saviour in those words ; but would have understood his meaning to have been , this bread signifies my body , this cup signifies my bloud ; and this which you see me now do , do ye hereafter for a memorial of me : but surely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our saviour did literally hold himself in his hand , and give away himself from himself with his own hands . or whether we compare these words of our saviour with the ancient form of the passover used by the jews from ezra's time , as n justin martyr tells us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this passover is our saviour and our refuge : not that they believed the paschal lamb to be substantially changed either into god their saviour who delivered them out of the land of egypt , or into the messias the saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it : but this lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that salvation which god wrought for their fathers in egypt , when by the slaying of a lamb and sprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared ; and did likewise foreshew the salvation of the messias , the lamb of god that was to take away the sins of the world . and nothing is more common in all languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the sign . as the delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an estate , and it is really so ; not the delivery of mere wax and parchment , but the conveyance of a real estate ; as truly and really to all effects and purposes of law , as if the very material houses and lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands : in like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new covenant of the gospel between god and man , are given to the signs or seals of that covenant . by baptism christians are said to be made partakers of the holy ghost , heb. . . and by the sacrament of the lord's supper we are said to communicate or to be made partakers of the body of christ which was broken , and of his bloud which was shed for us , that is , of the real benefits of his death and passion . and thus st. paul speaks of this sacrament , cor. . . the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the bloud of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? but still it is bread , and he still calls it so , v. . for we being many are one bread and one body ; for we are partakers of that one bread . the church of rome might , if they pleased , as well argue from hence that all christians are substantially changed first into bread , and then into the natural body of christ by their participation of the sacrament , because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body . and the same apostle in the next chapter , after he had spoken of the consecration of the elements still calls them the bread and the cup , in three verses together , as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup , v. . whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the lord unworthily , v. . but let a man examine himself , and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup , v. . and our saviour himself when he had said , this is my bloud of the new testament , immediately adds , * but i say unto you , i will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine , untill i drink it new with you in my father's kingdom , that is , not till after his resurrection , which was the first slep● of his exaltation into the kingdom given him by his father ; when the scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his disciples . but that which i observe from our saviour's words is , that after the consecration of the cup and the delivering of it to his disciples to drink of it , he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of the fruit of the vine , which he had now drank with them , till after his resurrection . from whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the vine , real wine , which our saviour drank of and communicated to his disciples in the sacrament . besides , if we consider that he celebrated this sacrament before his passion , it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural body and bloud of christ ; because it was his body broken and his bloud shed which he gave to his disciples , which if we understand literally of his natural body broken and his bloud shed , then these words , this is my body which is broken , and this is my bloud which is shed , could not be true , because his body was then whole and unbroken , and his bloud not then shed ; nor could it be a propitiatory sacrifice ( as they affirm this sacrament to be ) unless they will say that propitiation was made before christ suffer'd : and it is likewise impossible that the disciples should understand these words literally , because they not onely plainly saw that what he gave them was bread and wine , but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his body which was given , but his body which gave that which was given ; not his body broken and his bloud shed , because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd ; and therefore they could not understand these words literally : if they had , can we imagine that the disciples , who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections , should make no difficulty of this matter ? nor so much as ask our saviour , how can these things be ? that they should not tell him , we see this to be bread and that to be wine , and we see thy body to be distinct from both ; we see thy body not broken , and thy bloud not shed . from all which it must needs be very evident , to any man that will impartially consider things , how little reason there is to understand those words of our saviour , this is my body , and this is my bloud , in the sense of transubstantiation ; nay on the contrary , that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise . i proceed to shew , ly . that this doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the christian church , which the church of rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the church did always understand and interpret our saviour's words in this sense . to manifest the groundlesness of this pretence , i shall , . shew by plain testimony of the fathers in several ages , that this doctrine was not the belief of the ancient christian church . . i shall shew the time and occasion of its coming in , and by what degrees it grew up and was establish'd in the roman church . . i shall answer their great pretended demonstration that this always was and must have been the constant belief of the christian church . . i shall shew by plain testimonies of the fathers in several ages , for above five hundred years after christ that this doctrine was not the belief of the ancient christian church . i deny not but that the fathers do , and that with great reason , very much magnify the wonderfull mystery and efficacy of this sacrament , and frequently speak of a great supernatural change made by the divine benediction ; which we also readily acknowledge . they say indeed , that the elements of bread and wine do by the divine blessing become to us the body and bloud of christ : but they likewise say that the names of the things signified are given to the signs ; that the bread and wine do still remain in their proper nature and substance , and that they are turn'd into the substance of our bodies ; that the body of christ in the sacrament is not his natural body , but the sign and figure of it ; not that body which was crucified , nor that bloud which was shed upon the cross ; and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the son of man and drinking his bloud literally : all which are directly opposite to the doctrine of transubstantiation and utterly inconsistent with it . i will select but some few testimonies of many which i might bring to this purpose . i begin with justin martyr , who says expressly , that * our bloud and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food which we receive in the eucharist : but that cannot be the natural body and bloud of christ , for no man will say that that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies . the second is * irenaeus , who speaking of this sacrament says , that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread , but the eucharist ( or sacrament ) consisting of two things , the one earthy , the other heavenly . he says it is no longer common bread , but after invocation or consecration it becomes the sacrament , that is , bread sanctified , consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly ; the earthly thing is bread , and the heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invocation or consecration is added to it . and * elsewhere he hath this passage , when therefore the cup that is mix'd ( that is , of wine and water ) and the bread that is broken receives the word of god , it becomes the eucharist of the bloud and body of christ , of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consists : but if that which we receive in the sacrament do nourish our bodies , it must be bread and wine , and not the natural body and bloud of christ. there is another remarkable testimony of irenaeus , which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain , yet hath been preserv'd by * oecumenius , and it is this ; when ( says he ) the greeks had taken some servants , of the christian catechumeni ( that is , such as had not been admitted to the sacrament ) and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the christians , these servants having nothing to say that might gratify those who offered violence to them , except onely that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the bloud and body of christ , they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh , declar'd as much to those that questioned them . the greeks taking this as if it were really done by the christians , discovered it to others of the greeks ; who hereupon put sanctus and blandina to the torture to make them confess it . to whom blandina boldly answered , how would they endure to do this , who by way of exercise ( or abstinence ) do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten ? by which it appears that this which they would have charg'd upon christians , as if they had literally eaten the flesh and bloud of christ in the sacrament , was a false accusation which these martyrs denied , saying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all . the next is tertullian , who proves against marcion the heretique that the body of our saviour was not a mere phantasm and appearance , but a real body , because the sacrament is a figure and image of his body ; and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body , otherwise the sacrament would be an image of an image . his words are these , * the bread which our saviour took and distributed to his disciples he made his own body , saying this is my body , that is , the image or figure of my body . but it could not have been the figure of his body , if there had not been a true and real body . and arguing against the scepticks who denied the certainty of sense he useth this argument : that if we question our senses we may doubt whether our blessed saviour were not deceived in what he heard , and saw , and touched . * he might ( says he ) be deceived in the voice from heaven , in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial ; and in tho taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his bloud . so that it seems we are to trust our senses , even in the matter of the sacrament ; and if that be true , the doctrine of transubstantiation is certainly false . origen in his * comment on matth. , speaking of the sacrament hath this passage , that food which is sanctified by the word of god and prayer , as to that of it which is material , goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught , which none surely will say of the body of christ. and afterwards he adds by way of explication , it is not the matter of the bread , but the word which is spoken over it , which profiteth him that worthily eateth the lord ; and this ( he says ) he had spoken concerning the typical and symbolical body . so that the matter of bread remaineth in the sacrament , and this origen calls the typical and symbolical body of christ ; and it is not the natural body of christ which is there eaten , for the food eaten in the sacrament , as to that of it which is material , goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught . this testimony is so very plain in the cause that sextus senensis suspects this place of origen was depraved by the heretiques . cardinal perron is contented to allow it to be origen's , but rejects his testimony because he was accused of heresie by some of the fathers , and says he talks like a heretique in this place . so that with much adoe this testimony is yielded to us . the same father in his * homilies upon leviticus speaks thus , there is also in the new testament a letter which kills him who doth not spiritually understand those things which are said ; for if we take according to the letter that which is said , except ye eat my flesh and drink my blovd , this letter kills . and this also is a killing testimony , and not to be answered but in cardinal perron's way , by saying he talks like a heretique . st. cyprian hath a whole epistle * to cecilius , against those who gave the communion in water onely without wine mingled with it ; and his main argument against them is this , that the bloud of christ with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the cup when there is no wine in the cup by which the bloud of christ is represented : and afterwards he says , that contrary to the evangelical and apostolical doctrine water was in some places offer'd ( or given ) in the lord's cup , which ( says he ) alone cannot express ( or represent ) the bloud of christ. and lastly he tells us , that by water the people is understood , by wine the bloud of christ is shewn ( or represented ) but when in the cup water is mingled with wine the people is united to christ. so that according to this argument wine in the sacramental cup is no otherwise chang'd into the bloud of christ than the water mixed with it is changed into the people , which are said to be united to christ. i omit many others , and pass to st. austin in the fourth age after christ. and i the rather insist upon his testimony , because of his eminent esteem and authority in the latin church ; and he also calls the elements of the sacrament the figure and sign of christ's body and bloud . in his book against adimantus the manichee we have this expression , * our lord did not doubt to say , this is my body , when he gave the sign of his body . and in his explication of the third psalm , speaking of judas whom our lord admitted to his last supper , in which ( says he ) † he commended and delivered to his disciples the figure of his body ; language which would now be censur'd for heresie in the church of rome . indeed he was never accus'd of heresie , as cardinal perron says origen was , but he talks as like one as origen himself . and in his comment on the psalm speaking of the offence which the disciples took at that saying of our saviour , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud , &c. he brings in our saviour speaking thus to them , ‖ ye must understand spiritually what i have said unto you ; ye are not to eat this body which ye see , and to drink that bloud which shall be shed by those that shall crucifyme . i have commended a certain sacrament to you , which being spiritually understood will give you life . what more opposite to the doctrine of transubstantiation , than that the disciples were not to eat that body of christ which they saw , nor to drink that bloud which was shed upon the cross , but that all this was to be understood spiritually and according to the nature of a sacrament ? for that body he tells us is not here but in heaven , in his comment upon these words , me ye have not always . * he speaks ( says he ) of the presence of his body ; ye shall have me according to my providence , according to majesty and invisible grace ; but according to the flesh which the word assumed , according to that which was born of the virgin mary , ye shall not have me : therefore because he conversed with his disciples fourty days , he is ascended up into heaven and is not here . in his d . epistle ; † if the sacrament ( says he ) had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are sacraments , they would not be sacraments at all ; but from this resemblance they take for the most part the names of the things which they represent . therefore as the sacrament of the body of christ is in some manner or sense christ's body , and the sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of christ ; so the sacrament of faith ( meaning baptism ) is faith . upon which words of st. austin there is this remarkable gloss in their own canon law ; ‖ the heavenly sacrament which truly represents the flesh of christ is called the body of christ ; but improperly : whence it is said , that after a manner , but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified ; so that the meaning is , it is called the body of christ , that is , it signifies the body of christ : and if this be st. austin's meaning , i am sure no protestant can speak more plainly against transubstantiation . and in the ancient canon of the mass , before it was chang'd in complyance with this new doctrine , it is expresly call'd a sacrament , a sign , an image and a figure of christ's body . to which i will add that remarkable passage of st. austin cited by * gratian , that as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism , so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud ; that so neither may truth be wanting in the sacrament , nor pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain . i will mention but one testimony more of this father , but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed transubstantiation could have utter'd . it is in his treatise * de doctrina christiana ; where laying down several rules for the right understanding of scripture , he gives this for one . if ( says he ) the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime , or commanding us to do good , it is not figurative ; but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or crime , or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others , it is figurative . for example , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his bloud , ye have no life in you : this seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime , therefore it is a figure ; commanding us to communicate of the passion of our lord , and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us . so that , according to st. austin's best skill in interpreting scripture , the literal eating of the flesh of christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety ; and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively ; not as cardinal perron would have it , onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud , but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever : for st. austin doth not say , this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of christ under the species of bread and wine , as the cardinal would understand him ; for then the speech would be literal and not figurative : but he says , this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his passion . to these i will add but three or four testimonies more in the two following ages . the first shall be of theodoret , who speaking of that * prophecy of jacob concerning our saviour , he washed his garments in wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes , hath these words , † as we call the mystical fruit of the vine ( that is , the wine in the sacrament ) after consecration the bloud of the lord , so he ( viz. jacob ) calls the bloud of the true vine ( viz. of christ ) the bloud of the grape : but the bloud of christ is not literally and properly but onely figuratively the bloud of the grape , in the same sense as he is said to be the true vine ; and therefore the wine in the sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of christ. and he explains this afterwards , saying , that our saviour changed the names , and gave to his body the name of the symbol or sign , and to the symbol or sign the name of his body ; thus when he had call'd himself the vine , he call'd the symbol or sign his bloud ; so that in the same sense that he call'd himself the vine , he call'd the wine , which is the symbol of his bloud , his bloud : for , says he , he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen , but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace ; for he who call'd that which by nature is a body wheat and bread , and again likewise call'd himself the vine , he honour'd the symbols with the name of his body and bloud : not changing nature but adding grace to nature . where you see he says expresly , that when he call'd the symbols or elements of the sacrament , viz. bread and wine , his body and bloud , he made no change in the nature of the things , onely added grace to nature , that is , by the divine grace and blessing he raised them to a spiritual and supernatural vertue and efficacy . the second is of the same theodoret in his second dialogue between a catholique , under the name of orthodoxus , and an heretique under the name of eranistes ; who maintaining that the humanity of christ was chang'd into the substance of the divinity ( which was the heresie of eutyches ) he illustrates the matter by this similitude , as , says he , the symbols of the lord's body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the priest , but after the invocation are changed and become another thing ; so the body of our lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance . but what says the catholique orthodoxus to this ? why , he talks just like one of cardinal perron's heretiques , thou art , says he , caught in thy own net : because the mystical symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature ; for they remain in their former substance , figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before . he does not onely deny the outward figure and appearance of the symbols to be chang'd , but the nature and substance of them , even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance ; and it was necessary so to do , otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him . the next is one of their own popes , gelasius , who brings the same instance against the eutychians ; * surely , says he , the sacraments which we receive of the body and bloud of our lord are a divine thing , so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature , and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and wine ; and certainly the image and resemblance of christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries , that is , in the sacrament . to make this instance of any force against the euty●h●ans , who held that tho body of christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his divinity , it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of christ. so that here is an infallible authority , one of their own popes expresly against transubstantiation . the last testimony i shall produce is of facundus an african bishop , who lived in the th . century . upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that christ also received the adoption of sons , he reasons thus . * christ vouchsafed to receive the sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized : and the sacrament of adoption may be called adoption , as the sacrament of his body and bloud , which is in the consecrated bread and cup , is by us called his body and bloud : not that the bread , says he , is properly his body and the cup his bloud , but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud ; hence also our lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his disciples his body and bloud . can any man after this believe , that it was then , and had ever been , the universal and received doctrine of the christian church , that the bread and wine in the sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of christ ? by these plain testimonies which i have produced , and i might have brought a great many more to the same purpose , it is i think evident beyond all denial that transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the christian church . and this likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the roman church . a scotus acknowledgeth , that this doctrine was not always thought necessary to be believed , but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that declaration of the church made in the council of lateran under pope innocent the iii. and b durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary , if the church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it . c tonstal bishop of durham also yields , that before the lateran council men were at liberty as to the manner of christ's presence in the sacrament . and d erasmus , who lived and died in the communion of the roman church , and than whom no man was better read in the ancient fathers , doth confess that it was late before the church defined transubstantiation , unknown to the ancients both name and thing . and e alphonsus a castro says plainly , that concerning the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of christ , there is seldom any mention in the ancient writers . and who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient church and fathers to have been so much strangers to this doctrine , had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the church ? i shall now in the second place , give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this doctrine , and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an article of faith in the romish church . the doctrine of the corporal presence of christ was first started upon occasion of the dispute about the worship of images , in opposition whereto the synod of constantinople about the year dccl did argue thus , that our lord having left us no other image of himself but the sacrament , in which the substance of bread is the image of his body , we ought to make no other image of our lord. in answer to this argument the second council of nice in the year dcclxxxvii did declare , that the sacrament after consecration is not the image and antitype of christ's body and bloud , but is properly his body and bloud . so that the corporal presence of christ in the sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid worship of images : and indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion , nor have been applied to a fitter purpose . and here i cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * bellarmine's observation , that none of the ancients who wrote of heresies , hath put this errour ( viz. of denying transubstantiation ) in his catalogue ; nor did any of the ancients dispute against this errour for the first years . which is very true , because there could be no occasion then to dispute against those who denied transubstantiation ; since , as i have shewn , this doctrine was not in being , unless amongst the eutychian heretiques , for the first years and more . but † bellarmine goes on and tells us , that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the lord in the eucharist were the iconomachi ( the opposers of images ) after the year dcc in the council of constantinople ; for these said there was one image of christ instituted by christ himself , viz. the bread and wine in the eucharist , which represents the body and bloud of christ : wherefore from that time the greek writers often admonish us that the eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the lord , but his true body , as appears from the viith . synod ; which agrees most exactly with the account which i have given of the first rise of this doctrine , which began with the corporal presence of christ in the sacrament , and afterwards proceeded to transubstantiation . and as this was the first occasion of introducing this doctrine among the greeks , so in the latin or roman church paschasius radbertus , first a monk , and afterwards abbat of corbey , was the first broacher of it in the year dcccxviii . and for this , besides the evidence of history , we have the acknowledgment of two very eminent persons in the church of rome , bellarmine and sirmondus , who do in effect confess that this paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this argument . * bellarmine in these words , this authour was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of christ's body and bloud in the eucharist : and † sirmondus in these , he so first explained the genuine sense of the catholique church , that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same argument : but though sirmondus is pleased to say that he onely first explain'd the sense of the catholique church in this point , yet it is very plain from the records of that age which are left to us , that this was the first time that this doctrine was broached in the latin church ; and it met with great opposition in that age , as i shall have occasion hereafter to shew . for rabanus maurus arch-bishop of mentz about the year dcccxlvii reciting the very words of paschasius wherein he had deliver'd this doctrine , hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ; ‖ some , says he , of late , not having a right opinion concerning the sacrament of the body and bloud of our lord , have said that this is the body and bloud of our lord which was born of the virgin mary , and in which our lord suffered upon the cross and rose from the dead : which errour , says he , we have oppos'd with all our might . from whence it is plain , by the testimony of one of the greatest and most learned bishops of that age , and of eminent reputation for piety , that what is now the very doctrine of the church of rome concerning the sacrament , was then esteem'd an errour broach'd by some particular persons , but was far from being the generally receiv'd doctrine of that age. can any one think it possible , that so eminent a person in the church both for piety and learning , could have condemn'd this doctrine as an errour and a novelty , had it been the general doctrine of the christian church , not onely in that but in all former ages ; and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning article in the church of rome , and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious heresies ? afterwards in the year mlix , when berengarius in france and germany had rais'd a fresh opposition against this doctrine , he was compell'd to recant it by pope nicholas and the council at rome , in these words , * that the bread and wine which are set upon the altar , after the consecration are not onely the sacrament , but the true body and bloud of our lord jesus christ ; and are sensibly , not onely in the sacrament but in truth , handled and broken by the hands of the priest , and ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithfull . but it seems the pope and his council were not then skilfull enough to express themselves rightly in this matter ; for the gloss upon the canon law says expresly , † that unless we understand these words of berengarivs ( that is in truth of the pope and his council ) in a sound sense , we shall fall into a greater heresie than that of berengarivs ; for we do not make parts of the body of christ. the meaning of which gloss i cannot imagine , unless it be this , that the body of christ , though it be in truth broken , yet it is not broken into parts ( for we do not make parts of the body of christ , ) but into wholes : now this new way of breaking a body , not into parts but into wholes ( which in good earnest is the doctrine of the church of rome ) though to them that are able to believe transubstantiation it may for any thing i know appear to be sound sense , yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be solid non-sense . about xx years after , in the year mlxxix pope gregory the vii th . began to be sensible of this absurdity ; and therefore in another council at rome made berengarius to recant in another form , viz. * that the bread and wine which are placed upon the altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and quickning flesh and bloud of our lord jesus christ , and after consecration are the true body of christ , which was born of the virgin , and which being offered for the salvation of the world did hang upon the cross , and sits on the right hand of the father . so that from the first starting of this doctrine in the second council of nice in the year dcclxxxvii , till the council under pope gregory the vii th . in the year mlxxix , it was almost three hundred years that this doctrine was contested , and before this mishapen monster of transubstantiation could be lick'd into that form in which it is now setled and establish'd in the church of rome . here then is a plain account of the first rise of this doctrine , and of the several steps whereby it was advanced by the church of rome into an article of faith. i come now in the third place , to answer the great pretended demonstration of the impossibility that this doctrine , if it had been new , should ever have come in , in any age , and been received in the church ; and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the church in all ages : for if it had not always been the doctrine of the church , when ever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bustle about it , and the whole christian world would have rose up in opposition to it . but we can shew no such time when it first came in , and when any such opposition was made to it , and therefore it was always the doctrine of the church . this demonstration monsieur arnauld , a very learned man in france , pretends to be unanswerable : whether it be so or not , i shall briefly examine . and first , we do assign a punctual and very likely time of the first rise of this doctrine , about the beginning of the ninth age ; though it did not take firm root nor was fully setled and establish'd till towards the end of the eleventh . and this was the most likely time of all other , from the beginning of christianity , for so gross an errour to appear ; it being , by the confession and consent of their own historians , the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the christian church , both for ignorance , and superstition , and vice. it came in together with idolatry , and was made use of to support it : a sit prop and companion for it . and indeed what tares might not the enemy have sown in so dark and long a night ; when so considerable a part of the christian world was lull'd asleep in profound ignorance and superstition ? and this agrees very well with the account which our saviour himself gives in the parable of the tares , of the springing up of errours and corruptions in the field of the church . * while the men slept the enemy did his work in the night , so that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came ; but being sure they were there , and that they were not sown at first , they concluded the enemy had done it . secondly , i have shewn likewise that there was considerable opposition made to this errour at its first coming in . the general ignorance and gross superstition of that age rendered the generality of people more quiet and secure , and disposed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of mystery in religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the sacrament , and that seemed any way to countenance the worship of images , for which at that time they were zealously concern'd . but notwithstanding the security and passive temper of the people , the men most eminent for piety and learning in that time made great resistance against it . i have already named rabanus arch-bishop of mentz , who oppos'd it as an errour lately sprung up and which had then gained but upon some few persons . to whom i may add heribaldus bishop of auxerres in france , io. scotus erigena , and ratramnus commonly known by the name of bertram , who at the same time were employed by the emperour charles the bald to oppose this growing errour , and wrote learnedly against it . and these were the eminent men for learning in that time . and because monsieur arnauld will not be satisfied unless there were some stir and bustle about it , bertram in his preface to his book tells us , that they who according to their several opinions talked differently about the mystery of christ's body and bloud were divided by no small schism . thirdly , though for a more clear and satisfactory answer to this pretended demonstration i have been contented to untie this knot , yet i could without all these pains have cut it . for suppose this doctrine had silently come in and without opposition , so that we could not assign the particular time and occasion of its first rise ; yet if it be evident from the records of former ages , for above d. years together , that this was not the ancient belief of the church ; and plain also , that this doctrine was afterwards received in the roman church , though we could not tell how and when it came in , yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended demonstration of reason against plain experience and matter of fact. this is just zeno's demonstration of the impossibility of motion against diogenes walking before his eyes . for this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been , which most certainly was . just thus the servants in the parable might have demonstrated that the tares were wheat , because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first , and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any tares were sown , or by whom ; and if an enemy had come to do it , he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition ; but no such resistance was made , and therefore there could be no tares in the field , but that which they call'd tares was certainly good wheat . at the same rate a man might demonstrate that our king , his majesty of great britain , is not return'd into england , nor restor'd to his crown ; because there being so great and powerfull an army possess'd of his lands , and therefore obliged by interest to keep him out , it was impossible he should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloudshed : but there was no such thing , therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his crown . and by the like kind of demonstration one might prove that the turk did not invade christendom last year , and besiege vienna ; because if he had , the most christian king , who had the greatest army in christendom in a readiness , would certainly have employed it against him ; but monsieur arnauld certainly knows , no such thing was done : and therefore according to his way of demonstration , the matter of fact , so commonly reported and believed , concerning the turks invasion of christendom and besieging vienna last year , was a perfect mistake . but a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake , before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is , or was , never to have been . for of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so , than to make that which hath been not to have been . all the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty . and i have often wonder'd how a man of monsieur arnauld's great wit and sharp judgment could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a cause ; or could think to defend it with so wooden a dagger as his demonstration of reason against certain experience and matter of fact : a thing , if it be possible , of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate , transubstantiation it self . i proceed to the third pretended ground of this doctrine of transubstantiation ; and that is , the infallible authority of the present church to make and declare new articles of faith. and this in truth is the ground into which the most of the learned men of their church did heretofore , and many do still resolve their belief of this doctrine : and , as i have already shewn , do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason , either from scripture or tradition , for the belief of it : and that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the church obliged them otherwise . but if this doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by virtue of the authority of the roman church , and the declaration of the council under pope gregory the vii th . or of the lateran council under innocent the iii. then it is a plain innovation in the christian doctrine , and a new article of faith impos'd upon the christian world . and if any church hath this power , the christian faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please ; and that which is no part of our saviour's doctrine , nay , any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable , may become an article of faith obliging all christians to the belief of it , whenever the church of rome shall think fit to stamp her authority upon it : which would make christianity a most uncertain and endless thing . the fourth pretended ground of this doctrine is , the necessity of such a change as this in the sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it . but there is no colour for this , if the thing be rightly consider'd : because the comfort and benefit of the sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the institution . and as water in baptism , without any substantial change made in that element , may be the divine blessing accompanying the institution be effectual to the washing away of sin , and spiritual regeneration ; so there can no reason in the world be given why the elements of bread and wine in the lord's supper may not , by the same divine blessing accompanying this institution , make the worthy receivers partakers of all the spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby , without any substantial change made in those elements , since our lord hath told us , that verily the flesh profiteth nothing . so that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our lord , i do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us than what we may have by partaking of the symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him . for the spiritual efficacy of the sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received , supposing we receive what our lord appointed , and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind , but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it , and makes it effectual to those spiritual ends for which it was appointed . the fifth and last pretended ground of this doctrine is , to magnify the power of the priest in being able to work so great a miracle . and this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the divine wisedom , to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the priest ; that he should be able every day , and as often as he pleases , by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change , and ( as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak ) to make god himself . but this is to pretend to a power above that of god himself , for he did not , nor cannot make himself , nor do any thing that implies a contradiction , as transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make god. for to make that which already is , and to make that now which always was , is not onely vain and trifling if it could be done , but impossible because it implies a contradiction . and what if after all transubstantiation , if it were possible and actually wrought by the priest , would yet be no miracle ? for there are two things necessary to a miracle , that there be a supernatural effect wrought , and that this effect be evident to sense . so that though a supernatural effect be wrought , yet if it be not evident to sense it is to all the ends and purposes of a miracle as if it were not ; and can be no testimony or proof of any thing , because it self stands in need of another miracle to give testimony to it and to prove that it was wrought . and neither in scripture , nor in profane authours , nor in common use of speech , is any thing call'd a miracle but what falls under the notice of our senses : a miracle being nothing else but a supernatural effect evident to sense , the great end and design whereof is to be a sensible proof and conviction to us of something that we do not see . and for want of this condition , transubstantiation , if it were true , would be no miracle . it would indeed be very supernatural , but for all that it would not be a sign or miracle : for a sign or miracle is always a thing sensible , otherwise it could be no sign . now that such a change as is pretended in transubstantiation should really be wrought , and yet there should be no sign and appearance of it , is a thing very wonderfull , but not to sense ; for our senses perceive no change , the bread and wine in the sacrament to all our senses remaining just as they were before : and that a thing should remain to all appearance just as it was , hath nothing at all of wonder in it : we wonder indeed when we see a strange thing done , but no man wonders when he sees nothing done . so that transubstantiation , if they will needs have it a miracle , is such a miracle as any man may work that hath but the confidence to face men down that he works it , and the fortune to be believed : and though the church of rome may magnify their priests upon account of this miracle , which they say they can work every day and every hour , yet i cannot understand the reason of it ; for when this great work ( as they call it ) is done , there is nothing more appears to be done than if there were no miracle : now such a miracle as to all appearance is no miracle i see no reason why a protestant minister , as well as a popish priest , may not work as often as he pleases ; or if he can but have the patience to let it alone , it will work it self . for surely nothing in the world is easier than to let a thing be as it is , and by speaking a few words over it to make it just what it was before . every man , every day , may work ten thousand such miracles . and thus i have dispatch'd the first part of my discourse , which was to consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrine , and to shew the weakness and insufficiency of them . i come in the second place , to produce our objections against it . which will be of so much the greater force , because i have already shewn this doctrine to be destitute of all divine warrant and authority , and of any other sort of ground sufficient in reason to justify it . so that i do not now object against a doctrine which hath a fair probability of divine revelation on its side , for that would weigh down all objections which did not plainly overthrow the probability and credit of its divine revelation : but i object against a doctrine by the mere will and tyranny of men impos'd upon the belief of christians , without any evidence of scripture , and against all the evidence of reason and sense . the objections i shall reduce to these two heads . first , the infinite scandal of this doctrine to the christian religion . and secondly , the monstrous and insupportable absurdity of it . first , the infinite scandal of this doctrine to the christian religion . and that upon these four accounts . . of the stupidity of this doctrine . . the real barbarousness of this sacrament and rite of our religion upon supposition of the truth of this doctrine . . of the cruel and bloudy consequences of it . . of the danger of idolatry ; which they are certainly guilty of , if this doctrine be not true . . upon account of the stupidity of this doctrine . i remember that tully , who was a man of very good sense , instanceth in the conceit of eating god as the extremity of madness , and so stupid an apprehension as he thought no man was ever guilty of . * when we call , says he , the fruits of the earth ceres , and wine bacchus , we use but the common language ; but do you think any man so mad as to believe that which he eats to be god ? it seems he could not believe that so extravagant a folly had ever entred into the mind of man. it is a very severe saying of averroes the arabian philosopher ( who lived after this doctrine was entertained among christians ) and ought to make the church of rome blush , if she can ; * i have travell'd , says he , over the world , and have found divers sects ; but so sottish a sect or law i never found , as is the sect of the christians ; because with their own teeth they devour their god whom they worship . it was great stupidity in the people of israel to say , come let us make us gods ; but it was civilly said of them , let us make us gods that may go before us , in comparison of the church of rome , who say , let us make a god that we may eat him . so that upon the whole matter i cannot but wonder that they should chuse thus to expose faith to the contempt of all that are endued with reason . and to speak the plain truth , the christian religion was never so horribly exposed to the scorn of atheists and infidels , as it hath been by this most absurd and senseless doctrine . but thus it was foretold that † the man of sin should come with power and signs and lying miracles , and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness , with all the legerdemain and jugling tricks of falsehood and imposture ; amongst which this of transubstantiation , which they call a miracle , and we a cheat , is one of the cheif : and in all probability those common jugling words of hocus pocus are nothing else but a corruption of hoc est corpus , by way of ridiculous imitation of the priests of the church of rome in their trick of transubstantiation . into such contempt by this foolish doctrine and pretended miracle of theirs have they brought the most sacred and venerable mystery of our religion . . it is very scandalous likewise upon account of the real barbarousness of this sacrament and rite of our religion , upon supposition of the truth of this doctrine . literally to eat the flesh of the son of man and to drink his bloud . st. austin , as i have shewed before , declares to be a great impiety . and the impiety and barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated , but onely the appearance of it , by its being done under the species of bread and wine : for the thing they acknowledge is really done , and they believe that they verily eat and drink the natural flesh and bloud of christ. and what can any man do more unworthily towards his friend ? how can he possibly use him more barbarously , than to feast upon his living flesh and bloud ? it is one of the greatest wonders in the world , that it should ever enter into the minds of men to put upon our saviour's words , so easily capable of a more convenient sense and so necessarily requiring it , a meaning so plainly contrary to reason , and sense , and even to humanity it self . had the ancient christians owned any such doctrine , we should have heard of it from the adversaries of our religion in every page of their writings ; and they would have desired no greater advantage against the christians than to have been able to hit them in the teeth with their feasting upon the natural flesh and bloud of their lord , and their god , and their best friend . what endless triumphs would they have made upon this subject ? and with what confidence would they have set the cruelty used by christians in their sacrament , against their god saturn's eating his own children , and all the cruel and bloudy rites of their idolatry ? but that no such thing was then objected by the heathens to the christians , is to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations that no such doctrine was then believed . . it is scandalous also upon account of the cruel and bloudy consequences of this doctrine ; so contrary to the plain laws of christianity , and to one great end and design of this sacrament , which is to unite christians in the most perfect love and charity to one another : whereas this doctrine hath been the occasion of the most barbarous and bloudy tragedies that ever were acted in the world . for this hath been in the church of rome the great burning article ; and as absurd and unreasonable as it is , more christians have been murther'd for the denial of it than perhaps for all the other articles of their religion . and i think it may generally pass for a true observation that all sects are commonly most hot and furious for those things for which there is least reason ; for what men want of reason for their opinions they usually supply and make up in rage . and it was no more than needed to use this severity upon this occasion ; for nothing but the cruel fear of death could in probability have driven so great a part of mankind into the acknowledgment of so unreasonable and senseless a doctrine . o blessed saviour ! thou best friend and greatest lover of mankind , who can imagine thou didst ever intend that men should kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their senses ; for being unwilling to think , that thou shouldst make one of the most horrid and barbarous things that can be imagin'd a main duty and principal mystery of thy religion ; for not flattering the pride and presumption of the priest who says he can make god , and for not complying with the folly and stupidity of the people who believe that they can eat him ? . upon account of the danger of idolatry ; which they are certainly guilty of if this doctrine be not true , and such a change as they pretend be not made in the sacrament ; for if it be not , then they worship a creature instead of the creatour god blessed for ever . but such a change i have shewn to be impossible ; or if it could be , yet they can never be certain that it is , and consequently are always in danger of idolatry : and that they can never be certain that such a change is made , is evident ; because , according to the express determination of the council of trent , that depends upon the mind and intention of the priest , which cannot certainly be known but by revelation , which is not pretended in this case . and if they be mistaken about this change , through the knavery or crosness of the priest who will not make god but when he thinks fit , they must not think to excuse themselves from idolatry because they intended to worship god and not a creature ; for so the persians might be excus'd from idolatry in worshipping the sun , because they intend to worship god and not a creature ; and so indeed we may excuse all the idolatry that ever was in the world , which is nothing else but a mistake of the deity , and upon that mistake a worshipping of something as god which is not god. ii. besides the infinite scandal of this doctrine upon the accounts i have mentioned , the monstrous absurdities of it make it insupportable to any religion . i am very well assured of the grounds of religion in general , and of the christian religion in particular ; and yet i cannot see that the foundations of any revealed religion are strong enough to bear the weight of so many and so great absurdities as this doctrine of transubstantiation would load it withall . and to make this evident , i shall not insist upon those gross contradictions , of the same body being in so many several places at once ; of our saviour's giving away himself with his own hands to every one of his disciples , and yet still keeping himself to himself ; and a thousand more of the like nature : but to shew the absurdity of this doctrine i shall onely ask these few questions . . whether any man have , or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any divine revelation than every man hath of the falshood of transubstantiation ? infidelity were hardly possible to men , if all men had the same evidence for the christian religion which they have against transubstantiation , that is , the clear and irresistible evidence of sense . he that can once be brought to contradict or deny his senses , is at an end of certainty ; for what can a man be certain of if he be not certain of what he sees ? in some circumstances our senses may deceive us , but no faculty deceives us so little and so seldom : and when our senses do deceive us , even that errour is not to be corrected without the help of our senses . . supposing this doctrine had been delivered in scripture in the very same words that it is decreed in the council of trent , by what clearer evidence or stronger argument could any man prove to me that such words were in the bible than i can prove to him that bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still ? he could but appeal to my eyes to prove such words to be in the bible , and with the same reason and justice might i appeal to several of his senses to prove to him that the bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still . . whether it be reasonable to imagine that god should make that a part of the christian religion which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole ? i mean the miracles which were wrought by our saviour and his apostles , the assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense . for if the senses of those who say they saw them were deceived then there might be no miracles wrought ; and consequently it may justly be doubted whether that kind of confirmation which god hath given to the christian religion would be strong enough to prove it , supposing transubstantiation to be a part of it : because every man hath as great evidence that transubstantiation is false , as he hath that the christian religion is true . suppose then transubstantiation to be part of the christian doctrine , it must have the same confirmation with the whole , and that is miracles : but of all doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a miracle . for if a miracle were wrought for the proof of it , the very same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the miracle he hath of the falsehood of the doctrine , that is , the clear evidence of his senses . for that there is a miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the sacrament is not bread but the body of christ , there is onely the evidence of sense ; and there is the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the sacrament is not the body of christ but bread . so that here would arise a new controversie , whether a man should rather believe his senses giving testimony against the doctrine of transubstantiation , or bearing witness to a miracle wrought to confirm that doctrine ; there being the very same evidence against the truth of the doctrine , which there is for the truth of the miracle : and then the argument for transubstantiation and the objection against it would just balance one another ; and consequently transubstantiation is not to be proved by a miracle , because that would be , to prove to a man by some thing that he sees , that he does not see what he sees . and if there were no other evidence that transubstantiation is no part of the christian doctrine this would be sufficient , that what proves the one doth as much overthrow the other ; and that miracles which are certainly the best and highest external proof of christianity are the worst proof in the world of transubstantiation , unless a man can renounce his senses at the same time that he relies upon them . for a man cannot believe a miracle without relying upon sense , nor transubstantiation without renouncing it . so that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the doctrine of christianity and that of transubstantiation , because they draw several ways and are ready to strangle one another ; because the main evidence of the christian doctrine , which is miracles , is resolved into the certainty of sense , but this evidence is clear and point-blank against transubstantiation . . and lastly , i would ask what we are to think of the argument which our saviour used to convince his disciples after his resurrection that his body was really risen , and that they were not deluded by a ghost or apparition ? is it a necessary and conclusive argument or not ? * and he said unto them , why are ye troubled ? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? behold my hands and my feet , that it is i my self ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as ye see me have . but now if we suppose with the church of rome the doctrine of transubstantiation to be true , and that he had instructed his disciples in it just before his death , strange thoughts might justly have risen in their hearts , and they might have said to him ; lord , it is but a few days ago since thou didst teach us not to believe our senses , but directly contrary to what we saw , viz. that the bread which thou gavest us in the sacrament , though we saw it and handled it and tasted it to be bread , yet was not bread but thine own natural body ; and now thou appealest to our senses to prove that this is thy body which we now see . if seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to our senses , then we were deceived before in the sacrament ; and 〈◊〉 they be not , then we are not sure now that this is thy body which we now see and handle , but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones , just as in the sacrament , that which we saw and handled and tasted to be bread was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread . now upon this supposition , it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughts of the disciples : for if the argument which our saviour used did certainly prove to them that what they saw and handled was his body , his very natural flesh and bones , because they saw and handled them , ( which it were impious to deny ) it would as strongly prove that what they saw and received before in the sacrament was not the natural body and bloud of christ , but real bread and wine : and consequently , that according to our saviour's arguing after his resurrection they had no reason to believe transubstantiation before . for that very argument by which our saviour proves the reality of his body after his resurrection doth as strongly prove the reality of bread and wine after consecration . but our saviour's argument was most infallibly good and true , and therefore the doctrine of transubstantiation is undoubtedly false . upon the whole matter i shall onely say this , that some other points between us and the church of rome are managed with some kind of wit and subtilty , but this of transubstantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of mankind . and of this the more discerning persons of that church are of late grown so sensible that they would now be glad to be rid of this odious and ridiculous doctrine . but the council of trent hath fasten'd it to their religion and made it a necessary and essential point of their belief , and they cannot now part with it if they would ; it is like a millstone hung about the neck of popery which will sink it at the last . and though some of their greatest wits , as cardinal perron , and of late monsieur arnaud , have undertaken the defence of it in great volumes ; yet it is an absurdity of that monstrous and massy weight , that no humane authority or wit are able to support it : it will make the very pillars of st. peter's crack , and requires more volumes to make it good than would fill the vatican . and now i would apply my self to the poor deluded people of that church , if they were either permitted by their priests or durst venture without their leave to look into their religion and to examine the doctrines of it . consider , and shew your selves men . do not suffer your selves any longer to be led blindfold , and by an implicit faith in your priests , into the belief of non-sense and contradiction . think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended pardons and counterfeit reliques , but let not the authority of any priest or church persuade you out of your senses . credulity is certainly a fault as well as infidelity : and he who said , blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed , hath no where said , blessed are they that have seen and yet have not believed , much less , blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they see . to conclude this discourse . by what hath been said upon this argument it will appear , with how little truth , and reason , and regard to the interest of our common christianity it is so often said by our adversaries , that there are as good arguments for the belief of transubstantiation as of the doctrine of the trinity : when they themselves do acknowledge with us that the doctrine of the trinity is grounded upon the scriptures , and that according to the interpretation of them by the consent of the ancient fathers : but their doctrine of transubstantiation i have plainly shewn to have no such ground , and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own church . and this doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all divine warrant and authority , our objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to reason and sense are so many demonstrations of the falsehood of it . against all which they have nothing to put in the opposite scale but the infallibility of their church , for which there is even less colour of proof from scripture than for transubstantiation it self . but so fond are they of their own innovations and errours , that rather than the dictates of their church , how groundless and absurd soever , should be call'd in question ; rather than not have their will of us in imposing upon us what they please , they will overthrow any article of the christian faith , and shake the very foundations of our common religion : a clear evidence that the church of rome is not the true mother , since she can be so well contented that christianity should be destroyed rather than the point in question should be decided against her . finis . a catalogue of the several cases , &c. . a perswasive to communion with the church of england . . a. resolution of some cases of conscience which respect church-communion . . the case of indifferent things used in the worship of god , proposed and stated , by considering these questions , &c. . a discourse about edification . . the resolution of this case of conscience , whether the church of englands symbolizing so far as it doth with the church of rome , makes it unlawfull to hold communion with the church of england ? . a letter to anonymus , in answer to his three letters to dr. sherlock about church-communion . . certain cases of conscience resolved , concerning the lawfulness of joyning with forms of prayer in publick worship . in two parts . . the case of mixt communion : whether it be lawfull to separate from a church upon the account of promiscuous congregations and mixt communions ? . an answer to dissenters objections against the common prayers and some other parts of divine service prescribed in the liturgy of the church of england . . the case of kneeling at the holy sacrament stated and resolved , &c. in two parts . . a discourse of profiting by sermons , and of going to hear where men think they can profit most . . a serious exhortation , with some important advices relating to the late cases about conformity , recommended to the present dissenters from the church of england . . an argument to union ; taken from the true interest of those dissenters in england who profess and call themselves protestants . . some considerations about the case of scandal , or giving offence to the weak brethren . . the case of infant-baptism , in five questions , &c. . the charge of scandal ; and giving offence by conformity , refelled and reflected back upon separation , &c. . case of lay-communion . . a perswasive to frequent communion . . a defence of symbolizing . . a vindication of indifferent things . . the case of compelling men to the holy sacrament . . a case of the cross in baptism . . a discourse of conscience . . a discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed church of england , made by the papists asking of us the question , where was our religion before luther ? . a discourse about tradition , shewing what is meant by it , and what tradition is to be received , and what tradition is to be rejected . . the difference of the case between the separation of protestants from the church of rome , and the separation of dissenters from the church of england . . the protestant resolution of faith , &c. . a discourse concerning a guide in matters of faith , &c. . a discourse concerning invocation of saints . . a discourse concerning the unity of the catholick church , maintained in the church of england . . a discourse of auricular confession . . a discourse against transubstantiation . advertisement . a demonstration of the messias . in which the truth of the christian religion is proved , especially against the jews , by richard kidder , in octavo . printed for b. aylmer . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e a de ●●uch . l. . c. . b in . dis . . qu. . sect. . c in . part . disp . . qu. . art . . c. . d in sent. l. . dist . . q. . n. . e in . sent. q. . & quodl . . q. . f in . sent. q. . art . . g in canon . miss . lect. . h in aquin. . part . qu. . art . . i aegid . conink . de sacram . q. . art . . n. . k de sacram . l. . c. . l loc. theolog . l. . c. . m contra captiv . babylon . c. . n. . n dialog . cuus tryph. p. . edit . p●ris . . * matth. . . * apol. . p. . edit . paris . . * lib. . c. . * lib. . c. . * comment . in , pet. c. . * advers . marcionem l. . p. . edit . rigalt . paris . . * lib. de animâ p. . * edit . ●●uetii . * cap. . * ep. . * aug. tom. . p. . edit . basil. . † enarrat . in psal. tom. . p. . ‖ id. tom. . p. . * id. tract . . in johan . † id. tom. . p. . ‖ de consecr . dist . . hoc est . * de consecrat . dist . . sect. vtrum . * lib. . tom. . p. . * gen. . . † dialog . . * biblioth . patr. ●om . . * facund . p. . edit . paris . . a in sent. l. . dist. . q. . b in sent. l. . dist . . q. . ● . . c de ●nchar . l. . p. . d in . epist . ad corinth . c. . citante etiam salmerone , tom. . tract . . p. . e de haeres . l. . * de eucharist . l. . c. . † ibid. * de scriptor . eccles. † in vita paschas●● . ‖ epist. ad heribaldum . c. . * gratian. de consecrat . distinct . . lanfranc . de corp . & sang . domini . c. . gu●tmund . de sacram. l. . alger . de sacram . l. . c. . † gloss. decret . de consecrat . dist . . in cap. ego berengarius . * waldens . tom. . c. . * matth. . . * de nat. d●orum l. . * dionys. carthus . in . dist . . art . . † thess. . . * luk. . 〈◊〉 , . an historical treatise, written by an author of the communion of the church of rome, touching transubstantiation wherein is made appear, that according to the principles of that church, this doctrine cannot be an article of faith. traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. english dufour de longuerue, louis, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing d estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) an historical treatise, written by an author of the communion of the church of rome, touching transubstantiation wherein is made appear, that according to the principles of that church, this doctrine cannot be an article of faith. traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. english dufour de longuerue, louis, - . wake, william, - . the second edition. [ ], p. printed for richard chiswell ..., london : . translation of traitté d'un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transsubstantiation. running title: an historical treatise of transubstantiation. addenda: p. . includes bibliographical references. translated by william wake. first edition of same year has title: a treatise ... reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - olivia bottum sampled and proofread - olivia bottum text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an historical treatise written by an author of the communion of the church of rome . touching transubstantiation . wherein is made appear , that according to the principles of that church , this doctrine cannot be an article of faith . the second edition . london , printed for richard chiswell , at the rose and crown in s. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvii . the preface . it is well known that there are in the communion of the church of rome , a great many learned persons , that do not approve of all which it teacheth , and that do earnestly long for a reformation , although they remain within its bosome . but it is no less true that there 's but very few , that have the courage to make their thoughts known , and 't is no hard matter to guess at the reasons of it . in the last age , one picherel , and some others of great note , wrote solid treatises on certain matters of controversie , and explain'd themselves just as protestants do now . and in the present , monsieur de marca did the same , on the doctine of the eucharist , and barnes , an eminent benedictine , on most of the principal questions wherein protestants differ from the church of rome . but as if every one feared such usage as father paolo , and poor barnes found , for the liberty they had taken , the works of these sincere and learned men , have almost always been supprest during their life-time , and not suffer'd to come abroad till after their decease . it is therefore something more than ordinary , to behold the work of a person now living , and of the communion of the church of rome , that dares shew the like affection for the reformation of his church in the doctrine of the eucharist , and that heartily wishes , the bishops and clergy of france , would take it into their serious consideration . this person is considerable for his quality , but much more for his great learning . he was an intimate friend of the late monsieur de launoy's , a noted divine of the faculty of paris , who mightily desired to see a free council , wherein men might speak their thoughts touching the reforming of the romish church ; and it plainly appears he was of the same judgment with this eminent person , touching the doctrine of transubstantiation . the reader may rest assured that the author's manuscript copy has been exactly follow'd in the edition of this work ; which not only his letters , now in our hands , will justifie , but also the original of these papers , which he sent to a friend to be printed . it is to be hoped the world will not take it ill , if the author of this work be not more particularly described , which could not be done without exposing him to the malice of those who use all manner of ways to destroy such of their party , as do own the truth . it nearly behoves the bishops and clergy of france , to make some serious reflections upon what the author thought fit to represent to them concerning transubstantiation . the same might have been said to the other articles of the romish belief , which are rejected by protestants , as so many additions to the ancient faith of the primitive christians ; which are impos'd upon mens consciences by the clergy , by such unheard-of ways , and that are so contrary to the nature of religion . if such remonstrances as these , are not of sufficient force to make them change their proceedings against protestants ; they will at least serve to shew their injustice before men , and will one day aggravate their condemnation before the tribunal of god. the contents . introduction . the method proposed by the assembly of the clergy of france to judge of articles of faith. pag. this method admitted by protestants . transubstantiation to be examined by it . ib. part i. that several of the doctors of the church of rome have confess'd that transubstantiation is no ancient doctrine . so suarez . scotus . ib. d'alliaeo . ib. card. cusa . ib. erasmus . ib. alphonsus à castro . tonstal , bishop of durham . ib. cassander . ib. ch. du . moulin . ib. j. yribarne . ib. mons. de marca . ib. part ii. that the ancients did not believe transubstantiation . proved : in general . first , the papists themselves confess , that transubstantiation is not expresly mentioned not taught in scripture . so , scotus . ib. ockham . ib. alphonsus de castro . ib. gabriel biel. ib. card. cajetane . ib. secondly , that transubstantiation comprehending infinite difficulties , we do not yet find that either the jews or gentiles have objected any thing to the christians in their disputes against it . ib. not trypho . ib. not celsus . ib. not julian . ib. who yet have traduced most of the mysteries of our religion . which plainly shews that transubstantiation was not then known . ib. in particular . transubstantiation was not believed by any of the fathers of the church . this shewn in those of the several ages . cent . ii. justine martyr . irenaeus . clemens alexandr . theodotus . ib. cent iii. tertullian . origen . cyprian . cent . iv. eustathius . eusebius caesariensis . ib. cyrillus hierosol . macharius . ib. s. basil. ephrem edessenus . ib. epiphanius . gregorius naz. ib. gregorius nyssen . s. ambrose . gaudentius . s. chrysostom . ib. cent . v. s. jerome . s. austine . theodoret. arnobius jun. prosper . ib. hesychius . procopius gazeus . ib. p. gelasius . cent . vi. fulgentius . ephrem antioch . ib. facundus . ib. primasius . cent . vii , viii . isidorus hispalensis . beda . sedulius . ib. jo. damascenus . ib. concil . constantinop . alcuinus . carolus m. officium ambrosianum . ib. ordo romanus . ib. cent . ix . theodorus studita . ahyto . ib. theodulphus . rabanus . amalarius . walafridus strabo . herribald . ib. trudegard . ratramne . ib. jo. erigena . prudentius . christian drutmar . ib. florus diacon . cent . x. alferic , a. b. cant. wolphinus . ib. saxon homil. ib. fulcuinus . herriger . ib. monast. cluny . ib. ratherius . cent . xi . auth. life of s. genulphe . leuthericus . ib. fulbertus . ib. berno . bruno . gregory vii . p. ib. theophylact. nicetas pectoratus . ib. chronicon malleac . ib. cent . xii . honorius . rupertus . zonaras . ib. amalaricus . ib. cent . xiii . &c. of the council of lateran . that several after it did not believe transubstantiation . guido le gros. reginald peacock . guido cluv. jo. of paris . ib. albert. m. . durand . ib. cornelius bp. of bitonte . ib. dominicus bannes . ib. conclus . to the clergy of france , that they ought not to press upon the protestants the belief of transubstantiation . an historical treatise of transubstantiation . written by one of the church of rome . the bishops of france in their last assembly held at paris in the year . compos'd a pastoral letter addressed to the protestants , to invite them to return to the communion of the church of rome . and because in order to put an end to their differences in matters of religion , some rule must be agreed on to be received by the different parties ; they laid down several principles which they called methods , as fit to be made use of , whereby to judge what should be received as an article of faith. in the fourth method they laid down as a maxim , that the true means to discern what relates to matter of faith , or not ; is to see if the article which is to be admitted , was always believed as matter of faith ; that is to say , that the french bishops admitted in their pastoral letter , the maxim which vincentius lyrinensis left us above . years ago ; that great care must be taken to retain in the catholick church , what hath been believed every where , by all , and at all times , as being the true means whereby to discern what is matter of faith , and what is not . this same is the rule given by pope pius the fourth , who obliges them to swear in the profession of faith , added to the council of trent , that the holy scriptures should not be interpreted , † but by the unanimous consent of the ancient fathers . the protestants have thought this maxim so reasonable , that monsieur larroque a french minister , saith in his preface to the history of the eucharist , that he believes there is no man of sense , but ought to admit of it . and it was received as a rule of faith by the reform'd church of england , by philip melancthon , by peter martyr , gallasius , scultetus , casaubon , grotius , vessius , beza , and by gesselius , ( who recites their authorities , ) in the preface of his history of memorable things from the creation of the world , to the year of christ , . seeing therefore that the bishops of france have propos'd to us so just a method , let us examine if the doctrine of transubstantiation be a doctrine of faith ; and prove it , not because the council of trent has defin'd it so ; or that the council of lateran in the year . suppos'd it to be so , non quia ipsam quam tenemus fidem commendaverit milevitanus optatus , vel mediolanensis ambrosius , aut quia collegarum nostrorum conciliis ipsa praedicta est , saith s. austin against the donatists , de unit . eccles. cap. . but because 't is contain'd in the holy scriptures , and understood in that sense by the unanimous consent of the doctors and councils that have gone before us . this is what we now undertake to perform by the assistance of god's holy spirit , and with a disposition of mind free from all malice and prejudice , according to what caesar saith in salust , in the beginning of the book of cataline , omnes homines qui de rebus dubiis consultant , ab ira & odio vacuos esse debere , & haud facile animum pervidere verum , ubi illa officiunt . and st. austin upon the book against the letter of the manichean , by them called the letter of foundation ; ut autem facilius mitescatis , &c. nemo nostrum se jam quaeramus quasi ab utrisque nesciatur , ita enim diligenter & concorditer quaeri poterit , si nulla temeraria prasumptions inventa & cognita esse credatur . but not to over-burthen this small treatise with too great a number of arguments or citations , we will chiefly examine two things ; first , who those catholick doctors are , that believed the doctrine of transubstantiation not to be ancient . secondly , if what those doctors have writ be true : and whether we can indeed produce sufficient authorities to believe that the ancient church did not hold nor believe it . part i. in the first place , that there have been catholick doctors which have taught , that transubstantiation is no ancient doctrine , * suarez formally asserteth it , although indeed he saith , their opinion ought to be corrected . the truth , is , peter lombard master of the sentences , saith expresly , si quaeras qualis sit illa conversio , an formalis , an substantialis , an alterius generis , definire non audeo . secondly , † scotus saith , that there were formerly three opinions touching the changing the bread into the body of christ , the first of which held that the bread remain'd in the eucharist , in the paragraph , quantum ergo ad istum articulum , &c. he saith , that at present the church of rome holds transubstantiation . nunc ⸫ autem ipsa tenet ( sancta rom. ecclesia ) panem transubstantiari . and a little under , he saith , ad tertium ubi stat vis , dicendum quod ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei , in illo symbolo edito sub innocentio tertio in concilio lateraenensi . and since this declaration made by this council held in the year . it . is an article of faith. tenendum est esse de substantia fidei , & hoc post istam declarationem solemnem . * bellarmine doth own that scotus did believe transubstantiation was no article of faith before the council of lateram under innocent the third ; but he adds , that 't was because scotus did not know of the council held under gregory the seventh , and that he had not read the authorities of the fathers which saith bellarmine , i have now recited . thirdly , † peter dayly , cardinal and bishop of cambray saith , it doth not clearly follow from the determination of the church , that the substance of bread ceaseth , therefore he doth not believe this to be the ancient doctrine . fourthly , * cardinal cusa , excit . l. . serm. . super una oblatione , consummavit , &c. saith , that there were some ancient divines which did not believe transubstantiation . fifthly , † erasmus in his notes on the first to the corinthians , saith , that it was late ere the church established transubstantiation . * sixthly , alphonsus à castro , saith , that the ancient writers very seldom spake of transubstantiation . seventhly , † tonstall bishop of durham about the middle of the last century , speaking of the breads being changed into the body of christ , saith , it were much better to leave it to the liberty of christians to believe as they pleas'd , of the manner in which this change is made , as it was practis'd in the church , before the council of lateran . eighthly , cassander in his consultation with the emperour maximilian the second , touching the differences of religion , confesseth that transubstantiation is a novelty , and that 't were much better to keep to the terms of the ancients ; that the abuses therein , approach near to idolatry . ninthly , charles du moulin , the oracle of the french civilians , upon the edicts and ordinances of france , against the injuries of popes , num. . speaks in these terms ; innocent the third , forged , or at least established it as a general article of faith , and as necessary to be believed by all , as that of the holy trinity , the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the true body and true blood of jesus christ. tenthly , john yribarne a spanish divine , in the th . sent. dist. . q. . disp. . s. . saith , that in the primitive church is was matter of faith , that the body of jesus christ was contain'd under the species of bread and wine , but that 't was not any matter of faith to hold that the substance of bread was changed into the flesh of jesus christ , and that it subsisted no longer after consecration . eleventhly , monsieur de marca , archbishop of paris in his posthumous dissertations , saith , in his french treatise of the sacrament of the eucharist , that until s. chrysostom's time , it was believed the bread was the body of jesus christ by a marvelous change that comes on the bread ; but that it becomes united to the incarnate word and to his natural body , the bread not changing its nature , and yet not going into the draught ; which is a kind of pious consideration which he added against origen . part ii. as for the second point , which is to see if there is effectively to be found in the writings of the ancients , sufficient authorities to believe that the ancients did not believe transubstantiation . before i alledge their authorities , two reflections may be made . first , that our own authors do observe , that transubstantiation is not expresly mention'd nor taught in the scriptures . * scotus cited by bellarmine , of the eucharist , lib. . cap. . saith , it doth not plainly follow from the words of jesus christ , this is my body , that the bread is transubstantiated . † ockam saith of transubstantiation , that it cannot be proved by natural reason , nor by authority of the bible , but only by the authority of the ancients . * alfonsus de castro disapproves what ockham says , that it can be proved by the authority of the ancients , for he saith , that it was not to be found , no more than indulgences were , in the writings of the ancients . gabriel † biel speaking of transubstantiation , saith , that it is not expresly taught in the holy scriptures . cardinal * cajetan does not find the words of jesus christ this is my body , clear , neither for the real presence , nor for transubstantiation , without the determination of the church be joyned to them . the second reflection , is that transubstantiation comprehending a great many difficulties quite contrary to natural reason , none of the jews nor pagan philosophers , disputing against the ancient christians , ever dream'd of making any objections against it in their disputations . trypho the jew charges us with things monstrous , incredible , and strangely invented ; as what we teach of jesus christ's being before aaron , and abraham , that he took on him our nature , that he was horn of a virgin , that god should be born , be made man ; that we should adore a man , that we should put our trust in him , and that we should invoke another god besides the creator , all this appears in s. justin martyr , in his dialogue against trypho . the pagans reproach us for saying god has a son , that this son should appear in humane shape , and they stile it the follies of the christian discipline ; that god should be born , and that he should be born of a virgin , and be a god of flesh , crucised and buried ; the last judgment , the pains of eternal fire , the joys of heaven , the resurrection of the dead . all this appears by clement of alexandria stromat . l. . by tertullian his apologet. ch . . . in his treatise of the flesh of christ , ch . . and . and in his treatise of the testimony of the soul , ch . . by s. justin in his second apology , and arnobius in his second book . celsus , in * origen , scoffs at the incarnation , as of a thing unworthy of god. in the sixth book , he laughs that we should believe god should be born of a virgin. in the third and eighth book , he saith of christians , that they honour with a religious worship even above all religion , a man that was a prisoner and that suffered death . he even thereby pleads for the plurality of his gods : as if christians were not satisfi'd in worshipping one god , under colour that they adored jesus christ ; if christians , saith he in the eighth book , worshipped but one god , they might have some colour to despise others . but they pay infinite honours to him that has but very lately appear'd , and yet they don't think they displease god when they serve and honour his minister . julian the apostate oppos'd the mystery of the incarnation , the divinity of jesus christ , the salvation he purchas'd for us by the price of his blood ; he reproaches us with the glorious title of mother of god , which we give to the blessed virgin ; he contests the mystery of the trinity of persons and unity of essence , accusing us of contradicting moses , who said , there is but one god. he reproaches us for baptism ; see , saith he , what paul saith to them , that they are sanctified and cleansed by water , as if water could penetrate to the soul , to wash and purifie it ; baptism can't so much as cleanse a leper , nor a scurf , it cannot heal a cancer nor the gout . he aggravates what we read , that god visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children , thereby to endeavour to attack the doctrine of original sin. he boldly questions what god saith in the book of numbers touching phineas , that thrust his javelin through the body of an israelite that committed folly with a midianitish woman , which turn'd away god's anger from the children of israel , and hinder'd him from consuming them . let us suppose , saith he , that there had been to the number of one thousand that had attempted to have transgressed the law of god , ought six hundred thousand to have been destroy'd for the sake of one thousand ; it seems to me to have been much juster to have saved one ill man with so many good ones , than to involve so much good men in the ruine of one bad one . there 's scarce any of our mysteries that have not been censur'd by the jews or pagans ; yet 't is very strange that not one should accuse us of admitting in the eucharist , accidents without substance , whiteness without any thing that 's white , roundness without any thing round ; weight without any thing that 's weighty ; a corruption whereunto the species are subject , without any thing that 's capable of being corrupted ; a nourishment in the symbols , without any thing that can nourish ; a power in the wine to be smelt without any thing that may be smelled . no body ever reproach'd us with so strange a thing , that a man with one word should destroy a substance which he holdeth in his hands , and that nevertheless against the testimony of all the senses , i see that which is no more ; i feel that which i do not feel , i taste that which i do not taste , i understand that which i do not understand ; i touch that which i do not touch , that i should be nourished with nothing ; that my taste should be delighted with nothing ; that my eyes and ears should de struck with nothing . the three reflections we have hitherto made , that many of the antient catholick doctors have not believed transubstantiation to be antient ; that they have judged it could not evidently be deduced from the holy scriptures ; and , that the antient pagan philosophers have not reproached us with it , are three very strong suppositions to make us mightily doubt the antiquity of this doctrine . but to shew evidently that 't was but in the last ages that this opinion was made an article of faith , we need only consult the doctors of the primitive church , and see if they have effectively explain'd the eucharist by the systeme of transubstantiation . that the fathers of the second century did not believe transubstantiation . s. iustin martyr saith , that after the common prayers were ended , there was presented to the chief of the brethren , which was god's minister , the bread and the wine , mixt with water , which he receiv'd into his hands , and giving thanks and glory to the father of heaven and earth , through iesus christ his son , and the holy ghost , &c. and the said president or minister having ended his thanksgiving , the people having all said amen , those whom we call deacons and ministers , attending on this holy service , give to every one present at the holy communion , part of this holy bread , so blessed and glorify'd ; and also of the holy liquor mixt of wine and water , upon which prayers had been made . and a little lower , behold , lord , we do not receive this bread nor this wine as common bread and wine , but as iesus christ is become flesh and blood by the word , so also the nourishment which by the word is become a sacrament , and of which by conversion and change , our flesh and blood are nourish'd , is as we have learned , the flesh and blood of iesus christ incarnate . if st. iustin had believed that the substance of the bread , wine , and water had been changed after consecration , so that they had been destroy'd , how could he have said , that after consecration the deacons did distribute to the people the bread , the wine , and the water ? secondly , when he saith , we do not take this bread and wine as common bread and wine : this language amongst the antient doctors intimates , that both the one and the other do still subsist , but that by consecration , they have acquir'd a new use and quality . as when cyril of ierusalem catech. . ad illum . saith , approach not to baptism as to common water . or as gregory nyssen saith of baptism , do not despise the holy font , and look not upon it as common water . to conclude , this blessed martyr saith , our body and blood are nourish'd by the change of the eucharistical food , which converts and turns it self into our flesh and blood. these words plainly shew , that 't is the bread and wine which are turn'd into our substance , into our flesh , and into our blood , seeing that 't is certain , that the real flesh and blood of jesus christ , is not converted into our flesh and blood. so when iustin saith , that the sacramental food is the body and blood of jesus christ , that imports , that 't is not common bread and wine , but a bread and wine which is to be consider'd as the flesh and blood of the word incarnate . s. irenaeus proves against valentine and his followers , that our bodies shall not be destroy'd , and by consequence that they shall be raised incorruptible by receiving the sacrament , as the bread of the eucharist becomes supernatural by the invocation of the holy ghost . we establish in the eucharist , saith s. irenaeus , the communion and unity of the flesh and of the spirit ; for as the bread which is of the earth , receiving the invocation of god , is no longer common bread , but is the sacrament compos'd of two things , one terrestrial , and the other celestial : so also our bodies which receive the eucharist , are no longer corruptible , but have the hope of a future resurrection . this passage doth suppose , that the bread remains in the eucharist ; in the first place , because if consecration did destroy the substance of the bread and wine , it must be confess'd the holy doctor had taken wrong measures , to shew that the flesh is not destroy'd by the grace of the holy spirit , by the bread of the eucharist , which it self should be destroy'd by the grace of the spirit which comes upon it . secondly , because a little before , irenaeus saith , how is it they say , the flesh shall be destroy'd and turn to corruption , seeing it is nourish'd with the body and blood of christ ? now the flesh is fed by the conversion of nourishment into the body , which not being to be said of iesus christ , is only to be apply'd to the bread. moreover these words , that the eucharist is compos'd of two things , sufficiently shew , that the bread remains ; for to say irenaeus means by a terrestrial thing , the accidents of bread & wine , besides that s. austin saith in the second book of soliloquies , chap. . that 't is a thing monstrous to say that accidents subfist without a subject ; irenaeus also himself saith , book . cap. . that water cannot be without moisture , fire without heat , a stone without hardness . for these things are so united , that the one cannot be separated from the other , but the one must subsist in the other . so in like manner , by this terrestrial thing must be understood the bread , as s. gregory naz. saith in his fourth oration according to bilius his version , baptism also is compos'd of two things , water and the spirit ; the one is visible and is meant in a corporal manner , but the other is invisible and operates after a spiritual manner ; the one is typical , the other cleanseth that which is inward , and most hidden . clement of alexandria saith the same in different terms . the blood of christ is twofold , the one is carnal , whereby we are deliver'd from corruption , the other is spiritual , whereby we are anointed , and that is to drink the blood of iesus christ , to be partakers of the incorruption of the lord. now the virtue of the word is the holy spirit , as the blood is the vertue of the flesh. by analogy then , the wine , mixt with water , as the spirit with man ; and this mixture makes the wine the pleasanter to drink , but the spirit leadeth to incorruption . now this mixture of the one with the other , to wit , of the wine and the word , is called eucharist , which is highly esteem'd , whereby those who worthily partake of it by faith , are sanctify'd both in their body and soul. when clement of alexandria said that the eucharist is a mixture of wine and the word , it is a composition , a mixture , which could not be , if there was but the word only in the eucharist . for a mixture is at least of two things . so the fathers have called jesus christ , a mixture of god and man. the body of man , saith s. austin , is a mixture of body and soul ; the person of christ is a mixture of god and man. the epitome of theodotus saith , the bread and oyl are sanctified by the virtue of the name , and they remain not what they were before , though to look on them they seem to be the same , but by virtue , they are are changed into a spiritual force . so water sanctified is become baptism , it not only retains what 's less , but also acquires a sanctification . the author saith , the bread is changed , but when he adds that 't is into a spiritual virtue , he quite excludes the change of its substance ; for by virtue , and spiritual , cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality , seeing this author speaks of this change , as being common to the water of baptism , to the oyl of unction , and to the bread of the eucharist . that the fathers of the third century did not believe transubstantiation . tertullian in his first book against marcion , shewing that jesus christ is not contrary to the creator , as this heretick affirm'd , saith in his th . chap. hitherto jesus christ has not condemn'd the water wherewith he cleanseth his children , nor the oyl wherewith he anoints them , nor the hony nor the milk whereby he makes them his children , nor the bread by which he represents his body . by this passage , the bread represents the body of jesus christ , therefore the bread remains in the sacrament , and this bread is not really jesus christ , because what doth represent , is another thing than what is represented . two things have been said on this place of tertullian ; first , that the bread signifies the accidents of bread ; the second that the word represent , does signify in this place , to make present : as when in a court of justice a prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded . against the former , there 's no reason to believe that tertullian speaking of water , of oyl , of hony , and milk , should intend to speak of their accidents , but of their very substance , and that speaking of bread , he should speak only of its accidents . against the second it 's most certain that in matter of sacraments , the term to signify is taken literally , to signify . s. austin saith , ep. . the signs , when applyed to holy things , are called sacraments . tertullian explains himself clearly lib. . against marcion , so that there 's no cause of doubting , when he saith , that jesus christ has given to the bread the priviledge of being the figure of his body . the same tertullian lib. . contra marcion . cap. . doth prove that jesus christ had a real body , and not one in shew only , as marcion dream'd , and he proves it by this argument : that which hath a figure ought to be real and true ; now jesus christ hath in the eucharist a figure of his body , therefore the body of jesus christ is real and true , and not a phantome . jesus christ , saith tertullian , having taken the bread which he distributed amongst his disciples , he made it his body , saying , this is the figure of my body : now it had been no figure , if jesus christ had not had a real and true body ; for an empty thing as a phantasm is , is not capable of having any figure . from hence 't is concluded , that the bread being the figure of the body of jesus christ , and that which is a figure , being distinguished from the thing signified , the bread of the eucharist is not properly and truely the body of jesus christ , and so the bread is not destroy'd , but remains to be the figure of the body of jesus christ. if it be said , the bread is destroy'd , and that the accidents of bread are the figure of the body of jesus christ , this gives up the victory to marcion , to prove , that jesus christ had a true body , and not one in shew only , because jesus christ hath in the eucharist the figure of bread , which is bread only in appearance . marcion might have retorted the argument and said , according to you , tertullian , the sacrament is the figure of the body of jesus christ ; now as this figure is bread in appearance , and is called bread only because of the outward accidents and qualities which it retains , so also the body of jesus christ was only a body in appearance , and was called a body because it had the outward accidents and qualities . again , as tertullian saith , that jesus christ distributed to his disciples the bread which he had taken to make it the figure of his body ; it is most certain he took true bread , and by consequence , that he distributed true bread. the same tertullian in his treatise of the soul , disputing against the accademitians that questioned the truth of the testimony of the senses , saith to them , that we must not at all doubt of the testimony of the senses , lest occasion might farther be taken to doubt the actions of the humanity of jesus christ , that it might not be said , that it was untrue that he saw satan fall from heaven ; that it was not true , that he heard the father's voice from heaven bearing witness to his son ; that he was deceived when he touched peter's wifes mother ; that he was deceived when he smelt the sweet odour which he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his death ; or , that he tasted the wine that he consecrated in remembrance of his blood. it is evident that to consecrate wine in remembrance of blood , cannot be understood of a substance which is destroy'd all saving the accidents ; this manner of expression in the language of the ancients signifying no more , but that a substance remains always in its first state , only attains to a higher degree , which is , to be the sacrament of a heavenly and supernatural thing . to conclude , if tertullian had believed that the wine had been destroy'd , and that nothing but the appearance was left , against the testimony of all the senses , had it not been an unpardonable fault in tertullian , to prove that the senses could not be deceived by the example of the eucharist , where the senses are quite deceived ? origen did not believe transubstantiation when he said in his commentary on the th . chap. of s. matth. expounding these words of the gospel , what enters into the mouth defiles not the man &c. as there 's nothing that 's impure of it self to him that 's polluted and incredulous , but a thing is impure , by reason of his impurity and incredulity ; so also , that which is sanctifyed by the word of god and prayer , doth not sanctify by its proper nature , him that uses it : if it were so , it would also sanctify him that cats unworthily of the lord , and none should have been weak , nor sick , nor should have fallen asleep , by reason of so eating — . if all that enters into the mouth goes into the belly , and there is cast out into the draught , this food which is sanctifyed by the word of god , and by prayer , goes also into the belly and is cast out into the draught , according to its material substance ; but according to the prayer which has been thereunto added , it becomes profitable according to the measure of faith , by causing the mind to become inlightned , having regard to what is profitable ; and 't is not the matter of bread , but the words which have been pronounc'd upon it , that avails him which eateth in such a manner as is not unworthy of the lord , and this may be said of the body typical , or symbolical ; many things might be said also of the word made flesh , and true nourishment , the which whosoever eats shall never dye , and which no wicked person can eat ; for could it be that he which continues wicked should eat of the word incarnate , seeing he is the word and bread of life , it would not have been written , whosoever eateth this bread shall live eternally . when he saith of the bread of the eucharist , that it sanctifieth not of it self , it cannot he understood of the true body of jesus christ , but of the bread which remains . when he saith , this bread sanctified by the invocation of god , and by prayer , remains in its material being , it means plainly , that it remains in its former substance . when he saith , that this bread as to the matter of it goes down into the belly , and is cast into the draught as the other meats : this not being to be understood of jesus christ without blaspheming , is necessarily to be understood of the bread. when he calls this bread the typical body , it shews plainly , that this not being the true body , it is not transubstantiated . when having spoken of the typical body , he after speaks of the word made flesh , which cannot but give life to those which eat and receive him ; he sufficiently distinguisheth the bread of the eucharist from jesus christ ; the former of which may be mortal , but the latter can never be so to those who receive and eat him . this passage is so clear and evident , that sixtus senensis in his bibl. l. . annot . . found no better expedient than to say , that 't was probable , this passage had been corrupted by the hereticks . gennebrard and du perron suspected erasmus to have ill translated it : but the learned monsieur huet , nominated to be bishop of soissons , saith , it evidently appears by the original greek , that this passage is no way changed . the same origen saith , in tom. . of his commentary on s. john , that the morsel of bread christ gave to judas and those he gave the apostles , saying , take , eat , were of the same sort . now if the morsel given to judas was true bread , as it is granted , and if the bread given the other apostles was not true bread , then the one and the other were not of the same kind . the same origen in the seventh homily on leviticus , saith , that jesus christ before his passion , drank wine , but being ready to suffer , he refused to drink it ; ubi vero tempus advenit crucis suae , accipiens , inquit , galicem benedixit , & dedit discipulis suis , dicens , accipite & bibite ex hoc . vos , inquit , bibite quia non accessuri estis and altare , ipse autem tanquam accessurus ad altare dicit , amen , dico vobis quia non bibam de generatione vitis hujus , usque quò bibam illud novum vobiscum in regno patris mei . origen affirms , that our saviour in celebrating the eucharist , did not drink wine , because he was ready to approach the altar ( of his passion ) and that the apostles did drink wine , because they were not yet ready to approach to the altar of martyrdom . and that in this sense , the figure of the old testament was accomplished , where 't was forbidden to aaron and his priests to drink wine when they were about to approach to the altar . all this discourse is false , if jesus christ spake not these words of true wine , i will not drink , &c. and if what the apostles drank was not true wine . let us see now what st. cyprian saith , the sacrifice of the lord recommends to us unity : for when jesus christ called his body , the bread which is made of several grains , he recommended the unity of christian people ; and when he called his blood , the wine , made of several grains and grapes , he represented one flock united by the band of charity . now these words , where jesus christ called the bread his body , and the wine his blood , is as if he had said of the bread , this is my body , and of the wine , this is my blood. and if hereunto we add the words of the jesuite salmeron , who said , if jesus christ had said , this bread is my body , and this wine is my blood , it would have obliged us to have understood these words in a figurative sense , because the bread cannot be a humane body , nor the wine blood , but in a figurative sense . bellarmine saith the same ; if jesus christ had said , this bread is my body , this proposuion must be understood in a figurative sense ; otherwise the expression would be absurd and impossible . now as we see s. cyprian saith , that jesus christ said of the body , that 't is his body , and of the wine , that 't was his blood , it must be concluded therefore that jesus christ said of the bread and wine , that they were his body and blood , that is to say , that the bread and wine were his body and blood in figure , both the one and the other being represented and signified by the bread and wine . and therefore in his epistle to cecilius , where at large he proves the wine must be mingled with water , he saith , if there be no wine in the cup , the blood of jesus christ cannot be represented to us , because 't is the wine that represents to us the blood of jesus christ. and again , vini ubique mentio est , & ideo ponitur ut i omini sanguis vino intelligatur . he saith of the water , that , sola christi sanguinem non potest exprimere . in aqua vidimus populum intelligi , in vino ostendi sanguinem christi . so that seeing st. cyprian saith , that the wine representeth , expresseth , sheweth , and makes us see the blood of jesus christ , as the water representeth , expresseth , and shews us the christian people , it cannot be imagin'd that st. cyprian believed the wine was destroy'd , but on the contrary , he believed that after consecration , the wine remained , and that 't was true wine that he called his blood , according to what he saith in the same letter , quia in parte invenimus calicem mixtum fuisse quem dominus obtulit , & vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit . that the fathers of the fourth century did not believe transubstantiation . eustathius , patriarch of antioch , upon these words of solomon in the proverbs , eat my bread , and drink the wine which i have prepar'd ; saith , that the wise man by the bread and wine did foreshew the antitypes of the body of jesus christ : now that which is a type , is an image ; what is an image cannot be the thing but in figure : so that the bread is not destroy'd , because it is the type and the image . eusebius of caesarea , interpreting these words of genesis , chap. . vers. . his eyes shall be red with wine , and his teeth white with milk , saith , that the first words signifie the joy that the mystical wine doth cause in the disciples of jesus christ when he saith to them , take , drink ye all of this , &c. and these words , the teeth white with milk , do signifie the purity and cleanness of the mystical food , which are the symbols which jesus christ left to his disciples , commanding them to celebrate the image of his proper body ; not requiring any more bloody sacrifices , and commanded to make use of bread for the symbol of his body . seeing then that according to this ancient doctor , the wine is the symbol of the blood of christ , and the bread the figure of his body , and both the one and the other an image of the body and blood , the image is not that of which 't is an image ; and by consequence , in the eucharist , besides the body of jesus christ , there is also bread and wine , which do represent and shew him ; it being evident by the text of this author , that he understood the words of jesus christ , this is my body , in this sense , this is the symbol of my body . cyril of jerusalem saith , quemadmodum panis eucharisticus post spiritûs sancti invocationem , non amplius est panis communis , sed est corpus christi , sic & sanctum hoc unguentum non amplius est unguentum illud . macharius , a noted hermite in egypt , who wrote his homilies about the year . saith in the th homily , that before the birth of jesus christ , the wise men , holy men , kings and prophets , knew that jesus christ was to come to be a redeemer , but they knew not that he was to suffer death , that he was to be crucify'd , and that he should shed his blood on the cross , and that they had not attain'd so far as to know there should be a baptism of fire and of the holy ghost , and that in the church should be offered bread and wine , antitypes of the body and blood of jesus christ , and that those which eat of this visible bread , should spiritually eat the flesh of the lord. this father saying that the antitype of the flesh and blood of jesus christ is bread and wine , doth suppose the bread remains , as not being the real body of jesus christ , but a type of it : now the type is not the verity , sed umbra veritatis , saith st. ambrose , de side l. . c. . and by consequence , there is in the eucharist something else besides the body it self of jesus christ. and when he saith , that those which take the visible bread , do spiritually eat the flesh of christ , he gives us sufficiently to understand , that in this august sacrament , there is besides the flesh of jesus christ a visible bread , and that the visible bread is eaten corporally , and the flesh of jesus christ spiritually . st. basil , bishop of caesaria , in his epistle to caesarea , saith , that at alexandria , and in aegypt , each lay-person for the most part , kept the eucharist by them , and communicated themselves when they pleased ; and if they receive from the priest a morsel of the consecrated bread , they may receive the holy sacrament daily if they list , taking some of it to day , and the rest to morrow . for , saith he , the priest in the church gives a good piece or morsel of the eucharist , and he that takes it , doth communicate himself at his pleasure . now , saith he , as to the validity and vertue of the sacrament , it is one and the same , whether one receives one morsel , or two , of the priest. in what sense can it be understood that one receives several parts or parcels in the eucharist ? it cannot be meant of jesus christ , whose body cannot be divided into morsels ; it must therefore be understood , that st. basil believed that the bread remained in the eucharist as a typical and symbolical body of jesus christ. ephrem deacon of the church of edessa , contemporary with st. basil , and whose writings st. jerom reports in his catalogue , were read in the church after the holy scriptures ; he saith , in the treatise he wrote , that men should not search too curiously into the nature of god ; consider diligently ( saith this holy deacon ) how jesus christ taking the bread into his hands , blessed and broke it as a figure of his immaculate body ; and taking the cup , he blessed it as a type of his blessed blood , and gave it to his disciples . it is evident that ephrem believed the bread is the figure of the body , and the wine the type of the blood of christ ; figura autem non est veritas , sed imitatio verit atis , saith s. gaudentius upon exodus , tract . . the body of jesus christ is the verity , there must then be in the sacrament , besides the real body , a material and typical body , which may be the figure of the true body of jesus christ. s. epiphanius having said , that jesus christ descended into the waters to be baptiz'd , not to receive any virtue from the waters , but to confer it upon them , he adds , that 't is in jesus christ the prophecy of esay is accomplished , who in the third chap. speaks of the vertue of bread and water , he gave strength to the waters , illuminans eas , & roboran● in typo earum que in ipso erant perficienda ; and as for the bread , cibus quidem panis est , sed virtus in eo est ad vivisicationem . s. epiphanius speaks here of the eucharist as he doth of baptism , he saith , that both one and the other receive their virtue from jesus christ , who communicates to them spiritual strength , sufficient to sanctify ; now as the water of baptism is changed only by a change of virtue , and quality , it is apparent s. epiphanius did not mean that the bread of the eucharist should be destroy'd , no more than the water was in baptism ; else he would not have said , that the consecrated bread was a food , for accidents cannot nourish , nothing can be fed by that which is not a body ; nourishment proceeds from a substance or matter , saith aristotle , and boëtius . in praedic . saith , that 't is impossible an accident should pass into the nature of a substance , ut accidens in substantis naturam transeat fieri nullo modo potest . gregory nazianzen , speaking of the miraculous recovery of his sister gorgonia , speaks in these terms , pouring forth a flood of tears after the example of her that washed christ's feet with her tears , she said , she would not depart thence till she had recover'd her health , her tears were the perfume which she spread over all his body , she mingled them with the antitypes , or the symbols of the mody and blood of jesus christ , as much at least as she could hold in her hands , and immediately , o the miracle , she found her self healed . and in his seventeenth oration , this godly prelate interceding to the emperor 's prefect , that he would extend his favour , and not deliver up the city to be plundred , i set before your eyes the table where we joyntly receive the sacrament , and the figure of my salvation , which i consecrate with the same mouth wherewith i make my request to you ; this sacrament , i say , which lifts us up to heaven . it appears by these words , that s. gregory lookt upon the consecrated bread and wine as figures of the body and blood of jesus christ : now if they are figures , then they are not that whereof they be figures , and by consequence , there is in the sacrament something else besides the very body of jesus christ , to wit , the bread and wine , which are the types and figures of it . for to say that s. gregory means only that the accidents of bread and wine are the types and figures , when he saith , his sister mingled her tears with the antitypes of the body and blood of jesus christ , as many as she could keep in her hands , si quid antityporum pretiosi corporis aut sanguinis manus thesaurisasset , these words , as many as she could gather in her hands , signify , as many portions and parts of the eucharist as she could gather up , paululum eucharistiae , as eusebius speaks in the sixth book of his hist. chap. . as having gather'd together a little of the sacrament , and having separated it from a greater mass , or from a greater quantity of liquor . now all antiquity agree , that the lines , the superficies , the qualities , are inseparable from their subject , so that this little parcel of antitypes , this parcel of the figures , cannot be a part of accidents , and of appearances . gregory nyssen going to prove that the water of baptism , for being water , ought not to be despised , but that after consecration it hath a marvellous virtue , he proves it by the example of the eucharist , and extream unction . the bread , saith he , before consecration is but common bread , but after consecration it is called , and is the body of christ ; so also the mystical oyl , and wine , before benediction , are common things , and of no virtue , but after benediction , both of them have a great virtue . now these words shew , that the bread and wine remain after consecration ; for it appears that st. gregory's design is to prove , that common and ordinary things have a marvellous force after consecration , and if the bread and wine were destroy'd after consecration , what did operate would not be a vile and mean thing , because it would be the very body of jesus christ , and st. gregory would not well have proved that vile things have any marvellous virtue in them after consecration ; for instance , bread and wine , which not subsisting after consecration , could not have the virtue to sanctify . s. ambrose in his epistle to justus , explaining what gomer is , saith , it is a measure , and that this measure signifies the quantity of wine which rejoyces the heart of man ; and having explain'd the wine , of the drinking wisdom , sobriety , and temperance , he saith , that it is to be understood more fully of the blood of jesus christ , which neither admits increase , nor decrease , as to grace ; but of which if one receive more or less , the measure however of redemption is equal to all . plenius de sanguine intelligitur cujus ad gratiam nihil minuitur , nihil adaugetur , & si parum sumas , & si plurimum haurias , eadem perfecta est omnibus mensura redemptionis . this manner of speaking of taking more or less of the blood of jesus christ , is not to be understood of the proper body of jesus christ , which is indivisible ; there must be therefore in the eucharist , besides the proper blood of jesus christ , a typical and symbolical blood , which is the wine , which is so called , and of which we may say , we receive more or less . the same father saith elsewhere , that as often as we receive the sacraments , which by the virtue of holy prayer are transfigur'd into the flesh and blood of jesus christ , we shew forth the death of christ. it is certain that by these words , s. ambrose lookt upon the bread and wine as figures of the flesh and blood ; now the figure being a thing distinct from what it represents , as being two correlatives , the one of which is not the other , it must be concluded , that s. ambrose believed that there is bread and wine in the eucharist , which are the figures of the bread and heavenly power . the same father speaking of the blessing of aser , explaining these words , ashur his bread is fat , he shall feed princes ; saith , jesus christ who is ashur , that is rich , has nourish'd princes . when he multiply'd the five and seven loaves , and gave them to his apostles to distribute to the multitude , he every day gives us this bread , saith he , when the priest doth consecrate : we may also by this bread understand the lord himself ( continues s. ambrose ) who has given us his flesh to eat . by these words it appears s. ambrose distinguishes three sorts of bread which jesus christ gave to these princes ; the first is that which he gave in multiplying the five and seven loaves , john . and matth. . the second is the bread which the priest consecrates at mass ; the third is that of which it is said , i am the bread of life , which is jesus christ himself . as then the second is not the first , so neither is the second the third : the consecrated bread is another thing than jesus christ , the bread of life ; and by consequence , there is in the sacrament a bread distinct from jesus christ , the heavenly bread. gaudentius upon exodus saith , with great reason we receive with the bread the figure of the body of christ , because as the bread is compos'd of many grains , which being ground into flower is kneaded with water , and baked by fire , so also the body of christ is made and collected of the whole race of mankind , and is perfected by the fire of the holy ghost . now as this author places the figure of the body of jesus christ in that the bread is made up of sundry grains , reduced into meal , kneaded with water , and baked with fire : it follows , that he believed the bread remained in the sacrament , and so much the rather because this bishop saith elsewhere , figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis . s. chrysostom expounding these words , i will no more drink of this fruit of the vine , until i drink it new in the kingdom of my father , saith , because jesus christ had spoke to his disciples of his passion and of his death , now he speaks to them of his resurrection , making mention of his kingdom , calling his resurrection by this name ; now wherefore did jesus christ drink after his resurrection , fearing lest ignorant persons should think his resurrection was only imaginary , because many took the act of drinking as a true sign of the resurrection ; therefore the apostles going to prove his resurrection , say , we that have eat and drank with him , jesus christ. therefore assuring them that they should see him after his resurrection , and that he would stay with them , and that they might bear witness of his resurrection , might see and behold him , tells them , i will no more drink the fruit of the vine , until i drink it with you in a new manner , whereof you shall bear testimony , for you shall see me after my resurrection ; but wherefore , continues s. chrysostom , did he drink wine after his resurrection and not water ? it is because he would thereby destroy a pernicious heresy . for because there would be hereticks that would only make use of water in the mysteries , be would represent the mysteries ; he gave wine , and when , after the resurrection , he eat his common repast , he drank wine , the fruit of the vine ; now the vine doth produce wine and not water . this passage marketh in the first place , that jesus christ drinking the fruit of the vine after his resurrection , and not water , he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the eucharist , i will no more drink of this fruit of the vine , until i drink it new in my fathers kingdom . this shews that jesus christ drank true wine in the institution of the eucharist , for what is to be done again , must needs be done before . secondly , st. chrysostom doth not only say that jesus christ drank wine , but he saith further , that he distributed wine amongst his disciples , and the fruit of the vine , which doth not produce water but wine . so that these words of st. chrysostom import clearly , that the wine remains in the eucharist . the same father on these words of the first to the corinthians , the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of christ ? ( speaks thus ) what is the bread ? it is the body of jesus christ. what becomes of them which receive it ? they become the body of jesus christ. now this proposition , the bread is the body of jesus christ , cannot be in a literal sense , for saith vasquez , the bread without a figure , cannot be called the body of jesus christ , nor the body of jesus christ be called bread. the same father in his commentary upon the epistle to the galatians , chap. . explaining these words of the apostle , the flesh lusteth against the spirit , and the spirit against the flesh ; the manicheans understood by the flesh , the substance of the body , and by the spirit they understood the soul ; and they said , that the apostle cut man into two , and intimated , that man was compos'd of two contrary substances , one bad , which was the flesh ; and the other good , which was the spirit , which proceeded from the good god , and the body from the bad god — s. chrysostom answers , that the apostle in this place doth not call the flesh the body , apostolum non hic carnem appellare corpus , as the manicheans supposed , and saith , that the apostle do's not always mean by the flesh , the nature of the body , naturam corporis , but that very often by the flesh , he means something else , as evil desires ; and having proved this by sundry passages of the apostle , and other holy writers , he proves it at last by the example of the iucharist , and of the church , which , he saith , is called body in the holy scriptures ; he saith farther , that the scripture is wont to call by the name of flesh , as well the church , as the mysteries , saving , it is his body , rursum carnis vocabulo scriptura solet appellare tum mysteria , tum totam ecclesiam , dicens eam christi corpus esse . it appears by these words of st. chrysostom's , that he did not believe that the consecrated bread and wine were the same with the body of christ , seeing he proves by the eucharist , that the consecraeted bread and wine are called flesh ; and that the word flesh in this place , is taken for something else besides body , and that he puts the term flesh , given to the consecrated bread and wine , which are the mysteries , in the rank of other terms of flesh given to evil desires , and to the church , which are mystical and figurative terms . so st. chrysostom believed the bread and wine remained , and are so called the body of jesus christ mystically , as the church is called the body of jesus christ. the same st. chrysostom wrote a letter to caesarius , which indeed is not inserted in his works , but is sound in manuscript in the library at florence , and it was also found in england in archbishop cranmer's library , it is mention'd in the bibliotheca patrum , printed at collen , . in this bibliotheque , tom. . there is found the collections of an ancient nameless author , who wrote against the severian , and acephalian hereticks , wherein is recited a passage taken out of this letter . so also monsieur de marca arch-bishop of paris , acknowledges the truth of this letter in his posthume and french treatise of the eucharist , witness the abbot fagget in his letter to monsieur de marca , president of the parliament at pan , who saith also this letter was found by monsieur bigot in a library at florence . st. chrysostom in this letter writeth against apollinarius , and saith , jesus christ is both god and man , god because of his impassibility , man by his passion , one son , one lord , both natures united making but one , the same power , the same dominion ; although they be two different natures , each conserves its own nature , because they are two , and yet without confusion ; for as the bread before it is sanctified , is called bread , when by the intercession of the priest , divine grace has sanctified it , it loses the name of bread , and becomes worthy to be called the body of jesus christ , although the nature of bread abides in it , so that they are not two bodies , but one sole body of the son ; so the divine nature being united to the humane nature of jesus christ , it did not make two persons , but one only person and one son. st. chrysostom saith plainly , that the nature of bread abideth after consecration ; and this father's argument would be of no validity , if this nature of the bread was nothing but in shew , for apollinarius might have made another opposite argument , and say , that indeed it might be said there were two natures in jesus christ , but that the humane nature was only in appearance , as the bread in the eucharist is but in shew , and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it , whereby it is term'd to be bread. the author of the imperfect work upon st. matthew written in the time of the emperour theodosius , did not believe transubstantiation , when he spake in these terms in homily eleventh , if it be dangerous to employ the holy vessels about common uses , wherein the true body of jesus christ is not contain'd , but the mysteries of his body ; how much rather the vessels of our bodies , which god has prepared to dwell in . that the fathers of the fifth century did not believe transubstantiation . s. jerom in his epistle to eustochium speaking of virgins , saith , that when they were reproved for drunkenness , they excus'd themselves by adding sacriledge to drunkenness , saying , god forbid that i should abstain from the blood of the lord. in the second book against jovinian it is said , the lord in the type of his blood , did not offer water , but wine . these words are indeed jovinian's , but st. jerom sinds no fault with them . for he himself saith the same , upon the chapter of jeremy , vers. . on these words , they run after god's creatures , the wheat , the wine , and the oyl , the bread , and the wine , saith he , whereof is made the bread of the lord , and wherein is accomplished the type of his blood. now saith st. ambrose * , the type is not the truth , but it is the shadow of the truth . there must then be in the eucharist , bread , and wine , distinct from the body and blood of jesus christ , to be the types and figures of it . the same father in his letter to hedibia , let us hear , that the bread which the lord broke and gave his disciples was the lord's own body , saying , take , eat , this is my body ; and a little after he saith , if the bread that came down from heaven is the body of the lord , and the wine which he distributed among his disciples his blood , &c. st. jerom saith , that jesus christ brake and distributed bread to his disciples , that he gave them bread , and that the bread and wine were his flesh and blood. it cannot then be said , that what jesus christ gave in communicating his disciples was not bread and wine ; and when he saith , both the one and the other was his body and blood , it cannot be understood but only figuratively ; for we see above in st. cyprian , that the jesuites salmeron and bellarmine , do confess , that if jesus christ said of the bread , this is my body , it must be meant , this bread is the figure of my body , the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively : and the reason is given by vasquez , when he saith , if the pronoun , this , in the words of consecration be understood of the bread , undoubtedly by virtue of it , there can be wrought no transubstantiation , because of necessity the bread must needs remain ; si pronomen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem , fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset , quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat . the same s. jerom in his commentary upon the chapter of st. matthew , saith , jesus christ having eaten the paschal lamb , took bread which strengthens the heart of man , and proceeded to the accomplishment of the sacrament of the true passover , that as melchisedeck had offered bread and wine in figure , he also himself would represent the truth of his body . according to this father , the bread and wine , represent the body and blood of jesus christ , and therefore are not properly and truly the flesh and blood of jesus christ , but are something else besides them , and by consequence remain in the sacrament . for to say , as the author of the second book of the perpetuity of the faith of the eucharist doth against monsieur claude , that st. jerom means by representing , to make a thing be present , we before refuted this fancy , in tertullian , who speaks just as st. jerom : and the terms sufficiently declare , that st. jerom's meaning is , that jesus christ made use of bread and wine , to signifie and shew forth his body and blood , as melchisedeck had done , that is to say , as he had represented both the one and the other by the oblation of bread and wine . st. austin in his sermon to the newly baptized , which it's true is not found in his other works , but was preserv'd and is cited by st. fulgentius de baptismo aethiop . cap. . what you see , saith he , upon the altar of god , you saw also the last night , but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a sacrament ; that which you see is bread , and a cup of wine , and it is also what your eyes declare unto you ; but what your faith should instruct you in , is , that the bread is the body of jesus christ , and the cup his blood. if you tell me , jesus christ is born , he was crucified , he was buried , he rose again , and is ascended into heaven , whither he has carry'd his body , and is at present on the right hand of god , from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead , how then can the bread be his body , and the cup his blood ? these things , my brethren , are called sacraments , because one thing is seen in them , and another thing is understood by them ? what is seen hath a corporeal substance ; what is understood hath a spiritual fruit. if then you desire to understand what the body of jesus christ is , hearken to the apostle which saith , you are the body of christ and his members : if then you are the body of jesus christ and his members , it is the mystery of what you are , which is upon the holy table , it is the mystery of the lord , which you receive ; in saying amen , you answer and subscribe to what you are . all you that are united in charity , you make but one body of jesus christ , of which you are the members , which is what is signified by the bread compos'd of several grains , and by the wine which is made of sundry grapes . for as bread to be made a visible species of bread , is made of sundry grains collected together in one , and the wine , &c. st. austin saith , that the bread is the body of christ , which cannot be but improperly and figuratively , as hath been shewed above ; for by confession of roman catholick doctors , every proposition that saith of the bread , that it is the body , must needs be typical and figurative . he saith what is seen is bread , as our eyes declare to us ; now what our eyes report to us is true bread , as when one says , what you see is true gold , and silver , or marble , and 't is what your eyes testifie , that is to say , that one sees true gold , and true marble , and that one makes use of their eyes to confirm it . in the same sense he saith ; that jesus christ although in heaven , yet the bread is the body , and the wine the blood , because they are the sacraments of it . he saith , what one sees hath a bodily species ; now in this passage , by bodily species , he means the very substance , and not the accidents . for he saith afterwards , speaking of bread in general , as bread to be a visible species of bread , must be made of several grains reduced into one lump ; now by the species of bread , it is plain , st. austin there means true bread , and a true substance . he saith , what you see , is bread , and a cup ; now by cup , he doth not mean the appearance of a cup , he means a true cup. he saith this bread is the mystery of the lord. which is nothing else , but that 't is the figure of the lord , as when he saith , this bread is the mystery of believers . mysterium vestrum in mensa domini accipitis . that is to say , that the bread and wine are the figure of jesus christ , as they are the mystical body of jesus christ. to conclude , st. austin saith , the faith of the new-baptized was to be strengthened ; it was therefore here the proper place for him to have said , that the bread was no more bread , that the wine was no longer wine , but that there remained only the accidents of the one and the other . the same holy father answering bishop boniface , who desired to know how it might be said of an infant newly baptis'd , he hath faith , he believes , who is incapable of believing , and of whom no assurance can be given what he will be afterwards ; he saith , that as every sunday , and easter day , is called easter , and the resurrection , although the lords easter , and resurrection , are things happened several ages past ; so it may be said , an infant hath faith , because he hath the sacrament of faith. for , saith he , if the sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are sacraments , they would be no sacraments ; as therefore in some sort the sacrament of the body of jesus christ is the body of jesus christ , and the sacrament of his blood , is the blood of christ , so also the sacrament of faith , is faith ; now to believe , is nothing else but to have faith. he saith , the eucharist is called flesh and blood , because it is both the one and the other in some sort : now according to st. gregory nyssen , what is not truly that by the name by which it is called , is but figuratively or improperly that by the name whereof it is called . now that the bread and wine which are the sacraments of the body and blood of jesus christ , are his body and blood in some sort , secundum quendam modum , it follows , the bread and wine are not properly the flesh and blood , and by consequence , are not transubstantiated . moreover st. austin doth explain the manner according to which the eucharist is the body and blood of christ , and he shews it , by reason that generally the signs are called by the name of the things they signifie , not that they are the things they signifie , but because they are the signs , and that they have some resemblance to them . the same father upon the third psalm , admires the patience of jesus christ that bore the treachery of judas to the end , although he was not ignorant of his thoughts , and admitted him to the banquet , at which , saith st. austin , jesus christ recommended and gave to his disciples , the figure or type of his flesh and blood , cum adhibuit ad convivium , in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit & tradidit . now the figure is not the truth , but the imitation of the verity , saith gaudentius in exod. tractatu . moreover , st. austin cannot find in the scriptures , that jesus christ in instituting the sacrament , gave to his disciples the figure of his body and blood , but in these words , take , eat , this is my body , this is my blood , he must then understand these words of the institution , in a figurative sense . and according to the same doctor , a * sign is that which shews it self to the senses , and besides that shews something else to the mind ; it must then follow , that the sign is a thing which remains , to shew it self . the same father disputing against adimantus the manichean , chap. . and against the adversary of the law and the prophets , in the second book , cap. . who said , the blood is the soul , as is said , deuteronom . . and by consequence , that men killed the soul when they shed blood. s. austin replies , that this precept in deuteronomy , that blood must not be eat , because 't is the soul , is a precept that must he understood as many other things contained in the scriptures , which are to be taken in types , and figures , illud praeceptum posicum esse dicimus sicut alia multa & pene omnia scripturarum illarum sacramenta signis & figuris plena sunt . and concludes towards the end of that chapter , that the blood is the soul , as the rock was christ , sanguis est anima quomodo petra erat christus . and upon leviticus , quest. . the thing which signisies , is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified , as 't is written , the rock was christ : for 't is not said , the rock signifi'd christ , but as if it were that which indeed it was not in substance , but only in signification . and as in the beginning of the chapter he saith , that it must be understood in the sign , jesus christ making no difficulty to say , this is my body , when he gave the sign of his body . sanguis est anima , praeceptum illud est in signo positum , non enim dominus dubitavit dicere , hoc est corpus meum , cum daret signum corporis sui . seeing then st. austin doth say , that the blood is the soul , as the rock was christ ; and as the eucharist is the sign of jesus christ , he must of necessity have understood the words of institution of the sacrament , in a figurative sense ; and that so much the rather , because this manner of speech , jesus christ made no difficulty , plainly shews , that jesus christ did not speak in a proper but in a figurative sense , as fulgentius saith , although the apostle saith , that jesus christ is the head of the body of the church , nevertheless he makes no scruple to call jesus christ the church , which is his body . this manner of speech is never used in proper expressions : no body will say , jesus christ made no difficulty to give gold , or water , if it were true gold or water which he gave . the same holy doctor saith in several places after the apostle , that the bread in the sacrament after consecration , is broken , and distributed ; and he doth very well recommend this breaking the bread , as being a great mystery . in his epistle to paulinus , he saith , in that jesus christ was known by the two disciples in breaking the bread , no body ought to question but this breaking was the sacrament whereby jesus christ brings us all to the knowledge of his person . a little before he saith ; by the prayers , we mean those which are said before one begins to bless what is upon the lords table . the prayers are said when that which is on the lords table is blessed , sanctifyed , and distributed . in his epistle to casulanus he saith of s. paul , that in the night time he went to break bread , as it is broken in the sacrament of his body . in his commentary upon the first epistle of s. john , it was very reasonable that jesus christ recommending his flesh , broke bread , and it was very just that the disciples knew him in breaking of bread. in the . sermon de temp . and in the hom. of the consent of evangelists , lib. . c. . and de diversis , serm. . he saith , where would jesus christ be known ? in the breaking of bread. we are then secure ; we break bread , and we know the lord. if then after consecration we break bread to distribute , then of necessity the bread must remain : for to say that 't is the accidents which are broken , and distributed , s. austin doth say the contrary , when he affirms , that one breaks and distributes what is on the table , being blessed and sanctify'd . now to bless and sanctify , one shall never find to have signifi'd to destroy , and change the substance . the same doctor in several places does always call the eucharist , the sacrament of bread and wine , he saith , s. paul doth teach the unity of the church in the sacrament of bread , when he saith , we are all one bread , and one body . in the questions upon the evangelists , he saith , jesus christ by the sacrament of wine , recommends his blood. in his books against faustus , we are very far from doing what the heathens did for their gods , ceres and bacchus , although we have a ceremony of celebrating the sacrament of bread and wine . now to what end were it to call the eucharist a sacrament of bread and wine , if there did not remain bread and wine after consecration ? for what means this manner of speech , the sacrament of bread and wine , but the bread and wine which is the sacrament ? as when the apostle saith , rom. . v. . the sign of circumcision . what else doth this import , but the circumcision which is the sign ? when tertullian de baptismo , calls baptism sacramentum aquae nostrae : what else can that mean , but our water which is a sacrament ? when s. austin upon s. john tract . . saith , the figure of the sea , figura maris ; what more can this signify , but the sea which is the figure ? when it is frequently said , the sacrament of the eucharist , what else can that import , but the eucharist which is a sacrament ? the same father in his sermon , de verbis domini , saith , almost all do call the sacrament the body of jesus christ. now if the bread were the real body of jesus christ , wherefore should s. anstin observe that all called it the body of jesus christ ? for one cannot make such a remark , but when one saith of a thing , that 't is that which properly it is not . it would be ridiculous to say , almost all call lewis king ; & the reason is , because 't is not strange that persons should be called by their names : but on the contrary , it is very strange , to call one by a name that doth not at all belong to him . the same father in his . treatise upon s. john , going to shew upon these words of the apostle , they did all eat the same spiritual meat , and drink the same spiritual drink : the relation and difference there is betwixt the sacraments of the old and new testament , saith , the fathers did eat the same spiritual food as we do , not the same corporal food as we do ; because they did eat manna , and as for us , we eat something else ; they drank the same spiritual drink we do , the same as to the signification , but different as to visible and outward kind . and upon s. john , treatise . if you consider the visible species , it was another drink , if you consider what was signify'd by their drink , and ours , it was one and the same thing . si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est , si intelligibilem significationem , cundem potum spiritualem biberunt . and upon the . psalm , their food was the very same with ours , the same as to what it signify'd , but different in kind . idem in mysterio cibus illorum qui noster ; sed significatione idem , non specie . this reasoning does intimate , that the fathers under the old testament did , and we now do eat a corporal food , and that we drink a corporal liquor . now by this corporal meat and drink , we must understand either the accidents of bread and wine , or the body and blood of jesus christ , or the bread and wine it self . it cannot be spoken of the first , because the accidents of bread and wine are only qualities , or dimensions ; now qualities and dimensions are not corporal . the quality is something which is incorporeal , saith nemesius , of the soul ; as concerning dimensions , s. austin de genesi ad literam , saith , we call that a body which taketh up some space by its length , by its breadth , and by its depth . nemesius gives the reason of it , because , saith he , nothing that is immaterial is a body , for all bodies are material . there being nothing material then in the eucharist , as is suppos'd , there being nothing that takes up place , that is large or long , or deep ; there is nothing corporeal in the sacrament , and by consequence , nothing that can be termed corporal meat or drink . moreover , when jesus christ speaks of corporal nourishment and drink in the eucharist , as the fathers under the old testament had done , he speaks of bodily meat and drink , s. austin did not understand the corporal meat and drink spoke of by the fathers of the old testament , to be only the accidents of one and the other , so that s. austin speaking in the same terms of bodily meat and drink , in relation to that of the antients , he did not mean meer accidents or qualities . the body of jesus christ nor his hood , cannot be this corporal nourishment which s. austin compares to that of the fathers under the law : for by bodily meat and drink which he saith we receive in the eucharist , he means a visible subject , aliud illi , aliud nos , sed specie visibili , si speciem visibilem intendas , aliud est . it remains then that in s. austin's sense , we understand by the corporal nature of the eucharist the visible bread , the visible wine , and not their qualities and accidents . the same father in the third book of the trin. cap. . speaking of things that are taken to signify , saith , a thing is taken to signify , either after such a manner , as that the thing should subsist and remain some time , as did the brazen serpent , lift up in the wilderness , or as do the letters of the alphabet , or in such a manner as the thing taken to signify is not to subsist any long time , but is to pass away and be destroy'd when the thing 't is to represent is passed away ; as the bread of the sacrament , which being taken to signify passeth away and is consumed in receiving the sacrament . s. austin there saith , that the bread of the sacrament which is taken to signify , passeth and is consumed in receiving the sacrament ; now if the bread be destroyed and transubstantiated by these words , this is my body , then it passeth not away , and is not consumed in the act of receiving . the same doctor in the seventeenth of the city of god saith , to eat bread , is in the new testament the sacrifice of christians ; and against the enemy of the law. l. . c. . those , saith he , which read know what melchisedeck offered where he blessed abraham , and those which are partakers , see that the like sacrifice is now offer'd through all the world. how is it that the sacrifice of christians , is to eat bread , if the bread do not remain ? how is it that communicating , one is partaker of what melchisedeck offer'd , if in communicating , one do not receive neither bread , nor wine ? the same father in the third book against parmenian , reproving the donatists for forsaking the church , tells them , s. cyprian , and the other bishops , did not separate themselves because they would not communicate with covetous persons , and usurers ; but that on the contrary , they did eat with them the bread of the lord , and drank his cup. this passage sheweth , that when s. austin said to the new baptised , as hath been shewn , that the bread is the body of jesus christ , it could not be understood but figuratively : for here the bread is said to be of the lord ; now saith s. athanasius , that which is another's is not that other himself , to whom it belongs . id quod alicujus est , non idipsum est cujus est . and s. austin elsewhere distinguisheth betwixt the bread which belongs to the lord , and the bread which is the lord. speaking of judas and the other apostles , he saith of the apostles , they are the bread which was the lord ; and of judas , he did eat the bread of the lord against the lord ; they ate life , he death ; for 't is said by s. paul , that he which eateth unworthily , eateth his own judgment and condemnation . seeing then that the eucharist is distinguish'd from the lord , it necessarily follows , that bread remains in the sacrament after consecration . the same father in his sermon of the words of our lord , saith , the lord gave to his disciples the blessed sacrament with his own hands , but we were not at the banquet ; nevertheless by faith we daily eat the same supper ; and do not think that it had been any great advantage to have been present at that supper that he gave with his own hands to his disciples , without faith ; faith afterwards was of greater advantage than treachery was then ; st. paul who believed , was not there present , and judas who betray'd his master , was present . how many be there now that come to the communion , that altho they did not see that table , and tho they never saw with their eyes , nor tasted with their palate , the bread which the lord held in his hands , nevertheless , because the same supper is still prepared , do there eat and drink their own damnation ? it plainly appears , that the bread which st. austin saith our saviour had in his hands during the sacrament , was true bread , because st. austin saith , that those who at present participate of the sacrament , do not tast , nor eat the bread which our saviour held in his hands , and which he distributed , and of which the disciples did formerly eat . the same father teaching that the good might participate of the divine sacraments with the wicked , saith , judas and peter had each of them a part of the same bread , which they received at the same hand of the lord ; and nevertheless what society or likeness was there betwixt peter and judas ? in the th chap. the wicked and the good hear the same word of god , do partake of the same sacraments , and eat the same holy nourishment . now what is this holy food ? what is this bread , whereof one receives one portion , and another , another part ? are they accidents ? but accidents are neither bread nor food . it is not the real body of jesus christ , for it cannot be received by parcels ; it must then be true bread which remains after consecration , and which is , as is said before , blessed , sanctified , and broke in pieces on the holy table to be distributed . benedicitur & sanctificatur , & ad distribuendum comminuitur . the same doctor in ep. . speaking of the rich in opposition to the poor , of whom it is said , that they shall eat and be satisfied . these rich persons , saith st. austin , have been brought to the lords table , and receive from his hand his body and blood , but they only adore , and are not satisfied . for just as st. ambrose distinguisheth betwixt drinking the wine , vinum bibere ; and drinking of the wine , de vino bibere ; that is to say , to tast of a little wine , de ejus portione libare : so also st. austin his disciple , distinguisheth betwixt receiving the body and blood of the lord , accipere corpus & sanguinum domini , and to receive of the body and blood of the lord , accipere de corpore & sanguine christi . st. austin explains himself more fully , when he saith in his th epist. that one receives in the eucharist a portion of the body of the immaculate lamb , de agni immaculati corpore partem sumere : and in the th sermon on the words of our lord , he saith , in receiving the sacrament , we know what we should think of , we receive a little , and we are satned in the heart , modulum accipimus & in corde saginamur . now that cannot be understood of the proper body of jesus christ , which cannot be received by parcels ; therefore it must be meant of bread , which is the figure of his body , or the sacrament of it . it is what st. austin intends , when he saith , nec quando manducamus ( when we eat jesus christ ) de illo partes facimus ; equidem in sacramento sic fit . we do not make morsels , but it is done in sacrament , that is to say , that we break and divide the sign and the bread , which is the sacrament . the same father saying that the accidents cannot in any wise subsist without their subject , saith in his d book of soliloquies , chap. . what can reconcile what you demand ? or who can think it possible to be done , that that which is in a subject should remain , the subject it self ceasing to be ? for 't is a thing monstrous , and very far from the truth , that that which doth not subsist , if it be not in a subject , can be , the subject it self not remaining . also in the th chap. th book , and in the book of the immortality of the soul , chap. . the subject being changed , of necessity all that was in the subject must be changed . in the th chap. what is not of it self , if it be abandoned by that by which it is , must undoubtedly cease to be . also in the th chap. and in the book of categories , speaking of accidents , a colour cannot be without a subject . and in the epistle to dardanus , take away the bodies from the qualities of bodies , they will have no place to remain in , and by consequence it is necessary that they cannot be . and against julian , chap. . it 's true , saith st. austin , that the things that are in a subject as the qualities are , cannot be without the subject wherein they are , as the colour or form , &c. it 's impossible , had st. austin believed that the bread did not remain in the eucharist after consecration , that he should have esteemed that absurd and ridiculous which happened every day . it also seems that st. austin had been too wide , when he doubts in the th ep. to consentius ; whether jesus christ has blood , when he saith on the th psalm , you shall not eat this body which you see , nor shall drink this blood , which those that shall crucify me shall shed , i have given you a sacrament , &c. and in the th book against faustus , the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised by sacrifices of resemblance before the coming of jesus christ ; it was given by the verity in the passion of jesus christ ; after the ascension of jesus christ , it is celebrated by the sacrament of commemoration . to conclude , st. austin in his d sermon on the words of our lord , having said , as hath been seen before , that of things which are put to signify , there are some that are to remain , others to be destroy'd , when the ministry of their signification is accomplish'd ; as the bread of the sacrament ; he adds , but because these things are obvious to men , as being practic'd by men , they may deserve our veneration , as being holy and religious things ; but they cannot cause any wonder in us , as if they were miraculous . certainly if st. austin had held transubstantiation , as it comprehends many things repugnant to natural reason , which are so many astonishing miracles , st. austin could not have said , that the sacraments , wherein he includes that of the eucharist , have something in them that deserves our respect and veneration ; but have nothing that deserves our astonishment and admiration . these are some of the reasons which made monsieur de marca , archbishop of paris , predecessor to him that with so much reputation now fills the chiefest . see of france , say , that the catholick doctors are to blame , when they pretend that st. austin expounded the text of the institution of the eucharist , as it is done in the schools . and a little before ; that in st. austin's divinity , this is my body , should be expounded in this manner , this bread is the sign and sacrament of my body : for according to st. austin , saith monsieur de marca , the bread , to speak properly , is but the sign and sacrament of the body , to which jesus christ made no scruple to give the name of the thing signified . it is also the judgment of tertullian , when he saith , when jesus christ said , this is my body , that is to say , this is the figure of my body ; and saith monsieur de marca , the reasons that are given to the contrary , are not satisfactory . bullenger writing against casaubon , recites this passage of theodoret , who was a priest at antioch , in the year . as the king , saith he , and his image are not two kings ; so also the personal body of jesus christ , which body is in the heavens , and the bread which is his antitype , and is distributed to believers by the priest , are not two bodies . it appears by this comparison , that theodoret did believe the bread of the eucharist is something else besides the body of christ ; and by consequence , he believed that there remained true bread in the sacrament , and not bread in shew and appearance only . theodoret , who in the year was bishop of cyrus , doth so fully explain himself hereupon , that there is no doubt to be made of his opinion , he was pleas'd , saith he , that those who participated of the divine mysteries , should not have any regard to the nature of the things that are seen ; but that they should believe by the change of names , the change that is made by grace : for having called his body , wheat and bread , and having called himself a vine , he honours the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood , not in changing their nature , but in adding grace to their nature . he could not more fully express that he did not hold transubstantiation . arnobius the younger , who wrote in the year . upon the th psalm saith , speaking of the sacrament , we have received wheat in the body , wine in the blood , and oyl in the chrism . on the d psalm , and on the st and th psalms : let us see what the church keepeth ; she hath a table , from which she gives bread to believers ; she hath oyl , wherewith she refresheth the head , in libertatem conscientiae praesumenti , &c. on psalm . we receive bread because it strengthens the body ; we receive wine , because it rejoyces the heart ; and having received double comfort in the heart , our faces are made shine by the oyl of chrism . to conclude , on psalm . he saith these words , speaking of the lord , that the lord in the eucharist gives us the species of bread and wine , as he doth the species of oyl in baptism ; which cannot be understood of appearances and accidents , as the terms of species of oyl cannot be taken for the accidents and appearances of oyl . moreover , he observes we receive in the eucharist bread and wine , as we receive oyl in the holy chrism ; now in the holy chrism , it is true oyl that we receive ; arnobius then could not reason so , if he believed transubstantiation . the author of the books of the promises and predictions of god , attributed to st. prosper by cassiodorus , and which were written about the year , under the empire of valentinian the d , relates a history of a young unchast girl that was possessed with the devil , who in communicating , had received a little morsel of the lord's body , which the priest had moistned ; it was half an hour before she could swallow it down , till such time as the priest touched her throat with the chalice ; then she cried out instantly that she was healed . after which , prayers being made for her , she received a portion of the sacrifice , and was restor'd to her former health . these terms of some portion of the sacrifice , and of a little part of the moistned body of the lord by the priest , cannot be understood of the true body of jesus christ ; of necessity then the bread by this author must be called by the name of the body of jesus christ ; and by consequence he believed it remained in the sacrament after consecration . hesychius , one of the priests of the church of jerusalem , in the year , saith in the second book on leviticus , ch . . this mystery ( speaking of the eucharist ) is at once bread and flesh , illud mysterium simul panis & caro . in this same place he saith , it was the custom of the church of jerusalem in his time , to burn what remained after the communion . procopius of gaza , who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the fifth century , expounding these words of genesis , where jacob saith to juda , his eyes be red with wine , and his teeth white with milk , &c. applying them to our blessed saviour in the mystery of the sacrament , saith , that 't is a metaphor taken from those that having drank , are the merrier for it , &c. and saith that the holy scritures would denote the gladness which the lord left to his disciples in giving them the mystical wine by the words of institution , take , drink ye all of this : these words , saith he , do shew that jesus christ doth with mercy look on all those that believe in him , because 't is the nature of wine to make every one merry . and upon these words , his teeth are white as milk ; milk , saith he , doth denote to us the whiteness and purity of the mystical nourishment ; for jesus christ gave to his disciples the image of his true body ; not desiring any of the bloody sacrifices of the law , he would by the white teeth , signifie to us the purity of the food wherewith we are nourished ; for according to holy david , sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not , but a body hast thou prepared me . when procopius speaketh of the mystical wine that rejoyced the disciples , it being the nature of wine to make merry ; this mystical wine is not the blood of jesus christ , for 't is not the nature of blood to rejoyce . it must therefore be meant , that procopius said , by the wine which jesus christ distributed to his disciples , was to be understood true wine : and by the whitness of the mystical food , he meant the whiteness of the bread which is both food and image , which cannot be understood of the true body of jesus christ , which is neither the image of himself , nor bodily food ; nor of the accidents , which cannot nourish the body , because nourishment proceedeth from matter . the same procopius in his commentary on esay , expounding these words of the prophet , chap. . the lord of hosts will take away from judah and jerusalem the staff of bread and water ; saith , that in the first place these words of the prophet may be understood of jesus christ , and of his flesh and blood. the bread being to be understood of him of whom david saith , he gave them bread from heaven ; and the waters , of those of which jesus christ said to the samaritan , whosoever drinketh of this water , it shall be a fountain flowing unto everlasting life . then he adds , there is another bread which giveth life to the world , which was taken from the jews ; and another water , which is that of baptism . now by this other bread which was taken from the jews , he means that of the eucharist ; and whereas he distinguishes it from the bread , which is the lord , as he distinguisheth the water of baptism from that which was given to the samaritan ; it follows , that the bread of the eucharist is something that is distinguisht from jesus christ himself , the bread of heaven . gelasius bishop of rome , in the year , wrote a treatise of the two natures against nestorius and eutyches , and he excludes transubstantiation , when he saith , that the substance or nature of bread and vvine doth still remain . this work is assuredly of pope gelasius . as is confessed by cardinal du perron , because first fulgentius cites four passages of this treatise as being writ by pope gelasius . and pope john the second in epist. ad amaenum , also cites some passages of this work , as being writ by gelasius ; and though he doth not give him the title of pope , 't is because his name was well enough known at rome when john the second lived . that the fathers of the sixth century did not believe transubstantiation . saint fulgentius saith , the catholick church doth continually offer to god , the father , son , and holy ghost , a sacrifice of bread and wine throughtout all the world. for in the fleshly sacrifices of the old testament , there is a type of the flesh of jesus christ , which he was to offer without spot for our sins ; but in this sacrifice , there is a thanksgiving and commemoration of the same flesh , which he offer'd for us , and of the blood which he shed for us . he saith , that this sacrifice consists in offering bread and wine ; there must then be true bread and wine in this sacrifice to be offer'd . ephraem first a lieutenant of the eastern part of the empire , then made bishop of antioch , in the year . wrote books , which he intituled sacred laws , in the first of which disputing against the eutychians , he saith , when our fathers said , that jesus christ is compos'd of two natures , they meant two substances , as by two substances two natures . no body of any sense , but may say , that the nature of that which is to be felt , and not felt in jesus christ , is the same nature . thus it is , that the body of jesus christ , which is received by believers , doth not quit its sensible nature , and remains without being separated from the intelligible grace . the which he confirms by the example of water , which doth not lose its nature by consecration . this argument is of the same kind of that we see of theodoret , and of gelasius , whereby these three others prove , that in the incarnation , the presence of the word did not destroy the human nature in jesus christ , as the presence of the holy ghost doth not destroy the substance of bread and wine in the eucharist . we may say of this triple and same argument , funiculus triplex difficile rumpitur . mons. de marca , saith in reference to this passage , and of those we have instanced , of theodoret , and st. chrysostom , that these three authors have owned a real change of the bread , which nevertheless leaves the species in their natural substance . facundus bishop of hermiana in africa , in the year . whose books , which he wrote in defence of the three chapters of the council of chalcedon , are justly praised by victor of tunes in his chronology , and by st. isidore of sevil , and which father sirmond the jesuit got out of the vatican library ; going about to excuse theodore de mopsuest , who taught that jesus christ had taken the adoption of the children of god ; from whence it might have been concluded , that he believed that jesus christ is only an adoptive son , saith , baptism , which is the sacrament of adoption , may be call'd adoption , as we call the sacrament of his body and blood , which is in the consecrated bread and wine , his body and blood ; not that the bread is properly his body , and the cup his blood ; but , because they contain in them the mystery of his body and blood. therefore , as the faithful servants of jesus christ , receiving the sacrament of his body and blood , are very rightly said to receive his body and blood ; so also jesus christ having received the sacrament of the adoption of children , might very well be said to have received the adoption of children . certainly , if the sacrament of bread and wine is not properly the body of jesus christ , as facundus saith , but barely body and blood , as baptism is adoption ; the bread and wine are not transubstantiated into the eucharist , and are but simple signs , and something that is distinguished from the body and blood of jesus christ. primasius bishop of adruemetum in africa , in his commentary upon the th chapter of the st to the corinth . saith , as the bread which we break , is the participation of the body of christ , so also the bread of idols , is the participation of devils . now as the participation of the bread of idols , is no transubstantiation , or real change into devils : so also the participation of the bread of the lord , is not a real and substantial change of bread into the body of the lord. the same doctor , on the words of the th chap. of the same epistle , where 't is said , that the lord took bread the night in which he was betrayed , relates . that jesus christ thereby gave to us the commemoration of his body . and on the following words , the lord , saith he , hath given us an example , to the end that as often as we do this , we should think in our minds , that christ died for us . it is for this end , that 't is said to us , the body of christ , that so thinking of it , we should not be ungrateful and unthankful for his grace . as if any one at his death , should leave to his friend a pledg of his love , could he , when he saw it , refrain from tears , if he really loved his friend ? there must therefore needs be in the sacrament bread and wine to be pledges of jesus christ , for he cannot be a pledg of himself . that the fathers of the seventh and eighth century 's did not believe transubstantiation . isidore bishop of sevil , anno . saith , that by the command of jesus christ himself , we do call body and blood , that which being the fruits of the earth , is sanctified and made a sacrament by the invisible operation of the holy ghost . in the st book of ecclesiastical offices , he saith , that the bread is called the body of jesus christ , because it strengthens the body , and that the wine is called his blood , because it increaseth blood in the body ; and that the bread and wine are two visible things , which being sanctified by the holy ghost , do go on to be the sacrament of the divine body . now a sacrament signifies a holy sign . it would therefore be a strange kind of way of isidore , if he had believ'd the bread and wine were transubstantiated , to say , the bread and wine are two things visible , which being sanctified by the holy ghost , do become the sacraments of the divine body . by this language it might as well be said , that the fathers believed that the water of baptism was transubstantiated after their consecration . the same bishop saith , melchisedeck , that offer'd of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice to god , thereby represented the priesthood or reign of jesus christ , which is the true king of peace , of whose body and blood , that is to say , the oblation of bread and wine , is offer'd throughout the vvorld . and in the treatise de vocat . gentium , cap. . these are not any longer jewish sacrifices , such as were offer'd by aaron the priest , which are now offer'd by believers , but they are such sacrifices as were presented by melchisedeck king of salem , that is to say , it is bread and wine , the true sacrament of the body and blood of jesus christ. he saith , the sacrament of the body and blood of jesus christ is bread and wine , that both the one and the other are such sacrifices as those offer'd by melchisedeck ; there is therefore no question , but st. isidore did not believe that the bread was destroy'd in the sacrament , because he establishes the sacrament in the bread and wine , such as melchisedeck had offer'd . beda , an english priest , saith , that jesus christ having ended the ceremony of the ancient passover , which was celebrated in commemoration of the bondage in egypt , out of which the jews had been deliver'd , proceeded to the new passover , which the church celebrates in remembrance of his redemption , the figure of his body ; to the end , that instead of the flesh and blood of the lamb , substituting the sacrament of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine , he might shew that it was him to whom god had sworn , and repented not , saying , thou art a priest for ever after the order of melchisedeck . now , continues beda , jesus christ broke the bread which he distributed to his disciples , to shew , that the breaking of his body did not come to pass without his good will. it appears from these words , ( substituting the sacrament of his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine ) that the bread and wine remain after consecration , to be the figure of the body and blood of christ. as when the apostle saith , the sign of circumcision , signum circumcisionis ; that is to say , circumcision which is a sign and a figure . so beda maketh the sacrament consist in the bread and wine . therefore in the homily , de sanct is in epiphania , he saith , that jesus christ the heavenly lamb , having been offer'd up , transfer'd into the creatures of bread and wine , the mystery of his passion , and thereby became a priest for ever after the order of melchisedeck . and elsewhere he saith , melchisedeck priest of the most high god , did long before the time of the legal priesthood , offer up bread and wine . therefore our saviour is called priest after the order of melchisedeck , because he abrogated the sacrifices of the law , and instituted a sacrifice of the same kind to be under the new testament , the mystery of his body and blood. certainly , as our mystery is no mystery till after consecration ; and that 't is of the same nature as was that of melchisedeck , it must be concluded , that the bread and wine do remain in the sacrament of the eucharist . sedulius a scotchman , author of the commentaries upon st. paul , and who flourished about the year . in his commentary upon the first to the corinthians , chap. . saith , jesus christ in the eucharist , hath left us the remembrance of himself , as if one going a far journey should leave with his friend the pledg of his love , to remember their ancient amity . there must then needs be something that is not jesus christ himself , for no one is a pledg of himself . damascen a fryer , who lived about the year , saith in his fourth book of orthodox law , chap. . the shew-bread did typifie this bread , and 't is this pure and unbloody sacrifice which our saviour foretold by the prophet , should be offered to him from the rising of the sun to the setting of the same , to wit , the body and blood of jesus christ , which passeth into the substance of our body and soul , without being consumed , without being corrupted , without going into the draft , god forbid , but passing into our substance for our preservation . now every body agrees this cannot be said of the proper body of jesus christ. it must then be concluded , damascen supposed that the bread remained . in the same place he adds , that as in baptism , because men are wont to wash with water , and anoint them with oyl , god has added to the water and oyl , the grace of his holy spirit , and has made it the washing of regeneration ; so also , they being accustom'd to eat bread , and to drink wine and water , he has joined them to his divinity , and has made them his body and blood. in the same place , the prophet esay saw a light coal ; now the coal is not of meer wood , but it is joined to fire ; so also the bread of the eucharist is not common bread , but it is united to the divinity , and the body which is united to the divinity , is not one and the same nature , but the nature of the body is one , and that of the divinity which is united to it , is another . in the same place , how is it that the bread is made the body of jesus christ , and the wine and water his blood ? he answers , the holy ghost comes and disposes these things after such a manner as surpasseth our thoughts and expressions . the bread and wine are taken , panis & vinum assumuntur , in greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a word used by st. athanasius to express the hypostatical union . now these kinds of expressions of damascen do imply , that the bread and wine do remain in the sacrament . the council of constantinople composed of bishops , held in the viiith century , for regulating the business of image-worship , having condemn'd their use , they would by the way explain the doctrine of the church touching the eucharist , and to draw a proof against those very images , they call it the true image of jesus christ ; they say he gave it to his disciples to be a type of the evident commemoration of his death ; they say that jesus christ chose no other species under heaven , nor no other type that should express his incarnation . behold then , say they , the image of his quickned body , which was made after a precious and honourable manner . they affirm , that as the word did not take a person , that so the addition of a person might not be made to the divinity : so also he appointed , that an image should be offered , which is a chosen matter , to wit , the substance of bread , that has not the figure of man , to avoid giving occasion of idolatry : as then , say they , the body of jesus christ which is according to nature , is holy , as having been deified ; so also 't is apparent , that that body also that is by institution , is holy , and it's image is holy , as having been deified by grace , by a kind of sanctification . they maintain , that as the human nature was deified by its union with the word , so also the bread of the sacrament , as the true image of the natural flesh of jesus christ , is sanctified by the coming of the holy ghost , and becomes the body of jesus christ , because the priest transfers the oblation from the state of a common thing , to something that is holy. to conclude , they clearly distinguish the natural flesh of jesus christ , which is living and intelligent , from his image , which is the heavenly bread , filled with the holy spirit . all these continued expressions are so far from any idea of transubstantiation , that one must needs see , that the destruction of the bread and wine in the sacrament , was not believed by the fathers of the council , nor by the church in their time . alcuin speaking of the consecrating of bread and wine to be the body and blood of christ , saith , that the sanctification of this mystery doth foreshew to us the effect of our salvation : that by the water is signified the christian people ; by the grains of the wheat ground into meal to make bread , is meant the union of the universal church which is made one body by the fire of the holy ghost , which unites the members to the head ; and that by the wine is shewed the blood of the passion of the lord. doubtless alcuin did not believe transubstantiation , seeing he places in the bread and wine , the signification of the body and blood of jesus christ ; and that he saith by the wine is shewed the blood of jesus christ ; for that which is a figure , and that which is figured ; that which sheweth , and that which is shewed , are two different things , the one of which is not the other . therefore the same alcuin doth formally distinguish the eucharist from the body and blood of jesus christ , when he saith after st. austin , whosoever abideth not in jesus christ , and he in whom christ abideth not , doubtless doth not spiritually eat his flesh , altho he visibly and carnally eats with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of jesus christ. charles the great , his disciple , writing to the same alcuin , calls the eucharist , the figure of the body and blood of the lord. the lord , saith he , being at supper with his disciples , broke bread , and gave likewise the cup , in figure of his body and blood ; and by this means offered us a very profitable sacrament : now whatever he said of the figure it contain'd , or that it contain'd not the truth , the figure was never the same as the thing is that 's figured . in the ambrosian office which was abolish'd in the year , there was this clause , which is still to be seen in the fourth book of st. ambrose his sacraments , nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam rationabilem , acceptabilem , quod est figura corporis & sanguinis domini nostri jesu christi . the ancient roman order doth frequently call the bread and vvine , the body and blood of the lord ; but it sufficiently shews by these manner of expressions , that it doth not mean that the bread and vvine are the same thing with the body and blood of jesus christ ; for in the first place it saith , that the sub deacons when they see the chalice wherein is the blood of the lord cover'd with a cloth , and when the priest hath said these words at the end of the lords prayer , libera nos a malo , they should go from the altar , and prepare chalices and clean cloths to receive the body of the lord , fearing lest it should fall to the ground , and crumble to dust . now who doth not see that this cannot be spoken but of the bread , figuratively and improperly called the body of jesus christ ? ly , it saith , that the bishop breaketh the oblation on the right side , and that he leaveth the part which he brake , on the altar : now who can say that the body of jesus christ can be broke into parts ? dly , the fraction being made , the deacon receives from the sub-deacon the cup , and carries it to the chair , that the bishop might communicate , who having communicated , puts part of the holy oblation of which he bit a morsel , into the arch-deacons hands . can it be said that one doth bite the true body of jesus christ , and that one breaks off part of it ? thly , it adds , he is to take great heed that no part of the body and blood of the lord doth remain in the chalice , or on the plate . by these words , the roman order gives us to understand , that it speaks of such a body and blood that a part of it may be separated from the whole : now this is what can only be said of the bread and vvine , improperly called the body and blood of jesus christ. the now roman order at present used in the church of rome , doth also furnish us with the like reflections . it expresly marketh , that jesus christ gave in the oblation , bread and wine , to celebrate the mysteries of his body and blood. therein is desired , that this blessed oblation may be accepted of god in such a manner , as that it might be made to us the body and blood of jesus christ ; after all which , is recited the history of the institution , and the sacramental words . the eucharist is called , the sacred bread of eternal life ; and the cup , the cup of everlasting salvation . to conclude , they pray god to behold those gifts , and that he will accept them as he did the offering of abel , and the sacrifice of melchisedeck , which it's very well known , was bread and wine . all which doth plainly shew , that the roman order at this time observed , cannot reasonably be interpreted , but in supposing that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist after consecration . that the fathers of the ninth century did not believe transubstantiation . theodorus studita , as is related by michael studita in baronius , in the year . n. . seeing himself reduced to the extremity of being starv'd , said to his disciple , if men are so cruel as to make me perish with hunger , the participation of the body and blood of the lord , which is the ordinary food of my body and soul , shall be my only nourishment : now the real body of jesus christ cannot be the nourishment of the body ; therefore of necessity this author must be understood to speak of bread , which is his body figuratively and improperly . it is what is also confirm'd by this michael studita , who saith in the same place , that theodore had always about him , some parcels of the quickning body of the lord ; which cannot be meant of the true body of jesus christ , which is not now subject to be broken , nor divided . ahyto bishop of basil , sent ambassador by charlemaine in the year , to constantinople , to treat a peace with the emperor of the east , as is declared by the annals of france , by eginhart author of the life of charlemaine , the annals of fulda , herman contract , and others . this ahyto died in the year , and left a capitulary for instruction of the priests of his diocess , publisht by dom luke d'achery in the sixth tome of his spicilegium , pag. . now amongst many other instructions he gives his priests in his capitularies , this is one : in the fifth place , the priest should know what the sacrament of baptism and confirmation is , and also what the mystery of the body and blood of our lord doth mean. how a visible creature is seen in the same mysteries , and is nevertheless the invisible . salvation is communicated for the souls eternal happiness , which is contained in faith only . by visible creature , he can only mean a creature , not in appearance , but effective ; for otherwise , according to this author , it must be said that in baptism , and confirmation , there should be only an apparent creature , and not the substance of water and chrism . besides , ahyto attributed the same effect to these three sacraments , to wit , the communication of eternal and invisible salvation to them that with faith do receive these holy sacraments . theodulphus in the year , bishop of orleans , saith in his treatise of the order of baptism , there is one saving sacrifice which melchisedeck also offer'd under the old testament , in type of the body and blood of our saviour , the which the mediator of god and man accomplished under the new , before he was crucify'd , when taking the bread and wine he blessed and gave them to his disciples , commanding them to do those things in remembrance of him . it is this mystery which the church doth celebrate , having put an end to the ancient sacrifices , offering bread , because of the bread which came down from heaven ; and wine , because of him which said , i am the true vine ; to the end that by the visible oblation of priests , and by the invisible consecration of the holy ghost , the bread and wine should have the dignity of the body and blood of our lord , with which blood there is mingled some water , either because there came out of the side of our saviour water with the blood ; or because according to the interpretation of our ancestors , as jesus christ is signify'd by the wine , so also the people is signify'd by the water . now this bishop , saying that jesus christ gave bread to his disciples in commemoration that this mystery is an oblation of visible bread which is consecrated by the holy spirit , and which receiveth the dignity of the body ; that he indifferently calls the blood , wine , and the wine , blood ; that with the blood , water is mingled , and that jesus christ is signify'd by the wine ; that 't is said the wine signifies jesus christ , as the water doth the people ; these words cannot suppose any transubstantiation . the opposers of paschasius radbertus frier of the monastry of corby , who wrote a book of the body and blood of jesus christ , did not believe transubstantiation . that the said paschasius had several adversaries , appears by his own writings , for towards the end of his commentary upon st. matthew , he saith himself , i have inlarged upon the lords supper a little more than the brevity of a commentary would permit , because there be several others that are of a different judgment touching these holy mysteries , and that several are blind , and do not perceive that this bread and cup is nothing else but what is seen with the eyes , and tasted with the palate . and in his epistle to frudegard , as well as in his commentary on st. matthew , ch . . it appears he had opposers , because in his epist. to frudegard , he saith , you advise with me touching a thing that many do make doubt of . and in his commentary , i am told that many , saith he , do censure me , as if i had attributed to the words of our lord , either more , or something quite contrary to what the genuine sense permits . so that paschasius had adversaries , and they did not believe transubstantiation , because they held that in the eucharist , there was only the virtue of the flesh , and not the very flesh ; the virtue of the blood , and not the very blood of christ. that the eucharist was figure , and not verity ; shadow of the body , and not the body it self . they would , saith paschasius , extenuate the word , body , and perswade , quod non sit vera caro christi , sed quaedam virtus & figura corporis christi . now paschasius rathbertus was the first author that wrote fully and seriously of the truth of the body and blood of jesus christ in the eucharist , as bellarmin saith , de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis in paschasio ratberto . and father sirmond saith , he is the first that hath explain'd the sense of the church touching this mystery ; so that , saith he , he hath opened the way to others , in vitae ratberti praefixa ejus operibus . therefore it is nothing strange that paschasius had enemies , and that he was accused for departing from the common faith , and to have spread abroad visions of a young man. for he saith to frudegard , you have , saith he , at the end of this work , the authorities of catholick fathers succinctly marked , by which you may perceive , that 't was not through rashness , that formerly when i was young i believed these things , but by divine authority . he also endeavours to clear himself from this charge in alledging passages , as of saint austins , the which nevertheless are not to be found in him ; as these words , receive in the bread what hung on the cross , receive in the cup what issued out of the side of jesus christ. which is not to be found in st. austin . rabanus archbishop of mayance in the year , stiled by baronius in the year . n. . the bright star of germany , fulgens germaniae sidus ; saith in his institution of clerks lib. . cap. . our saviour liked better that believers should receive with their mouth the sacarments of his body and blood , and that they should be turned into their nourishment , to the end that by the visible work the invisible effect should be shewn . for as the material food , doth materially nourish the body and support it , so also the word of god doth nourish the soul inwardly , and doth strengthen it . and in the same place , the sacrament is one thing , and the virtue of the sacrament is another . the sacrament is turned into the nourishment of the body , but by the virtue of the sacrament one acquires everlasting life . as the sacrament therefore is turn'd into our selves , when we do eat and drink it , so also we are converted into the body of jesus christ , when we live with piety and obedience . the same doctor on st. matthew , chap. . saith with venerable beda , that jesus christ hath substituted instead of the flesh and blood of the paschal lamb , the sacrament of his body and blood. that the creator of the world , and the redeemer of mankind , making of the very fruits of the earth , that is to say , of bread and wine , a fit mystery , turn'd it into the sacrament of his body and blood , that unleavened bread and wine mixt with water , must be sanctified to be the sacrament of the body and blood of jesus christ. afterwards he gives the reason wherefore our saviour chose bread and wine to make them sacraments of his flesh and blood , and saith , that 't is because melchisedeck offer'd bread and wine , and that jesus christ being a priest after the order of melchisedeck , he was to imitate his oblation . and shewing the reason why the sacrament takes the name of the body and blood of the lord , he saith with isidore archbishop of sevil , 't is because bread strengthens the body , it is conveniently called the body of jesus christ ; and because wine augments blood in the flesh and veins , for this reason it is compar'd to the blood. now both these things are visible , nevertheless being sanctifi'd by the holy ghost , they pass into the sacrament of the divine body . a sacrament which in the . chap. he calls the mystical body of jesus christ , in opposition to his natural body , from which he distinguishes it , and draws a resemblance from the mystical body , to the proper body of jesus christ. the holy vessels , saith he , are set on the altar , viz. the cup and patten , which in some sort are the figure of the grave of jesus christ ; for as at that time the body of jesus christ was laid in the sepulcher , having been embalm'd by godly people ; so also at present , the mystical body of jesus christ , as it were imbalm'd with holy prayers , is kept in the holy vessels to be administred to believers by the hands of the ministers . the same doctor in his penitential , or letter to herribald bishop of auxerre , which monsieur baluze got printed at the end of his regino at paris in , saith , chap. . as to what you demand of me , whether the sacrament after it is eat and consum'd , and cast into the draft after the manner of all other meats , does return to the former nature it had before 't was consecrated at the altar : to such a needless question may be reply'd , the lord himself said in the gospel , that what enters into the body goes into the belly , and is cast into the draft . as for the sacrament of the body and blood , it is made of corporeal and visible things , but it produceth an invisible sanctification , as well to the body as to the soul. what reason is there , that that which is digested in the stomack , and is cast out into the draft , should return to its former state , there being never any that affirmed that such a thing was done ? for of late some persons not having a right judgment of the sacrament of the body and blood of christ , have said , that the same body , and the same blood of the lord which was born of the virgin mary , and in which the lord suffered on the cross , and rose again from the dead , is the same which is taken at the altar ; against which error we have as much as was necessary written to the abbot egilon , explaining what ought truly to be believed of the body of christ in the eucharist . amalarius , esteemed a very learned man , in the manuscripts cited by dom luke d'achery a learned benedictin , in his preface to the seventh tome of his spicilegium , was sent by the emperor charles le debonnair to pope gregory to find out antiphonaries , ( amalar. in prolog . antiphon . ) and who by express command of the same emperor , was chosen in a council held at aix la chappel , auno . to make rules for prebends , as is testified by ademar a monk of angoulism , in his chronicle on the year , saith in his treatise of church-offices , lib. . cap. . that the sacrament is to us instead of jesus christ. the priest , saith he , bows and recommends to god the father , that which was offered in the room of jesus christ. in the th chap. he saith , the oblation and the cup , do signifie the body of the lord , when jesus christ said , this is the cup of my blood , he sanctified his blood , which blood was in the body , as the wine is in the chalice . in the third book , chap. . he calls the eucharist , the sacrament of bread and wine : and saith , that jesus christ hath in this bread recommended his body , and in the cup , his blood. the same amalarius having been consulted by rangart bishop of noyon , how he understood those words of institution of the eucharist , this is the cup in my blood of the new and eternal testament , with this addition which is in the canon of the mass , the mystery of faith ; answers him by a letter , wherein after having spoken of the cup of the passover , he proceeds to that of the eucharist ; and having alledged what is mention'd by st. luke , he adds , the cup is in type of my body , wherein is the blood that shall run out of my side , to accomplish the ancient law ; and after it is shed , it shall be the new testament . and a little lower he saith , the mystery is faith , as st. austin saith in his letter to the bishop boniface , as the sacrament of the body of jesus christ is in some manner the body of jesus christ , and the sacrament of his blood , his blood ; so the sacrament of faith , is faith. so also we may say , this is the cup of my blood of the new and eternal testament . as if he should say , this is my blood which is given for you . the same doctor in a letter which he wrote to one gontard , whom he calls his son , saith , that it is our saviours good pleasure to shed his blood by the members and veins , for our eternal salvation . that 't is a body of jesus christ that may be cast out in spitting after having receiv'd it , and of which , a part may be flung out of the mouth . to all which he adds , having so received the body of the lord with a good intention ; i don't pretend to dispute , whether he be invisibly lifted up to heaven , or whether he remains in our body , till the day of our death , or whether he evaporates into the air , or whether he issues out of the body with the blood , or whether he goes out at the pores ; our saviour saying , all that enters in at the mouth , goes down into the belly , and from thence into the draft , &c. now when this great man saith , that the sacrament is to us in the stead of jesus christ ; that what is offered in the eucharist is sacrific'd instead of jesus christ ; that the cup is in type of the body ; that the blood is in the body , as the wine is in the cup ; that jesus christ represents his body by the bread , and his blood in the wine ; that the sacrament of the body is in some sort his body , and that 't is so that the cup of the blood is his blood , that the body is poured forth upon our members for our salvation ; that there is a body of jesus christ that may be cast out by spitting , and whereof some part may be flung out of the mouth ; that he will not dispute whether this body evaporates in the air , or whether it departs out of the body with the blood , or whether it goes out at the pores , or into the draft , all this doth sufficiently shew , that this doctor distinguished the bread and wine , as a typical body , from the real body of jesus christ ; and that by consequence , he believed the bread and wine remained after consecration , to be called the body and blood of jesus christ , but improperly . valafridus strabo , abbas augiensis , stiled a very learned man , by herman contracted , in the year . jesus christ , said he , gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body and blood in the substance of bread and wine , teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance of his most holy passion , because there could nothing be found fitter than these things to signifie the unity of the head and members ; for as bread is made of sundry grains , and brought into one body by means of water ; and as the wine is squeez'd from several grapes , so also the body of jesus christ is made of the union of a multitude of saints . and a little after , he declares , that jesus christ hath chose for us a very fit sacrifice , for the mystery of his body and blood , in that melchisedeck having offer'd bread and wine , he gave to his children the same kinds of sacraments . and afterwards , cap. . that for that great number of legal ordinances , jesus christ gave us the word of his gospel ; so also instead of the great diversity of sacrifices , believers are to rest satisfied with the sole oblation of bread and wine . it is evident strabo makes the holy sacrament to consist in the substance of bread and wine , which according to him , is differenced from the body , because it is but the memorial of it : that 't is the figure , that it consists in being made of sundry grains , and the wine of sundry grapes . that the sacrifice of the new testament , is of the same kind as that of melchisedeck , and that the eucharist is an oblation of bread and wine . all these things intimate , that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist after consecration . herribald was bishop of auxerre , in the time that vallafridus strabo wrote . now he was of the same opinion with rabanus . thomas waldensis assures us so . herribald of auxerre , saith he , and rabanus of mayence say , that the sacrament of the eucharist goes into the draft . the anonimous author , contemporary with herribald , which was published by father cellot the jesuit , saith also the same . nevertheless lupus abbot of ferriers , ep. . speaking of him , calls him a most excellent prelate , excellentissimum praesulum . in the th ep. he stiles him a man of a lofty and divine understanding , altissimi & divini ingenii . and hincmarus archbishop of reims , calls him the bishop of venerable qualities . so that the very chronicle of auxerre intimates , that there was ingrav'd on his monument this inscription , here lies the body of st. herribald . therefore the author of the st treatise of the perpetuity of the eucharist , saith in pag. , that herribald and rhabanus , were adversaries to paschasius : tho in the d treatise of the perpetuity , in pag . he saith , speaking of the minister claude , who told him , that amalarius and herribald were in any wise adversaries to paschas ? it appears by the letter paschasius wrote to frudegard , that he was not of the same judgment paschasius was of , seeing he opposes to him st. austin's d letter to boniface , sic widefort contra wickliff , ad art. . * ratramne , priest and frier of corby , experienc'd in the scriptures , equally esteem'd for his learning and manners , whom † hincmar , ‖ lupus abbot of ferriers , his contemporaries ; ⸫ sigebert who liv'd in the xi . century , and father ‡ cellot the jesuits anonimus , do all make mention of , under his true name of ratramne ; wrote a book under the reign of charles the bald , as is reported by the same trythemius , which he intitul'd , of the body and blood of the lord : from a monk of corby , he was made abbot of ovias . the president : ⸫ mauguin speaking of him , saith , he was a learned doctor of the church , eminent in probity , and in doctrine , an undaunted defender and protector of the catholick truth , against innovators . he dedicated his book to the emperor charles the bald. now this author did not believe transubstantiation , because he saith , for as to the substance of those creatures , they are after consecration what they were before ; they were before bread and wine , and it is plainly seen , that after consecration these created substances do remain in the very same species . and a little after he saith , this spiritual flesh which spiritually feeds believers , is made of grains of wheat , by the hands of the baker , such as it appears to our sight ; but it hath neither bones nor sinews , nor no distinction of parts , nor is it enliven'd with a soul , or reasonable substance . to conclude , it is unable to move of it self , and if it gives life , it is the effect of a spiritual virtue , of an invisible , and a divine virtue and efficacy . a little after he saith again , as the water represents the people in the sacrament , if it were true , that the bread consecrated by ministers was corporally changed into the body of jesus christ , it must also necessarily follow , that the water which is mingled with it were changed into the blood of the faithful people ; for where there is but one sanctification , there ought to be but one operation ; and the mystery should be equal where the reason of the mystery is the same . it is evident there is no corporal change in the water , and by consequence , there is no corporal change to be expected in the wine . all that is said of the body of the people represented by water , is understood spiritually ; it is then a necessary consequence , that what is said of the blood of jesus christ represented by the wine , must be understood spiritually . again , the things which differ amongst themselves , are not one and the same thing . the body of jesus christ which was dead and rose again , and become immortal , doth dye no more , death has no more dominion over it , it is eternal , and can no more suffer ; but that which is celebrated in the church is temporal and not eternal , and it is corruptible and not incorruptible . and again ; it must then be said , that the body of jesus christ , such as it is made in the church , was incorruptible and eternal . nevertheless it cannot be denied that what is so cut into morsels to be eat , changed and corrupted , and that being eat with the teeth , it goes into the body . again , now 't is true that the figure and the reallity are things distinct , therefore the body and blood which are celebrated in the church , are different from the flesh and blood of the body of jesus christ , which it is well known , is glorious since his resurrection , therefore the body that we celebrate is a pledg and figure . these words of ratramne or bertram , are so clear , that it is wonder'd the author of the perpetuity should say in the first treatise , p. . that bertram is an obscure author , and not evidently favourable to calvinists , but that the catholicks may explain him in a good sense . i cannot tell what to call this confidence . john erigen , a scotch man , whom the emperor charles the bald commanded to write touching the body and blood of the lord , as he had done also to ratramne , which appears by borrenger's letter to richard , publish'd by dom luke d' achery in the d tome of his spicileg , was of an opinion contrary to paschasius , as is acknowledged by * lanfrank ; and berenger in his epistle to the same lanfrank ; and hincmar saith of john erigen , that he taught , ‖ that the sacrament of the altar was not the real body and blood of jesus christ , but only the remembrance both of the one and the other : and berenger writing to lanfrank , saith to him , if you hold john for a heretick , whose judgment we have been inform'd of touching the sacrament , you must also hold for hereticks , ambrose , chrysostom , austin , not to mention many more . nevertheless * william of malmsbury , ‖ roger de hoveden , and ‡ matthew of westminster , speak of john scot , as of the greatest man of his time ; and molanus professor in divinity at the university of lovain , in his appendix to the martyrology of ussuart , at the letter j has left these words engraven , john scot , martyr , translated dionysius ' s ecclesiastical hierarchy , after which by authority of the popes , he was put into the number of the martyrs of jesus christ. to conclude , the roman martyrology , which we have in our library , printed at antwerp , anno . by order of gregory the th , as is said in the title of the book , martyrologium romanum jussii gregorii , editum , at the of the ides of november , makes mention of john scot : it 's true , the author of the st dissertation upon john scot , which the author of the perpetuity chose , having placed the said dissertation at the end of his d treatise , to which he often refers his readers , has made in the same dissertation , a chapter which bears the title , that john scot was not put into the catalogue of martyrs by the sacred authority of popes , and that his name is not to be sound in any edition of the roman martyrology . but it is also certain , that the same author , who hath also publish'd the belief of the greek church touching transubstantiation , has inserted in the end of his book , a treatise entituled , a refutation of the answer of a minister of charenton , to the dissertation which is in the end of monsieur arnauds book , concerning the employments , the martyrdom , and the writings of john scot , or erigen ; and the last chapter of this refutation hath this title , a sincere declaration of the author touching some things he had said in his dissertation , the which he since confesses were not true . and in numb . . of this chapter , the author saith in these terms , in art. . p. . ( he speaks of the th art. of the first dissertation upon john scot , which is at the end of mr. arnauds perpetuity ; ) it is said that 't is false that there was a martyrology printed at antwerp by command of gregory the th in the year . dly , that there is not to be found in any roman martyrology , printed at antwerp or any where else , the commemoration of john scot on the th of the ides of november . it would be superfluous here to relate the reasons that they have had , so positively to deny these matters of fact. it is sufficient to observe , first , that there is a roman martyrology set forth by order of gregory the th , and printed by platin at antwerp in the year . dly , that there is seen in this martyrology , the commemoration of john scot on the th of the ides of november in these words , eodem die sancti joannis scoti qui grafiis puerorum confessus , martyrii coronam adeptus est . this author is of good reputation , and doubtless was not ignorant of what st. austin saith in some of his works , that to lye in a matter of religion , is meer blasphemy . nevertheless we may observe , before proceeding any farther , that if scot had advanced any new doctrine , he would certainly have been reproved for it by the church of lyons , by prudentius , by florus , by the councils of valence and langres , which condemn'd and censur'd his opinions on the doctrine of predestination . st. prudentius bishop of troys in champaign , who assisted at the councils of paris in the year , of tours in , at soissons in the year . to whom leo the th wrote an honourable letter , which is to be seen in the th tome of the councils , of the which the bishop of toul in the french martyrology on the th of april , having said , that at troys his anniversary is solemnized , as of a holy bishop and confessor ; he also makes a magnificent elegy of him . this holy bishop , i say , was of the same judgment with john scot in the subject of the eucharist , for hincmar arch-bishop of rhemes , numbers him with john scot , against whom he observes nevertheless , that he wrote touching predestination , and saith , that they both held , that the sacraments of the altar are not the true body and blood of our lord , but only the commemoration of his body and blood. christianus drutmar priest and frier of corby , famous for his learned works , saith sigebert of illustrious men , as also the abbot trythemius ; wrote a commentary upon st. matthew , about the year . it is in the bibliotheca patrum , tom. . pag. . jesus christ , saith drutmar , took bread , because bread strengthens the heart of man , and doth better fortifie our body than any other food . he therein establishes the sacrament of his love ; but this propriety ought much rather to be attributed to the spiritual bread which perfectly strengthens all men , and all creatures , because 't is by him we live , move , and have our being . he blessed it : he blessed it first , because as in his person he blessed all mankind , then afterwards he shewed that the blessing and power of the divine and immortal nature was truly in that nature which he had taken from the virgin mary . he broke it : he broke the bread which was himself , because exprsing himself willingly to death , he broke and shattered the habitation of his soul , to the end that he might satisfie us , according to what himself saith , i have power to lay down my life , or to save it . and he gave it to his disciples , saying to them , take and eat , this is my body . he gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sins , and for the keeping of charity , to the end that not forgetting this action , they should always perform this in figure , and that they should not be unmindful of what he was about to do for them . this is my body , that is to say , sacramentally ; and having taken the cup , he blessed it , and gave it to his disciples . as amongst all things which are necessary to preserve life , bread and wine are those that do most of all repair and strengthen the weakness of nature : it is with great reason that our saviour was pleas'd in these two things to establish the mystery of his sacrament ; for wine rejoyces the heart , and increases blood , therefore it is very fit to represent the blood of jesus christ , because whatsoever comes from him , rejoyces with true joy , and encreaseth whatsoever there is of good in us . to conclude , as a person that is going a long journey , leaves to those u hom be loves , some particular pledg of his kindness , on condition that they should look daily upon it , to the end that they may retain him always in remembrance ; so in like manner , god by spiritually changing the bread into his body , and the wine into his blood , has commanded us to celebrate this mystery , that these two things should make us never forget what he hath done for us with his body and blood , and keep us from being unthankful and ungrateful for his so tender love. now because water is wont to be mingled with the sacrament of his blood , this water represents the people for whom jesus christ was pleas'd to suffer , and the water is not without the wine , nor the wine without the water , because as he died for us , so also we should be ready to die for him , and for our brethren , that is to say , for the church , therefore there came out of his side water and blood. this passage is taken out of the commentary , where the author expounds these words of the institution , this is my body , by these other words , that is to say , in sacrament , which are words quite contray to those of paschasius ; for paschasius said in his letter to frudegard , fearing it should be thought that jesus spake in sacrament , he said demonstratively , this is my body . ne putares quia in sacramento loquebatur ( deminus ) &c. demonstrative dixit , hoc est corpus meum . so drutman makes a difference 'twixt the body and the sacrament which he establishes in the bread and wine , which he blessed , brake and gave to his disciples ; he ascribes to the wine , only the dignity of representing the blood of christ ; and that , to conclude , the bread and wine are pledges of his love. therefore the same author , chap. . on these words , i will drink no more of this fruit of the vine , until i drink it new with you in my father's kingdom ; from that very hour of supper , saith he , he drank no wine , until he became immortal and incorruptible after his resurrection . the deacon florus wrote about the same time , an exposition of the mass , which is mention'd in the bibliotheca patrum , tom. . pag. . he there saith , this body and this blood is not gather'd in ears of corn , or in clusters of grapes ; nature doth not give it us , but it is consecration that makes it mystical to us : jesus christ is eaten when the creatures of bread and wine do pass to the sacrament of the body and blood , by the ineffable sanctification of the holy ghost . he is eaten by parcels in the sacrament , and remains whole and intire in heaven , and whole and intire in our hearts . again , all that is done in this oblation of the body and blood of our saviour , is a mystery , we there see one thing , and we understand another ; what we see , hath a corporal substance ; what we understand , hath a spiritual fruit. he saith , jesus christ saith to them , take , eat ye all of this ; and speaking of the cup , the wine , saith he , was the mystery of our redemption , and he proves it by these words , i will drink no more of the fruit of the vine . to conclude , explaining these last words of the canon , by which , o lord , thou daily makest these good things for us , which contain a kind of thanksgiving , which in the latin liturgy does follow the consecration ; he sufficiently intimates to us , that he did not believe the bread and wine were changed into the substance of the body and blood of jesus christ , seeing he speaks of them , as things god had created from the beginning of the world , which he creates every year by propagation and reparation , which he sanctifies , which he sills with grace and heavenly benediction , the which himself expounds to be bread and wine . see here nine or ten authors , contemporaries with paschasius , which are formally contrary to his doctrine , besides those which paschasius himself speaks of in general , in his own writings . to conclude the ninth century , there might be added the manner that charles the bald , and the count of barcelona signed the peace , which was done with the blood of the eucharist , as is reported by monsieur baluze in his notes on agabard , out of odo aribert , in the year . it was in the same manner that pope theodore in the seventh century signed the condemnation of pirrbus the monotholite , as appears by baronius on the year . § . that the fathers of the tenth century did not believe transubstantiation . alferick archbishop of canterbury , about the year . in one of his sermons to be seen in the fourth book of bedes ecclesiastical history , cap. . which we have copied in the library of st. victor , saith , the eucharist is not the body of jesus christ corporally , but spiritually ; not the body in which he suffered , but the body of which he spake , when consecrating the bread and wine he said , this is my body , this is my blood ; he adds , the bread is his body , just as the manna ; and the wine his blood , as the water in the desart was . there is another sermon cited by some under the name of wolfin bishop of salisbury , others say 't is of alfric , wherein the author uses near the same language . this sacrifice , saith he , is not the body of jesus christ wherein he suffered for us , nor his blood which he shed , but it is spiritually made his body and blood , as the manna that fell from heaven , and the water that sprang out of the rock besides these two testimonies , which shew what was believed of the sacrament in england , there is a sermon seen , which was read every year to the people at easter , to keep in their minds the idea of the ancient faith ; it is almost wholly taken out of ratramne ; there is great difference , saith this homily , betwixt the body wherein jesus christ suffered , and the body which is consecrated for the eucharist ; for the body wherein jesus christ suffered , was born of the virgin mary , and was provided with blood , bones , nerves and skin , with bodily members , and a reasonable soul ; but his spiritual body , which we call eucharist , is compos'd of several grains of wheat , without blood , without bones , nerves , and without a soul. the body of christ which suffer'd death , and rose again , shall never dye more , it is eternal and immortal ; but the eucharist is temporal and not eternal , it is corruptible and divided into sundry parcels , ground by the teeth , and goes along with the other excrements . this sacrament is a pledg and figure ; the body of jesus christ is the truth it self ; we have this pledg sacramentally until we attain to the truth , and then the pledg shall be fulfill'd . and a little lower , if we consider the eucharist after a corporal manner , we see 't is a changeable and corruptible creature ; but if we consider the spiritual virtue that is in it , we easily see that life abides in it , and that it gives immortality to those that receive it with faith. there is great difference betwixt the invisible virtue of this holy sacrament , and the visible form of its proper nature . by nature it is corruptible bread , and corruptible wine , but by the virtue of the word of god , it is truly his body and blood , yet not corporally but spiritually . a little below , he explains this change , in saying , jesus christ by an invisible virtue did change the bread and wine into his body and blood ; but 't was after the same manner as he heretofore changed manna , and the water that came out of the rock , into the same body and blood. fulcuin abbot of the monastry of lobes , in the county of liege , who departed this life in the year . speaking of the eucharistical table , saith , that 't is the table on which is consumed the sacred body of our lord , which not being to be said of the proper body , cannot be understood but of the bread which is called body , an expression which in all likelihood this abbot had learn'd of st. austin , who faith , the bread made for that use , is consumed in receiving the sacrament . that which is set on the table is consum'd , the holy celebration being ended . herriger , successor to fulcuin , and whom he that continued the history of the abbots of lobes , mentions as a man whose virtue and knowledg was known even to strangers , he collected , saith this author , several passages of catholick fathers against paschasius ratbertus , touching the body and blood of our lord. the ancient customs of the monastry of cluny , reprinted by the care of dom luke d' achery , l. . ch . . say , the outside of the challice is carefully rub'd , lest there should the least drop of the wine and water remain ; and being consecrated , it should fall to the ground , and perish ; by which it appears they believed the wine and water still remain'd after consecration , for the true body of jesus christ cannot perish . again , the priest divides the host , and puts part of it into the blood ; of one moiety he communicates himself , and with the other , he communicates the deacon . it cannot be so spoke of the body of jesus christ ; then after the priest has broke the host , he puts part of it into the cup , after the usual manner , two parts on the patten , and covers both the one and the other with a clean cloath ; but first of all , he very carefully rubs the challice , and shakes it with the same hand with which he touched it , fearing , lest that breaking the bread , there should rest some part of the body of our lord ( which cannot be said of the true body of jesus christ ; ) and elsewhere is prescrib'd what should be done , if there chance to remain ever so little of the body of our saviour , which is expounded to be a very little crum , as 't were indivisible , and like an atome . to conclude , treating of the communion of sick folks , it is observ'd that the body of our lord is brought from the church , that it is broke , and that the priest holds on the challice the part that he is to bring . it must needs be , that by the sence of these customs , there must be bread and wine in the sacrament , that it may be broken , and improperly called body . ratherius bishop of verona saith , as to the corporal substance which the communicant doth receive , seeing that 't is i that do now ask the question , i must also answer my self , and i thereto yield ; for seeing that to him that receives worthily , it is the true body , altho one sees that the bread is the same it was before ; and true blood , altho the wine is seen to be the same it was : i confess i cannot say nor think , what it is to him that doth receive unworthily , that is to say , that doth not abide in god. now the communicant , can he receive a corporal substance ? can one say , that one sees that the bread is what 't was before , if the communicant receives no substance ? it is known on the contrary , that what is seen , is not bread nor wine . moreover , ratherius condemning drunkenness and excess in some of his priests , saith , that some of them spew'd before the altar of our lord upon the body and blood of the lamb ; this can be understood only of the sacrament , which borrows the name of the thing signified , the abuse whereof reflects on him that instituted it . that the authers of the eleventh century did not believe transubstantiation . the author of the life of st. genulphius , who in all probability lived in the beginning of the eleventh century , and was published by john a bosco a celestin frier , relates of this saint , that from the very day of his ordination , he spent the rest of his life without tasting any wine , except it was that he receiv'd in the celebration of the holy sacrament . one would not speak in this manner , and believe that there was not wine remaining in the cup after consecration . leutherick arch-bishop of sens , who died in the year of our lord . did not believe transubstantiation , because we read of him in the life of pope john the xvii . or according to others the eleventh , that in this popes life , leutherick arch-bishop of sens , laid the foundation and elements of the heresy of berenger . whence it is , that helgald wrote in the life of king robert , that his doctrine grew and increased in the world ; cresebat , saith he , in saeculo , notwithstanding the threatnings which this prince made to depose him from his dignity , if he continued to teach it . fulbert , anno dom. . bishop of chartres , and ordain'd by leutherick , did not believe transubstantiation , when he said in his st epistle to adeodatus , that jesus christ intending to take up his body to heaven , left us the sacrament for to be a pledg of his body and blood. that under the visible form of the creature , there is a secret virtue that operates in the holy solemnities . that the divine majesty is diffus'd and spread abroad in that , which before was but a common thing , but being sanctifi'd by the heavenly word , it inwardly becomes the body of jesus christ. that this is effected by the holy spirit that joyns , unites and binds the sacrament to the body of jesus christ , ( compaginante spiritu sancto ) that the terrestrial matter surpassing the merits of its nature and kind , is changed into the substance of the body of jesus christ ; that this change is not impossible , no more than that is , which arrives to us by baptism , being changed into the body of the church ; not by any priviledge of nature , but by the purchase of faith ; non naturae privilegio , sed fidei precio , being the same outwardly , and changed inwardly : of servants being become children , being vile and abject , and all of a sudden acquiring a new dignity . what wonder is it , that he that produced these natures out of nothing , should convert them into the dignity of a more excellent nature , and make them pass into the substance of his body ? now the terms of pledges of the body and blood of the lord , do sufficiently shew that he made a difference betwixt the sacrament and his body ; therefore we see before , that ratramne drew the same consequence in saying , that which is a pledg and image , is distinct from that whereof it is an image and pledg . these terms of a secret virtue by which it operates , of the sacred majesty which it spreads abroad , of the holy spirit that joins and unites , of the matter which is advanced to a greater dignity ; and in that he confirms the change of the bread , by that which happens to believers in baptism ; and by that which besel the manna in the wilderness ; as also what he farther says to frudegard in his d epistle of the communion , as of a thing whereof the priest newly ordained , during days , received a little portion , parvam particulam , which might be taken by morsels , or by bits , minutatim sumere , in that he calls the sanctified bread , eucharist , and that he saith , that the sanctified bread is called the true body of jesus christ ; in that he saith elsewhere with st. austin , that he that abides not in jesus christ , and in whom jesus christ abideth not , doth not eat his flesh , nor drink his blood , though he eats and drinks to his condemnation , the sacrament of so great a thing . all this sheweth , that berenger had all reason to alledg in his defence the authority of fulbert , as appears by berenger's letter to richard , which letter is printed by dom luke d' achery in the d tome of his spicileg . if things be so , saith berenger to richard , how is it that this doctrine of the eucharist , contained in the writings of bishop fulbert of glorious memory , should come to my knowledg , which some indeed imagine to be of this bishop , but was indeed taught by st. austin ? bernon abbot of auge , who about the year . wrote a treatise of things concerning the mass , saith in the st chapter , that pope sergius commanded to sing the agnus dei at the breaking of the body of the lord ; now this being not to be understood of the proper body of jesus christ , it must be understood of the sacrament , which is the figure of his body : they do not speak so now , they say the sign is broken , but they do not say the body of jesus christ is broken : and in the th chapter he saith , that we are refreshed with the wine which is in the cup , in type of the blood of jesus christ. bruno bishop of argers , was of berengers opinion , as appears by the d tome of the bibliotheca patrum , p. , in a letter the bishop of liege writ to k. henry against bruno and berenger , his arch-deacon . sigebert in his chronicle of miroeus his edition at antwerp , , saith , that many did dispute for and against berenger , by word of mouth , and by writing . the manuscript of this chronicle , which is seen in monsieur d'thous's library saith the same : as also conrart de brunwill , apud surium vita wolphelmi ad ap . matthew of westminster on the year , saith , that berenger had almost corrupted all france , italy , and england , with his doctrine . matthew paris , and william of malmsbury do affirm , that all france was full of his doctrine . thomas waldensis relates the acts of the council held under gregory the th , wherein there was a more moderate confession of faith touching the sacrament prepared , than that under alexander the d , predecessor to gregory ; berenger was forced to sign it , after which greg. th . gave him letters of recommendation , which dom luke d' achery , has caused to be printed in one of the tomes of his collection . nevertheless it appears by the acts , and by hugh de flavigny , in the chronicle of verdun in the st tome of father l' abbes bibliotheque , in an. , that there were several in that assembly that maintained berengers doctrine against paschasius , that this arch-deacons adversaries knew not how to answer his reasons , as the chronicle of mount cassin test sies , l. . c. . and sigonius de regno itali , relates lib. . on the year . that they were forc'd to send to the monastry of mount cassin , for a learned frier called albert , whom pope stephen , saith sigonius , made cardinal deacon , who being come , and not able to answer berengers arguments , desired a weeks time to consider of them ; neither was pope gregory the th himself well satisfied with what was urged against berenger , seeing that cardinal bernon , in the life of hildebrand , and the abbot of ursberg in the year , do write , that gregory the th , wavering in the faith , caus'd a fast to be kept by his cardinals , that it might be discover'd whether the church of rome , or berenger were in the best opinion touching the bidy of jesus christ in the sacrament . one argument that gregory the th , was not very contrary to berenger , is , that the abbot of ursberg , and aventin , that has it from otto fraxinensis , relate on the year , that thirty bishops and lords being assembled apud brixiam nomicam , did depose gregory the th , amongst other things , for being a disciple of berengers . before i end my discourse of berenger , it is necessary to observe , that the confession that was extorted from him , is not maintainable , seeing that , as is related by lanfranc and alger , it is therein said , that jesus christ not only in sacrament , but also in reality , is touched and broken by the teeth . theophylact arch-bishop of bulgary said in his time , that god , condescending to our infirmity , doth preserve the species of bread and wine , and changes them into the virtue of the body and blood of christ. also in his time the greeks did not believe transubstantiation . in all probability nicetas pectoratus did not believe it , seeing cardinal humbert whom pope leo the th sent to them , upbraids him , perfidious stercoranist , says he to him , you think that the participation of the body and blood of our lord breaks the fasts of lent , and other holy fasts , believing that the heavenly , as well as the terrestrial food , is cast out into the draft , by the sordid and stinking way of the belly . alger de sacram. l. . c. . tom. . of the fathers , lib. and the jesuit cellot , in append. miscel. opusc. . p. . do frequently impute this error to the greeks . the author of the chronicle malleacensis , on the year , observes in the monastry ( cormoriacensi ) , that there was a fryar called literius , of such great abstinence , that for ten years time , he drank neither wine nor water , but what he received in the sacrament ; of necessity then , what one drinks in the eucharist , must be true wine , and true water . that the authors of the twelfth century did not believe transubstantiation . honorius priest and theologal of the church of rutan , did not believe transubstantiation , seeing thomas waldensis , tom. . c. . saith , that this theologal was of the sect of the bread-eaters of rabanus , de secta panitarum rabani ; and honorius saith with raban , that the sacrament which is received with the mouth , is converted into bodily food , but the virtue of the sacrament is that whereby the inward man is fed and satisfied . he saith also , that the host is broken , because the bread of angels was broken for us upon the cross ‡ . * that the bishop bites one piece , that he divides it in parts , that it is not received whole , but broke in three parts , ‖ that when 't is put in the wine , it is shewed that the soul of our lord return'd to his body , and he calls that which is broke , the body of the lord ; then he observes , that the sub-deacon receives from the deacon the body of our saviour , and that he carries it to the priests to divide it to the people ; all this can only be understood of the bread , which is improperly called the body . rupert abbot of duits , near cologne , upon exodus , l. . c. . saith , that the holy ghost doth not destroy the substance of bread , as he did not destroy the human nature , when he joined it to the word ; and in his th book on st. john , of the paris edition , in the year , he saith , that as the word was made flesh , not being changed into flesh , but in assuming flesh , so also the word made flesh , is made visible bread , not being changed into bread , but taking and transferring the bread into the unity of his person . we will say no more of this author , because bellarmin and several others , do freely confess that rupert did not believe transubstantiation ; also honorius of auter gives him extraordinary commendations , saying , that rupert illuminated with a vision of the holy ghost , explained almost all the holy scriptures in an admirable stile . zonaras in the east did not believe transubstantiation , seeing he saith of the eucharist , that it is a shew-bread which is subject to corruption , and which is eat and ground with the teeth . panis propositionis corruptioni est obnoxius , ut pote caro existens vere christi , & secatur dentibus nostris , & molitur . so that he was of the opinion of damascen and rupert . the abbot francus , in all likelihood , abbot of lobes , did not approve the opinion of transubstantiation , seeing the centuriators of magdebourgh observe , that he had no right judgment of the lords supper , asserting that the true body of christ was not in the holy sacrament . amalaricus bishop of chartres in they ear . a man of great reputation for his knowledg and wisdom , saith gaugwi● in his th book of the history of france , in the reign of philip the august , amongst other things , denied transubstantiation . bernard of luxemburg , prateolus and alphonsus alastro , report the same of amaury , as also genebrard in his chronicle , lib. . anno . opinions of authors of the thirteenth century , and afterwards , touching transubstantiation . it 's true , pope innocent the d , did condemn this amaury at the council of lateran , after his death , in the year . but 't is not said wherefore ; and what was transacted in this council , deserves not to be much regarded , if it be consider'd after what manner things were there transacted . the pope , who then presided , was a man full of vain glory and ambition ; mathew paris and mathew of westminster intimate so much of him , and that the liberty of voting and speaking was denied to the prelates of the assembly , for they were not seen to propose , nor deliberate , nor advise , nor prepare any of the constitutions which were there in great numbers ; but they were presented to the council ready drawn up , it not appearing that the advice of the assembly was taken on each of them , as is usually practis'd in all free and lawful councils . mathew paris , on the year . speaks in these terms , every one being assembled in the place abovesaid , and each having according to the custom of the general councils , taken their place , the pope having first made an exhortatory sermon , there was read in full council sixty articles ; which were liked by some , and disliked by others . godfry a fryer of st. pantalion at cologne , saith , there was nothing worth the remembrance done at this council , only that the eastern church submitted to the western , which before was never known . naucerlus and platina , in the life of innocent the d. affirm the same , for they mark , that several things were there propos'd , but that nothing was clearly determin'd . and kings and princes have no reason to allow of this council , because in the d chap. of the said council , power is given to the pope to deprive princes and lords of their lands , and to give them to others . guy legros archbishop of narbonne , in the year . did not believe transubstantiation ; for being at rome , and discovering his mind to a certain doctor , being return'd to narbonne , pope clement the iv. wrote him a letter , telling him that a certain doctor inform'd him , that discoursing with him , he held that the body of christ was not essentially in the sacrament , and no otherwise than as the thing signified is in the sign ; and that he said also this opinion was common at paris . this appears by the register'd manuscript of the letters of clement the iv. and to shew that the arch bishop of narbonne said this doctrine was very frequent at paris ; we find that two years after , that is to say , in the year . which was in the year st. lewis died ; stephen bishop of paris , by advice of some doctors in divinity , condemned those which held , that god cannot make an accident to be without a subject , because it is of its essence to be actually in its subject . ly , that the accident without a subject , is not evident , unless it be equivocal . ly , that to make the accident subsist without its subject , as we think it does in the eucharist , is a thing impossible , and implies a contradiction . ly , that god cannot make the accident be without its subject , neither that it should have several dimensions . which maxims being inconsistent with transubstantiation , doth plainly shew , that even at that time , men were divided on the subject of transubstantiation . one william , saith the fryer walsingham , in the life of richard the d , king of england , on the year . preached at leicester on palm-sunday , that the sacrament of the altar is real bread after consecration ; and that the bishop of lincoln going to punish him for it , the people appearing concern'd for him , made the bishop not dare do any thing against him , which doth plainly shew , that in that time the doctrine of transubstantiation had not taken any deep root in the minds of the people . reginal peacock bishop of chichester in england , in the year , did not hold transubstantiation , seeing baleus reports on the credit of thomas gasconius and leland , that he had no sound thoughts touching the eucharist , and that he asserted the doctrine of wickliff . now the doctrine of wickliff , as is related by this frier walsingham and thomas waldensis , was , that after consecration by the priest in the mass , there remains true bread and wine , such as they were before ; nevertheless , saith walsingham , the lords and nobles of the land favour'd wickliff ; which shews plainly , that the belief of transubstantiation was not generally received . guy of cluvigny , doctor in divinity , of the order of carmelites , and reader of the sacred palace , did not hold transubstantiation , but held the opinion of rupert de duits , to wit , the impanation ; and said , that this opinion was so agreeable to him , that if he were pope , he would establish it . thomas waldensis reports the same thing , having receiv'd it from john of paris . it 's certain that john of paris teacheth so in his manuscript treatise in the library of st. victor , having for its title , determinatio fratris joannis de parisiis praedicatoris de modo existendi corpus christi in sacramento altaris alio quam sit ille quem tenet ecclesia . the same john de paris wrote the treatise above mention'd , about the year . he was a jacobin , and doctor of the sorbon ; he held that the eucharist is the body of christ , as rupert de duits , and guy of cluvigny did , to wit , by assumption , jesus christ having taken the bread into the unity of his suppositum , as he took the human nature into the unity of his person . and towards the end of the manuscript it is said , that the faculty thought fit , that the manner of explaining the eucharist , by assumption of the bread , or by conversion , was a probable opinion ; but that neither the one nor the other was decided as a matter of faith ; and that whoever said otherwise , did not say well , and run the risque of excommunication . in praesentia collegii magistrorum in theologia dictum est ; ( says the end of the manuscript ) utrumque modum ponendi corpus christi esse in altare tenet pro opinioni probabili , & approbat utrumque per. — et per dicta sanctorum . dicit tamen quod nullus est determinatus per ecclesiam , & idcirco nullus cadit sub fide , & si aliter dixisset , minus bene dixisset , & qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt , & qui determinate assereret alterum praecise cadere sub fide incurreret sententiam , canonis vel anathematis . thomas waldensis attributes this opinion to john de paris . there is commonly found in the library of the franciscan friers , a book called the poor's reckoning , writ by one , called de goris , a doctor of tholouse , and native of arragon ; he dedicated his book to alphonsus of arragon arch-bishop of sarragossa . he chargeth john de paris with the opinion of the impanation , and doth not condemn it . it is on the th book of sentences , dist. . q. . the continuator of william de nangis , his manuscript chronicle in the library of st. german de pres , that john de paris is stiled , doctor of great knowledg and learning . * trythemius and auctuar . ‡ le mire , give him also the same epithets . i observe , that in this manuscript , john de paris to confirm his opinion , makes use of the authority of the master of the sentences , in th sent. dist. . ( i take it to be dist. . ) as if the master of the sentences should there say , that the impanation is a probable opinion . he also cites to the same purpose , dominus hostiensem , &c. super corpus juris extra de summa trinit . & fide cathol . c. firmiter oredimus , & de celebratione missarum , cap. cum marta . albertus magnus expounds the eucharist by transubstantiation , but he saith , salvo meliori judicio , which shews that he did not believe it as of faith. durandus of st. porcien taught , that the substance of bread remain'd , but that the form was chang'd . durand in the . sent. dist . . q. . saith , that in his time there were catholick doctors which taught , the bread remain'd in the eucharist , and did prove it by the confession which berenger was forc'd to make , affirming this opinion was not condemn'd . cornelius bishop of bitonte , declared against transubstantiation in the council of trent ; canus locor . theol. l. . c. . dominicus bannes taught , that the existence of bread doth remain , that so the accidents of bread and vvine may remain by this existence . at least suarez and mairat attribute this opinion to him . to all which , if we add the doctors that we have mention'd in our first part , that could not speak of transubstantiation but as of a new doctrine , and which could not be proved by the scriptures , without intimating that they were not all satisfied with it ; we shall see it plainly appears , that we cannot apply to the doctrine of transubstantiation , the rule of vinc●●tius lirrinensis , which is offer'd to us by the bishops of france . the conclusion . wherefore the bishops are humbly desired , that they would not continue to exercise so much rigor and severity against the protestants of france , who having yielded farther than they well could with a safe conscience , to obey the kings orders , yet cannot in any wise resolve to make any profession of the doctrine of transubstantiation , it appearing that they oppose it only for conscience sake , and as being contrary to the very rule offered to them by the bishops themselves . if st. austin could say , that those ought not to be esteemed hereticks that with an honest mind maintained the errors of their ancestors , and are ready to relinquish them when they are better inform'd of the truth ; how much greater reason is there to bear with people who do shew by the very confession of romish catholick doctors , that the doctrine of transubstantiation is a new invention , and by consequence , that it ought not to be imposed as an article of faith , by the very rule laid down by the bishops of france . no reasonable person can find any question in matter of religion whereto this rule of st. austin's can be more justly applied . for if it be not observ'd in this controversie of transubstantiation , there will never be any thing found that it may be used in . if then such persons are not hereticks for seeking the truth , and that they think 't is their duty to seek it ; that they are of the judgment of catholick doctors , and that they observe the rule prescribed by the bishops ; it is no way safe to persecute them to that degree of violence , to make them believe that which is contrary to the rule which is laid down ; and therefore , what is said by st. austin on psalm . should seriously be consider'd , plerumque cum tibi videris odisse inimicum , fratrum odisti , & nescis . finis . addenda . these words in their place , are also to be added . the heavenly sacrament which truly represents the flesh of jesus christ , is called the body of christ , but improperly ; and nevertheless it is so called after its manner , not according to the truth of the thing , but by a significant mystery ; so that the meaning is , 't is called the body of jesus christ , that is to say that the body is thereby signified . and also the text of the canon taken out of st. austin ; sicut coelestis panis qui christi caro est , suo m●do vocatur corpus christi , cum re vera sit sacramentum corporis christ illius videlicet quod visibile , palpabile , mortale , &c. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e the clergy of france's method to judge of articles of faith. † secundum unanimem consensum patrum . admitted by the protestants . transubstantiation to be examined by it . several doctors of the church of rome have believed the doctrine of transubstantiation not to be very ancient . * suarez in . tom. ● euch. disp. . sect. . † scotus in . d. . q. . § haec duo videnda . ⸫ lombard l. . d. . * lib. . de euch. cap. . † p. dayly on th sent. q. . art. . * card. cusa . † frasmus . * alphonsus à castro lib. . contr . haeres . † tonstal lib. . of the sacrament . cassander . du moulin . jo. yribarne . de marca . that the ancients indeed did not believe transubstantiation . obs. . the papists confess that it is not expresly in scripture . so * scotus . † ockham . lib. q. . * alfonsus de castro . vacabulo indulgentiae . † biel. lect. . in can. mis. * cajetan in . p. . th. . . art. . obs. . none of the pagans objected to the ancient christans the difficulties of it . not trypho . * l. . & . contr . cels. nor celsus . nor julian . hence it follows , that transubstantiation was not antient . iust. martyr . iustin martyr . irenaeus adversus heres . l. . c. . irenaeus clem. alexand. p. edag . l. . graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies mixture . s. austin f. p. . ad volusen . theodotus . tertullian . tertullian . tertullian . origen . du perron saith on this passage , christians , stop your ears . origen . origeniana l. . q. . pag. . edit . huet . g. l. origen . cyprian . tom. . tract . . & tract . . de euch. l. . c. . eustathius . nicen. syn. . act. . eusebius lib. . de dem. evang. eusebius . cyrillus hierosol . catech. myst. . macharius . macharius . st. basil. ep. . ephrem . epiphanius . s. ep. in compond . de side eccles. deus ad aquas descendit . incorporea re nihil augetur . arist. de generat . & corruptione . alimentum vel materiam partim . ibid. l. . greg. naz. orat. . gregory nazianz. greg. nyss. in his oration of the baptis . of j. c. s. ambrose . l. . ep. . id. tom. . de side l. . c. . idem tom. . of the blessing of the patriarchs , c. . ambrose . gaudentius . gaud. bishop of bress , tract . . chrysostom . s. chrys. hom. . on s. matth. chrysost●● . idem in hom. . chrysostom . chrysostom . this author goes under s. chrysostom's name . s. jerom. it appears by these words , that they imply the common belief , that there was true wine in the eucharist ; because they say , that should they abstain from wine , they must abstain also from the blood of the lord. * de fide l. . c. . st. jerom. st. austin . st. austin . st. austin st. austin . ep. . ad bonif. de opif. l. . c. . quod non per omnia est id quod esse dicitur , illud abusive appellationem illam habet . st. austin . * de princip . dialect . l. . signum est quod seipsum sensibus , & praeter si aliquid animo ost endit . st. austin . ad monym . l. . c. . . cum electionis vas dicat quia christus caput est corporis ecclesiae , ipsum tamen corpus christi non dubitat christus veraciter appellare . ad paulin. ep. . ep. . tract . . de consensu evangelist . l. . c. . st. austin . l. . q. . l. . c. . penè quidem sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt . st. austin . st. austin . in joan. tract . . st. augustin . lib. con. donat . c. . de ipso quippe pane , de ipsa dominica manu , &c. ep. . et ipsi quidem adducti sunt ad mensam christi , &c. de noe & arca . c. . s. augustine . s. augustine . french posthum . treatise of the euch. theodoret. theodoret. dial. . arnobius junior . accipimusfrumentum , &c. quod nunc habeat intra se ecclesia videamus , &c. accipimus panem quod confirmat , &c. exurgens a mortuis , &c. prosper . prosper . hesychius . procopius gazeus . procopius . p. gelasius . resp. . ad . interrog . ferr. fulgentius . de fide ad pet. diac. c. . ephraem . apud pho. bibl. cod . . ecclesiast . . v. . facundus . lib. . de viris illustribus , c. . facundus . lib. . primasius . isidorus hispalensis . orig. l. . c . in alleg. veter . test. beda . in lucae . & in marc. . & in hom. quadrages . feria a palmarum . rom. . . hom. aest . & c. . in virg. st. joan. bapt. sedulius . j. damascen . damascen . concil . constant . act. . conc. const. alcuinus . ep. . in joan. c. . v. . carol. m. de offic. septuag . ad alquin . ambrosian office. ordo roman . ordo romanus . theodorus studita . ahyto . ahyto . theodulphus . opposers of paschasius radbertus . rabanus . rabanus . amalarius . amalarius . amal. ad rangart , tom. . spicilegii , pag. . amalarius . valafridus strabo lib. de reb. eccles. c. . bill . p. . to. . herribald . tom. . ch . . , and . herribald . de praed ch . . frudegardus . * trithem . de script . eccles. † de praedest . ratramnus . ‖ ep. . ⸫ de script . eccles. ‡ de euchr. ch . . ⸫ maug . disser . hist. & chron. c. . tom . . pag. . & . ratramnus in the apology of the fathers , is stiled a learned benedictin defender of grace , a man of great wisdom and reputation ; and in the first treatise of the perpetuity , p. . c. . he is stiled an obscure kind of a person ; that evaporated himself in obscure reasonings , which he added to those of the church , and explained as he pleased himself , as some are pleased to say . ratramnus . joan. erigena . * de euchar. ‖ de praedest . chap. . jo erigena . * de gest. reg. angl. l. . c. . ‖ annal , per pred . ad . ‡ ad. an. . j. erigena . prudentius . hincmar de praedest . c. . christianus drutmarus . christianus drutmanes . christianus drutmanes . florus diaconus . alferic a. b. cant. the expurgat . index orders these words to be blotted out wolphinus . apud usserium de christianae ecclesi success . & stat. c. . p. . saxon homily . saxon homily . fulcuinus . tom. . spicil . de gestis abb. lob. p. . herriger . idem tom . . p. . monastry of cluny . tom. . in spec. p. . customs of the monastry of cluny . lib. . ch. . p. . ratherius . de contempt . canon . port . spicileg . tom. . the author of the life of st. genulphius . lib. . ch. . leuthericus . in epistola roberti regis . fulbertus . bib. pat . tom . fulbertus . bernon . bible of the fath. tom. . bruno . in willel . . in willel . l. . . tom. . spicileg . p. . p gregory . bruno . . . c. . theophylact. in marcum . c. . nicetas pectoratus . humber . tom. . bibl. of the patr. edit . ult . . honorius . an. . in gemma anim. l. . c. . ‡ ib. c. . honorius . * ib. c. . ‖ ibid. c. . rupertus . a. . de scriptor . eccles. l. . c. . & . de script . eccles . zonaras . tom. . cyr. alex. in notis vulcani ad lib. advers . anthropom . zonar . ep. . francus . amalaricus . in catal. in almar . contra haeres . verb. euch. . ad ann. . in richard. . anno . tom. . ch. . tho. waldens . in epist. ad mart. . in rich. . tom. . ch . * de scrip. ecclesiast . ‡ auctuar . in . dist . . q. . disp. . sect. . disp. . sect. . epist. . notes for div a -e the gloss on the canon hoc est , in the . dist . of the consecrat . de consec . . c. . a collection of several discourses against popery by william wake, preacher to the honourable society of grays-inn. wake, william, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing w a estc r this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) a collection of several discourses against popery by william wake, preacher to the honourable society of grays-inn. wake, william, - . wake, william, - . exposition of the doctrine of the church of england. aut wake, william, - . defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england. aut wake, william, - . second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england. aut wake, william, - . discourse of the holy eucharist. aut wake, william, - . two discourses of purgatory, and prayers for the dead. aut wake, william, - . discourse concerning the nature of idolatry. aut wake, william, - . continuation of the present state of controversy, between the church of england, and the church of rome. aut tenison, thomas, - . present state of the controversie between the church of england and the church of rome. aut clagett, william, - . aut [ ], xxxvi, , [ ], xxiv, [ ], , [ ], xxii, , [ ], , - , - , [ ], - , - , [ ], xxxviii, [ ], , [ ], , [ ], xvi, , [ ], , [ ], p. printed for richard chiswell, at the rose and crown in s. paul's church-yard, london : m dc lxxx viii. [ ] there is a rule over the roman numeral dates on the general title page. each tract has separate dated title page, register and pagination; most have an initial imprimatur leaf, table of contents, final advertisment pages and errata. a reissue, with general title page, of wing ( nd ed.) c (begun by thomas tenison and completed by william clagett), w , w , w , w , w , w , w , and w . reproduction of the original in the harvard university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng church of england -- apologetic works -- early works to . catholic church -- controversial literature -- early works to . lord's supper -- real presence -- early works to . transubstantiation -- early works to . idolatry -- early works to . purgatory -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread - emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur . carolus alston r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris domesticis . march. . / . a collection of several discourses against popery . by william wake , preacher to the honourable society of grays-inn . london : printed for ric. chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxviii . a table of the discourses contained in this collection . i. an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , &c. in answer to the bishop of meaux . ii. a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the exceptions of monsr . de meaux and his vindicator . iii. a second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the new exceptions of monsr . de meaux and his vindicator . part i. part ii. part iii. iv. a discourse of the holy eucharist , in the two great points of the real presence , and of the adoration of the host . v. an historical account of the doctrine of the real presence profess'd in the church of england , &c. vi. two discourses of purgatory , and prayers for the dead . vii . a discourse of the nature of idolatry , in answer to the bishop of oxon's reasons for abrogating the test . viii . the present state of the controversy between the church of england , and the church of rome . ix . a continuation of the present state of the controversy , &c. other treatises written by the same author . x. a sermon on the xxxth of january , preach'd at paris , anno / . xi . preparation for death : being a letter sent to a young gentlewoman in france , in a dangerous distemper of which she died . an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , in the several articles proposed by monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church . to which is prefix'd a particular account of monsieur de meaux's book . london , printed for richard chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvi . the preface . the smalness of this treatise would hardly justifie the solemnity of a preface , but that it might be thought too great a rudeness to press without some ceremony upon a book , which both the merit and character of the author , and the quality of those approbations he has prefix'd to it , may justly seem to have fenced from all vulgar attempts , as sacred and inviolable . it may perhaps be some satisfaction to the reader too to know , how it is come to pass that a meer exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , pretending to contain nothing but what they have always professed , and in their council of trent plainly declared to be their doctrine ; should have become so considerable , as not only to be approved by many persons of the greatest eminency in that church , but even to be recommended by the whole body of the clergy of france in their assembly ; and whereever it has come , done so many miracles , as not only common report speaks , but even the advertisement it self prefixed to it , takes care to tell us that it has . the first design of monsieur de meaux's book was either to satisfie or to seduce the late mareschal de turenne . how far it contributed thereunto i am not able to say ; but am willing to believe that the change that honourable person made of his religion , was upon some better grounds than the bare exposition of a few articles of the roman faith ; and that the author supplied either in his personal conferences with him , or by some other papers to us unknown , what was wanting to the first draught which we have seen of this . the manuscript copy which then appeared , and for about four years together passed up and down in private hands with great applause , wanted all those chapters of the eucharist , tradition , the authority of the church and pope , which now make up the most considerable part of it ; and in the other points which it handled , seemed so loosly and favourably to propose the opinions of the church of rome , that not only many undesigning persons of that communion were offended at it , but the protestants who saw it , generally believed that monsieur de meaux durst not publickly own , what in his exposition he privately pretended to be their doctrine . and the event shew'd that they were not altogether mistaken . for in the beginning of the year the exposition being with great care , and after the consideration of many years reduced into the form in which we now see it ; and to secure all , fortified with the approbation of the archbishop of reims and nine other bishops , who profess that having examined it with all the care which the importance of the matter required , they found it conformable to the doctrine of the church , and as such recommended it to the people which god had committed to their conduct , it was sent to the press . the impression being finish'd and just ready to come abroad ; the author , who desired to appear with all the advantage to himself and his cause that was possible , sent it to some of the doctors of the sorbonne for their approbation to be joyn'd to that of the bishops , that so no authority , ordinary or extraordinary might be wanting to assert the doctrine contained in it , to be so far from the suspition the protestants had conceived of it , that it was truly and without disguise catholick , apostolick , and roman . but to the great surprise of monsieur de meaux , and those who had so much cry'd up his treatise before , the doctors of the sorbonne to whom it was communicated , instead of the approbation that was expected , confirmed what the protestants had said of it ; and , as became their faculty , marked several of the most considerable parts of it , wherein the exposition by the too great desire of palliating , had absolutely perverted the doctrine of their church . to prevent the open scandal which such a censure might have caused , with great industry , and all the secrecy possible , the whole edition was suppressed , and the several places which the doctors had marked changed ; and the copy so speedily sent back to the press again , that in the end of the same year another much altered was publickly exposed , as the first impression that had at all been made of it . yet this could not be so privately carry'd , but that it soon came to a publick knowledge ; insomuch that one of the first answers that was made to it , charged monsieur de meaux with this change . i do not hear that he has ever yet thought fit to deny the relation , either in the advertisement prefixed to the later editions of his book , wherein yet he replies to some other passages of the same treatise , or in any other vindication ; whether it be that such an imputation was not considerable enough to be taken notice of , or that it was too true to be deny'd , let the reader judge . but certainly it appears to us not only to give a clear account of the design and genius of the whole book ; but to be a plain demonstration , how improbable soever monsieur de meaux would represent it , that it is not impossible for a bishop of the church of rome , either not to be sufficiently instructed in his religion to know what is the doctrine of it ; or not sufficiently sincere , as without disguise to represent it . and since a copy of that very book so marked , as has been said , by the doctors of the sorbonne is fallen into my hands , i shall gratifie the * * * readers curiosity with a particular view of some of the changes that have been made , that so he may judge whether of the two were the cause of those great advances , which the author in that first edition had thought fit to make towards us . it might perhaps appear a very pardonable curiosity in us , after the knowledge we have had of the first miscarriage of this book at the sorbonne , to enquire how it comes to pass , that among so many other approbations as have with great industry been procured to the later editions of it , we do not yet see any subscription of theirs to it , even now . monsieur de meaux could not certainly be ignorant of what weight the censure of that learned faculty is with us ; and that such an approbation might not only have been more easily obtained , but would also more effectually have wiped away the blot cast upon his book by their former refusal , than all the letters and complements that could come from the other side the mountains , and which france it self hath taught us , in maters more considerable than this , not to have too high a value for : nor can we suppose any thing else , than that the fear of a further correction kept it from being any more submitted to their censure ; and that the author would rather pass without the honour of their approbation , than run the hazzard of a second refusal . but for this , because we cannot speak any thing certain , we will not pursue our conjectures . certain it is that whatever the judgment of the sorbonne would now have been of it , many of the church of rome were still dissatisfied with it . * * * and how improbable soever monsieur de meaux would have us think that one of his answerers affirms , that a papist should have written against him ; yet not only the confessed sincerity of monsieur conrart who often declared that he had seen it , but the undoubted integrity of some others by whom i have been assured that they had it , in their hands , obliges me to joyn in the assertion , that monsieur m — , one of the roman communion had finish'd an answer to it , before any of the protestants were published , however upon some certain considerations it was thought fit to suppress it . it will perhaps be looked upon , that this confirmation of that manuscript answer deserves as little assent , as monsieur de meaux has thought fit to give to monsieur de la b — 's first assertion of it . and therefore to shew that it is not impossible , nor indeed very improbable , that papists should write one against another ; and that the method of the exposition , how plausible soever to deceive protestants , has nevertheless offended the sincere and undesigning of the other communion ; i will beg leave to produce two or three undenyable witnesses upon some of the first and chiefest points of it ; and which though not written purposely against it , yet i am perswaded , monsieur de meaux himself will be so just as to confess , that he cannot be altogether unconcerned in them . for his first point , the invocation of saints ; the great moderation of the exposition tells us only , that it is useful to pray to them , and that we ought to do it in the same spirit of charity , and in the same order of brotherly society with which we intreat our friends on earth to pray for us : that all the prayers of the church howsoever they may be worded , yet must still be understood to be reduced to this form , pray for us . now what monsieur de meaux here says in general concerning the invocation of saints , another tract printed about the same time at cologne , and intituled salutary advertisements of the blessed virgin , to her indiscreet adorers ; particularly applied to that service , which with so much superstition is paid in the church of rome to the mother of christ. the book is every where full of expressions of honour and respect for her ; and only speaks against that worship which monsieur de meaux here declares in the name of the council of trent to be none of theirs . it was sent abroad into the world with all the advantage imaginable : it had the approbation of the bishop of mysia , suffragan to the archbishop of cologne ; of the vicar general of the place ; of the censure of gant ; of the canons and divines of malines ; of the university of louvain ; and lastly of monsieur the bishop of tournay , who recommended it as a treatise full of solid piety , and very fit and necessary to draw people out of those errours and abuses into which their superstition had led them . yet notwithstanding all this applause , if we enquire what success this book had with others , father crasset the jesuit , who wrote purposely against it , * * * his book printed at paris , licensed by the provincial , approved by the three fathers of the society appointed to examine it , and lastly , authorized by the king's permission , tells us , † † † that for fear of giving scandal to hereticks , he had given a very great one to ( those he calls ) catholicks : that the learned men of all nations had written against him ; that the holy see had condemn'd him ; spain had banish'd him out of its dominions , and forbid to read or print his book , as containing propositions suspected of errour and impiety , that abused the holy scripture , and imposed upon catholicks , by taking them off from the piety and devotion due to the mother of god ; in a word , from the general invocation of saints and worship of images . i shall not need to say how far the fathers zeal carries him in the answer it self : it is evident that what monsieur de meaux tells us , is only useful , the jesuit declares to be absolutely necessary : that we are indispensably obliged to pray to her : that it is the intention of god , that we should obtain both grace and glory by her ; that all men should be saved by the merits of the son , and the intercession of the mother , and that forasmuch therefore as god has resolved not to give any grace but what passes through the hands of mary ; as we cannot be saved without grace , so it must be confessed that we cannot be saved without her . this is i presume somewhat more than what monsieur de meaux expounds to us ; and i shall leave it to any one to judge whether this father who has shew'd himself so zealous against the author of the blessed virgins salutary advertisements , could have been very well pleased with monsieur de meaux's exposition . the next point which the exposition advances , is concerning the worship of images , monsieur de meaux in the edition suppressed , affirmed , that the church of rome does not so much honour the image of the apostle or martyr , as the apostle or martyr in presence of the image . and though the censure passed upon this new fancy , obliged him to speak a little more plainly , yet is it only thus , even now , that when the church pays an honour to the image of an apostle or martyr , her intention is not so much to honour the image , as to honour the apostle or martyr in presence of the image . concerning which the reader may please to observe , that cardinal capisucchi one of the approvers of monsieur de meaux's exposition , has lately set forth a volume of controversies at rome , with all the most solemn permissions and approbations that can be desired , in which he formally contradicts the doctrine of the same exposition in this point ; and concludes , that the church in the councils of nice and trent forbids only such a divine honour to images as is idolatrous , i. e. says he , which is paid to images in and for themselves ; and by which the image is worshipped , as if some god or divinity were contained in it . but for that divine worship which is paid to the images of the holy trinity , of our saviour christ and the holy cross , upon the account of the things represented by them , and as they are in that respect one and the same with the thing which they represent , and ascribes not any divinity to the images , there never was , nor can be any dispute of it . monsieur de meaux may please to consider whether this be not sufficiently contrary to the doctrine expounded by him ; and how we are to reconcile the controversies of the cardinal capisucchi , with the letter and approbation of the * * * master of the sacred palace . in the mean time i will beg leave to add one instance more , that is nigher home , and i think still at this time depending ; and which the particular interest monsieur de meaux has more ways than one had in it , will i suppose undoubtedly satisfie him , that notwithstanding the assembly of the clergy have recommended so much both his book and his method , all nevertheless at this day are not very well satisfied , even in france it self , either with the one or other . monsieur † † † imbert priest and doctor of divinity in the province of bourdeaux was not long since accus'd , that upon good friday before he proceeded to the solemn service of that day , which consists chiefly in the adoration of the cross ; he turned to the people , and taking occasion from the rashness of some of the fathers of the mission whom he had with grief heard maintain , that the cross was to be adored after the very same manner as jesus christ in the sacrament of the eucharist ; profess'd to them that he could not enter on the service of that day without declaring truly to them what the real doctrine of the church as to this point was . that the church designed not that we should adore the cross which we see , but that we should adore jesus christ whom we do not see . that there was a great difference between the cross and the holy sacrament ; that in this our saviour christ was really present , whereas that was only a simple figure or representation of him . this was his accusation , and he confessed that his opinion was , that the church adored not the cross , and that the contrary opinion was not only false but idolatrous . that not only the protestants made their advantage of those who maintain'd such errours , but that he himself was scandalized to converse every day with the missionaries and others , whom he had openly heard preach a hundred times , that we ought to adore the cross with jesus christ , as the humane nature of our saviour with the divine . being accused for this , he defended himself with all the strength of argument that he was able ; yet being still accounted a heretick for it , he finally alledged in his defence , that the exposition of monsieur de meaux defended the very same ; that he went upon his principles , whose book was approved by the pope and several cardinals in italy , by the bishops and clergy of france and others of the greatest note in the church of rome . nevertheless he was suspended in a manner grievous and extraordinary : he wrote to monsieur de meaux himself about it , who presently sent to the archbishop of bourdeaux in his behalf : he addressed himself besides to many other the most considerable persons of the kingdom ; to monsieur the chancellour ; monsieur de chatteau-neuf ; to the intendant of the province , only that he might have justice in a cause , which according to monsieur de meaux's principles , was certainly very favourable ; but i do not hear that he has yet had any other effect of all his supplications , and the interest of those honourable persons in his behalf , than that they still draw more and severer menaces from his judges , and threats either of perpetual imprisonment , or even death it self for his offence . after this clear conviction i may reasonably hope it will appear no improbable matter to monsieur de meaux himself , either that one papist should have written against his book , or that many others should have expressed themselves to be of a mind very different from the principles and opinions of it . had it pleased him to have gratified the world with the sight of cardinal buillon's and monsieur l'abbé de dangeau's letters to cardinal bona and cardinal chigi , as well as of their answers to them , they would perhaps have shewn , that not only the protestants pretended such oppositions of his own party to his book , but that monsieur de meaux himself was not altogether unsensible of it . no sooner was the first impression of the exposition which was permitted to pass abroad , finish'd , but presently a copy was dispatch'd to rome , with letters and recommendations to prepare the way for its reception in that court ; and provide against those faults which some it seems accused it of , if the contradictors which opposed it at home , should think fit to pursue it thither . it is not to be supposed that either the dignity of the cardinal who sent the book , or of him to whom it was address'd , would have permitted them in such a manner to take notice of the faults and the contradictors which their letters speak of , had they not been both things , and persons worthy their consideration . but much less would monsieur l'abbé de dangeau have used his interest with cardinal chigi to gain the favour of the master of the sacred palace , and of the congregation del indice , if any one had or should speak against it , had there been no cause to apprehend that any one would attempt either . what other particular persons were employ'd upon the like offices , is a secret too close for us to be able to penetrate . only the advertisement it self gives us cause to believe that great interest was made even by the french ambassador himself to his holiness about it ; and that the few letters we see set out with so much industry both in the originals and their translation , and the long history of them in the advertisement , were the effects of a labour and interest , great as the long term of eight years that were spent in the procuring of them . the second answer to monsieur de meaux has so fully examined every one of these approbations , and so plainly shew'd how small account is to be made of them , that we do not find that in four years that it has been publish'd , any one has undertaken to reply to it . i will therefore only add in general a remark or two that may serve to inform those of our own country who are unacquainted with such intrigues , what the method of the approbations of the church of rome is , and how little stress is to be laid upon them . it is a long time since it has been resolved by many of their casuists , that it is lawful to disguise the sentiments of their religion , not only in private conferences , but in the very pulpit it self , when there is a sufficient reason for the doing of it . but i cannot tell whether it be yet so generally known that it is lawful for them to set their hands to and approve those books whose principles and doctrine they dislike , by an art peculiar to themselves , and which protestants , who are used to sincere dealing , will find it a little difficult to believe . the instance of cardinal capisucchi before mentioned is an undeniable proof of this for italy ; who about the same time that he sent his letter and approbation to monsieur de meaux of his exposition , wrote , as we have seen , directly contrary to the doctrine of it , and had his book approved with no less solemnity at rome , than monsieur de meaux can pretend his to have been . and for france , a person very justly esteemed both for his great quality and his own worth , monsieur the procureur general of the parliament of paris , having clearly revealed the mystery of it , i shall beg leave to represent it to the world , under the advantage of so great and unquestionable an authority . father thomassin about twenty years since printed a book which he called notae in concilia ; the design whereof was to set up the authority of the pope above all councils , which he renders in a manner useless to the decision of ecclesiastical matters . the copies of this book were all seized , and lock'd up in a chamber of the fathers oratorians at paris . ten or twelve years after , with some changes to fill up the leaves that had been censured , and the approbation of the doctors of the sorbonne , he again attempted to have it publish'd . but monsieur the procureur general opposed it , and told him that but in consideration of father harlay , his near relation , who interposed for him , he would have had his book burnt by the hand of the common hangman . the father justified himself that his book contained no other principles than what were found in cardinal bellarmine's controversies , which had been printed with authority , and were permitted to be every day publickly sold in france . the procureur general replyed , that they suffered in france , that an italian should write according to the principles of his country , and that this ought not to hinder but that a book , otherwise good , might be publickly printed and sold with priviledge ; but that for a frenchman to do the same , was another matter , and would have different consequences : and that in short , the italians used the same method towards them . and indeed the late change of the jesuits in their approbations plainly shews , that it is permitted to those of the church of rome to write and approve not so much according to their own opinions , as to the principles and genius of the country in which they live . for which reason the fathers of the society do no longer now , as formerly they were wont , take out their licence from the general of their order , but from their respective provincials ; who accommodate themselves to the current doctrine of the place in which the book is publish'd ; without which it would be almost impossible for them to write in france , but they should be subject to the danger of a censure at rome . after this general account of the nature of the approbations of the church of rome , i shall spare both my self and reader the trouble of examining the several letters before the exposition , though otherwise they lie open to many exceptions ; only concerning his holiness s brief , which monsieur de meaux so much triumphs in , it may not be amiss to observe , that the last pope , in whose time the exposition came first to rome with great recommendation , yet never gave any approbation to it ; and that the present pope did it upon occasion of † † † a submissive letter of the authors to him , and after the reports that he had heard of the great * * * conversions that were every where made by it , to which such an approbation would be likely to add a new force . so plain is the intrigue and design of this , that were the popes briefs otherwise of as great consideration , as the papists themselves shew them to be of little value , yet this could not be regarded by us , as any other than a meer artifice to deceive us , not a sincere , much less authoritative approbation either of the nature or principles of monsieur de meaux's book . but whatever the opinion either of the pope or papists has been of this exposition , certain it is the protestants have openly enough declared their thoughts concerning it ; and the exposition according to the fate of all other great and extraordinary things , has found enough on this side to oppose it . it was but a very little time after the first edition of it , that monsieur noguier and another author well known , yet whose name i spare , because he has not thought fit himself to discover it , wrote against it ; and with so much success , that the papists themselves confest , ' that it was an ill cause defended extremely well . monsieur de turenne not long before that last campagne in which he lost his life , made great boasts of a reply that was speedily to be publish'd to them ; but after the long expectation of above eight years , only an advertisement was prefix'd to a new edition of the book , which neither touches at all the greatest part of the exceptions that had been made against it , nor gives any satisfaction to those it do's take notice of . it has been the constant method of monsieur de meaux , having once written , to leave his tracts to the world , and take no care to defend them against those assaults , that seem with success enough to have been sometimes made upon them . we should think the great employments , in which he has had the honour to be engaged , might have been the cause of this , did not he who takes no care to defend his old books , find still time enough to write new . perhaps he looks upon his pieces to be of a spirit and force sufficient to despise whatever attempts can be made upon them ; but sure he cannot be ignorant , that protestants make another and far different conclusion , and look upon those opinions to be certainly indefensible , which so able and eminent an author is content so openly , and , if i may be permitted to add it , so shamefully to forsake . what other answers besides those i have now mentioned have been made to it , i cannot undertake to say ; two others only that i know of have been publish'd ; the author of the latter of which monsieur de brueys having in a very little time after his writing left his religion , might have made a new instance of monsieur de meaux's conquests , did not his inability to answer his own arguments against the exposition , give us cause to believe , that some other motives than those of that book induced him so lightly to forsake a cause , which he had so soundly and generously defended . and now after so many answers yet unreplied to , if any one desires to know what the design of the present undertaking is , they may please to understand , that having by a long converse among the papists of our own and other countries perceived that either by the ignorance or malice of their instructors , they have generally very false and imperfect notions of our opinions in the matters in controversie between us , i have suffered my self to be perswaded to pursue the method of monsieur de meaux's exposition as to the doctrine of the church of england ; and oppose sincerely to what he pretends is the opinion of the roman church , that form of faith that is openly profess'd and taught without any disguise or dissimulation among us . i was not unwilling to take the method of monsieur de meaux for my direction , as well upon the account of the great reputation both of the book and of the author , as because it is now some years that it has pass'd in our language without any answer that i know of made to it . besides , that the late new impression made of it , with all the advantages of the advertisement and approbations , which the later french editions have added to it , seemed naturally to require some such consideration . i do not pretend by any thing of this to treat monsieur de meaux as an enemy , but rather as both his great learning , and that character which i have ever learnt very highly to reverence , oblige me , to follow him as my guide . to render an account to him and to the world what our differences are , and point out in passing some of those reasons that are the most usually given amongst us , wherefore we cannot totally assent to what he proposes . i am perswaded the whole is done with that charity and moderation , that there is nothing in it that can justly offend the most zealous enemy of our church . if i knew of any thing in it that without dissembling the truth might have been omitted , i sincerely profess i would most willingly have done it , being desirous to please all , that so , if it be the will of god , i may by any means gain some . for this cause chiefly have i forborn to set my name to it , lest perhaps any prejudice against my person , might chance to injure the excellence of the cause which i maintain . this effect at least , if no other , i would willingly hope such a treatise may have upon those of our country that have been taught to believe very differently concerning us ; that they would please no longer to form such horrible ideas of our profession as they have heretofore been wont to do ; at least till it can be shewn that i have either palliated or prevaricated the doctrine of the church of england in this exposition . which i am yet so assured i have not done , that i here intirely submit both my self and it to her censure ; of whose communion i esteem it my greatest happiness that i am , and for whose preservation and enlargement i shall never cease , as i ought , to pray . a collection of some of those passages that were corrected in the first edition of the exposition suppressed by monsieur de meaux : to which is added , the censure of the faculty of louvain , upon some part of the doctrine still remaining in it . § i. monsieur de meaux in the very beginning of his book speaking of the design of it , had these words : . edit . so that it seems then to be very proper to propose to them ( the protestants ) the doctrine of the catholick church , separating those questions which the church has decided , from those which do not belong to faith. p. . it is evident , the meaning of monsieur de meaux in that passage must have been this ; that whatsoever was either not at all contained in his exposition , or was otherwise maintain'd by any particular authors , beyond the exposition he gives us of those points which are here mentioned , was not to be look'd upon by us , as any of the church's decision , nor necessary to be received by us as matter of faith. i shall not need to say how many doctrines and decisions , not only of private writers , but of the very council of trent it self , this would have at once cut off . it would perhaps have been one of the fairest advances towards an union , that ever the church of rome yet offered . but it seems whatever monsieur de meaux supposed , this was thought too great a condescension by others : and he was therefore obliged , without changing any thing in his book , to give us a quite other account of the design of it . later editions . so that it seems then we can do nothing better , than simply to propose to them ( the protestants ) the sentiments of the catholick church , and distinguish them from those opinions that have been falsely imputed to her . which is but little to the purpose . ii. i edit . p. , . the same church teaches , that all religious worship ought to terminate upon god , as its necessary end. so that the honour which the church gives to the blessed virgin and to the saints is religious , only because it gives them that honour with relation to god , and for the love of him . so that then , so far ought one to be from blaming the honour which we give to the saints , as our adversaries do , because it is religious , that on the contrary it ought to be blamed if it were not religious . there can be nothing more plain than that monsieur de meaux's opinion , when he wrote this , was , that the honour which the church of rome pays to the blessed virgin and saints departed is a religious honour ; nay would deserve to be blamed if it were not religious . this was by others thought a little too ingenuous , and what would give too great an advantage to our objections against it . and therefore instead of that free , honest confession , that the church of rome gives religious honour to the blessed virgin and saints departed , he now puts a doubt that insinuates the direct contrary , the same church teaches us , that all religious worship ought to terminate in god as its necessary end ; and if the honour which she rendereth to the blessed virgin and to the saints , may in some sense be called religious , it is for its necessary relation to god. so that really then the honour they give their saints in monsieur de meaux's opinion is religious , but 't is not fit that we should know it . iii. monsieur daillé some years since wrote a volume of the tradition of the primitive church , concerning the object of religious worship ; in which he clearly shews that the first years knew nothing of the invocation of saints , the worship of images , crosses , and reliques ; of the adoration of the host , &c. monsieur de meaux in his first exposition granted the whole , in these words since struck out , for monsieur daillé , says he , he thinks fit to confine himself to the first three centuries , in which it is certain that the church more exercised in suffering than in writing , has left many things to be cleared afterwards both in its doctrine and in its practice . edit . p. . now it being evident , notwithstanding this new thought , that the sufferings of the first years have not hindred , but that we have very large accounts of its doctrine and practice from the writings of those fathers who lived in them ; to confess that it is certain , that the tradition of the church of rome fails in many things both in doctrine and practice for the first years , is doubtless as fair a yielding up the cause , as to the matter of tradition , as we could desire ; and therefore however known by monsieur de meaux to be most certainly true , was yet thought too much by others to be confessed to the world , by a person of so great learning and eminence in their church . iv. as to the point of the invocation of saints , monsieur de meaux still shews us that he knows not what account to give of the grounds of it . he proposes several ways how the saints may possibly know our prayers , but cannot well tell us by which it is they do so . but in the first edition he shew'd yet more doubt : not only which way the saints hear them , but whether they hear them at all or no : not only , whether they joyn with them in their prayers , as they desire them to do , but whether it is not rather by some other means , yet more unknown to them , and not by their intercession , that they receive the benefit of them . the church , says he , contents her self to teach with all antiquity , these prayers to be very profitable to such who make them ; whether it be the saints know them by the ministry and communication of angels , who according to the testimony of scripture know what passes amongst us ; being established by gods order as administring spirits to co-operate with us in the work of our salvation : whether it be that god makes known to them our desires by a particular revelation : or whether it be that he discovers the secret to them in his divine essence in which all truth is compriz'd . and that in the manner , and according to the measure which he pleases ; or whether lastly by some other way yet more impenetrable and more unknown he causes us to receive the fruit of those prayers which we address to those blessed souls . ed. p. . so that in effect , whether the saints hear us or no , whether they joyn with us in our requests or no , according to monsieur de meaux's exposition , their church knows not ; which is sure a sufficient prejudice against their invocation ; and was , it seems , thought so by those who therefore caused all the latter part of this paragraph to be struck out , for fear of the advantage we might reasonably make of it . v. but if monsieur de meaux in his first exposition freely confess'd how uncertain the grounds of this invocation were , he no less freely left it to our choice whether we would practise it or not . he assured us there was no manner of obligation at all upon us so to do : and that the church would not condemn us if we did it not , provided we refused it not out of contempt , or with a spirit of dissension and revolt . furthermore , says he , there is nothing so unjust as to accuse the church of placing all her piety in these devotions to the saints ; since on the contrary she lays no obligation at all on particular persons to joyn in this practice . by which it appears clearly that the church condemns only those who refuse it out of contempt , and by a spirit of dissension and revolt . ed. p. , . this was monsieur de meaux's first exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church in this point : but such as his correctors it seems would not admit of : who therefore obliged him wholly to strike out that passage , that the church imposes no obligation at all upon particular persons to practise this invocation : and instead of condemning only those that refuse it out of contempt , or a spirit of dissension and revolt , which had freed us wholly from their anathema , to expound it now more severely . that she condemns those who refuse this practice whether out of disrespect or error . which will be sure to bring us under it . vi. in the article of images monsieur de meaux having first laid down this foundation , that the church of rome does not attribute to them any other virtue than that of exciting in us the remembrance of those whom they represent ; added in his first exposition which was suppressed , 't is in this consists the use and advantage of images . edit . p. . and to assure us yet further how little honour they had for them , concluded thus , so that to speak properly , and according to the ecclesiastical style , we do not so much honour the image of an apostle or martyr , as we do honour the apostle or martyr in presence of the image . edit . p. . now though we do not doubt but that this is the real opinion of monsieur de meaux , and all which he himself does , yet to say that the church of rome does neither require , nor practise , nor intend any more , was to presume too much upon our ignorance ; and indeed to give too great a scandal to many of his own communion , more zealous than himself for this service : and therefore we find it now expounded in a manner more conformable to the truth , though still exceedingly mollified , t is upon this is founded the honour which we give to images : and again . when we honour the image of an apostle or martyr , our intention is not so much to honour the image , as the apostle or martyr in presence of the image . vii . in the section of justification monsieur de meaux has omitted this whole paragraph since his first edition : the catholick church , says he , is no where more invincible than in this point , and perhaps it would need no long discourse to shew , that the more one searches by the scriptures into the design of the redemption . of mankind , which was to make us holy , the more one shall approach to our doctrine , and the more depart from the opinions of calvin , which are not maintainable , nay are contradictory and ruinous of all true and solid piety . ed. p. , . monsieur de meaux may please some other time to expound to us , what those opinions of calvin in this matter are which the church of rome is so invincible in , and which all parties among them will agree to be so contradictory , and ruinous to all true and solid piety , as he then said . in the mean time we will only beg leave to observe on occasion of this correction , that perhaps there are some in the church of rome of mr. calvin's mind in the worst of those principles monsieur de meaux refers to , and to assure him that there are several protestants in the world that are not ; tho they dare not therefore so severely censure the opinions of those that are . ix . monsieur de meaux having in a very few words explained the doctrine of justification , upon which the council of trent is so long and perplex'd , assured us in his first exposition , that that was enough for any man to know to make him a through christian. thus have you seen what is most necessary in the doctrine of justification ; and our adversaries would be extraordinarily contentious not to confess , that there is no need to know any more to be a solid christian. ed. p. . this would have been of great advantage to us , and have freed us from the anathema's of many other particulars , of which we more doubt , than of any thing monsieur de meaux has expounded of it ; but this others thought too great a concession ; and the bishop therefore , without changing any thing in his premises , was forced to draw a very different conclusion from them . thus have you seen what is most necessary in the doctrine of justification , and our adversaries would be very unreasonable if they should not confess , that this doctrine suffices to teach christians , that they ought to refer all the glory of their salvation to god through jesus christ. x. in the article of satisfaction , monsieur de meaux speaking of the temporal and eternal punishment of sin , and how the one may be retain'd when the other is forgiven , had this paragraph in the first edition , since struck out . the church has always acknowledged these two different manners of applying the remission of sins , which we have proposed ; because she saw that in the scriptures , besides the first pardon , and which ought to be the only , if men were not ungrateful , and which is pronounced in the terms of a pure remission , there is another absolution , and another grace , that is proposed in form of a judgment , where the church ought not only to loose and remit , but also to bind and retain . edit . p. , . the censure pass'd upon this , were enough to make one suspect , that either monsieur de meaux , or his correctors , were sensible upon further consideration , that they could not so easily find out these two forms , so distinguish'd in holy scripture , or prove that the church had always acknowledged them ; and therefore judged it safer not to undertake it . xi . in the article of confirmation , speaking of the imposition of hands , monsieur de meaux insinuated in his first exposition , that it had always been accompanied with the use of chrism ever since the apostles . thus , says he , all christian churches have religiously retained this practice , accompanying it ( the imposition of hands ) with holy chrism . ed. p. . this was too clearly false to be suffer'd to pass , and therefore it is now more loose , so as to admit of an equivocation , and yet seem to say still the same thing . thus all christian churches since the apostles times have religiously retained it , making use also of holy chrism . xii . in the article of the sacrifice of the mass , monfieur de meaux having expounded it according to our principles , in his first edition , concluded with us too . so that it ( the mass ) may , says he , be very reasonably called a sacrifice : ed. p. . but since the correction , the conclusion is much strengthned , tho the premises remain the same : so that there is nothing wanting to it , to make it a true sacrifice . xiii . as to the point of the pope's authority , the first exposition ran much higher than it seems the spirit of the gallicane church could bear . so that our profession of faith obliges us as to this point , to believe the roman church to be the mother and mistress of all churches , and to render a true obedience to the pope , the successor of st. peter , and vicar of jesus christ. ed. p. . it is now more loose , and in general thus ; we acknowledg a primacy in the successors of the prince of the apostles , to whom , for that cause we owe that obedience and submission which the holy councils and fathers have always taught the faithful . ed. p. . but it may be what was struck out of the exposition to please the correctors , monsieur de meaux recompensed in his letter to satisfy his holiness . xiv . in the conclusion , monsieur de meaux telling us that none of those articles he had expounded , according to our own principles , destroyed the foundation of our salvation , added in his first exposition what that foundation was , viz. the adoration of one only god , father , son , and holy ghost , and the trust in one only saviour . ed. p. . it is hard to say why this was not let pass , for we are unwilling to believe that the church of rome has any other foundation for salvation than this . but it may be to have put down this as the foundation of salvation , would have been too plainly to shew , that then we certainly have this , and that without mixture of any thing destructive thereunto . xv. monsieur de meaux go's on , in a very candid manner , since struck out ; in effect , says he , in all these explications , which contain the very bottom of our belief , there is not any one word repugnant to these two principles , either directly , or by consequence . so that acknowledging then this , that the church of rome do's believe and profess all that is essential to preserve the substance of the christian religion , so that they cannot reasonably impute to us any doctrine contrary thereunto , they must at the same time acknowledg , by their own principles , that the church of rome is a true part of the church of christ , to which every christian is obliged to unite himself in his heart , and in effect as far as in him lies . ed. monsieur de meaux may please to know , that we do confess the church of rome to be a part of the true church , thô indeed we think one of the worst ; and that we do with all our hearts desire a union with her ; and in effect do shew it as far as we are able , by retaining whatever we can of the same doctrines and practices with her . and if this were all they desired of us , as indeed it is all they ought , and all we can do : however an absolute union would not thereby be obtained , yet might we live at least like christians and brethren , in a common charity with one another , and so dispose our minds , as by god's grace to come in a little time to some better agreement in the rest too , than ever we are like to do without it . these are some of those passages that gave occasion to the correction we have spoken of at the sorbon , and to the suppression of the whole first edition , however authorized by the bishops of france in the same words it now is . i might have added many more ; but instead of it , will beg leave to offer the reader one correction made very lately by another faculty , that of louvain ; if not immediatly of monsieur de meaux's exposition , yet at least of a doctrine which they were before-hand given to understand , was so explained in it . monsieur de witte , pastor and dean of st. maries , in the city of mechlin , having , in a discourse with some persons of that city , on the th of july last , maintain'd the authority of the church and pope , according to the manner of monsieur de meaux's exposition ; complaint was made of him , first to the inter-noaen , then to his holiness himself , and four propositions drawn up against him , as the heads of his heresy . monsieur de witte maintain'd his opinion in several papers printed to that end ; in the * * * th of which , after several other authorities of persons of their church defending the same doctrine ; he tells them , that the golden exposition of faith of monsieur the bishop of condom , required nothing more to the sound , catholic , and orthodox faith in this matter ; which exposition , besides the elogies of many other eminent persons , was also approved by our holy father innocent the th himself , in his kind letter to him . but all this could not prevail with them to respect his doctrine ever the more for monsieur de meaux's exposition , or his holinesses brief . the faculty of divinity , at the command of the nonce , and with the knowledg , no doubt , and assent of the pope , to whom the whole affair had been communicated , censured his propositions , nov. . . and especially the second , in which monsieur de meaux's exposition of the catholick faith was principally concerned , as scandalous and pernicious . judicamus eam censurari posse uti scandalosam & perniciosam . may those who insist so much on the fidelity and authority of monsieur de meaux's exposition , please calmly to consider these things ; and tell us how we can rely on such an exposition of their doctrine , as notwithstanding so many formal approbations ; first , of the bishops of france , was yet corrected in so many places by the sorbon ; and secondly , of the pope , cardinals , and others in italy , and of the whole body of the clergy of france in their assembly ; has yet so lately been censured , at the command of the nonce , and with the consent of his holiness , by the faculty of one of their most eminent universities , to be scandalous and pernicious . a table of the articles contained in this treatise . i. the introduction . page . ii. that religious worship is to be paid to god only . iii. of the invocation of saints . iv. of images and relicks . v. of justification . vi. of merits . vii . of satisfactions , purgatory , and indulgences . part ii. viii . of the sacraments in general . ix . of baptism . x. of confirmation . xi . of penance and confession . xii . of extream unction . xiii . of marriage . xiv . of holy orders . xv. of the eucharist ; and first of the explication of those words , this is my body . xvi . do this in remembrance of me. xvii . the doctrine of the church of england concerning this holy sacrament . xviii . of transubstantiation , and of the adoration of the host. xix . of the sacrifice of the mass. xx. of the epistle to the hebrews . xxi . reflections upon the foregoing doctrine . xxii . of communicating under one kind . part iii. xxiii . of the word written and unwritten . xxiv . of the authority of the church . xxv . the opinion of the church of england , as to the authority of the church . xxvi . the authority of the holy see and of episcopacy . xxvii . the close . errata . preface ] page xxix the number of the sections mistaken to the end . p. xxxii . l. . dele ed. p. . p. xxxiv . l. . r. mechlin , ib. l. . r. inter-nonce . book . ] p. . l. . r. practise . p. . l. . r. works it in us . p. . in the margin , l. . del . . p. . the same . p. . marg. del . p. . p. . l. . r. vertut . p. . l. . r. mr. de meaux . l. . charity . p. . l. . r. vertue . p. . marg. ib. r. ver . . an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england in the several articles expounded by monsieur de meaux . i. the introduction . it has always been esteemed more reasonable to doubt of principles first , and then to deny the conclusions that are drawn from them , than having granted the foundation , afterwards to cavil at the clear and necessary deductions from it . to profess that religious worship is due to god only ; and at the same time to say that we ought to adore men and women , crosses and images , and all that infinite variety of follies which these latter ages have set forth under the pious name of relicks . to declare , that we are saved only by christ's merits ; and yet still continue to teach us that we ought to set up our own . in a word , to say , that the death of christ was a perfect sacrifice , and one drop of his blood more than sufficient for the redemption of mankind ; and nevertheless go on to require our satisfactions as necessary too , and oblige us to believe that other propitiatory sacrifices besides that of the cross , ought to be offered up continually to god in his church , for the sins both of the dead and the living : this must certainly be the part of a disputant , either too ignorant to understand , or too obstinate to submit to any conviction . monsieur de meaux , the design of whose exposition seems rather to be an apology for the popish religion , than a free assertion and vindication of its errors , is above all things sensible of the justice of this reflection : and therefore endeavours by all means possible in the very entry of his treatise to prepare his reader against it , by shewing the injustice of charging consequences upon men which they do not allow ; and that therefore tho their superstructure should chance to overthrow their foundation , yet since they profess not to know that it does so , they ought not to be taxed with what they do not believe . it is not deny'd but that consequences may be sometimes either so obscure , or so far distant , that a person prejudicate for the principle , may well be excused the charge of a collection , which his actions shew he neither believes nor approves . but when the conclusions , as well as principles , are plain and confess'd , and the dispute is only about the name , not the thing ; we must beg leave to profess , that we cannot chuse but say that he believes not as he ought the infinite merits of christ's sacrifice , who requires any other offering for sin ; and that no subtilty of argument will ever perswade us that those destroy not their principle of worshipping god only , whom we see , contrary to his express command , prostrate every day before an image , with prayers and hymns to creatures that have been subject to like infirmities with our selves , and that are perhaps at this very time in a worser estate , than the most miserable of those that call upon them for their assistance . be it therefore allow'd to be as great a calumny , as monsieur de meaux can suppose it , to accuse men of consequences obscure and disavow'd ; the opinions we charge the church of rome with , are plain and confess'd , the practice and prescription of the chiefest authority in it . and to refuse our charge of them , is in good earnest nothing else than to protest against a matter of fact ; a plea , which even justice it self has told us , may without calumny be rejected as invalid . however , thus much at least we have got by this reflection , that it directs us to the true state of the controversy between us ; and shews , that we , who have been so often charged by the church of rome as innovators in religion , are at last by their own confession , allow'd to hold the ancient and undoubted foundation of the christian faith ; and that the question between us therefore is not , whether what we hold be true ? which is on all hands agreed , but , whether those things which the roman church has added as superstructures to it , and which , as such , we reject , be not so far from being necessary articles of religion , as they pretend , that they indeed overthrow that truth which is on both sides allow'd to be divine ; and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them ? the declaration of this , not so much by any new proof , as by clearing rather the true state of those points which are the subject of our difference , is the design of the following articles ; in which i shall endeavour to give a clear and free account of what we can approve , and what it is that we dislike in their doctrine ; and as far as the shortness of this discourse will allow , touch also upon some of those reasons that are the most usually given by us for both . article ii. that religious worship is to be paid to god only . that religious worship is due to god only , how necessary soever those practices of the roman church , which we are hereafter to consider , may have rendred it to monsieur de meaux to declare , yet is it , we suppose , but little necessary for us to say , we firmly believe , that the inward acknowledgment of his divine excellencies as the creator and lord of all things , is a part of the supream worship that is due to him . we believe that all the powers of our soul ought to be tied to him by faith , hope , and charity , as to that god who alone can establish and make us happy . and tho we do not think that there is now any sensible , or material sacrifice to be offered to him under the gospel , as there was heretofore under the law ; yet do we with all antiquity suppose the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving to be so peculiarly his due , that it cannot , without derogation to his honour , be applied to any other . what our opinion is of that worship which the roman church pays to the blessed virgin , and saints departed , we shall hereafter fully shew : but certainly great was the difference of those holy men whom monsieur de meaux mentions as their fore-runners in this practice , from the present manner of the popish invocation . gregory nazianzen in a rhetorical apostrophe , called to constantius in one , to his sister gorgonia in another oration , but he prayed to neither . st. basil ; st. ambrose ; st. j. chrysostom ; st. hierom ; st. augustin ; they desired sometimes that the martyr or saint would joyn with them in their requests , but they were rather raptures and wishes , than direct prayers ; and their formal petitions , but especially those of the church , were only to god almighty . they doubted whether the saints could hear them or no ; and were rather inclined to believe that they could not . the addresses of the mind , which the church of rome allows no less than the others to them , they look'd upon to be so peculiarly god's due , that they supposed he did not communicate them to the very angels that are in heaven . they declared against all thoughts of being assisted by the merits of their saints , or that god would ever the more readily , or indeed so soon accept their prayers coming by the intercession of another , as if they had gone themselves directly to the throne of grace . in a word ; they never imagined that this was an honour due to them ; but , on the contrary , constantly taught that it was a service belonging only to god almighty . well therefore might * * * monsieur daillé refer the beginnings of this invocation to these men , whose innocent wishes , and rhetorical flights , being still increased by the superstition of after-ages , first gave birth to this worship . but certainly the romanists cannot with any reason alledge them in favour of their error , till it be shewn either that we are mistaken in those differences we have here declared to be between what they did , and what the church of rome now practises ; or that they are otherwise proved to be so inconsiderable , as not to make any notable alteration in it . and yet that the ages before knew nothing , even of this , not only their confessed inability to produce any proofs from them of this superstition , but the contrary testimonies of the undoubted writings of ignatius , tertullian , clemens alexandrinus , origen , novatian , and others , so plainly shew , that it ought not to be esteemed at all rash at this distance to assert , that in this very small change , the fathers of the fourth century , did certainly begin to depart from the practice and tradition of those before them . and if that reason of the church of rome be of any strength , why they pray'd not to the holy men under the old testament , viz. because they were not then admitted to the sight of god , and therefore ought not to be prayed to . it seems to us that not only the greater part of the primitive fathers , but even those very men monsieur de meaux mentions , could not certainly have allowed such an invocation as is now used in their church ; the most of them being notoriously known , and even by their own writers freely confessed , to have believed the same , that neither do the saints and confessors of the christian church any more enjoy the presence of god even now . thus much was thought fit to be said to remove that prejudice monsieur de meaux had thrown in the way . we go on now with him to consider the doctrine it self , and what our church's opinion is of it . article iii. of the invocation of saints . the invocation of saints , as it is stated by monsieur de meaux , we look upon to be one of those practices which our church stiles , fond things , vainly invented , and grounded upon no warrant of holy scripture , but indeed repugnant to god's word . monsieur de meaux himself dares not say that they do or can ordinarily by any ability in themselves , hear , see , or know , the wants , state , or prayers of men upon earth , to be mindfull of them unto god in heaven . nor can it ever be proved that by any of those ways which he proposes , but seems himself not to lay any great stress upon , they are certainly and particuly communicated to them . we think therefore , that till this be cleared , it is too great a hazard to leave a mediator , who both certainly knows our wants , and has promised to hear us ; that has invited us , nay commanded us to come to him in all our needs , to go to intercessors which god has no where appointed , and which we can never be sure our prayers shall come up to . it sufficeth not that they may know some things , in some places , at some times , and of some men extraordinarily , unless we could tell what saints , and what things , and in what places , and at what times , they do know them . when this is cleared , it may then be more reasonable to desire us to joyn with them in this service . in the mean time , tho we should not charge them with idolatry meerly for this , yet we must needs confess we cannot but think these addresses to be too full of hazard and uncertainty to venture any requests at all , much less so many as they do every day , upon them . in vain therefore does monsieur de meaux endeavour to defend the innocence of this invocation , whilst he forgets to shew us the reasonableness of it . we should be pleased indeed to be assured of that ; but we cannot be convinced that we ought to joyn in the practice till we are satisfied of the other too . and yet we cannot but regret , that if their design be truly no more than this , to entreat the saints to pray for them , we should find the greatest part of their service addressing to them after so contrary a manner ; that they would interpose not only their intercessions , but their merits too for their forgiveness : not only that they would pray to god for them , but that they would themselves bless them . that the angels and saints would give them strength , grace , health , and power . that st. peter would have mercy upon them , and open to them the gate of heaven . that the blessed virgin would protect them from their enemies , and receive them at their death : in a word , that she would command her son to forgive them by that right , which as a mother she had over him . all which their very publick rituals so far allow , that the service which is paid to god in his church by the mediation of christ , is infinitely exceeded by the addresses of this nature , through the merits of the virgin mary , and of the saints . now if these prayers signify no more than , as monsieur de meaux expounds them , to entreat the saints to pray for them , why have we such scandal given us in the practice ? if they intend really what we suppose , and what their words do certainly signify ; what ingenuity can it be to impose upon us in the declaration ? however at least they will please to excuse us that we have fallen at so just a stumbling block ; and charged them as derogating from the merits of christ , whilst they have thus cry'd up the merits of their saints , and of a presumption unwarrantable , if not wholly idolatrous , in desiring any but god alone to help , and succour , and give them those blessings , which god only has power to dispense . . when therefore we shall be certainly assured that all that infinite number which the church of rome has canonized , are truly and infallibly saints . . when we shall be assured that these saints do already enjoy the presence of god almighty ; a circumstance which the papists themselves confess necessary to warrant their invocation . . when it shall be made undoubtedly appear , that either by their own knowledg , or by some other revelation , they do ordinarily and particularly understand all the requests that are made to them ; so that we can be as secure of their hearing us , as when we desire our brethren upon earth to pray for us . . when the liturgies of their church shall be reformed , and all those dangerous insinuations of the merit and personal assistance of their saints be removed . . when those desperate doctrines , and yet more desperate addresses of their school-men and controvertists , which scandalize the more moderate even of their own party , shall be censured . . and men taught to practise this invocation with such sobriety , as neither to make it so freely and publickly their worship as they do , nor with any opinion of being either sooner heard , or more effectually answered by this way of address , than by going directly to god by our saviour and only mediator jesus christ. . in a word , when even an invocation so moderated , shall be shewn either to have been commanded by god almighty , or to have been advised by his apostles , or to have been practised ordinarily and directly by the most primitive christians : or lastly , but to be no way injurious to the excellent goodness of that intercessor , who has so kindly invited , and even conjured us to come to him in all our needs ; then will we not fail to joyn our ora pro nobis with them : but till then we must beg leave to conclude with a charity and moderation , which we suppose they themselves cannot but approve in us , that it is a fond thing , vainly invented , and grounded upon no warrant of holy scripture , but rather indeed contrary thereunto . and what we have now said of their prayers , we must in the next place apply to their sacrifices too . to mention the names of the holy saints departed in the communion ; this we look upon to be a practice as innocent as 't is ancient . so far are we from condemning it in them , that we practise it our selves . we name them at our altars , we give god thanks for their excellencies , and pray to him for grace to follow their examples . but as we allow thus much to their memories , so we cannot but condemn that practice which monsieur de meaux seems to have omitted , tho yet the chief thing that offends us ; that they recommend the offerings which they make to god , through the merits of their saints which they commemorate , and desire that by their merits they may become available to the churches needs . as if christ himself , whom they suppose to be the sacrifice , needed the assistance of st. bathildis or potentiana , to recommend him to his father : or , that the merits of an offering , which they tell us is the very same with that of the cross , should desire the joynt deserts of a st. martin to obtain our forgiveness . they who shall consider these things as they ought , will , we doubt not , confess that we have some reason to complain , both that they derogate herein from christ's merits , and attribute to their saints more than they ought to do . if this practice be reformed , our complaint , as to this point , ceaseth . if it be not , in vain does monsieur de meaux endeavour to perswade us , that they only name their saints to give god thanks for their excellencies , whilst their publick practice avows , that they desire both the pardon of their sins , and even the acceptance of their very sacrifices themselves , by their mediation . article iv. of images and relicks . vvhat the opinion of the church of england is concerning the worship of images and relicks , will need no long declaration to shew , they being joyn'd by her in the same article with that of the invocation of saints before-mentioned , and by consequence , submitted by her to the same censure . but then , as we before complained , that both the practice of their church in the publick liturgies of it , and the approved doctrine of their most reputed writers , should so far contradict what monsieur de meaux would have us think is their only design in that service ; so we cannot but repeat the same complaints in this : that if all the use their church would have made of images and relicks , be only to excite the more lively in their minds the remembrance of the originals , not only the people should be suffered to fall into such gross mistakes , as 't is undeniably evident they do , in their worship of them ; but even their teachers be permitted without any reproof to confirm them in their errors . has st. thomas and his followers , nay , and even their pontifical it self , ever yet been censured by them , for maintaining in plain terms , that the image of the cross ought to be worshipped with the same worship as that saviour who suffered on it ? have the jesuits been condemned for teaching men to swear by it ? does not their whole church upon good-friday yet address her self to it in these very dangerous words , behold the wood of the cross ! come , let us adore it . and do not their actions agree with their expressions , and the whole solemnity of that day's service plainly shew , that they do adore it in the utmost propriety of the phrase ? does she not pray to it , that in this time of the passion , it would strengthen the righteous , and give pardon to the guilty ? is the hymn for the day of the invention corrected , wherein they profess that the cross heals their sicknesses , ties up the devil , and gives them newness of life ; and thereupon desire it to save its assembly , gathered together in its honour ? is the manner of consecrating them changed , in which they intreat god to bless the image of the cross which they there sanctify , that it may be for the establishment of their faith , an increase of their good works , the redemption of their souls , and their protection against the cruel darts of the enemy ? that christ would embrace this cross , over which they pray , as he did that upon which he suffer'd : that as by that he delivered the whole world from its guilt ; so by the merits of this , they who dedicate it may receive remission of their sins . in a word , that as many as bow down before it , may find health both of their souls and bodies by it . and is all this in good earnest no more than to excite more lively in our minds the remembrance of him that loved us , and delivered himself to the death for us , and to testifie by some outward marks our acknowledgment of that favour , by humbling our selves in presence of the cross , to declare thereby our submission to him that was crucified . is not this rather , if not absolutely to fall into , yet certainly too nearly to approach to that which monsieur de meaux himself confesses to be idolatry , viz. to trust in the images as if there were some divinity or virtue joyned to them , and for which they not only shew all imaginable marks of outward worship , by kissings , prostrations , and the like ceremonies ; but make as formal addresses to them , and that in the publick service of the church , as to god himself ? how this allow'd practice can be reconciled with the prohibition of the council of trent , not to believe any divinity or virtue tied to their images for which they ought to be adored ; nor to demand any grace of them , nor place any trust or confidence in them ; monsieur de meaux may please to expound to us . in the mean time , as we are so far from condemning the making of all sorts of images , that we think it not any crime to have the histories of the gospel caryed or painted in our very churches , which the walls and windows of several of them do declare : as we publickly use the sign of the cross in one of our very sacraments , and censure no man for practising it , only without superstition , on any other occasion : so we cannot but avow the scandal that is given us by those doctrines and practices before mentioned ; and that we think that worship justly to be abolished which the primitive church abhorred , and which at this day scandalizes not only so great a number of christians , but even our common enemy the jew & turk : in a word , which is so far from being commanded by god , that it needs many nice distinctions to render it not directly opposite to an express prohibition ; and is therefore if not down-right idolatry to those who know how to direct their intention aright , yet to the simple and ignorant , that is , to the much greater number , and the most zealous practioners of this service , so very near it , that the generality of the wisest papists , no less than we , complain of it . for the honour that is due to reliques , no protestant will ever refuse what ever the primitive church paid them ; or may be fit to express the honour we ought to retain for those bodies that by martyrdom have been made sacrifices to god almighty . if this be all mr. de meaux desires of us , we are ready to profess our opinion , that we judg it to be neither offensive to god , nor fit to be scrupled by any good man. we believe that according to the circumstances of the times , the church may testify this honour by more or less outward signs and marks of respect . and we do with satisfaction read that declaration of mr. de meaux , that we ought not to be servilely subjected to these outward ceremonies , but to be invited by them to offer up to god that reasonable service , in spirit and in truth , which he requires of us . and if this be the state of the question , we confess the explication of it has taken away a great part of the difficulty . but what then means the council of trent , to tell us , that we are not only to honour them , but to worship them too ? that by doing so , we shall obtain many benefits and graces of god. that these sacred monuments are not unprofitably revered , but are to be sought unto for the obtaining their help and assistance ; to cure the sick , to give eyes to the blind , feet to the lame , and even life to the dead . how comes it to pass that their church not only honours them , which we could allow , but carries them in processions , makes offerings to them , gives indulgences to such as shall go to visit them ; prescribes pilgrimages to them , swears by them , touches their beads , or hankerchiefs , with them to sanctify them ; thinks to obtain one blessing by virtue of this relick , another from that ; and the like superstitious usages , which we suppose we have good reason with our church , to conclude to be fond things , vainly invented , and grounded upon no authority of holy scripture , but indeed repugnant thereunto . when therefore all these abuses which we have named , and which monsieur de meaux seems content to allow with us to be such , shall be corrected : when in the matter of images , . the hymns and addresses that teach us , so contrary to the spirit of christianity , to demand graces of them , and to put our trust in them , shall be reformed ; st. thomas and his abettors censured ; and all other marks of an unwarrantable worship be forbidden . . when the pictures of god the father , and of the holy trinity , so directly contrary both to the second commandment , and to st. paul's doctrine , shall be taken away , and those of our saviour , and the blessed saints be by all necessary cautions rendred truly the books , not snares of the ignorant . when in points of relicks , . they shall be declared to have no sanctifying virtue in them : . nor that they ought to be sought to for any assistance spiritual or temporal to be expected from them . . when it shall be resolved to be no matter of merit to go to visit them : . nor any more extravagant indulgences be set forth for pilgrimages unto them : when all these things which monsieur de meaux passes over , and which yet are undeniably their practice and our scandal , shall be corrected ; then will we both believe and submit to the rest which he desires of us : we will honour the relicks of the saints as the primitive church did : we will respect the images of our saviour , and the blessed virgin : and as some of us now bow towards the altar , and all of us are enjoyned to do so at the name of the lord jesus ; so will we not fail to testify all due respect to his representation . in the mean time , if the outcries of their own church at these abuses cannot prevail with them to redress them , yet at least they will confirm us in the reformation we have made of them ; and whilst we find hezekiah commended in the holy scripture for destroying the brazen serpent , thô made by god's express command , and in some sort deservedly honourable for that great deliverance it brought to the jews , because the children of israel offered incense unto it . we shall conclude our selves to be by so much the more justifiable , in that the images we have removed were due only to the folly and superstition of men , and have been more scandalously abused , to a worser and greater dishonour of god. artic . v. of justification . the doctrine of justification is one of those points that deserves our careful consideration ; as being not only one of the chiefest of those points wherein we suppose the church of rome to have prevaricated the faith , but as monsieur de meaux remarks , one of the first that gave occasion to that reformation that was made from it . it is not necessary to say to what an extravagance the business of pardons , indulgences , and other means of satisfying the divine justice , was arrived ; and how much more confidence the people generally put in the inventions of men , than in the merits and satisfaction of christ. if they have been somewhat better instructed since , they may thank the reformation for it : tho we fear all the difference is , that they are somewhat more reserved in exposing these follies now , but yet still retain the foundation of that doctrine upon which they are built . we willingly allow monsieur de meaux this honour , that he has reduced the long decrees of the council of trent to a short and easie debate ; and proposed the things which contain our difference with such tenderness , as might invite us to close with a great part of it , did not the decrees of the council seem too plainly to refuse monsieur de meaux's exposition of them . we believe with him , that our sins are freely forgiven by god's mercy through christ ; and that none of those things which precede our justification , whether our faith , or our good works , could merit this grace . we are perswaded that our sins are not only covered , but are entirely done away by the blood of jesus christ. we confess that the righteousness of jesus christ is not only imputed , but actually communicated to the faithful , through the operation of the holy spirit , in so much that they are not only reputed , but made just by his grace we deny not that this righteousness is a true righteousness , even in the sight of god ; because that it is god who by charity works in us : only we think it withal such as is too weak to obtain for us the pardon of our sins , which monsieur de meaux seems content to confess with us . we willingly acknowledg that our righteousness is not perfect in this life . whilst we are in the body , the flesh will lust against the spirit , and in many things we shall offend all . the life of a christian is a continued state of repentance : and he must be too much opiniated of himself that refuses to conclude with st. augustine ; that our righteousness in this life , consisteth rather in the remission of our sins , than in the perfection of our vertue . in a word ; the sum of our difference as to this point , seems to be this . our church by justification , understands only the remission of our sins : we distinguish it from sanctification , which consists in the production of the habit of righteousness in us . we believe our sins are pardoned only through the merits of christ imputed to us . and for the rest , we say , that this remission of sins is given only to those that repent ; that is , in whom the holy spirit produces the grace of sanctification , for a true righteousness and holiness of life . the church of rome comprehends under the notion of justification , not only the remission of sins , but also the production of that inherent righteousness , which we call sanctification . they suppose with us , that our sins are forgiven only by the satisfaction of jesus christ. but then as they make that inward righteousness a part of justification too ; so by consequence , they say our justification it self is wrought also by our own good works . it appears by this , that were these things clearly stated , and distinguish'd the one from the other , the difference between us , considered only in the idea , would not be very great : and that we might safely allow whatsoever monsieur de meaux has advanced upon this point , provided it be but well and rightly explained ; tho in some things he has expressed himself after a manner unusual among us ; and which we suppose not so entirely conformable to the expressions of holy scripture . the sum of all is this . christ died , and by that death satisfied the justice of god for us . god therefore through the merits of his son , freely forgives us all our sins , and offers us a covenant of mercy and grace . by this covenant , founded only upon the death and merits of christ , he sends us his holy spirit , and calls us powerfully to repentance . if we awake and answer this call , then god by his free goodness justifies us ; that is , he pardons our sins past , gives us grace more and more to fulfil his commands for the time to come ; and if we persevere in this covenant , crowns us finally with eternal life . and all this he is pleased to do , not for any thing which we have , or can perform , but only through the merits and satisfaction of his son by faith applied to us . this is the foundation wherein monsieur de meaux seems content to agree with us . we go on to see how the following doctrine will stand upon this foundation . artic . vi. of merits . for what concerns the merits of good works , we are content to accept of monsieur de meaux's exposition ; that eternal life ought to be proposed to man as the grace of god mercifully bestow'd upon us through jesus christ , and as a recompence that is faithfully rendred to their good works , and to the merits of them by vertue of gods promise . the word merit we acknowledge to have been very antient in the church ; and tho to prevent those mistakes which many in these latter ages have made on occasion of that expression , we think it safer to discourse more reservedly of the merit , and press more strongly the necessity of good works : yet if it be understood so as monsieur de meaux expounds it , that all our merit derives its force only from the merits of jesus christ , who works in us both to will and to do ; and when we have done , renders by the same merits our good works acceptable to god , and available to our eternal life , we shall not be difficult to allow of it . if this be all the church of rome ascribes to good works , that our justification proceeds absolutely from god's bounty and mercy , and but accidentally only ( in as much as god has tied himself by his word and promise to reward them ) from our own performances ; we need no long exhortations to receive a doctrine which we have always defended against such of the church of rome as have opposed it , and are not yet , that we know of , censured for their so doing . that which we reject is , that we do as truly and properly merit rewards when we do well , as we do merit punishment when we do ill : so says the jesuit maldonate . that our good works do merit eternal life condignly , not only by reason of god's covenant and acceptation , but also by reason of the work it self ; so says cardinal bellarmine . all which vasquez sums up in the three following conclusions ; . that the good works of just persons are of themselves , without any covenant or acceptation , worthy of the reward of eternal life , and have an equal value of condignity to the obtaining of eternal glory . 〈◊〉 . that there comes no accession of dignity to the works of just persons by the merits or person of christ , which the same would not otherwise have , if they had been done by the same grace bestowed freely by god alone without christ. . that god's promise is indeed annex'd to the works of just men , but yet belongs no way to the merit of them , but cometh rather to the works themselves , which are already not only worthy , but meritorious also . from all which he draws this remarkable corallary ; seeing the works of just men do merit eternal life , as an equal recompence and reward , there is no need that any other condign merit , such as that of christ , should interpose , to the end that eternal life might be rendred to them . — wherefore we never pray to god that by the merits of christ , the reward of eternal life may be given to our worthy and meritorious works ; but that christ's grace may be given to us , whereby we may be enabled worthily to merit this reward . this is that doctrine of good works which we most justly do detest : and if the opinion of the church of rome be so directly opposite to it as monsieur de meaux professes , we are a little surprised that no index expurgatorius , no authentick censure , has ever taken notice of so dangerous a prevarication . but contrary-wise , these are the great authors of their party , approved , embraced , and almost adored , by the greatest and most learned of that communion . these are the principles which we suppose to have been an unwarrantable derogation to the grace of god , and directly opposite to the nature of justification by faith in christ , before established . and tho this point was far from being the only cause of our separation from their communion , yet let mr. de meaux himself please to say , whether such a doctrine of merits as this were not sufficient , if not to engage us wholly to leave a church that taught such things , yet at least to dissent from her in these particulars . artic . vii , &c. of satisfactions , purgatory , and indulgences . the whole of this point we think to be the advancement of a doctrine grounded upon no authority of holy scripture , but on the contrary , derogatory to god's mercy in jesus christ , and , as the doctrine of merits before considered , inconsistent with the nature of that justification we before establish'd . monsieur de meaux was pleased there to tell us , of god's justifying us freely for christ's merits : that our sins are not only covered , but entirely done away by his mercy ; and the sinner not only reputed , but made just by his grace . we cannot but be troubled to see our selves so soon deprived of this excellent hope ; and required our selves to satisfy god's justice here , which he assured us was entirely done for us by christ before . when christ , says monsieur de meaux , who alone was able to make a sufficient satisfaction for our sins , died for us ; having by his death abundantly satisfied for them , he became capable of applying that satisfaction to us after two very different manners ; either by giving us an entire forgiveness of our sins , without reserving any pains for us to undergo for them ; or in changing only a greater pain into a lesser , the eternal torments of hell into a temporal punishment . the former of these being the more entire , and the more agreeable to the divine goodness , he accordingly makes use of it at our baptism : but we suppose he gives the second only to them who after baptism fall again into sin ; being in a manner forced to it through the ingratitude whereby they have abused his former gifts , so that they are to suffer some temporal pain , tho the eternal be remitted to them . this is a very great doctrine , and ought certainly to have some better proof of it , than barely we suppose . however it be , our church has declared its self of an opinion directly contrary : that since the absolute forgiving of sin is confessed to be the more perfect way , and more becoming the divine goodness ; and that god has never , that we know of , revealed any other ; but rather has constantly encouraged us to expect his pardon after the largest and most ample manner that it is possible for words to set forth ; we are persuaded that accordingly whenever god do's pardon , it is in that way which is the most suitable to his divine goodness , and which alone he hath declared to us , that he do's it intirely for christs merits , not for any works or sufferings of our own . in vain therefore does monsieur de meaux labour to reconcile this doctrine with christ's absolute satisfaction . we confess that we ought not to dispute with god the manner of his dispensations ; nor think it at all strange if he who shews himself so easie at our baptism , is afterwards more difficult for those sins which we commit being baptized . there is nothing in all this but what we could most readily allow of , were there but any tollerable arguments to establish the doctrine that requires it . but whilst this is so destitute of all proof , that it is acknowledged to introduce a manner of forgiveness neither so intire , nor so befitting gods mercy as a total remission of the punishment , together with the guilt ; whilst we have the sufferings of christ to rely upon , which are so far from needing any addition of our own , that they are confessed to have been super-abundant to whatever the divine justice could require of us ; tho we can and do practice the same discipline for the other benefits of it , viz. to shew our indignation against our selves that we have offended , and to keep us from sinning for the future ; yet we cannot be so forgetful of our dear master , as to pretend to any part in that redemption , but only to enjoy the benefits of that forgiveness , which by his alone merits he has intirely purchased for us ; nor do we see any reason to believe that gods justice will require any more , than what has been super-abundantly paid upon the cross for the iniquities of mankind . 't is true , monsieur de meaux tells us , that the necessity of this payment does not arise from any defect in christ's satisfaction , but from a certain order which god has establish'd for a salutary discipline , and to keep us from offending . this indeed were something , would either monsieur de meaux have been pleased to shew us this establistment , or had not the council of trent declared more , viz. that the justice of god requires it ; and that therefore the confessors should be charged to proportion the satisfaction to the crime . from whence cardinal bellarmine concludes , that it is we who properly satisfie for our own sins , and that christs satisfaction serves only to make ours valid . this is an exposition somewhat different from monsieur de meaux's , who will have the church of rome believe , that we do not our selves satisfie in the least for our sins , but only apply the infinite satisfaction of christ to them . upon the whole it appears , . that these penances are not only a salutary discipline , but a satisfaction too . . they change the mercy of god into a forgiveness , that is confessed neither to be in its self perfect , nor so becoming the divine goodness as an intire remission of sin , the punishment as well as guilt , would be . . their establishment depends only upon a humane supposition of its fitness ; and derogates from the very foundation of that covenant god has entred into with us by christ , that he will be merciful to our unrighteousness , and our sins and our iniquites he will remember no more . upon all which accounts , tho we practise this discipline for many other benefits of it , and wish it were universally established , not only in a more perfect manner than either in ours or their church it is , but even in a strictness equal to what they tell us it is fallen from ; yet we cannot believe , that by any of these things we are able to make a true and proper satisfaction to god for sin ; which he only could do , who himself bore our sins in his own body upon the cross , and by that one suffering , for ever perfected them that are sanctified . article vii . of indulgences . the doctrine of indulgences the council of trent has asserted only , not explained : mon●ieur de meaux has stated it after a manner so favou●able to us , that i am persuaded he will find more in ●is own church than in ours to oppose his doctrine . it was the discipline of the primitive church , when the bishops imposed severe penances on the offenders , and that they were almost quite performed , if some great cause of pity chanced to arrive , or an excellent repentance , or danger of death , or that some martyr pleaded in behalf of the penitent , the bishop did sometimes indulge him , that is , did relax the remaining part of his penance , and give him absolution . monsieur de meaux having this pattern before his eyes , frames the indulgences now used in the church of rome exactly according to it . when the church , says he , imposes upon sinners hard and laborious penances , and that with humility they undergo them , this we call satisfaction ; and when having regard either to the fervour of the penitents , or to some other good works which she prescribes , she relaxes some part of the punishment yet remaining ; this is called indulgence . but to pass by for the present those abuses that are every day made of these indulgences , and which both the council and monsieur de meaux seem willing to have redressed ; such essential differences we conceive there are between the indulgences of the primitive , and those of the roman church , that tho we readily enough embrace the one , yet we cannot but renounce and condemn the other . in the primitive church these indulgences were matters of meer discipline , as the penances also were ; the one to correct the sinner , and to give others caution that they might not easily offend ; the other to encourage the penitent to honour the martyr that interposed for his forgiveness , or to prevent his dying without absolution . in the church of rome they are founded upon an errour in doctrine ; that as their penance is not matter of discipline , only to correct the sinner , but to be undergone as a satisfaction to be made to god for the sin ; so their indulgence is not given as monsieur de meaux expounds it , upon any consideration had of the fervour of the penitent , to admit him to absolution which he has already received , but by the application of the merits of their saints who they suppose have undergone more temporal punishments than their sins have deserved , to take off that pain , which notwithstanding their absolution , the sinner should otherwise have remained liable to . in the primitive church the bishop received the penitent to absolution , and the exemplariness of his repentance , or the intercession of the martyr that supplicated for him , was the only consideration they had for the indulgence . in the church of rome the indulgence is to be had from the pope only , in whose hands the merits of their saints lye , the overplus of which are , they say , the treasure of the church , to be dispensed upon all occasions to such as want , and upon such terms as his holiness shall think fit to propose . in the primitive church these indulgences were very rare , given only upon some special occasions , and the bishop never relaxed the remainder of the penance he had imposed , till the penitent had performed a considerable part of it , and shew'd by his contrition that it had obtained the effect of bringing him to a sense of his sin , and a hearty repentance for it , which was the end they designed by all . in the roman church they are cry'd about the streets , hung up in tables over every church door , prostituted for money , offer'd to all customers , for themselves or for their friends ; for the dead as well as the living ; and to visit three churches , say a prayer before this altar , at the other saints monument , in a third chappel , is without more ado , through the extraordinary charity that church hath for sinners , declared sufficient to take off whatever such punishment is due for all the sins of a whole life . and here then let monsieur de meaux in conscience tell us ; is all this no more than to release some part of the remaining penance , in consideration of the fervour of the penitent in performing the rest ? such pardons as these we do certainly with reason conclude , to be fond things , vainly invented , and grounded upon no authority of holy scripture , but indeed repugnant to gods word . but for the rest , we profess our selves so far from being enemies to the ancient discipline of the church , that we heartily wish to see it revived ; and whenever the penances shall be reduced to their former practice , we shall be ready to give or receive such an indulgence as monsieur de meaux has described , and as the primitive ages of the church allow'd of . article viii . of purgatory . but the temporal pains which they suppose due to sin , has yet another error consequent upon it . that since every man must undergo them according to the proportion of his sins , if any one chance to dye before he has so done , he cannot pass directly into heaven , but must undergo these punishments first in the other life , and the place where these punishments are undergone , they call purgatory . so that the doctrine then of purgatory , relies upon that satisfaction which we our selves are to make for our sins , besides what christ has done for us : and according to the measure that that is either true or false , certain or uncertain , this must be so too : since therefore monsieur de meaux tells us only , that the church of rome supposes the former to be true , they can only suppose the latter in like manner ; and therefore till they are able certainly to assure us of that , we shall still have reason to doubt of this . that the primitive church from the very second century , made prayers for the dead , we do not deny ; but that these prayers were to deliver them out of purgatory , this we suppose monsieur de meaux himself will not avow ; it being certain that they were made for the best men , for the holy apostles , the martyrs and confessors of the church , nay for the blessed virgin her self , all which at the same time they thought in happiness , and who the papists themselves tell us never toucht at purgatory . many were the private opinions which the particular christians of old had concerning the reason and benefit of praying for the dead . some then , as we do at this day , only gave thanks to god for their faith and their examples . others prayed for them , either for the bodies resurrection , or for their acquitting at the final judgment , as supposing it to be no way unfit to pray to god for those very blessings which he has absolutely promised and resolved to give . some thought an increase of glory might be obtained to the righteous by their prayers . all believed this , that it testified their hope of them , and manifested their faith of that future resurrection which they waited for ; and in the mean time maintained a kind of fellowship and communion between the members of christ yet alive , and those who were departed only , not lost by death . but then it is to be observed , that when they most ordinarily prayed for the dead , yet was there nothing determined as to this point ; all was left to the piety and opinion of particular men , nor durst they absolutely resolve whether the dead received any benefit by them ; as both the learned of the church of rome themselves confess , and the writings of primitive antiquity , even to st. augustine himself , undoubtedly shew . now as there is none of us that will condemn the charity of any man , to pray , or fast , or afflict himself for the pardon and forgiveness of his friends , his country , or his church , so it be done without any fond opinion of merit or satisfaction , and to hope too by such prayers to obtain god's mercy for them : so if any one will put up his particular requests for the dead too , for any of those ends for which the primitive christians did , we shall not condemn him . only let not that be made an article of our faith which we can never be assured of , and which when it was most practised , was received only as a private opinion , and in a sense far different from what is now asserted ; and for the rest we shall not refuse to consent to any liberty whereby peace may be obtained , and our free justification by faith in christ not injured . part ii. of the sacraments . article ix . of the sacraments in general . the doctrine of the sacraments has always been esteemed one of the most considerable obstacles to our union with the church of rome . we cannot imagine why monsieur de meaux should insinuate as if our disputes about these , except it be in the point of the eucharist , were not so great as about other matters , unless it be to serve for an excuse for his own passing so lightly over them , or to make us less careful in examining their doctrine . the sacraments of the new testament , in that proper sense in which we now take the word , we have always look'd upon to be not only holy signs to represent and confirm to us the grace of god , but also effectual tokens of his good will to us , by which he does work invisibly in us , and strengthen and confirm our faith in him . to obtain the benefit of the holy sacraments , we cannot believe it to be enough that we have no ill disposition , but do suppose that it is a sufficient obstacle if we have not a good one . we confess that the faith of the church , and those who present them to baptism , is all that is required to prepare infants to receive the spiritual regeneration which that sacrament confers . but for those who by age are capable of it , we suppose both in baptism and in the holy eucharist , an actual faith of gods promise annexed to the outward signs which we receive , to be indispensably necessary for the partaking of their effects . and tho if the rest be agreed , we shall not desire to determine any mans belief , as to the manner how the sacraments confer that grace which god has promised by them ; yet we judg it more agreeable to the analogy of our faith to say , that upon the performance of the outward ceremony , god bestows the inward blessing ; than that the blessing is conferr'd by virtue of the words which are pronounced , and the action which is done to us , as monsieur de meaux has expounded it . we do not by this at all take off from the necessity of the outward signs . we confess , that besides the inward preparation , there is required for our sanctification a special operation of the holy spirit , and an application of christs merits by the means of the holy sacraments . this we are so perswaded of , that we profess them to be ‖ ‖ ‖ necessary to salvation , insomuch that whosoever either carelesly neglects , or presumptuously despises the use of them , will in vain expect it by any other means . for the number of the sacraments , we acknowledg only two as generally necessary to salvation ; and are surprized to see the council of trent damning all such as will not receive a number , which neither has the scripture any where declared ; nor was it , that we know of , till the very th century ever heard of in the church . * * * hugo de st. victor is the first that we can find it in , years after christ ; ‖ ‖ ‖ lombard and the schoolmen follow'd him . pope † † † eugenius in his instructions to the armenians gave yet more countenance to it ; but that all those ceremonies which the church of rome now receives are truly and properly sacraments , and that there be neither more nor less than seven , never any one absolutely determined , till the council of trent first canonically decreed it , and commanded the church under an anathema to receive it . the special consideration of their five pretended sacraments , will give us an opportunity more particularly to establish that number we our selves propose . this presumption of the truth we must not omit here , that not only the ancient fathers of the church when they speak of the sacraments properly as we now do , mention only baptism and the lords supper ; but even the papists themselves who establish more , yet confess these to be so far the principal , that our own article says but little more , than what their greatest schoolmen have voluntarily confessed . article x. of baptism . how strict our church is in maintaining the necessity of baptism , the very office by which we do administer it , sufficiently shews . we declare that all men are conceived and born in sin , and that none can enter into the kingdom of god , except he be regenerate and born anew of water , and of the spirit . this is the law of christ which the eternal truth has established ; and whosoever shall presume to oppose it , let him be anathema . but now as all other laws , so this of christ , must , we think , be interpreted according to the rules of natural equity . the ancient church constantly professed her belief , that martyrdom excused the defect of baptism . many of the papists themselves suppose , that the desire of it , when by some unavoidable necessity the sacrament its self cannot be obtained , shall be reputed for it . monsieur de meaux insinuates that the acts of faith , hope , and charity , may supply the want of it . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ st. bernard plainly concludes the same , if , says he , a man desirous of baptism be suddenly cut off by death , in whom there wanted neither found faith , nor devout hope , nor sincere charity ; god be merciful unto me , and pardon me if i err , but verily of such a ones salvation in whom there is no other defect but his faultless lack of baptism , despair i cannot , nor induce my mind to think his faith void , his hope confounded , and his charity fallen to nothing , only because he hath not that which not contempt , but impossibility with-holdeth . when therefore so many ways have been allowed to excuse the defect of baptism , tho our church has rather taken all imaginable care that infants shall not die without it , than presumed rashly to determine what shall become of them if they do ; yet we cannot but condemn the uncharitableness of the church of rome in excluding them from all part in jesus christ , and denying that mercy to a tender and impotent age , which they so liberally extend to those of riper years . if not the want but the contempt of this sacrament be the only thing that is damnable , to be sure no contempt of baptism can be in them . if the desire of baptism in those that are capable of it , is by many of the church confessed to be reputed for baptism ; why shall we not hope that god who is all merciful , will accept the desire of the church and of their parents in their behalf , who by their age are not capable to have any of their own . ‖ ‖ ‖ if faith , hope and charity , as monsieur de meaux himself implies , may excuse them who actually have these graces , tho they want this sacrament ; why may not that faith , that hope , that charity of the church , which being imputed to them renders them capable of baptism , be as effectual to stand instead of it to them , as their own proper faith for others , if a necessity which could not be avoided prevents it ? in a word , since such is the mercy of god , that to things altogether impossible he bindeth no man ; but where what he commands cannot be performed , accepteth of our will to do it instead of the deed. . seeing god's grace is not so absolutely tyed to the sacraments , but that many exceptions have been , and are still confessed to be sufficient to obtain it , without the external application of them : seeing , . st. paul has told us that the seed of faithfull parentage is holy from the very birth , as being born within the covenant of grace ; tho we determine nothing , yet we think it the part of charity , not only to take all the care we can to present our infants to baptism whilst they live , but if by any unavoidable necessity they should die without it , ‖ ‖ ‖ to hope well of them : remembring that judgment of god , exod. . who when moses neglected to circumcise his son , spared the child in that he was innocent , but sought to kill moses for his carelesness in the omission . a necessity therefore of baptism we constantly maintain ; but absolutely to determine that all those who die without it , are excluded from the grace of christ , neither will monsieur de meaux presume to do of men , nor dare we much less to affirm it of infants . the lutherans condem the anabaptists for refusing baptism altogether to children , which we also condemn in them . but that therefore they make no allowance for extraordinary cases , where both the church and the parents desired to have baptized them , only that some unavoidable accident prevented it , neither did cassander believe , nor do the terms of their confession at all require . for the calvinists , so far were they from being the authors of this charitable opinion towards infants dying unbaptized , that many of the most eminent men of the church of † † † rome have long before them maintained the same . to conclude , if monsieur de meaux himself do's in good earnest believe the danger so great as he pretends ; may he then please to consider , what we are to judge of those who in so many places have not left any ministers at all to confer this sacrament . for our parts we freely declare their hazard to be infinitely greater than either the childrens or their parents ; who are so far from that indifference monsieur de meaux most injuriously charges them with , that in places where publick ministers reside , that they have the opportunity to do it , they fail not with all imaginable care to present them in the ambassadors chappels to baptism , if they have but the least apprehension that they are not in a condition to be carried to their own temples . article xi . of confirmation . to clear our way to that particular examination that is necessary of the following pretended sacraments of the roman church , it will be necessary to observe , that by their own confession these three things are absolutely required to the essence of a true sacrament . . christ's institution . . an outward and visible sign . . an inward and spiritual grace by christ's promise annexed to that sign . we cannot but admire , that neither in the council of trent , or in the catechism made by its order , is there any attempt to prove either of these from the holy scripture as to the point of confirmation . it was so much the more necessary to have done this , in that many of the greatest note in the roman church had denied the divine institution of it ; and some of them were approved by the holy see its self that did it . the outward sign had been none of the least controversies that have exercised their own pens : and indeed since they have laid aside that of imposition of hands which they confess the apostles used ; it was but reasonable to have shewn us some authority for that other they have established in its stead . what monsieur de meaux expounds , is a clear vindication of our practice , but defends nothing of their own doctrine . that we think it to have been an ancient custom in the church , and which the very apostles themselves practised , to lay hands on those that had been baptized ; and in imitation whereof we our selves at this day do the like , the practise of our church sufficiently declares . we confess that the use of chrism in confirmation was very ancient , yet such as we deny to have been apostolical . we do not our selves use it , yet were that all the difference between us , we should be far from judging those that did . the discipline of our church allows none that is not of the episcopal order to confirm . and for the benefit of it , as the bishop prays to god for his holy spirit to assist us in the way of virtue and religion , to arm us against temptation , and to enable us to keep our baptismal covenant which we then ( our selves repeat , and ) in the presence of the church-openly ratifie and confirm : so we piously hope that the blessing of the holy spirit descends upon us , through his prayer , for all these great ends ; both to strengthen the grace we already have , and to increase it in us to a more plentiful degree . article xii . of penance and confession . for penance and confession , we wish our discipline were both more strictly required , and more duly observed than it is . the canons of our church do perhaps require as much as the primitive christians themselves did : and it is more the decay of piety in the people , than any want of care in her , that they are not as well and regularly practised . we do not believe penance to be a sacrament after the same manner that baptism and the holy eucharist are ; because neither do we find any divine command for it , nor is there any sign in it established by christ , to which his grace is annexed . we suppose that if the ancient church had esteemed it any thing more than a part of christian discipline , they would not have presumed to make such changes in it , as in the several ages it is evident they did . the primitive christians interpreting those places of † † † st. matthew and st. john which monsieur de meaux mentions , of publick discipine , and to which we suppose with them they principally at least , if not only refer , at first practised no other . for private faults , they exhorted their penitents to confess them to god , and unless some particular circumstances required the communication of them to the priest , plainly signified that that confession was not only in its self sufficient , but in effect was more agreeable to holy scripture , than any other . if the conscience indeed were too much burdened by some great fault ; or that the crime committed was notoriously scandalous , then they advised a confession to the priest too . but this was not to every priest , nor for him just to hear the confession , and then without more ado to say i absolve thee ; they prescribed in every church some wise physician of the soul on purpose for this great charge , that might pray with the penitent ; might direct him what to do to obtain gods favour ; might assist him in it ; and finally , after a long experience , and a severe judgment , give him absolution . this was the practise of the eastern church ; till upon occasion of a certain scandal , nectarius first began to weaken it in his church at constantinople ; and st. j. chrysostome his successor seconded him in it . they reduced the practise to what it had been in the beginning ; that open and scandalous sins should be openly punished by the publick discipline of the church , and the private be confessed only to god almighty . yet still the publick confession remained in the practise of the western church . pope leo i. to take away the occasions of fear and shame that kept many from the exercise of it , first ordered , that it should be sufficient to confess to god and the priest only ; which is the first plausible pretence offered by them for auricular confession . thus this practise , now set up for a sacrament instituted by our saviour , and absolutely necessary to obtain god's pardon , first began . but the performance of it was yet left to every mans liberty . about years after christ , the council of lateran first commanded it to be of necessary observance : but we do not find that till the council of trent in the last age , it was ever required to be received absolutely as a sacrament of divine institution , and necessary to salvation . this short view of the practise of antiquity in this point , may be sufficient to shew , that unless it were the publick power of the church to censure open and scandalous offenders , which was the key of discipline our blessed saviour left to it ; for the rest , several churches and ages had their several practises . they advised private confession as upon many accounts which monsieur de meaux remarks , and which we willingly allow , very useful to the penitent : but it was not for above a years ever looked upon as absolutely necessary , nor by consequence as sacramental . the church of england refuses no sort of confession either publick or private , which may be any way necessary to the quieting of mens consciences ; or to the exercising of that power of binding and loosing , which our saviour christ has left to his church . we have our penitential canons for publick offenders : we exhort men if they have any the least doubt or scruple , nay sometimes tho they have none , but especially before they receive the holy sacrament , to confess their sins . we propose to them the benefit not only of ghostly advice how to manage their repentance , but the great comfort of absolution too , as soon as they shall have compleated it . our form of absolution after the manner of the eastern church at this day , and of the universal church for above years , is declarative rather than absolute . whilst we are unable to search the hearts of men , and thereby infallibly to discern the sincerely contrite , from those that are not ; we think it rashness to pronounce a definitive sentence in god's name , which we cannot be sure that god will always confirm . when we visit our sick , we never fail to exhort them to make a special confession of their sins to him that ministers to them : and when they have done it , the absolution is so full , that the church of rome its self could not desire to add any thing to it . for the rest ; we think it an unnecessary rack to mens consciences to oblige them where there is no scruple , to reveal to their confessor every the most secret fault , even of wish or desire , which the church of rome exacts : nor dare we pronounce this discipline sacramental , and necessary to salvation ; so that a contrite sinner , who has made his confession to god almighty , shall not receive a pardon , unless he repeat it to the priest too . this we must beg leave with assurance to say is directly contrary to the tradition of the church , and to many plain and undoubted places of holy scripture . and if this be all our reformation be guilty of , that we advise not that which may torment and distract , but is no way apt to settle mens consciences ; nor require that as indispensably necessary to salvation , which we find no where commanded by god as such , we assure monsieur de meaux we see no cause at all either to regret the loss , or to be ashamed of the change. article xiii . of extreme unction . of all those pretended sacraments of the roman church that have no foundation in holy scripture , this seems to stand the fairest for it . here is both an outward and visible sign , and an inward and spiritual grace tied to it . insomuch that monsieur de meaux himself , who never attempted to say any thing of it in the two foregoing instances , yet fails not to put us in mind of it in this . to interpret rightly that place of st. james which is alledged to prove it , we must remark , that anointing with oyl was one of those ceremonies used by the apostles in working their miraculous cures , mark . . they cast out devils , says the evangelist , and anointed many sick persons with oyl , and cured them . sometimes they used only imposition of hands , and sometimes they did it without either . together with these outward signs they usually added prayer too , some invocation at least in the name of jesus christ , as the more substantial and more effectual assistance . so that st. jame's direction there , if any man be sick let him call for the elders of the church , and let them pray over him , anointing him with oyl in the name of the lord , and the prayer of faith shall save the sick , and the lord shall raise him up ; referring as is evident to those miraculous cures which the apostles and their successors in the primitive church wrought by such anointing : we look upon it , that the advice , in as much as it belonged to that , could neither have been the institution of a sacrament at all ; and that together with the miraculous power of healing , it is now long since ceased in the church . monsieur de meaux ought not to refuse this interpretation : ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ the ancient rituals of the roman church for above years after christ , shew that they esteemed this to be the meaning of it ; they understand it plainly of bodily cures , and cardinal cajetan himself freely confesses that it can belong to no other . our saviour and his apostles , when they thus miraculously healed the infirmity of the body , at the same time forgave the sin of the soul too ; for this cause st james adds , and if he have committed sins , they shall be forgiven him . tho this extraordinary power be now ceased both in the one and the other kind , yet we still endeavour to perform whatever we are capable of on these occasions ; we send for the elders of the church when we are sick , they pray over us ; if we stand charged with any private sins , or publick censures , we confess them to them , and they fail not by their absolution , as far as in them lies , to forgive us . this is all , we think , is now remaining for us to fulfil of what this text requires ; we anoint not our sick for the recovery of their bodily health , as st. james here prescribed , because the miraculous power of healing , to which that ceremony ministred , is ceased in the church . we pray over them if it please god for the recovery of their present health , but especially for their eternal salvation : we exercise the power of the keys to the forgiveness of their sins , because the benefit of this is the same now that ever it was ; christ's promise remains , and whilst we piously make use of the same means , we doubt not but it shall be to the like effect . article xiv . of marriage . for the point of marriage , monsieur de meaux says nothing but what we willingly allow of : we deny that it is a ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ sacrament after the same manner that baptism and the holy eucharist are , because it both wants an outward sign to which by christs promise a blessing is annex'd ; and is so far from being generally necessary to salvation , as they are , and as we suppose all true and proper sacraments ought to be , that the church of rome has thought fit to deny one of the most considerable parts of their communion altogether the use of it . article xv. of holy orders . the imposition of hands in holy orders , being accompanied with a blessing of the holy spirit , may perhaps upon that account be called a kind of particular sacrament . yet since that grace which is thereby conferr'd , whatever it be , is not common to all christians , nor by consequence any part of that foederal blessing which our blessed saviour has purchased for us ; but only a separation of him who receives it to a special employ ; we think it ought not to be esteemed a common sacrament of the whole church , as baptism and the lords supper are . the outward sign of it we confess to have been usually imposition of hands , and as such we our selves observe it ; yet as we do not read that christ himself instituted that sign , much less tied the promise of any certain grace to it ; so monsieur de meaux may please to consider , that there are many of his own communion , that do not think it to be essential to holy orders , nor by consequence the outward sign of a sacrament in them . we confess that no man ought to exercise the ministerial office till he be first consecrated to it . we believe that it is the bishops part only to ordain . we maintain the distinction of the several orders in the church ; and tho we have none of those below a deacon , because we do not read that the apostles had any , yet we acknowledg the rest to have been anciently received in the church , and shall not therefore raise any controversie about them . article xvi . of the eucharist . and first of the explication of those words , this is my body . in our entry upon this point , we cannot but testifie our just regret , that this holy sacrament which was designed by our blessed saviour not only to be the greatest assurance of his love to us , but the strongest engagement of our charity to one another , should have become the chiefest subject of our contentions , and widened that breach which it ought to have closed . monsieur de meaux who grounds his opinion of the corporeal presence of christ in this holy eucharist , upon the words of institution , which he contends ought to be litterally understood , yet proposes two cases wherein he seems to allow it might have been lawful to forsake the letter . we will join issue with him upon his own terms , and shew , . that there are such grounds in those words for a figurative interpretation , as naturally lead to it . . that when we come to consider the intention of our saviour in this holy sacrament , we are yet more strongly confirmed in it . it is confessed by the greatest authors of the church of rome , that if the relative this in that proposition , this is my body , refers to that bread which our saviour christ held in his hand at the time when he spoke those words , the natural repugnancy there is between the two things affirmed of one another , bread and christs body , will necessarily require the figurative interpretation . for this is impossible , says ‖ ‖ ‖ gratian , that bread should be the body of christ. it cannot be , says ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ card. bellarmine , that that proposition should be true , the former part whereof designeth bread , the latter the body of christ. † † † so that if the sense be , this bread is the body of christ , either it must be taken figuratively thus , this bread signifies the body of christ , or it is plainly absurd and impossible . the whole difficulty therefore as to our first point consists in this , whether our saviour christ when he said , this is my body , meant any thing else to be his body , than that bread which was before him . now for this , the connexion of his discourse seems to us an evident demonstration . our saviour christ took bread , and gave thanks , and brake it , and gave it to his disciples , saying , take , eat , this is my body which is given for you ; do this in remembrance of me . for what did he demonstrate here , and say was his body , but that which he gave to his disciples ? what did he give to his disciples , but that which he brake ? what brake he , but that which he took ? and st. luke says expresly he took bread. what jesus took in his hands , that he blessed : what he blessed , the same he brake and gave to his disciples : what he gave to his disciples , of that he said , this is my body : but jesus , says the text , took bread ; of the bread therefore he said , this is my body . in a word ; forasmuch as the papists themselves believe the bread to be turned into the substance of christ's body , because christ said this is my body : either those words refer to the bread , and then by their own confession they will require our interpretation ; or if they do not , it is evident that then from these words they can have no grounds to conclude their own pretended change . so necessarily do both the words themselves and their own confession , lead us to the exposition which we make of them . and what these prepare us to receive , the same , dly . the intention of our saviour in this holy sacrament , do's yet more strongly confirm to us . when god delivered the children of israel out of egypt , he instituted the passover to be a continual remembrance of that great deliverance . in like manner our blessed saviour being now about to work out a much greater deliverance for us , by offering up himself upon the cross for our redemption , he design'd by this sacrament to continue the memory of this blessing , that as often as we eat of this bread , and drink of this cup , we might shew forth the lords death till his coming . that this sacrament instituted for the like end which the passover had been , and now for ever to succeed in its place , might be both the better understood , and the easier received by them , it pleased our blessed lord to accommodate himself as near as was possible to the ceremonies and phrases they had before been used to . he retain'd the symbols , and even the expressions they had so long been acquainted with ; only he changed the application of them to a new and more excellent remembrance . in the jewish passover , the master of the house took bread , and brake it , and gave it to them , saying , this is the bread of affliction , which our fathers eat in egypt . in this holy sacrament , our saviour after the very same manner , took bread , and brake it , and gave it to them , saying , this is my body which is broken for you ; do this in remembrance of me. now as it is evident , that that bread which the jews every year took , and brake , and said , this is the bread of affliction which our fathers eat in egypt , was not that very bread which their ancestors so many generations before had eaten there ; but was design'd only to be the type or figure of it : so neither could our saviours disciples to whom he spake , and who , as being jews , had so long been acquainted with that phrase , ever believe , that the bread which he held in his hand , which he brake and gave them , saying , this is my body which is broken for you , do this in remembrance of me , was the very , actual , real body of christ which they saw before them at the table . they understood it , no doubt , to be the type and figure of that body which was now about to be broken for them ; as that bread which the master of the feast , after the very same manner , was wont to break to them , was the type of that bread of affliction which their fathers had eaten in egypt . nor does the phrase , my body , at all weaken , but rather confirm this idea , as being the ordinary expression among the jews , whereby they called the passover , the body of the passover , the body of the paschal lamb. it was therefore used here by our saviour with that allusion , the more expresly to signifie , that he was the true passover now to be sacrificed for us , by whose blood we were to be delivered from the destroying angel , and for the remembrance whereof , we were therefore to keep this ceremony , as the jews had done their passover for the other . this we suppose to be the undoubted interpretation of this place . monsieur de meaux ought the less to except against it , in that it was the original remark , not of any protestant , or of any other party of christians differing from the church of rome in this matter , but was objected to them by the verv jews themselves long before the reformation , upon the same account . they shew'd by it , that in the doctrine of this pretended change , the church of rome had evidently opposed the design of our saviours institution , and advanced an interpretation , which no one accustomed to the jewish notions , as the apostles were , could ever have understood to be his meaning . the design of this discourse permits me not to proceed to any more particular vindication of this exposition , nor to mention many other arguments more usually proposed ; and wherein it has clearly been shewn , that they have not only the holy scripture , and the design of our blessed saviour in this sacrament , but sense , reason , antiquity , whatsoever is able to furnish an argument , all unanimously against them : it remains only to examine whether what monsieur de meaux has proposed , be any thing more reasonable , that so we may go on to the consequences established upon this foundation . where first we cannot conceive why monsieur de meaux designing to establish the exposition of the holy eucharist upon the analogy which it has to the jewish sacrifices , should flie off to the natureof their sacrifices in general , where the parallel is neither so clear , nor so uncontroverted , as to produce any necessary consequence from the allusion . it would certainly have been more reasonable to compare it , as we have done , with that particular sacrifice of the passover to which it succeeded , and from which therefore , if any , must be shewed the design of it . but we will clear the whole difficulty in a reflection or two , and prove , that what has been offered to us as a convincing argument , is , upon a nearer view , a meer fallacy . and . we desire it may be observed , that the peace-offerings under the law were designed as an acknowledgment on the peoples part , for those temporal blessings which it pleased god to bestow upon them . and because after the sacrifice of isaac , god first entred into the covenant with abraham , and promised him his blessing , and to be his god , and the god of his seed after him ; it seems to have been further their intention in all these sacrifices , to call to remembrance that offering of isaac as the foundation of all those blessings for which these sacrifices were appointed as a testimony of their gratitude . . that tho the passover , like the sacrifice of the cross , was first offered as a sin-offering for the delivery of the first-born in the land of egypt ; yet that yearly remembrance of it , which god afterwards establish'd , was always esteemed a peace-offering ; and indeed , the perpetual order of their sacrifices clearly demonstrates that it could be no other . so that the parallel therefore , for the explaining the nature of the holy eucharist , must be this : . that as the jews ate of their peace-offerings in general , to call to mind the sacrifice of isaac , and give god thanks for those blessings which they received by it , and of that of the passover in particular , in memory of gods delivering them out of egypt ; so the christians partake of this blessed sacrament , in memory of that deliverance which the sacrifice of the cross of christ , whom both isaac and the paschal lamb slain in egypt typified , has purchased for them . . that as the peace-offering which the jews eat , was not changed into the substance of that first sacrifice whereof it was the remembrance , but was eaten as a figure or commemoration of it ; so the christians in their sacrament are not to think the bread and wine which christ has appointed to be our peace-offering , should be changed into the very substance of that body which was offered for us upon the cross , but to be received only as types of it . for thus was the peace-offering in general , a type of isaac , and the passover in particular , the type of that first lamb , which was slain for their deliverance in the land of egypt . when therefore monsieur de meaux tells us , that the jews ate the proper flesh of their peace-offering ; we answer , that so do we the proper substance of ours ; we eat the bread which christ appointed to be the remembrance of that deliverance which he has purchased for us , as the body of the lamb was commanded by god to be the remembrance of theirs . monsieur de meaux adds , that the jews were forbidden to partake of the proper flesh of their sin-offering , and of the blood , because that a perfect remission was not then obtain'd , and that therefore by the rule of contraries , we ought now to eat of ours , because a full satisfaction is now made by christ. for reply to which , it might suffice to say , that this rule of contraries , should we follow it according to the letter , would lead monsieur de meaux into so many absurdities , that he would be forced himself to abjure his own principle . according to this rule , the apostles could not have eaten the flesh of christ before his resurrection ; the priests under the law being commanded not to eat of the sin-offering after the third day , and therefore by the rule of contraries they could not partake of it before . monsieur de meaux may please to consider how far he will approve of this conclusion : in the mean time as to his objection , we have before said , that the remembrance we make in the holy eucharist , like that of the paschal feast among the jews , shews it to be a peace-offering ; and for the rest , if , as monsieur de meaux pretends , this blood was mystically forbid under the law , to shew that a perfect remission of sins was not then obtain'd ; it will follow , that for the contrary reason , christ appointed the cup to be received in this holy sacrament , to testifie that full remission which his blood has purchased for us . the church of rome therefore in refusing the cup to the people , not only violates the express command of our blessed saviour ; but according to monsieur de meaux's principles , teaches them by it , that a full remission of sins is not yet obtain'd , even by the precious blood of christ himself . it may by this appear what little advantage monsieur de meaux can get to justifie their doctrine of the corporeal presence of christ in the eucharist , from the analogie of the ancient sacrifices , which do clearly and necessarily establish the contrary . for what remains of this discourse we are but little concerned in it . we confess this sacrament to be somewhat more than a meer figure ; but we deny that therefore it must be his very body . we acknowledge the power of god , to do whatever he pleases : yet monsieur de meaux may please to consider , that contradictions , such as to be and not to be at the same time , are even in their own schools usually excepted . monsieur de meaux supposes , that because christ did not explain his words in the figurative sense , the apostles must needs have understood them in the literal . but we have before shewed , that the jews , who are certainly the best judges , are of a quite contrary opinion , viz. that his apostles knowing his allusion , could never have understood them otherwise than in a figure . in a word , for his last remark , that the laws of discourse , which perm●… , that where there is a just proportion between the sign and the thing signified , the one may be put for the other ; yet suffer it not to be so , when a morsel of bread , for instance , is set to represent the body of a man : we must beg leave to say , that neither is the proportion so small betwixt the bread broken and christs body broken , as monsieur de meaux would suggest ; or , that if there were , yet since our saviours institution has set the one to represent to us the other ; we think that designation ought to be of more authority with us , than all their new laws of discourse ; invented purposely only to set the fairer gloss upon so great and apparent an error . article xvii . do this in remembrance of me. the explication of the preceding article , having engaged us to a length extraordinary , we will endeavour to recompence it by our shortness in this . we are entirely agreed , that the intention of the son of god was to oblige us by these words to commemorate that death which he underwent for our salvation . we confess , that that real presence which we suppose in the communion , do's not at all contradict the nature of this commemoration . we are persuaded , that as the jews eating of their peace-offering , which was the remembrance of god's covenant , and particularly of the passover , the type of that paschal lamb that was offered for them in egypt , called to mind the sacrifice of isaac , and that great deliverance god had wrought for them , in bringing them up out of the land of bondage : so whilst we eat of those holy elements which our saviour christ has instituted like the peace-offering a-among the jews , to perpetuate the memory of his death , we call to mind the more lively , that great deliverance which he has wrought for us , and render thanks for it , and by faith and repentance apply to our selves the merits of it . thus whilst we receive these holy signs which he has instituted for our memorial , we need no real descent of the son of god from heaven ; no new crucifying of the lord of glory to raise in our souls those just resentments we ought to have of so excellent a blessing . but as a child cannot but recollect the kindness and affection of a dear father , as often as he beholds the monument where his dead body lies interred : so we much more , cannot chuse but excite our love to our blessed redeemer , as often as we see before our eyes these sacred elements under which he is vailed . nor is it necessary for this , that this mystick tomb , as monsieur de meaux phrases it , should any more be changed into the very real body of our saviour to raise this remembrance , than that natural one into the dead corps of the father , to recall the tender affections of his child at the sight of it . in a word ; as we will not now move any argument from the nature of this remembrance , to oppose that substantial change , which we have before combated on more solid grounds ; so we suppose muchless ought monsieur de meaux from the sole opinion of that more lively remembrance , which he imagines the actual eating of the very flesh of christ would raise in us , then only to do it in a figure , to conclude him to be substantially there . it is evident , that they who believe this change , and they who believe it not , receive him entirely alike . they see , and taste , and feel the same thing : it is faith alone which works in both , and makes the one believing him spirituarlly present , to remember him with the same love , to honour him with the same reverence , and embrace him with the same hope , as the other , who thinks him corporeally , but yet after a manner altogether unperceivable , contain'd under the sacred elements that are presented to him . article xviii . the doctrine of the church of england , concerning this holy sacrament . the sum of our belief as to the nature of this holy sacrament is this : we esteem it designed by christ to be a perpetual memorial of his suffering for us : that so often as we eat of this bread , and drink of this cup , we might shew forth the lords death , till his coming . we believe that in this communion , we do not only remember , but effectually partake our blessed saviour , and all the benefits of his passion ; insomuch that to such as rightly , and worthily , and with faith receive the same , the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of christ , and likewise the cup of the blessing , is a partaking of the blood of christ. for the manner of this participation , we believe that the body and blood of christ , are given , taken , and eaten in this supper , only after a heavenly and spiritual manner ; and that the means whereby this is done , is faith. we believe that the wicked and such as are void of faith , tho they may visibly and carnally press with their teeth , as st. augustin saith , the sacrament of the body and blood of christ , yet are no way partakers of christ , but rather as st. paul tells us , eat and drink their own damnation , not discerning the lords body . in a word , we believe that transubstantiation , or the change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of christs body and blood , can never be proved by holy scripture , but is repugnant thereunto ; contrary to the intention of our blessed saviour , and to the nature of this holy sacrament ; and has given cause to many great abuses , as in the following article , we shall have occasion more particularly to shew . this is our faith of this holy eucharist : and in this faith we are confirmed not only by those unanswerable proofs , which our writers have given , and some of which we have before touch'd upon ; but also from those irreconcilable differences , which this error has thrown the writers of the church of rome into . in effect we find every party exposing the falseness and impossibility of every ones hypothesis but his own . their greatest men confess the uncertainty of their own proofs . that there is not in scripture any formal proof of transubstantiation : so ‖ ‖ ‖ lombard , * * * scotus , and many others , that there is not any , that without the declaration of the church would be able to evince it : * * * so cardinal bellarmine himself confesses . that had not the church declared her self for the proper sense of the words , the other might with as good warrant have been received : so says ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ cardinal cajetan . that if the words of consecration refer to the bread , which is changed by them , then they must be taken in our sense : so the generality of that communion confess . in a word , ‖ ‖ ‖ that this doctrine was no matter of faith till the council of lateran , years after christ , and that had not that and the council of trent since interposed , it would not have been so to this very day . and here who can chuse but admire the power of truth ? that after so many outcries against us , for opposing a doctrine which they would make the world believe it is as clear as if it were written with a ray of the sun ; after so many anathema's against us for hereticks , and schismaticks , and ten thousand repetitions of their great scriptum est , this is my body : they should at last be forced to confess , that they are not , cannot , nor are ever like to be agreed in the explication of them . that they contain nothing in them necessary to prove this change . that had not the church declared its self for the litteral meaning ; the figurative interpretation might with as good reason have been received . that for years this doctrine was no matter of faith , and but for the council of lateran had not been then . in short , that if the words of institution refer to the bread , then are we doubtless in the right ; and if they do not , how will they ever prove the change which they pretend is made of the bread into the body of christ by them ? certainly confessions , such as these , ought to awake every papist careful of his own salvation , into an unprejudiced examination at least of these things . to consider what foundation there really is for this doctrine , and what desperate consequences , unknown to antiquity , contrary to the formal words of holy scripture , and without gods infinite mercy , absolutely destructive of their eternal salvation , have been built upon it . as we hope that these declarations have been permitted by god to fall from the greatest , and most esteemed of their church , not only to confirm us in our faith , but also to prepare the way for their return to that catholick truth , from which they have so long erred ; so we doubt not , by gods blessing , but that they will in time attain to it , when being sensible of that tyrannical usurpation that has been made over their consciences , and resolved to use that knowledg god has given them , to search the scriptures , and examine their faith , and not servily follow every guide that will but pretend to lead them : they shall seriously and indifferently weigh all these things , and find that therefore only they have thought us in darkness , because their own eyes were shut that they might not discern the light . article xix . of transubstantiation , and of the adoration of the host. what remains of this subject of the holy eucharist , being wholly consequent upon the foregoing mistaken interpretation of the words of our blessed saviour before considered ; we should have passed them over as things we have in effect already declared , that the church of england receives not ; but that we are perswaded the particular consideration of them will yet more fully shew the falsness of that foundation upon which they are built . monsieur de meaux in proving the corporeal presence of christ in the holy eucharist , from the words of institution , this is my body : had something that at least seemed to favour his mistake ; but to produce them here for transubstantiation , that is , not only to argue the presence of christ's substance , but also the change of the substance of the bread and wine into it , he has not the least appearance of the text for him . indeed were there no other way for christ to be present in the eucharist , but only by this change ; it might then be allowed that having , as he imagines , proved the one , he had in effect established the other . but the number of those who interpret the words in like manner according to the letter , yet are as great enemies as our selves to this change ; and suppose christs body to be present by a union of it to the bread , rather then by a conversion of the bread into it ; not only shews that there is no necessary consequence at all between the real presence , and transubstantiation , but that there is another manner of christs presence , both more agreeable to holy scripture , than that which they advance ; and that takes off infinite difficulties which their transubstantiation involves them in . that the substance of the sacred figures remains in this sacrament after the consecration , those clear expressions of st. paul , wherein he so often calls them * * * bread and wine after it , seem to us plainly to shew : † † † to break bread , the holy scripture tells us was the usual phrase all the time of the apostles , for receiving the holy communion ; and which the blessed spirit himself dictated . these passages monsieur de meaux certainly ought not to put off with a figurative meaning , unless he can give us some good reason why he follows the high road of the literal interpretation in the one , to establish the substance of christs body in the sacrament ; and forsakes it in the other , to take away the presence of the bread from it . for the adoration of the host , the church of england consequently to her principles of the bread and wine 's remaining in their natural substances , professes that she thinks it to be idolatry , and to be abhorred of all faithful christians . monsieur de meaux , in conformity to theirs , tells us , that the presence of christs body in the eucharist ought to carry all such as believe it without all scruple to the adoration of it . this therefore being taken as a principle acknowledged by them ; it may not be amiss to observe , that since it is certain , that neither christ nor his apostles appointed or practised , nor the church for above years required or taught any adoration of this holy sacrament ; neither could they , according to monsieur de meaux's principles , have believed the corporeal presence of our blessed saviour in it . is there any of the evangelists that mentions it ? they all tell us , take , eat ; do this in remembrance of me . but does any one add , this is my body , fall down and worship it ? when st. paul reproved the corinthians for violating this holy sacrament ; is it possible he could have omitted so obvious a remark , and so much to his purpose ; that in profaning this holy sacrament , they were not only guilty of the body and bloud of christ , which it was instituted to represent to us ; but even directly affronted their blessed master corporally present there ; and whom instead of profaning , they ought , as they had been taught , to adore in it ? with what simplicity do the ancient fathers speak of this communion in all their writings ? the elevation of the sacred symbols was not heard of till the seventh century ; and then used only to represent the lifting up of christ upon the cross , not to expose it to the people to adore it . the bell , the feast of the st. sacrament , the pomp of carrying it through the streets , all the other circumstances of this worship , are inventions of yesterday . the exposing of it upon the altar to make their prayers before it ; their addresses to it in times and cases of necessity ; their performing the chiefest acts of religion in its presence , never mentioned in antiquity . nay , instead of this worship , they did many things utterly inconsistent with it . they disputed with the heathens for worshipping gods their own hands had made . was it ever objected to them , that they themselves did the same : worship a deity whose substance they first formed , and then spoke it into a god ? they burnt in some churches what remained of the holy sacrament . they permitted the people to carry it home , that had communicated : they sent it abroad by sea , by land , without any the least regard that we can find had to its worship : they buried it with their dead ; they made plaisters of the bread , they mix'd the wine with their ink. these certainly were no instances of adoration : nor can we ever suppose that they who did such things as these , ever believed that it was the very body and bloud of their dear master , whom they so much loved ; and whom doubtless they would have been as ready to have worshipped , had they so believed ; as both monsieur de meaux supposes they ought to have been , and as we see others for the rest no more pious than those primitive christians were , now to do it . article xx. of the sacrifice of the mass. a third consequence of the corporeal presence of christ in the holy eucharist , is the sacrifice of the mass : in which we ought to proceed with all the caution such a point requires , as both makes up the chiefest part of the popish worship , and is justly esteem'd one of the greatest and most dangerous errors that offends us . monsieur de meaux has represented it to us with so much tenderness , that except perhaps it be his foundation of the corporeal presence , on which he builds , and his consequence that this service is a true and real propitiatory sacrifice , which his manner of expounding it we are perswaded will never bear ; there is little in it besides but what we could readily assent to . we distinguish the two acts , which he mentions , from one another . by the consecration we apply the elements , before common , to a sacred use ; by the manducation , we fulfil our saviour's command ; we take , and eat , and do this in remembrance of him. this consecration being separately made of his body broken , his blood spilt for our redemption , we suppose represents to us our blessed lord in the figure of his death , which these holy symbols were instituted to continue the memory of . and whilst thus with faith we represent to god the death of his son , for the pardon of our sins ; we are perswaded , that we incline his mercy the more readily to forgive them . we do not therefore doubt , but that this presenting to god almighty the sacrifice of our blessed lord , is a most effectual manner of applying his merits to us . were this all the church of rome meant by her propitiatory sacrifice , there is not certainly any protestant that would oppose her in it . where is that christian that does not by faith unite himself to his saviour in this holy communion ? that does not present him to god as his only sacrifice and propitiation ? that does not protest that he has nothing to offer him but jesus christ , and the merits of his death ? that consecrates not all his prayers by this divine offering ; and whilst he thus presents to god the sacrifice of his son , does not learn thereby to present also himself a lively sacrifice , holy , and acceptable in his sight ? this is , no doubt , a sacrifice worthy a christian , infinitely exceeding all the sacrifices of the law. where the knife is the word , the blood shed not but in a figure , nor is there any death but in representation . a sacrifice so far from taking us off from that of the cross , that it unites us the more closely to it ; represents it to us , and derives all its vertue and efficacy from it . this is , if any other , truly the doctrine of the catholick church , and such as the church of england has never refused : and except it be our doubt of the corporeal presence , monsieur de meaux had certainly reason to expect , that there was nothing in this we could justly except against . but now that all this is sufficient to prove the mass to be a true and proper sacrifice , truly and properly propitiatory for the sins and punishments , the satisfactions and necessities of the dead and the living ; and that to offer this true and proper sacrifice , our saviour christ instituted a true and proper priesthood , when he said , do this in remembrance of me : this is what we cannot yet understand , and what we think we ought not ever to allow of . we know indeed , that the primitive church , called the holy eucharist a sacrifice , in that large extent of the expression , whereby the holy scripture stiles every religious performance , our prayers , our thanksgivings , our vertues , our very selves , sacrifices to god : and accordingly in our own liturgy , we do , without all scruple , do the same . but when it comes to be set in opposition to a sacrament , and to be considered in the true and proper signification of the word ; we must , with all antiquity , needs profess , that we neither have , nor can we after that of christ admit of any . hence it is , that our church following the doctrine of the holy apostles and primitive christians , teaches , that the offering of christ once made , is that proper redemption , propitiation , and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world ; and that there is no other satisfaction for sin but that alone . that the application of christs death by faith in the holy eucharist , is made to all such as with true repentance receive the same , we undoubtedly believe . we are perswaded , that by our prayers , which in this holy solemnity we never fail to offer for the wants and necessities , the pardon and forgiveness not of our selves only , but of all mankind ; of those who have not yet known the faith of christ ; or that knowing it , have prevaricated from the right way , we incline gods mercy to become propitious unto them . only we deny , that by this holy eucharist , as by a true and proper propitiatory sacrifice , we can appease gods wrath for the sins of the whole world ; can fulfil the satisfactions , and supply the necessities of other men ; of the dead and the living ; of them that are absent , and partake not of it . this we attribute to the sacrifice of the cross only ; and are perswaded that it cannot , without derogation to the merits of that most absolute redemption which was there purchased for us , be applied to any other . when we examine the first institution of this holy communion , we cannot perceive either in the words or action of our blessed saviour , any sacrifical act or expression . he took bread , and brake it , and gave it to his disciples , saying , take , eat , this is my body which is given for you : do this in remembrance of me. monsieur de meaux seems to imply , that the consecration made it a sacrifice . but this vasquez tells us , that others think to be only a preparation to it , because till after the consecration christ is not there , and by consequence cannot be offered . the council of trent seems to refer it to the oblation : this bellarmine opposes , because neither christ nor his apostles used any . bellarmine is positive , that either christ sacrificed in eating , or there is no other action in which he can be said to have done it . yet even this the greatest part of that communion reject ; because eating is not offering : and in the ordination where the priest receives the power of sacrificing , not any mention is made of it . in effect , reason will tell us , that this is to partake of the offering , not to offer it ; and monsieur de meaux himself accordingly distinguishes the two acts of consecration and manducation from one another , and refers the sacrifice wholly to the former . if we consider the nature of a true and proper sacrifice , they universally agree , that these four things are necessarily required to it : . that what is offered be something that is visible : . that of prophane , which it was before , it be now made sacred : . that it be offered to god : and . by that offering suffer an essential destruction . now we suppose , that the greatest part of these conditions are evidently wanting to this pretended sacrifice of christs body in the mass. . it is invisible : they confess it . . it was never prophane , that it should be made sacred : they will not presume to say that it was . . it suffers no essential destruction : the blood is not spilt but in a mystery , says monsieur de meaux , nor is there any death but in representation . as therefore none of these things truly and properly agree to this holy eucharist , so we suppose , that neither can it be truly and properly a sacrifice . we are perswaded , that the offering its self , like the necessary and essential properties of it , must be only in figure and representation . this is what we willingly allow monsieur de meaux , and what their own principles do undoubtedly prove . for what our saviour adds , do this in remembrance of me : however the council of trent has canonically resolved it to be the institution of a true and proper priesthood , to offer this sacrifice ; yet that it has no such proof , the preceding discourse evidently shews . our saviour christ commanding his apostles to do this , commanded them to do no more than what himself had done : so that if he therefore did not sacrifice himself , neither did he give any authority to them , or to their successors to sacrifice . article xxi . of the epistle to the hebrews . the epistle to the hebrews so clearly establishes our doctrine , in opposition to the pretended sacrifice of the mass , that monsieur de meaux had certainly reason to enter on a particular consideration of it . we will , after his example , follow the same method , and shew the whole design of that sacred book to be directly contrary to the principles of the roman church . monsieur de meaux observes , that the author of this epistle concludes , that there ought not only no other victim to be offered for sin after that of christ , but that even christ himself ought not to be any more offered . now , the reason which the apostle gives , is this ; because that otherwise , says he , christ must often have suffered : plainly implying , that there can be no true offering without suffering . so that in the mass then , either christ must suffer , which monsieur de meaux denies , or he is not offered , which we affirm . this is so evidently the meaning of that place , and so often repeated , that without bloud , there is no remission ; that monsieur de meaux is forced freely to declare , that if we take the word offer as it is used in that epistle , they must profess to the whole world , that christ is no more offered , either in the mass , or any other way . now , how these things can stand together , that the epistle to the hebrews contradicts not the offering of the mass , and yet that the same epistle absolutely declares , that christ can no more be offered , because he can no more suffer ; nor any more become a propitiatory sacrifice , because without bloud there is no propitiation : all which monsieur de meaux allows , and professes to the whole world , that in the notion of the epistle to the hebrews , christ is not offered in the mass , nor can be any where else , we are not very well able to comprehend . but that epistle goes yet further . it tells us , that christ ought to be but once offered , because by that one offering he has fully satisfied for our sins , and has perfected for ever them that are sanctified . if therefore by that first offering he hath fully satisfied for our sins , there is then no more need of any offering for sin : if by that first sacrifice he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified , the mass certainly must be altogether needless to make any addition to that which is already perfect . in a word , if the sacrifices of the law were therefore repeated , as this epistle tells us , because they were imperfect ; and had they been otherwise , they should have ceased to have been offered . what can we conclude , but the church of rome then , in every mass she offers , does violence to the cross of christ ; and in more than one sense , crucifies to her self the lord of glory . lastly , the council of trent declares , that because there is a new and proper sacrifice to be offered , it was necessary that our saviour christ should institute a new and proper priesthood to offer it . and so they say he did , after the order of melchisedeck , in opposition to that after the order of aaron under the law. now certainly nothing can be more contrary to this epistle than such an assertion : both whose description of this priesthood shews it can agree only to our blessed lord ; and which indeed in express terms declares it to be peculiar to him . it calls it an unchangeble priesthood , that passes not to any other , as that of aaron did from father to son , but continues in him only , because that he also himself continues for evermore . article xxii . reflections on the foregoing doctrine . and here then let us conjure our brethren of the church of rome seriously to consider these things ; and into what desperate consequences that great errour of the corporeal presence has insensibly led them . can any thing be more rash or more uncharitable , even the literal interpretation of this holy eucharist being allow'd , than their canon of trāsubstantiation ? to cut off from their communion the greatest and most orthodox part of the christian church , only for a nicety ; a manner of presence , which neither has the scripture any where revealed , and which they themselves never understood . is it possible for men to fall into a grosser or more dangerous error , than to set up a wafer for their god , and pay a divine worship to a morsel of bread ? shall their good intentions secure them ? had not the israelites a good intention to hold a feast unto the lord , when they worshipped the molten calf ? were they therefore not idolaters for it ? had this been a sufficient excuse , nadab and abihu had not been punished : their intention was certainly good to burn incence to the lord. the jews had a good intention even in crucifying the lord of glory : st. paul thought it zeal to presecute his disciples . our blessed saviour has foretold , and we live to see it accomplished , that the time should come when men should kill their brethren , and think they did god good service . the church of rome may do well to consider whether their good intention will justifie them that do it ; and whether both in this , and that , they do not run a desperate hazard , if it appear that they have no other plea than a well meant mistake to excuse them . for our parts we must needs profess that these things give us not only a scandal but a horrour for their religion . monsieur de meaux had certainly reason to say , that this is the chiefest and most important of all our controversies , and wherein we are at the farthest distance from one another . and would to god they had only offended us by these errours ; and had not exposed our common name to the reproach of the very heathen ; who have been confirmed by them in their idolatry , and thought it more rational to adore a stock or a stone , than with the christians to worship this moment what they eat the very next . but monsieur de meaux thinks we have no reason to appear so obstinate against them , who declare our selves so favourably towards the lutherans , who yet are involved in the same error . t is true we believe the lutherans mistaken in their literal interpretation of this holy sacrament . but we are perswaded they are infinitely less so , and less dangerously than the papists . they confess that there is no change made in the substance of the sacred elements . they believe that the bread and wine continue in their proper natures , and that christs body is present only when he is received . they adore not the holy eucharist : they found no propitiatory sacrifices upon it : they say no masses for the sins and satisfactions , for the wants and necessities of the dead and the living : they deny not the cup to the people ; their errour in one word , whatsoever it be , is only a matter of simple belief ; has no ill consequences attending it , nor do they damn us for not receiving it . let the church of rome do all this : let them raze their anathema's out of their councils , and banish their masses and adorations out of their churches ; let them no longer scandalize us with any unwarrantable practices , nor desire to enslave our consciences by submitting them to their own inventions ; and though we shall still think transubstantiation to be the greater error , yet will we receive them with the same charity we do the lutherans : we will pray to god to give them a better understanding , but will not drive them from our communion , for matters of simple belief , and which are only to themselves , tho' they be wrong . but till then , in vain do's monsieur de meaux exhort us to consider the ways of providence to bring us to a union , which god knows we could be glad to have on any terms but the loss of truth . in the mean time if the church of rome in good earnest thinks , that as we tolerate the foundation of all these errours , the corporeal presence in the lutherans , so we ought to bear the consequences of it in them : let them at least do what the lutherans have done ; let them embrace our communion ; let them leave off to persecute us where they have power , and damn us where they have not ; let them receive us as brethren , not lord it over us as our masters . this will make us hope that they are sincere when they conjure us to be at peace with them , and they may justly then accuse us of partiality , if we continue to repute them as enemies , when they will be thus content to love , and receive , and deal with us as friends . article . xxiii . of communicating only under one kind . this is the last of those consequences that give us a just detestation for that great errour of the corporeal presence on which they are founded . it is so plainly contrary to the express command of our blessed saviour , that we are perswaded it has pleased god to suffer them to fall into it , on purpose to correct that vanity whereby they have so proudly aspired to an opinion of infallibility : that whilst they lord it over mens consciences , and will not so much as give them leave to ask them a reason of what they do , they might here at last be surprised in an error which the most vulgar eye is able to discern . the church of england conformably to all antiquity declares , that the cup ought not to be deny'd to the lay-people ; forasmuch as both parts of the lords sacrament by christs ordinance and commandment , ought to be ministred to all christian men alike . for indeed , did not he who said of the bread , take , eat , this is my body , say also of the wine , with the same expressness , drink ye all of this , for this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you for the remission of sins ? did not he who commanded them , do this in remembrance of me , for the bread , even according to their own construction , take and consecrate , and give to others , as i have done to you ; command them for the cup in like manner , do this ; i. e. consecrate , and give it to others , as i have done to you , in remembrance of me ? we confess , that the grace of god is not tied to the outward signs : yet we think withal , that without taking the outward and visible signs , we can have no pretence to the inward and spiritual grace of that holy sacrament ; which deriving all its effect from our saviour's promise , we can have no security that it shall have any good one to them , who do not receive it according to his institution . had christ esteemed it sufficient for us to receive the blood in the body , we suppose he would not have consecrated the cup afterwards . but if it was our saviour's pleasure , that to commemorate the more lively his passion , we should take his blood as it was spilt for our redemption , separate from his body ; we think it an unwarrantable presumption for us to make our selves wiser than god , and say , that it is sufficient to participate of both in one. monsieur de meaux has received so full an answer upon this point , from the reply made to his treatise written purposely on this subject , that he will have no cause to complain of us for not repeating here , what has been so fully and so successfully handled there . only as to that negligence of these latter ages , which he is pleased to alledge as the reason of this change ; we must needs say , that god be thanked , we cannot observe any such negligence of this holy communion in our churches , where yet this holy sacrament is administred to as large congregations , and with as great frequency as any where among them. both our priests and the people , give and receive it with that care and reverence , that we find as little grounds for any such pretence , as there is reason in it , were it never so true , to justifie so great and unwarrantable a change. part iii. of the church . article xxiv . of the word written and unwritten . our blessed saviour having founded his church upon the word which he preached , we confess , that the unwritten word , as to that gospel which he preached , was the first rule of christians . but god almighty foreseeing how liable such a rule must have been to infinite inconveniencies , thought fit to have that word which was first spoken by mouth , afterwards consigned to writing . by which means the word written and unwritten were not two different rules , but as to all necessary matters of faith , one and the same : and the unwritten word so far from losing its authority , that it was indeed the more firmly establish'd , by being thus delivered to us by the holy apostles and evangelists . we receive with the same veneration whatsoever comes from the apostles , whether by scripture or tradition , provided that we can be assured that it comes from them . and if it can be made appear , that any tradition which the written word contains not , has been received by all churches , and in all ages , we are ready to embrace it , as coming from the apostles . monsieur de meaux therefore ought not to charge us as enemies to tradition , or obstinate , to receive what is so delivered . our church rejects not tradition , but only those things which they pretend to have received by it : but which we suppose to be so far from being the doctrine of the apostles , or of all churches in all ages , that we are perswaded they are many of them directly contrary to the written word , which is by themselves confessed to be the apostles doctrine , and which the best and purest ages of the church adhered to . article xxv . of the churches authority . the church ; i. e. the universal church in all ages , having been establish'd by god , the guardian of the holy scriptures , and of tradition , we receive from her the canonical books of scripture . it is upon this authority , that we receive principally the song of solomon as canonical , and reject other books as apochryphal , which we might perhaps with as much readiness otherwise receive . by this authority we reverence these books , even before by our own reading of them , we perceive the spirit of god in them : and when by our reading them , we find all things conformable to so excellent a spirit , we are yet more confirmed in the belief and reverence we before had of them . this authority therefore we freely allow the church , that by her hands in the succession of the several ages , we have received the holy scriptures . and if as universal and uncontroverted a tradition had descended for the interpretation of the scriptures , as for the receiving of them , we should have been as ready to accept of that too . such a declaration of the sense of holy scripture as had been received by all churches , and in all ages , the church of england would never refuse : but then as we profess not to receive the scriptures themselves only , or perhaps principally upon the authority of the roman church , which has in all ages made up but a part , and that not always the greatest neither , of this tradition ; so neither can we think it reasonable to receive the sense of them only from her , though she profess never so much , to invent nothing of her self , but only to declare , the divine revelation made to her by the holy ghost , which she supposes has been given to her for her direction : whilst we are perswaded , that neither has any promise at all been made to any particular church of such an infallible direction ; and have such good cause to believe that this particular church too often , instead of the divine revelations , declares only her own inventions . when the dispute arose about the ceremonies of the law , acts . the apostles assembled at jerusalem , for the determination of it . when any doubts arise in the church now , we always esteem it the best method to decide them after the same manner . that the church has authority not only in matters of order and discipline , but even of faith too , we never deny'd : but that therefore any church so assembled , can with the same authority say now , as the apostles did then , it has seemed good to the holy ghost , and to us : this we think not only an unwarrantable presumption , for which there is not any sufficient ground in holy scripture , but evidently in its self untrue , seeing that many such councils are by the papists themselves confessed to have erred . hence it is that we cannot suppose it reasonable to forbid men the examination of the churches decisions , which may err , when the holy apostles , nay our saviour christ himself , not only permitted , but exhorted their disciples to search the truth of their doctrine , which was certainly infallible . yet if the determination be matter of order or government , as not to eat of things offered to idols , &c. or of plain and undoubted precept , as to abstain from fornication , and the like : here we fail not after the example of paul and silas , to declare to the faithful what her decision has been ; and instead of permitting them to judg of what has been so resolved , teach them throughout all places to keep the ordinances of the apostles . thus is it that we acquiesce in the judgment of the church ; and professing in our creed a holy catholick church , we profess to believe not only that there was a church planted by our saviour at the beginning , that has hitherto been preserved by him , and ever shall be to the end of the world ; but do by consequence undoubtedly believe too , that this universal church is so secured by the promises of christ , that there shall always be retain'd so much truth in it , the want of which would argue that there could be no such church . we do not fear that ever the catholick church should fall into this entire infidelity : but that any particular church , such as that of rome , may not either by error lose , or by other means prevaricate the faith , even in the necessary points of it ; this we suppose not to be at all contrary to the promise of god almighty , and we wish we had not too great cause to fear , that the church of rome has in effect done both . it is not therefore of the catholick church truly such , that we either fear this infidelity , or complain that she hath endeavoured to render her self mistress of our faith. but for that particular communion , to which monsieur de meaux is pleased to give the name , tho she professes never so much to submit her self to the holy scripture , and to follow the tradition of the fathers in all ages ; yet whilst she usurps the absolute interpretation both of scripture and fathers , and forbids us to examine whether she does it rightly or no , we must needs complain that her protestations are invalid , whilst her actions speak the contrary : for that if this be not to render her self mistress of our faith , we cannot conceive what is . in a word , tho we suppose the scriptures are so clearly written , that it can very hardly happen , that in the necessary articles of faith any one man should be found opposite to the whole church in his opinion : yet if such a one were evidently convinced that his belief was founded upon the undoubted authority of gods holy word , so far would it be from any horror to support it , that it is at this day the greatest glory of s. athanasius , that he stood up alone against the whole world in defence of christs divinity , when the pope , the councils , the whole church fell away . conclude we therefore , that god , who has made us , and knows what is best and most proper for us , as he has subjected us to the government and direction of his church for our peace and welfare , so to secure our faith , he has given us his holy word , to be the last resort , the final , infallible rule , by which both we and the church its self must be directed : and from this therefore if any one shall endeavour to turn us aside , or preach any other gospel unto us than what we have therein received , tho he were an apostle from the grave , or even an angel from heaven , let him be anathema . article xxvi . the opinion of the church of england , as to the authority of the church . for the two last articles of monsieur de meaux's exposition , i might very well have pass'd them by . the church of england , whose doctrine i pretend to explain , is but very little concerned in them . therefore only in a word , that we allow the church a just authority in matters of faith , both the declaration of our xxth . article , and the subscription we make to the whole shew : such a deference we allow to her decisions , that we make them our directions what doctrine we may , or may not , publickly maintain and teach in her communion : in effect , we shew whatever submission we can to her authority , without violating that of god , declared to us in his holy scriptures . whatsoever deference we allow to a national church or council , the same we think in a much greater degree due to a general . and whensoever such a one , which we much desire , shall be freely and lawfully assembled , to determine the differences of the catholick church , none shall be more ready both to assist in it , and submit to it . article xxvii . of the authority of the holy see , and of episcopacy . for the pope's authority , tho' we suppose no good consequence can be drawn from that primacy we are content to allow st. peter among the apostles , for that exorbitant power which has of late been pretended to : yet when other differences shall be agreed , and the true bounds set to his pretences , we shall be content to yield him whatsoever authority the ancient councils of the primitive church have acknowledged , and the holy fathers have always taught the faithful to give him . this monsieur de meaux ought to be contented with ; who himself absolves us from yielding to those pretences , that have indeed very justly rendred this authority , not only odious , but intolerable to the world. let those who are enemies to episcopacy , and who deny any due respect to the chair of st. peter , answer for themselves . the church of england has both retain'd the one , and will be ready according to what we have before declared , when ever it shall be requisite , to acknowledge the other . the close . such is the doctrine of the church of england in those points which monsieur de meaux has thought fit to propose , as the principal matters in debate betwixt us . may it please the unprejudiced papist to say , what he can find in all these , to warrant that bitter and unchristian hatred they have conceived against us . to cut us off , as much as in them lies , from the communion of christs church on earth , and to deny us all part of his promises in heaven . we firmly believe the holy scriptures , and whatsoever they teach or command , we receive and submit to , as to the word of god. we embrace all the ancient creeds , and in them all that faith which the primitive christians supposed , and which the religious emperors , by their advice , decreed should be sufficient to intitle us to the common name of catholicks . what new donatists , gentlemen , are you , to presume to exclude us from this character ? and may we not justly demand of you , what s. augustin once did of them on the same occasion ; you say that christ is heir of no lands , but where donatus is co-heir . read this to us out of the law and the prophets , out of the psalms , out of the gospel , out of the sacred epistles : read it to us , and we will believe . we accept the tradition of primitive antiquity truly such , with a veneration we dare confidently say greater than your selves . we have shew'd , that the very grounds of our difference is , that you require us to believe and practise such things as the holy scripture forbids us , and the primitive church never knew . you command us to worship images : is it not evident that both the law and the gospel have forbid it ? and is it not confess'd , that both the apostles and their successors abhorred the very name ? you command us to communicate only under one kind : that is in our opinion , nay , it is in yours too , to contradict the institution of our blessed saviour , and the practice of the very roman church for above a thousand years , and of all other christians to this very day . you command us to pray to saints and angels : does not st. paul forbid it ? did not the holy angel twice refuse it from st. john ? and many centuries pass without one probable instance of any that did it ? you command us under pain of your anathema to believe transubstantiation ? do you your selves understand what you mean by it ? is it any where written ? was it ever mention'd for above a thousand years ? you bid us adore the holy sacrament : has christ prescribed it ? have his holy apostles written it ? did not here also above a thousand years pass before any one attempted it ? you require us to believe the blessed eucharist to be a true and real propitiatory sacrifice for the sins and satisfactions both of the dead and of the living . have ye any probable proof of it ? are ye yet , or ever like to be agreed among your selves about it ? do not your own principles evidently shew the contrary ? men and brethren : consider , we conjure you , these things : and if you please , consider us too , what we are , and what our manners and conversation among you has been : believe us , at least , that we have no other end but truth in these enquiries : no other interest but to save our souls , and go the surest and directest way to heaven . the proofs we offer , they are not vain conjectures ; they are clear , we think , convincing arguments . and though the design of this little treatise has been rather to shew you what our doctrine is , than to give a just account of those reasons that detain us in it : yet perhaps even in this there may be somewhat to shew , that we do not altogether build in the air ; but deserve certainly to have our articles and our canons , both better understood , and better answer'd , if it may be , than they have ever hitherto been . for to resume yet once more some few of our differences . you think you ought to invocate the blessed virgin and the holy saints . now not to repeat what we have before said of the unlawfulness of it , this we suppose to be first needless , because we know we have a more excellent and powerful media or , that has commanded us to come to him ; and next uncertain , because you are not able to tell us how , nay , not to secure us that by whatever way it be , our prayers do always and certainly come up to them . if we are mistaken , at least we run no hazard in it : we address our selves continually to the throne of grace , where we are secure that we shall be both heard and answer'd . but now should you err , consider we beseech you how many prayers you every day lose , and what a dishonour you put upon your divine mediator . and if you please , consider too how unjust you are to damn us for not joyning with you in a practice , that has so great danger , so little assurance , and not any advantage . you suppose we ought to fall down before your images . not to do this is to be sure no sin , you dare not say it is . to do it may be , and you can never secure us it is not abominable idolatry , odious to god , and contrary to that holy faith into which we have been baptized . you damn us for doubting of the number of your seven sacraments . has god revealed it to you ? have the holy scriptures defined it ? or even tradition its self delivered it to you . if it be true ; can you yet escape the charge of rashness and uncharitableness , to damn whole churches for so needless a matter ? should it be false , how will you escape that anathema your selves ; you have then so falsely as well as uncharitably denounced against us ? you require us to believe that children dying unbaptized , are excluded the grace of christ for ever . to what purpose this ? for what benefit ? were it as evident as it is indeed uncertain , and we are perswaded false ; our modesty is safe in deciding nothing ; the errour of such among us as believe it not is charitable ; founded upon the sure mercies and goodness of god , who never inflicts any punishment where there is no fault ; and in a word , has not any the least ill consequence upon it . we take as great care to baptize our infants , as you can do who most believe it . but now if your opinion should be false ; what answer will you ever be able to make to god , for peremptorily defining what was so uncertain and uncharitable ? and for damning us , only because we dare not venture to cut off those from christ for whom he died , and whom we hope he will in mercy receive to him ? lastly , you deny us the entire communion ; you pronounce an anathema against us , because we will not confess that one part alone is sufficient . is it not certain that if we err , we have yet both christs institution , and the practice and opinion of many ages to absolve us ? but have you any thing to excuse you , if you are mistaken ? to take it as we do , you confess can have no danger , are you sure that to deny it as you do , may not be a sacriledge ? and what shall i say more ? for the time would fail me to speak of every one of those other points monsieur de meaux mentions , much more to add many others , and of no less consequence , which he has thought fit to pass by . in all which we have at least this undenyable advantage over you ; that besides the clearest arguments that we are in the right , the hazard we run is not very great if we should not be : whereas for you , neither is there any tolerable proof of the contrary errours , and an infinite danger should you chance to be mistaken . these things , as both the character of the book we have now examined , and the style of many other your latter most considerable authors , give us cause to hope , begin to be no longer totally hid from your eyes ; so shall we never cease in all our prayers to make mention of you , that you may be perfectly enlightned to discern , and impartially disposed , to receive and to embrace the truth . in the mean time , whilst both you and we mutually address our selves to the eternal truth for his assistance ; whilst as we ought , we implore his mercy , that he would give us a right understanding in all things ; remembring this that we are all but men , and that it is not therefore impossible for either of us to err : that it may be strength of passion , or prejudice of education , or even vehemency of affection , more than the light of reason , has hitherto kept us in a too fond partiality for our own opinions : let us at least , we beseech you , agree in that mutual charity which alone can secure us amidst all our errours ; which will both best dispose gods mercy to shew us what is right , and will best incline our minds to that sincerity which we all pretend to , and i hope all really have to embrace it . if we cannot yet agree in all the points of our religion ; let us consider , that neither are the dearest friends entirely of the same opinion in every thing . let us wait gods pleasure ; if it be his will to reveal even this also unto us : nevertheless whereunto we have already attain'd , let us walk by the same rule , let us mind the same thing . we believe in the same god ; we rely on the same redeemer ; we embrace the same creeds ; we attend the same hopes of an everlasting salvation : and in all these , amidst all our other differences , have at least an entire agreement in what is most necessary , and shall we hope to the honest and sincere among us , be sufficient for our eternal security . let these things engage us to have the same love too : to be more sparing in our anathema's , and more zealous in our prayers for one another , to seek and to maintain the truth , but to do it so as not to violate our charity . in a word , whether we write , or speak , to do both as men who in a little time expect to be brought before a divine tribunal , where we must render a severe account for all these things ; and one word spoken with this excellent spirit , to close those divisions that so long have seperated us , shall be preferred to ten thousand volumes of endless and uncharitable controversies , that serve only to widen our breaches , and heigthen our animosities . finis . an advertisement of books lately printed for richard chiswell . the apology of the church of england ; and an epistle to one signior scipio , a venetian gentleman , concerning the council of trent . written both in latin , by the right reverend father in god , john jewel lord bishop of sarisbury . made english by a person of quality . to which is added , the life of the said bishop ; collected and written by the same hand . o. the letter writ by the last assembly general of the clergy of france to the protestants , inviting them to return to their communion . together with the methods proposed by them for their conviction . translated into english , and examined by gilbebt burnet , d. d. o. the life of william bedel d. d. bishop of kilmore in ireland ; together with certain letters which passed betwixt him and james waddesworth ( a late pensioner of the holy inquisition in sevil , ) in matter of religion , concerning the general motives to the roman obedience . o. the decree made at rome the second of march . condemning some opinions of the jesuits and other casuists . a discourse concerning the necessity of reformation , with respect to the errors and corruptions of the church of rome . o. a discourse concerning the celebration of divine service in an unknown tongue . o. a papist not misrepresented by protestants . being a reply to the reflections upon the answer to [ a papist misrepresented and represented . ] o. imprimatur . carolus alston r. p. d. hen. episc. lond. à sacris domesticis . aug. . . a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the exceptions of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , and his vindicator . the contents are in the next leaf . london , printed for richard chiswell , at the rose and crown in s. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvi . the contents . i. the preface : containing a farther account of monsieur de meaux's exposition , with an answer to his exceptions against my former preface . ii. the defence of my exposition ; being a full reply to whatsoever has been alledged against it by the vindicator : particularly as to the false citations , he pretends , of their authors , and misrepresentation of their tenets . iii. appendix : being a collection of some pieces relating to this controversie , viz. . the account of monsieur de meaux's pastoral letter , taken out of the last nouvelle , &c. . a summary of father crassets doctrine , of the worship of the b. virgin. . the opposition between card. bona and monsieur de meaux in the same point . . a copy of monsieur imbert's letter to monsieur de meaux , giving him an account of his being persecuted by the a. b. of bourdeaux , for maintaining the doctrine of his exposition . . the letter of s. chrysostom to caesarius , suppress'd by some doctors of the sorbonne , for being contrary to their canon of transubstantiation ; with an account of that whole transaction . . an account of authors cited by me , with their editions , to prevent any new calumnies . the preface . my former treatise of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , has given so full an account of the occasion and design of monsieur de meaux ' s book , as might supersede the necessity of adding any more upon that subject . but being called to a necessary justification of what i there advanced , not so much by the weak defence of his vindicator , embarqued with him in the same cause ; as by the flat denial of monsieur de meaux himself , of the principal foundation on which that account was built ; i hope i shall need no great apologie , if upon this occasion i enter somewhat farther upon a new history than might otherwise seem absolutely necessary for my defence , and by comparing this method of expounding with some others of a different nature , which have of late been sent abroad by those of the roman communion , endeavour to shew what the real intent of them all has been ; and what the design of those who now pursue the same method among us , may reasonably be supposed to be . it is i presume at this time not unknown to any , what great endeavours have been used in our neighbour nation , for the reducing of those of the reformed religion to the roman communion . and it must be confess'd indeed , they have omitted nothing that language and sophistry could be made to do , for the attainment of so great an end. the jansenists were some of the first who began this work : and it is not to be doubted but that persons of their avow'd reputation in point of learning , and who seem'd to have had this means only left them to regain the favour of their king , whose design they pursu'd ; would be sure to offer something worthy themselves , and proportionable at once both to the work it self , and to their engagements to it . the first attempt they made was a little piece , that has since given occasion to a very long controversie between monsieur arnauld and monsieur claude ; of the perpetuity of the faith as to the real presence of christ in the holy eucharist . a tract which if we regard only the neatness and subtilty of the composure , it must be avow'd scarce any thing ever appear'd more worthy that applause it met with in the world : and the design , though express'd in one particular only , yet so applicable to all the rest ; that were the argument good , the church of rome would have needed no other defence for all the corruptions that had , or could possibly creep into it . but the sophistry of this method has been sufficiently exposed in the volumes composed on this occasion . and indeed without entring on a particular examination , any man 's own reason will tell him at first sight , that a logical subtilty advanced against matter of fact , may be worth the considering for the curiosity of the undertaking , but like the philosopher's argument against motion , will never be able to convince any , but such as want ▪ diogenes ' s demonstration to expose its sophistry . in effect , the design of this first method amounted to thus much ; that transubstantiation ( and the same might have been said of any other point in dispute ) was visibly once the common doctrine of the church : and 't is impossible it should have been so then , had it ever been otherwise before . and this to be believed upon the strength of a sophistical argument , notwithstanding all the evident instances of matter of fact , which monsieur d'aubertine and others have at large collected to the contrary . the next attempt , and that as useful and universal as the former , was by another of the same party , and with no less applause , whether we regard the novelty of the invention , or the neatness of the performance : and his method was , by advancing certain matters of fact , which he calls just prejudices against the calvinists , to shew that without entring into dispute about any of the points in debate , the bare external consideration of the protestants in the manner of their reformation , and some other particulars , was enough to shew , that the truth could not possibly be on their side . but alas ! this too proved an argument too weak to stand the first examination that was made of it : and monsieur pajon , who undertook the defence of his party against it , has shewn that in his proof he has not only advanced an argument that might indifferently be brought against all sides , but which a * * * * * * late author has since proved , to be ten times more strong against themselves , than it could ever be thought to be against us . i shall not undertake an exact account of all the other methods that have succeeded these , with less applause , and as little effect . one , as is said by the same author , was published not long since to prove us guilty of schism in separating from the church of rome , whether we had sufficient grounds or not for our so doing : and that for this reason , because however the learned men of our party might have been convinced of the reasonableness of it , yet the generality being uncapable of forming such a judgment , must have separated without reason , and so have been schismatics . and if their separation was at first unlawful , their return will now by consequence be necessary to them . how far this method might heretofore have concluded with those whom it principally concerns , the vulgar and ignorant , i cannot tell ; but god be thanked there are few now so ill instructed in their religion , but what will have enough to free them from the sin of schism , if the knowledge of a sufficient reason of their separation may be allow'd to do it . thus much only i will beg leave to observe on occasion of these several methods that have been proposed for our conviction , that the great design of them all has been to prevent the entring on particular disputes , which had hitherto been the way , but such as experience had taught them to be the least favourable of any to them . and the same is the design of the late peaceable method set forth by monsieur maimbourg ; in which from the authority of the church in matters of faith , confess'd , as he says , by us , he proves , that the church , in which both parties once were , must then have had this authority over us all ; and to whose decision in the council of trent , we all by consequence ought to submit . it is not necessary that i should here say any thing to shew the weakness and sophistry of these several methods : that has been the business of those particular examinations , that have with success enough been made of them . this i suppose may at first sight appear upon the bare proposal of them , that they have more of ingenuity than of solidity in them ; and were , no doubt , designed by their inventors , to catch the unwary with a plausible shew of that reason , which the wise and judicious know them to be defective in . how far we may conclude from hence , as to the nature and design of monsieur de meaux's exposition , i shall leave it to others to consider . this is undenyable , that as it came out at a time when these kind of methods were all in repute , and with a design to help forward the same great business of conversion then in agitation ; so has it been cry'd up by those of that communion as exceeding all others in order to that end ; and if we may believe their reports , been above all others the most happy and successful in it . it is not easie to conceive that a person of monsieur de meaux ' s learning , should seriously believe , that a bare exposition of their doctrine should be sufficient to convince us of the truth of it . he could not but know that our first reformers were persons abundantly qualified to understand the real profession of a church in which they had been born and bred ; and in which many of them were admitted to holy orders , priests and professors of divinity . nor is the council of trent so rare or so obscure , that a meer exposition of its doctrine should work such effects , as neither the council nor its catechism were able to do . in a word monsieur de meaux himself confesses , his design was to represent his church as favourably as he could ; to take off that hideous and terrible form in which the ministers , he says , were wont to represent popery in their pulpits , and expose it in its natural dress , free from those frightful idea's , in which it had so long been disguised by them . one would imagine by this discourse that the whole business of the ministers of the reformed religion , was to do nothing but invent new monsters every day , and lay them to the church of rome : and that after all our pretences to peace and union , we were really such enemies to it , that we did all we could , even by lies and calumnies , to keep both our selves and the people from it . but indeed these hideous idea's monsieur de meaux speaks of , if they are such false representations as he pretends , they are not the ministers that invent them ; but their own greatest zealots , their schoolmen , their bishops , their cardinals ; nay their very popes themselves that have been the authors of them . how far monsieur de meaux's exposition differs from what they have delivered us as the doctrine of their pretended catholick church , has been in some measure shewn already , and shall in the following discourse be more fully evidenced . and whosoever shall please to consider the elogies and approbations , which these men have received , no less than monsieur de meaux , will be forced to confess it to be at least a disputable point , whether the ministers , from these authors , have represented their church in a hideous and terrible form ; or whether monsieur de meaux rather has not , instead of removing the visor to shew her in her natural dress , a little varnish'd over her face to hide her defects , and make her appear more charming and attractive than her own natural deformity would otherwise permit her to do . now of this a more convincing proof cannot , i think , be desired , than what i before advanced , and see no reason yet to retract ; viz. that out of an extraordinary desire of palliating , he had proceeded so far , as in several points wholly to pervert the doctrine of his church . insomuch that when his book was sent to some of the doctors of the sorbonne for their approbation , they corrected so many places in it , that monsieur de meaux was forced to suppress the whole edition , and change those places that had been mark'd by them , and put out a new and more correct impression , as the first that had ever been made of it . this monsieur de meaux is pleased to deny as an utter falsity ; for that he never sent his book to the sorbonne ; that their custom is not to license books in body ; and that that venerable company knows better what is due to bishops , who are naturally and by their character the true doctors of the church , than to think they have need of the approbation of her doctors . in a word , that it is a manifest falsity to say that a first edition of his book was suppress'd , because the doctors of the sorbonne had something to say against it . that he never did publish , nor cause to be printed , any other edition than that which is in the hands of every one , to which he never added nor diminish'd one syllable ; nor ever fear'd that any catholick doctor could find any thing in it worthy of reprehension . this is indeed a severe charge against me , and such , as , if true , it cannot be doubted , but that i have been as great a calumniator as his vindicator has thought fit to represent me ; or , as for ought i know , monsieur de meaux himself will be in danger of being reputed if it should be false . and therefore to satisfie the world in this main , fundamental point between us , i do hereby solemnly declare , that there was an impression of the exposition , such as i spake of ; that out of it i transcribed with my own hand , the several changes and alterations that are placed at the end of my preface ; that this book , with these differences is at this time in the hands of the reverend editor of my former treatise , and that whosoever of either communion is pleased to examine them , may when ever he will have free liberty so to do . this i the rather declare , because monsieur de meaux is so positive in it , as to charge me with no less than the pure invention of those passages i have cited from it . as for those passages , says he , which they pretend i have corrected in a second edition for fear of offending the sorbonne , it is as you see a chimerical invention ; and i do here once more repeat it , that i neither publish'd , nor connived at , nor caused to be made , any edition of my book , but that which is well known , in which i never altered any thing . for answer to which i must beg leave once more to repeat it too ; that these passages are for the most part chimerical inventions indeed , but yet such as he once hoped to have put off as the doctrine of his church , and as such sent them into the world , in that first edition we are speaking of ; out of which i have transcribed them in as just and proper terms as i was able to put them in ; and i appeal to any one , that shall please to examine them , for the truth and sincerity that i have used in it . but here monsieur de meaux has got an evasion , which , if not prevented , may in some mens opinion take off this seeming contradiction betwixt us , and leave us both at last for the main in the right ! 't is true , says he , this little treatise being at first given in writing to some particular persons for their instruction , many copies of it were dispersed , and it was printed without my order or knowledge . no body found fault with the doctrine contain'd in it ; and i my self without changing any thing in it of importance , and that only as to the order , and for the greater neatness of the discourse and stile , caused it to be printed as you now see . so that now then it is at last confess'd that an edition there was , such as i charged them with , different very much from what we now have . but that it was an edition printed without monsieur de meaux ' s knowledge ; and the changes which he made afterwards were only as to the order , and for the greater neatness of the discourse and stile . as to this last particular , the reader will best judge of what kind the differences were , by that short specimen i have given of them . if to say in one , that the honour which the church gives to the blessed virgin and the saints is religious , nay that it ought to be blamed if it were not religious ; in the other , to doubt whether it may even in some sence be called religious : if to tell us in the one , that the mass may very reasonably be called a sacrifice ; in the other , that there is nothing wanting to it to make it a true sacrifice . if to strike out totally in several places , positions that were absolutely of doctrine , or otherwise very material to the points that were so ; as in several instances it appears he has done ; if this were indeed only for the advantage of the order , and for the greater neatness of the discourse and stile , i am contented . i accuse not monsieur de meaux of any other alterations than such as these . and thus far we can go certainly in reply to his allegations , beyond a possibility of denial : for what remains , though i do not pretend to the like evidence of fact , yet i will offer some reasons why i cannot assent to his pretences even there neither . that the impression was made with monsieur de meaux ' s knowledge , if not by his express order , whoever shall consider the circumstances of monsieur cramoisy who printed it , either as a person of his reputation and estate ; or as directour of the king 's imprimerie ; or finally as monsieur de meaux ' s own bookseller ; will hardly believe that he would so far affront a bishop of his church , and one especially of monsieur de meaux ' s interest and authority at that time at court ; as to make a surreptitious edition of a book , which he might have had the author's leave to publish only for the asking . but further : this pretended surreptitious edition had the kings permission to it , which could hardly have been obtain'd without monsieur de meaux ' s knowledge . it was approved by the bishops of france in the very same terms that the other editions have been since ; which seems more natural to have been procured by monsieur de meaux himself , than by a printer , underhand , and without his knowledge and connivance . in a word , so far was monsieur de meaux from resenting this injury , of setting out his book so uncorrectly , and without his leave ; that the very same cramoisy , the same year , printed the exposition with his leave , and has continued to print all his other books ever since ; and was never that i could hear of , censured , for such fraudulent dealing , till this time , by the bishop or any other . all which put together , i must beg leave still to believe as i did before ; that there was not only a first impression , which is at length allow'd ; but that this first impression was not made without monsieur de meaux's order or knowledge . as for the other point , and i think the only remaining in this matter , concerning the occasion i mentioned for the suppressing that first edition ; the reader may please to know , that a person by many relations very intimate with one of the mareshal de turenne ' s family , upon the publishing of the pretended first edition of monsieur de meaux's exposition , first discover'd to him the mystery of the former , and shew'd him out of the mareshal's library the very book which , as he then assured him , had been mark'd by some of the doctors of the sorbonne , and lent it him for some time as a great curiosity . the knowledge of this raised the desire of endeavouring , if it were possible , to retrieve a copy of it : but the edition was so carefully dispatch'd , that the most that could be done was to get so many scatter'd sheets of it , as to make at last a perfect book , except in some few places in which it was transcribed from the original of the mareshal , word for word , page for page , and examined by the person himself , who was so kind as to bestow it on me . this is the book to which i refer the reader ; and for this i have the attestation of the same person under his hand , at the beginning of the book ; that it is in every part a perfect copy of monsieur de turenne ' s mark'd by the sorbonne doctors ; and i have been besides so just to monsieur de meaux , as to cite scarce any thing out of those places that were in the manuscript part , but have chosen such rather where the printed copy gave me full assurance and authority to do it . but to argue the improbability of all this , monsieur de meaux observes , that the sorbonne is never used to license books in body . and i desire monsieur de meaux to tell us , who ever said or thought they did ? that that venerable company knows better what is due to bishops , who are naturally and by their character doctors of the church , than to think they have need of the approbation of her doctors . i doubt not but the sorbonne very well knows the respect that is due to bishops : but that it should be any argument of disrespect to approve a bishop's book , when it was sent to them for that purpose , i cannot conceive . in short , we understand the reputation and authority of that venerable company too well , to believe it at all improbable that monsieur de meaux should desire their approbation ; nor are we so little acquainted with their books , as not to know , that it is no unheard of thing to see doctors of the sorbonne setting their approbation to a book , approved and authorized by bishops before . the next exception monsieur de meaux makes , is , that i should confirm what had before been urged against him , of a papist's answering his book ; in the truth of which i am as little concern'd as himself can be . only the assurance i have had of it from a person of undoubted sincerity , makes me still believe that it was so : and monsieur de meaux may remember that monsisieur conrart often profess'd that he had seen it in manuscript ; who was not only his old friend , but as himself characteriseth him , one endowed with all that the catholics themselves could desire in a man , excepting a better religion . for what relates to father crasset , it is not for me to contradict monsieur de meaux ' s declaration , that he never read his book ; but that he never heard it mentioned that there was any thing in it contrary to his exposition : this i must confess is admirable , whether we consider the notoriety of the thing , as it related to the salutary advertisements and the bishop of tournay ' s pastoral letter , which made so great a noise in france ; or that it was particularly proved , in the answer to his own advertisement dedicated to monsieur de ruvigny , above five years since , to be directly opposite to his exposition . and for the rest , i must beg leave to believe , whatever monsieur de meaux flatters himself with ; that that father would be so far from being troubled that any body should think his principles contrary to monsieur de meaux ' s , that i dare say he would rather think his pains but ill spent in writing of so large a book , did he not believe he had convinced the world that he looks upon them , nay and has proved them too , to be little less than heretical . as for cardinal capisucchi , monsieur de meaux tells us , he is so far from being contrary to the doctrine of the exposition , that his express approbation has been prefix'd to it . this indeed were a good presumption that he should not have any principles contrary to monsieur de meaux ; but if what i have alledged out of his controversies be really repugnant to what he approved in the exposition , it may indeed speak the cardinal not so consistent with himself as he should be , but the contradiction will be never the less a contradiction for his so doing . the next thing monsieur de meaux takes notice of is , the relation of monsieur imbert and monsieur de witte . the stories are matters of fact , and the papers from whence they were collected published by themselves . if they alledged monsieur de meaux ' s authority for principles that he maintained not , this concerns not us ; nor , whatever the little comment on the bishop ' s letter pretends , was it at all needful to be shewn by me that they did not , in the recital of the propositions held by them . 't is sufficient that they both declared themselves to stand to monsieur de meaux ' s exposition ; and were both condemned , without any regard had to monsieur de meaux ' s authority ; or being at all convinced , or so much as told , that they were mistaken in their pretences to it . the last thing monsieur de meaux takes notice of is , that i reflect upon him for being fertile enough in producing new labours , but steril in answering what is brought against his works . i do not at all envy monsieur de meaux ' s fertility ; his productions have not been many , and those so short , and with such an ingenuous character of temper and moderation as ought to be acknowledged even in an enemy . but i must confess i do admire , as many others do , that no reply has been made by him to those answers that have been sent abroad not only against his exposition , but even against the advertisement it self , which he says can bear no reply . this we so much the rather wonder at , for that an answer was openly promised by monsieur de turenne , and not without some kind of boasting too ; and that several of his own communion were so well satisfied with the pieces that had been publish'd against him , as to expect , no less than we , some such vindication . and here i shall take my leave of monsieur de meaux , for whom i must yet again profess , that i still retain all that respect that is due to a person whose character i honour , and whom i hope i have treated with all the caution and civility that the necessary defence of my self and of the truth would permit me to do . for what remains , my business now must be wholly with his vindicator , who has been pleased to fix such an odious character upon me , as i hope to make it appear i have as little deserved , as i shall desire to return it upon him . had he charged me with ignorance , had he loaded me with mistakes arising from thence ; or had he imputed to me the faults only of carelesness and incogitancy : all this might have pass'd without my censure ; and i should have been so far from vindicating my self , that i should have been ready , in great measure , to have acknowledged the charge , and to have submitted to his reproof . i know how little fit i am for controversies of this kind ; that neither my age , nor learning , nor opportunities have qualified me for such undertakings , as the defence of my religion and my duty to my superiors have , without any design of mine , engaged me in . and i doubt not but a censor less severe , than he who has thought fit to make himself my adversary , might have found out more real faults in my book , than he has noted pretended errors . but for the calumnies and misrepresentations , for the unsincere dealings and falsifications , he ascuses me of , and that in almost every article ; here i must beg leave to justifie my self ; and assure the vindicator , whoever he be , that my religion , i thank god , needs not such defences , nor would i ever have used these means to assert it , if it did . we have indeed heard of some that have look'd upon these things as not only lawful , but even pious on such occasions ; that have esteemed the interest of the church so sacred , as to be able to sanctifie the worst means that can be made use of to promote it : had i been bred in their schools , there might have been some more plausible grounds for such a suspicion ; and what wonder if i did no more , than what i had been taught was lawful for me to do ? but i have not so learnt christ. i have been taught , and am perswaded , that no evil may be done that good may come : i am assured by s. paul that they who say it may , their damnation is just : and did i now know of any one ●nstance of those crimes , whereof i am represented to the world as guilty in almost every chapter , i should think my self indispensably obliged to made a publick acknowledgement of it , and thank the vindicator that has called me to so necessary a duty . but now that i am not conscious to my self of any thing of all this , all that i have to reply to this uncharitable way of proceeding is , to intreat him by the common name of christian , and those hopes of eternity , after which i believe we would all of us be thought sincerely to contend , to consider how dangerous this way he has taken is ; what mischief it will bring , in the opinion of all good men , of whatsoever perswasion they be , to the very cause that is maintain'd by such means : in a word , what a sad purchace it will prove in the end , if to lessen the reputation of an unknown , obscure adversary , he should do that which shall lose him his own soul. but it is time now to clear my self of those calumnies that are laid to my charge . and the first is , that i endeavour to represent monsieur de meaux's exposition as a book that palliates , and prevaricates the doctrine of his church ; and the very approbations of it , as meer artifices to deceive the world , not sincere , much less authoritative approbations , either of the nature or principles of monsieur de meaux's book . i do not remember i have any where in express terms charged monsieur de meaux with prevaricating the doctrine of his church in the latter editions of his book ; though others i know have done it . but however , if this be the greatest of those calumnies i am guilty of , i am sure all that have ever lived among them , and seen their practices , and compared them with what he writes , will easily absolve me : and i shall hereafter shew that either monsieur de meaux has palliated , or else the greatest of their authors have strangely perverted the doctrine of the church . as to the other part of the accusation , that i should say that the approbations were meer artifices to deceive the world , it is not my calumny , but the vindicator's mistake . i never thought those letters monsieur de meaux has published any authoritative approbations of his book at all ; indeed in the place which he cites , i have said somewhat like it of the * * * * * * popes brief , and am still of the same mind ; and till he shall think fit to answer the reasons that induced me to believe so , he will hardly perswade me that this is a calumny . but if i am so little satisfied with the approbations of monsieur de meaux's book , i should at least have had some more authentick testimonies of what i my self publish . and he thinks it wonderful , that my book should have found such a reception as it did , only from my assuring the world that i had not palliated , nor prevaricated the doctrine of the church of england ; but submitted it to her censure ; and the sight of an imprimatur ; when the approbations of so many learned men , and even of the pope himself , are not thought sufficient to secure monsieur de meaux's treatise . this indeed were somewhat , if the truth of the exposition were on either side to be taken from the number of the approvers , and not the nature of the doctrine . if monsieur de meaux has really palliated the doctrine of the church of rome , 't is not any number of approbations that will be able to render him a faithful expositor . if my exposition be conformable to the doctrine of the church of england ; ( and if not , let him shew us the prevarications ; ) the want of a few letters can at most argue only my interest not to have been so great as his , or my vanity less ; but will not render the exposition ever the more unfaithful . and though an imprimatur be all the authority that is usual with us on such occasions , yet the vindicator may believe , by the reception he acknowledges the book to have had , that it would have been no difficult matter to have obtain'd other subscriptions than that of the reverend person who licensed it ; and if that will be any satisfaction to him , i do assure him , it has been approved by several other persons but little inferiour , whether in authority or reputation , to any monsieur de meaux has prefix'd to his exposition . for what remains of my preface , two things there are which he supposes worthy his animadversion : one , that whereas i accuse cardinal capisucchi to have contradicted the doctrine of the exposition , we must take notice , that the bishop of condom's intention was not to meddle with scholastic tenets , but purely to deliver that doctrine of the church , which was necessarily and universally receiv'd ; whereas cardinal capisucchi being obliged to no such strictness , would not , it may be , contradict the problematical niceties of those schools in which he had been educated . it is the catholic distinction of this author throughout his whole vindication , if any thing be alledged contrary to his liking , that it is presently a scholastic tenet , and not the necessary and universally to be receiv'd doctrine of the church . but that we may , if possible , discern what is the doctrine , and what the scholastic tenet in the present case , we will take only what at first sight offers it self , viz. that cardinal capisucchi do's positively affirm , † † † † † † that a divine worship may be paid to images , upon the account of the thing which they represent ; and that this doctrine was never doubted of in the church , nor deny'd by the council of trent . does monsieur de meaux allow of this ? does he tells us that a divine worship may upon any account be paid to an image ? or rather does he not plainly insinuate that he can hardly allow the image any honour at all ; we do not , says he , so much honour the image of an apostle or martyr , as the apostle or martyr in presence of the image . let us then lay aside the barbarous distinctions by which he would excuse a foul idolatry ; be it a school nicety , or whatever you will else , whether the representative image as representative , be representatively one and the same with the thing represented : our question without this gibberish is plain and intelligible ; whether , upon any account whatsoever , the image of our saviour or the holy cross be to be worshipped with divine worship ? this the cardinal affirms ; and this if monsieur de meaux does allow , let him speak it out without mincing ; if not , 't is plain for all the pretences of a scholastic nicety , that they differ in the exposition of a very material point of the doctrine of the roman church . the other thing which the vindicator thinks fit to take notice of in my preface , is the consequence which i draw from this , and some other instances of the like kind , viz. that the papists think it lawful to set their hands to , and approve those books , whose principles and doctrine they dislike . in answer to which , he again distinguishes between scholastic tenets , and matters of faith : and then tells us , every one knows that the doctrines of a church or matters of faith , being tenets necessarily and universally received , ought upon no account to be dissembled or disguised ; but as for scholastic opinions , we see not only one nation commanding one thing to be taught , and another the quite contrary ; but even one university against another in the same country , &c. but if i mistake not , this is not to answer my conclusion , but to start a new question . the point proposed was , not whether in matters that are not of faith , men may not hold different opinions , and yet live still in the same common church , whereof there can be no doubt , but it was a conclusion drawn from plain matter of fact , viz. that those of the church of rome think it lawful to set their hands to , and approve those books whose principles they dislike . this the instances i have brought shew plainly they do ; if they know it to be a sin , and yet do it , they condemn themselves ; if they think otherwise , then they believe it to be lawful ; which is all i affirm'd , and to which the vindicator has answered never a word . there is yet one thing more remaining before i close this ; and that is the remark the vindicator has made upon the passages collected by me out of monsieur de meaux ' s first edition , which have either been altered or omitted in the following impressions : viz. that the bishop in that edition had been so far from proposing the doctrine of the church of rome , loosely and favourably , as i pretend ; that on the contrary he rather proposed it with too much strictness : in a word , that he had been so far from perverting the doctrine of the church , that i was not able to propose one doctrine so perverted , without a forced interpretation of my own , according to my wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention . as to the first of which , no one ever charged the bishop with proposing the doctrine of the church of rome loosely and favourably in every point . we know well enough that in some , he has kept to the plain doctrine of his church , as in that of the eucharist : in others proposed it rather with too much strictness , as in the case of infants dying unbaptized : all we say is , that in some other articles , such as the invocation of saints , worshipping of images , sacrifice of the mass , &c. he had expounded it more loosely and favourably than he ought to have done , and that without any gloss or interpretation of mine to turn things to a wrong intention . does not the church of rome lay any obligation on particular persons to joyn with her in the invocation of saints ? does she condemn those only who refuse it out of contempt , and with a spirit of dissention and revolt ? this monsieur de meaux once affirmed , and i think there needs no comment to shew , that this is to palliate the doctrine of their church . has the church of rome ascribed no other vertue to images , than to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent ? is that all the use they make of them ? do they not so much honour the image of an apostle or martyr , as the apostle or martyr in presence of the image ? or rather , did not monsieur de meaux here also mollifie the known doctrine and practice of his church ? in a word : is the church of rome contented to teach only that the mass may very reasonably be called a sacrifice ? is that exposition reconcileable to what we now read in him , that there is nothing wanting to make it a true sacrifice . may i not here at least , without my wonted way of turning all things to a wrong intention , beg leave to say , that either monsieur de meaux palliated the doctrine of his church in that , or he has otherwise perverted it in this ? had monsieur de meaux only retrenched or altered some things in his book , for the greater exactness of the method or neatness of stile ; he must have been a very peevish adversary indeed , that would have pretended to censure him for that . but to change not only the words but doctrine too ; to give us one exposition of it in one edition , and a quite contrary in another , this i think may , if not be represented as a heinous crime , yet at least deserve a remark ; and let the vindicator do what he can , will i doubt make the author pass with all indifferent persons , for such as yet i had never represented him , had not he himself first made the dilemma , viz. one that either did not sufficiently understand the doctrine of his church , or that had not sincerity enough to expound it aright . i should now pass to the consideration of those exceptions that have been made against what i have advanced in my book it self ; but before i do this , it will be requisite that i take notice of those directions , the vindicator has thought fit to give me in his postscript , in order thereunto . and here , not to deceive either his , or the reader 's expectation ; i must beg leave to excuse my self from entring any farther into dispute with the bishop of condom , than i have already done . i never designed a direct answer to his book ; and the reflections i have made upon it in my former treatise , were more to clear the doctrine of the church of england , than to argue against what he offered in behalf of the romish faith. this has been the undertaking of another pen , from whom the vindicator i suppose may expect , what is reasonably enough refused by me . but for the other part of his desire , that i would take the pains to peruse my self the authors cited by me , and not transcribe quotations , nor take up things by halves ; i have been so scrupulous in observing it , that i doubt i shall receive but little thanks from himself for it . it cannot be deny'd but that there have been faults enough committed on both sides for want of this care , and i do not desire to add to the number . i have done my best to take nothing of them without a serious examination of their sense , and a sincere application of it to the point in question . how far i have attain'd this i must leave it to others to judge ; but for the rest , the truth of my citations , i have been so cautious in them , that allowing only for the errata's of the press , i desire no favour if i am found faulty in that . i should indeed stand in need of a large apology to those , into whose hands these papers may chance to fall , that i have in many places run them out into so great a length : but the accusation that has been brought against me for want of doing this before , how unjust soever it be , has obliged me to this caution now ; and they are so ordered as to be no hindrance to those that are minded to pass them by . this benefit at least i shall attain by them , with those who please to compare them with what the vindicator alledges ; that they will find he might have spared himself the troublesome , and ungentile office indeed of undertaking what he could not effect , to demonstrate to the world the unsincerity which i have shewn in my quotations , and the falsifications of them ; his endeavours wherein have been so very unsuccessful , that i know not whether himself or his religion will suffer more by the weakness of his attempt . a table of the articles contained in the following treatise . part i. i. introduction . page ii. that religious worship is terminated only in god. iii. invocation of saints . ibid. iv. images and reliques . v. justification . vi. merits . vii . . satisfactions . — . indulgences . — . purgatory . part ii. viii . sacraments in general . page ix . baptism . ibid. x. confirmation . xi . penance . xii . extreme unction . xiii . marriage . xiv . holy orders . xv. &c. eucharist . xix . sacrifice of the mass. xx. epistle to the hebrews . xxi . reflections on the foregoing doctrine . xxii . communion under both kinds . part iii. xxiii . of the written and unwritten word . xxiv . &c. authority of the church . xxvi . authority of the holy see. xxvii . the close . the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , vindicated , &c. article i. introduction . he that accuses another of great and heinous crimes , ought to take all prudent care not to be guilty himself of these faults which he condemns in others . had the author of the vindication thought fit to govern himself by this rule , he would have spared a great part of that odious character he has been pleased to draw of me , in the beginning of this article . but it is not my business to recriminate , nor need i fly to such arts for my justification . only as to the advantage he proposes to himself from these endeavours , viz. to shew that all those books to which an imprimatur is prefix'd , will not hereafter be concluded free from errour ; he needed not sure have taken such pains for that : for i believe no one before him ever imagined that a permission to print a book , was a mark of its infallibility ; nor that every nameless author , who professes to be sincere , should pass for an oracle . it is not to be doubted but that faults there might have been in my book , for all that priviledge ; though the vindicator has had the ill fortune to miss the most of them . and for ought he has proved to the contrary , i believe it will in the end appear , that an imprimatur car. alston , is at least as good a mark of infallibility as a permissu superiorum ; and a church of england expositor , as fit to pass for an oracle , as a popish vindicator . but calumny and unsincerity are now the catholick cry : and to make it good against me , i am charged in this one article to have been guilty of both . my introduction is calumny in a high degree , and my state of the question , drawn from thence , as unsincere . i tell them , he says , of adoring men and women , crosses , images , and reliques ; of setting up their own merits , and making other propitiatory sacrifices for sin than that of the cross : and that these are all contrary to their pretended principles , that religious worship is due to god only ; that we are to be saved only by christ's merits , and that the death of christ was a perfect sacrifice . the logick of which he is content to own , that the consequence is good , but the accusation , he says , is false , and the charge , calumniatory . but if in the following articles it be made appear , that their own authors do allow of all this : if they do give a divine worship to the blessed virgin and saints departed ; if their very missal and pontifical do command them to adore the cross ; if it appear that their council of trent damns all those who deny the mass to be a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the dead and living , and yet cannot say it is the very same with that of the cross : if , finally , their greatest writers do allow a merit of condignity , and that not as a scholastick tenet , but as the doctrine of their church , and agreeable to the intention of their council they so much talk of ; then i hope the premises may be as clear of the calumny they are charged with , as my inference is allow'd to be just , for the consequence i would establish . in the mean time , pass we on to the state of the question , which i propose in these terms ; that we who have been so often charged by the church of rome as innovators in religion , are at last by their own confession allow'd to hold the antient and undoubted foundation of the christian faith ; and that the question therefore between us is not , whether what we hold , be true ? but whether those things which the roman church has added as superstructures to it , and which as such we reject , be not so far from being necessary articles of religion , as they pretend , that they do indeed overthrow that truth which is on both sides allowed to be divine , and upon that account ought to be forsaken by them ? this the vindicator says , is to state the question after a new mode , and represent them as consenting to it . let us see therefore what the old way of stating it is , and wherein the insincerity he charges me with , consists . the true state of the question betwixt us , he says , is , whether the protestants or papists do innovate ? the protestants in refusing to believe those doctrines which the church of rome professes to have received with the grounds of christianity , or the papists in maintaining their possession : and the dispute is , whether roman catholicks ought to maintain their possession , for which , he says , many protestants themselves grant they have a prescription of above years ? or whether the authorities brought by protestants against the roman catholick doctrine be so weighty , that every roman catholick is obliged to renounce the communion of that church in which he was bred up , and quit his prescription and possession . in all which the only difference that i can find is this ; that he presumes for his church in the state of the question , i for mine : i suppose the points in controversie to be superstructures which they have added to the faith ; he , that they are doctrines received with the grounds of christianity . in short , the point we both put upon the issue is precisely the same ; viz. whether the roman catholicks ought to maintain their possessions of these doctrines , or to quit them as erroneous ? whether protestants to embrace the belief and practice of them as true and lawful , or to continue , as they are , separate from the roman communion upon the account of them ? but where then is my unsincerity ? in this i suppose , that i seem to insinuate as if the roman church granted that we held the ancient and undoubted foundation of the christian faith. what others of that communion will grant , i cannot tell ; but whoso shall please to consider monsieur de meaux's arguing from monsieur daillè's concessions as to this point , will find it clear enough that he did ; if the foundation consists of fundamental articles , and that we are on both sides agreed in these , as his discourse manifestly implies . but the vindicator , jealous for the authority of his church , and to have whatever she proposes pass for fundamental , confesses that we do indeed hold a part , but not all those articles that are fundamental . this therefore we must put upon the issue , in which we shall not doubt to shew them , that those articles their church has added , are so far from being fundamental truths , that indeed they are no truths at all ; but do by evident and undoubted consequence , as i before said , and as the vindicator himself confesses , destroy those truths that are on both sides agreed to be fundamental . but if i have not mistaken the question between the papists and protestants , i am sure the vindicator has that between him and me. he tells us our present question , which we are to examine in the following articles , is , whether monsieur de meaux has faithfully proposed the sense of the church declared in the council of trent ? and thereupon asks me , what it do's avail me to tell them , that i will in the following articles endeavour to give a clear and free account of what we can approve , and what we dislike in their doctrine ? to which i reply , that it avails very much to the end i propounded in my book , viz. to give a true exposition of the doctrine of the church of england in the several points proposed by monsieur de meaux . so that in reality the question between us is this , not whether monsieur de meaux has given a true exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , which it has been the business of others to examine ; but whether i have given a just account of the doctrine of the church of england . this was what i undertook to do , and what this author ought , if he could , to have shewn i had not done . article ii. that religious worship is terminated only in god. in this article i am but little concern'd . the vindicator states the case , what 't is they mean by religious honour being terminated only in god. he distinguishes between what they pay him , and what they give to the saints ; how truly , or to what purpose , it is not my business to examine . those who desire to be satisfied in it , may find a sufficient account in several late treatises written purposely against this part of monsieur de meaux's exposition ; and i shall not repeat what is so fully and clearly established there . article iii. invocation of saints . i might well have pass'd over this point altogether , which has been so learnedly and fully managed , but very lately , in a particular † † † † † † discourse on this subject . yet since the vindicator desires to know what authority i have for my assertion , that the addresses which monsieur daillé allows to have been used by the fathers of the fourth century , were rather innocent wishes and rhetorical flights , than direct prayers ; but especially for that accusation which he says i bring against them , viz. that they did herein begin to depart from the practice and tradition of those before them , i am content to give him that satisfaction . for the first then : that monsieur daillé himself look'd upon them as no other than such addresses as i have characterized , becuase * * * * * * monsieur de meaux has represented him as if he allow'd that the custom of praying to saints was establish'd in the church in the fourth century ; i then cited his opinion to the contrary , and have now subjoyn'd it in his own words † † † † † † . secondly : that these addresses were really of this kind , the several passages that are usually brought from these fathers , plainly shew : and both the * * * * * * examples i gave , and the differences i assigned , do abundantly prove it . that they could not have allow'd of such an invocation as is now practised in the church of rome , i proved from this plain argument , * * * * * * that they believed that the saints departed , were not admitted to the sight of god immediately upon their decease ; and therefore , by the papists own † † † † † † confession , ought to have believed that they could not be pray'd to . to all which the vindicator is pleased to return never a word . in short , that the fathers of the fourth century did herein begin to depart from the practice and tradition of the ages before them , i proved from this , † † † † † † that they are not able to produce any one instance of the three first centuries of any such invocation ; but rather have * * * * * * been forced to confess that nothing of that kind was to be found among them . besides that the maxims of those fathers concerning † † † † † † prayer were such , as are utterly repugnant to such an invocation . these were the arguments i then offer'd ; to which the vindicator would have done more justly to have try'd if he could have made some reply , than after all this to cry out , as if nothing had been said , what authority does he bring for his assertion ? by what authority does he condemn these prayers , these innocent wishes and holy raptures , as he calls them , as fond things , vainly invented ? &c. and now that i have satisfied his demand , may i in my turn ask him , where it is that i condemn those innocent wishes , and holy raptures , of these fathers , as fond things , vainly invented ? that i do , with our church , censure their invocation of saints as such , is confess'd ; but that i pretend to pass any judgment at all upon these holy men , is false ; nor was it any way necessary that i should do it . as for the authority he requires for our refusal of this invocation , it were very easy to shew it , had i nothing to do but to repeat things , that have been so often said already , that the world grows weary of them ; and is abundantly satisfied that they have nothing to reply to them . every text of scripture that appropriates divine worship to god alone , is a demonstration against them ; and that one passage of st. paul , rom. . . how shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed ? were not men willing to be contentious , might end the controversy . and for the antiquity which he speaks of , what can be more ridiculous , than to pretend prescription for that which has not the least foundation , neither in holy writ , nor primitive christianity ; of which not one instance appears for the first three hundred years after christ , but much to the contrary . he that desires a fuller satisfaction in these points , may please to recur to that excellent treatise i before mention'd , and which may well excuse me that i say no more about it . only because this was one of the points , in which i promised to shew , that they do adore men and women by such an invocation as cannot possibly belong to any but god only ; and that they make the merits of their saints to run parallel with the merits of christ , insomuch as for their merits , to desire that their very sacrifices may be accepted , and their sacraments be available to them ; i will subjoin a short specimen of every one of these out of their publick rituals , to shew that there was neither falshood nor calumny in my accusation of them . appendix to artic . iii. a specimen of the church of rome's service to saints , taken out of their publick liturgies . as to the prayers they make to them ; we find them thus addressing to the blessed virgin : we fly to thy protection , o holy mother of god , despise not our prayers which we make to thee in our necessities , but deliver us from all dangers , o ever-glorious and blessed virgin. offic. b. v. p. . and in one of their antiphona's ; vouchsafe me that i may be worthy to praise thee , o sacred virgin ; grant me strength and power against thine enemies . ibid. p. . they desire her conjunctly with our saviour , to bless them . ibid. p. . and in their hymns , they address to her in the most formal manner ; that she would help them that fall ; that she would have pity upon sinners ; that she would protect them against the enemy , and receive them at the hour of death . i shall add only one prayer more , part of which i before mention'd , and will now repeat it , because ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ cardinal bellarmine , and some others are so ashamed of it , as totally to deny they have any such prayer , o happy mother , expiating our sins , by the right of a mother command our redeemer . grant us the — of faith , grant us the good works of salvation ; grant us in the end of our lives that we may die well . nor is it the blessed virgin only to whom they thus address : the prayer to st. john is in the same strain : that he would loose the guilt of their polluted lips , that the tongues of his servants might sound out his praise . and in general , thus they address to the apostles and evangelists : o ye just judges , and true lights of the world , we pray unto you with the requests of our hearts ; that you would hear the prayers of your suppliants . ye , that by your word shut and open heaven , we beseech you deliver us , by your command , from all our sins . you , to whose command is subjected the health and sickness of all men , heal us who are sick in our manners , and restore us to vertue ; that so when in the end of the world christ the judg shall come , he may make us partakers of everlasting joy. for the next point , the merits of their saints , 't were infinite to repeat the prayers they make of this kind . i will subjoyn two or three . in the feast of st. nicholas , dec. th : o god who hast adorned thy bishop , st. nicholas , with innumerable miracles , grant we beseech thee , that by his merits and prayers , we may be delivered from the fire of hell. offic. b. virg. p. . and many there are of this nature all along their office. but since the main question is about their recommending to god their offerings , and sacraments , by the merits of their saints ; we will see that too . and for an instance of these we need go no farther than their very first saint , st. andrew , to whom in their secretum they thus address . we beseech thee , o lord , that the holy prayer of the blessed apostle , st. andrew , may procure thy favour to our sacrifice ; that as it is solemnly offer'd in his honour , so it may be rendred acceptable by his merits , through our lord. he that shall survey the following festivals , will find either the secretum , or post-communio , to run in the same strain : i shall instance only in the saints i formerly mentioned . let the merits of st. bathildis , o lord , prevail , that our gifts may be accepted by thee : let the sacraments which we have received , we beseech thee , be our saving defence , and through the merits of thy blessed martyr , st. martin interposing , absolve us from all sin. such is their service of the saints ; how agreeable to that duty we owe to god , or to the very pretences of monsieur de meaux , and the vindicator , let the world judg . article iv. images and reliques . in this article the vindicator takes notice , and that truly , of my complaining that the approved doctrine of their most reputed writers , should so much contradict what monsieur de meaux would have us think is their only design in that service . he tells us that properly speaking , according to the bishop of meaux's sense , and that of the council ; the image of the cross is to be lookt upon only as a representative , or memorative sign , which is therefore apt to put us in mind of jesus christ , who suffered upon the cross for us ; and the honour which we there shew , precisely speaking , and according to the ecclesiastical stile , is not properly to the cross , but to jesus christ represented by that cross. to this i opposed the doctrine of st. thomas , and the authority of their own rituals , to shew that they expresly adored the cross of christ , and not only jesus christ represented by that cross. in answer to the former of which , the doctrine of st. thomas , he tells me , that he is not to maintain every opinion held by the schools : that had i been sincere , i ought to have taken notice of the reason brought by st. thomas , and his followers ; which shews , that it is purely upon the account of jesus christ represented , and not upon the account of the cross it self , that he allows adoration to it . in short , he concludes the doctrine of st. thomas to be in effect the same with monsieur de meaux ' s exposition , that it is an adoration of jesus christ represented by the crucifix , but not an adoration of the crucifix it self . and the same is the account he gives of the pontifical , which he confesses admits of an adoration in the same sense . for the business of the pontifical , we shall see more particularly hereafter : in the mean time this short instance may serve to shew that his destinction is purely arbitrary . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ in the order of receiving an emperour , it is appointed , that if there be a legat present , his cross shall take the upper hand of the emperors sword , because a divine worship is due to it . † † † † † † as to st. thomas , he tells us only this , that the cross is not to be adored upon its own account , but either as it is the figure of christ crucified , or because it toucht his members when he was crucified upon it : that the wood of the true cross is to be worshipped with divine adoration upon both these accounts , but any other crucifix only upon the former . what does all this avail to the pretences of the vindicator ? it shews indeed st. thomas's grounds for his conclusion , but we are little concerned in them ; nor was it any unsincerity in me not to transcribe all his reveries . the conclusion he makes is plain and positive , and neither to be reconciled with the vindicator's fancy , nor to be eluded by his sophistry ; that the cross of christ is to be adored with divine adoration . what his reason is , we matter not ; sure we are , that no good one can be brought by him , or any body else , for it . the next argument i made use of was , that in the office of the benediction of a new cross , there are several passages which clearly shew , that they attribute such things to the cross , as are directly contrary to monsieur de meaux's pretences , as that they who bow down before it , may find health both of soul and body by it . this he cannot deny , but charges me with leaving out two words , that he says would have explain'd all , viz. propter deum , for the sake of god. it is very certain that i did leave out these words , as i did several others , i believe , as much to the purpose as these . but that i may shew how little reason there was for my expressing them , and to convince the world how clearly this passage charges them with adoring the cross , i will now propose it in its full length . in the form of consecrating a new cross ; first the bishop makes several prayers ; † † † † † † that god would bless this wood of the cross , that it may be a saving remedy to mankind ; an establishemnt of the faith ; for the increase of good works , and the redemption of souls ; a comfort and protection against the cruel darts of the enemy . after some other prayers to the same purpose ; the bishop blesses the incense , sprinkles the cross with holy water , and incenses it ; and then consecrates it in these words : * * * * * * let this wood be sanc † tified in the name of the fa † ther , and of the s † on , and of the holy ghost . let the blessing of that wood on which the members of our saviour were hanged , be in this present wood ; that as many as pray and bow down themselves [ for god ] before this cross , may find health both of soul and body , through the same jesus christ. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ then the bishop kneels down before the cross , and devoutly adores it , and kisses it . but if the cross be of any metal , or of precious stone , instead of the former prayer , the bishop is to say another : i shall transcribe only some part of it . after a long preamble , they beseech god , * * * * * * that he would sanc † tify to himself this cross , and bless it ; that our saviour christ would embrace this cross , [ which they consecrate ] as he did that [ on which he suffered ; ] and by the holiness of that , sanc † tify this : that as by that the world was redeemed from guilt , so the devout souls who offer it , may by the merits of this cross be freed from all the sins they have committed . * * * * * * then the bishop as before , kneeling down before the cross , devoutly adores it , and kisses it . i hope this length will not seem tedious to any who desire a true information of the doctrine and practice of the roman church in this matter . and i shall leave it to any one to judge what benefit those two words i omitted , could have brought to excuse such foul and notorious idolatry . for the rest of my citations , he passes them over so triflingly , as plainly shews he had nothing to say to them ; all the rest of his expressions , says he , drawn from the pontifical , are of the same nature ; either lame , or patch'd up from several places , and therefore if they make any thing against us , are not worthy our regarding . for monsieur de meaux , i shall only beg leave to remark this one thing ; that if the church of rome looks upon the cross only as a memorative sign ; to what end is all this consecration ; so many prayers shall i say , or rather magical incantations ? and how comes it to pass that a cross , without all this ado , is not as fit to call to mind jesus christ who suffered upon the cross , as after all this superstition , not to say any worse , in the dedication of it ? my third argument to prove that they adored the cross , was from their good fryday's service : and here i am again accused for not giving all the words of the church , and of adding somewhat that was not there , to make it speak my own sense . the words i cited are these , behold the wood of the cross , come , let us adore it . whereas their church intends not that we should adore it , i. e. the cross ; but come , let us adore , i. e. the saviour of the world that hung upon it . to judge aright of this cavil , and yet more expose their idolatry , i shall here give a just account from the missal , of the whole service of that day as to this point . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ * * * * * * the morning prayers being finished , the preist receives from the deacon a cross , standing ready on the altar for that purpose ; which he uncovers a little at the top , turning his face to the people , and begins this antiphona , behold the wood of the cross ; the people following the rest to come , let us adore ; at which all but the priest that officiates fall upon the ground . then the priest uncovers the right arm of the crucifix , and holding it up , begins louder than before , behold the wood of the cross , the rest singing and adoring as before . then finally the priest goes to the middle of the altar , and wholly uncovering the cross , and lifting it up , begins yet higher , behold the wood of the cross on which the saviour of the world hung , come , let us adore : the rest singing and adoring as before . this done , the priest alone carries the cross to a place prepared for it before the altar , and kneeling down , leaves it there . then he puts off his shoes , and draws near to adore the cross , bowing his knees three times before he kisses it : which done , he retires and puts on his shoes . after him the ministers of the altar , then the other clergy and laity , two and two , after the same manner , adore the cross . in the mean time while the cross is adoring , the quire sings several hymns ; one of which begins with these words , we adore thy cross , o lord. this is the service of that day . and now whether i had reason or no to apply , as i did , the adoration to the cross , let any reasonable man consider ; and whether i had not some cause to say then , what i cannot but here repeat again , that the whole solemnity of that days service plainly shews , that the roman church does adore the cross in the utmost propriety of the phrase . as for my last argument from the hymns of the church , he acknowledges the fact , but tells us , that these are poetical expressions ; and that the word cross , by a figure , sufficiently known to poets , fignifies jesus christ , to whom they pray in those hymns . i shall not ask the vindicator by what authority he sends us to the poets for interpreting the churches hymns : but if he pleases to inform us what that figure is which in the same place makes the cross to signify christ , in which it distinguishes christ from the cross ; and who those poets are to whom this figure is sufficiently known , he will oblige us . for that this is the case in very many of those hymns , is apparent : i shall instance only in one , and that so noted , that st. * * * * * * thomas , unacquainted it seems , as well as we , with this figure , concluded the adoration of the cross , to be the sense of their church from it . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ the banner of our king appears , the mystery of the cross shines , upon which the maker of our flesh was hanged in the flesh. beautiful and bright tree ! adorn'd with the purple of a king , chosen of a stock worthy to touch such holy members : blessed , upon whose arms , the price of the world hung . hail , o cross , our only hope ! in this time of the passion , encrease the righteousness of the just , and give pardon to the guilty . now by what figure to make the banner and the king the same ; the cross upon which the maker of our flesh hung , not different from that flesh that hung upon it ; the tree chosen of a stock worthy to touch christ's sacred members , the same with his sacred members ; what noted figure this is which is so well known to the poets , and yet has been so long concealed from us , that we are amazed at the very report of such a figure , and believe it next a kin to transubstantiation , the vindicator may please hereafter to inform us . in the point of reliques , the council of trent proceeded so equivocally , that the vindicator ought not to think it at all strange , if i endeavour'd more plainly to distinguish , what the ambiguity of their expressions had so much confounded . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ they , says the council , are to be condemned , who affirm that no veneration or honour is due to the reliques of saints . to this i replied , that honour them we do ; but that the council of trent requires more , not only to honour , but worship them too : so i render their venerari , whether well or ill is now the question . and first i observe , that in the very point before us , their own st. thomas gives the very same interpretation to the same word . for having proposed the question in these terms , whether the reliques of saints are to be adored ? he concludes it in the terms of the council , seeing we venerate the saints of god , we must also venerate their bodies and reliques . and again , in his second objection against this conclusion , he argues against the adoration of reliques thus ; it seems very foolish to venerate an insensible thing . to which he replies thus ; we do not adore the insensible thing for it self , &c. from all which it is beyond dispute evident , that by the veneration , thomas understood adoration of reliques . secondly , that it is the doctrine of their church , that reliques are to be adored , their greatest authors render it beyond denial evident . vasquez in his disputations upon thomas , tell us , it is , says he , among the [ pretended ] catholicks , a truth not to be doubted of , that the reliques of saints , whether they be any parts of them , as bones , flesh , or ashes ; or any other things that have touched them , or belonged to them , ought to be adored . and in conclusion says , that he has proved against hereticks , that reliques are to be adored : and this too in answer to the question proposed in the very terms of the council , whether the bodies , and other reliques of saints ought to be venerated ? nor is this a scholastic tenet , or to be put off with an impropriety of speech . the messieurs du port royal , are by all allow'd to have been some of the most learned men of their church , that this last age has produced ; and too great criticks in the french tongue , to use any expressions subject to ambiguity , which , that language so particularly avoids . the word adore in french is much more rarely used to signify in general any honour or veneration , than in the latine ; yet these very men , in one of their treatises publish'd by them , ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ of the miracles of the holy thorne , use this word to express the veneration they thought due to them . thus speaking of one of the religious that was troubled with the palsie , she was carry'd , say they , to the port royal to adore the holy thorne . of another , that having adored the holy thorne , she was relieved of her infirmity . they boast of the great multitudes that frequented their church to adore the holy thorne . and in one of their prayers which they teach their votaries to say before it , we adore thy crown , o lord. and now i suppose it is from all these instances sufficiently evident , that i had reason to interpret uenerari in the council , by worship in my exposition . as for the other thing he charges me with ; that referring to the words of the council i should make it say , that these sacred monuments are not unprofitably revered , but are to be sought unto for the obtaining of their help and assistance : whereas indeed the council's meaning is , to obtain the help and assistance of the saints , not the reliques : this is not my invention , but his own cavil ; and his citation of the words of the council a trick to deceive those who understand it only in his translation . for whereas he renders it , so that they who affirm , that no veneration or honour is due to the reliques of saints , or that those reliques and other sacred monuments are unprofitably honoured by the faithful ; or that they do in vain frequent the memories of the saints , to the end they may obtain their aid ( the aid of the saints , eorum ) are to be condemned . he has indeed transposed the latin , on purpose to raise a dust , and deceive his reader ; the true order being plainly as i before rendred it ; * * * * * * so that they who shall affirm , that no worship or honour is due to the reliques of saints ; or that these and the like sacred monuments , are unprofitably honoured ; and that for the obtaining of their help ( the help of these sacred monuments , eorum ) the memories of the saints are unprofitably frequented , are to be condemned . this is the true sense of the council ; and for the instances i added for the explication of it , they are the same by which their own catechism excites them to this worship , and every day 's experience shews how zealously the people follow these reliques , in order to these ends. article v. of justification . how far the true doctrine of justification was over-run with such abuses , as i mention'd , at the beginning of the reformation , he must be very ignorant in the histories of those times that needs to be informed . i do not at all wonder that the vindicator denies these things , who knows very well how far the interest of his church is concerned in it . but sure i am , a confident denial , which is all the proof he brings , will satisfy none but those , who think themselves obliged to receive the tradition of their church , with the same blindness in matters of fact , that they are required to do it in points of faith. as to the present article before us , two things there are that he doubts i shall be hardly put to prove . one , that it is the doctrine of our church to distinguish between justification and sanctification ; tho the th and th articles of our church do clearly imply it ; and our * * * * * * homily of salvation , in express words interpret justification , to be the forgiveness of sins . the other , that i impose upon them , as if they made their inward righteousness a part of justification , and so by consequence said , that their justification it self was wrought by their own good works . as to the former part of which imposition , as he calls it , 't is the very definition of the council of trent ; † † † † † † by justification is to be understood , not only remission of sins , but sanctification , and the renewing of the inward man : insomuch that in their th canon they damn all such as dare to deny it : ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ if any one shall say that men are justified , either by the alone imputation of christ's righteousness , or only by the remission of sins , excluding grace and charity , which is diffused in our hearts by the holy ghost , and inheres in them , or that the grace by which we are justified is only the favour of god ; let him be anathema . and for the other point , that they esteem their justification to be wrought , not only by christ's merits , but also by their own good works ; the can. of the same session , is a sufficient proof , where an anathema is denounced against him who shall assert , * * * * * * the good works of a justified person to be so the gift of god , that they are not also the merits of the same justified person ; or that he being justified by the good works which are performed by him through the grace of god , and merits of jesus christ , whose living member he is , does not truly merit increase of grace and eternal life . now if those words truly merit , do signify that our good works do in their own nature merit a reward , then it must be confess'd , that our justification is wrought by them . if they say that they are therefore only meritorious , because accompanied with the infinite merits of christ ; what can be more improper than to affirm , that that which in its own nature has nothing of merit , should truly merit only because something which has infinite merit goes along with it . it would certainly be more reasonable in the church of rome , if they do indeed believe what these men seem to grant , that good works are not in themselves meritorious , instead of affirming that they do truly merit eternal life , to confess with us that they have no merit at all in them ; but yet through the infinite merits of our blessed redeemer , shall , according to god's promises , have a most ample reward bestowed on them . article vi. of merits . it ought not to be wondred at , if to shew the true doctrine of the church of rome as to the point of merits , i recurr'd , not to the niceties of the schools , but the exposition of their greatest men ; and whose names were neither less , nor less deservedly celebrated in their generations , than monsieur de meaux's , or the vindicators can be now . the council of trent has spoken so uncertainly in this point , as plainly shews they either did not know themselves what they would establish , or were unwilling that others should . let the vindicator think what he pleases of these men , and their opinions , we shall still believe them as able expositors of the council of trent , as any that have ever undertaken it : and whoso shall compare what they say , with what the council has defined , will find it at least as agreeable to it , as any of those new inventions that have been started since . the doctrine of merits , establish'd by the council , in the canon i but now cited , is clearly this ; that the good works of a justified person are not so the gift of god , that they are not also the merits of the same justified person ; that being justified by the grace of god , and merits of jesus christ , he do's then truly merit both encrease of grace , and eternal life : in a word , the point of merit , as we now consider it , amounts to this , whether we do truly and properly merit by our own good works ? or , whether whatsoever we receive , be not a reward that is given us only through god's acceptance , and promise in christ jesus ? this we affirm , they the other ; and whether the testimonies i produced for the further clearing of their doctrine do prove it or no , is now to be enquired by us . st , ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ maldonate is express , and the vindicator's exception utterly impertinent to us , who dispute not the principle , but merit of good works : it is very clear , says he , that there is in us an inherent , as they call it , and proper justice of our own , tho proceeding from the grace and bounty of god ; and that we do as truly and properly when we do well , through god's grace , merit rewards , as we do deserve punishment when , without this grace , we do ill. dly , for bellarmine : † † † † † † the title of his chapter , cited by me , the vindicator says is something towards the sence i give it : he would more honestly have said , is word for word the translation of it : viz. that our good works do merit [ eternal life ] condignly , not only by reason of god's covenant and acceptation , but also by reason of the work it self . * * * * * * this is his position : for the explication of it , he tells us , that a merit of condignity may be vary'd three ways . for , st , if the work to be performed should be very much less than the hire promised by the agreement ; as if the lord of the vineyard instead of a penny , should have promised the labourers a hundred pound a day for their work : this would be a merit of condignity upon the account of the agreement , or covenant . and this he thinks too little for our good works , and condemns scotus for holding , x x x x x x that the works of just men are truly and properly good , but not so excellent as to bear a proportion to eternal life : and therefore that they are indeed accepted of god to a just and worthy reward of eternal life , but only by the covenant and promise of god , not for the dignity of the work it self . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ another sort of condignity is , when the work is equal , or perhaps greater than the reward , but there is no covenant that the reward shall be given to it ; this is condignity upon the account of the work , not the covenant . and such cajetan , and soto , esteemed our good works ; * * * * * * meritorius of eternal life upon the account of the work it self , tho there were no covenant that they should be accepted . this also he rejects . † † † † † † a third sort of condignity is , if there be both a covenant , and that the work be truly equal to the reward : as when the labourers were hired for the vineyard at a penny a day . and thus it is with our good works ; not that , without any covenant , the good work does not bear a proportion to the reward of eternal life ; but because , without the covenant , god would not be bound to accept the good work , in order to that reward , tho otherwise even or equal to it . this is so plain an account of their doctrine of merits , and so clearly given us as the sense of the council of trent , that i hope the length of it will be excused by every one but the vindicator ; who possibly does not desire that the council should be so freely expounded , as bellarmine here has done it . but vasquez goes yet further : ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ st , he rejects the opinion of bellarmine , as too little for their good works : and then proposes his own in the * * * * * * three conclusions mentioned by me ; to which i must refer the reader , and leave him to judg , whether the little exceptions the vindicator has made , be sufficient to excuse the doctrine of them . all i have now to observe is , that the third conclusion , which the vindicator complains he could not find , is the very subject of the chapter to which i refer him ; and which he could not well overlook , having found the second but in the foregoing : and for the rest , that vasquez to take away all doubt of his opinion , does largely shew that it is no way contrary to the council of † † † † † † trent , but rather a true and natural exposition of it . article vii . §. . of satisfactions . if the † † † † † † council of trent has express'd it self in such terms , as do plainly ascribe to our endeavours a true and proper satisfaction , whatever monsieur de meaux or his vindicator expound to the contrary , we are not to be blamed for charging them with it . 't is not enough to say , that they believe christ to have made an intire satisfaction for sin , and that the necessity of that paiment which they require us to make for our selves , does not arise from any defect in that , but from a certain order which god has established for a salutary discipline , and to keep us from offending . if christ has made an intire satisfaction for us ; i am sure it must be very improper , if not altogether untrue , to say , that we can make any for our selves . if god indeed has establish'd any such order as they pretend , let them shew it to us in scripture : otherwise we shall never believe that god's justice does at all require it , since for the insinite merits of a crucified saviour , that has made an infinite satisfaction to his justice , he may as well forgive temporal as eternal punishment . that * * * * * * bellarmine has taught , that it is we who properly satisfy for our own sins , and that christ's satisfaction serves only to make ours valid . had the vindicator been ingenuous , he would not have thought it sufficient to answer with the error of the press , but have look'd into the place where it indeed was , c. . of that book . that both * * * * * * he and † † † † † † others of their communion , have taught it as the doctrine of their church , that we can make a true and proper satisfaction for sin , is beyond denial evident ; and it has before been said , that the council of trent approves their doctrine . but that protestants ever assigned this , or any other single point as the cause of our separating from their communion ; that we ever taught that any thing at all should be given to a sinner , for saying a bare lord have mercy upon me ; much less more than they pretend to give by all the plenary indulgences of their church ; this is so shameful a calumny , that i am confident the vindicator himself never believed it . for his last remark , if it deserves any answer , that i reflect upon the bishop of meaux , for bringing only , we suppose , to establish this doctrine , when yet very often i do no more my self ; i have only this to say , that i believe he can hardly find any one instance wherein that is the only argument i bring for our doctrine : not to add , that possibly it would not be very unreasonable to look upon that as sufficient , not to receive their innovations , till they can bring us some better arguments to prove that we ought to quit our supposition . they who pretend to impose such things as these , are the persons on whom the proof will lie ; 't is enough for us to reject them , that we cannot find any footsteps of them , either in scripture or antiquity ; and have good reason to believe , by the weakness of their attempts , that there are not any . article vii . §. . of indulgences . for indulgences , the vindicator thinks it sufficient to answer all the difficulties i proposed , to confess that some abuses have crept in ; that there are indeed many practices in the church of rome , different from that of the primitive church ; but these being neither necessary , nor universally received , he will not quarrel with us about them . but are not these abuses still cherish'd in his church ? does not the pope still dispatch them abroad , and his missionaries preach them now as shamefully almost , as when luther first rose against them ? is it not necessary , nor universally received , to believe that these indulgences satisfy for the temporal pain of sin ? do they not put up bills over their church doors and altars , almost every sunday , to vend them on this account ? is not his holiness still esteem'd the churches treasurer ? and has he not but very lately sent a † † † † † † universal indulgence throughout their whole church ? when these things are considered , i doubt it will little avail the vindicator to put me in mind of my promise , that whenever the penances shall be reduced to their primitive practice , we shall be ready to give or receive such an indulgence as monsieur de meaux has described , and as those first ages of the church allow'd of . purgatory . §. . what i have said as to the design of the primitive christians in praying for the dead , would have deserved either an ingenuous acknowledgment of the truth of it , or some reasonable proof of its falseness or impertinence . we cannot but suspect that he was hard put to it for arguments , when all the reason he brings us for the belief of purgatory , is built upon the authority of two councils , neither of which are very much esteemed by us ; and the eldest of them years after christ. if the vindicator has any thing of moment to offer for it , he shall not fail of a just consideration . otherwise 't will be as foolish as it is false , to pretend to tell the world , that we make a breach in the church , and condemn antiquity upon no other grounds , than a bare supposition that it is injurious to the merits of jesus christ ; and which has no other proof than our own presumption . part ii. article viii . of the sacraments in general . as to the number of the sacraments , the vindicator confesses that it is not to be found , either in scripture or antiquity . he thinks it sufficient that the scripture mentions an exteriour ceremony , and an interiour grace annexed thereunto . he should then have shewn us that all those seven which they receive , have at least such an outward sign as he pretends , and an inward grace , by christ's institution , annex'd to it . and this so much the rather , for that no one of his church has yet been able to do it , tho the council of trent damns all those that dare to deny it . article ix . of baptism . we do not complain of the church of rome , for not believing that infants dying unbaptised are certainly saved : but we must , and do complain of monsiur de meaux , for declaring so positively , what we judge to be at least as uncertain as it is uncharitable , that they have not any part in christ. if i argued for the more favourable side , i confess'd at least that the church of england had determined nothing concerning it ; but that i went about to justify a breach with the church of rome on this account , is a calumny as great , as the little reflection of huguenot or puritan , before was ridiculous . that he should be astonish'd to hear a church of england man argue for this point , shews how little acquainted he ever was with the writers of it : i shall mention only two , who i believe were never suspected as puritanically inclined , and yet have argued much more strongly than ever i could have done for it : one the venerable and judicious ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ mr. hooker in his eccles. polity . lib. . sect. . the other the learned arch-bishop bramhall in a set discourse , which he thus concludes , this i take to be the doctrine of the soundest english divines , and which i believe to be the truth : saving always my canonical obedience to my spiritual mother the church of england , and in a higher degree to the catholick church , when it shall declare it self in a true and free oecomenical council . but neither i , nor any protestants , do believe that the church of rome , including all other churches of that patriarchate , or of its communion , is that catholick church . for the rest , whether his arguments or mine on this point are the better , i am but little concerned , tho he be very much . that which seemed the most to deserve an answer , he has thought fit wholly to pass by , viz. that several of his own authors had maintained the same with me ; and i persume he will not say were puritans or huguenots for their so doing . but that the world may see with what rashness these men talk , i will now be yet more express ; that whereas mr. de meaux , affirms that this denyal of salvation to infants dying unbaptized , was a truth which never any one before calvin durst openly call in question , it was so firmly rooted in the minds of all the faithful . this is so notoriously false , that not only the most learned of their own ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ church as i proved before , but the very * * * * * * fathers themselves , have many of them declared for this doctrine ; even st. * * * * * * augustine himself not excepted , till his dispute with pelagius provoked him to deny that , which in his cooler thoughts , he had more reasonably allow'd before . article x. of confirmation . in the article of confirmation , i affirm'd that several of their own party had deny'd the divine institution of this pretended sacrament ; and that neither the council of trent , or their catechism , had offered any thing to prove it . the vindicator replies , that my confession that the apostles used imposition of hands , and that when our bishops after their examples do the like , and pray for the blessing of the holy spirit upon us , we piously hope that their prayers are heard ; is a sufficient proof of an outward visible sign , of an inward and spiritul grace . had i indeed affirm'd that the apostles had instituted this imposition of hands , to be continu'd in the church , and promised that the grace of the holy ghost should certainly descend at their doing of it , for all those great ends our prayers design ; this might have made confirmation look somewhat like a sacrament to us. but to argue from a meer indifferent ceremony , continued only in imitation of the apostles , and to which no blessing is ascribed that may not equally be allow'd to any other the like prayer ; and then cry out that this must needs argue the divine institution of it , because none but god can promise grace to an outward sign , this is in effect to confess that there is nothing at all to be said for it . it is wonderful to see with what confidence those of the church of rome , urge the apostles imposition of hands for proof of confirmation , as it is now practised amongst them ; in which there is not any the least resemblance . our bishops lay on hands after their example : but for theirs , they anoint , make crosses in the forehead , tie a fillet about their heads , give them a box on the ear , &c. for which there is neither promise , precept , nor example of the apostles : but for imposition of hands , the only thing they did , this they have resolved to be but an ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ accidental ceremony , and accordingly have in their * * * * * * practice wholly laid it by . article xi . of penance . that penance is not truly and properly a sacrament , nor was ever esteemed so by the primitive church , i at large proved in my exposition of it : and the vindicator has not in his reply advanced any one thing to answer the objections that were brought against it . he allows publick confession to have been a part of discipline only , and alterable at pleasure ; but then affirms that either publick or private was always necessary ; and this we are to take of him upon his own word . in short , he repeats the sum of their doctrine to us ; and then , as if he had done his business , this , says he , we have always held and practised , and this we affirm to be conformable to the practice of the most antient and orthodox churches ; and adds , that he is astonish'd at our rejection of it . all which stuff is easily said , and may with the same ease and reasonableness be deny'd . and therefore to conclude this in a word ; if ever he gets so well out of his astonishment , as to come to his reason again , and will then undertake to prove penance to be truly and properly a sacrament , instituted by christ , and necessary to salvation , either in act or desire , he shall not fail of an ingenuous reply to his arguments . in the mean time , i have before shewn , that we do practise it , as far as is either necessary or convenient ; and farther than this we shall not think our selves bound to go , till we are somewhat better convinced of our obligations to it , than the vindicator has hitherto been willing or able to do . article xii . of extreme unction . in explaining the words of st. james brought for this pretended sacrament , i follow'd the interpretation which both the practice of the primitive church naturally leads to ; and which cardinal cajetan confesses , and their own publick liturgies shew , was for above years esteem'd the undoubted meaning of them . the vindicator , from bellarmine , advances many things , as he supposes , contrary to this exposition ; but the greatest part of which are utterly false , the rest impertinent . the grace of curing the sick , he says , was not given to all priests and elders alike , but only to some select persons . if this be true , it was then best like st. james's intention , that they should send for those priests to whom it was given . and however some others might have this grace , yet certainly it was principally at least given to the priests and elders , for the honour and benefit of their ministry . these did not only cure the sick , but the lame and the blind . and therefore he would , i suppose , have had st. james taken notice of these two . he might have added the dead likewise ; for those who healed the lame and the blind , raised the dead also . but what if st. james's word be * * * * * * general , and may very well be extended to all these ? yet since these gifts were but rare in the church , in respect of that the apostle here speaks of , and did evidently belong to a greater power , we deny his supposition , that those who ordinarily cured the sick by anointing , had also the power to heal the lame and the blind . their power of miracles was not tied to unction only : but yet since we find in st. mark that this was the ordinary sign , what wonder if st. james describe it by that which was the most common and frequent amongst them ? all those that were anointed , were not cured . this is false , and cannot be maintain'd without dishonour to that spirit by which they acted : neither had all they that were cured by them who had the gift of healing , any assurance by that cure of the forgiveness of their sins . this again is false : the sin here promised to be forgiven , is that for which the sickness was sent , if it was sent for any : now st. james expresly promises , that in this case , whenever the health of the body was restored , this sin should be forgiven too ; and therefore it must be false to say it was not . he adds , lastly , that st. james promises , that the prayer of faith shall save the sick , and the lord shall raise him up : which if it had been meant of bodily health , those only would have died in the apostle's time , who either neglected this advice , or whose deaths prevented the accomplishment of this ceremony . and if it must be understood of the soul's health , then it will follow that none were damned , either then or now , but what neglect this advice , or whose deaths prevent the accomplishment of this ceremony ; concerning the truth of which the vindicator may please to give us his opinion . but the vanity of this objection proceeds from the want of a true notion of the nature of these gifts . they who had the greatest measure of them , could not yet exercise them when they would . the same spirit that helped them to perform the miracle , instructed them also when they should do it . so that they never attempted it , but when they saw the sick person had faith to be healed , and that it would be for the greater glory of god to do it . st. paul had doubtless this gift of healing ; and yet he neither cured timothy of the weakness of his stomach , and his other frequent infirmities ; and left trophimus at miletum sick . that this gift of healing was in the church at this time , is not to be doubted , though this place should not belong to it . will the vindicator argue against this , that then none died till it went out of the church , but such as refused the benefit of it , or died suddenly before they had time to do it ? it may appear by this , how little they have to object against the true design and interpretation of thi● passage : for cardinal cajetan's authority , the vindicator tells us , that had i said only , that he thought it could not be proved , neither from the words , nor the effect , that st. james speaks of the sacramental unction of extreme unction ; but rather of that unction which our lord jesus instituted in the gospel to be exercised by his disciples upon the sick , i had been a faithful quoter of his sense : but to tell us he freely confesses it can belong to no other , is to impose upon him and the readers . as if when two things only are in controversy for the cardinal , absolutely to exclude the one , and apply it to the other , were not in effect ( for i design'd not to translate his words ) to confess , that it could belong only to that . but that which is most considerable is , that the antient liturgies of the church , and the publick practice of it , for above years , shew , that they esteemed this unction to belong primarily to bodily cures , and but secondarily only to the sickness of the soul. and because these rituals are not in every bodies hands , to argue at once the truth of my assertion , and shew how little conversant the vindicator has been in them , i will here insert some particular proofs of it . upon the thursday in the holy week , when this oil was wont to be consecrated , they did it with this prayer : ex s. gregorii libr. sacram. p. . fer. . post palm . emitte domine spiritum s. tuum paraclitum de coelis in hanc pinguedidem olivae , quem de viridi ligno producere dignatus es ; ad refectionem corporis ; ut tuâ sanctâ benedictione sit omni hoc unguentum tangenti tutamen mentis & corporis , ad evacuandos omnes dolores , omnesque infirmitates , omnem aegritudinem corporis . that by this blessing it might become the defence both of the mind and body ; to cure all pains and infirmities , and sickness of the body : nothing else mentioned . in the office of visiting the sick , several introductory prayers , all for the bodies recovery , are first said : such as this , pag. , &c. ad visit and. infirm . p. . deus qui famulo tuo hezekiae ter quinos annos ad vitam donâsti , ita & famulum tuum n. à lecto aegritudinis tua potentia erigat ad salutem . per. o god , who didst add to the life of thy servant hezekiah fifteen years , let thy power in like manner raise up this thy servant from his bed of sickness . through &c. some of these being said , the priest goes on thus : domine deus , qui per apostolum locutus es , infirmatur quis in vobis , inducat presbyteros ecclesiae & orent super eum ungentes eum oleo sancto in nomine domini , &c. cura quaesumus redemptor noster gratiâ spiritûs sancti languores istius infirmi : & sua sana vulnera , ejusque dimitte peccata , atque dolores cunctos cordis & corporis expelle , plenamque & interius exteriúsque sanitatem miserecorditer redde : ut ope miserecordiae tuae restitutus & sanatus , ad pristina pietatis tuae reparetur officia ; per &c. o lord god , who by thy apostle hast said , if any man be sick , let him call for the elders of the church , and let them pray over him , anointing him with oil in the name of the lord , &c : cure we beseech thee , o our redeemer , by the grace of the holy spirit , the sickness of this infirm person : heal his wounds , and forgive his sins , and expel all the pains , both of his heart , and of his body ; and restore him mercifully to full health , both inward and outward : that being by thy merciful aid recovered and healed , he may be strengthned to the former duties of thy service ; through &c. then the sick person kneels down upon the right hand of the priest , and this antiphona is sung : dominus locutus est discipulis suis , in nomine meo daemonia ejicite , & super infirmos manus vestras imponite & bene habebunt . psalm . deus deorum dominus locutus est : et repetit , in nomine meo &c. the lord said unto his disciples , in my name cast out devils ; and lay your hands upon the sick and they shall recover . then the psalm , the lord , the mighty god , hath spoken , &c. after which they repeat again : in my name &c. as before . then follows this prayer . oremus dominum nostrum jesum christum , & cum omni supplicatione rogemus , ut hunc famulum suum n. per angelum sanctum suum visitare , laetificare , & confortare dignetur . let us pray unto our lord jesus christ , and beseech him with all supplication , that he would vouchsafe , by his holy angel , to visit , make glad , and comfort this his servant . afterwards this antiphona . succurre domine infirmo isti n. & medica eum spirituali medicamine , ut in pristinâ sanitate restitutus , gratiarum tibi sanus referat actiones . succour , o lord , this infirm person n. and heal him with a spiritual medicine , that being restored to his former health , when he is well , he may return thanks unto thee . then follows another psalm , and after it this antiphona : sana domine infirmum istum cujus ossa turbata sunt , & cujus anima turbata est valdè : sed tu domine convertere , & sana eum , & eripe animam ejus . heal , o lord , this sick person whose bones are troubled , and whose soul is very much afflicted : but turn thou , o lord , and heal him , and deliver his soul. after this is said the th psalm , from whence the antiphona was taken ; which being ended , they anoint the sick person in several parts , but especially in that where the pain lies ; saying this prayer : inungo te de oleo sancto in nomine patris , & filii , & spiritùs sancti : ut non lateat in te spiritus immundus , neque in membris , neque in medullis , neque in nullâ compagine membrorum ; sed in te habitet virtus christi altissimi & spiritûs sancti ; quatenus per hujus operationem mysterii , atque per hanc sacrati olei unctionem , atque nostram deprecationem , virtute sanctae trinitatis medicatus sive fotus , pristinam & immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem : per eundem . i anoint thee with this holy oil , in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost ; that no unclean spirit may remain in thee , but that the vertue of the most highest of christ , and the holy ghost may dwell in thee : to the end that by the operation of this mysterie , and through the unction of this holy oil , and our prayers , thou may'st be healed and restored by the vertue of the holy trinity , and receive thy former and better health , through the same . then follows this prayer . domine deus salvator noster , qui es vera salus & medicina , à quo omnis sanitas & medicamentum venit , quique nos apostoli documento instruis ut languentes olei liquore orantes tangeremus , respice propitius super hunc famulum tuum n. & quem languor curvat ad exitum , & virium defectus trahit ad occasum , medela tuae gratiae restituat in salutem . sana quoque quaesumus omnium medicator ejus febrium , & cunctorum languorum cruciatus , aegritudinemque , & dolorum omnium dissolve tormenta , viscerúmque ac cordium interna medica : medullorum quoque & cogitationum : sana discrimina ulcerum , vanitatumque putredines evacua , conscientiarumque atque plagarum obducito cicatrices veteres , immensásque remove passiones : carnis ac sanguinis materiam reforma , delictorúmque cunctorum veniam tribue ; sicque illum tua pietas jugiter custodiat , ut nec ad correptionem aliquando sanitas , nec ad perditionem nunc , te auxiliante , perducat infirmitas ; sed fiat illi haec olei sacri perunctio , morbi & languoris praesentis expulsio , atque peccatorum omnium optata remissio : per dominum nostrum . o lord god our saviour , who art the true health and medicine , and from whom all health and medicine doth proceed : who also , by the instruction of thy holy apostle hast taught us , that we should anoint the sick with oil , look down we beseech thee in mercy upon this thy servant n : and whom his weakness has brought down to death , and the decay of his strength draws towards his end , let the power of thy grace restore to health : heal , we beseech thee , his feavours , &c. — and let the holy unction of this oil be the expulsion of his present sickness and infirmity , and the remission of all his sins : through . then let the priest give him the communion of the body and blood of christ : and if occasion be , let them repeat this seven days ; and the lord shall raise him up ; and i f he be in sins , they shall be remitted . the priest ought also to say the morning and evening service every day to the sick person , adding the hymn ; ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ christe coelestis medicina patris ; which is a prayer entirely for the recovery of the bodily health . this was the method of their unction in pope gregory's missal ; and which i suppose shews that it had somewhat more than a bare respect to bodily cures ; indeed was , as i before affirm'd , especially designed for them . it were an easy matter to shew the very same to be the practice of the greek church at this day ; insomuch that * * * * * * arcudius himself could not dissemble it : but i shall close this with one observation more which † † † † † † cassander has given us , that it was anciently the custom to anoint , not only the elder persons , but even infants , after the same manner ; not sure for the forgiveness of those remains of sin which the former sacraments had not sufficiently cleared , but for the same end for which they then did all others , the recovery of their bodily health . article xiii . of marriage . that marriage is not a sacrament truly and properly so called , as the council of trent has defined it , their own authors sufficiently shew . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ lombard denies that there is any grace conferr'd in it , and affirms it as a † † † † † † sacrament , to have been instituted not only before christ , but even before the fall ; and therefore was not cited , either for ostentation , or for the silly reason mention'd by the vindicator . * * * * * * durandus in express terms declares , that forasmuch as it neither confers grace where it is not , nor encreases it where it is , it cannot be a sacrament truly and properly so called . it is therefore evidently false to say , that lombard is against me in this matter ; and for the torrent of fathers and † † † † † † scriptures which he talks of , it would have been more to this purpose to have produced their authorities , than thus vainly to boast of that which we certainly know he is not able to perform . article xiv . of holy orders . if the vindicator be truly agreed with me in this article , he must then renounce the number of his seven sacraments . i deny'd that there was any sign instituted by christ , to which his grace is annexed : all the authority imposition of hands has in scripture , being only the example of three or four places , where it was practised indeed , but no where commanded . i affirm'd that several of his own church had declared it not to be essential to holy orders , nor by consequence the outward sign of a sacrament in them . in a word , i said , that the grace conferr'd was no justifying grace , nor by consequence such as is requisite to make a true and proper sacrament : to all which he has thought fit not to offer one word in answer . article , , , . of the eucharist . as to the business of the eucharist , i had not entred on any argument about it , had not monsieur de meaux here thought fit to lay aside the character of an expositor , to assume that of a disputant . for the words of institution , which are the principal part of this controversy , i proposed two arguments to confirm the interpretation which our church gives of them : one from the the natural import of the words themselves ; the other from the intention of our saviour in the institution of this holy sacrament - to the former of these the vindicator thought he could answer somewhat ; but for the latter , it has been urged chiefly since bellarmine's time , and so our author had nothing to say to it . for the former then he tells us , first , of the insincerity of my attacque ; that the bishop declared there was nothing in the words of institution obliging them to take them in a figurative sense ; to which i oppose only , that there are such grounds in them for a figurative interpretation , as naturally lead to it . 't is true , i have not here used the very word obliged , but yet in my proof i proceed upon such grounds as i said would necessarily require a figurative interpretation ; which is much the same thing . and though i cannot tell what will oblige him to take those words in their true , i. e. figurative sense ; yet if i have proved , that there are such grounds in those words as naturally , indeed necessarily lead to it ; any reasonable man would think , that joyn'd with the other proof from the reason of the thing it self , might be sufficient to oblige him to acquiesce in it . but we will examine his process , which whether it argues more my unsincerity , or the falseness of their interpretation , i shall leave it to the reader to judg . first ; he confesses , as to my first position , that the words themselves do naturally lead to a figurative interpretation . no body , says he , ever deny'd but the words as they lie ( without considering the circumstances and practice of the church , delivering the interpretation of them down to us ) might possibly lead to a figurative interpretation : seeing the like expressions are frequently found in scripture : as for example , i am a door , i am a vine , &c. which being always taken by the church in a figurative sense , we should esteem him a mad-man that should think it possible after this , to perswade all the world they ought to be taken in a literal . and as it would be a madness to suppose all mankind might in future ages be so sottish , as to renounce this figurative interpretation of jesus christ's being a dore , and a vine , and fall so far into the literal sense , as to believe him to be substantially present in them , and pay the utmost adorations to him there , set them up in temples to be adored , and celebrate feasts in honour of them ; ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ so we cannot but think it to be irrational to imagine , that if the disciples and whole church in all nations , had been once taught these words , this is my body , were to be taken in a figurative sense , it could ever have happen'd that the visible church in all nations , should agree to teach their children the literal , &c. the meaning of which discourse , if i understand it aright , is this concession , that the words of institution do in themselves as naturally lead to a figurative interpretation , as those other expressions , i am a vine , i am a door : and the only thing which makes the difference is , that the church , as he supposes , has from the beginning interpreted the one according to the letter , the other in a figurative acceptation . secondly , as to my argument , that if the relative this , in that proposition , this is my body , referr'd to the bread which our saviour held in his hand , the natural repugnancy there is betwixt the two things affirmed of one another , bread and christ's body will necessarily require the figurative interpretation . this * * * * * * bellarmine , † † † † † † gratian , and others do confess , and the vindicator himself seems contented with it : only he believes , that all my logic will never be able to prove that the pronoun this must necessarily relate to ( panis ) * * * * * * bread , and not to ( corpus ) body . how far my logic has been able to do this , i must leave it to others to determine ; but for the vindicator's satisfaction , i do assure him , that bellarmine looks upon it to be good logic. and because it is in the middle of the citation i referred to , and which he has almost intirely transcribed , excepting only the part i am now speaking of , i will not charge him with unsincerity in the omission , but i must needs say 't was indiscreet to put the issue of the question upon what his cardinal had so freely confessed : † † † † † † the lord , says he , took bread in his hands , and blessed it , and gave it to his disciples , and said of it , this is my body : therefore he took bread , and blessed bread , and gave bread to his disciples , and said of bread , this is my body . and in ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ another place , arguing against this very opinion of the vindicator , that this in that proposition belongs to body , not the bread which he held in his hand ; says , that if a man points with his finger to a thing whilst he utters a pronoun demonstrative , 't were absurd to say that any thing else should be referred to , but that thing . our lord took bread , and reaching it out to them , said , take , eat , this is my body ; he seems to have pointed to the bread ; and therefore must have shewn some certain thing , even before the other words were pronounced . from which put together , i think we may frame this argument : if the relative this , in that proposition , this is my body , belong to the bread , so that the meaning is , this bread is my body , then it must be understood figuratively , or 't is plainly absurd and impossible : but the relative this in that proposition , this is my body , does belong to the bread , forasmuch as christ took bread , and blessed bread , and gave bread to his disciples , and therefore said of bread , this is my body : therefore that proposition , this is my body , must be understood figuratively , or 't is plainly absurd and impossible . how far the vindicator will approve this logick , i cannot tell ; but the first proposition is their common concession , and he himself seems contented with it . the second is bellarmine's own grant , nay what he contends for , and indeed what the connexion of the words do evidently require : and then for the conclusion , i believe a very little logick will be enough at any time to make good the sequel of it . but the vindicator has an exception against all this , and tells us , that it will all argue nothing against them , unless i beg the question , and suppose that no real change was made by those words . i presume it is as much a begging of the question for him to suppose there was , as for me that there was not . we do not now enquire how to expound the proposition , supposing there were such a change made as they imagine ; but the question is , whether these words do necessarily imply any such change , nay , rather do not oblige us to take them in a figurative sense to shew that there is none ? however he is resolved he will suppose the question first , and then prove it , tho' i must not . we will suppose , says he , and that not incongruously , that our blessed saviour in changing the water into wine , might have made use of these words this is wine , or let this be wine . i hope he does not look upon these two to be one and the same . but in short , if our saviour had said let this be wine , the meaning must have been , let this which is now water become wine . if he had said , this is wine , and the conversion not yet made , it would have been false : if after the conversion , no more than this , this that is contained in these pots is wine ; or , this which before was water , now is wine . and so in the point before us ; had our blessed saviour said , let this be my body , and a conversion had been thereupon as truly made , as of the water into wine , we should have made no doubt , but that it was a command for that which before was bread to become his body . if we take the words as they are , this is my body , and no conversion made before they were pronounced , the proposition in the literal sense must plainly be false . if a real conversion had first been made , as when the water was turned into wine , then would it signifie no more than this , this which before was bread , is now my body . so that all this will as little avail him , as he says the other did us , unless he also beg the question , and suppose a real change made by these words , which he knows is the very thing which we deny ; as we shall have reason to do , till they can prove that what , we are sure , was bread , is converted into the body of christ. and thus much for his disputing ; before he enters on an examination of those authorities i produced to shew the novelty and uncertainty of trans-substantiation , he is willing to state the case , and to that end would fain know what we mean when we say , that christ is not corporeally present in this sacrament : or how that which is not the thing it self , is yet more than a meer figure of it . in answer to which , i shall need seek no farther than those testimonies i before alledged out of the publick acts of our church to satisfie him . our catechism affirms , that the inward part , or thing signified in this holy supper , is the body and blood of christ , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lords-supper : and the meaning of it our th ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ article expounds thus ; the body of christ is given , taken , and eaten in the lord's supper , only after a spiritual and heavenly manner ; and the means by which this is done , is faith . so that to such as rightly , and worthily , and with faith receive the same , the bread which we break , is , as st. paul declares it , the communion of the body of christ , and the cup of blessing which we bless , the communion of the blood of christ. in a word ; we say , that the faithful do really partake of christs body after such a manner , as those who are void of faith cannot , tho' they may participate the outward elements alike ; whom therefore our church declares , * * * * * * to receive only the sacrament of the body and blood of christ , but to be no way partakers of christ ; but rather as st. paul again says , to eat and drink their own damnation , not discerning the lords body . * * * * * * these are the words of our church ; and the meaning is clearly this : christ is really present in this sacrament , inasmuch as they who worthily receive it , have thereby really convey'd to them our saviour christ , and all the benefits of that body and blood , whereof the bread and wine are the outward signs . this great effect , plainly shews it to be more than a meer figure ; yet is it not his body after the manner that the papists imagine , † † † † † † christ's body being in heaven , and not on the holy table ; and it being against the truth of christs natural body , to be at one time in more places than one . the sacramental bread and wine then remain still in their very natural substance ; nor is there any corporal presence of christ's natural flesh and blood at the holy altar . the presence we allow , is spiritual , and that not only as to the manner of the existence ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ , which the vindicator seems to insinuate ( for we suppose it to be a plain contradiction , that a body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a body , i. e. corporal ) but as to the nature of the thing it self ; and yet it is real too : the bread which we receive , being a most real and effectual communion of christ's body , in that spiritual and heavenly manner which st. paul speaks of , and in which the faithful , by their faith are made partakers of it . thus does our church admit of a real presence , and yet † † † † † † , neither take the words of institution in their literal sense * * * * * * , and avoid all those absurdities we so justly charge them with : as to the authorities of their own writers , which i alledged to shew that the doctrine of transubstantiation had no grounds , neither in scripture nor antiquity : he is content to allow that the scriptures are not so plain in this matter , but that it was necessary for the church to interpret them in order to our understanding of it . and for antiquity , he desires us to observe , i st , that the council of trent having in the first canon , defined the true , real , and substantial presence of the body and blood of jesus christ in the most holy sacrament , brings this transubstantiation , or conversion of one substance into another , as the natural consequence of it . can. . if any one shall say , that the substance of bread and wine remains in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist , together with the body and blood of our lord jesus christ , and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body , and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood , the species of bread and wine only remaining ; which conversion the catholick church does most aptly call transubstantiation , let him be anathema . the design of the council in which canon is evidently this , to define not only the real and substantial presence of christ in the eucharist , against the sacramentaries , which before was done ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ; but also the manner or mode of his presence , against the lutherans , in two particulars ; st , of the absence of the substance of the bread and wine . ly , of the conversion of their substance into the body and blood of christ , the species only remaining . but this the vindicator will not allow , but advances an exposition so contrary to the design of the council , and doctrine of his church , that it is wonderful to imagine how he could be so far deceived himself , or think to impose upon others so vain and fond an illusion . it is manifest , says he , that the church does not here intend to fix the manner of that conversion , but only to declare the matter , viz. that the body and blood of jesus christ becomes truly , really , and substantially present ; the bread and wine ceasing to be there truly , really , and substantially present , tho the appearances thereof remain . now this is so evidently false , that suarez doubts not to say 't is herest to affirm it , forasmuch , says he , as the council not only determines the presence of christ's body , and absence of the substance of the bread , but also the true conversion of the one into the other ; thus establishing , not only the two former , but this last also as an article of faith. our dispute therefore , is not only , as this author pretends , about the real presence of christ's body , and absence of the substance of the bread , which he calls the thing it self ; but also about the manner , how jesus christ is present ; viz. whether it be by that wonderful and singular conversion which their church calls so aptly transubstantiation ? now this being that we are to enquire into , let us see whether the authorities i have brought , have not the force i pretend against their tenets . and . lombard writing about this conversion , plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time . for having first asserted the real presence in this sacrament , and the change which he supposed was made upon that account : he goes on to that which the † † † † † † vindicator is pleased to call a scholastick nicety ; and it was indeed at that time no other , tho since become a matter of faith , viz. what kind of conversion is there made ? whether formal or substantial , or what else ? and for this , he tells us freely , he is not able to define it : that some have thought it to be a substantial change ; but for his part , he will not undertake to determine it . but dly , scotus is yet more free ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ he declares our interpretation contrary to transubstantiation , to be the more easie , and to all appearance the more true : insomuch , that the churches authority is the * * * * * * principal thing that moved him to receive their doctrine . † † † † † † he tells us that this doctrine of transubstantiation was not very ancient , nor any matter of faith before the council of lateran ; all which the vindicator himself does in effect confess . the same is , ly , affirmed by * * * * * * suarez of gabriel , and confess'd by the vindicator ; who also , contrary to his pretences , calls this manner of conversion , an assertion , that is , of faith ; tho he confesses , it is not expresly to be found in scripture , but deduced thence by the interpretation of the church . nay , so opposite is he to the opinion and pretences of this man , that he declares in this very place , which our good author examined ; but amidst all his sincerity , overlook'd this passage , as not much for his purpose ; that if any one should confess the real presence of christ's body , and absence of the bread , and yet deny the true conversion of the one into the other , he would fall into herest ; forasmuch as the church has defined , not only the two former , but also the third likewise . but , thly , the prevarication of our author in the next citation is yet more unpardonable . i affirmed , that cardinal cajetan acknowledged , that had not the church declared her self for the proper sense of the words , the other might with as good reason have been received . this he says , is false ; for that cajetan says no such thing ; nay , rather the contrary , as will appear to any one who reads that article : and then with wonderful assurance , begins a rabble of citations nothing to the purpose , in the very next words to those in which mine end . for the better clearing of this doctrine , says cajetan , we must know , that as to the existence of christ's body in the eucharist , there is nothing to be had expresly from the authority of the holy scripture , but the words of our saviour , saying , this is my body . for it must needs be that these words are true ; and because the words of scripture may be expounded two ways , either properly , or metaphorically ; the first error was of those who interpret these words metaphorically , which is rejected in this article . and the force of the rejection consists in this , that the words of our saviour have been understood in their proper sence by the church , and therefore must be properly true . this the vindicator was pleased to pass by , tho' the very next words to those he cites : nay , to say , that cajetan had no such thing in that article ; and appeal to any that should read it , for the truth of it . should a protestant have done this , he would , i believe , have found out a great many hard names for him , to testifie his zeal against falshood and unsincerity , and shew what a kind of religion that must be , that is not maintainable without such sinister doings : but i shall remit him wholly to the reader 's censure , and his own conscience for correction . as for my last assertion , that transubstantiation was no matter of faith , till the council of lateran , years after christ : they are the very words of scotus cited by bellarmine , and all his sophistry will not be able to prove that they make but little for my purpose . thus , notwithstanding all the little endeavours of the vindicator , to evade the truth of those concessions made by the greatest of his own communion in favour of our doctrine , my argument still stands good against them ; and transubstantiation appears to have been the monstrous birth of these last ages , unknown in the church for almost years . for what remains concerning the adoration of the host , since he has thought fit to leave my arguments in their full force ; i shall not need say any thing in defence of that , which he has not so much as attempted to destroy . article xix . of the sacrifice of the mass. if i affirmed , the sacrifice of the mass to be one of those errors that most offends us ; i said no more than what the church of england has always thought of it : and had the vindicator pleased to have examined my arguments , instead of admiring them , he would perhaps have found i had reason to do so . * * * * * * * * * * * * the council of trent affirms , that the mass is a true and proper sacrifice offered to god , a sacrifice not only of praise and thanksgiving , nor yet a bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the cross , but truly propitiatory for the dead and the living , and for the sins , punishments , satisfactions , and other necessities of both of them . † † † † † † a sacrifice wherein the same christ is now offered without blood , that once offer'd himself in that bloody sacrifice of the cross , the same sacrifice , the same offerer ; christ by his priests now , who then did it by himself , offering himself , only differing in the manner of oblation . this is in short , what their council has defined as to this mass-sacrifice , and what we think we have good reason to be offended at . that there should be any true and proper sacrifice , truly and properly propitiatory , after that of the cross ; that christ who once offer'd up himself upon the tree for us , should again be brought down every day from heaven , to be sacrificed a new in ten thousand places at a time on their altars : and by all these things so great a dishonour done to our blessed lord , as most evidently there is , and our writers have unanswerably proved , in the whole design , practice , and pretences of it . how little the doctrine of the real presence , as understood by the church of england , will serve to support this innovation , is at first sight evident from the exposition i before gave of it . that those who are ordained priests , ought to have power given them to consecrate the sacrament of the body and blood of christ , and make them present in that holy eucharist , after such a manner as our saviour appointed , and as at the first institution of this sacred mystery they certainly were , this we have always confessed ; and our † † † † † † rituals shew that our priests accordingly have such a power , by imposition of hands , conferred on them . but that it is necessary to the evangelical priesthood , that they should have power to offer up christ truly and properly , as the council of trent defines , this we deny ; and shall have reason to do so , till it can be proved to us , that their mass is indeed such a sacrifice as they pretend , and that our saviour left it as an essential part of their priesthood to offer it . for the rest , if with the council of trent , he indeed believes the mass to be a true and proper sacrifice , he ought not to blame us for taking it in that sence in which they themselves understand it : for certainly , it is impossible for words to represent a sacrifice more strictly and properly , than the council of trent has defined this . article xx. of the epistle to the hebrews . to elude the authority of this epistle , the vindicator , after monsieur de meaux , thinks it sufficient to tell us , that they understand the word offer when they apply it to the mass , in a larger signification than what the apostle there gives it ; as when we are said to offer up to god whatever we present before him : and that 't is thus they pretend to offer up the blessed jesus to his father in the mass , in which he vouchsafes to render himself present before him . that this is to prevaricate the true meaning of that phrase , the doctrine of the foregoing article plainly shews . if christ be in the mass a true and proper sacrifice , as was there said , it will necessarily follow that then he must be truly and properly sacrificed : ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ and one essential propriety , and which they tell us distinguishes a sacrifice from any other offering , being the true and real destruction of what is offered ; insomuch that where there is not a true and proper destruction , neither can there be , as they themselves acknowledg , a true and proper sacrifice : it must be evidently false in these men to pretend , that by offering in this matter is meant only a presenting of christ before god , and not a real change and destruction of his body offered by them . if in this exposition of their doctrine we do indeed misunderstand the meaning of it , we must at least profess it to be so far from any wilfull mistake , that we do no more than what their greatest men have done before us : and indeed it still seems most reasonable to us , that either this sacrifice is no true and proper sacrifice , as they say it is ; or it is truly and properly offer'd , as we affirm they understand it to be . article xxi . reflections upon the foregoing doctrine . if my reflections in this article be but as good , as my exceptions in the foregoing have been just , against their doctrine ; what the vindicator has said to these here , will i believe be found as little to the purpose , as what he endeavoured to reply to those before . tho' christ be acknowledged to be really present after a divine and heavenly manner in this holy eucharist , yet will not this warrant the adoration of the host , which is still nevertheless only bread and wine , from being what our church censures it , idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians ; nor will such a real presenting of our blessed lord to his father , to render him propitious to us , make the eucharist any more than a metaphorical , not a true and proper propitiatory sacrifice . if these men please to fix upon us any other notion of the real presence than what has been said , and which alone our church allows of ; we are neither concerned in the doctrine , nor shall we think our selves at all obliged to answer for those consequences they may possibly draw from it . article xxii . communion under both species . to prove the lawfulness of their denying the cup to the laity , the vindicator advances three arguments from the publick acts of our own church : the st . false ; the d . both false and unreasonable : the d. nothing to the purpose . st . he says , the church of england allows the communion to be given under one species in case of necessity : art. . this is false : the article establishes both kinds ; and speaks nothing at all of any case of necessity , or what may , or may not be done on that account . the cup of the lord is not to be denied to the lay-people , for both the parts of the lords sacrament , by christ's ordinance and commandment , ought to be administred to all christian men alike . dly . edward the sixth , he says , in his proclamation before the order of communion , ordains , that the sacrament of the body and blood of our saviour jesus christ , should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and administred unto all persons within our realms of england and ireland , and other our dominions , under both kinds , that is to say of bread and wine , except necessity otherwise require . this , as it is thus alledged by the vindicator , is both false and unreasonable : false , for that edward the th in that proclamation does not ordain any such thing , but only says , that forasmuch as in his high court of parliament lately holden at westminster this was ordain'd , viz. that the most blessed body and blood of our saviour christ , should from thenceforth be commonly administred to all persons under both kinds , &c. he for the greater decency , and uniformity of this sacred eucharist , now thought fit to appoint the following form and order for the administration of it . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ it is in the next place unreasonable , to argue as to the present state of the church of england , from what was allow'd only , and that in case of necessity too , in the very first beginning of the reformation . it was indeed the singular providence of god , that in the d year of that excellent prince , things were so far reformed from those long and inveterate errors , in which the ignorance and superstition of several ages had involved the church , that they had allowed , nay , commanded the holy sacrament to be given under both kinds , when for so many years it had been received only under one . but that labouring still under their former prejudices , they should in case of necessity permit that , which had been the universal practice of the church , without any necessity at all before ; this is neither to be admired in them then , nor is it reasonable to urge it against us now . his d argument is not only unreasonable upon the account we have now said ; but were it never so proper , is absolutely nothing to the purpose . in the rubrick , at the end of the same order of the communion , there is this remark : note that the bread that shall be consecrated , shall be such as heretofore hath been accustomed ; and every of the said consecrated breads shall be broken in two pieces at the least , or more by the discretion of the minister , and so distributed . and men must not think less to be received in part than in the whole , but in each of them the whole body of our saviour jesus christ. the meaning of which rubrick is very plain ; that whereas the people who had hitherto been accustomed to receive the wafer entire , were now to have but a part of it given to them ; to prevent any mis-conceits upon that account , as if because they did not receive the whole wafer as they were wont to do , they did not receive the whole body , i. e. the flesh of christ , ( for as to the blood , that they received afterwards in the cup : ) it was thought fit for the prevention of this scruple , to tell them , that they must not think less to be received in part than in the whole , but in each of them the whole body of jesus christ ; which what it makes for their denyal of the cup to the laity , i cannot very well apprehend . and now how well this author has proved it to be the doctrine of the church of england , to dispence with the cup in the holy eucharist , in case of necessity , i shall leave it to any indifferent person to judge . tho' after all , did we indeed , as some others do , believe that the church had power to do this ; how will this excuse them , who without any necessary or but reasonable cause deny it to the people altogether ; and damn all those that will not believe they had not only power , but just cause and reason so to do ? and why will it not as well follow , that they may take away if they please the whole sacrament from them , and damn all those that will not believe that they had just cause and power to do this too ; since even that in case of necessity may be dispensed with ; and whilst there is no neglect or contempt of it , prove neither damnable nor dangerous ? part iii. article xxiii . of the written and unwritten word . as to this article , there is indeed an agreement between monsieur de meaux and me , so far as we handle the question , and keep to those general terms , of the traditions being universally received by all churches , and in all ages ; for in this case we of the church of england are perfectly of the same opinion with them , and ready to receive whatever we are thus assured to have come from the apostles , with a like veneration to that we pay to the written word it self . but , after all this , there is , as the vindicator observes , a very material difference betwixt us , viz. who shall be judge when this tradition is universal ? he tells us , they rely upon the judgment of the present church of every age , declaring her sense , whether by the most general council of that age , or by the constant practice , and uniform voice of her pastors and people . and this is that to which he conceives every private person and church ought to submit , without presuming to examine how ancient that tradition does appear to be , or how agreeable it is to the written word of god. now here we must own a dissent as to this method of judging of traditions , for these two reasons : . because whether there were any such particular doctrine or practice received by the primitive church , is a matter of fact , and as such is in many cases distinctly set down by such writers as lived in or near that first age of the church . now where the case is thus , the accounts that are given by these writers , are certainly to those who are able to search into them , a better rule whereby to judge what was an ancient doctrine and tradition , than either the decree of a council of a latter age , or the voice and practice of its pastors and people . for let these agree as much as they will in voting any doctrine or practice to have been primitive , yet they can never make it pass for such among wise and knowing men , if the authentick histories and records of those times shew it to have been otherwise . and this being plainly the case as to several instances decreed by the councils , and practised by the pastors and people in the roman church ; we cannot look upon her late decrees and practices to be a good or a safe rule for judging of the antiquity , or universality of church-traditions . but . there is yet a more cogent reason against this method , which is , that it is apt to set up tradition in competition with the scriptures , and to give this unwritten word the upper hand of the written . for , according to this method , if the church in any age , does but decree in council , or does generally teach and practice any thing as an ancient tradition , then this must obtain and be of force with all its members , tho' many of them should be perswaded that they cannot find it in , nay , that it is contrary to the written word of god. now this we cannot but look upon as an high affront to the holy scriptures : and let them attribute as much as they please to the decrees and practices of their church , we cannot allow that any particular church or person , should be obliged upon these grounds to receive that as a matter of faith or doctrine , which upon a diligent and impartial search appears to them not to be contained in , nay , to be contrary to the written word of god. in this case we think it reasonable that the church's sentence should be made void ; and the voice of her pretended traditions be silenced by that more powerful one of 〈◊〉 lively oracles of god. article xxiv , xxv . of the authority of the church . in the two next articles , concerning the authority of the church , i was willing to allow as much , and come up as near to mons. de meaux , as truth and reason would permit . this it seems made the vindicator to conceive some great hopes from my concessions . but these his hopes are soon dasht , when he finds me putting in some exceptions , and not willing to swallow the whole doctrine , as it is laid down in the exposition . now the exceptions that seem most to offend him , are these , . that the church of rome should be taken for a particular , and not the catholick church . . that she should be supposed as such , either by error to have lost , or by other means to have prevaricated the faith , even in the necessary points of it . . that any other church should be allow'd to examine and judg of the decisions of that church . . that it should be left to private or individual persons to examine and oppose the decisions of the whole church , if they are evidently convinced that their private belief is founded upon the authority of god's holy word . these are the exceptions , at which he is the most offended : the . of these , he calls an argument to elude the authority of the church of rome ; and to shew the fallacy of it , he thinks it sufficient to say , that they do not take the church of rome , as it is the suburbican diocess , to be the catholick church , but all the christian churches in communion with the bishop of rome . now if this , in truth , be that which they mean , when they stile the church of rome the catholick church , then surely every other national church which is of that communion , has as good a title to the name of catholick , as that of rome it self . for seeing it is the purity or orthodoxness of the faith , which is the bond of this communion , this renders every distinct church professing this faith , equally catholick with the rest ; and reduces the church of rome , as well as others , within its own suburbican diocess , and so makes it only a particular , not the universal church . but now , should we allow the church of rome as great an extent as the vindicator speaks of , and that it were proper to understand by that name , all those other churches which are in communion with her ; yet all this would not make her the whole or catholick church , unless it could be proved , that there was no other christian church in the world besides those in communion with her ; and that all christian churches have in all ages profess'd just the same faith , and continued just in the same worship as she hath done . and this we conceive will not easily be made out with reference to the grecian , armenian , abassine churches ; all which have plainly for several ages differed from the church of rome , and those in her communion , in points relating both to faith and worship : so that in respect of these and the like christian churches , which were not of her communion , she could not be looked upon as a universal , but only as a particular church . now if this be so , then the vindicator himself allows , dly , that a particular church , may either by error lose , or by other means prevaricate the faith , even in the necessary points of it . indeed that promise of our saviour , that the gates of hell should not prevail against his church ; seems on all hands acknowledged , to refer to his whole church , not to any one particular branch or portion . and therefore , tho' the particular church of rome should have fallen into gross errors both in matters of faith and practice ; yet the catholick church of christ may still , as to other of its members , retain so much truth and purity , as to keep it from falling away , or being guilty of an intire infidelity . and then for the d. exception , the allowing any other particular church to examine and judg of the decisions of this church of rome : if she her self be but a particular church , and has no more command or jurisdiction over the faith of other churches , than they have over hers ; then every other national church is as much impow'red to judg for her self , as she is , and has an equal right to examine her decisions , as those of other churches ; and may either receive , or reject what by gods grace directing her , she judges to agree or disagree with his holy word . nor do's one branch of christ's church in this respect invade the prerogative of another ; since they do herein only follow the apostles rule , in trying all things , and holding fast that which is good . but the th exception , he says , is yet more intollerable than all the rest : that it should be left to every individual person , not only to examine the decisions of the whole church , but also to glory in opposing them , if he be but evidently convinced that his own belief is founded upon the undoubted authority of god's holy word . this , he says , is a doctrine , which if admitted , will maintain all dissenters that are , or can be from a church , and establish as many religions as there are persons in the world. these indeed , are very ill consequences , but such as do not directly follow from this doctrine as laid down in my exposition . for st , i allow of this dissent or opposition , only in necessary articles of faith , where it is every mans concern and duty , both to judg for himself , and to make as sound and sincere a judgment as he is able : and dly , as i take the holy scriptures for the rule , according to which this judgment is to be made , so do i suppose these scriptures to be so clearly written , as to what concerns those necessary articles , that it can hardly happen that any one man , any serious and impartial enquirer , should be found opposite to the whole church in his opinion . now these two things being supposed , that in matters of faith , a man is to judg for himself , and that the scriptures are a clear and sufficient rule for him to judg by ; it will plainly follow , that if a man be evidently convinced , upon the best enquiry he can make , that his particular belief is founded upon the word of god , and that of the church is not ; he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the church . and the reason of this must be very evident to all those who own , not the church , but the scriptures , to be the ultimate rule and guide of their faith. for if this be so , then individual persons , as well as churches , must judg of their faith , according to what they find in scripture . and tho it be highly useful to them , to be assisted in the making of this judgment by that church , of which they are members ; yet , if after this instruction , they are still evidently convinced that there is a disagreement in any necessary point of faith , between the voice of the church and that of the scripture , they must stick to the latter rather than the former , they must follow the superior , not inferior guide . and however this method may through the ignorance or malice of some men , be liable to some abuse ; yet certainly , in the main , it is most just and reasonable , and most agreeable to the constitutions of the church of england , which do's not take upon her to be absolute mistress of the faith of her members , but allows a higher place and authority to the guidance of the holy scripture , than to that of her own decisions . as to the authority , by which i back'd this assertion , viz. that of st. athanasius , tho' it is not doubted but that that expression , of his being against the whole world , and the whole world against him , did refer chiefly to the eastern bishops ; and was not so literally true as to those of the west ; yet , if we consider what compliances there were even of the western bishops , at ariminum and sirmium , and how pope liberius himself , tho' he refused to subscribe the form of faith , sent to him from ariminum , and was for that reason deposed from his bishoprick , and banished out of italy ; yet afterwards , when the emperor constantius sent for him to sirmium , and required his assent to a form of faith , in which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , was purposely omitted , he yielded thus far , and was thereupon restored to his bishoprick ; i say , if we consider these and the like particulars related by the church historians , we shall have little reason to believe that the western bishops , or even the pope himself , did throughly adhere to the faith of st. athanasius ; and therefore , that neither was he or i much in the wrong , in affirming , that he stood up in defence of christs divinity , when the pope , the councils , and almost the whole church fell away . article xxvi . of the authority of the holy see , and of episcopacy . in this article the vindicator is pleased to declare that he has nothing to say against the opinion of the church of england ; only he thinks fit to advise me to enquire , what that authority is which the ancient councils of the primitive church have acknowledged , and the holy fathers have always taught the faithful to give the pope . indeed , a very little inquiry will serve the turn to let a man see , that their pope do's at this day , lay claim to a great deal more than those councils or fathers did ever allow him . and we should be glad he would direct us to those places , either in the first councils or the primitive fathers , where the pope is stiled the universal bishop , or the supreme head on earth of the whole christian church ; where it is said , that he is christs immediate vicar ; and that all other bishops must derive their authority from him . these are things which he do's now pretend to , but we can find no footsteps of them in the first councils or fathers of the church . on the contrary , we find innumerable passages which plainly shew , that no such title or authority was anciently claimed by , or allow'd to the bishop of rome : and therefore we say , that these new and groundless pretences must be laid aside , before we can be content to yield him that honour , which has been sometimes given to his predecessors . as to that new question he has hookt in at the end of this article , whether the first four general councils might not be term'd neither general nor free , with as much reason as the council of trent ; i suppose it may easily be answer'd in the negative . st , it was not so general , because it was not call'd by so great and just an authority as those were : that was an authority to which christians of all places , and all ranks , acknowledged themselves bound to submit , and attend where they were summon'd by it ; whereas this was a meer usurpation , and being so , was not regarded by a great part of the christian world , who were sensible that they ow'd no subjection to it . dly , it was not so free , because those who had most to say in defence of the truth , durst not appear at trent , being sufficiently forewarn'd by what others had lately suffered in a like case at constance : add to this , that those who being present , did set themselves most to oppose error and corruption , were perpetually run down , and outvoted by shoals of new made bishops , sent out of italy for that purpose . so that such a council as this , could not with any shew of reason be termed , either free or general , much less ought it to be compared with those first four councils , which were in all these respects most opposite to it . close xxvii . and now , that i have gone through the several articles of the vindication , and found the pretensions of this author against me as false , as i think i have shewn his arguments to have been frivolous ; what shall i say more ? shall i complain of his injuries , or rather shall i yet again beseech him to consider the little grounds he had for them ; and see whether he has been able in any one instance , to make good that infamous character , which he has told the world , i have deserved in almost every article of my expoposition . have i calumniated them in any thing ? have i misrepresented their doctrines ? i have already said , i do not know that i have ; i think i may now add , i have made it appear that i have not . where are the unsincere dealings , the falsifications , the authors miscited , or misapplied ? excepting only an error or two , that 's the most , of the press ; has he given any one example of this ? some words now and then i omitted , because i thought them impertinent , and was unwilling to burden a short treatise with tedious citations . and i am still perswaded that they were not material , and that he might as well have found fault with me for not transcribing the whole books , from whence they were produced , as for leaving out those passages which he pretends ought to have been inserted . and for this , i appeal to the foregoing articles to be my vindication . but our author has well observed that nothing can be so clearly expressed , or so firmly established , let me add , or so kindly and charitably performed , but that a person who intends to cavil , may either form a seeming objection against it , or wrest it into a different sense . i never had the vanity to fancy my exposition to be infiallible , or that the sight of an imprimatur should make me pass for an oracle . but yet i was willing to hope , that amidst the late pretences to moderation , such a peaceable exposition of the doctrine of the church of england might at least have been received with the same civility by them , as that of the church of rome was by us ; and that our new methodists had not so wholly studied the palliating part of their master , as not to have learnt something of his fairness and civility also . this i had so much the greater reason to expect , for that it has been esteemed not the least part of the artifice of monsieur de meaux , not only to mollifie the errors of his church ; but to moderate that passion and heat that for the most part occurs in the defenders of it : and by the temper and candidness of his stile , insinuate into his reader a good opinion of his doctrine . but this is an artifice that our late controvertists seem resolved we shall have no great cause to apprehend . who therefore have not only wholly laid aside the moderation of this prelate ; but have in some of their last pieces fallen into such a vein of lightness and scurrility , as if their zeal for their church had made them forget that religion is the subject , and christians and scholars , to say no more of them , their antagonists . i am ashamed to say , what mean reflections , and trivial jestings make up almost the sum of their latest attempts . the papist represented , which seemed to promise something of seriousness and moderation , expiring in a fanatick sermon ; done indeed so naturally , as if the once protestant author had dropt not out of the church of england ; but a conventicle into popery . his late majesties papers answered with reason , and ( whatever is pretended ) with respect too by us ; instead of being vindicated , ridiculed in the reply : in which it is hard to say , whether the author has least shewn his charity to us , or his respect to the persons and church that he defends . these are the new methods that are now taken up ; but sure such as neither church i suppose will be very well satisfied with : and which seem more accommodated to the genius of those sceptics who divert themselves at the expence of all religion on both sides , than designed to satisfie the sober and conscientious of either . it is not improbable but that some such ingenious piece may in a little time come forth against what i have now publish'd ; to call me a few ill names , pass a droll or two upon the cause , tell the world how many sheets there were in my defence , and put the curious to another shilling expence , as a late author has very gravely observed . if this be the case , i hope i shall need no apology to men of sense and sobriety , if i here end both their trouble and my own together . let those who have been always used to it , rally on still with holy things if they think good ; for my part i esteem the salvation of mens souls , and the truth of religion , to be a more serious subject than to be exposed to the levity of a jest , and made the subject of a controversial lampoon . and if an account shall hereafter be given for every idle word that we now speak , i profess i cannot but tremble to think what shall be the judgment of those men , who in the midst of such unhappy differences as the church now labours under ; whilst our common mother lies almost dissolved in tears for the divisions of her children , and her dutiful sons on both sides are praying and endeavouring with all their industry to close them ; like an unnatural off-spring , divert themselves in the quarrel , find a harmony in her groans , and make a droll of that , which had they indeed any true zeal for religion , they ought to wish rather they could with their dearest blood be so happy as to redress . for what remains of the vindication , i shall say but very little to it . he enters upon his conclusion with a tragical harangue of the hardships they have suffer'd , both by , and ever since our reformation ; and how well we deserve their excommunication upon that account . and 't is no hard matter when men so well disposed , as this author seems to be , to speak evil of us , are to draw our character , to make it appear as odious and deformed as they desire . were i minded to recriminate , i need not tell those who are but very little acquainted with the true history of these things , what a fair field i should have for a requital . the corruptions of the church when this reformation begun ; the unchristian lives of those religious inhabitants that , he says , were turn'd by us into the wide world ; the cheats and ignorance of the clergy ; the tricks and artifices of their popes to prevent that reformation , which many of their own party , no less than the protestants , desired both in the head and the members ; and since he mentions cruelties , the barbarous butcheries executed on the reformed in savoy , bohemia , germany , ireland ; and to say no more , the proceedings at this day in one of our neighbour countries , whereof we have been our selves eye-witnesses , and of which , the noble charity of our royal soveraign towards these poor distressed christians , notwithstanding all the vain endeavours of some to hide it , suffers no honest englishman now to doubt ; all these would furnish out matter enough for a reply , and satisfie the world , that were the reformed as bad as hell it self could represent them , the romanists yet would of all men living have the least cause to complain of them . but i desire not to heighten those animosities , which i so heartily wish were closed ; and would rather such things as these might on all hands be buried in eternal oblivion , than brought forth to prevent that union , we had never more cause to hope for than at this time . and for our laws which , he says , have been made against them , he knows well enough what occasion was given to queen elizabeth and king james the st to establish them ; and i shall rather refer him to the answer which my lord burleigh made above years since to this complaint , than take the opportunity , he has so fairly given me , to revive the reasons . as for those injuries he tells us that perjury and faction loaded them with ; we are not concerned in them . it is well known that the church of england was no less , if not more , struck at in those times than themselves : if their present change of fortune makes them indeed neither remember those injuries , nor desire to revenge them , it shews only that the favour of providence has not made them forgetful of their duty ; nor their present prosperity unmindful of their future interest . this is not our concern , who have never that we know of injured them , unless to take all fair and lawful ways to defend our religion as by law established , may possibly , in some mens apprehensions , be esteemed an injury . the peace and liberty which we enjoy , we do not ascribe to their civility ; it is gods providence and our soveraign's bounty , whom the church of england has ever so loyally served ; whose rights she asserted in the worst of times , when to use our authors own words , perjury and faction for this very cause , loaded her with all the injuries hell it self could invent . but we gloried to suffer for our duty to him then , and shall not fail , should there ever be occasion , to do it again . and we have this testimony from our king , which no time or malice shall be able to obliterate , that the church of england is by principle a friend to monarchy , and i think cannot be charged to have ever been defective in any thing that might serve to strengthen and support it . for what remains with reference to the points in controversie , the foregoing articles are but one continued confutation of his vain pretences : and i shall only add this more to them , that whenever he will undertake to make good any one thing that he has advanced against us , either in his book or conclusion ; i will not fail to prove what i now affirm , that there is not a word of truth in either of them . in the mean time , before i close this , i cannot but take notice , how much the state of our controversie with these men has of late been changed ; and what hopes we are willing to conceive from thence , as to the sober part of their communion , that those errors shall in time be reformed , which they already seem not only to have discovered , but to be ashamed of . when our fathers disputed against popery , the question then was , whether it were lawful to worship images ; to invocate saints ; to adore reliques ; to depend upon our own merits for salvation ; and satisfie for the pain of our own sins . this was their task ; and they abundantly discharged it , in proving these things to be unlawful , contrary to our duty towards god , and to the authority of holy scripture . but now in these our days , there is started up a new generation of men , too wise to be imposed upon with those illusions , that in blind and barbarous ages had led the church into so much error and superstition . these see too clearly , that such things as these must , if possible , be deny'd , for that they cannot be maintain'd . and they have accordingly undertaken it as the easier task , by subtile distinctions , and palliating expressions , to wrest the definitions of their councils to such a sense as may serve the best to protect them from these errors ; rather than to go on in vain with their predecessors , to draw the scripture and fathers into the party to defend them . and that it may not be said i speak this at all adventures , i will beg leave in a short recapitulation of what is largely proved in the foregoing articles , to offer a general view of it . of religious worship . old popery . t is a wicked and foolish error of the lutherans and calvinists , to attribute * * * * * * religious honour only to god. and therefore such sentences as these , that god only is to be adored : that no creature is to be adored , must be put into the index expurgatorius , to be blotted out of s. athanasius and other authors in which they do occurr . new popery . religious honour or worship if taken strictly and properly is due only to god : soli deo honor & gloria . we ought not to deprive god of any thing that is due to him alone ; neither honour , nor worship , nor prayer , nor thanksgiving , nor sacrifice . we may honour those whom god has honoured ; but so as not to elevate them above the state of creatures . and this may be called a religious love or honour , when it is done for god's sake , yet it is but an extrinsecal denomination from the cause and motive , not from the nature of the act. invocation of saints . old popery . * * * * * * it is necessary to pray to the blessed virgin. it is the intention of god that we should obtain both grace and glory by her : that all men might be saved by the merits of the son , and the intercession of the mother . † † † † † † the curates therefore shall diligently instruct the people , that the saints who reign togegether with christ , do offer to god their prayers for men : that it is good and profitable in a suppliant manner to invocate them ; and recur to their prayers , help , and assistance , for the obtaining blessing of god by his son. upon this account in all their publick service of the church they address their prayers to them , after the same manner that they do to christ , together with whom , the council says , they reign in heaven : so that if 't is necessary to go to church , 't is necessary to pray to them . they confess their sins to them ; * * * * * * they dismiss departing souls out of this world in their names ; they make direct addresses to them as the council speaks , not only for their prayers , but also for their help and assistance ; they desire for their merits to be heard by god ; and that he would accept their sacrifices themselves for the sake of the saints they commemorate ; as in the d article of this treatise is fully to be seen . new popery . for invocation of saints , we only tell you it is lawful to pray to them ; vind. p. . that we do it in the same spirit of charity , and in the same order of brotherly society with which we intreat our friends on earth to pray for us . if we mention their merits , 't is only those victories they had obtained by his favours , which we beseech him to look upon , and not regard our unworthiness . as to the recommending our sacrifices to god by their prayers , as if christ who is the sacrifice , needed any other to recommend him to his father , we detest such thoughts , we abominate such doctrines . worship of images . old popery . the images of ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ christ and the saints , are to be venerated , not only by accident and improperly , but properly and by themselves , so as to terminate the worship upon them , and that as consider'd in themselves , and upon their own account , not only as they are the representatives of the original , * * * * * * the wood of the cross is to be adored with divine adoration ; and upon this account , if the popes legate at any time conduct the emperor into any city , his cross must take place of the emperor's sword ; because a divine worship is due to it , ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ this adoration is properly to the cross , as is evident , in that the church invites the people on good friday to adore it ; and in its hymns distinguishes the cross from christ , and addresses to the cross , as such . * * * * * * the church of rome in praying to god , that several vertues may proceed from the cross , shew it to be their opinion , that it has other vertues , than barely to excite the remembrance of those they represent . new popery . the use we make of pictures or images , is purely as representatives , or memorative signs , which call the originals to our remembrance . when the church pays an honour to the image of an apostle or martyr , her intention is not so much to honour the image , as to honour the apostle or martyr in the presence of the image . nor do we attribute to them any other vertue , but that of exciting in us the remembrance of those they represent . the honour we render them , is grounded upon this , that the very seeing of jesus christ crucified , cannot but excite in us a more lively remembrance of him , who died upon the cross for our redemption : now whilst this image before our eyes , causes this precious remembrance in our souls , we are naturally moved to testifie by some exterior signs , how far our gratitude bears us ; which exterior signs are not paid to the image , but to jesus christ represented by that image . of reliques . old popery . † † † † † † seeing we adore the saints of god , we must also adore their reliques . this is an undoubted truth amongst catholicks , that the reliques of the saints , whether they be any parts of them , as bones , flesh , ashes , or some other things that have toucht them , or belonged to them , are to be adored . new popery . we honour reliques as we do images , for those whom they belong'd to . we will not quarrel how we ought to call this respect and honour , but it is not worship , we seek not to them for any aid and assistance , to cure the blind , &c. and are therefore falsly charged with so doing , ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ those are to be condemned , who affirm that no worship or honour is due to the reliques of saints ; or that those sacred , monuments are unprofitably revered by the faithful ; or that for obtaining their help , men ought not to frequent the memories of the saints . of justification . old popery . * * * * * * by justification is to be understood , not only remission of sins , but sanctification , and renewing of the inward man. if any one shall say that men are justified , either by the alone imputation of christs righteousness , or only by the remission of sins , excluding grace and charity , which is diffused in our hearts by the holy ghost , and inheres in them ; or that the grace by which we are justified is only the favour of god , let him be anathema . * * * * * * if any one shall affirm the works of a justified man to be so the gifts of god , that they are not also the good merits of the justified man himself ; or that he being justified by the good works which are perform'd by him , through the grace of god , and merit of jesus christ , whose living member he is , do's not truly merit increase of grace and eternal life ; let him be anathema . new popery . they impose upon us who say that we make our inward righteousness a part of justification ; and by consequence hold that our justification it self is also wrought by our good works . of merits . old popery . we do as truly and properly , when we do well by gods grace merit rewards , as we do deserve punishment , when without his grace , we do ill . maldonat . the works of just persons , are truly equal to the reward of eternal life ; as the work of those who labour'd in the vineyard to the peny which they earned : and god by his covenant is bound to accept it for the reward of eternal life . this is the doctrine of the council of trent . they , therefore , are to be condemned who think our works of themselves , not to be worthy of eternal life , but to have the whole nature of merit that is in them , from the covenant and promise of god. this was the opinion of scotus , condemn'd above christ indeed , first obtain'd grace for us , whereby we might be enabled to work out our own salvation ; but this being done , we have no more need of christ's merits to supply our defects : but our own good works are of themselves sufficient to salvation , without any imputation of his righteousness . new popery . eternal life ought to be proposed to the children of god , as a grace that is mercifully promised to them , by the medition of our lord jesus christ ; and a recompence that is faithfully render'd to their good works , and merits , in vertue of this promise . we ask all things , we hope all things , we render thanks for all things , through our lord jesus christ , we confess that we are not acceptable to god , but in and by him . of satisfactions . old popery . to this question whether our works are to be called truly and properly satisfactory ? ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ bellarmin replies , that they are ; so that we may be said truly and properly to satisfie the lord. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ it is immediately our satisfaction , and christs only , in as much as we receive grace from him , whereby we our selves may be able to satisfie . as to mortal sins , gods grace being supposed to be given to us in christ , vasquez declares , we do truly satisfie god for our sins and offences . as for venial sins , we do so satisfie , as not to need any grace or favour of god to forgive our sins , or accept our satisfaction ; but our satisfaction is such , as doth in its own nature blot out both the stain and punishment of sin. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ there are some who say , that we do not properly satisfie , but do somewhat for the sake of which god applies to us christs satisfaction ; this opinion seems to me to be erroneous . bellarm. new popery . they impose upon us , who say that we believe that by our own endeavours we are able to make a true and proper satisfaction to god for sin. that which we call satisfaction , following the example of the primitive church , is nothing but the application of the infinite satisfaction of jesus christ. of indulgences . old popery . there being in all sins a temporal punishment to be undergone after the eternal , by the sacrament of penance , is remitted ; we call indulgence the remission of those punishments that remain to be undergone after the forgiveness of the fault , and reconciliation obtain'd by the sacrament of penance . the foundation of these indulgences , is the treasure of the church , consisting partly of the merits of christ , and partly of the superabundant sufferings of the blessed virgin and the saints , who have suffer'd more than their sins required . the pastors of the church have obtain'd from god the power of granting indulgences , and dispensing of the merits of christ , and the saints , for this end , out of the sacraments . the punishments remitted by these indulgences , are all those which are , or might have been enjoyn'd for sins ; and that whether the persons be alive or dead . new popery . we believe there is a power in the church of granting indulgences ; which concern not at all the remission of sins , either mortal or venial , but only of some temporal punishments remaining due after the guilt is remitted . so that they are nothing else but a mitigation , or relaxation , upon just causes of canonical penances , which are , or may be enjoyn'd by the pastors of the church , on penitent sinners , according to their several degrees of demerit . of the mass. old popery . the * * * * * * mass is a true and proper sacrifice : a sacrifice not only commemoratory of that of the cross , but also truly and properly propitiatory for the dead and the living . † † † † † † every true and real sacrifice requires a true and real death or destruction of the thing sacrificed : so that if in the mass there be not a true and real destruction , there is not a true and real sacrifice . to offer up christ then in the eucharist , is not only to present him before god on the altar , but really and truly to sacrifice , i. e. destroy him . new popery . the sacrifice of the mass was instituted only to represent that which was accomplish'd on the cross , to perpetuate the memory of it to the end of the world , and apply to us the saving vertue of it , for those sins which we commit every day . when we say , that christ is offered in the mass , we do not understand the word offer in the strictest sense , but as we are said to offer to god what we present before him . and thus the church does not doubt to say , that she offers up our blessed jesus to his father in the eucharist , in which he vouchsafes to render him himself present before him . of the popes authority . old popery . we acknowledg the holy catholick , and roman church , to be the mother and mistress of all churches ; and we promise and swear to the bishop of rome , successor of st. peter , prince of the apostles , and vicar of jesus christ , a true obedience . the pope has power to depose princes , and absolve subjects from their allegiance : so the council of lateran : if the temporal lord shall neglect to purge his land of heresie , let him be excommunicated ; and if within a year he refuses to make satisfaction to the church , let it be signified to the pope , that from thenceforth , he may declare his vassals absolved from their allegiance ; and expose his land to be seised by catholicks — yet so as not to injure the right of the principal lord. provided that he puts no stop or hindrance to this : and the same law is to be observed with reference to those who have no principal lords . new popery . we acknowledg that primacy which christ gave to st. peter , in his successors ; to whom , for this cause , we owe that obedience and submission , which the holy councils and fathers have always taught the faithful . as for those things which we know are disputed of in the schools , it is not necessary we speak of them here , seeing they are not articles of the catholick faith. it is sufficient we acknowledg a head establish'd by god to conduct his whole flock in his paths , which those who love concord amongst brethren , and ecclesiastical unanimity , will most willingly acknowledg . this is no scholastick tenet , but the canon of a council received by the church of rome as general . such is the difference of the present controversies between us from what they were , when it pleased god to discover to our fathers the errors they had so long been involved in . were i minded to shew the division yet greater , there want not authors among them , and those approved ones too , from whence to collect more desperate conclusions in most of these points , than any i have now remark'd . and the practice and opinion of the people , in those countries where these errors still prevail , is yet more extravagant than any thing that either the one or other have written . what now remains , but that i earnestly beseech all sober and unprejudiced persons of that communion , seriously to weigh these things ; and consider what just reason we had to quit those errors , which even their own teachers are ashamed to confess , and yet cannot honestly disavow . it has been the great business of these new methodists for some years past , to draw over ignorant men to the church of rome , by pretending to them that their doctrines are by no means such as they are commonly mis-apprehended to be . this is popular , and may i believe have prevailed with some weak persons to their seduction ; tho' we know well enough that all those abroad who pretend to be monsieur de meaux's proselytes were not so upon the conviction of his book , but for the advantages of the change , and the patronage of his person and authority . but surely would men seriously weigh this method , there could be nothing more strong for our reformation than this one thing , that the wisest and best men of the roman church esteem it the greatest honour and advantage they can do to their religion , to represent it as like ours as is possible ; and that their strongest argument to make proselytes is this , that were things but rightly understood , there is but very little or no difference at all betwixt us . and would to god indeed this were truly so ! that these differences were not only as small as they pretend , but wholly taken away : with what joy should we embrace the happy return of so many of our lost brethren into the arms of their mother ? how should we go forth with the highest transports to welcome them into our communion ? and celebrate the joyful festival on earth , which would create an exultation even among the blessed angels and saints in heaven . and why shall we not hope that this in time shall be the issue ? the good work is already begun ; the errors are many of them discover'd , and , what is more , disavow'd : and wherefore should we then distrust the mercy of heaven to hear our prayers , which we never make with more real zeal and fervour than in their behalf ; to shew them the truth , and open their eyes to a perfect conviction ? till this be accomplish'd , let us , who by god's grace are already members of the church of england , that is , of the best reform'd , and best establish'd church in the christian world , so seriously weigh these things , as not only to stand stedfast in that faith which has been delivered to us , but to use our utmost endeavours to convince others also of the excellence of it . let not any fond pretences of antiquity or possession amuse us . against god and truth there lies no prescription ; nor ought we to be at all concern'd to forsake errors , tho' never so ancient , for more ancient truths . let no prospect or temptation , whether of worldly evils on the one hand , or worldly advantages on the other , draw us from our stedfastness . god is faithful who will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able : and he who for any of these things denies christ or his religion on earth , shall be denied by christ before his father which is in heaven . but let us be firm and sincere to god and our own souls ; careful to search out , and ready to embrace the truth whereever we find it . so shall our lives be orthodox , tho' perhaps our faith should not ; and if in any thing we do err , for we pretend not to infallibility , nor is it therefore impossible for us to be mistaken , yet at least we shall not be hereticks . finis . appendix containing a collection of the following pieces . i. the extract of a letter written from paris concerning monsieur de meaux's pastoral letter . ii. an extract of father crasset ' s doctrine concerning the worship which the roman church allows to the blessed virgin. iii. cardinal bona's exposition , and practice of the same . iv. monsieur imbert ' s letter to monsieur de meaux , proving that his persecution was truly for maintaining the doctrine of that bishop's exposition . v. the epistle of st. chrysostome to caesarius , suppress'd by some of the doctors of the sorbonne , for being contrary to the roman canon of transubstantiation . vi. a catalogue of the editions made use of by me in my quotations , to prevent , if it may be , all future calumnies . london , printed mdclxxxvi . advertisement . the following pieces have so near a relation to the present controversie , and are in themselves of so great a moment , that if their length deny'd them a place in the work it self , their importance hath made it necessary not to omit them here . i have prefix'd to every one of them such particular accounts as may serve to satisfie the reader 's curiosity concerning them ; and shall , i hope , be a sufficient apology for me , that i have so largely insisted upon them . appendix . num . i. the extract of a letter written from paris concerning monsieur de meaux's pastoral letter . to shew that monsieur de meaux does not always so write at first , as not to stand in need of any correction afterwards , i will beg leave to subjoyn the extract of a letter dated from paris , concerning his late pastoral letter ; which , 't is there said , he is about to change somewhat in ; whether only for the better advantage of the method , and greater neatness of stile ( as in his exposition ) we shall be better able hereafter to judge . it is in the last nouvelle juin . pag. , . on ecrit de paris , que m. de meaux retranchera de la edition de sa lettre pastorale l' endroit où il dit aux nouveaux catholiques de son dioceze , qu'ils n'ont point souffert de violence en leurs biens , ni en leurs personnes , & qu'il a oui dire la même chose aux autres eveques . je ne sçaurois dire precisement si ce sont ces propres mots , car je n'ay point veû cette lettre pastorale , je sçai seulement que c'est ce qu'on ecrit de paris . ce prelat a eu en vûe dans sa lettre , de preparer à la communion paschale ces nouveaux diocezains . je ne sçai pas ce qu'ils ont fait , mais ailleurs quand on a presenti les convertis , on leur a trouvé si peu de disposition à communier à pâques , qu'on n'a pas jugé à propos de pousser l'affair . dans la dernier fête-dieu plusieurs ont mieux aimé payer une amende , que de tendre devant leurs maisons . apres cela , il est apparent que m. de meaux retranchera l'endroit ci-dessus marqué , & que les gens d'honneur se plaindront in petto de ce qu'on se tue de leur soutenir , que les huguenots ont signé le formulaire le plus volontairement du monde . bien entendu , que ces gens d'honneur n'auront pas le tour d' esprit & de conscience , du quel nous avons parlé ci-dessus , pag. . they write from paris , that monsieur de meaux will retrench in the second edition of his pastoral letter the place where he tells the new converts of his diocess , that they have not suffer'd any violence either in their goods , or in their persons , and that he heard the other bishops say the same . i cannot say precisely whether these were his very words , having never seen his pastoral letter , i only know this , that thus they write from paris . the design of this prelate in his letter , was to prepare his new diocesans to communicate at easter . what they did , i cannot tell , but in other parts when they presented the converts in order to receive it , they found them so little disposed to communicate at easter , that they have not thought fit to force them to it . upon corpus christi day last , many of them chose rather to pay a fine , than put up hangings before their houses for the procession . after this , 't is more than probable that m. de meaux will strike out the passage above-mention'd , and that men of sense will complain in their minds to be thus eternally wearied with their pretences , that the hugonots have signed the formulary with all the readiness in the world . always provided , that these men of sense be not endow'd with that turn of wit and conscience , of which we have spoken heretofore , pag. . above . num . ii. an extract of father crasset's doctrine concerning the worship which the roman church allows to the blessed virgin. monsieur de meaux is very much of opinion , that father crasset has nothing in his book contrary to the principles of his exposition . i must transcribe his whole book , would i insist upon every thing in it opposite to this pretence : but i shall content my self for the present to propose only to monsieur de meaux some of this fathers questions ; that he may please to tell us whether he be indeed of the same opinion with the father in them . 't will be an admirable vindication of his exposition , and we shall not doubt , after that , of its being a true representation of the doctrine of the roman church . question . whether the intercession of the blessed virgin to god for us , be not only profitable , but necessary to our salvation ? resp. i do not find the father positive in his assertion here , but at least he recounts abundance of their saints that are so : st. germain , st. anselme , st. bernard , the abbè de celles , st. antonine , and st. bernardine ; whose horrid blasphemies see at large repeated and approved . qu. . whether a tender and constant devotion towards the blessed virgin , be not a mark of predestination ? answer this is what we read in all books ; hear from all pulpits : there are but few catholicks but what are of this opinion , and that this devotion towards the mother of god , is a mark of salvation , the good father undertakes to prove by the authority of the scripture , explain'd by the fathers , and confirmed by reason . qu. . whether a christian that is devout towards the blessed virgin can be damned ? answer . the servants of the blessed virgin have an assurance , morally infallible , that they shall be saved . qu. . whether god ever refuses any thing to the blessed virgin ? answer . the prayers of a mother so humble and respectful , are esteemed a command by a son so sweet and so obedient . . being truly our saviour's mother as well in heaven as she was on earth , she still retains a kind of natural authority over his person , over his goods , and over his omnipotence : so that as albertus magnus says , she cannot only intreat him for the salvation of her servants , but by her motherly authority can command him ; and as another expresses it , the power of the mother and of the son is all one , she being by her omnipotent son , made her self omnipotent . qu. . what blessings the virgin procures for her servants . answer . she preserves them from error and heresie , if they are in danger to fall into it ; and recovers them out of it , if they are fallen . . she defends and protects them in their temptations against their enemy ; and this not only men , but other creatures ; insomuch that a bird which a young lady had taught to say his ave maria , being one day seized by a hawk , whilst he was in his claws , said only his ave maria , and the hawk terrified with the salutation , let him go , and so he return'd to his mistress . . she comforts them in their distresses , assists them in their dangers , counsels them in their doubts , eases them in their pains , animates them in their combats , and finally , procures them a good death . to this end , . she gives them a timely foreknowledge of their death , that they be not surprised . she sends the angels to assist them in it , and sometimes comes her own self in person . . she obtains them the grace of repentance if they are in sin , and of perseverance , if they be in a state of grace . qu. . whether the blessed virgin has ever fetcht any out of hell. answer . as to purgatory , 't is certain that the virgin has brought several souls from thence , as well as refreshed them whilst they were there . . 't is certain she has fetcht many out of hell , i. e. from a state of damnation before they were dead . . the virgin can , and has fetcht men that were dead in mortal sin out of hell , by restoring them to life again , that they might repent ; which the father proves at large , for the establishment of our faith and of our hope . qu. . what honour ought we to render to the blessed virgin ? answer . we ought to render to her a religious honour . . to honour her images also with a religious honour , as sacred things ; and this the many miracles done by them do require . . to build temples to her , which many grave authors do assure us was done , before her birth , during her life , and since her death and coronation in heaven . qu. . whether it be good to make vows and pilgrimages to the honour of the virgin ? answer . it is good to make vows , and undertake pilgrimages to the places where she is specially honoured . the practice of devotion towards her. . to wear her scapulary : which whoso does , shall not be damned , but this habit shall be for them a mark of salvation , a safeguard in dangers , and a sign of peace and eternal alliance . they that wear this habit , shall be moreover delivered out of purgatory the saturday after their death . . to enter into her congregations . and if any man be minded to save himself , 't is impossible for him to find out any more advantageous means , than to enrol himself into these companies . . to devote ones self more immediately to her service : for which the father gives several very grave forms . ib. & seq . these are some of the heads of father crasset's book . it were infinite to recount his particular follies , with which every page and sentence is crouded . and however monsieur de meaux is pleased at a venture to espouse all this , yet i must still beg leave to believe , that he neither approves this practice , nor will receive these principles . and these things , not only monsieur de la b — in his answer , but the author of the preservative at large alledged against him ; which being a book so well known in france , and mentioned to monsieur de meaux in a particular manner by * * * * * * monsieur imbert in his letter to him , and having caused such contests between † † † † † † monsieur arnauld and the ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ vindicator of the preservative , upon this very account , still increases my wonder , that for all this , monsieur de meaux should never hear there was any thing in this book of father crasset's , contrary to his exposition , nor believe the father to be of any opinion repugnant to his principles therein established . the reader may please to remember , that this book of father crasset's was licensed by the provincial , approved by the fathers of the society , permitted , and priviledged by the king , and printed by the archbishop of paris's printer , . num . iii. cardinal bona's doctrine and practice of this worship . in my preface to my former treatise , to shew with how little sincerity many times those of the church of rome will approve books , whose principles they dislike ; i observed that cardinal capisucchi had in his controversies plainly contradicted , in the point of worshipping images , what he approved in monsieur de meaux's exposition . this , monsieur de meaux saies , cannot be , for this admirable reason , qu'on trouvera son approbation expresse parmi celles que j'ai rapportées ; that his express approbation has been given to his book . i have already said what i thought sufficient to the consequence of this answer : but now to satisfie the reader that cardinal capisucchi is not the only person that has thus complemented monsieur de meaux contrary to his own principles and conscience , i will here offer another plain instance in m. de meaux's learned and holy cardinal bona , whose memory , he saies , shall be for ever blessed in the church . this learned cardinal was desired by card. buillon to examine the exposition with all rigour , because that some persons accused it of certain defects ; and he assures him that he did particolarmente osservare in che potesse esser ripreso ; particularly observe whether there were any fault in it . the effect of this particular observation was very favourable to monsieur de meaux : the cardinal found nothing but matter of great satisfaction to himself , and praise to the author ; and yet has this man as flatly opposed monsieur de meaux's principles in the point of invocation of saints , before-mention'd , both in his doctrine and practice , as 't is well possible for words to do it . for monsieur de meaux's doctrine , i shall not need say any thing here , after what i have so fully accounted above : the reader may please to compare it with the extract i shall now offer him out of cardinal bona's works . in his dedication which he makes of his book of divine psalmody to the blessed virgin , thus he concludes to her : possess me as your own , o soveraign queen of heaven ! and seeing it has pleased you in this oratory dedicated to your service , to bestow so many favours upon distressed mortals , suffer not me to go hence without some mark of it . renew your tokens , change your miracles . as you are wont to open the eyes of the blind , that they might behold the light , now open the eyes of my mind , and fill them with your brightest light , that i may with a pure contemplation , behold the light of god's countenance that is impressed upon us . if ever you have cleared the stopp'd ears of the deaf ; give joy and gladness to my inward hearing , that i may hear the voice of the bridegroom speaking in silence to the heart of jerusalem . if you have here broken the chains of dumb tongues , give to my mouth a right and well-sounding speech , that when i sing the praises of god , my words may be pleasing in the presence of the eternal king. if you have restored health to the diseased , heal me who labour under an inveterate sickness , that my mind may in the last day be found intire , without the sickness of any evil affection . this i most humbly beg , here prostrate upon my knees , before this wonder-working image of yours , and upon that solemn day which your nativity has rendred venerable to us . such is the entrance he makes upon this book , and indeed the work that follows is all of a piece . in his . chapter , page . he gives this account , why in all their offices they conclude with a prayer , or some complement at least , to the blessed virgin. it is to this end , that if by humane frailty they have committed any errour in the dreadful service of god , our lord being appeased by her mediation , may not impute it to them for sin : for she preserves all those that trust in her. she reaches out her saving hand to those , who in this damnable world are in danger . she restrains the malicious endeavours of our enemies . no day , no hour , not a moment passes , without some favour of hers. her the heavenly host worship , hell it self observes , the world adores . her majesty the chiefest of the blessed spirits tremble at . by her order the world is govern'd ; the stars give light , the sun shines , the winds blow , the gardens spring , the woods grow , the seasons keep their constant revolutions , the elements serve our needs . the ornament of our manners , the brightness of our works , all this we receive from her favour , when we worship and uenerate her. the church knows of how great danger it is to have her exiled children divorced from the care of their most indulgent mother , and therefore by a most wise counsel has decreed , that they should by a frequent observance fly to her protection ; not only by instituting a special office to her , but by addressing to her in the end of all her offices , according as the reason of the times should require . this is a short specimen of what is scattered up and down in all the parts of his book ; i need not say how extravagant his verses are , when the prose is thus high flown : i will give but one instance more , which one would think should contain , if any , a certain account of his perswasion , taken out of his last will ; in which , having commended himself to our blessed saviour , he comes in the next place , as is most fit , to the virgin , and so on to the rest of his friends and patrons above . page . tom. . and to thee also , o blessed virgin mary , mother of mercy , queen of the world , comforter of the afflicted , refuge of sinners , salvation of those that perish , to thee , o fountain of piety , in this dreadful hour , i commend my soul. help me now that am afraid ; lift me up that am falling ; direct me that am in error , comfort my soul that is desolate , and obtain of thy beloved son for me , the mercy which i have desired . you have always mercifully assisted me in all my dangers ; o forsake me not in this last , on which eternity depends . — holy michaël ! archangel ! who camest to help the people of god , prince of the heavenly host — deliver me from the snare of unclean spirits , and bring my soul into a place of comfort and refreshment . and thou , holy angel , to whose safeguard and protection i unworthy sinner have been committed , assist me in this moment , drive for from me all the power of satan ; save me from the mouth of the lion. — draw me out of the snare which they have laid for me , and preserve my soul from their evil designs . assist me you also , o my patrons , and tutelary saints ! thou first of all , o st. john , forerunner of christ , — make my paths straight , and direct my way in the sight of the lord. blessed peter ! key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom ! prince of the apostles ! by the power that is committed to thee , loose thou the bonds of my sins , and open unto me the gate of paradise . and thou , o glorious father of the monks of st. benedict ! impute not thou unto me to my damnation , the innumerable transgressions that i have made of thy rule . — o ye captains and heads of the holy order of the cistercians , st. robert , st. alberic , st. stephen , and st. bernard ; who have so long patiently endured me an unfruitful tree in this your vineyard . — o forsake me not in this hour ! but remember that i am your son , tho' unworthy the name . — the cardinal goes still further on with the rest of his patrons ; ( for he had taken care to provide enough of them ) but i fear i have tired the reader with these i have already transcribed . monsieur de meaux , i know , will tell us , that all this is no more than if he had desired as many of the good company that were about him at this time , to have done the same ; and for his expressions , though they are some of them a little extraordinary , yet the cardinal's intention , no doubt , like that of the church , was to have them all reduced to this one and the same catholick meaning , pray for me. and for those who are resolved to believe this fond pretence , there is no hopes of conviction . but for unprejudiced persons , who see the vanity , indeed the unreasonableness and absurdity of this evasion , i doubt not but they will find a plain opposition between monsieur de meaux's principles and the cardinal 's , and that this good man needed a very great apology to his patrons , for having approved a doctrine so derogatory to their power and honour , as that of the exposition in his opinion undoubtedly was . but i shall say no more to shew the unsincerity of cardinal bona in this matter : i might have added a yet greater instance , than either of these cardinals , of the same pious fraud , in the approbation of the pope himself ; * * * * * * whose briefs , with reference to the affairs of france , and which this bishop , who has had so great a part in them , could not be ignorant of , however publish'd at the same time that he sent his complement to mr. de meaux , do but ill agree with his exposition . indeed , they run in such a strain , as plainly shews , that were but his power equal to his will , he would soon convince the world , that not this mans pretences , but the dictates of pope gregory vii . the unam sanctam bull , and the canon of lateran , were the true exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church . and of this i am ready to make an ample proof , from the several pieces set out by publick authority in france , when ever mr. de meaux or his vindicator shall think fit to question the truth of what i now say . num . iv. copie d'une lettre ecrite à monsieur l'evêque de meaux , cy devant evêque de condom . au port de st. marie ce . juin . monseigneur , votre grandeur rapellera , sans doute , mieux l' ideé de mon nom , lors que je luy dirai que je suis celuy pour qui elle a eu la bonté de parler il y a environ ans à madame de chaune pour avoir son consentement d'une chapelle , comme tutrice de monsieur de — & j ' eûs l' honneur de la voir plusieurs fois à st. thomas du louvre , avec messeigneurs de perigueux & de xainte . depuis ce tems la , j'ai souffert la persecution , & particulierement depuis l' exposition de la foi , que vôtre grandeur a publiée . ses enemis qui n'osent pas se declarer contre elle , se declarent contre ceux qui disent la même chose . et aujourdui monseigneur l' archevêque de bourdeaux me fait faire le proces , pour avoir expliqué à l' epargne le jour de vendredi saint , que nous adorions jesus christ crueifié en presence de la croix , & que nous n' adorions rien de ce que nous voyons . et parce que le curé dit sur le champ assez haut le bois , le bois ; j ' ajoutai , non , non , c'est jesus christ , & non pas le bois . et comme il ajouta , ecce lignum , venite , adoremus ; je le relevai en luy disant , auquel le salut du monde a eté ataché . venez , adorons ce salut de monde . j ' ajoutai que le sentiment de l' eglise etoit , que si par impossible nous pouvions separer la divinité du fils de dieu d'avec son humanité , nous n' adorerions pas l' humanité , puis qu'il est certain qu'il n'y a rien d' adorable que dieu ; & qu' ainsi nous devions nous persuader que nous allions au calvaire adorer jesus christ , sans nous arreter au crucifix . que l' eglise , comme une bonne mere , nous l'avoit donné par une sainte invention pour aider à nôtre foi , & pour fraper plus vivement nôtre imagination , & non pour etre l' objet de nôtre culte , qui se termine à jesus christ. voila , monseigneur , tout mon crime , & ce que l'on me reproche . j'ai ecrit au promoteur & au vicaire general , & à monseigneur l'archevêque . je leur expose , que j ' ofre à me dedire , si j'ai mal parlé ; j ' ofre à ●e justifier . au prejudice de cela il persiste dans l' interdiction qu' il lacha verbalement sur le champ . je me suis pourvû par apel comme d' abus au parlement de guienne ; j'ai fait assigner le promoteur , & bien que j'ay fait toutes les honetetes possibles à la justice ecclesiastique , & rendu toutes les deferences , le dit seigneur archevêque me menace , comme ceux qui luy ont rendu ma lettre me le mandent , de prison perpetuelle , & de fers aux pieds . vôtre grandeur peut connoitre par ce procedé combien il y a de personnes qui detournent nos freres separéz de rentrer dans l' eglise . l'on m'objecte , ce que l'on dit contre vôtre livre , que j'adoucis , mais que le sentiment de l' eglise est contraire . on le verra mieux dans le proces que me sera fait , car je defie mes enemis de pouvoir faire des reproches contre ma vie & moeurs , & de me reprocher d'autre doctrine que celle de vôtre grandeur , que je tache d' exprimer dans les mêmes termes , la trouvant tres conforme aux sentimens de l' eglise romaine , & ainsi si je suis convaincu d' heresie , j'ose dire à vôtre grandeur qu' elle doit etre à ma garentie . j'ose pourtant l' assurer , que j'ay assez de lumiere pour bien defendre cette doctrine , & pour detruire le preservatif , si l'on ne me fait point de violence . je defie tous les docteurs du monde de toutes les religions . la grace que je demande à v. g. est que si l' archevêque se servoit de toute son authorité pour m' opprimer , qu' elle daigne interposer la sienne pour m' obtenir la liberté de me defendre . elle voit combien l' honneur de dieu y est interessé , dans un tems ou toute la province est remplie de missionaires , de capucins , & de jesuites ignorans , qui prechent l' adoration de la croix , & la font faire dans une province ou tout est remplie de religionaires , & ou j'ose promettre conversions , si la religion etoit pratiquée conformément à vôtre exposition . les messieurs de la religion p. r. n'ont autre objection à me faire si ce n'est que l'eglise romaine vous traite & me traite d'heretique . je demande pardon à votre grandeur , monseigneur , si j'ai crû etre obligé de luy faire connoitre mon procedé , apres quoi je l'assureray de la soumission , . de son tres humble & tres obeissant serviteur , imbert , prieur . the copy of a letter sent to monsieur the bishop of meaux , formerly bishop of condom . port st. mary , june th . . my lord , your lordship , without doubt , will better call to mind my name , when i shall have told you , that i am the person for whom you had the goodness , about years since , to speak to madam de chaune , to obtain her consent , as tutress to monsieur de — for a certain chappel ; since which i have had the honour to see you several times at st. thomas in the louvre , with my lords of perigueux and xainte . since that i have suffered persecution , and especially since the time that your lordship has published your exposition of the faith. your enemies , who dare not declare themselves against your lordship , declare themselves against those who say the same things . and at this instant , the archbishop of bourdeaux has caused a process to be made against me for having explain'd upon good-friday , that we adore jesus christ crucified in presence of the cross , and that we do not adore any thing of what we see . and forasmuch as the curé replied upon the place aloud , the wood , the wood ; i added , no , no , 't is jesus christ , and not the wood. and when he added , ecce lignum , venite , adoremus ; i took him up , saying , on which the saviour of the world hung , come let us adore this saviour of the world. i said further , that the doctrine of the church was , that if by an impossible supposition we could separate the divinity of the son of god from his humanity , we should not adore his humanity ; forasmuch as 't is certain , that there is nothing adorable but god ; and that therefore we ought to think , that we are now going out of mount calvary to adore jesus christ , without stopping at the crucifix . that the church , like a good mother , had given that to us by a holy invention , to assist our faith , and make the livelier impression upon our imagination , but not to be the object of our worship , which must terminate upon jesus christ . behold , my lord , all my crime , and what i am reproached with , i have writ to the promoter , and to the vicar general , and to the archbishop himself . i have offered , if i have spoken any thing amiss , that i will recant it : i have offered to justifie my self : notwithstanding all this , his grace still persists in the verbal interdict , which he immediately pronounced against me . i have transferr'd my cause by appeal , as of abuse , to the parliament of guienne : i have caused the proctor to be summon'd ; and though i have used all imaginable fairness , with reference to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction , paid them all possible deference , nevertheless the said archbishop threatens me , as i am informed by those who gave him my letter , with perpetual imprisonment and chains , for my offence . your lordship may see by this proceeding , how many there are that hinder our separating brethren from returning to our communion . they object to me , that which is also said against your lordship's book , that i do mollifie , but that the doctrine of the church is quite the contrary . this will more plainly appear by the process against me ; for i defie my enemies to reproach me for my life and manners , or for any other doctrine than that of your lordship , which i endeavour to express in the self same terms , as finding them most agreeable to the sentiments of the roman church : so that if i am convicted of heresie , i am bold to say , your lordship must be my surety . but i dare assure you , my lord , that i have knowledge enough to defend this doctrine , and destroy the * * * * * * preservative , might i be but secure from violence : i defie all the doctors of the world , of whatsoever religion they be . the favour which i have to beg of your lordship , is , that if the archbishop should make use of his authority to oppress me , you will please to interpose yours so far , as to procure me only the liberty to defend my self . you see how far the honour of god is concerned in it , and especially at a time when the whole province is filled with missionaries , capuchins , ignorant jesuits , and others , who preach up the adoration of the cross , and cause it to be done in a country full of protestants , and among whom i durst promise converts , were the practice of our religion conformable to your exposition . the protestants have hardly any other objection to make to me , than this , that the church of rome treats both your lordship and me as hereticks . i beg your lordship's pardon for this ; i thought my self obliged to acquaint you with my case ; after which , i have only remaining to assure you of the submission of , my lord , your lordship 's most humble and obedient servant , imbert . such was the account which monsieur imbert gave of his case to m. de meaux ; i was the more willing to publish it , that those who have never seen the factum which he printed of it , and which is too long to be inserted here , may at least by this perceive that his crime was truly his adhering to m. de meaux's exposition ; and that he had reason to say , as he does in this letter to him , that if he was convicted of heresie , m. de meaux ought to be his warrant for it . and because the bishop has been pleased to endeavour to take off the force of this great allegation , by lessening the character of the person , i shall leave it to the indifferent reader to judge , whether this letter carries any thing of the stile of an extravagant , a man of no learning , as well as of no renown , such as m. de meaux in his answer pretends him to be . num . v. the epistle of st. chrysostome to caesarius , cut by some of the doctors of the sorbonne , out of the greek edition of palladius , published by monsieur bigot , . with a dissertation premised , containing an historical account of the whole affair . it will perhaps be look'd upon by some , as a little unseasonable , to joyn a piece of antiquity so considerable as this epistle , to a treatise of so little importance as the foregoing defence may justly be esteem'd to be . but since the main thing i charge m. de meaux with , is , that a first edition of his book was suppress'd for containing some assertions not so suitable to the sentiments of the sorbonne doctors , to whom it was sent for their approbation , to shew the undistinguishing justice of their proceedings , and that m. de meaux is not the only bishop they have dealt thus rudely with on these occasions ; i was willing to communicate to the world one instance more of the like nature , especially since the original leaves , rased out , and suppress'd by them , have here also fallen into my hands , and may at any time be seen with the suppress'd edition of m. de meaux's exposition . it may be some satisfaction to m. de meaux to consider , that in this case , he has run no other fortune than what is common to him with the great st. chrysostome : and possibly the reader too will from hence begin to find it no difficult matter to believe , that those who made no scruple to suppress a whole epistle of st. chrysostome , a patriarch and a saint , for contradicting their doctrine in one only point , may indeed have made as little of correcting m. de meaux's exposition , tho' a bishop's , that had prevaricated their faith in so many . nor was i less engaged on the vindicator's account to this publication ; 't is one of his greatest difficulties , and which he seems the most desirous to be resolv'd in , how there can be such a thing as the real presence in the eucharist , without transubstantiation ? i have before told him what i suppose sufficient to explain this matter . but because i cannot expect that either my church or book should pass pass with him for an oracle , it may be some confirmation of the idea to shew him one of their pretended patrons concurring with me in the exposition , and manifestly supposing a union betwixt the bread and christ's body in the holy eucharist , and yet stifly contending at the same time , that the nature of the bread is not changed in it . all the danger is , that this holy father , who , as monsieur * * * * * * bigot observes , has hitherto pass'd for the great doctor of the eucharist , as st. austin of grace , may possibly by this run the hazard of losing his credit amongst them ; and as it has fared but very lately with theodoret upon the same account , that they will henceforth begin to lessen his reputation , since they cannot any longer suppress his doctrine . but before i offer the epistle it self , it is fit that i premise something for the better understanding of it . it was written to caesarius , a monk , that had a little before fallen into the apollinarian heresie , to reduce him to the catholick faith. i shall therefore beg leave to begin my reflections with a short account of that , as far as may serve to open the way to what we are to read of it in this . reflection i. of apollinarius and his heresie . apollinarius the younger , from whom this heresie derives its name , was son to the elder apollinarius , a very learned man , and never , that we read of , charged with any heresie . he was of alexandria , where he was ordain'd a priest , and became deservedly eminent for this , that when julian forbad the christians the reading of human writers , being envious of that reputation which many of the fathers of the church had so justly acquired in that sort of learning ; he with his son , repaired in great measure this disadvantage , by opening of two schools : the father turning the writings of the old testament into heroick verse , and composing several tragedies of the historical parts of them : the son explaining the new in dialogues , after the platonick manner ; and by this means preserving the church from that ignorance , which the apostate emperor thought to have reduced it to . ii. as for the younger apollinarius , he is on all hands acknowledged to have been a very extraordinary man ; eminent for his learning , and particularly cherished by st. athanasius , as one of the most zealous defenders of the nicene faith , whilst he was yet but reader in the church of laodicea . he wrote against porphyry in books ; against the arrians , eunomians , origen , and the other hereticks of those times . in a word , both his zeal and his learning were such , that , if we may take the account which vincentius lirinensis has left of him , had he not fallen into heresie , he might justly have been equall'd to the chiefest builders of the church . iii. the occasion of his heresie is diversely reported by ecclesiastical writers . * * * * * * ruffinus tells us , that his extraordinary facility to write upon all sorts of subjects , and his great understanding in all kinds of learning , raised in him a love of disputation ; and that the desire of refuting whatever others said , made him at last himself become a heretick . † † † † † † sozomen relates , that st. athanasius in his passage through laodicea , where apollinarius then was , contracted so intimate a friendship with him , that george , bishop of that place , and who detested the communion of st. athanasius , as the other arrians did , excommunicated ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ apollinarius upon this account , and would never be perswaded to receive him , whatever instances he could make to that purpose ; and that upon this he conceived so great a discontent , that it carried him in the end to form himself a new heresie . and lastly , * * * * * * theodoret differing from both these , tells us , that being rejected from the government of the church , to which in the contest between meletius and paulinus , he also , as head of a third party , aspired ; he thereupon began to spread openly that heresie he had before invented , and to set himself up for chief of it . iv. whether any , or all these causes concurr'd to ruine one of the greatest ornaments of the church , and who had till then been the admiration of the best men , not only st. athanasius , basil , &c. who were his friends , but all the others , as many as have left us any account of the history of those times , having constantly represented him in the most advantageous manner that could be expected : certain it is , that his loss was a very sensible blow to the church , and is as such , exceedingly lamented by epiphanius in the account of his heresie . v. he had now been some time made * * * * * * bishop of laodicea ; whether of the great laodicea in syria , or of the other in phoenicia of libanus , is not certainly known . it was not long after this promotion that he became a heretick . athanasius , who died within years after , having written a long letter to epictetus , bishop of corinth , against his errors ; tho' either his respect to a person he had so much esteem'd , or being unwilling to exasperate one , whom he so earnestly desired to reduce to the catholick faith , made him that he did not once name him in his whole epistle . vi. but we will come yet nearer ; for in the year . athanasius being the third time return'd from banishment , held a council at alexandria ; in which , among other things , we find the heresie of apollinarius expresly condemned , tho' no mention made of his name ; whether it were that he was not yet known as chief of those hereticks , or that , as some think , he sent a renuntiation of his heresie to the council by the monks that went thither . about ten years after , anno . the same heresie was again condemned in another council at rome , under pope damasus ; and lastly , in the second general council at constantinople , anno . he is by name anathematized among the other hereticks , can. . of that synod . vii . as to the heresie it self , i shall not enter any farther into the search of it , than may serve for the explication of that capital error , which gave occasion to this epistle of st. chrysostome . now this , to take it in his own words as they are reported by photius from eulogius , was , that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that god and flesh make up but one nature , which balsamon and zonaras thus explain , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . that he said , that the son of god took indeed an animate body of the blessed virgin , but without the rational soul , the divinity serving instead of that . viii . and the same is the account which the other ecclesiastical writers have left of him ; gregory nazianzen , theodoret , epiphanius , theorianus , &c. all which unanimously agree in this point of his asserting , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . that the body of our saviour was animated , but that he had not the rational soul ; for that that soul was superfluous , where the divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or word was present . ix . but tho' this were the last resolution of his heresie as to this point , yet was it not his first error . it was a part of the doctrine maintained by arrius and eunomius , that christ took a body destitute not only of the rational soul , but altogether inanimate ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , saies theodoret , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . that god the word took a meer body , and that himself supplied the want of the soul. and the same was the beginning of apollinarius's heresie too . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , saies socrates , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . they first asserted , that god at his incarnation took upon him man without any soul. afterwards , as if they repented , and meant to correct their error , they held , that he took indeed the animal soul , but was destitute of the rational , god the word being instead of that . both which vincentius lirinensis tells us , they sometimes joyned together , saying , in ipsa salvatoris nostri carne , aut animam humanam penitus non fuisse , aut certe talem fuisse cui mens & ratio non esset ; that in the body of our saviour there was either no human soul at all , or at least such as was not rational . x. i shall not now enter on any other points of their heresie , such as their making this flesh not to have been assum'd by christ at his conception , but to have been always with him consubstantial with the divinity ; which divinity therefore by consequence suffer'd , and was mortal ; which epiphanius , theodoret , but especially gregor . nazianzen has at large related . only since , some , for the more distinct conception of the apollinarian heresie , have thus distinguish'd it from that of eutyches afterwards ; that the eutychian affirm'd , that our blessed saviour took nothing from the blessed virgin , but that the very logos , the word it self being , as theodoret expresses it , immutably converted , and made flesh , only passed through the virgin ; whereas apollinarius supposed the flesh of christ , which he took of the virgin , to be converted into the divine nature : it appears by gregory nazianzen , that this was no certain distinction , forasmuch as the apollinarian too affirmed oftentimes the same thing ; that , as the father expresses it in the place i before cited , our saviour was even before he descended , the son of man , and descending , brought his . flesh along with him , which he had whilst he was in heaven , before all ages , and consubstantial with his essence . which is what theodoret long since observed , when in his . dialogue , speaking with relation to them both , he says , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . they who have patcht together this various and many-form'd heresie , sometimes say , that the word is become flesh , sometimes that the flesh is changed into the word . wherefore laying aside these subtleties , this we may undoubtedly conclude , that whatever their other differences were , whether as to his body , which we see is uncertain , or to his soul , in which the variety was more constant and more discernable ; the eutychian affirming the union of the two intire natures , the humane and divine ; whereas the apollinarian deny'd that our saviour ever assumed the reasonable soul at all : certain it is , for what concerns our present purpose , that they both agreed in this , that after the union of the word and flesh , there was but one only nature common to both , the substance of the two , that were before , being now confused and permixt ; from whence they were both of them afterwards called by † † † † † † st. chrysostom and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , from their confusion of the two natures into one , and making not only one person , as the catholick church did , but one nature too alone in christ. reflection ii. st. chrysostme's argument from the eucharist against the apollinarians , consider'd and explain'd . such is the account which the antient fathers have left us of the apollinarian heresie , and the same we find to have been the notion which st. j. chrysostom in this epistle had of it . he proves the divine and humane natures to be distinct in christ ; that the properties of the one , ought no otherwise to be confounded with the other , than as they are united in the same person . he charges the apollinarians with saying that our saviour's body is converted into the divinity , and upon that account attributing passion to the deity : and finally , he concludes all with this exhortation to caesarius , whom he designed by this epistle to recover from their errours . wherefore , dearly beloved , says he , laying aside the novel phrases , and vain speeches of these men , let us return to what we have before said ; that it is pious , most pious indeed , that we should confess our saviour christ , who died for us , to be perfect in the godhead , perfect in the manhood ; one only begotten son , not divided into two , but bearing in himself together the unmixt proprieties of two distinct natures . not two different persons , god forbid ! but one and the same lord jesus , god , word ; cloathed with our flesh , and that not inanimate , without the rational soul , as the wicked apollinarius pretends . let us then assent to these things , let us fly those who would divide him ; for though the natures be distinct , yet is there but one undivided and indivisible union to be acknowledged in the same one person and substance of the son. ii. and now if this be the catholick doctrine which this holy father here designs to bring caesarius to ; such the errours , which by the subtlety of the apollinarians he was involved in : it will be very easie to conceive the allusion he here makes between the two natures united in christ , and the two parts , which the catholick church has ever acknowledged in the holy eucharist ; to the destruction of the romanists pretences of transubstantiation , and to the solid establishment of the real presence of christ in this sacred mystery , such as the church of england believes , and has been established by me in the foregoing discourse . iii. the words of st. chrysostome in this epistle are these : christ is both god and man ; god , in that he is impassible ; man , for that he suffer'd . yet but one son , one lord : he the same without doubt , having one dominion , one power of two united natures . not that these natures are consubstantial , forasmuch as either of them , does without confusion retain its own properties , and being two , are yet inconfused in him . for as [ in the eucharist ] before the bread is consecrated , we call it bread , but when the grace of god by the priest has consecrated it , it is no longer called bread , but is esteemed worthy to be called the lord's body , although the nature of bread still remains in it ; and we do not say there be two bodies , but one body of the son : so here , the divine nature being joyned with the [ humane ] body , they both together make up but one son , one person . but yet they must be confess'd to remain without confusion , after an indivisible manner , not in one nature , but in two perfect natures . iv. in which passage , whether we consider the expressions themselves , or the application of them , they are utterly destructive of transubstantiation . first , as to the expressions themselves . they tell us plainly , that the nature of bread remains in the eucharist after the consecration : that our not calling it bread , but christ's body , does not therefore intend to signifie that the nature of bread is at all changed ; for that the bread by consecration becomes indeed worthy to be called the lord's body , but yet still retains its own nature of bread . v. these are such plain expressions of the bread's continuing in its own nature after consecration , that the papists themselves have not been able to deny it . so that their only refuge is , that by the bread's retaining still its own nature , we are , they say , to understand only this , that its accidents remain , but for its substance , that is changed into the body of christ . * * * * * * thus gardiner , turrian , bellarmine , gregory de valentia , vasquez , suares , perron , gamachaeus , and last of all , father † † † † † † nouet , in his controversie against monsieur claude . vi. this is indeed to cut the knot when it was not to be untied ; and makes st. chrysostome in effect to say thus much , that the nature of bread after the consecration , still remains , though indeed the nature be changed , and only the accidents continue . and would it not have been an admirable similitude , to shew that the humane nature of christ was not changed into the divine , as the appollinarian pretended , to alledge the example of the eucharist , in which the nature of the bread was changed into the very nature of christ's body , as the papists believe . vii . but s. chrysostome was not so absurd , as these men would represent him ; and his other expressions utterly overthrow this evasion . . he tells us plainly , that all the change that was made in the bread by consecration , was in the name , not the substance : that whereas before it was called bread , by being consecrated it became worthy to be called the lord's body . . had st. chrysostome believed the bread to have been truly changed , and become the very body of christ , would he have said that it became worthy to be called the body of christ ? and not rather plainly have told us that it became the very body of christ ? do men use to say that the heaven is worthy to be called the heaven ? the sun , worthy to be called the sun ? and why shall we think st. chrysostome the only ridiculous man , to use such a phrase as no man in the world ever did , or would have done besides ? but . and to put this point beyond al doubt : when st. chrysostome here speaks of the nature of bread , in allusion to the nature of christ ; if we will have him consistent with himself , we must suppose him to have used that expression with reference to both , in the same sense . as therefore in his discourse immediately before and after , by nature , with reference to christ , he does not mean the properties only , but the very substance of his humanity and divinity ; so here in his allusion to the eucharistical bread , he must still mean the same , the substance of the bread , and not barely the properties , or accidents of it ; and of this i am perswaded no indifferent person will make any doubt . secondly , as to the design of this allusion , viii . the apollinarians , as we have seen , affirm'd the change of one nature in christ into the other ; that however , before the union , they were two distinct things , yet by being united , the humane nature became converted , or if you will , transubstantiated into the divine . ix . now the falseness of this s. chrysostom , shews by the example of the eucharist . that as there the bread by being consecrated becomes indeed worthy to be called christ's body , yet do's not lose its own nature , but continues the same bread , as to its substance , that it was before : so here , the humane nature of christ , being by the incarnation hypostatically united to the divine , did not cease to be a humane nature , but still continued what it was before , however united with the other in one person . x. so that as certainly then as the humane nature of christ does now continue to be a humane nature , notwithstanding that incarnation ; so certainly does the bread in the eucharist continue bread after this consecration . as certainly as apollinarius was deceived in supposing the manhood of christ to be swallowed up and changed into the godhead ; so certainly is the papist deceived in imagining the substance of the bread to be swallow'd up and converted into the substance of christ's body , in this holy sacrament . xi . christ's humane nature being united to the divine , became worthy thereby to be called , together with it , by the same common name of christ , lord , jesus , the word , the son of god ; the bread being by consecration mystically united to christ's body , becomes worthy to be called , together with it , the lord's body ; but that is all , the humane nature still continues what it was before ; in the one , the nature of the bread still continues what it was before in the other , and there is no transubstantiation made in either . xii . in a word , in the hypostatick union , though there be two distinct natures , god and man , yet there is but one person , one son made up of both . so in the holy eucharist , though there be two different things united , the bread and christ's body , yet we do not say there be two bodies , but one mystical body of christ , made up of both ; as the king and his image , to use the similitude of the antient fathers , are not two , but one king : or in the example of st. chrysostome himself , christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…y . reflection iii. of the epistle it self , and the attempts that have been made against it . i. and now when such is the force of this epistle , that it utterly destroys one of the principal errors of popery : it is not at all to be wondred at , if those men who were resolved not to be convinced by it themselves , have used all imaginable means to provide that others should not . ii. it is now above years , since this passage was first produced by peter martyr , in his dispute with gardiner , bishop of winchester , concerning the eucharist . he then profess'd that he had copied it out of the florentine ms. and that the whole epistle was put by him into arch-bishop cranmer's library . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ this gardiner could not deny , who therefore in his answer to him . endeavour'd first to ascribe it to another john of constantinople , who lived about the beginning of the th century . secondly , to elude the force of this passage , by that strange interpretation of the word nature , i have before mentioned , and in which all the others have since follow'd him . iii. † † † † † † turrian , who by his writing seems to shew that he had somewhere or other seen this epistle , contends in like manner , and if we may believe vasquez , and de valentia , proves it too , that this epistle was not chrysostom's , but the other john's , to whom the bishop of winchester had before ascribed it . but yet still the argument recurr'd upon them , forasmuch as this other john was in the beginning of the th age , and transubstantiation by consequence was not the doctrine of the church then . iv. and indeed gamachaeus is not very unwilling to acknowledge this : for having with the rest assigned this epistle to the other john , he tells us , he is to be excused , for that transubstantiation was not so plainly delivered and explain'd in those days as it is now . v. but this * * * * * * cardinal perron could not bear , he neither thought fit to rely upon an evasion , which he saw would not do their business , nor could he endure to allow so antient an author as either of the two johns , to have been so directly opposite to their sentiments in this matter . and therefore flatly accuses peter martyr of forgery , and uses abundance of arguments to perswade the world , that there was never any such epistle as had been pretended . vi. thus stood this passage , and the whole epistle for its sake ; till about six years since the learned bigotius , who had twelve years before brought a copy of it from florence , resolved to ruine all the endeavours of these men , by publishing the very epistle , which the cardinal had so loudly proclaimed to be a forgery , and proving it to be indeed the genuine off-spring of st. chrysostome , contrary to what the rest had in vain pretended . vii . and this he accordingly , with great sincerity performed , ann. . for in his edition of palladius that year , among the other pieces which he added to it , this epistle of st. chrysostome had one of the first places , and was strengthned by him with such attestations , as shew it to be beyond all doubt authentick . in his preface he declared how he came by it , and made a short apology for that passage of it that had caused so great a contest ; but such as it seems , he was either conscious to himself , not to have been very strong , or fear'd at least that his censors would not esteem it to be so . viii . and in this i speak no more than what he himself declared to his friends , insomuch that he resolved to reserve privately some few copies , for fear the rest should run that risque , which indeed they accordingly did . for being now quite finish'd , and just ready to come abroad , some of the doctors of the sorbonne , whereof monsieur grandin and mr. faure have been charged as the principal , caused it to be suppressed , and the printed leaves cut out of the book , without any thing to supply the place of them . ix . and of this the edition of palladius of that year remains a standing monument , both in the preface , and in the book ; and it was publickly complain'd of by a very learned man , in an expostulation prefixed to a piece of anastasius , publish'd by him about two years after . x. but what that reverend person could not then obtain , being since fallen into my hands , i mean the very leaves cut out by these doctors , of mr. bigot's preface , and the epistle rased out of the book ; i was unwilling to come into a part of their fraud , by detaining any longer that , which both so well deserved , and had so long since been prepared for a publick view . xi . i hope the learned world , whom i principally design to gratifie in this matter , will accept this never the worse , for that mr. le moyne the last year published this epistle among his varia sacra : that learned man having neither given the greek fragments , which i now publish from monsieur bigots own impression ; nor monsieur bigots account of it , in the part of the preface which was suppress'd . not to add , that the latine copy of mr. le moyne is so very false , that it renders the epistle utterly unintelligible . i do not pretend to anticipate his design , which he appears so jealous of : that is too vast to be injured by any thing i can offer ; and i shall be glad if what i now publish may be any way serviceable to it . xii . as to the authority of this piece , i shall need say no more than what monsieur bigot has already done to prove it to be genuine . so many ancient authors have cited it , as st. chrysostom's epistle to caesarius ; such fragments of it remain in the most antient writers as authentick , that he who after all these shall call this piece in question , may with the same reasonableness doubt of all the rest of his works , which , perhaps upon less grounds , are on all sides allow'd as true and undoubted . but it is time now to see what account monsieur bigot himself gives of it . suppressa in praefatione emerici bigotii , de epistolâ chrysostomi ad caesarium , monachum . hanc orationem sequitur epistola ad caesarium , monachum , quae licet nitore suo nativo , id est , graeco eloquio , destituta , nihilominus sub velo veteris latinae interpretationis mirificos eloquentiae disertissimi doctoris radios exhibet . primus qui ultimis temporibus hujus meminit epistolae , fuit petrus martyr , florentinus , qui ex eâ locum quendam protulit in locis communibus . insolitus loquendi de eucharistia modus , qui ex eâ referebatur , à johannis chrysostomi phrasi * * * * * * ac genio prorfus alienus lectores in diversas traxit sententias . aliis supposititiam esse affirmantibus , aliis pro virili contendentibus , veram esse as genuinam ; omnes integram videre summe concupivêre ; dolueruntque petrum martyrem , qui primus de eâ mentionem injecerat , minime indicâsse quae in bibliotheca extaret codex ms. florentiae delitescere omnium erat suspicio , quia florentinus fuit petrus martyr , sed ubi , ab omnibus nesciebatur . mihi quae fortuna faverat in reperiendo contextu graeco vitae st. johannis chrysostomi , hic etiam non defuit . ejus exemplar reperi apud r. r. p. p. dominicanos , in monasterio s. marci . cujus te in partem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 venire libens patior ; nec expecto ut mihi succlames in commune , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , si mode exorari te sinas , ut benignâ interpretatione emollias , quae duriuscule sonant de eucharistiae sacramento , & in memoriam revoces tot & tam insignes locos , in quibus adeo luculenter de hoc sacro-sancto mysterio loquitur joannes noster , ut doctor eucharistiae vocari meruerit , sicut s. augustinus doctor gratiae vulgo praedicatur . dixi petrum martyrem primum postremis temporibus hujus epistolae meminisse , quae antea graecis patribus notissima fuerat , utpote qui multa testimonia ex ea adversus monophysitas & acephalos adduxerunt , ut observare licet in notis , quas margini apposui , indicando codices ex quibus textum graecum apud illos patres à me inventum descripst . caeterum ubi deficiebant verba graeca , vacua columnarum spatia reliqui , nec passus sum ea punctis , aut lineolis , sicut librariorum mos est , repleri , ut possint inibi viri eruditi verba graeca adscribere * * * * * * siquando ea invenerint . cum enim experimento noverim , quo casu , quâve fortunâ in ea quae attexui testimonia , inciderim , non despero ab aliis alia posse inveniri . quisque experiatur cui fortuna erit faventior ; & si cui ea obsecundaverit , is ne publico invideat , neque apud se inventa privatim detineat . qui veteres libros tractant , norunt nullam veteris cujuscunque libri editionem , quae ex unico exemplari fuerit eruta , hucusque prodiisse , omni ex parte perfectam . manu exarati codices mutuas aliorum exposcunt operas , ut quod in uno corruptum est , ab alio sanetur ; quod in une vetustas obliteraverit , ab alio lucem accipiat . hoc verum esse de codice hujus epistolae fateri cogor , qui licet annorum sit , parum tamen emendatè scriptus est , & opem à graeco praecipuè codice , aut ab alio saltem latino , postulat . in eo quem vidi , aliquando voces continuae sunt , aliquando simplex vocalis e pro diphthongo ae scripta fuit ; t pro d , & vice versa d pro t ; verbis aliquando ita corruptis , ut ad sanitatem reduci minimè possint absque subsidio aliorum codicum . quae scribarum incuria deterruit , opinor , petrum martyrem ab eâ edendâ . taceo interpretationem , quae minus accurata , imo planè barbara videtur . ego his omnibus naevis lectores benevolos nequaquam offensum iri arbitratus sum ; imo eam libenter excepturos puto quam damus epistolam , latinè quoquo modo versam , cujus fragmentum à petro martyre editum , eruditorum animos pridem sollicitavit . quis enim illud cum legerit , joannis chrysostomi mentem percipere possit , ex eoque animadvertere , quâ occasione , quo animo ejus verba * * * * * * scripta sunt ? in eâ porro epistolâ mirari licet summam & insolitam dei amantissimi viri charitatem , qui licet innumeris aerumnis oppressus esset , atque continuis terroribus ob isaurorum incursiones , ut ipse scribit in epistolis ad olympiadem , paenè exanimaretur ; nihilominus cum audisset caesarium , monachum , amicum suum in apollinaris & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haeresim incidisse , eum pro incredibili suâ bonitate ab haeresi avertere , atque in sincerae pietatis viam revocare hâc epistolâ molitus est . quantum vero apollinaris haeresis tunc grassaretur , & quàm multos invafisset , ex eo colligere licet , quod contra apollinaristas & synusiastas scripserunt diodorus , tarsensis episcopus , quem supra memoravi , gregorius nyssenus , cyrillus alexandrinus , theodorus mopsuestenus , theophilus antiochensis , ut alios plures omittam . atque ut ab eo errore caesarium revocaret joannes , eumque ad catholicam fidem , quae duas in christo naturas inconfusas sub unâ personâ confitetur , epistolâ reduceret , comparationem ab eucharistiae sacramento mutuatur , in quo panis post consecrationem , non jam panis , sed corpus christi appellare dignus efficitur ; etiamsi natura panis , inquit , in ipso permansit , & non duo corpora , sed unum corpus filii praedicatur . quibus verbis sanctus doctor veram ac realem , ut vocant , corporis christi in eucharistia presentiam supponit , & agnoscit ; alias certe nulla esset cum humanâ ac divinâ in christo naturâ eucharistiae comparatio . ips : chrysostomus homil. . ad populum antiochensem : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . elias enim pallium reliquit discipulo suo ; dei autem filius ascendens in coelum , nobis carnem suam reliquit : sed elias se exuit , christus vero & carnem suam nobis reliquit , ipsamque habens , ascendit . et hom. . in matthaeum : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic etiam in mysteriis faciamus , non illa quae ante nos jacent , solummodo aspicientes , sed verba quoque ejus tenentes . nam verbis ejus defraudari non possumus , sensus vero noster deceptu facillimus est : illa falsa esse non possunt , hic saepius atque saepius fallitur . quoniam ergo ille dixit , hoc est corpus menum , obediamus , & credamus , & oculis intellectûs id perspiciamus . integrum librum consicerem , si ex chrysostomo locos omnes excerperem , in quibus de sacratissima eucharistia similiter loquitur ; sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit , eos in fonte legisse . thus far bigotius's preface : as to the epistle it self , i have publish'd it exactly as it was in the paris edition , whose pages i have retain'd , that those who please , may see the defect in that part of palladius , out of which it was rased . for the little notes which i have added , they contain a collation , . of the latin of bigotius , with the latin of mr. le moyne's copy , in which i do not know that i have omitted the least variation , even of a single letter . . of the greek fragments collected by bigotius , with some other mss. that have been communicated to me . in which , a denotes the arundel ms. cited by dr. cave in his chartophylax eccles. c. one of monsieur colbert's library , examined by the learned monsieur allix . m. the latin copy publish'd by monsieur le moyne . epistola s. johan . chrys . * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 † † † † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t t t t t t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 † † † † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 † † † † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . incipit epistola b johannis episcopi constantinopolitani , ad caesarium , monachum , tempore secundi exilii sui . inspeximus literas tuae reverentiae : inspeximus autem b b b b b b non a a a a a a praeter c c c c c c lachrymas . quomodo enim b b b b b b non c c c c c c lachrymabimur , & animam ipsam dolore conficimus , videntes fratrem singularem vitam à pueritiâ eligentem , & d d d d d d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , consummatè circa pietatem se habentem , subitò autem e e e e e e haereticorum jactibus pulsum . et dicas forsitan ab errore ad id quod melius est venis , se te , & gratiam confiteri his , qui f f f f f f admirabilem illum g g g g g g protulerint librum , quem magnum esse h h h h h h optima tua nominant scripta , qui splendidè praedicat [ i i i i i i concursum essentialem & commixtionem sacram factam ex divinitate & carne , unam autem ex hâc , perfici naturam . ] istud mirabitur insipientis . apollinarii inconsideratio , ista eorum qui introducunt a a a a a a contemperationem & b b b b b b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est , commixtionem impiissima [ c c c c c c intentio , quae ] procedens immutat quidem arrii , apollinarii , d d d d d d & sabellii , d d d d d d & manetis nihil . passionem autem excogitari & adponi secundum illos unigeniti e e e e e e imaginatur deitati , quod à f f f f f f christianis alienum est . posside igitur . temetipsum iterum , dilectissime , & ad priorem regredere ordinem ab abominabili illâ abstinens [ g g g g g g opinione , quae est apollinaris , & eorum qui synusiastae dicuntur . impia cogitatio assidua è puris ] influens nocere novit , qui secundum nos sunt simplicitati conviventes . a a a a a a ductoris enim eorum est liber , apollinarii b b b b b b dico ; c c c c c c etsi hunc sibi tua reverentia non rectè faciens negotiata est . verum tamen nos recordantes tuae nobiscum conversationis , sentientes autem ex his quae scripsistis , errorem subsistere erga tuam dilectionem ex illorum insipientiâ non solum erga dispensationis d d d d d d mysterium , magis autem & erga nominum conjunctionem , excogitavimus deo cooperante nostrae infirmitati de omnibus manifestam ostentationem facere , ad redargutionem quidem e e e e e e malae opinionis eorum qui f f f f f f haereticum tibi protulerunt librum , * * * * * * correctionem autem tuae venerationis . g g g g g g deum ergo quando dicis , dilectissime , agnovisti id quod simplex est a a a a a a naturae , quod incompositum , quod inconvertibile , quod invisible , quod immortale , quod incircumscriptibile , quod incomprehensibile , & istis similia . hominem autem dicens , significâsti id quod naturae est b b b b b b infirmum , esuritionem , sitim , super lazarum lachrymas , c c c c c c metum , sudoris ejectionem , & his similia , quibus id quod divinum est extra [ est . d d d d d d christum autem ] quando dicis conjunxisti utrumque , unde & passibilis dicatur idem ipse & e e e e e e impassibilis , passibilis quidem carne , impassibilis autem deitate . eadem ipsa & de filio , & f f f f f f christo , & jesu , & domino praedicantur . communia enim ista , & [ g g g g g g susceptibilia duarum ] essentiarum nomina sunt ; quarum conjunctio in haereticis quidem errorem facit , proprio pro communi utentes nomine [ a a a a a a christi uno . his autem ] communibus istis b b b b b b uti oportet nominibus quando dispensationis confitendum est mysterium . si enim c c c c c c deum dixeris pertulisse , qualicunque d d d d d d cogitatione quod * * * * * * impossibile est , dixisti , id quod blasphemum est , [ e e e e e e & in * * * * * * manetis , & ] in aliorum f f f f f f haeresim declinâsti . impietatem , si iterum hominem dixeris qui pertulit , inveniris purum aedificans templum . templum † † † † † † crucis extra inhabitantem nunquam dicitur , quia iam non est templum . et forsitan dicunt , & quomodo g g g g g g dominus dixit , vt quid me vultis occidere hominem qui veritatem vobis locutus sum quam audivi à h h h h h h deo ? ben& egrave ; & omninò sapienter hoc dicendum est . [ a a a a a a neque enim ex hoc ab inhabitanti defraudabatur : ] sed significare volens patientem naturam hominis memoriam fecit , propter quod & b b b b b b deus & homo c c c c c c christus : b b b b b b deus propter impassibilitatem , homo propter passionem . unus filius , unus d d d d d d dominus , idem ipse proculdubus unitarum naturarum , unam dominationem , unam potestatem possidens , e e e e e e etiamsi non f f f f f f consubstantiales existunt , [ g g g g g g & unaquaeque h h h h h h incommixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem , propter hoc quod i i i i i i inconfusa sunt , dico . ] sicut enim antequam k k k k k k sanctificetur panis panem nominamus , divinâ autem illum * * * * * * l l l l l l sanctificante gratiâ , mediante sacerdote , liberatus est quidem m m m m m m appellatione panis , dignus autem habitus est a a a a a a dominici corporis appellatione , etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit , & non duo corpora sed b b b b b b unum corpus filii c c c c c c praedicatur : sic & * * * * * * hic divinâ d d d d d d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , id est inundante corporis naturâ , unum filium , unam personam , utraque haec fecerunt . agnoscendum tamen inconfusam & indivisibilem rationem , non in unâ solùm naturâ , sed in duabus perfectis . si enim unius , quomodo idquod inconfusum est , quomodo quod indivisibile , quomodo unitio dicitur aliquando ? [ e e e e e e sibimet ipsi enim uniri quae ] una est , aut confundi , aut dividi impossibile est . quod ergo infernum evomuit , unam in a a a a a a christo naturam dicere putamus * * * * * * divinam solam nominantes , non omni modo unam negant , b b b b b b nostram , dico , salutem aut humanan retinentes , non divinae abnegationem faciunt , c c c c c c dicuntque perdidit quod proprium erat . si enim unus est , salva nobis est unitio d d d d d d omnimodo , & ea quae unitioni sunt propria , salvari necesse est : si * * * * * * enim non , nec unitio , sed confusio & abolitio . mox autem ad interrogationis fluctuantes resposionem , ad aliquid aliud exiliunt , quod non sit proprium ad interrogationem : & inconstantes emittunt voces ; pertulit e e e e e e deus & non pertulit , & si petantur modum dicere , ad ignorantiam recedunt , proserentes ; quomodo f f f f f f voluit christi apud ipsos memoria fugiente posthaec a a a a a a vituperari in hoc ? mox dicunt , & b b b b b b christus non est c c c c c c deus sed & homo . et iterum dicunt , post d d d d d d unitionem non oportet dicere duas naturas . attende significationem dicti . unitionem dixisti : unius unitionem non invenis fieri , quomodo e e e e e e praevenientes diximus , sed verbum caro factum est & f f f f f f speculare eorum querentur subtilitatem . intulit enim , & inhabitavit in nobis . nunquid non ibi videtur , g g g g g g quia aliud est quod inhabitat praeter habitationem . si cognovissent , nunquam h h h h h h dominum gloria crucifixissent . dominum iterum quando dixeris , non proprium sed commune ▪ i i i i i i significatur nomen , passionis & impassibilitatis susceptibile . consueverant autem & istud * * * * * * praetendere putamus : non corpus k k k k k k dei & sanguinem accipimus , fideliter ac a a a a a a piè suscipiendum , non quia corpus & sanguinem possidet id quod divinum est naturâ , sed quià b b b b b b ea quae carnis sunt , propria facit . o inconsideratio ! o impia cogitatio ! periclitatur enim apud ipsos dispensationis mysterium , & iterum dominicum corpus , sicut c c c c c c verum corpus confiteri non patiuntur : per cogitationem enim dici conversum d d d d d d esse hoc in deitatem imaginantur , unam hinc construentes naturam , & ipsam cujus sit non e e e e e e juvantes dicere , ut passionem divinitati ; undique secundum apollinarium excogitantes , decidant à f f f f f f praemissis bonis putamus non g g g g g g contremiscent ista dicere audientes . non cogitant aeternum judicium , & h h h h h h domini vocem dicentis , ego sum & non i i i i i i immutor . caro infirma k k k k k k spiritus autem promptus * * * * * * pater si possibile est transeat à me calix iste . † † † † † † tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ palpate & videte , quia a a a a a a spiritus carnem & ossa non habet sicut me videtis habere . putamus deitati ista apta sunt . audiant & petrum dicentem * * * * * * b b b b b b christo pro nobis passo carne , & non dixit deitate . et iterum , tu es christus filius dei vivi : viventis dixit , non morientis . et quaecunque his similia divina nos edocet scriptura , cui violenti esse haeretici non desistunt . horum istas novitates* vocum declinantes , d d d d d d charissime , ad id quod praejacet , revertamur ; pium & valde pium , e e e e e e christum qui morte circumdatus est , confiteri in divinitate perfectum , & in humanitate perfectum , unum filium unigenitum , non dividendum in filiorum dualitatem , portantem tamen in semetipso indivisarum duarum naturarum inconvertibiliter proprietates , non alterum & alterum , absit , sed unum & eundem e e e e e e dominum , f f f f f f jesum , g g g g g g deum , verbum , carne nostrâ amictum , & ipsâ non inanimatâ , aut irrationabili , sicut impius h h h h h h apollinaris dixit . istis mentem intendamus , fugiamus eos qui dividunt . i i i i i i nam etsi duplex natura , veruntamen indivisibilis & indissipabilis unitio , in unâ filiationis confitenda personâ , & una k k k k k k substantia . fugiamus qui unam naturam post unitionem prodigaliter dicunt ; unius enim cogitatione impassibili deo passionem adjungere impelluntur , difpensationem abnegantes , & diaboli gehennam arripientes . ista propter mensuram epistolae sufficere arbitror , ad confirmationem tuae dilectionis , ô magnifice . explicit a a a a a a epistola b. joannis episcopi constantinopolitani ad caesarium , monachum , tempore secundi exilii sui . amen . num . vi. having , to satisfie the vindicator , used such exactness in my quotations , as to refer , for the most part , to the very pages where they are ; it was thought fit , if it may be , to prevent all future cavil , that i should here subjoyn this following account of the editions made use of by me . a. aquinatis summa theologiae , fol. colon. . articles of the church of england . see sparrow . arcudius de concordiâ ecclesiae occidentalis & orientalis , fol. paris . albertinus de eucharistia , fol. daventriae . arnauld perpetuité de la foy de eglise catholique touchant l'eucharistie , edit . vo . paris . amicable accommodation , &c. b. bellarmini controversiae vol. ingolstadii . idem de indulgentiis , vo . coloniae . blondel of the sybilline oracles , engl. fol. lond. . breviarium romanum , vo . antverpiae . bramhal's works , fol. dublin . bigotius vita chrysostomi per palladium , g. l. to . paris . balsamon in concilia in synodico , oxonii . bonae card. opera vol. vo . paris , . nouvelles dela repub . de lettres mr. b — juin . c. crasset , veritable devotion , &c. to . paris . card. capisucchi capit. theol. selec . concilia labei vol. paris . common prayer of the church of england . claude réponse au pere nouet , vo . amsterdam . cosins history of popish transubstantiation , vo . lond. . cassandri opera , paris . ejusd . consultatio , vo . vid. grotii via ad pacem . cajetanus card. in d. thomam , venetiis . ejusd . comment . in s. scr. lugduni . canones , &c. concil . trident. mo . coloniae . calvisii chronologia , fol. francofurti . cave , chartophylax ecclesiasticus , vo . lond. . d. dallaeus adversus latinorum de cultus religiosi objecto traditionem . to . genevae . . idem de poenis & satisfactionibus amstael . . durandus in sententias , lugduni . e. estius in sententias , paris . euchologium cum notis goar . paris . expostulatio de joan. chrysost. epist. suppressa , lond. . to . epiphanii opera gr. lat. coloniae . l' esprit de mr. arnauld vol. vo . deventer . . f. forbesii instructiones historico-theologicae , amst. . g. grotius via ad pacem , cum consult . cassandri , vo . . gregorii nazianzeni opera , gr. lat. paris . — invectiva in julianum , to . etonae . gregorii papae liber sacrament . menardi , to . edit . paris . gratiani decretum , fol. paris . gamachaeus . godefry vie de s. athanase vol. . paris . idem vie de s. basile vol. . paris . h. hookers ecclesiastical polity , fol. lond. . book of homilies , oxford . i. index ex purgatorius , fol. madriti . jesuits loyalty collect . of several treatises , to . lond. instruction pour gagner le jubilé , mo . paris . jurieux preservatif contre le changement de religion . vo . — le janseniste convaincu de vaine sophstiquerie , amst. . — prejuger legitimes contre le papisme , to . . innocent the xi . bull for an universal jubile upon the relief of vienna , august th . . l. ludolphi historia aethiopica lat. fol. francofurti . . lombardi sententiarum libri . vo . moguntiae . m. maldonate in prophetas majores , to . moguntiae . — in evangelia , fol. moguntiae . missale romanum , vo . paris . missale in usum sarum , fol. . stephani le moyne varia sacra , to . lugd. bat. . petri martyris de eucharistiâ . monsieur maimbourg peaceable method , engl. to . monsieur de meaux's exposition , engl. to . . — french edition , mo . à paris . traité de la communion sous les deux especes , mo . paris . — pastoral letter , engl. to . . n. noüet de la presence de j. c. dans le tres saint sacrament , to . paris . nicole , prejuges legitimes contre les calvinistes . paris — les p. r. convaincus de schisme , vo . paris o. officium b. virginis , vo . antverpiae . office of the holy week , lat. english , vo . paris . p. pontificale romanum , fol. venetiis . la politique du clergé de france , mo . amst. . du perron replique à la reponse du roy de la grande bretagne , fol. paris . du perron de l'eucharistie , fol. paris . petavius dogmata theologica , fol. paris . papist represented and misrepresented , st . edition . pajon examen du livre qui portepourtitre prejugez legitimes contre les calvinistes , vol. mo . à bionne . r. reponse à un ecrit publie contre les miracles de la sainte espine . seconde reponse à monsieur de condom , vo . . ruffinus . rituale romanum , to . antverpiae . reflexions generales fur l' exposition de monsieur de meaux , vo . à cologne de brandebourg . s. sparrow's collection of canons , &c. to . lond. . sexti senensis bibliotheca , fol. coloniae . suarez opera , fol. moguntiae . in p. d. th. . scotus in sententias , primitive letter , fol. socrates , sozomen , fol. paris edit . valesii . t. thomasi codex sacramentorum , to . romae . theodoret. opera vol. g. l. fol. paris . theophilus , turrianus , citati ab albertino . v. vasquez in d. thomam , ingolstadii . in part . venetiis . vindication of the b. of condom's exposition . vincentius lirinensis . gregorius de valentia , apud albertinum . z. zonaras in concilia : in synodico oxoniensi . . errata . pag. xvii . lin . of the read of their , pag. . l. . these r. those , pag. . l. . marg . and this is . pag. . l. ult . p. . r. . pag. . r. hard put to prove . p. . l. . p. . r. p. . pag. . l. . art. . . pag. . l. . of r. to . l. . i have . pag. . not . lachrimas , lachrimabimur . some literal faults there are besides these , which the reader may please to correct . add to pag. . lin . . but why do i thus long insist upon probabilities ? monsieur de meaux himself owns that he hath both seen and read the preservative ; and in his treatise of communion , does particularly encounter what monsieur jurien had therein advanced against his exposition : and yet has this man , after all , the confidence to tell the world not only that he never read father crasset's book , which is very improbable , but that he never so much as heard it mentioned , that there was any thing in it contrary to his exposition ; tho' that author , in that very book , has spent no less than * * * * * * six or seven pages on purpose to prove it ; not to say any thing of the † † † † † † many other treatises , and some of them answers to his exposition too , but all of them well known in france , that have done the same . he that can believe this , let him also believe , that m. de meaux had no hand in the first edition of his exposition ; that the sorbonne doctors never corrected it , nor he suppress'd it upon that account ; that that whole edition was condemned only to make some little alterations for the benefit of the method , and the greater neatness of the discourse and stile . in a word , that what he has so shamefully asserted in his late * * * * * * pastoral letter , as to a certain point , which i shall beg leave not to name , but which we can at any time bring him thousands to contradict , he either ever believed himself , or ever heard any other bishops say ; all which , as they have been shewn to be equally credible , so no doubt are they equally true too . finis . a second defence against the bishop of condom . imprimatur , liber cui titulus [ a second defence of the exposition of the church of england , &c part i ] novemb. . . h. maurice , reverendissimo in christo p. d. wilhelmo archiepiscopo cant. à sacris . a second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england : against the new exceptions of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , and his vindicator . the first part. in which the account that has been given of the bishop of meaux's exposition , is fully vindicated ; the distinction of old and new popery historically asserted ; and the doctrine of the church of rome in point of image-worship more particularly consider'd . london , printed for richard chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvii . the table of this first part . i. an address to the vindicator , laying down the method of the following defence . ii. the preface ; in which is contain'd , . an historical vindication of the distinction of old and new popery . p. iii. . an enquiry , how far we may judge of the doctrine of the church of rome , from the practices and opinions of the particular members of it . p. xii iii. the defence : divided into three general sections . p. i sect . i. after a short introduction , considers the bishop of meaux's second letter , in an address to the said bishop . p. the bishop of meaux's exposition written for the conversion of the mareshall de turenne . p. the several parts of the letter examined . p. . that there was an edition of the exposition suppressd , different from what we now see . p. . that these differences were in points considerable , and not only for the greater neatness of the stile , as the bishop pretends . p. . of st. chrysostom's epistle to caesarius . p. . that monsieur m — did answer the bishop of condom's exposition . ib. . . that father crasset's principles are not to be reconciled with the bishop of condom's exposition , as is pretended . p. . concerning the persecution in the diocess of meaux , and the bishop's repeated denial of it shewn to be a wretched prevarication . p. . cardinal capisucchi's doctrine in point of image worship , utterly inconsistent with the bishop of condom's exposition . p. his opinion at large considered , and compared with the principles of monsieur de meaux and his vindicator . p. . monsieur imbert's case examined . that he was prosecuted by the archbishop of bourdeaux , for maintaining the doctrine of the bishop of condom and the vindicator . p. . of cardinal bona — p. monsieur de witte , and — p. the pope's brief — ibid. the close . p. sect . ii. being an answer to those false imputations which the vindicator has cast upon me , and the rest of my brethren of the church of england . p. the reasonableness of this consideration . ib. the summ of this section divided into three parts . part i. in which it is shewn with what spirit and design the vindicator took this course to defame us . p. . that the principles of many of the casuists of the roman church do allow the defaming of an adversary by such accusations as they know to be false . p. . that we have just cause to believe , that the vindicator has proceeded according to these principles , shewn . . from the accusations themselves , which he brings against me ; of which several instances are collected by way of specimen , whereby to judge of the rest . p. . from his laying hold on the lightest , and most pitiful occasions to run out into the most grievous accusations against me . p. . for that the allegations he advances , are many of them such as he can never be sure are true . p. . and some such as he certainly knew were false . p. part ii. in which his reflections are particularly consider'd , and refuted : in two points . p. . a refutation of those scandalous reflections which he has cast upon the generality of the church of england . p. a summary of them . . that we have misrepresented the doctrines of the church of rome , reviled , blackened , and calumniated its members , and ridicul'd its ceremonies . answered . p. . that we have done this out of malice and interest , and kept the people by ignorance to our party . p. this calumny answer'd , in its several parts , of malice — p. interest — ibid. ignorance . p. . that we have been estranged from devotion , and are therefore scandaliz'd at their ceremonies , because we have not the zeal that those of their church have . answered . p. . that many of our church are so byassed in their affections to us , that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen of things , but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards popery , tho against justice , equity , and conscience . answered . p. . that some factious spirits have animated the pulpits zeal ; and that by this means the parliament was hindred from proceeding in its loyalty as it began . answered . p. . that we manage things against them upon politick motives ; that we have designs , and leading-men , and certain persons to gratifie by what we do ; and that this will bring ill consequences upon the kingdom , &c. p. ii. an answer to those imputations that he has laid upon my self in particular . p. . to the ill names that he gives me . ib. . to his charges of wilful faults committed by me in the defence . p. . to his reflections that have no manner of reference to the subject of our dispute ; but were brought in meerly for reflection-sake . p. as to my preaching . p. — popularity . . to his catalogue of faults drawn up against me at the beginning of his reply . p. . to his charge of ill language , with reference . to the bishop of meaux . p. . to others , in which are justified those expressions so much cavill'd at ; of . st. thomas's reveries . p. . of some of their new saints horrid blasphemies . p. . of some of their churches addresses , being more like magical incantations , than christian prayers . p. part iii. in which is shewn by above xl instances of books yet unanswered , that we have fully obviated all their arguments beyond the possibility of a fair reply ; which might justly excuse me from entring any more on a particular review of the several articles in debate ; tho' i shall nevertheless in a second part of my defence , pass through all again with him . p. to the reverend the author of the vindication of the bishop of meaux's exposition , &c. sir , after two such obliging addresses , as i have now had the honour to receive from you , i should be very much wanting in my respects to a person who has shewn so near a concern for my salvation , should i any longer neglect my return to you ; and might reasonably expect to have my rudeness and incivility muster'd up to increase my damnation in the next catalogue your charity shall prompt you to publish of my sins . i cannot indeed tell whether i may not be defective in my gratitude , by sending my thanks to your self alone ; and your great caution in the close of your vindication made me once think that i ought to have return'd you your own inscription , to the author , or authors of those excellent pieces you have been pleased to oblige the world with on my account . for i have some reason to believe , that whatever you were as to the first , yet you are not the only person concern'd in the second reply . but yet since your books run altogether in the singular number , and that whoever gather'd your materials first , or supervised them after , yet i doubt not but you were the only architect your self , and alone concern'd in those immediate addresses to me ; i am confident i shall not be much mistaken in my particular return to you , or at least that you will have the goodness to excuse so easie , and so involuntary an error . and first , sir , i desire to return you my acknowledgments for your great care of my future state. i do beseech you to believe , that it is exceeding dear to me ; and that i am sensible that your advice is very just and reasonable that you give me for it . and tho' i shall shew you in what follows , that for what concerns either your self or your church , i had no great need of it ; yet it pleases me very much to hope that when i shall have fully proved by gods grace , where the fault lies , one who is so forward to preach to others , will certainly take great heed that he does not in the mean time himself become a cast-away . it were perhaps too much to expect that condescension from you , which you are pleased to recommend to me , viz. to make a publick acknowledgment of the calumnies you have thrown not upon my self alone , but upon the generality of our church , and to retract the false witness you have born against your neighbours ; especially since this , sir , cannot , you know , be done without acknowledging the insincerity ( for i am willing to give all things the softest names i am able ) of your late attempts in the new methods of conversion . and indeed some experience makes me think i may without uncharitableness presume , that the pride of nature is as powerful on your side to hinder persons from retracting what they have once advanced , as it is on ours : and the principles of your church do much more indispose you to confess your errors , than , god be thanked , ours do us . but sure , if any one , you , sir , who so much consider that eternity is at stake , and that an injustice which will render us miserable for that eternity , cannot be expiated without making satisfaction , will not find it so difficult to acknowledge your mistake ; no , not tho it should have been wilful ; ( which i dare not yet say of yours , however you , in charity no doubt to my soul , judge mine to be so ; ) rather than run into inevitable damnation . and i pray god give you this serious thought and resolution . having thus perform'd this first duty , i must in the next place , sir , thank you for what , next to my salvation , has always been most dear to me , the care you have had of my reputation . it may perhaps be thought by some that are not sensible how great my obligations in this particular are to you , that i might well enough have spared this complement ; especially since your modesty makes you utterly disavow any such tenderness of it . indeed , sir , as to your expressions , it must be confess d you are very free with me. you not only still adhere to your first charge of calumnies , misrepresentations , unsincere dealings , falsifications , every thing that you could think of that might serve to bespatter me , but only false quotations , which i do not now find you so ready to insist upon ; but that your reader might be sure to take notice of them , you draw them up into a catalogue at the beginning of your reply , and all along in your margin you put him in mind to remark them : but yet , sir , after all this , i cannot but own to you , that your books have done more to secure my reputation among all those whose esteem i value , viz. the honest and judicious readers , than any thing my best friends could have done for me. i need not , sir , tell you , that my exposition first , and then my defence , made some noise among very great numbers of both churches . i had discovered such secrets as perhaps few could have done besides ; such as startled many worthy persons of your own communion ; and which some even of our own side , who did not know what evidence i had ready to produce for them , could hardly almost believe . whilst great enquiry was made about them , some of your religion knew not what to think , others flatly deny'd all that had been said ; you , sir , more kind , procure me a letter from that worthy person the bishop of meaux himself ; pretending indeed to disavow , but really acknowledging all that i had said with reference to his exposition . a favour for which , now i am discharging these kind of debts , i shall not fail to publish to the world my engagements to him . it was not long before my defence made a new noise , and but little inferiour to that of my exposition . for besides that , it confirm'd all my former allegations with new proofs ; it gave me opportunity moreover to make some further discoveries , both of your church's worship , and of your own sincerity . and this , sir , you tell me did induce many others to an imitation of those calumnies i there threw upon you ; but i must beg leave to mind you of another inducement too , and that is , that it did induce the generality of your side to calumniate me , as one who had uttered nothing but downright untruths , and charged you with such things as were not to be found either in your books , or in your practice . but i may now reasonably presume that they will from henceforth retract this calumny too , ( if at least you will allow it to be a calumny to accuse falsely one of our religion ; ) since you have here satisfied the world , that these things you do write and practise , tho' indeed for want of an infallible interpreter , we who judge according to the principles of reason , are not able rightly to understand the meaning of them . and therefore , sir , tho' your words still stile me criminal , yet your allegations every where protest against them ; and i desire no other advocate than your self to plead my innocence . there is , sir , yet a favour which i ought not to pass by , tho' i could not a long time divine the meaning of it ; and it is your great self-denial , which prompted you , i suppose , through all your book , as well as in that single place , where you your self have been pleased to remark it , not to take too much satisfaction in having your adversary at an advantage . it was indeed generously done of you ; tho' some ( considering the nature of your church , ) will be apt to think it was not merely an excess of charity that made you treat your adversary with so much favour , but either the insuperable ilness of the cause you had to maintain , or some other defect , which i shall beg leave not to name . however it puts me in mind of the supererrogating merits of many of your saints , to whose honour the prudent vvriters of their lives , have remember'd it , that they were wont to counterfeit themselves mad or foolish , and do a thousand ridiculous and extravagant things , that being laught at , and despised by all the world for them , they might thereby have the better opportunity of exercising their christian humility and self-denial . but , sir , i fear by this time my civility may begin to grow more troublesome to you than my rudeness would have been , should i have dispensed with my self , as to this point of ceremony . and indeed i have so much to say in order to yours and the worlds satisfaction , that i ought not to spend too much time in unnecessary preliminaries . three things there are , which i would willingly do in the following defence , and which i think will comprise all that can reasonably be desired of me , viz. i. to discharge my obligations to the bishop of meaux . ii. to vindicate my self against such imputations as do immediately concern my own particular , but do not at all affect the cause i am to maintain . iii. to consider what you have further offer'd to clear your church of those great exceptions i had brought against it . and in all these i should be heartily glad i might acquit my self to yours ; but however i hope i shall do it to my readers satisfaction , and to whom therefore i must now beg leave to address my self , as to whose examen ( if i may presume to borrow your own phrase ) i freely commit it to judge betwixt us . the preface . when i consider the nature of those methods that have of late been made use of by many of the church of rome to propagate their errors ; with what industry they conceal the real doctrine of their church , and by complaining loudly against others for misrepresenting their opinions , endeavour to keep men from suspecting that the juggle indeed lies at their own doors . i cannot but call to mind the complaint of an ancient father against the heathen philosophers , and in apology for the christian religion : * * * * * * would to god , says he , we could but look into your own opinions , into the secret recesses of your mind in which you turn and devise various and hidden thoughts . we should find that you your selves think the very same with us . but what can be done to men that are obstinately bent to serve a cause ? — ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ye know that ye maintain an ill cause , and what ye have once done without reason , that ye defend , lest ye should otherwise seem to have been once mistaken , and think it better not to be overcome , than to assent to that which you cannot but confess to be the truth . i shall perhaps be thought by some to assume too great a liberty , in applying this to those with whom i have now to do . but yet when i see men so industrious in expounding the doctrine of their church into a sense that may come as near the reformation as is possible ; when for the doing of this they are forced to so many shifts as plainly shew there is something of violence in the undertaking : * * * * * * words forced from their natural signification to speak that which they call the church's sense ; ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ the order of sentences inverted ; * * * * * * figures pretended that were never heard of in the world ; the irrefragable , angelical , subtil , seraphical , invincible , illuminate , illustrious doctors , whose sentences and summs our fathers so much admired , now laid aside , as containing only ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ scholastick opinions , and not the necessary and universally received doctrine of the church ; the rest of their writers thrown off as private men , and for whose opinions the church is not to be responsible : i cannot then but think , that these men are certainly conscious to themselves , that they have been in the wrong , and that there was reason in our reformation ; tho' 't is neither safe nor convenient for the members of a church that has so long been used to damn us as hereticks on this account , and would be thought infallible in her decisions , to own it to the world. it is one of my chiefest crimes , and for which i perceive there is no indulgence to be expected , that i have in some measure endeavoured to bring these designs to light ; to shew that all this is indeed but a lure to draw men in , and that when once they are ensnared , they will then find things to be far otherwise than they are made at first to believe : or that if they are in good earnest in their present pretences , then they herein plainly depart from what their church once held , and are upon that very account esteem'd by others of their communion at this day , to be little better than protestant hereticks . how far the allegations i have heretofore brought to prove this , have been invalidated by what our author has endeavour'd this second time to return to them , i shall then consider , when i come particularly to examine the several articles of his reply . in the mean time i cannot but observe , that how much soever the vindicator may dislike the distinction i made of old and new popery , it is yet no other than what i found in effect made to my hand in some of the bishop of meaux ' s own converts , and in books which are said to have undergone his particular perusal before they were permitted to come into the world. 't is this which we find in plain terms avow'd by monsieur brueys , in his * * * * * * examination of the reasons which occasion'd the separation of the protestants from the church of rome . for having expounded his new faith so scrupulously according to monsieur de meaux ' s principles , that as himself tells us , ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ he says nothing but what that bishop had inspired into him ; so that he did in a manner but copy his sentiments , and repeat in publick what he had learnt in private from him ; he finally exhorts the protestants to return now from their odious separation , since the doctrine of the church was so expounded , as none of their forefathers had ever understood it ; nor , if they had , would ever have separated from it . i say return now , ( they are monsieur brueys ' s own words ) for it must be sincerely confess'd that the doctrine and worship of the roman church was never so cleanly expounded as in these our days . and i cannot but think , that had our fathers believed things to be , as in effect they are , and as they are now proposed to us , they would never have separated from its communion . i do not at all question , but that our fathers , who undoubtedly understood the doctrine and worship of a church in which they had been born and bred , and were many of them admitted to places of chiefest honour and dignity in it , could they now rise up from their graves , would stand amazed to see with what insincerity it is now expounded to us in these days . and tho' it has been so fully shewn , that no one has cared to give us an answer to it , that even taking the ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ roman doctrine according to their own exposition , we are not yet able to embrace it ; yet it must be acknowledged we should have much less to say to justifie our separation , had it been always such us 't is now represented to us . but this is not the only person that has given us grounds for this distinction ; for however we confess that popery is more cleanly expounded now than it was heretofore ; yet even in these happy expounding days of ours , there are still some who repine to see the good old popery so much run down , and give us very different interpretations both of the doctrine and worship of their pretended catholick church . and of this the author of the wholesome advices of the blessed virgin to her indiscreet worshippers will afford us a notable example ; who having given such a cleanly exposition of the church's doctrine in the points of the invocation of saints , and worship of images , as the bishop of meaux , and his vindicator now do ; tho' approved with all the solemnity i have heretofore shewn , and may now more fully be seen in the edition that has since been made of it in our own language , was nevertheless condemn'd in the most violent manner that can well be imagined , and that by the authority of the pope himself ; and drew the zeal of father crasset to overwhelm him with a whole volume of doctors and saints that lived in the former days of superstition and sincerity , before these new expositors had by pretending to interpret , indeed corrupted their faith. father crasset having thus defended the honour of the blessed virgin , and justified the old popery to be the true and standing doctrine of his church , his authority was soon alledged by the * * * * * * protestants in opposition to the bishop of condom's exposition . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ monsieur arnaud , who undertook the defence of the bishop , and it seems could not foresee how by the metamorphosing power of a cleanly exposition , even this father's book should come one day to be perfectly reconciled to monsieur de meaux ' s , freely gives up the author for a * * * * * * pitiful jesuit , and whose authotity was not fit to be compared with that of a bishop , supported with the approbations of so many other bishops and cardinals , and in short , of the pope himself . it is not then only in our calumnies that this reflecting distinction of old and new popery is to be found , but in the real disagreement of those of their own communion , who all equally pretend to understand the doctrine of their church , and the decisions of the council of trent . but to put this matter , if it be possible , out of all doubt , i will here subjoyn the copy of a letter written by an eminent convert upon his change , in which this distinction is plainly express'd , and the bishop of condom's popery evidently distinguish'd from that of the people , and of the bigots , or ( as he calls them ) the tartuffes of that church . the person who wrote it was monsieur ranchin , a counsellor of the parliament of tholouse , to monsieur ranchin his kinsman , and counsellor in the court of accounts , aids , and finances of montpellier . tholouse , april . . i am not much concern'd , my dear cousin , to think that my conversion has caused so general a joy , as you are willing to make me believe it has . it is sufficient to me that our family , and particularly your self , has taken some part in my change : and i most humbly thank you for the obliging testimony you have given me of it in the letter which you have done me the honour to write to me . but , sir , i ought a little to complain of your accusing me to have tarried so long out of interest in the p. r. religion . this might indeed be said in enggland or in holland , but that in france one should be of the p. r. religion out of interest , is what i never heard before . as for my own particular , i can truly say , that my professing that religion has been the ruine of my family . but i am become a catholick , because i thought that i might obtain salvation in that communion . it is the book of monsieur the bishop of condom that has convinced me ; that admirable book approv'd of late by the pope . if you have not yet seen it , i advise you to get it , and read it all your life . i do also in part owe my conversion to another little book composed by one in flanders , intituled , wholesome advices of the blessed virgin to her indiscreet worshippers ; and to the pastoral letter of the bishop of tournay , in form of an apology , dedicated to the people of his diocess , and which is also truly a golden book . for were the faith of the church such as the people and the tartuffes practise it , i would never have gone where i am ; and i have learnt from these books , that the pure belief of the church is quite different from their practise . you will comprehend by this , my dear cousin , that these books are no less necessary to the catholicks , than to the p. r. but i consider too late , that instead of a letter i am writing a treatise of religion . i hasten to conclude , and to assure you that i am , &c. were i minded to indulge my self the liberty of commenting upon this letter , i should not want occasions from a piece so very extraordinary , to make some rare and useful remarks . but i shall confine my self to the particular for which i alledged it . monsieur ranchin was one of the counsellors of the chamber of the edict of languedoc , whilst it subsisted . the king having suppress'd that chamber , and incorporated the officers into the parliament , monsieur ranchin soon perceived that things would not stop there , but that those of the reform'd religion must expect in a little time to be turn'd out of all their places . he had a great family , and but a small estate for a person of his quality . and now it was that the exposition of the bishop of meaux began first to open his eyes : he perceived the roman religion to be quite different from what he had hitherto thought it ; insomuch that from henceforth he became disposed to embrace it , not by way of abjuration of what he held before , but by way of addition , i. e. by adding the roman superstitions to it . this was easily consented to by those of the other party ; he insisted upon having the communion in both kinds , but that was deny'd him ; but the principal matters were agreed to , viz. that for the change he was to make , he should have crowns in hand , and a pension of a more per annum , together with the assurance of his place to himself and his son after him , besides the hopes of higher advancement . and thus our new convert enters into the bosom of the catholick church , not that the disliked his own religion , or thought the other better ; no , his letter evidently implies the contrary ; but he thought that by the help of the bishop of meaux's exposition he might make a shift to be saved in it . he saw the abuses that were in that church , and he loudly declares against them : he professes he was so far from being of the religion of the people , and of the tartuffes of the church of rome , that nothing , no not ready money in hand , and a good place and pension for the future , should have been able to carry him to it . he advises his kinsman to read those golden books ( he had indeed reason to call them so , for so they were to him ) that had so well expounded the doctrine of the catholick church ; and were no less necessary for the roman catholicks than for the protestants instruction : that according to these he did hope he might be saved in the church of rome ; but for the people and the tartuffes , that are not yet so happy as to understand these expositions , there is no salvation to be had for them . and here at least i think it cannot be deny'd , but that we have two sorts of popery very openly and freely avow'd : one such as that a man may be saved in the profession of it , viz. that of the bishops of meaux and tournay , and of the wholesome advices of the blessed virgin to her indiscreet worshippers : the other of the people and the tartuffes , or zealots of that church , and for whom monsieur ranchin it seems had no great hopes . nor let it be thought so very extraordinary in this person that he entred into the roman communion at the same time that he saw and condemn'd the excesses of it . this has been but too common in those parts . * * * * * * and my author from whom i have borrowed the foregoing account , gives us a notable instance of another , one ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ monsieur pawlet , a minister of his own acquaintance ; how being convicted in one of their synods of such crimes as rendred him unworthy of his charge , he endeavour'd to cover his infamy by changing his religion ; and was wont afterwards frequently to declare , when he came among those of his former profession , that he could not but very much blame such as follow'd his example ; that for his own part , he knew the secret how to save himself , notwithstanding his change ; but for the other revolters who were ignorant of it , they would all infallibly be damned . but the resolution of the inhabitants of montauban is yet more extraordinary ; who being by the missionary dragoons convinced that it was their duty to obey their prince in changing their religion , did it with this declaration ; we acknowledge that the abuses which are imputed to the church , were not sufficient to oblige our ancestors to separate from it : wherefore we do now reunite our selves to the church , but yet so as not to prejudice thereby those remonstrances which we shall be permitted to make to the clergy to purge the roman church from many abuses . i need not sure repeat what i have already said with reference to monsieur imbert's case . for however the bishop of meaux may endeavour to lessen the reputation of that man , yet since he cannot deny the truth of my relation ( which is indeed no other than what he himself publish'd both in his letter and factum of it ) we may thereby plainly see how his exposition of the faith agreed neither with the missionaries preaching , nor with the peoples practice . and let the vindicator cry out * * * * * * calumny as much as he pleases in his answer to my account of their good-friday-service , and tell the world that i ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ falsify their words , because i render their venite adoremus , behold the wood of the cross , come let us adore it ; the dispute between that unfortunate man and the curate upon that very occasion , monsieur imbert insisting upon the same exposition the vindicator does now ; whilst the other cry'd out , the wood , the wood , come let us adore it , sufficiently shews that all were not agreed on the new popery interpretation : and the hard usage he has met with from his diocesan since , for supporting that exposition the vindicator so much contends for , may satisfie the world , that not only the curè , but even the archbishop of bourdeaux himself thought there was neither calumny nor falsification in the application i made of that day's service . i am sure poor monsieur imbert has been made but too sensible of it , and i shall rather be content the vindicator should still esteem me a falsifier and a calumniator , than be so uncharitable as to wish him the like conviction . it may perhaps be thought a little too late , since the new alliance struck up between father crasset and the bishop of meaux , to remember the quarrel between the wholesome advices of the blessed virgin to her indiscreet worshippers , and the true devotion towards the blessed virgin establish'd and defended ; that is to say in other words , between the new popery and the old. but tho' father crasset be now become an expounder too , yet may i not beg leave to remark from the subject of those advices against which he wrote , that there are , it seems , some in the church of rome , who perswade themselves that tho' they live sinful lives , yet they may be assured of their salvation , if they do but perform some devotion to the blessed virgin ? — nay , that think that tho' they have no love for god , yet they may be saved by supplicating our lady : — who pray to the holy virgin , as if she had more goodness and mercy than jesus christ , and so put more confidence in her intercession , than in the merits of her son : — who pay their homage to the holy virgin , as to some inferiour divinity , and believe that without her there is no approaching god , even through jesus christ himself : — who make the virgin mary mediatrix between men and jesus christ , as if she had some merit in her self which she had not received from her son : — who give the same titles of honour to the virgin mary , which ought to be given to god only ; — nay , and even make her equal with god and jesus christ : — who depend so much on the virgin mary , that they never have recourse to jesus christ ; — preferring their devotion to the virgin , before their love to god : who as to the point of images put their trust in them , as if there were some divine power in them ; imagining that there is a great difference between some of the images of the virgin , and that some are better than others ; and that it is no longer ago than * * * * * * . that it was thought a crime to be condemn'd , not only by a pope and a king , but by the learned of all nations , a crime worthy of banishment in this life , and of damnation in the other , but only to advise them better . it may be the vindicator will here cry out , that these are only private men , and that the church is not to answer for their extravagancies : but yet still this at least shews that there is an old and new popery amongst them , and that 't was none of my fiction to oppose them to one another . but however , because he is concern'd that i took no notice of his admonition , and may otherwise in his next reply clap a new note of calumny in his margin , to prevent , if it may be , not so much my own defamation as his sin , may i humbly beg leave to enquire what at last this thing called the church's sense is , and how we may come to the knowledge of it . if the pope and all the states of the church , if the large dominions of his catholick majesty , if the learned of all nations , if not the simple people only , but the most holy bishops and most learned doctors , nay , and even the fathers themselves be sufficient to declare a doctrine of the church , all these father crasset has assured us do maintain that honour of the blessed virgin , which this adviser writes against , and which is utterly destructive of the bishop of meaux ' s pretences . but if all these be but private mens opinions , and the church is not concern'd to answer for them , how then comes the bishop of condom to be so catholick an expositor , that whatsoever he delivers , must presently pass for the sense of the church , but what all others say , only for scholastick niceties , or the doctrines of particular persons , and which the church is not obliged to maintain ? now this i so much the rather desire to be inform'd of for that , i. as to number ; 't is certain that the patrons of old popery in italy , spain , flanders , and germany , among the tartuffes and common people in general , as monsieur ranchin is pleased to assure us , do very much exceed both the french expositors , and their late disciples , the english representers and vindicators . ii. as to the expressions , not only of the publick service and rituals of their church , but even of the council of trent its self ; they are so plain on their side , that it needs a great deal of artifice in these new undertakers to reduce them to what they call the church ' s , but is indeed their own sense . the council of trent directs them with reference to the * * * * * * saints themselves , to fly not only to their prayers , but to their aid and assistance too ; that is , says our ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ infallible expositor and his * * * * * * vindicator , to the aid and assistance of their prayers : but others , with less art indeed , but with more sincerity , and in the very words of the council , to their prayers , aid , and assistance . as to their reliques ; the council of trent declares , that those who affirm that veneration and honour is not due to the reliques of saints , or that the said reliques , and other sacred monuments are unprofitably honoured by the faithful ; or that for the imploring of their aid , the memories of the saints are in vain frequented , are to be condemned . this the council decrees ; and the old popery men accordingly do go to these reliques , these sacred monuments , to receive the benefit of them : some , to sanctifie their handkerchiefs , or beads , or rings ; some to procure health and strength by virtue of them ; others for other benefits which they hope to obtain by them : all which is so undoubtedly their practice , that the * * * * * * representer himself is content to allow of it : since , as he expresses it , god has made them the instruments of many evident miracles which he has visibly work'd by them , as is manifest upon undeniable record : but this , says the ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ vindicator , is a false translation ; for we do not seek to those sacred monuments for the obtaining of their help and assistance , no , that 's not the council ' s meaning ; but we seek for the help of the saints at their monuments : and be either the words of the council , or the practice and belief of the people never so against it , yet our infallible interpreter assures us upon his word , that the sense of the church is what he expounds to us . concerning images ; ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ the council of trent determines , that the images of christ , the blessed virgin , and the saints , should be bad , and retain'd in temples , and that due honour and veneration be given to them . upon this the old popery-men dispute what this due honour and veneration is : some will have it only an inferiour cult , but more to be the same , whatever it is , that 's given to the proto-type : and these are so positive , that theirs is the church's sense , that cardinal capisucchi however approving monsieur de meaux's exposition , yet can hardly forbear passing very severe censures on those who deny it . i shall hereafter more fully shew his opinion as to this point ; suffice it to add here that instance which he gives us of * * * * * * aegidius magistralis , canon of sevil in spain , who was forced to abjure , among others , these two propositions as heretical , viz. st . that the images of saints are not to be adored with the same adoration with which the proto-types are adored . ly . that the cross is to be worshipped only with an inferior worship ; which proposition , says he , is heretical , and i retract it . then he declares with s. thomas , that the cross is to be worshipped with a supreme adoration . so that this , it seems , is not thought a meer scholastick nicety in spain , whatever it be in france or england ; but so much the church's sense , that it was declared to be heresie to oppose it . but what now does our catholick expositor say to all this ? why , truly , that these men quarrel with one another to very little purpose , seeing that after all their disputings , to speak precisely , and according to the ecclesiastical stile , when we honour the image of an apostle or martyr , our intention is not so much to honour the image , as to honour the apostle or martyr in presence of the image . which his reverend vindicator thus paraphrases : the cross , whether taken as wood or stone , or moreover as the image of jesus christ crucified , is not properly the object of our worship , but is a help to recal our wandring thoughts back to a consideratirn of the benefits we have received by his dying for us : and whilst we have these good thoughts in our minds , our affections are inflamed , and we in presence of that image , which occasion'd these pious affections , shew by some exteriour act what are our inward sentiments , and pay our adorations to our redeemer , but not to the image that represents him . this is the pure and innocent doctrine of the church , without the mixture of scholastick niceties . that here are two very different expositions of the same council , is not to be deny'd ; and whether is most agreeable to its decision , and by consequence to be esteem'd the church's sense ; whether that due honour is to be given them , as st. thomas and the schools say ; or that * * * * * * none at all , as the vindicator , or none in effect , as monsieur de meaux says , 't is , i think , easie to determine . and the abjuration of aegidius magistralis who favour'd this new doctrine , but was forced to retract it as heretical ; not to remember the hard fortune of poor monsieur imbert any more , may in ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ cardinal capisucchi ' s phrase , be at once both a caution and a conviction to them . as to the service of the church ; and which one would think should certainly speak the church's sense , that is so clear against our new expositors , that the vindicator is put to great shifts to reconcile its offices to their interpretations . in those the saints are pray'd to , to help and deliver them , to open to them the gates of heaven ; to command that they be loosed from their sins ; to loose their polluted lips , that they may pray as they ought to do ; to receive them at the dreadful hour of death , and by their merits to pardon their transgressions . and all this the people and the tartuffes , i. e. the false zealots of their church in the simplicity of their hearts believe that they do for them . but our new expositors assure us they are all grosly mistaken ; for however the words do indeed in their own natures signifie all this , yet the sense of the church is but one ; and be the expressions what they will , yet after all , we must understand by them no more than this , pray for us . but wherefore this extravagan●t exposition must pass for the church's sense , or how their declaration makes it become so , when that of so many others that interpret all these phrases according to their proper meaning , is to be look'd upon only as the opinion of private men , we are yet to learn. in their addresses to the cross , they cry out , we adore thy cross , o lord ; they fall down before it , and adore it ; and this , not only the people and the whole church does , but for endeavouring to mollifie the design of it , one man is imprison'd another banish'd , a third recants and abjures his opinion as heretical ; yet still 't is calumny , 't is falsification , misinterpretation , and what not , for us to presume to say that they do adore the cross , or that the church's sense is any other than to adore , not the cross , but jesus christ represented by that image . let us add to all this , iii. that not only the expressions of their councils and rituals more visibly favour the old popery , but the allow'd practice of the church , most evidently confirms it . 't is well known that a great part of the devotion of italy and some other countries , consists in these things . with what zeal they enrol themselves under the more immediate protection of the blessed virgin , to love , honour , and serve her all their lives ; and what confidence they repose in her , as i have before observed ; how every place , and person , and trade , and company , have their tutelary saints to guard , and to defend them ; every disease for man and beast , its proper physician above to cure it . how they flock to such images as have been eminent , whether for some pretended miracles , or any other vertues above others ; and with what ardor they accompany them , if they chance at any time to be carried abroad in procession ; what a value extraordinary they put upon any thing that has but touch'd the shrines in which are kept the reliques of their saints , as being sanctified thereby ; and how much devotion they esteem it to go ●o the places where they are kept to visit and adore them : how many excellent things they are taught an agnus dei is good for , not only to secure them against thunder and lightning at land , against storms and tempests at sea , but if pope urban the vth. may be believed , even to break sin , as if it were the blood of christ ; not to mention any more of their superstitions . now as this cannot be deny'd to be their practice , so we desire to be informed how it comes to pass , that if the church's sense be indeed so contrary to it , these things are not only thus universally tolerated , but encouraged , and there especially where one would think the roman religion should best be understood ; i mean in those places where there has been the least mixture of protestant heresie to corrupt it ; where the vigilant eye of christ's vicar does more immediately watch over it ; and above all , the sacred authority of the holy inquisition , that rock upon which the church is built , has hitherto defended it against such reforming expositors as we have here to do with . it may , i think , by this time appear how unwarrantable a presumption it is in these upstart interpreters to run down all others of their church that do differ from them as only private men , and at the same time to forget that themselves are no more . and he must certainly be very willing to be deceived , who knows any thing of these matters , that can believe that after all the disputes of so many learned men on both sides , as have heretofore labour'd in this controversie , nevertheless the true doctrine of the church of rome was never rightly understood till these new cato's dropp'd down from heaven to publish to the world their expositions of it . it is , doubtless , much more reasonable to expound the doctrine of any church according to the general and allow'd practice of it , than according to the singular notions of a few private men , tho pretending to deliver nothing but the church's sense . a neat turn , and a happy invention may palliate the foulest things , and make them appear in the idea exceeding innocent ; but what a general practice confirms , no colour can disguise ; and let men say never so many fine things in their defence , yet all reasonable persons will still believe , that the church of rome does certainly approve that which its most zealous votaries so universally follow . and indeed after all , monsieur de meaux himself must acknowledge this to be most reasonable : so that if his exposition does differ from what is generally practis'd in his church , all his pretences of its agreement with the council of trent , will not suffice to justifie his sincerity . it is upon this very principle , that himself in his discourse of universal history attacks the heathens . he presses them with the publick practice of the people towards their gods , and values not what the poets or philosophers said with great pomp of words concerning the divine nature , whilst he saw the others involved in such gross superstitions . nor is this my reflection , it was made by one of his own communion , not long since , upon this very occasion . and because it may serve at once , both to clear what i am now shewing , and more fully satisfie the world , that this bishop's exposition , how much soever pretending to deliver to us the true doctrine of the catholick church , yet was not thought at all conformable , even by those of his own religion , to the general practice of it , i will beg leave to offer it in his own words . as for what i have said , that we must judge of the pagan religion not from the impertinencies of the poets , or the specious discourses of the philosophers , but from the worship which was practised by publick authority , i do not see what any one can reasonably except against it . for it is most certain , that 't is this alone which must justifie or condemn any religion . and 't is from this that the ancient fathers heretofore run down the heathens . monsieur de condom himself , who seems not to approve this method , but pretends that we ought to impute nothing to the catholick religion , but the meer decisions of councils , has nevertheless thought sit to impute to the pagan religion those abuses that were publickly committed amongst them . he decries it upon this principle , that its mysteries , its feasts , its sacrifices , the hymns which they sung to their gods , their paintings , which they consecrated in their temples ; all these had relation to the loves , and cruelties , and jealousies of their gods. the same monsieur de condom ( says he ) decries paganism upon this account , that they consecrated to their gods the impurities of the theatres , and the bloody spectacles of their gladiators ; that is to say , whatever can be imagined most corrupt , and most barbarous ; and he laughs at the expositions and softnings which the philosophers brought to all this , when they were to encounter the objections of the christians . he has reason ( continues our author ) so to do ; but yet this shews , that the method which himself has taken to render the catholick religion fair and agreeable to the protestants , is not to be maintain'd . for what is it to us , may they say , whether the abuses and superstitions that offend us in the church of rome , be to be found in the decisions of their councils , or not ? as long as we see them publickly and solemnly authorized by it , and that their worship consists in them , it is enough for us to keep our selves from its communion . for might not the heathens have defended themselves the very same way ? might they not have said , that those things which we reproach'd them with , were indeed abuses into which the people was insensibly fallen by the connivance of the magistrates , and by the ignorance or avarice of the priests ; but that we could never be able to prove , that the college of pontifs , and of the church duly assembled , had decided these things ? there is no doubt but the heathens might have made these excuses , had they been as subtile and ingenious as monsieur de condom , but what should we have answered ? that certainly they must take us to be very fools to defend themselves after such a manner . suppose a man should invite another to settle himself in a city where robbery and murder should be evidently and publickly tolerated , by shewing him that there was not to be found among all the laws of that city , any one statute that order'd men either to kill or rob , would he not have reason to laugh at him ? what is it to me , would he say , whether there be any law that commands you to murder or rob , or no ? 't is sufficient to me to keep me from dwelling there , that they do without contradiction rob and kill . confess we then ( says he ) that the hereticks may make the same answer to monsieur de condom , and that therefore the true and only means to free our religion from their exceptions , is to shew that it does not tolerate any thing but what is good : and that not only the decisions of its councils are orthodox , but also that the publick worship , the customs and doctrines authorized in it , are just and holy . and here then let us fix our selves : upon this principle be it resolved , whether i have falsified and calumniated ; or whether monsieur de meaux and his vindicator have not rather palliated and prevaricated the doctrine of the church of rome . if what these men expound to us be indeed , in our vindicator ' s phrase , the universally received doctrine of that communion ; if 't is according to these softnings , not that a few converts , whose very character carries a design in it ; but the pope himself proceeds ; the inquisition judges ; the most catholick countries ( where there is no design to be served by these mollifyings ) italy and spain believe , the people practise , and their chiefest saints have gone to heaven , and are now honour'd there : if this be the exposition which their books of controversie follow in stating of the points in difference between us ( and where one would think they should certainly deliver the church's sense against us ) which their publick rituals in their natural and most proper meaning speak ; which their treatises of devotion recommend ; and which by all these several ways the church publickly authorises ; be it then confess'd that we do indeed misrepresent them to the world. but if otherwise these softnings be only the inventions of some few persons , who , 't is much to be feared , see well enough the errors of their church , but want either the courage or the honesty to avow it ; if they are so far from being universally received , that as we have seen they are openly opposed , nay , condemned ; and those who have endeavour'd to support them , imprison'd , banish'd , forced to recant , and abjure their opinions as heretical , i hope it will not be thought at all unreasonable in us to let the world know wherefore we suspect these expositors , who , by whatsoever name we shall distinguish them , whether they be condomists , representers , or what else you will , they are indeed all of them but a sort of half-reformers , seeing the others have so much a more just pretence both for number and authority , to be esteem'd , what in truth they are , the old romanists . i shall close all with that reflection which monsieur maimbourg makes in general upon these kind of expositions , on the occasion of that paper which monsieur granvelle , by order of the emperor charles the v th . did present to cardinal contarini , the pope's legate in the diet of ratisbone , . and which was by him afterwards , with some little alterations , sent to rome , as a model of union between the romanists and protestants . it may be observed , says he , that in all times these pretended accommodations and managements of religion , which have been contrived to re-unite the hereticks with the catholicks , in these pretended expositions of the faith , which either suppress , or dissemble , or express in doubtful terms , or too much soften some part of the doctrine of the church , have never satisfied either the one or other party : but they have both equally complain'd , that men should not deal sincerely in a matter so delicate as the faith is , where 't is impossible to fail in one point , without being defective in the whole . how far not only i may beg leave to apply all this to the bishop of meaux's exposition , but even monsieur maimbourg himself designed hereby to reflect upon it , i shall leave it to those to judge , who know how far that author took all occasions , under the pretence of writing the histories of past-times , to make particular reflections upon the men and actions of the present . i am perswaded that at least , it is the true character of it ; and i hope , before i have done , to satisfie the unprejudiced reader , that i have good reason to think so . but if after all , some there shall be , whom no reason can prevail with , who in monsieur de meaux's own phrase , take pains to blind themselves , and will not see the light at noon-day ; i shall only say to them , what tertullian once did to some hereticks in his time ; that 't is not so much for want of evidence that they are not satisfied , as because their cause requires that they should not : for if men once resolve not to be perswaded , 't is then necessary for them not to acknowledge those things by which they are confuted . a second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the new exceptions of monsieur de meaux and his vindicator . addressed to the reverend vindicator . and thus far have i cleared the way to my defence , and shewn both that there is at this day an old and new popery in the church of rome , and how we are to proceed in order to the finding out which is the true and genuine sense of that church . i must now remember the method i before laid down , and shall from henceforth carefully pursue . two things there are , which i shall chiefly aim at in this undertaking , viz. clearness and sincerity ; and in either of which , but especially in the latter , if i prove defective , i shall neither be able to satisfie my own conscience , nor my reader 's expectation . as for the former of these , i have made such a division of my discourse , as seem'd to me most proper for this end . i have resolved to give every thing its due weight , by separating what belongs to my self alone , from what concerns the cause i am to maintain . and to the end that nothing of passion or frowardness may arise to hinder me from weighing all things with that indifference i desire , i shall first distinctly consider what is fit to be replied to those severe , for i will not yet call them unjust , reflections you have so industriously made upon me , that so i may afterwards have nothing to do , but freely to examine the force of your arguments ; without being diverted by the reproaches that accompany them . and for the latter , i do here promise you to make it sincerely my endeavour , not only that what i defend be the truth , but to defend it only with truth . you may think of me as hardly as you please , or as your furious zeal shall prompt you to do ; but i assure you i never will endeavour to perswade that to others , of truth , of which i am not first my self convinced . so that , if then you have indeed discover'd in my book any of those ill things you charge me with in your reply , you shall not fail to find me as ready to acknowledge my faults , as , i bless god , i always have been ; and if i may be allow'd to know my own heart , still am unwilling to commit them : or if this will not satisfie you , i will add , as you have been to discover them . believe me , good sir , my desire is to go the right way to eternal happiness : but whether this way lie on the right-hand , or on the left , or straight-forward , to me it is indifferent . and however you have thought fit , according to your usual charity towards those that differ from you , to assume to your self the prerogative of god in judging the secrets of my soul , and to affirm , as you most rashly and unchristianly do , what you can never be sure is true , and what i am sure is undoubtedly otherwise , that if i would speak my conscience , i know that what i say is false ; yet give me leave to tell you that my conscience is so far from accusing me in this matter , that i have hitherto felt no other motions at the reading of these bitter reproaches , than what fill me with wonder and indignation at your presumption ; at the same time that they engage me not only to forgive you my self , but earnestly to beseech god to forgive you too . and for your other reflections , wherein you seem to have taken a particular satisfaction to blacken me all you can ; ( you being , as i shall hereafter shew , much more sollicitous about your calumnies than your arguments : ) tho' you have been so scrupulously careful not to allow , no , not for the smallest errors , that you have often taken the liberty to invent there where you could not otherwise find whereof to accuse me ; yet so far shall i be from returning any thing of this upon you , that on the contrary , i will shew you that your example is not contagious where your principles do not prevail ; and that i am therefore as far from being moved by your calumnies , as i hitherto see any reason to be convinced by your arguments . but of these things more particularly hereafter . i must now pass to the first thing i proposed to do which was to discharge my obligations to the bishop of meaux , whom , you tell me , i have endeavoured to expose , by my contemptible raillery , to my own confusion among thinking men. to which all that i shall say at present , is , that for the contemptible raillery you speak of , it is none of my talent . i have heretofore shewn you some of your own friends , who have indeed attain'd to a perfection in it , and 't is pity they should lose that reputation , seeing they have so very little to pretend to besides . i have treated the bishop of meaux , and by the help of god always will treat him as his character requires me to do . i have neither laugh'd at him , nor mocked him , nor sharpened what i have said with any light , satyrical pleasantry , to render either his person , or his exposition ridiculous : and these are the only notions of raillery that i know of , or that i believe your better attainments in the french language will be able to discover . no , sir , be assured that what i have said , was serious truth , and deliver'd in such a manner , as i believe no one but your self ever mistook it for raillery . and if from what i shall now further remark it does appear , that even by that bishop's own confession i have spoken nothing without good grounds for it , i shall then leave it to any of your thinking men , be their faith what it will , freely to judge where the confusion ought to lie . sect . i. an answer to the bishop of meaux's second letter ; addressed to the said bishop . my lord ; tho i do not see any such great difference between your former letter and this , i am now about to consider , but that the answer i had given to that , might have excused me from saying any thing to this ; yet my respect to your character , which i cannot but reverence , be the person what he will that bears it , engages me to pay that to the dignity of your place , which i should not have thought due to the weight of your arguments . i could wish that our controversie had been so managed from the beginning , that i might have addressed my self to you without an interpreter , either in your own tongue , or in the language of the church : but it being now become the subject of a popular debate , i must leave it to those from whom you received the former , to send you an account of my present defence ; tho' i cannot but apprehend that they who have committed so many mistakes in communicating your letter to the world , will not be infallible interpreters of mine to you . your vindicator accuses me in his reply to my defence , of having endeavour'd to expose you by my contemptible raillery . it is not improbable but that he who has the confidence to lay so unseemly a behaviour to my charge , in the face of so many persons as have read my books , and must therefore know it to be a false and groundless imputation , may also have represented my demeanour to your lordship much otherwise than indeed it has been . but , my lord , i know better what i owe to your character , than to fail in any due reverence towards it ; and if i may be permitted to add it , am too sensible how you ought to have respected it your self , to be guilty of any rudeness that may seem farther to lessen it . i believe indeed , i may have said things that have been very ungrateful to you , but i am perswaded i have done it in such a manner , that you your self cannot justly complain of any want of civility in me . and i will now , as i have hitherto done , be by so much the more careful not to offend you in my expressions , by how much the more i apprehend that i must displease you in my allegations . it is indeed a thing to be lamented , that one , whom god has called to so high a dignity in his church ; whom he has endow'd with all the accomplishments of nature and art , that might fit him to do some eminent good in his generation ; to whom he has given favour in the sight of one of the greatest princes of christendom , and whose eyes he has opened to see many of those errors , to which others of his communion are still blind , should not attempt something worthy both his own character , and all these great opportunities : that the knowledge he has of some at least of those superstitions which his church is involved in , should not yet provoke his zeal to do somewhat that might effectually deliver it from them . i have heard , my lord , of the endeavours you use to reform these things in your own diocess ; and i am perswaded you would be glad to see your exposition establish'd , not by a few vain complements , which you know signifie nothing ; but by the effectual practice and decision of your church to become indeed an exposition of the faith of it . and though , were it as authentically ratified as it is now pompously approved , we should not even so be in a condition of returning to you ; yet we should then despair , but that being once sensible you could err , god almighty who disposed you to go thus far , he would not suffer you to stop there ; but would incline your hearts totally to embrace that truly catholick faith , from whence you have departed , and to which you now seem willing again to return . think i beseech you what an honour it would be to your see , if as the last reformation in france began there , so now a new and more lasting one might spring up , not from a poor trades-man as before , but from whence it ought to come ; the supream pastour of it . and if any secular hopes or fears have hitherto kept you from employing those advantages , i before mentioned , to this great end ; and for which perhaps it was that god has given them to you ; be perswaded at least yet to consider your dignity ; and what your people , your religion , your own soul requires of you ? 't is yet in your power to redeem all , and by your courage and sincerity now at the last , not only to blot out all that scandal you have hitherto given us ; but if it shall please god to bless your endeavours , to render your name honourable to the present , and your memory precious to all future generations . but if none of these considerations shall be able to stir you up to so glorious an enterprize ; if you are still so tender of the credit of your exposition , that you will not be perswaded to pursue any reformation , but by a method which you ought by this time to see will never accomplish it : you must then excuse us if we endeavour to lay open your designs to the world ; and keep you from doing any hurt , if you will not be perswaded to do all the good that you ought . the first thing i said concerning your exposition was , that it was designed either to satisfie or to seduce the mareschal de turenne . this your vindicator confirms with an authority which shall to me remain unquestionable . and though when i consider how many points were wanting to that first draught which appear'd of it , i must still believe that either your personal conferences with him , or some other papers to us unknown did perfect his conversion ; yet i will not doubt , but that it was the exposition that prepared the way to it . nor do i hereby at all pretend to undervalue the efficacy of your book : it is certainly neither for your lordship's nor the mareschal's reputation , to have it thought that he parted so easily with his religion , as he must have done , if the meer reading of an exposition of some few matters , and those none of the most considerable in debate betwixt us , were all the care that he took about it . but it may be the vindicator judges of your lordship's pains in converting hereticks , by the little they take who now labour in this design among us : and which i cannot more nearly compare with any thing than that method † † † † † † whereby tertullian tells us , the valentinians were wont heretofore to make proselytes to their faction : they trust not , says he , their own disciples , before they have made sure of them : they have an artifice by which they perswade them before they instruct them : but truth perswades by teaching , not teaches by perswading . i. but i return to your lordship's letter : where the first thing you except against is what i mentioned in my exposition , concerning a private edition of your book which was suppress'd , because the sorbonne doctors , to whom it was sent for their approbation , excepted against some things in it . now this , as it was none of my invention , but communicated to me by a person of undoubted integrity , and who came to the knowledge of it by the means * * * * * * i have heretofore said ; so i thought i had the more reason to credit the relation , because in your advertisement wherein you take notice of the other objections of monsieur de la b — , you pass over in profound silence all that he had charged you with concerning this suppressed edition ; though a point certainly considerable enough to have had some notice taken of it , had it not been a little too hazardous , especially in your own countrey , so soon to deny it . and i must confess i was inclined to conclude , as i formerly told you , that you therefore took no notice of it , because you were sensible it would not have then been safe to disown it . but now it seems you thought you might securely disavow it . and therefore in your former letter you solemnly declare , that you never did publish nor cause to be printed any other edition than that which is in the hands of every one , to which you never added nor diminish'd one syllable . in return to which i have also declared , that there was an edition , such as i spake of , differing in many particulars from what we now see ; that a copy of this edition was in my own hands , and free for any one that pleased to examine it . but it seems you durst not trust to your first denyal , and therefore you were pleased upon second thoughts to confess in effect what you had twice before deny'd ; that t is true indeed there was such an impression , as i said ; but that it was made without your order or knowledge . to this i answered , that it was printed by your own bookseller , a person of great credit and estate ; with the king's permission and approbation ; all which could not well be done without your knowledge , nor would monsieur cramoisy have presumed to do it without your order . and what has your lordship now to except against this ? can you say that these presumptions are not reasonable against you ? no , that you do not pretend . can you deny the fact ? neither dare you put it upon that issue . but how then will you clear your self ? why , you persist to affirm , that there never was any such edition own'd and avow'd by you : no , my lord , that we know ; you were so far from owning and avowing it , that you endeavoured with all possible care to suppress it . but did you never make such an impression , though you did not , nor do not yet care to own it ? and if some-body ( you say ) has been pleased to tack the king's approbation and priviledge with the name of cramoisy to some other edition , it is but a weak argument to give the lie to what you say . behold the vain presumption that is brought to oppose so plain a matter of fact. here is a book printed , cramoisy's name , and the king's approbation to it : this edition is collected from monsieur cramoisy's own printing house ; collated with another of monsieur de turenne's that cannot be doubted to be authentick ; attested by the person that compared them , to be the very same ; and if this be so , the bishop of meaux remains actually convinced of being privy to the impression which he confesses was made , but , as he pretends , without his order or knowledge ; and to all this , he has only this to say , that it may be some body has tack'd cramoisy ' s name , and the king's approbation to an edition that they do not of right belong to . judge , my lord , your self , if you can but for one moment sequester your thoughts from your own concern in this matter , whether so poor a supposal be sufficient to overthrow such positive evidence against you : and do not force me to appeal to any other to judge betwixt us . i shall be thought perhaps to undervalue my better authorities in this matter , should i say that those who are acquainted with monsieur cramoisy's letter , will soon discern whether my book came not out of his imprimerie . but if it be not sufficient to confound your supposal , that it was gathered up from your own printers ; collated with monsieur de turenne's copy ; to which i am sure you will not say these things were falsly tack'd ; and attested to be the same : i will then add only this more ; that whenever your lordship will help us to a copy of that impression you speak of , made without your knowledge or order ; that we may compare it with what we have ; and give us some good assurance , that neither did cramoisy print it , nor any other with your consent ; if it does upon collation appear that ours is one of that stollen edition , i will no longer insist upon the authority of it . in the mean time , your lordship , subjoyns two suppositions , which very much confirm me in all that i have said of this matter . but what if i had taken out some leaves and put in others in the room of them ( for so the french signifies ) after the book was printed , before it was made publick ; what if i had corrected in it what i thought fit , or if they please altogether changed it ? what consequence can they draw from thence against me upon account of those alterations ? let us put the case also , if they please , that some body should have been so vainly curious as to take the trouble to find out this impression , before i had thus corrected it ? o , my lord ! may i not here at least beg leave to think , that out of the abundance of your heart , your hand wrote this ? would your lordship have made such supposals in our favour , had not your conscience here got the better of your reason ? suppose , you say , before the book was publish'd , some leaves had been cut out , and you had corrected what you thought fit , or it may be altogether changed it . is not this the very thing we charge you with , and which you have been so weakly endeavouring to perswade the world you did not do ? and if i may be allow'd to answer one supposal with another ; what if you did do this upon the corrections that were made by those sorbonne doctors , to whom it was sent for their approbation ? again : suppose , you say , some one was so vainly curious , as to take the trouble to find out this impression before you had corrected it . i reply , that then 't is very possible , that the person from whom i obtain'd my copy was one of these ; and if so , then both monsieur cramoisy's name , and the king's priviledge may honestly belong to it ; and my book be one of those that was first printed , and that with your knowledge and approbation ; before these leaves you speak of were changed in it . you see , my lord , of what advantage these supposals are to us ; and i doubt not but this will make you hereafter assure us that they were only cases put , for discourse sake , not that you really did this . and to this you may be sure there is no reply ; all i shall desire is , that if you intended no more by them than so , why you could not have as well made the supposal in the very terms of our charge ; which would have been much more proper than to alter them to another very like it ; for my part i cannot but think , that as i said before , your heart here guided your hand , and the conscience of what you knew you had done , led you to make this supposal of it . but here the vindicator desires to come in with his supposal too ; and that is yet nearer to what we say . suppose , says he , the bishop had permitted an impression to be made , or ( which it may be was all he did ) had caused a dozen or fourteen copies to be printed off ; to shew them to his friends , before he would put the last hand to his book : nay ( if you will ) let us suppose , that some of the doctors of the sorbonne were of the number of those friends to whom he communicated these copies , and that they had made some corrections , observations , or additions . why truly , sir , i say then , that supposing you had the bishop's authority to write this , you have fairly given away his cause and credit together ; by confessing that there was , as we affirm , a private edition made , that it was communicated to some of the doctors of the sorbonne ; that these doctors did correct it , and that then it was reprinted as we now see it . but i have more to observe from this passage , and it may be that which will unriddle this whole intrigue . . whereas the vindicator having supposed that the bishop caused a few copies to be printed for his friends , he then immediately changes his stile from a supposal to a kind of affirmation of it ; which , says he , it may be was all that the bishop did . . he supposes that some of the sorbonne doctors might be of the number of those friends , and might have made some corrections and observations in it . . he doubts , whether a few such copies could be properly called an impression : and now to add my supposal to all the rest , what if this were the case ? the bishop prints a few copies of his book ; but they being but a very few , and designed only for his friends , not the publick ; he does not think that this could properly be called an impression : and therefore whereas we charge him with a private impression , he readily denys that he had made any . for so few copies cannot properly be called an impression . he sends it to some doctors of the sorbonne , and they make corrections in it . but these doctors he sent it to as friends not doctors , and therefore when we charge him with sending it to the sorbonne for their approbation ; he assures us he never did any such thing , because he designed only their private judgment as his friends , not to prefix their publick approbation as doctors to it . i do not say that this is the case ; but however i thought i might make such a supposal of it upon the grounds that were so fairly offered to me ; and i shall submit it to the reader to think what probability there may be in it . but to return from this digression , to the vindicator : you will tell me , it may be , that you did not intend i should make this use of your suppositions ; that which you would know , is , what all this signifies to the book as it is at present ? and this , my lord , is your lordships question too . i answer ; that this shews , as i said in that place where i first produced this allegation , that those protestants were not mistaken , who thought the doctrine of your exposition as it was first drawn up by you , would never pass among th●se of your own party . and when your lordship considers how you insult over them in your advertisement for this belief , you will see some reason to own that it was neither to * * * * * * cavil with you , as you express your self ; nor to juggle and perplex the world with tricks , as your translator makes you speak , that i mentioned these things ; but to seek and shew the truth , and let the world see how this new mystery wrought . and this , my lord , to the first point : i go on with you to the ii. second ; where you say , you do really acknowledge , that the edition of your book which you publish'd , differs in some things from your , ms. — and for the same reason you doubt not but we may find in the edition ( or as the bishop's letter has it , the * * * * * * editions ; for i know not whether the vindicator has corrupted the one , or false-translated the other ; ) which you did not approve , some things not agreeing word for word with the true one : but that a little justice must needs make us acknowledge the difference to regard only the beauty or conciseness of the stile , and not at all the substance of the faith. in all which i find nothing more than what you had before said , in your former letter ; and the examples of some of your changes which i offered in answer to this pretence then , may still serve to satisfie the world what credit is to be given to the same assertion now . but because you desire your reverend father to remember the occasion of this difference , we ought not by any means to forget it : viz. that it was made for the instruction of some particular persons , and not to be printed : i shall take it for granted , that these particular persons for whom it was made , were either your new converts , or such as you desired to have so . now the exposition being framed for their instruction , and not to be printed ; is it not very natural to believe that you might have soften'd things in it to serve that design , somewhat more than you could afterwards justifie when you came to publish it ; and that the alterations therefore might be such as our copy shews in things that concern the substance of the faith as well as the beauty and conciseness of the stile ? and for this i have yet another presumption . the † ms. copy which at first went abroad , and was that which i suppose you drew up for the particular persons you speak of , ended at the article of the eucharist . now. i cannot but observe that the most considerable alterations do end there too : for however indeed in the point of the eucharist you had omitted the name of transubstantiation , yet in effect you asserted the thing ; in the adoration of the host , communion in one kind , and the following articles , we find changes indeed , but rather in the stile , than , as you say , in the substance of the faith : the business of the mass was the only considerable instance in which you prevaricated . from whence i conclude , that those first articles were written , as you say , for the instruction of particular persons , and not to be printed ; and therefore you thought you might take the liberty to write them as you pleased , and as your design led you to do : but when you came to add the others in order to the publishing your exposition , though you were still exceedingly careful to mollifie things all you could , and sometimes more than was thought fitting , yet you were forced to proceed with greater circumspection . but your lordship desires to have our pretended edition put into the hands of some person of credit ; where you may have it seen by some of your friends ; and you do then engage your self either to shew the manifest falsity of it , or if it has been truly printed after your ms. to make appear as clear as the day , that the differences we so much magnisie deserve not even to be thought upon . this indeed , my lord , is an extraordinary favour , considering that you have suffered an extract made out of this very book by monsieur de la b — of twenty changes to pass now almost this xv . years without any reply . and because i would not be too importunate , be pleased only at your leisure to shew us in them , whether it may be worth our while to put you to the trouble of considering any more . but if you succeed no better in the other xix . than you have done in this one , wherein you have first made the experiment , it will be neither for your credit nor our satisfaction to disturb your self about it . the point is , concerning the honouring the blessed virgin and the saints : the case lies thus , in both your editions you lay down this principle ; that all religious worship ought to terminate upon god , as its necessary end. — from this you infer : i. edit . therefore the honour which the church gives to the blessed virgin and the saints i s religious , because it gives them that honour with relation to god , and for the love of him ; and therefore again , i. edit . so far ought one to be from blaming the honour which we give to the saints , as our adversaries do , because it is religious , that on the contrary , it ought to be blamed if it were not religious . i am not now to question the reasonableness of this consequence ; but to observe the new turn that you give it in your second edition : where the principle remaining the same , you infer thus , directly opposite to the former conclusion . ii. edit . therefore if the honour which it ( the church ) renders to the blessed virgin and the saints may in some sense be called religious , it is for its necessary relation to god. this is the case ; let us see how you answer it . you tell us that at the bottom what you said at first was true : very likely , but that is not our question : that which we expect is that you shew us , as clear as the day , that the difference is only in the stile , not the substance of faith. you add therefore ; that if afterwards you gave it another turn , it was only that you might speak with more brevity , and avoid the pittiful equivocations which are every day made upon the word religious . and this is all you have to say to it . to which i answer : first , though it be not material , yet that it is not true , that your new turn was that you might speak with more brevity ; for whereas you had before said , that this honour was religious , you now put in a few other words , which do not indeed add much to the length , but makes a great deal of difference as to the sense , if it may in some sense be called religious . but , dly , the reason you give do's not at all satisfie us : we come not now to hear the distinctions of the schools , but to read an exposition of the necessary doctrine of the church ; and in which you tell us , that one word ill rendred would spoil all . what then is the churches sense concerning that honour which it renders to the saints departed ? you pronounce dogmatically : first , it is a religious honour , and were to be blamed if it were not religious . then comes out a new edition , and having considered better of the matter , you doubt whether it may even in some sense be called a religious honour . † † † † † † your vindicator comes after you , and with another turn sets all right again , that it cannot be called a civil honour , and therefore it must be a religious . and which of these , or whether they be all of them the churches sense , we are yet to learn. had you , my lord , distinguish'd in your exposition as you would be thought to do now : had you told us , that this honour as it refers to god , and is done out of love to him , is religious , but in any other respect ( if there be any other ) you could not well tell what it was ; we had then understood yours , if we had not the churches sense of it . but to tell us without any distinction in one edition that it is religious , and in another to doubt , whether it may in any sense be called religious , this is such a kind of turn as he once gave to the canon law , who being to expound a certain decree which began we command ; that is , says the gloss , we forbid : and i think plainly shews , that either here you did not well know the sense of your church , or you did not care that we should . and thus much to your second remark . as for the iii. point ; i shall not need to insist upon it . it neither belongs to your lordship , nor is there any difference between us concerning it . since you freely confess that the epistle of st. chrysostome ought not to have been stifled ; and † † † † † † monsieur de le faure himself , who gave the advice by which it was suppressed , afterwards repented of it . as to the iv. objection ; concerning monsieur m — s writing against your exposition , i am not at all concerned whether your lordship will believe it or no : though for the sake of truth i will add thus much , that monsieur m — has again own'd it , since the publishing of my defence , to a person of great worth , who at my desire enquired about it . and for the conclusion we would draw from it , your lordship must needs have seen it , had the person who inform'd you of these things given you so full an account of these things as he ought to have done ; viz. to shew that all even of your own communion were not satisfied with your exposition ; and to confirm by the testimony of a second witness what monsieur conrart had before declared concerning it . and now i mention the name of your old friend monsieur conrart , i could wish for the sake of that good opinion you have so worthily testified of him in your advertisement , you had given some other character of him in your letter . for however i am perswaded you meant no more by your † † † † † † expression than to signifie that firm perswasion he had of the truth of his religion ; yet your translator has from thence taken occasion to represent him to the world as a hot-headed man , which you know to have been far from the true character of a person so sober , however opiniated of his faith , as monsieur conrart was . the v. objection is this . in the preface to my expositi●n , i had observed , how father crasset in his answer to the wholesome advices of the blessed virgin to her indisereet worshippers , had in that opposed your lordship's exposition . to this you return this answer in your former letter . i have not read that book , but neither did i ever hear it mentioned , there was any thing in it contrary to mine . this in my defence , i told you was very strange , considering that not only monsieur de la b — in his answer to your advertisement , and monsieur arnauld in defence of your exposition , had taken notice of it ; but even monsieur jurieux in his preservative had objected it to you : which book i supposed you must have read , because you answer a part of it in your treatise of communion in one kind . what do's your lordship now offer to excuse your prevarication in so clear a matter ? * * * * * * i still continue to say that i never read father crasset ' s book which they bring against me. i know well indeed that monsieur jurieux objected it to me. so your translator renders you ; i suppose that the charitable reader might believe , that you do now know it , since i put you in mind of it ; and not believe a person of your lordship's character , would so openly confess that you did know that , which you so utterly deny'd to have ever heard mention'd before . but alas ! this is no such great matter with your lordship ; and therefore to set things right as they ought to be , and shew at once both yours and your translator's sincerity , i must desire the reader to cast his eye upon the french original , where he will find your words to be these ; * * * * * * t is true , indeed , i knew well enough that monsieur jurieux objected it to me : and therefore in conscience , my lord , what did you do when you told us in your other letter , that you never heard it mention'd , that there was any thing in it contrary to your exposition . o my lord ! think a little upon these things : and do not imagine that a trifling flourish will secure you either against gods judgment , or the worlds censure . for what if monsieur jurieux were such a one as you pretend ? that was wont to mingle true , false , and doubtful things together : yet since you confess you did read in him that father crasset had contradicted your exposition , will that excuse you from being guilty of an offence against truth , in saying that you had never heard any such thing mention'd ? but , my lord , i must go farther with you ; he did not barely say it , he proved it too , and that by a very large extract out of his book : and be monsieur jurieux's credit never so small with your lordship , yet your own reason could not but tell you when you read those passages , that in this at least he was certainly in the right . and i once more appeal to your own conscience , whether you never read in monsieur de la b's ? answer to your advertisement , nor in monsieur arnaud's defence of your exposition , the very same : and whether these also will not one day rise up in judgment against you , for so positively denying that you had ever heard of any such thing ? but you go on : father crasset himself troubled ( * * * * * * as for the offended , that is a piece of the translator's liberality ) that any one should report his doctrine to be different from mine , has made his complaints to me ; and in a preface to the second edition of his book , has declared that he varied in nothing from me , unless perhaps in the manner of expression : and this you say you leave to them to examine , who shall please to give themselves the trouble . the truth is you saw by what monsieur jurieux had copied from him , that should you read his book you must give him up for a pitiful jesuit : and therefore thought it the best way to stand neuter , and not be engaged to say any thing about him. think not , my lord , * * * * * * the expression too slighting : your own defender is my precedent for it ; who finding it impossible to reconcile the extravagancies of his book with the doctrine of your exposition , utterly disclaims both it and the author in the very terms i have mentioned , and with greater contempt than i am willing to transcribe from him. but since you are resolved you will not interest your self in this matter , i must here address to father crasset himself ; and since his doctrine is , he says , the same with that of your exposition , desire him that he will please to inform us wherein it is that that heretical , banish●d , condemn'd author of the wholsome advices , against whom he writes , differs from it . is it that he blames those who pay their homage to the blessed virgin as to some inferiour divinity , and believe that without her there is no approaching to god even by jesus christ ? but this , reverend father , the bishop of meaux blames no less than he. is it that he advises the worshippers of the holy virgin , not to think that she has any merit but what she received from her son ? — that they ought not to give the same titles to her as to god ; — nor make her equal with god and jesus christ ? * is it that he condemns those who depend so much on the blessed virgin that they have no recourse to christ ; and prefer their devotion to her before the love of god ? * is it that he advises the people not to put any trust in images , as if there were any divine power in them , and it were not in effect all one to worship the blessed virgin in any place or before any image ? this , my father , is that authors doctrine whom you oppose , and if the bishop of meaux will disown all , or any part of this doctrine as contrary to his exposition too , i shall for my part be content that then your true devotion toward the blessed virgin pass as agreeable to the principles of it . you will , it may be , tell us , that though you oppose his book , yet you are not his enemy in every one of these particulars : nor will i affirm that you are . but yet since you charge him as an enemy to the honour of the blessed virgin , and to the worship of images , you ought to shew us what those principles are , in which you esteem him as such ; and then we shall soon see whether the bishop of meaux's exposition do's not maintain the very same doctrine . good god! to what a state are we arrived ? that men can presume in the face of the world to deliver such falsities ? judge , reader , whoever thou art , are these men fit to be trusted to deliver to us the principles of faith , that in the plainest matters of fact , shew so little a concern for truth ; even when they know 't is impossible for them to hide their confusion ? and here , my lord , i could have wish'd i might have finish'd these remarks : sorrow and anguish are in the next consideration , more than in all i have yet delivered : and i cannot without confusion repeat , what you would be thought to have written without blushing . but i must follow whither your self have led me ; and speak those things which if you have yet any regard to your own dignity , any sense even of common christianity it self , will certainly bring upon you the most sensible perplexity of mind , and great confusion of face . in your pastoral letter to the new converts of your diocess , you tell them , i do not marvel , my dearest brethren , that you are returned in troops and with so great ease to the church where your ancestors served god. not one of you hath suffer'd violence either in his person or goods . let them not bring you these deceitful letters which are address'd from strangers transform'd into pastours , under the title of pastoral letters to the protestants of france that are fallen by the force of torments . so far have you been from suffering torments , that you have not so much as heard them mention'd . you are returned peaceably to us , you know it . this you now again confirm , as to what has pass'd in the diocess of meaux , and several others , as you were informed by the bishops your brethren and your friends : [ † † † † † † for so your words are , not and other your friends , as your translator renders you . ] and you do again assert in the presence of god who is to judge the living and the dead , that you spoke nothing but the truth . and believe me , my lord , that god whom you call to witness has heard you ; and will one day bring you to judgment for it . for tell me , good my lord ; have those edicts which the king has publish'd against the protestants of france ; and in which he involves not only his own subjects , but as far as he can all the other protestants of europe , made any exception for the diocess of meaux ? have not their churches been pull'd down , their ministers banish'd ; their children ravish'd out of their bosoms ; their sick forced into your hospitals , exposed to the rudeness of the magistrates and clergy ; their shops shut up ; their offices and employs taken from them ; and all opportunities of the publick service of god been precluded there as well as in other places ? see , my lord , that black collection which monsieur le fevre has lately publish'd with the king's priviledge of those edicts , whereby , as he confesses , the reformed have in effect been persecuted for these xxx . years . has your diocess escaped the rigour but of any one of these ? or is there nothing of violence either to mens persons or goods in them ? your lordship , i perceive by some of your private letters , is not a stranger to monsieur le suër , and to whom i have had the honour for some years to be particularly known . was not he driven from la ferté even before the edict of nantes was revoked ? and was there nothing of violence in all this ? was that poor man forced to forsake all that he had , and seek for refuge in foreign countrys , first in england , then in holland , and did he yet ( with his numerous family ) suffer nothing neither in his person nor goods ? and might i not say the same of the other ministers his brethren in your diocess , were i as well acquainted with their conditions ? but it may be you will expound your self of those who remained behind , and changed their religion . and can you in conscience say that they return'd peaceably to you ? does a town that holds out as long as it can , and when it is just ready to be carried by storm , then capitulates , yield it self up peaceably to the will of the conqueror ? they saw desolation every where surround them ; the fire was come even to their very doors . the dragoons were arrived at your own city of meaux . before they were quarter'd upon the poor people , you call them for the last tryal to a conference . here you appear moderate even beyond your own exposition ; and ready to receive them upon any terms . what should they now do ? change they must ; the deliberation was only whether they should do it a few days sooner , and prevent their ruine , or be exposed to the merciless fury of these new converters . upon this follows the effect you mention ; the holy spirit operated upon your preaching , as it heretofore wrought in the council of trents decision . when the courrier arrived from rome , then presently the fathers became enlightned ; and it seemed good to the holy ghost and them . when the dragoons stood arm'd to ruine them if they did not yield ; then they return'd in troops , and with great ease , to the church , where their ancestors served god. and yet after all , has no one , my lord , even of these , suffered violence either in his person or goods ? judge , i pray you , by the extract i will here give you of a letter which i received in answer to my particular desires of being informed how things pass'd in your diocess . it is true that the dragoons were not lodged in the diocess of meaux ; but they came to their doors , and the people being just ready to be ruined , yielded to their fears . insomuch that seeing afterwards the pastoral letter , they would not give any heed to it ; saying , that seeing it was so visibly false in an article of such importance , it did not deserve to be believed by them in the rest . one only gentleman of the bishoprick of meaux , louis seguier , lord of charmois , a relation of the late chancellors of the same name ; had the dragoons . 't is true that after he had signed , he was repair'd in some part of the loss he had sustained . but it happened that he did not afterwards discharge the part of a good catholick . he was therefore put in prison , first in his own country ; but it being impossible there to deprive him of all sort of commerce , to take him absolutely from it , he has since been transferr'd to the tour of guise , where he is at present . two other gentlemen of the same country , are also prisoners on the same account . but there is an answer to your pastoral letter which goes yet farther . he tells you of monsieur monceau , a man of . years of age , shut up in a convent : of the cruelties exercised upon two orphan children of monsieur mirat , the one but of . the other . years old , at la ferté sous jouarre : nay , my lord , he adds how even your lordship who in the conference appear'd so moderate , in the visitation of your diocess , . months after threatned those who would not go to mass ; that continued to read their protestant books , or to sing their psalms . and will you yet say there has been nothing of violence in your diocess ? you are returned peaceably to us , you know it . i must then descend to the last sort of conviction , and out of your own mouth you shall be judged . your lordship will easily see what it is i mean. the copies of your own letters to monsieur u — who was forced to flie from his country , and out of your diocess upon the account of the persecution you now deny , and which were printed the last year at bearne in switzerland , have sufficiently satisfied the world of your sincerity in this point . your first letter is dated at meaux , october . . in this , after having exhorted him to return to you , by assuring him , that he should find your arms open to receive him ; and again , that he should meet in you the spirit of a true pastor ; among other things you tell him , that we ought not to please our selves that we suffer persecution , unless we are well assured that it is for righteousness sake . it was too much to deny the persecution to one who was just escaped out of it , and therefore you thought it better to flourish upon it . * * * * * * to this he replies , jan. . . that he pleased himself so little in the persecution , that it was to avoid those places where it reigned , that according to the precept of the gospel , he was fled into another . and then goes on to testifie the just scandal which the persecution had given him against your religion . your answer to this was of april . . or rather not so much to this , as to one he had sent about the same time to his lady , and wherein he had it seems again declared how scandalized he was at the persecution . and here you enter in good earnest on the argument . instead of denying the persecution , you defend it . and though you seem to testifie in your reasons as little regard to the truth of the ancient history of the church , as in your pastoral letter to the condition of the present ; yet you sufficiently shew of what manner of spirit you are of ; since for your part you cannot , you say , find where hereticks and schismaticks are excepted out of the number of those evil doers , against whom st. paul tells us , that god has armed christian princes . and here , my lord , i shall stop , and not multiply proofs in a matter so clear as this . only let me remember you that there is but † † † † † † . days difference between the date of this and of your pastoral letter ; too little a while to have made so great a change. but i suppose we ought to remember here , what you told us before of the ms. copy of your exposition : that these private letters were design'd only for the instruction of a particular person , and not to be printed ; whereas that other which you address'd to your diocess was intended to be published , and therefore required another turn . as for the bishops your brethren and friends , who have , you say , affirmed the same thing ; your lordship would do us a singular pleasure to let us know whether they were not some of those that approved your exposition . it was pity they did not set their reverend names to your pastoral letter too . we should then have been abundantly convinced of their integrity ; and that they are as fit to approve such tracts , as your lordship to write them . and he must be very unreasonable that would not have been convinced by their authority , that your exposition gives as true an account of the doctrine of your church , as your pastoral letter does of the state of your diocess . you will excuse me , my lord , that i have insisted thus long upon these reflections . if you are indeed sensible of what you have done , no shame that can from hence arise to you will seem too much ; and if you are not , i am sure none can be enough . i beseech god , whom you call to witness against your own soul , to give you a due sense of all these things ; and then i may hope that you will read this with the same resentiments of sorrow and regret , as i can truly assure you i have written it . this to the th . objection . the occasion of the next was this . vi. in the preface to my exposition i had observed , that cardinal capisucchi , one of the approvers of your exposition , had in his own writings contradicted your doctrine as to the point of image-worship . to this you reply in your former letter , that he is so far from being contrary to the doctrine you have taught , that he had on the contrary expresly approved your book . i answer'd in my defence , that this was a good presumption that he should not have any principles contrary to yours ; but yet that if what i had alledged out of his controversies were really repugnant to what you taught in your exposition , it might indeed speak the cardinal not so consistent with himself as he should be , but that the contradiction would be never the less a contradiction for his so doing . to this therefore you now rejoyn , that it is a weak objection , which runs upon the equivocation of the word latria ; concerning an absolute and relative worship . and falls so visibly into a dispute about words , that you cannot imagine how men of sense , can amuse themselves about it . that for your part , you never engaged your self to defend the expressions of the school , though never so easie to be explicated , but only the language of the church in her decisions of faith. in short ; that cardinal capisucchi has written an express treatise about images , and said nothing in the whole that contradicts you . i am very glad , my lord , you refer us to the treatise of cardinal capisucchi that you mention ; though i am apt to believe you did it out of a presumption that i could not procure it to examine your pretences . for indeed the whole design of it is so expresly against you , that one would stand amazed to think that a christian and a bishop , and what is perhaps yet more to you , an expounder of the catholick faith , that would pass with the world for a person of honesty and integrity , should venture his , reputation on such self-evident falsities . for to examine the comparison : i. the doctrine of your exposition concerning images is this : that all the honour which is given to them should be referred to the saints themselves who are represented by them . the honour we render images is grounded upon this . no man , for example , can deny but that when we look upon the figure of jesus christ crucified , it excites in us a more lively remembrance of him who loved us so as to deliver himself up to death for us . whilst this image being present before our eyes causes so precious a remembrance in our souls , we are moved to testifie by some exteriour signs , how far our gratitude bears us ; and by humbling our selves before the image , we shew what is our submission to our saviour . so that to speak precisely , and according to the ecclesiastical stile , when we honour the image of an apostle or martyr , our intention is not so much to honour the image , as to honour the apostle or the martyr in presence of the image . in fine , one may know with what intention the church honours images , by that honour which she renders to the cross and to the bible . all the world sees very well that before the cross she adores him who bore our iniquities upon the wood : and that if her children bow the head before the bible , if they rise up out of respect when it is carried before them , and if they kiss it reverently , all this honour is referred to the eternal verity which it proposeth to us . we do not worship images , god forbid : but we make use of images to put us in mind of the originals . our council teaches us no other use of them . all which your vindicator thus plainly and dogmatically delivers to us , in the four following propositions , in the preface to his reply : . we have a veneration for images as for sacred utensils dedicated to god and the churches service ; and that too in a lesser degree than for our chalices , &c. . in the presence of them , we pay our respect to the persons whom they represent : honour to whom honour , adoration to whom adoration ; but not to the images themselves , who can claim nothing of that nature , viz. honour or adoration , from us . . that the hard expressions of the schools , as of absolute and relative latria , may perhaps be defended in the sense meant by them ; ( it seems 't is a doubtful case whether these men can be excused from being guilty of idolatry or not ; and one of these is cardinal capisucchi ; but ought not to be the subject of our present controversie , because they are not points that are universally and necessarily received . . in answer to my demand , whether upon any account whatsoever the image of our saviour and of the holy cross were to be worshipped with divine worship ? he replies freely and plainly without any of the school errantry ; that the image of our saviour or the holy cross , is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped with divine worship . this is the doctrine of your exposition , and your vindicator's interpretation of it . let us see iidly ; whether cardinal capisucchi in that treatise to which you appeal , has nothing that contradicts this : that so we may from hence too learn how far we are to credit your alegations : and first , whereas your lordship affirms , that all the honour which is given to images should be referr'd to the saints themselves ; that is as your vindicator expounds , it , that in the presence of them you pay your respect to the persons whom they represent , but not to the images themselves who can challenge nothing of that nature from us ; * * * * * * cardinal capisucchi on the contrary lays down this express position , that the holy images are to be worshipped , and are rightly worshipped by the faithful ; nay , so as that the worship should † † † † † † terminate upon them . — ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ for as inanimate things , though in themselves they are not holy , yet in order to another to which holiness does primarily agree , they are called holy , and in relation to that other thing , may and ought justly to be adored with it : so images , though of themselves they are not holy , yet they are holy in order to the exemplar which they represent , and they may and ought to be adored in order to that , and together with it . secondly , having thus resolved against your first foundation , that images are to be adored ; he next enquires , what worship is to be paid to them ? your lordship's position is this : we do not worship images , god forbid : but we make use of images to put us in mind of the originals . our council teaches us no other use of them . which your vindicator thus more plainly delivers ; that the image of our saviour or the holy cross , is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped with divine worship . let us see if there be nothing in the cardinal's treatise that contradicts this . and here , first , he rejects the opinion of durandus , that properly speaking , images are not to be adored , but because they resemble things worthy of adoration , which by remembrance are adored in presence of the images ; therefore the images themselves improperly are , and are said to be adored . are not these , my lord , almost the very words of your exposition ? hear then what the cardinal says to them . this opinion , says he , is to be rejected . and i beseech you consider the reason he gives for it . because , says he , in truth it takes away the worship of images ; and teaches that they ought only improperly to be adored . but if we must hearken to your exposition , this can be no reason , unless it be to establish the opinion which he pretends to combat . for according to your lordship , the church does not worship images ; god forbid . but to go on with the cardinal ; whence raphael de turre says , that this opinion is dangerous , rash , and savouring the heresie of those who oppose images . an admirable character of your lordships exposition . for several councils , says he , have defined , and the holy fathers taught , that images are to be adored , by a tradition kept from the times of the apostles unto our days ; but now if images should be venerated only improperly , as this opinion ( let me add , and your exposition ) asserts ; then the images would not be truly adored ; and therefore this opinion does truly savour the heresie of the enemies of images . — the same is asserted by ferdinandus velosillus ; who therefore concludes this opinion to be not only false , but rash and erroneous , especially since the definition of the council of trent . behold , my lord , the wonderful concord between the cardinal and your lordship ; for tell me now i beseech you , is there nothing in all this that contradicts you ? or rather , do you not here see what you deliver so magisterially as the churches sense , condemned as dangerous , rash , erroneous , and savouring of heresie , and contrary to the definition of the council of trent ? but ● . dly , in the next paragraph , he lays down the opinion of vasquez : and if the other did not allow images as much honour as you pretend to , i hope this man did . the opinion , says he , of vasquez is , that images are no otherwise to be adored , but because in the presence of them , and about them are exhibited those external signs of honour , as kneeling , kissing , uncovering the head , and the like : ( i think this , my lord , will come up to your instance of the respect that you pay to the bible , and from which you explicate your doctrine ; ) but that the inward veneration is by no means to be directed to the image , but only to the thing represented by the image . — this opinion , says the cardinal , is in effect the same with the foregoing ; for since vasquez does assert that the inward a●t of the adorer terminates only on the thing represented by the image , he does by consequence affirm , ( what your lordship and your vindicator would have us believe to be the doctrine of the church ) that the images themselves are not truly and properly to be adored . you see , my lord , the cardinal still sticks to his principle , that the images themselves are truly and properly to be adored . — but let us hear him out . vazquez tells us that the council [ of trent ] do's not much care how the adoration of images is called , whether salutation , or embracing ; or adoration , provided we do but grant that out of affection to what they represent ( see my lord your own principle ) the images themselves are to be kiss'd , the head to be bared to them , and other signs of submission to be paid , concerning which the controversie was with the enemies of images . — in which , says the cardinal , he involves many falsities . for it is both defined in our councils that the holy images are truly and properly to be adored , and therefore that even the inward act of adoration is to be terminated upon the images ; and the controversie with the opposers of images , was not only about giving to images the external signs of honour , but concerning the true and proper adoration , which therefore concerns the inward act of veneration . and a little lower , he repeats and commends these words of lorca ; this proposition , that honour and adoration is due to the image , is so certain and firm among all the faithful ( and i hope your lordship would be thought at least , one of them ) that the contrary cannot without scandal be admitted . nor is it lawful for any one to deny this proposition , and hold the opposite at pleasure , though he does add , that images are to be kiss'd ; because from the doctrine of the councils and fathers it appears , not only that images are to be kiss'd , but we are taught expresly , that they are to be venerated and adored . behold , my lord , another instance , of the the admirable agreement between the cardinals treatise and your exposition ; whose doctrine he is so far from admitting as the churches sense , that he tells you plainly , 't is contrary to your councils decrees , and therefore may not be held at pleasure ; indeed that it is such as cannot without scandal be admitted . thirdly , having thus refuted these new popery expositions of your churches doctrine , he now comes to lay down the true opinion , and which therefore i suppose must be the churches , as he shews it to be the council of trents sense . and it is this : that the worship of the image and of the exemplar is one and the same — so that the image of christ ( contrary to the vindicators th . position ) is to be adored with the supreme worship that christ himself is — that for the images considered in themselves , as they are gold , silver , brass , iron , stone , wood , &c. no reverence is to be given to them : but as they are the images of christ or some saint , so they are to be worshipped with the same adoration as the person whose image it is . nay , he adds , that this supreme worship terminates upon the image , whereas your lordship lays it down as a fundamental principle , that all religious worship terminates in god alone . 't is true he adds , that this is not for any excellence in the image , but upon the account of christ represented in it ; and from hence he thinks to free your church from idolatry . but as to this , i do still say i am not at present concerned ; my business being not to examine the reasons that are offer'd to justifie this worship , but to clear the matter of fact , viz. whether the church of rome ( whatever her reason be ) does hold that images are truly and properly to be worshipped ? and to this i think the cardinal has spoken very honestly and plainly . and i shall leave it to your lordship and to the world to consider , whether there was either conscience or truth in that assertion , which has occasioned this search , that cardinal capisucchi has said nothing in all this treatise that contradicts you . but of these things more particularly when i come to the article it self to which they belong . i go on in the mean time to the vii . objection : in my exposition i told you that monsieur imbert , a doctor of divinity , of the province of bourdeaux , was clapt in prison by order of the archbishop for having instructed the people in the good fryday service , that they ought to apply their adoration to christ , and not to the cross which was there exposed to them . and that although he alledged your exposition in his defence , and upon that account your self had written to the archbishop in his behalf , yet was not all this sufficient to avail for his deliverance . to this you reply in your former letter , that this imbert was a man of no renown as well as of no learning , who thought to justifie his extravagancies before the archbishop of bourdeaux his superiour , by alledging your exposition to this prelate . but that all mankind saw very well that heaven and earth was not more opposite than your doctrine , from that which this daring person had presumed to broach . it would have been , my lord , more for your own honour as well as the worlds satisfaction in this matter , to have told us a little what this extravagant doctrine was , which this daring person had presumed to broach , so contrary to your exposition . at least you should have given us some evidence to let us see that he had been convinced by his superiour of having abused your authority ; that your exposition did by no means favour any such extravagancies as he alledged it for , and that it was a daring presumption in him by such pretences to abuse so catholick an exposition of the churches faith. that he produced your exposition for his warrant of what he had taught , you do not , cannot deny . that he was ever convinced of pretending falsly to the authority of it , we never heard : and if your lordship means to have it believed , you must really begin to produce some better authority now a days , than your bare word to assure us of it . and indeed , my lord , i am apt to think you will never be able to do this . the factum of his case was too long to be printed , and is too well known to need a new publication . instead of that i chose rather to communicate to the world the letter he wrote to your lordship on this occasion . and here we have a full account what that daring doctrine he had broached was ; and how little reason you had to disclaim it as contrary to your exposition . the archbishop of bourdeaux , says he , has caused a process to be made against me , for having explained upon good fryday , that we adore jesus christ crucified in presence of the cross , and that we do not adore any thing of what we see : — that therefore we ought to think that we are now going out to mount calvary , to adore jesus christ , without stopping at the crucifix . that the church like a good mother had given that to us by a holy invention to assist our faith , and make the livelier impression upon our imagination ; but not to be the object of our worship , which must terminate upon jesus christ. and this , he tells you , is all his crime ; he defies his enemies to reproach , if they can , his life and manners , or to tax him with any other doctrine than that of your lordship , and which he endeavoured to express in the self same terms . and is this then in your opinion such daring doctrine ? or can you with any shadow of sincerity say , that this is as opposite to your exposition , as heaven and earth to one another ? your lordship may pretend what you please , but i doubt your vindicator will hardly allow that there is any heresie in the explication he here gives of your good frydays service . but let us see what you now say further to this . you confess the letter and the contents of it : only you say , you did not believe him , because you were too well acquainted with my lord the archbishop of bourdeaux his diocesan , of whom he made his complaint . and in this you had certainly reason : for it is not easily to be believed that so great a prelate , who , as you observe , had not very long before himself approved your exposition , should now prosecute a poor man with such violence only for teaching the doctrine of it . but as you had always lived in a strict correspondence and friendship with that archbishop , you wrote to him on this subject , and understood that this monsieur imbert was an odd kind of man ( the translator calls him * * * * * * hot-headed ) who had done even in the church very remarkable extravagancies , which he was more cautious than to boast of to you . his conduct had been tainted with many other irregularities , which indeed hindred you from interesting your self for him any farther in the business , or to intercede for one in whom at first † † † † † † you thought there had been nothing but weakness and ignorance : ( for so i chuse to transcribe you , and not to follow your translator's blunders . ) concerning monsieur imbert's other faults i am wholly ignorant , and therefore cannot pretend to answer for them . but as we are by nature exceedingly apt to pitty the miserable , so i cannot but compassionate this poor mans misfortunes , and till i see the contrary made out by some better evidence than your lordship has yet given us , i must beg leave to believe him to have been an honest worthy man. in the mean time i do not find that in all this you deny the cause of his prosecution and imprisonment to have been what he declared to your self and to the whole world , viz. that he maintained the doctrine before mentioned . if his diocesan indeed persecuted him , not for asserting this doctrine , but for those other irregularities you pretend he was guilty of , prove this and you do something . but else , were the man as bad as you represent him , yet if he suffered for teaching that faith which you expound to us ; if he produced your book for his warrant , and yet still was persecuted ; all his other faults will not hinder but that your lordship's doctrine was condemned and punished in him . and though i am an utter stranger to his conduct ; yet if this matter did pass so as it appears to have done , i will be bold to say the worst of his irregularities was a venial sin in comparison of the archbishop his diocesan's insincerity ; to prosecute one of his clergy for teaching that doctrine , which in the general assembly of . he had , as you tell us , himself approved . and here i cannot but observe the progress you make in lessening this poor man. at first you only say , and that nothing to your purpose , that he was a man of no learning nor renown . when i had published his letter , and which i will again say was not written by a fool or an idiot ; so that this was not found sufficient to take off the force of a matter of fact of such importance ; next , his conduct is question'd ; you charge him with irregularities , but prove none ; nor can you say that he was prosecuted for any other crime but this one , that he relied too much upon your authority , and so taught that for the catholick faith , which he has since to his cost learnt not to be universal . judge , my lord , if this be a generous way of defence ; much less becoming the charity of a christian , and the dignity of a bishop . but there is one presumption against all this in your former letter , and which ought therefore to be considered . monfieur imbert had said in his factum , that his opinion was that the church adored not the cross ; and that the contrary opinion was not only false but idolatrous . that not only the protestants made their advantage of those who maintain'd such errours , but that he himself was scandalized to converse every day with the missionaries and others , whom he had heard openly preach a hundred times , that we ought to adore the cross with jesus christ , as the humane nature of our saviour with the divine . from hence your lordship raises this argument to lessen his credit . that it never entred into the mind of any catholick , that the cross was to be adored with jesus christ , as the humane nature of our saviour with the divine in the person of the son of god : and if this man , say you , gives out , he is condemned for denying those errors , which no body ever † † † † † † sustained , he shews his malice to be as great as his ignorance . now certainly , my lord , it is a very bold undertaking to answer for all the catholicks of the world , that such or such a thing never enter'd into their heads , especially when a person here positively declares , that he had heard it openly preach'd above a hundred times : unless it may be , you esteem this to be an assertion of such malignity , that a man cannot have it enter into his mind without the forfeiture of his catholicism . i do indeed confess it is a most extravagant notion ; and such as , one would think , should never enter into any christians thoughts ; but we know too well what excesses those whom you call catholicks are capable of falling into , and especially your missionaries , to look upon this assertion to be at all incredible . but since you are so sure that this never entred into the mind of any catholick , what does your lordship think of your friend cardinal capisucchi . i suppose a cardinal and master of the sacred palace may be allow'd to pass with you for a good catholick ; and yet in the very tract to which your lordship appealed , behold the very thing you here so confidently deny : as the humane nature of christ , though it be a creature , is adored with supream adoration , because 't is united to the person of the word , and with the person of the word makes up one christ : so the image of christ being in its representative essence one and the same with christ , is adored with the same adoration with which christ is adored . here , my lord , is one catholick into whose mind this error has entred ; and i may presume to say , i know another catholick of the same mind , even the bishop of meaux himself ; unless you will retract here what you before asserted , that there is nothing in this treatise of cardinal capisucchi , that contradicts your sentiments . thus you see how rash you were in your presumption against monsieur imbert's assertion ; and were i minded to retort your own conclusion upon you , it would , i believe , be hard to say whether of those two very ill things you impute to him were greater in this reflection . and now , reverend father , to close this objection almost in your own words , let your heart be truly grieved to see such objections brought against you ; and consider , if you yet can , in the anguish of your soul , how by your own fault you have suffer'd your self to be brought into such snares , as too much shew to what weak and miserable shifts , wise men will sometimes be reduced , when they do not act by a steady principle of truth and integrity . your next point concerns those extracts i made from cardinal bona about praying to saints ; the common difficulty so often † † † † † † repeated ( not , as your translator has it , proposed ) by protestants . you give us some pretended evasions of the difficulty raised by them ; and then , according to your wonted tenderness , conclude , that it troubles a christians heart to see , though the sense of the church be made never so evident in her decisions , people should still continue thus to cavil ( and as your translator adds , no doubt , for the greater , beauty of the stile , to juggle ) with you about words . but all this i shall rather consider in its proper place , where your vindicator objects the same things , than enter into any disputes here . i will only observe , that my extracts from cardinal bona , were neither out of his hymns , nor any other poetical works ; but out of his discourse upon your offices , out of his last will and testament , and in which certainly , if any where , one would think , he should have written with the greatest exactness . and yet are they so irreconcileable with your pretended exposition of the catholick faith , that i shall leave it to any one that has ever read them , to be deluded by you if he can . you tell me , you will say nothing about monsieur de witte , because you find nothing in that objection that concerns you in particular . nor will i say any more of it than to re-mind you , that if your exposition does concern you , then his case does so too : for he alledged your exposition , as i have shewn in his defence , and yet was censur'd by the faculty of louvain , without ever being shewed that he alledged it wrongfully . and because i doubt not , but you would have your general expressions concerning the pope's authority expounded by the iv. propositions of the clergy of france , . in which your lordship , with the bishops of tournay , s. mal● , de la vaur , de chalons , and d' alet , had the chief hand ; i must put you in mind that the archbishop of strigonia with his clergy has censured these propositions , and in them , your lordships exposition , as to that point too , as not delivering the true doctrine of the catholick church . concerning the pope's brief to your lordship , i observed this : that the very same day , that he dated his brief to you in approbation of your exposition , he dated another to the late bishop of pamier in approbation of the defence he made of his authority in the business of the regale . now if your exposition gives his holiness all that power he pretends to over the gallicane church , he had as much reason to approve your book , as monsieur de pamier's actions . but if in expounding the point of his authority you give him no such power as he pretends to ; nay if you your self at that very time actually joyned with the other bishops of france in opposition to it , what insincerity must it be in the head of the church , christ's vicar upon earth , at the same time to claim an authority which neither your book allows , and you your self opposed , and yet with the same pen sign one brief to you in approbation of your doctrine , and another to monsieur de pamier , to thank him for his opposing of it . and thus have i passed through the several parts of your lordships letter . i could have been very well pleased i might have been freed of so ungrateful an undertaking , had not your new reviving of all these things forced me once more to lay open those faults , which i am both sorry and ashamed , that any one of your dignity should ever have committed . i have only remaining here in the close of all , earnestly to beseech you by the bowels and mercy of christ jesus our saviour , seriously to consider these things . think on that account which both you and i must shortly give of what we are now doing before the eternal tribunal . if i have willingly and knowingly varied in the least tittle from the truth ; if i have standred your lordship in any thing ; nay , if i have but taken any pleasure in discovering the weakness of a person of your place and character in the church ; be i then responsible for it to god , and let mine enemies triumph in my confusion . but if i have spoken nothing but in the necessary defence of the truth , and in a spirit of charity remonstrated to you your prevarications : if your own conscience be a thousand witnesses , to tell you that these things are indeed so , as i have now exposed them to yours and the worlds consideration ; o , my lord , think then upon these things . whilst you have yet the time , give god the glory . take that shame and confusion to your self now , which may prevent an eternal confusion hereafter . consult , consider , and be wise ; and take it not in scorn that i have shewn you the way to surmount all these reproaches . to exchange that scandal which you have given to the church , for a name that shall never be forgotten . declare only what in truth you are . put off those disguises you have hitherto walked in , and confess once for all that your church has erred , and stands in need of a reformation . 't is in vain to palliate , what your books , your practice , all declare to us . your errors , in short , may be reformed , but they are too notorious to be denyed , too gross to be justified . sect . ii. wherein are considered those false imputations which the vindicator has cast upon me , and upon the rest of my brethren of the church of england . hitherto i have been considering the weak defences of an insincere yet moderate adversary . i must now shift the scene , and prepare from henceforth to encounter nothing but rudeness and incivility . so much easier is it esteemed by some men to blacken an enemy , than to answer him ; and what they cannot do by confuting his reasons , they hope to make up by lessening his reputation . it was the consideration of st. cyprian in his answer to such another antagonist as i have now to do with , that though he had before thought it better with silence to despise his ignorance , than by speaking to provoke his madness , remembring that advice of solomon , prov. xxiii . . speak not in the ears of a fool , for he will despise the wisdom of thy words : and again chap. xxvi . . answer not a fool according to his folly , lest thou also be like unto him ; yet when he began to calumniate the christians , as the authors of all the evils that befell the world ; he then esteemed himself obliged to speak ; lest his silence should now be imputed not so much to his modesty , as to his diffidence , and whilst he scorned to refute his false accusations , he should seem to acknowledge the faults with which they had been charged . had this gentleman , who has thought fit to make himself my adversary , so laid his reproaches upon me , as not to have wounded through my sides the common interests of the church of england ; i should have judged it as unnecessary to take notice of his revilings , as i esteem it to be unchristian to return them : and have contented my self with that general answer which the archangel once gave to the father of lies , the lord rebuke thee . but now that i am marked out not so much as a private person , as the defender of a publick cause ; now that the rest of my brethren are all represented , as guilty of the same ills that i am charged with ; and our very religion it self impeached as needing such defences , as both that and we detest and condemn ; it would be want of charity to the church i am of , rather than any breach of it towards such an enemy , to decline a just defence ; i shall therefore take up the example of this holy father , as mine adversary has done that of his antagonist ; lest if i scorn to refute his false accusations , i should seem to acknowledge the faults with which we are charged . §. i. it has ever been esteemed the first step to invalidate the credit of such kind of imputations , to shew a calumniating spirit in the author of them . here therefore i will begin my defence ; and were i to prove this to him only who has been the author of these reproaches , i am perswaded i need only appeal to his own conscience to bear witness against him . but since i can expect but little justice from one from whom i have already received so great an injury , and am now by a publick scandal , called forth ( against my will ) to as publick a vindication ; you must excuse me , sir , if i take all the christian ways of a fair defence which charity allows me ; and shew your testimony in this matter to be so very suspicious , that though the jury be not pack'd , nor the vulgar call'd in to give their verdict , yet i doubt not but all reasonable men will confess that you are a very unfit witness to be credited against me . and first ; though i perceive i shall displease you in the allegation , yet i must beg leave to repeat what i before said in my defence , that some men do think that any thing may be done against a heretick ; and that lying and calumny are but venial sins , when committed with a good intention to serve the church , and to blacken an adversary . you are pleased indeed with great assurance to deny this ; and tell us , with your usual sincerity , that you have heard some roman catholicks accused as if they taught such doctrines ; but that you always found the calumny to stand at the accuser's doors , whose art was only ( according to your , gentile way of expressing things ) to cry whore first . i could wish that not only for the sake of your old casuists , but of some at least of your new converts , you had not been so very positive in this particular . for believe me , sir , i could tell you the men who are not ashamed at this day publickly to own what you so confidently deny . and indeed it were better that you your self believed it too , unless you would resolve to leave off to practise it . it being more tolerable to do evil by following the guidance of an erroneous conscience , than to know a thing to be sinful , and yet to commit it . but you deny that any of your church have ever held any such doctrine ? i pray , sir , of what church were those who in their solemn theses publickly defended , ( and that in the most formal terms ; ) that it is but a venial sin by false accusations to lessen the authority of one that detracts from us , if it be like to prove hurtful to us . this was openly maintained in the university of louvain , in the year . and i cannot chuse but think , that in your opinion at least , i may be one of those that are meant by it . you tell me often that i have detracted from you , and my authority therefore , if it be not lessened , may be hurtful to you ; and how shall i be sure that you esteem it more than a venial sin , by false accusations to detract from me ? i shall not need to multiply authorities from your particular casuists to prove this ; since the condemnation that was made of this very doctrine in the decree of the present pope , no longer ago than , will satisfie the world that such things have been taught in your church ; and a man must have a great deal of charity to suppose , that after so solemn an act as this , you could indeed be ignorant of it . you may consult at your leisure the d . and th . opinions there mentioned , and consider the meaning of this doctrine contained in them . that it is only a venial sin in any to lessen the great authority of another which is hurtful to himself , by charging him with some false crime — it is probable that he does not sin mortally who fastens a false crime upon another that he may defend his own justice and honour : and if this be not probable , there is scarce any opinion probable in divinity . and now , sir , i am pretty confident that , if not for my sake , yet in duty to his holiness's decree you will a little mollifie your charge of calumny against me for this assertion : and if you desire any farther conviction , you may please when you write next to the bishop of meaux , to engage him to enquire of his new disciple father crasset , whether he never heard of one who for practising this doctrine in the very pulpit , was by ordinance of the bishop of orleans , sept. . . forbid to preach in his diocess , and the people to hear him under the pain of a mortal disobedience . really , sir , when i consider with what assurance you deny a matter so well known to all the world , and compare it with the maximes by which you have proceeded against me in your reply , i cannot but fear that after all your pretences this doctrine may have had some influence upon you : however , seeing it is plain , that you make so little scruple to practise it , you should not have been so very positive in denying it . but this is only a general presumption : and i shall be content that it be no farther remember'd against you , than i shall hereafter make it appear your actions do deserve . i must now come more closely to you ; and because i would not trespass too much upon either yours or the reader 's patience by making any tedious proof of that which i am confident you know , and the other will soon see , does not need any : i will offer only three or four considerations , out of many that occur to me , to invalidate your authority . and here not to mention , st , that great care you seem industriously to have taken that your reproa●hes might not be lost , ( whatever became of your arguments ) by summing them up into a catalogue at the beginning of your reply , and afterwards filling all along your margin with the like scandalous reflections : to pass by , ly . your nauseous repetitions of the very same charges not only in the same place , but almost in the very same words ; as if my faults were to increase in proportion to your repetitions of them : to say nothing , dly , of those general accusations , you often bring not against my self alone , but the rest of my brethren of the church of england , without so much as the least shadow of a proof of them ; what less than an unquestionable argument of a detracting spirit can arise . st . from those obliging titles you every where bestow upon me , even where you have not so much as a pretence for it ; and that scandalous idea you would from thence give your reader of me. shall i gratifie your ear with a repetition of some few of them : hear then those strains of rhetorick you so delight in . a doctor of the populace : p. . a pretended son of peace , p. . a pretended lover of peace and unity , but indeed a multiplier of accusations to hinder such good effects , p. . one that courts the applause of the vulgar , p. . and has learnt a machiavilian trick to keep them from seeing what is as clear as the sun , by casting a thick mist of calumnies before their eyes , p. . one who is willing to let himself be perswaded of any thing that but renders the papists odious , p. . that has a willingness to shew at least some kind of opposition to every thing that is said , p. . rash and bold in his assertions , p. . far from agreeing to any thing that has once been esteemed a difficulty , p. . having no intention to contribute any thing to the healing of the church in any punctilio , ib. whose whole business is nothing but shifts , p. . one that is loth to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for peace , p. . that is conscious to himself that he cannot defend his cause , and yet has not sincerity enough to repent , p. . one that says such things as would he speak his conscience he knows not to be true , p. . one that is wilful in his mistakes , and knows them well enough if he would be but so ingenuous as to acknowledge it , p. . in short , one that do's not believe himself what he writes , though he is willing that others should believe him , p. , . i pass by your more common appellations ; of falsifier ; caviller ; unchristian and unscholar-like calumniator ; perverter of the churches sense ; wilfully blind ; wilful prevaricator ; wilful mistaker of your doctrine ; unsincere , &c. all which you either in express terms call me , or at least plainly insinuate me to be ; and of which we must discourse a little by and by . for indeed i think what i have already mentioned may be sufficient to satisfie any sober man how well versed you are in the controversial dialect of your party : and whether you were not exceedingly desirous that something should stick , when you took all this pains , * * * * * * in your own phrase , to cast so much dirt upon me. dly , nor do's it less betray the true nature of your spirit to consider what pittiful , light occasions you lay hold on , to run out into the most terrible out-crys against me. thus in the article of satisfactions , the bishop of meaux distinguishes between two sorts of remission of sins ; the one , wherein god intirely forgives us , without reserving any punishment ; the other a partial remission only , wherein he changes a greater punishment into a less , that is , an eternal pain into a temporal . this first manner , says the bishop , being more compleat , and more conformable to his goodness , he makes use of it immediately in baptism : but we suppose he makes use of the second in the pardon he grants to those that fall after baptism . in my exposition , i tell him , that this is a very great doctrine , and ought to be tender'd to us with some better argument , than a bare , we suppose . upon this you make a tragical out-cry against me for an incorrigible falsifier , that though you had before told me of my prevaricating , yet i still take no notice of it ; for that the bishop of meaux says no such thing . what not as we suppose ? no ; but what then do's he say ; consider , reader , the falsification ; and be astonished at his cavil ; he says only , we believe . and now let any one from henceforth trust me that can : that am so plainly caught in so important a cheat. but pray , sir , bating that it serves to fill up your catalogue and margin with a hard word against me ; what is the great difference now between saying we suppose that god does not remit the whole punishment , and we believe that he does not . you tell us this latter phrase was conformable to his design of an exposition , not a proof . and is not , we suppose , as conformable to the design of an exposition , and as little fit for a proof , as we believe ? really , sir , i am perswaded the reader will think that had you marked this observation with a cavil in your margin , you would have expressed your self more properly , than by putting a falsification to it . and yet , though it be hardly worth the while , i will tell you what i presume might be the occasion of this little difference ; for really i am not yet convinced that it deserves to be called a mistake . in my edition of monsieur de meaux's exposition , which i have so often had occasion to speak of , the word is neither exactly as you , or i , render it ; but another to the same sense , we esteem . now this being no very proper english phrase , and having not yet set eyes on your translation , when i wrote my exposition , i chose rather the word we suppose , as bearing the same sense , and being on this occasion more generally used amongst us . this , sir , i believe was the grounds of our difference ; and one that had not a huge mind to find faults , would have been ashamed to inscribe so great a crime as falsification , to a trifle that all men of sense will despise , and that i ought to apologize but only for taking notice of . though yet perhaps i have taken the only way to make it considerable , by observing from it , what spirit and disposition you are of . another opportunity of clamor that you lay hold on is this ; and for meaness cousin german to the foregoing . in the point of the mass , the bishop of meaux willing to take off the argument which the epistle to the hebrews raises against it ; observes that the apostle concludes , that we ought not only to offer up no more victims after jesus christ , but that jesus christ himself ought to be but once offered up to death for us . in my exposition i thus quote him : monsieur de meaux observes , that the author of this epistle concludes , that there ought not only no other victim to be offered for sin after that of christ , but that even christ himself ought not to be any more offered . now the reason which the apostle gives is this , because that otherwise ( says he ) christ must often have suffered , hebr. ix . . plainly implying that there can be no true offering without suffering ; so that in the mass then , either christ must suffer , which monsieur de meaux denys , or he is not offer'd , which we affirm . but where now is the falsification ; why i make advantage , you say , of the bishop's words by an imperfect quotation ; for had i added but the next words , that would have solved the difficulty . the next words you mean are these ; that christ ought to be but once offer'd up to death for us . the difficulty was this ; christ can be but once offer'd , because he can no more suffer : monsieur de meaux confesses that christ can no more suffer ; ( which i think is the meaning of his words , that he can be but once offered up to death for us ; ) therefore he ought to confess , that he can be no more offer'd . good sir , enlighten us a little in this matter : for i assure you by offering i meant offering to death , the only kind of offering that i know of a true and proper sacrifice ; and the interposing of those words are so far from clearing the difficulty , as you pretend , that without either them , or some other equivalent to them , my argument is utterly lost . and now , let the reader judge , whether that man be not fond of calumniating his adversary , that can have the face to call this a falsification . and hitherto i have offered some presumptions to shew with what spirit you write against us : i will now come to such proofs as shall put it beyond all doubt ; and shew you to be , what i am sure ought to lessen your credit against us , a most false and unjust accuser of your brethren . for , dly . what else can be said of those charges you bring against me , of such crimes as without some divine revelation you can never be sure of . and though i think enthusiasm no more than miracles is not yet ceased in your church , yet you tell me that you do not your self pretend to be inspired , and i do not hear that you have at this time any hypochondriack lady amongst you , to deliver oracles to you upon these occasions . you reflect upon me as one , who am conscious that i cannot defend my cause , yet have not the sincerity to repent : that i speak such things , as would i deliver my conscience i know to be false : that i am willful in my mistakes , and do not my self believe what i write , though i am willing that others should . thus you charge me with a sin somewhat like the sin against the holy ghost ; that knowing the way of truth , i not only refuse to embrace it my self , but ( as you sometimes insinuate too ) keep as many others as i can out of it . but this , sir , i take it , is to divine , not to reason ; should i tell you in return , that i have some cause to believe , that if you do indeed credit your own calumnies , it is because you measure my insincerity by the sense you have of your own hypocrisie , i should not perhaps be altogether out in my conjecture . but , sir , i shall leave you rather to the judgment of god , to whom alone these secrets are known : and to return to my own defence ; tell me i beseech you , sir , ( if you can ) what occasion my life and manners have given you for such reflections ? are my interests in the church of england so great , or my expectations otherwise so low in the world ; as to prompt me to such villany ? is conversion so certain a way to ruine , that a man should rather damn himself for ever , than follow the dictates of his conscience , at this time of day especially , to embrace your religion ? it is well known to several of your own church ( and whose civilities to me i shall always most thankfully acknowledge ) with what readiness i have at all times pursued the means of instruction . let them tell you , sir , if ever they found me inclined to such perverseness or hypocrisie , as you here most unchristianly suggest against me . they know my conduct whilst i was amongst them ; and from what some of them very honourably have done , i ought not to doubt but that the rest will at any time justifie me against such scandalous insinuations . so free i was in my enquiries , so desirous of understanding both your religion and your reasons to the bottom ; that many of your church were inclined to think , what i hear others did not stick confidently to report , that i designed to come over to you . and though after a most impartial examination of your arguments i remained more convinced than ever , both of the purity of my own , and of the dangerous corruptions of your church ; yet i assure you , sir , i am the same indifferent person i ever was . not willing indeed to be deluded with sophistry , nor to follow every guide that will without any reason pretend to lead me ; but most willing to yield to truth whereever i find it . and however you may uncharitably represent me to the world ; yet i faithfully promise you that if even in this reproachful book of yours , there should be any thing to convince me that i have been mistaken , i will not fail ingenuously to acknowledge it ; and where i am not convinced , you may suddainly expect to receive my reasons of it . there is now but one thing more remaining to make a demonstrative proof of a calumniating spirit and design in you ; and that is , lastly ; to shew , that you accuse me not only of such things as you can never be sure are true ; but of such as you know to be evidently false ; nay of such as i have shewn you already to be so , and that so clearly , that you have nothing to return to it , and yet still you persist in your calumny against me. this i think is the last degree of proof ; and i shall leave it to your self to judge whether i do not make it good against you . in the article of extreme unction , i expounded those words of st. james , c. v. , . of the miraculous cures which were in those days common in the church ; and added in confirmation of it that card. cajetane himself freely confess'd they could belong to no other . — to this you reply in your vindication , that had i said that card. cajetane thought it could not be proved neither from the words , nor from the effect , that the words of st. james speak of the sacramental unction of extreme unction , but rather of that unction which our lord jesus instituted in the gospel to be exercised by his disciples upon the sick ; i had been a faithful quoter of his sense ; but to say that he freely confesses it can belong to no other , is to impose upon my readers . in my defence i shew the vanity of this cavil : that seeing there were but two interpretations proposed of these words , either to refer them to extreme unction , or to miraculous cures , for the cardinal utterly to exclude the former , and apply them to the latter , was certainly in effect ( for i pretended not to give his words ) to confess that they could belong to no other . instead of answering this , you again charge me both in your catalogue and in your margin with falsification as to this point . i told him , say you , that cardinal cajetane did not positively say as he affirmed he did : and then presently , as if your conscience had given your reflection the lie ; you go on , but what if he had ? why truly , sir , then any one may see that it was not any concern for truth , but a meer desire to defame me , that here inspired you to lay so great a crime to my charge ; and your own conscience at the same time seems to have told you , that you did not your self believe me to be guilty of it . §. ii. and thus have i shewn from the very nature of your reply , with what design it is that you write against us. i might now go on to consider your arguments , without troubling my self to return any more particular answer to your reproaches . but it is fit the world should be fully satisfied of your character : and indeed the reasonings of your reply are not so dangerous , but that we may venture to let them lie , whilst we go on to consider your revilings . i shall need no other apology for this undertaking than what your self have already made for me. it is i confess an ungrateful employment to expose the vices even of an enemy . but where a publick challenge is made , and the greatest of crimes charged upon those who abhor such villainies : in your own words , where so great a concern as the reputation of an innocent church is join'd with the single honour of such an adversary as you are ; i think i may be excused if i let the dirt fall where it ought , when by wiping it off from the one , it must necessarily stick upon the other . your reflections are of two kinds : either such as strike at the generality of our church ; or such as concern my self only , i shall take a view of both in their order . and , ist. your reflections on the generality of the church of england , are such as these . that they are men whose interest and malice prompt them to defame you . i. vi. who , whenever any argument pinches them , fall to reviling ; and make it their business to misrepresent your doctrines ; to calumniate your practices , and to ridicule your ceremonies . v. from whom nothing is to be expected but clamour , insincerity , and misrepresentation . xii . who seem to have no other end in all their controversial books or sermons , but to cry down popery at any rate , least they should suffer prejudice by its increase . xxiii . who keep their people in ignorance , and pretending to be their guides , shew themselves by their writing to be blind , or which is worse , malicious . xxv . men , who from their very pulpits second the common cry . xiii . least people should open their eyes , and see the truth ; and so whilst they pretend to be lovers of peace and unity , yet resolve to multiply accusations to hinder such good effects , p. . men who cannot endure that any of their party should seem to close with rome , as those who live by breaking the churches peace , . men who have been estranged from devotion , . and are so far byass'd , many of them , in their affections to their party , that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen of things , but pass their votes against any thing that leads towards popery ; tho against justice equity , and conscience , . . factious spirits , who have animated the pulpits zeal , to hinder the parliament from going on to testifie its loyalty as it had begun , by throwing fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were bigotted in their religion . xi . men , in short , who manage things upon politick motives to gratifie some persons at this juncture , least there should appear a possibility of union with the church of rome . . who have something more in the bottom , than what appears at first sight , in being thus zealous against popery . as q. elizabeth had , who being conscious of her mother's marriage , and her own birth , run out against the pope , to secure her title to the crown of england ; not foreseeing the ill consequences that will follow in the nation , . by keeping open our bleeding divisions to the ruine both of church and state , . this , sir , is your charge ; and such as either they or you must resolve to sink under the burden of it . the truth is , i cannot but wonder , that a person who so gravely exhorts others , to consider what rash judgment is , and what punishment god has reserved for those that are guilty of it , should be able to speak of so excellent a body of men , in so infamous a manner . for certainly greater crimes than these can hardly be imputed to the devil himself ; and i am verily perswaded that in all this scandalous catalogue there is not one single allegation either in its self true ; or which ( now , sir , that you are hereby publickly challenged to it ) you shall ever be able to make good against us . but i must be more particular . and , st . the first charge against us is , that whenever your arguments pinch us , we fall to revilings , and make it our business to blacken and calumniate you ; to misrepresent your doctrines , and to ridicule your ceremonies . i will not here in return to this clamour , desire the world to consider how unfit a preacher you are of honesty and civility , who have shewn your self in this reply to have observed but very little any measures of either . i will rather intreat you to reflect , how unfortunately this charge has been managed by the first undertaker of it ; who having advanced such a charge against us in particulars , and being fully answer'd to every one , never durst vindicate his calumny against the first attack , tho' the challenge still lies against him to do it . and methinks whilst those large defences remain yet without a vindication it is a great assurance and indiscretion too in you , by reviving the calumny , to put the world in mind where it has been shewn to lie . i know not what opinions you may have of your church and of your arguments . but we have always found so much to censure in the one , and so little to press us in the others , that we have never had the least temptation to run to such shifts , as you here accuse us of . but what can be done , when men dissemble their doctrines , misrepresent their practices , and out-face the plainest matters of fact ; and then cry out nothing but calumny and falsification , if any one goes about to discover their hypcorisie . but , iidly . your next charge is yet more grievous ; you tax us with malice and interest to defame you ; and say , that by the methods by which we carry on disputes , we give you cause to think , that we have no other end in all our controversial books or sermons but to cry down popery at any rate , least we should suffer prejudice by its increase . that is , in other words , that those of the church of england , who oppose your designs , are all of them a pack of atheists and hypocrites ; who value nothing but their temporal interests ; and therefore seem resolved at any rate to run down popery , least they should suffer prejudice by its increase . a character so vile and scandalous ; so void of all appearance of truth as well as of modesty , as sufficiently shews what manner of spirit it was that assisted you in the writing it . and whosoever he be to whom it belongs ; tros rutulusve fuat ; let him be anathema . but i reply to this calumny : . that this is a charge which you can no otherwise pretend to make good than by our outward actions ; for i am confident you never received any assurances of this kind in confession from us . now then , tell me , i beseech you ; or rather , sir , tell the world , before which you have traduced us , from which of our actions is it that you presume to pass so uncharitable a censure against us ? are our lives so scandalous , or our writings so destitute of all sense of religion , as to speak us to be govern'd only by malice and int●rest ? do we no longer preach up the doctrines of piety in our sermons ; nor profess in our assemblies the belief of a future judgment , and an eternal state of life or death after this ? either make good this charge against us , or resolve to fall under the weight of that infamy you thought to have cast upon us . and remember what you tell me ( and what i know not any one in the world on whom i can more properly bestow it than your self ) of a certain necessary duty both to god and men ; viz. of making a publick acknowledgment of those calumnies you have thrown upon us , and without which , according to your own sentence , you cannot expect your sin should be forgiven you . but , dly , you affirm that 't is out of malice and interest that we oppose you . as to the former of these , i confess indeed your principles and your actions too , against those you call hereticks , are such , as might almost tempt a good man to malice against you . but , sir , those principles and those practices are so contrary to christianity too , that no man need be acted by malice , whilst 't is so much his duty to oppose you . you may call our firmness , ( as you do our religion ) what you please : 't is easie to give ill names to the best things . but whilst our arguments stand good against you , no man can , without great uncharitableness , say , that 't is out of malice that we oppose you ; seeing those shew , that 't is a well-grounded zeal for the truth and purity of the gospel , that moves us against such corrupters of it as you are , and which shall , i trust , make us steady even to the death against you . for the other part of your charge , interest : were a christian capable of being led by so base a motive , yet how comes this to inspire us against you ? st . is there so much less of interest to be carried on in the church of rome than in the church of england ? have not the clergy on your side as great a command over the consciences and over the purses too of their flock , as on ours ? where would our interests suffer by preaching up the golden doctrines of satisfactions , purgatory , indulgences , masses , and prayers for the dead ; of the necessity of auricular confession , and of the priests power to forgive sins ? certainly , sir , you forgot your self when you imputed our firmness to this motive . it has indeed been an objection against you , that in most of those points wherein you differ from us , you have secular interests to serve by them : but i never yet heard that the divines of the church of england had any such interest to oppose these corruptions . . again ; those who have been so honest , ( in your opinion at least ) as to lay aside their malice and follow a good conscience in embracing of your religion , have their temporal interests sustain'd any loss by it ? much more would all those who now write or speak against you , come over to you , wherein i pray would their worldly concerns lose by their so doing ? . but it may be we gain something by being firm to our principles : as to the other world no doubt we do ; but will you say , sir , that they who are the most stedfast against popery , do take the readiest course to advance their fortunes by it in this ? in short , were we so wicked as to be govern'd by so mean a consideration , i do assure you we are not so blind as not to see whither interest would lead us . and i shall leave it to the world to judge , whether it has not pleased god here to direct your malice to your own confusion , in chusing out such a topick as this , whereby to calumniate our stedfastness . but , dly , there is yet a third thing which you insinuate as another means , we use to keep our party firm against you , and that is ignorance . you desire them to read your book , that they may see how much they have been kept in ignorance by us : pref. you mean , i suppose , as to the points wherein we differ from you , and which are many of them very considerable . now were this indeed so , yet methinks it is not very decent for a guide of the church of rome to complain of it . the truth is , we do give our people all the instruction that we can : we put the holy scriptures into their hands in their own tongue ; we exhort them to read them ; and we know who they are , that not only do not do this , but blame us for doing it . we instruct them with all diligence , by writing , preaching , catechizing , &c. and as ignorant as they are , yet we find them ( and so do you too ) too wise to be deluded by such seducers as would fain draw them away from us . there is no one so ignorant , but what can at least give you an orthodox summary of his belief ; can say amen , with understanding , to the publick service ; and in short , can tell you , sir , that which all your learning ; or , because that is not much , i may add , and all the learning of your church will never be able to answer ; that god spake these words and said . thou shalt have none other gods but me , . thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image nor the likeness of any thing in heaven above , or in the earth beneath , or in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them . as for those rare mysteries of ave maria's and pater noster's ; of the extraordinary virtues of holy water , and agnus dei's ; of st. francis's girdle , st. dominick's beads , and simon stock 's scapulary ; of the great significancy of oil and balsam , of white fillets and boxes on the ear ; of ashes and incense ; of lighted tapers , and naked images ; of the several ways of lifting up hands , and crossing and knocking breasts ; of standing , bowing , creeping , &c. in these i confess our people have ( for us ) been kept in ignorance ; and i hope they will never have occasion of being instructed in them . but for any ignorance of any thing that is worth their knowledge even in your religion , ( which i suppose you here especially aim at ) for any designed concealment of your true doctrine from them ; much more for any thing generally necessary , or but profitable to their salvation , we must beg leave to justifie our selves in the words of st. paul , that we have not shunn'd to declare unto them all the counsel of god. iii. your next charge is , that we have been estranged from devotion . and indeed , what wonder is it , if men , who , as you say , are acted only by the influences of malice and interest , are not much acquainted with the ardours of devotion ? but , sir , setting calumny apart , whence is it that you derive this charge against us ? have we no service of god in our churches ? or is our liturgy so unapt to excite devotion in those who duly attend upon its offices ? have you never , sir , your self heard us recommend with all earnestness , the practice of this piety to our congregations ? should we put our prayers into an unknown tongue , that if not the zeal , yet at least the wonder and astonishment of the people might be increased ? instead of reading our service aloud , would you have us turn our backs to the assembly , and whisper they know not what between our hands into a corner , that no body may hear us ? or what is it , sir , that we must do to satisfie you , that we are not utterly estranged from devotion ? in short , all the pretence i find you have for this charge , is , that we think many of your ceremonies uncouth ; and you tell us it is because we are unacquainted with devotion : but we will take your own words , for indeed they are very extraordinary , and 't is pity they should be lost , the case you say is this , as the church of england in general for gravity and reverend behaviour exceeds the conventicles , or other reformed churches ; so the cathedrals of the church , we confess , are more solemn than the country churches ; the catholicks , as 't is fit , far beyond the english cathedrals ; and what is the issue ? the churches of england are censured as superstitious by the kirkmen and conventiclers ; the cathedrals are censured as such by the parish churches ; and the catholick is censured also by the reformed cathedral : still the more solemn and devout church is censured by the less . so that here now is a religious war ; and the conventicles , the parish churches , the cathedrals , and the mass-houses are in their respective synods assembled to damn and anathematize one another ; and you as a catholick moderator thus decide the controversie : there is a little devotion ( and but very little ) in the conventicles ; there is somewhat more in the parish churches ; there is a pretty deal more in the cathedrals ; only in the mass-house is to be found the perfection of piety , the ne plus ultra of devotion upon earth . is not this rare stuff ? and will not the world , think you , be strangely edified at so demonstrative a proof that we are ( god be thanked not totally , but yet , especially when we go to our parish churches , very much ) estranged from devotion ? but pray , sir , where is the necessity , that because we have not so much ceremony as you , we must be further estranged from devotion too ? if you will allow our saviour and his apostles ; if you will grant that the primitive christians were devout without all this ceremony , why may not we be so too ? and if we may , how will you justifie your self from being grosly uncharitable in thus insinuating upon so slender a ground , that we are not ? we want nothing that may serve for decency and order in gods service ; the ceremonies we have cast off are only those useless ones , of whose burden , st. austin even in his time complain'd , who was yet i hope no stranger to devotion . to go no further than those ceremonies upon which you thus traduce us . in your good friday service , the priest takes a cross , and standing on one side of the altar uncovers a little of it from the top , and then sings , behold the wood of the cross , the people answering , come , let us adore , and at the same time falling down upon their faces ; then he goes to the other side of the altar , and uncovers the right arm of it , and sings , whilst the people answer and fall down , as before ; then he comes to the middle of the altar , and quite uncovers it , and so they all fall down and sing as before ; then he sets it up on a place before the altar , and pulls off his shooes , and comes up to adore the cross , bending his knee three times before he kisses it ; after this the rest of the priests , and the people two and two do the like . this is the manner of that service ; and to say the truth , it does seem to us very uncouth , and to have but little of the true spirit of devotion in it ; but however , let us for one moment suppose it to be a reasonable service ; pray , sir , why might not there have been as much piety , tho there had been less ceremony ? for instance ; what if the priest had uncovered the cross all at once ? what if he had stood all the while in the same place , and not uncovered one part at one end of the altar , a second at the other , the rest in the middle ? might not the people have had the same zeal by beholding the cross , to adore him that suffered upon it ? suppose the priest and the congregation had gone with their shooes on to the place where the cross stood ( as i believe verily they might have done , for all gods command to moses to put his shooes from off his feet , because the place on which he stood , was by gods presence made holy ground ) . nay , what if instead of bending their knees three times before they kiss'd it , they had done it but once , or not at all ? i confess in this case a great deal of the state of the business had been lost , and the people would not have been half so agreeably entertained ; but i cannot see why they might not have had the same true , inward devotion towards our saviour for all any such defect . to conclude this : if you can prove that we have no regard to decency or order in gods service ; if you can shew that we despise prayer , or neglect to exhort our people to the practice of it ; if we do , like you , amuse them only with noise and shew , instead of a reasonable , intelligible service ; sometimes whisper the prayers , that they cannot always speak them in such a language that the ignorant among you do not know how to improve their zeal by them ; then on gods name continue to revile us ; but if you cannot say we do any thing of this kind , i must then plainly tell you that you have most unchristianly judged us ; and i beseech you , as ever you would free your self from being thought a calumniator , give us but any one argument that an honest man shall not blush to read , to prove us , as you say , estranged from devotion . iv. and hitherto you have aimed especially at the clergy of the church of england ; your next reflection is upon the laity ; and indeed it was but fit that having set forth the guides as men of no religion , you should represent the flock to have neither justice , equity , nor conscience . but we will take it in your * * * * * * own words . you tell us then of some among us , that are so biassed in their affections to our party , that they will scarce allow themselves their common senses in the examen , but pass their votes against any thing that tends towards popery , tho against justice , equity , and conscience . this , sir , is another of those severe reproaches , which without the least shadow of a proof you cast on many of our church ; and for which , till you shall think fit by some very good arguments to clear your self , i must again beg leave to esteem you a calumniator . in the mean time , till you shall think fit to remove that reproach , you may please to know , that men so prejudiced and obstinate , as you speak of , whatever they may pretend , yet really are none of our disciples : we direct all men , as you very well know , to use both their senses and their reason in examining their religion : and you can sometimes alter your note , and inveigh against us for our so doing . and we should be heartily sorry that any of our friends should be so nigh to a perversion , as to have abandon'd the use of any of these faculties . they pass their votes , you say , against any thing that tends towards popery , tho against justice , equity , and conscience . this i am sure they never learnt of us . we have always directed men to act according to justice , equity and conscience : and not to be afraid of any thing that is good , because a papist does it . indeed , sir , i have heard of some who when they receive a proselyte into their church , make him swear , that he will never by any perswasions , or by any other means be drawn off from it : and if by any occasion or argument he shall fall away , he wishes that incurring the guilt of his perjury , he may be found obliged to eternal punishment : and this we have always blamed in them as most unwarrantable and unchristian . but the truth is , you have here , as in most of your other reflections , taken up our objectious against you ; and what we with truth lay to your charge , you most detractingly , because most falsely , return upon us . but , v. you have yet more to accuse us of . you tell us of certain factious spirits that have animated the pulpits zeal , to throw fears and jealousies into the minds of those who were bigotted in their religion , to the hindring of the parliament from proceeding in its loyalty as it had begun . i do not very well understand , what liberty this is you take to censure the loyalty of so . great a body as the lords spiritual and temporal , and the members of the honourable house of commons amount to : but sure i am , it is not such a pen as yours that can blast their reputation . as for the factious spirits that animated the pulpits zeal , when you dare speak openly what you mean by it , you may be sure of an answer either from them or me. in the mean time , god be thanked the pulpits zeal has ever been employed to keep up in the subjects that duty which by gods command they owe to their prince ; and nothing is at this day , next to our zeal for our religion , more our desire and our endeavour , than to make men loyal to their soveraign . our pulpits still speak the same principles of subjection they ever did . we are neither ashamed of the doctrine of passive obedience , nor afraid of its practise ; tho some of your acquaintance have endeavoured to laugh both that and us out of countenance for its sake . our steadiness to our religion , shall never make us fail in our duty to our king. in one word , we will both by our preaching and actions make it our business to fulfill that great evangelieal precept , of rendring unto coesar the things that are coesars ; and unto god the things that are gods. but , sir , since you mention fears and jealousies , i will shew you who they are that have alarm'd the nation with them : for , vi. thus finally , you reflect upon us , that we are men who manage things upon politick motives to gratifie some persons at this juncture . you insinuate as if there were something more in the bottom of our opposing you , than what appears at first sight : you tell us a very dangerous story of q. elizabeth , how that doubting the goodness of her title to the crown of england , books were filled with revilings against the church of rome , the better to secure it . then you speak again of designs , and of leading-men ; and of ill consequences that will follow in the nation , to the ruin both of church and state , if we keep open these divisions . i would willingly believe that you had no other meaning in all this , but only to insinuate once more to the world that we are a sort of mercenary creatures that have indeed no religion , but are acted only by politick motives , to gratifie i know not whom at this juncture . and that the hints that follow , of something more being in the bottom than at first sight appears ; of q. elizabeth's title to the crown ; of designs , and leading men ; of ill consequences to the nation , &c. are but words put together , without any other intention than to render your little reflection the more considerable . but , sir , all men do not make so favourable a construction ; they think there is somewhat alluded to in that history , which if you dare justifie , we need not be ashamed of giving you an answer . they desire you to speak out , how you apply all these things : whether there be any body now living to answer to queen elizabeth ; whether those words of her mothers marriage , and her own birth , making her title doubtful to the crown of england , have any signification ; how our zeal against popery is to bring such ill consequences upon the nation ; and whether here you threaten or prognosticate only these things to us ; and who gave you authority to do either ? when you shall have explain'd your self as to all these particulars , you may then expect a further answer : in the mean time give me leave to tell you , that whether you have any meaning in it or no , the very mention of these things is dishonest ; and may raise such fears and jealousies in the people , as all our zeal for peace shall not be able to allay : and i know not well what i ought to think of those men who at the same time that his sacred majesty proclaims a publick peace to his subjects , whatever their perswasions be ; and particularly declares in favour of the church of england , that he will protect and maintain it in the free exercise of our religion , as by law establish'd ; and in the quiet and full enjoyment of all our possessions , without any molestation or disturbance whatsoever ; nevertheless dare threaten us with ruin and destruction . † † † † † † you speak of the ill consequences that will follow in the nation by our opposing you ; p. . of keeping open divisions to the ruin both of church and state , p. . * * * * * * another tells us of his majesties withdrawing his royal protection from us . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ a third in plain words declares that the church of rome will triumph , when perchance a certain divine of the church of england may smart for having attempted its destruction . these are such insinuations as the pulpits zeal would never have presumed to throw into the minds of their auditors ; and they certainly deserve to be some other way taken notice of than i am authorized to do it . but 't is well that having shewn how small your charity is to us , you now let us see , that your duty is not much greater to your prince . and before you shall next think fit to charge us with raising of fears and jealousies in men's minds , i desire you to consider how you will be able to purge your selves , from being by these kind of insinuations , indeed the greatest incendiaries . and thus have i offer'd what seems to me to be sufficient to vindicate those of our church from your false and scandalous aspersions . i shall detain you but a very little while in the other part : wherein i am ii. to consider those imputations you have brought against my self in particular . for indeed it was not for these that i enter'd at all on this ungrateful employment of laying you open to the world ; and if my church , and its more worthy members be but clear of your censures , it is no great matter how much such an inconsiderable part of it as i am , suffer by them . something yet i will add , that i may not seem wanting to my own defence , and give credit to your censures , by neglecting to refute them . and first , to all the hard names you have so liberally bestow'd upon me , and the crimes for which you have not offer'd the least shadow of a proof ; i shall only say , the lord forgive you . call me , if you please , a doctor of the populace ; tell the world that i court the applause of the vulgar : that i am but a pretended son of peace : that my business is nothing but shifts : say that i am wilfully blind , a wilful prevaricator , a wilful mistaker of your doctrine : call me unsincere , caviller , and as many other names of the like kind as i have either now forgot , or you shall be able hereafter to invent : my answer shall still be the same to them all , lord lay not this sin to your charge . secondly , to your several reflections , whereby you represent me to the world as a wilful prevaricator in many instances , i have already said that this is what you can never be sure is true , and what i am sure is utterly false : and i do not know by which of my actions i have ever given you a cause for so unchristian and slanderous an imputation . believe me , sir , it is not a light matter that you here lay to my charge : to be conscious to my self that i cannot defend my cause , and yet not to have the sincerity to repent , must imply a most incorrigible spirit in me ; and if i may guess by your reply , you have not found my defence so weak as to justifie such an imputation to mistake is humane , and i shall be far from pretending an exemption from that to which we are all by nature subject ; but to do it wilfully , and being admonish'd of it , nevertheless still to persevere , and put such things upon the world , as in my conscience i know not to be true : to endeavour to make others believe what i do not believe my self ; these are crimes for which no apology is to be made , nor therefore ought any one , without very convincing reasons , to be presumed guilty of them . but to undertake positively to charge another with them , as you have done me ; and upon such slender proofs , and with such repeated assertitions : this sir , must proceed from an uncharitable spirit ; and will , i am perswaded , much more prejudice you than me , in the opinion of all considering men. however , as i shall in my reflections upon your reply , particularly answer your pretences ( where you have any ) for these censures ; so i do now assure you , that whatever mistakes you may think you have discover'd either in my exposition , or my defence , they are sins of ignorance , and not voluntary errors , as you most rashly pronounce them to be . thirdly , for those reflections which have no relation to the cause in hand , but are drawn in meerly to defame me without the least provocation ; tho i might pass them by as foreign to my present design , yet i will stop so long as to give some answer to them . two of these especially there are ; and of neither of which ( excuse me , sir , this little vanity which your reflections force me to ) i think i need to be ashamed . the . concerns my preaching ; in which not only i my self , but all those whom you call by way of scoff , ( and with more disrespect than so honourable an assembly deserves ) my learned auditory are involved together with me. you say that you hear , and in that you speak properly , ( for i 'm told that you your self have vouchsafed sometimes to make up a part of my then , i hope , truly learned auditory , ) that i tell my congregation , that you give divine worship to saints ; that i speak many things ad faciendum populum , and my learned auditors admire my learning , and applaud my eloquence . other reflections of this kind you have , and to which i shall only say , that i have never delivered any thing on those occasions , but what i have firmly believed to be the truth ; and which , had i not been so perswaded , i should never have durst to utter in that holy place . and if this be all the effect of those critical sunday-nights conferences , in which ( if i am rightly informed ) my sermons have sometimes been put upon the rack by you ; i may now conclude that i have not much transgress'd , in those few things i have therein spoken against you . . the other thing for which you sometimes reflect upon me , is popularity . you call me a doctor of the populacy , p. . you tell the world , that i court the applause of the vulgar , p. . and it seems have had the good fortune to obtain it , p. . now this , sir , may be a fault , if you can say that i have done any thing that is ill for it ; or that in any of my actions i have managed my self otherwise than i ought to have done in consideration of it . but if it should chance to be only your envy or concern at any thing of a reputation you may think i have got in the world , that prompts you to give it so invidious a name , i must then tell you that whilst i know my innocence of any wicked designs in it , or endeavours after it ; i shall be no more ashamed of , that i pretend to what you call popularity ; and i will endeavour , sir , if i can , to be still more popular ; that so i may have the greater influence upon mens minds , to perswade them to their duty , and confirm them in that steadiness , from which such false teachers as you are , would endeavour to draw them off . but for the rest , i have neither courted any ones applanse , nor gone one step out of the way in which my duty and my conscience have led me , to gain an esteem or interest in the world. in this method by gods grace i shall always walk ; and i make no doubt but my learned auditors , and my friends the vulgar , will approve my resolutions . and as i have nothing but this integrity whereby to deserve their regard , so whilst i keep firm to it , i shall not fear to lose their esteem . the approbation that is founded on any other bottom often changes : but where good men value , and honesty is the only ground of the esteem , there it is impossible it should ever fail , till either the one or the other fall from their principles . fourthly , for those reflections which are involved in the course of your reply , and cannot well be separated from it , i shall examine them as they lie in their several places there , and not follow the catalogue into which you have collected them against me. there i shall shew you , that what you call calumnies , are indeed most undoubted truths : the falsifications you tax me with , either your mistake , if you indeed thought them so , or your crime if you did not . that in my whole defence there is but one thing that can any ways be call'd an error in the translation of all those numerous passages i have brought against you , and that such as no one else would , and you ( who are so obnoxious to such mistakes as to commit above a dozen in the translation of a short letter ) ought certainly the least of any to have censured . there you shall see the unsincerities shewn to lie at your own door : the uncharitable accusations , proved to be , if not the new , yet the old doctrine of your church . the wilful mistakes , and affected misapplications of equivocal words to be no mistakes , nor misapplications at all : what you call a false imposition in me , to be indeed a bold denial of your own words : the authors you pretend to be misapplied , if there be any such , ( for i have yet found them no where but in your catalogue ) speaking properly what they were brought for : and the plain contradictions no where to be found but in your own undistinguishing brain . in the mean time i have this only with you to intreat the judicious reader , that he will suspend his judgment till these things are examined , and not take all for gospel , that is said with confidence . there is now only one charge more remaining , and from which i ought , before i proceed farther , to defend my self against your reflections ; and that is , v. concerning the ill language you pretend i have used in my defence ; a fault which i assure you no man more disapproves , nor is more scrupulously careful to avoid than my self ; but then i must confess that perhaps i do not think all to be ill language that you shall please to call so ; for tho i esteem it generally the best to use the softest expressions that may be , yet there is a necessity in some cases of speaking plain , and of calling evil things by their proper names ; and really sir , when we have to do with such a cause as yours , and such vindicators of it as your self , let us do what we can , we must appear to write a satyr . you are , for instance , very much offended that i should charge your church with idolatry ; that i should represent some of your saints as speaking horrid blasphemies ; that i call st. thomas's notions in defence of image-worship , reveries ; and the addresses with which you consecrate them , rather magical incantations , than christian prayers ; these , sir , are hard words , i do confess ; and if i have no grounds for them , unjust reproaches , calumnies , or what else you please of the like kind ; but yet till you answer my reasons , and convince me of my error , that these things are indeed not such as i suppose , i cannot imagine how i should change my stile ; or what other words to find out that might express my sense , and yet not offend your ears . again : 't is possible , you will hereafter say , that in these very reflections wherein i complain of you for calling us falsifiers , calumniatars , cavillers , misrepresenters , and the like , i do yet sometimes my self return the very same language upon you ; this indeed is true , but then here is the difference , you accuse us of these things without reason , often without any occasion , and therefore do calumniate , whereas i never ( that i know of ) return them upon you , till i have first shewn a just cause for the doing it ; and tho it be calumny to call an honest man , a knave , or a dishonest man , yet i know not what other kind of name we can give to him that is truly so . this , sir , is my notion of these things ; and if i am out , i shall be most willing to stand corrected by you ; in the mean time let us see whereon it is that you ground this charge against me . two places there are in which you accuse me of it . the i. refers to the rishop of meaux , whom as you pretend , i have endeavoured to expose by my contemptible raillery . to this i have already replied , that i know not wherein i have been guilty of any thing that looks like raillery in all my treatment of that bishop , having always been mindful of his character in every thing i have written against him : that i am sorry the necessary defence of truth has forced me to speak what i have done concerning him ; and if after all , i should chance in my pursuit of his unsincerities , ( let not that word offend you , i have proved before , what i now say , and much more ) to have dropt any expression that looks like raillery , as i cannot yet find upon a diligent examination , that i have done it , so neither will i justifie my self in it , whenever you shall be able to prove your allegation : but , sir , this is not the only instance in which you give me occasion to complain ( in a very mild word ) , of your groundless accusations . ii. the other place in which you charge me with this fault , is more considerable , because there you do ( what you have seldom done any where else ) bring some instances of it ; and out of respect to so extraordinary a piece of justice , i will neither call them by any hard name , nor any further insist upon your undue repetition of them . the expressions you accuse me of are these three . i. that i call st. thomas's opinions , reveries . ii. the rhetorical expressions of the greatest saints , horrid blasphemies : and iii. the pious and significant ceremonies of the church , magical incantations . in every part of which charge you are a little mistaken . for . they are not s. thomas's opinions , but the arguments and distinctions with which he endeavours to defend your churches opinions , that i called reveries . . nor are there any of the greatest saints , tho some of them i confess were pious men , whose expressions i stiled horrid blasphemies . nor . are they the pious and significant ceremonies of christs holy catholick church ; but the prayers of a church , usurping those titles of holy and catholick , that can the least belong to her of any church in the christian world ; they are , i say , the prayers of that church , which in just indignation to so great a superstition as the consecrating stocks and stones , in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost , i said , looked more like magical incantations than prayers . it may be you will think these remarks might well have been spared ; but we live in a critical age , wherein men , you know , cannot endure to have things misrepresented ; and when you charge me with speaking reproachfully of your church , you should have been very careful to see that in the charge of it you did not speak ( tho but a little ) falsely of me . but i. it displeases you that i should call some of thomas aquinas's notions , reveries . it was indeed a bold thing in me to fail in my respects to a doctor , who as you tell me former times have stiled angelical ; i wonder you did not add out of your breviary , that he was one too who attained to all his knowledg , not by study and labour , but by divine inspiration ; for this would have added much to my offence ; nay , to whom ( if all that is there said , be true ) a certain crucifix once upon a time declared , that all he had written concerning him was well ; and one part of that was this very thing before us , that the wood of the crucifix was to be adored with the same adoration as christ himself ; and after the attestation of it by so notable a miracle , i cannot but wonder how you dare to question it . but then , sir , you ought to have considered whether you were sure there was any dis-respect in my expression : now had you not been too little acqainted with the french tongue , ( as i shall hereafter shew you are with some others ) to turn critique in it ; you would have known that reverie is not necessarily a word of reproach , but used very innocently to signifie a deep thought , a profound meditation , and from thence secondarily , the productions themselves that come from such reflections : and therefore you ought not , without all distinction , to say that i affront st. thomas in calling his notions reveries , for so the best mens works may without affrout be called ; but since this displeases you , whatever i may do to others , yet i assure you i never will so far affront you , as even in my thoughts to suppose you to be a reverie , i. e. a man of profound thought , and deep meditation . and thus were i minded to cavil , i might end this objection . but , sir , to satisfie your little remark , i do confess , i did not mean that expression in this best sense ; no , the subject upon which i spoke it , was too bad , not to reflect some of its illness upon the very words that are used about it ; and when i said , that i did not think my self obliged to transcribe all st. thomas's reveries ; i did indeed mean , what i now call them in plainer words , his vain and trifling reasons , which he brings to justifie that wicked doctrine of your church , that the cross of christ is to be adored with a supreme divine worship . this i understood by that expression , and such i take his discourse there to be ; and i will now leave it to the world to judg , what else they can make of such profound nonsense as this . honour or reverence is not ( primarily ) due to any but a rational nature ; but to an insensible creature , honour or reverence is not due , but with respect to a rational nature : and this may happen two ways ; one , upon the account of its representing a rational nature : the other , because it is some way joined to it : by the first means , we worship the image of a king ; by the second , his garments ; and we venerate both with the same veneration , with which we venerate the king himself . — is not this , think you , wonderful reasoning ? and was i not horribly to blame , to call such fine notions , reveries ? but now for the application . — if therefore we speak of that cross upon which christ was crucified , it is to be adored upon both accounts by us , both as it represents christ , and as it touch'd his members , and was sprinkled with his blood ; and upon both these accounts with the same supreme worship with which christ is adored ; and hence it is that we speak to the cross , and pray to it as if it were christ . — i doubt , sir , you will think this last looks something like a reverie , because ( as i remember ) it crosses your notions . but we will go on : but if we speak of the image of christ in any other matter , so we adore the cross only as the image of christ , which we adore with divine adoration . these are aquinas's notions on this point ; and these i called his reveries , i. e. his vain fancies and imaginations ; and so i still esteem them to be ; if you think otherwise , and that these dreams and shadows of reason , are indeed conclusive proofs , why then do you reject this doctrine , * * * * * * and tell us , that perhaps it maybe defended ; and not speak out boldly that it is good and orthodox , and what we ought to follow ; but if you like this arguing really no better than i do , wherefore do you expose me for calling that a vain fancy , which , after all , you your self look upon as no other ? to conclude ; i am perswaded that no one among you has a juster respect for st. thomas than i have ; i have always esteemed him an excellent doctor , and profited by his works ; but what can the best man do , when he has not truth on his side ? error may be palliated , and a greatdeal of thought be spent , and wit shewn to give it the appearance of truth , but when all is done 't is error still ; and the arguments that are brought to support it , how fine and subtil soever they may seem , are yet but reveries , i. e. visions , shadows of reason , not rational and conclusive proofs ; and upon this ground , tho not only an angelical doctor , or a crucifix from a wall , but even an angel from heaven , should argue in this sort , i should not be ashamed of the expression , if i had called it ra●ing . but ii. the next thing you find fault with , is ; that i call some of the expressions of your saints , with reference to the virgin mary , horrid blasphemies . and here you put me upon a very ungrateful work , to rake into the ashes of good , but superstitious men , and who falling into corrupt times , were by their piety carried into vain and extravagant expressions of it : but as i hope god has pardoned their well-meant , tho very indiscreet zeal ; so i desire that what i here repeat in my defence , may not be a means to lead any one to triumph in their weakness , whose vertues otherwise we few of us perhaps shall be able to come up to ; and this i say of some of those i am to mention ; for however your church has thought fit indifferently to canonize them , yet i hope saints as well as stars , may differ from one another both in their goodness and in their glory . the . you mention is st. germain , whose expressions to the blessed virgin , or as you call them , rhetorical flights , will i think justifie the worst that can be said of them : o mother of god , says he , your defence is immortal ; your intercession is the life ; your protection is security ; if you do not teach us the way , no one can become spiritual , nor adore god in spirit . — o most holy virgin ! no one can have the knowledg of god but by you : o mother of god! no one can be saved but by you : o virgin mother ! no one can be delivered from dangers but by you : o favoured of god! no one can obtain any gift or grace , but by you . the second is st. anselm . his expressions of this kind are numerous ; and i will mention only some of them : o blessed virgin ! says he , as it is necessary that every one who is hated and despised by you , should perish , so is it impossible that he whom you regard should be lost . — only be it your will that we should be saved , and then we cannot but be saved . — hence he elsewhere calls her , the repairer of the lost world : and adds , that as god creating all things by his power , is become god and father of all ; so mary the blessed mother of god by restoring all things , is become the mother and lady of all . in one of his addresses to her , he says , that god has given this to her in common with himself , that with her all things should be possible . and to go yet one step farther , he tells us in plain terms , that a man is sometimes sooner saved in calling upon the name of mary , than by calling upon the name of christ. ly , your next saint is st. bernard : and he too is voluminous in his expressions . thus he also makes her redemptrix of the world : we have , says he , sent before us from earth to heaven an advocate , who being mother of our judg , and mother of mercy , will treat sincerely and with efficacy the business of our salvation ? 't is she that hath obtain'd the reparation of the whole world , and the salvation of all men . — it must be confess'd that one man , and one woman have done us a great deal of harm ; but another man , and another woman , have repaired with advantage all the ill which the former had done us . i acknowledg that jesus christ is sufficient to save us ; but it was not expedient that man should be alone ; it was more congruous , that both the one and the other sex should come in to our reparation , seeing neither of them was wanting to our destruction . — consider then more deeply with how great an affection of piety god would have us adore her , who has put the whole fulness of good in mary : so that if there be any hope in us , if any grace , if any salvation , we should know that it proceeds from her. — and therefore he elsewhere calls her , the ladder of sinners ; his great trust , and the whole foundation of his hope . but i must not insist too largely . the next you name is , fourthly , the abbot of celles ; i will produce but one passage from him : approach , says he , by a devout contemplation of spirit towards the blessed virgin , because through her , and with her , and in her , and from her , the world both hath , and will have all that is good. — she is our advocate to her son , as the son to the father . she sollicites for us both the father and the son. oftentimes those whom the justice of the son might condemn , the mercy of the mother delivers . — in short , as our saviour once said , that no one could come unto him ( whilst he was on earth ) unless the father drew him ; so dare i ( says he ) in some sort affirm , that no one comes now to thy glorified son , unless thou by thy holy assistance drawest him . thly , as it is impossible ( says st. antonine , from st. anselm ) that those from whom the v. mary turns the eyes of her mercy should be saved ; so is it necessary that those towards whom she turns her eyes , interceding for them , should be justified and glorified . thly , from the time , says st. bernardine , that the virgin mother conceived in her womb the word of god , she obtained , as i may say , a certain jurisdiction and authority over all the temporal processions of the holy ghost . so that no creature has obtain'd any grace or vertue of god , but according to the dispensation of his holy mother . he that desires more of this , may see in dr. j. c's apology for his contemplations on the life and glory of holy mary ; who tho he be not yet a saint , yet may for his zeal deserve hereafter to be canonized ; and make as great a figure one day in the church , as any that i have named . these , sir , are some of the expressions to which i referred : you may think as you please of them , and give what dexterous expositions your wit shall enable you , to free them from censure : but i dare venture it to all sober men now to judg , whether i was much out in my expression , when i said in my defence , that they were horrid blasphemies . dly , your last censure is , that i said of those collects which you use in the consecration of a cross , that they seemed to be magical incantations rather than prayers . and i would to god , sir , we had not too good grounds for such a censure : i should most willingly retract my expression . but in the mean time , till you will learn to be ashamed of doing such things , i see no cause wherefore i should be confounded for giving them their proper names . you pray to god , that he would bless the wood of the cross ; to what purpose , i pray , give a blessing to the stock of a tree ? that it may be a saving remedy to mankind ; an establishment of the faith ; for the encrease of good works ; and the redemption of souls ; for a comfort and protection against the cruel darts of the enemy . is not this , sir , a most edifying prayer for a church , calling her self catholick , to use ? to desire the blessing of god upon that which he has expresly forbidden us to make , for any such purpose as that , for which it is here consecrated ? but to go on with the ceremony : you incense it , you sprinkle it with holy water ; you consecrate it , in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost : you pray again , that as by the cross upon which christ suffer'd , the world was redeemed from guilt ; so by the merits of this cross , the souls of those who offer it , may be freed from all the sins which they have committed . and now the work is done ; and it is fit for you to fall down before it , and worship it . consider , sir , i beseech you , in the spirit of a christian , what it is about which these prayers are bestow'd ; and what it is you beg in them . and seeing you desire that such benefits may be derived to you from a senseless , inanimate creature ; think what the import of magical incantations is , and tell me if these requests do not look more like charms , than prayers ; and whether i was very much out , when in a just indignation at so wretched an abuse of the name of the holy trinity , i said , they seem'd rather the one than the other . but if my expression still offends you , consider then , how much more justly these practices scandalize us . do not tell the world that i reproach christs holy catholick church , as guilty of magical incantations : no , 't is your church , the corrupted roman church alone , that i charge as coming in these things too nearly to the practices of the heathens : god be thanked , christ has other churches that are freed from such abuses , as all his faithful servants lament in you , and earnestly desire you would your selves learn at last to be ashamed of . i will add but one word more , and it is this : that before you censure me any farther for this expression , you will please to remember , that there is another practice in your church , which i might have mentioned in my defence , called exorcizing ; but far distant from the ancient ceremony designed by that word . this your ritual authorizes ; and for the fuller practice of it , directs us to your approved authors ; such as mengus , and some others . the plain english of that hard word , you know is conjuring , and the thing does not at all belie the name . you may force me to speak of this if you think fit ; and to add to this , your other ceremonies of christening of bells , consecrating water ; agnus dei's , and the like ; and what wonderful benefits you pretend to derive from thence . but i had rather if you please be prevented in this design , than vindicate my self so much to your churches scandal . sect . iii. and here i shall finish my present reflections ; and might , i think , have concluded my whole defence . for having justified the distinction i had advanced of old and new popery ; having shewn you , that it is not meerly from the decrees of your councils , but from your private authors and common practice , that we are to interpret your churches doctrine : having particularly answer'd all the bishop of meaux's pretences , and i hope sufficiently vindicated ( even in your opinion ) my self and brethren from your unjust and scandalous imputations ; nothing now remains , but to consider the doctrine of your reply ; and that has been already so fully done , that neither can you answer it , nor am i able to add any thing to it . but you have always had a particular gift , to advance again without blushing , those objections to day , which but yesterday were confuted beyond a possibility of reply . . you charge us with misrepresenting your doctrines * * * * * * ; you speak largely of a certain book that undertook to prove this to the world ; but you forget to tell us , that a learned a a a a a a man of our church , went along with this book through all the several particulars , and shew'd you the contrary . and thus the calumny goes on ; but the defence we have made , is never like to be consider'd . . you seem concerned , that i took so little notice of your second article about the nature and object of religious worship ; but you do not acknowledg that my reason was , because it had been fully done in several b b b b b b treatises on that very subject , and which lie still unreplied to . . you run out into a great length about the invocation of saints : but is it to answer any thing we had replied to your arguments on that subject ? no , tho i directed you to a c c c c c c book purposely written on this subject , wherein all your objections are obviated , and from which i have reason to believe you borrow'd some of your quotations against me ; yet you neither take care to prevent the same replies that have been there made , nor have the ingenuity so much as once to confess by whom you have profited . . concerning images , much has pass'd since my defence came out ; the d d d d d d representer tri'd all his strength to defend them , but was content to leave the field : what do you now do ? you take his arguments , you follow his evasions ; but make no new advance , nor seem at all concern'd to own , that they have been fully e e e e e e answer'd some months since . . in the article of purgatory , you talk with great assurance about the intention of the primitive church in praying for the dead : which i said in my exposition , was no proof that they believed a purgatory . you reply , that those who have been abused by me , and others of my coat , need only read the fathers , or look into the nubes testium for satisfaction . but , sir , what must i call this , to be sent to a book , that has been on that very point f f f f f f answer'd in every one of his pretences ; and no one has yet appear'd in his vindication ? . in the article of extreme unction , you have a g g g g g g challenge sent you ; and which i am commission'd once more to desire that you will be pleased to accept . in consideration whereof you will not be dissatisfied if i return but little on that subject to you . . h h h h h h the holy eucharist has in every respect been fully consider'd . scripture , antiquity , sense , and reason , all produced against you . what have you here done ? you have put together the common arguments we have a hundred times baffled ; and improved nothing to obviate the same replies . but you , sir , may expect from me , what some others will suddenly have from a much better hand , a full satisfaction to your pretences ; tho in truth neither you nor they could reasonably expect it . . for the * * * * * * adoration of the host , you refer us to the two oxford discourses ; but you never observe that there have been i i i i i i two answers made to them . and a k k k k k k particular discourse has past now some time upon this subject , in which most of your allegations are prevented , and yet you take no notice of it , but bait us eternally with the same repeated crambe ! . as to the point of the mass , you may expect a full l l l l l l answer before you receive this . and , . m m m m m m for communion in one kind , when you can either bring some other arguments than what the bishop of meaux has done , or vindicate those from our answer to him , you may expect to be consider'd ; but else it is a great confidence in you to expect it . . n n n n n n as to the point of tradition , i do not find that any one has yet confuted a particular treatise about it . . o o o o o o for the authority of the church to which you seem particularly to desire my reply , i do promise you that in due time you shall have it . but because i would not deceive your expectations , i must tell you freely , i can say nothing but what you have had already in those excellent discourses to which i refer you ; and which we are apt to think you have found to be more than enough . . p p p p p p for the remaining points , the authority of the holy see , and of the council of trent ; methinks you should be ashamed to desire any answer to them , till you first return some reply to those learned men that have so lately written upon them . . p p p p p p for the other articles which i have passed by , it is not because there has not been enough said to them , but because what has been said , is to be found in those other treatises to which i have already referred ; and i believe when i come to examine your discourse more particularly , i shall not find any one thing , except a few cavils , ( which indeed are all your own ) that will need my consideration ; and those do not deserve it . you see , sir , how reasonable a pretence i might here have to take my leave of you , and not insist any longer on these points , till you shall think fit , by giving us a substantial answer to what has been already offered , to encourage us to make some new advances against you . but i will not insist upon any of these things ; nor give you cause by my declining a particular examination of your reply , to think any better of your arguments , than i hope by this time you may do of your reproaches . i will travel with you once more through every article ; and tho in confideration of these excellent treatises i have now mentioned , and which are almost in every bodies hand , i shall only reflect upon your arguments , and not insist so as if i were particularly to state every point again ; yet i will do it in such a manner as you shall have no cause to say , i either declined your difficulties , or was unwilling , if you have any strength , to examine it to the bottom . and of this you may expect an account in a little time. in the mean while , i commend my present reflections to yours , and both them and you to the reader 's consideration . errata . page xx . l. . r. converters . p. . l. . r. the truth . p. . l. . r. should not then . p. . l. . r. readily . p. . marg . l. . r. me l' . p. . l. . r. decisions . p. . l. . r. than . p. . l. . r. than . p. . l. . r. they . p. . l. . r. rever . qu. besides a few literal faults which the reader is desired to excuse . finis . postscript . being a full answer to a pamphlet published the last night , called , a third part of a papist misrepresented . ecce iterum crispinus — i little thought when this last sheet was sent to the press , that i should have deprived the world of a more useful advertisement of the late tracts that have been published , for the inglorious undertaking of refuting so trifling a book . but since it is now become the mode to draw up full answers to the most solid discourses in single half-sheets , i know not why an author that has nothing in him , may not be exposed in much less room . the sum of his defence is this , that we do without all grounds advance against them a distinction of old and new popery , to make the world believe that 't is they who dissemble their doctrine , not we that misrepresent it . now this i have at large answered in the foregoing discourse , and thereby destroyed the whole foundation both of his and his parties present pretences ; and since he observes the ill luck his last adversary had to suppose they had forsaken their charge , when at that very time the vindicator was printing his reply in defence of it ; i cannot but take notice , that himself is not much more fortunate , to establish the whole stress of his cause upon the denial of a distinction , which is at the same instant shewn by undoubted matter of fact , to be most just and well-grounded . for his beloved elegancies of bartholomewfair-booths ; false cards ; and cogging-dice ; of the pretty slights of legerdemain ; of skrewing mouths , distorting noses , and drawing in cheeks ; for the wonderful tricks of his friend the posture-master in the pall-mall , &c. whereby he here , as usually , embellishes his periods ; they sufficiently shew how very serious this gentleman esteems the matter of religion to be , and how well the fineness of a merry-andrew's wit , agrees with the profoundness of a representers reasoning . and tho such a character-maker as this , ( who never yet knew what it was to answer an adversary with good sense , and but seldom with good manners ; and has here ( i know not how ) fallen even below his own self ) , be more fit to be despised than confuted ; yet to satisfie him that his adversary design'd not any retreat at all by the method he took of dealing with him , and therefore not an honourable one ( as he pretends : ) i do hereby promise him , that he shall not pass , as he deserves , without a consideration : but may expect that which shall abundantly satisfie the world , that he ought , tho there be no great reason to expect that he will at this time of day begin to be ashamed of his undertaking . imprimatur . liber cui titulus , a second defence of the exposition of the church of england . h. maurice r mo in christo p. d. wilhelmo arciepiscopo cant. a sacris . jan. . . a second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the new exceptions of monsieur de meaux , and his vindicator . the second part. london : printed for richard chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard , mdclxxxviii . the contents . the answer to the preface . what little cause those of the church of rome have to complain of the evils of heresie and schism ? num . , . whether papists or protestants have sought the most advantagious means for the redressing of them ? n. . the holy scripture the only sure foundation whereon to build our faith , n. . how vain the attempts of those of the church of rome have been in their disputes against us ? n. . of the several methods that they have taken in them . n. . their complaints of our misrepresenting their doctrines and practices , groundless , n. . of the first conversion of the english by austin the monk , n. . . that neither did austin teach , nor the british churches believe or practise as the church of rome do's now . n. . that for a long time after austin , both their belief and practice was different from that of the church of rome at this day , n. . of king henry viiith , edward vith , q. mary , q. elizabeth , and the state of religion in their days , n. . that the papists have been under-hand the causes of our divisions , n. . of the state of religion under k. charles ist , n. . how far we allow that salvation is to be had in the church of rome ? n. . of the original of our civil wars in k. charles ist's time , n. . of the state of religion under k. charles iid , and k. james iid , and what was the occasion , of our present controversies and how they have been carried on ? n. . what use our readers ought to make of these discourses , n. . and the method of my present defence , n. . the vindicators apology for their new friends , n. . and his presumption why they cannot be supposed to palliate their doctrine , considered , and refuted , n. . the oath to be taken by a new convert , at his admission into the church of rome , n. . introduction . that our adversaries advance nothing new against us , but repeat the same things over and over , without taking the least notice of the answers that have been given to them . the answer to the first article . the vindicator an instance of this . his first article entirely stolen out of t. g. and confuted by dr. stillingfleet above years since ; pag. . num . . that the true and genuine sons of the church of england , have constantly charged those of the church of rome with idolatry , n. . in particular those whom he quotes to the contrary , viz. dr. jackson , n. . dr. field . a. b. laud. dr. heylin , mr. thorndyke , n. , . and dr. hammond , n. . his other little cavils as to this point consider'd , n. . and the authority of the book of homilies asserted , n. . his particular exceptions against my defence as to this article answered : and his shuffling exposed , n. , &c. the answer to the second article . concerning the object of religious vvorship . p. . that the vindicator has in vain new modelled the b. of meaux ' s position , n. . the scheme which he has laid down to justify the doctrine and practice of the ch. of rome in giving religious worship to others besides god consider'd , in some short reflections upon the several parts of it . the answer to the fourth article . of the invocation of saints . of the state of the question between us , and the vindicator ' s , three positions for the clearing of it , pag. . n. , . the sum of this article reduced to ii. general points . i. point . whether it be lawful to pray to the saints to pray for us ? our adversaries confess it not to be necessary , n. . that it is unlawful upon the vindicator ' s , own principle so to do , viz. that we may not give any religious service strictly and properly so called , to any other than god only , n. , . that the act of invoking the saints is strictly and properly a religious act : shewn , i st , from the very nature of the act it self , n. . it is not an act of the same kind with that of desiring of our living brethren to pray for us , n. . but attributes to the creature the perfections proper to god. ib. the bp of meaux ' s shuffling upon this occasion more particularly laid open , n. . dly , from the circumstances of it , n. . of the time , place , and manner in which the romanists invoke their saints , n. . of their offering up the mass to their honour ; and desiring its acceptance through their merits , n. , &c. of their making vows to the saints , n. , &c. ii. point . what the true doctrine and practice of the church of rome is , as to the point of invocation of saints . the sum of this part reduced to iv considerations . sect . i. whether all the prayers that are made to the saints by those of the church of rome , can fairly be reduced to this one sense , pray for us ? that they cannot , shewn ; st , from the doctrine of the council of trent , and of its catechism , n. . dly , from the opinion which those of the church of rome have , of the state and power of the saints departed , n. . dly , from the neglect of the council of trent , and of the governours of the church of rome , either to establish any such interpretation , or to censure those that have taught otherwise . n. . thly , from the words of the prayers themselves , which utterly refuse such an exposition . n. . and from the other service which the church of rome allows to the saints , and which cannot be reconciled with these pretences . n. . thly . from the opinions and practice of some of the greatest saints in the roman calendar ; and of other persons of especial note amongst them . n. . examples of all this . n. , &c. that the holy scripture is in vain alledged to countenance this superstition . n. . sect . ii. after what manner it is that the church of rome prays to god through the merits of her saints . the vindicator's pretences . n. . that the church of rome do's truly pray to god for mercies , through the merits of her saints , n. . the vindicator's excuses for this , considered and exploded . n. . that the holy scripture do's by no meanes countenance any such practice . n. . sect . iii. in which the vindicator's arguments for the establishing of this worship are particularly consider'd , and their weakness laid open . pag. . that the practice of invocation of saints , ●…s not to be proved by holy scripture . n. . nor has it the antiquity that is pretended : shewn in two periods . st period . that the custome of praying to saints , had no being in the church for the first years . v. . the vindicator's proofs particularly examined , and shewn to be either false , or ridiculous n. . that the fathers of the first three centuries pray'd to god only . n. . my presumption heretofore alledged for this ; viz. that those fathers did not believe that the souls of the just went immediately to heaven ; justified : and the vindcator's answer shewn to be insufficient . n. . sixt●… senensis in vain misrepres●…d by him. n. . that this practice did not pass quietly in the following ages . n. . his pretence that the fourth general council pray'd to flavian both false and impertinent . n. . his little exception of the few writings that remain of the primitive fathers , neither true , nor to the purpose . n. , . how this practice by degrees crept into the church ? n. . iid . period . what grounds this superstition had in the fourth century ? that most of the addresses of this age were rather rhetorical flights , than formal invocations . n. . eight differences , proposed between what the fathers of the fourth age did , and what those of the church of rome do now , as to this matter . n. . that the invocation of saints was never salemnly establish'd in the church before the latter end of the th century . n. . &c. sect . iv. what our reasons are against this service . the true state of the difference betwixt us as to this matter . n. . that the church of rome do's exact a complyance in this practice , & anathematize those who oppose it . n. . that this is , st , repugnant to god's holy word . n. . dly , contrary to antiquity . n. . dly , unreasonable in the constitution . n. . because , they are neither certain that the saints hear their prayers . n. . nor that those whom they pray to are indeed saints . n. . and pray to many as such , that never lived in the world. n. . such were , s. george . n. . s. lazarus . s. longinus . s. christopher . s. ursula , &c. a brief account of whose acts is offer'd , and their falseness observed . a pleasant relation of a bishop and martyr , made out of two words of an ancient inscription ; and the great miracles that were wrought at his monument . n. . that the wiser papists complain of this extravagance . thly . that it is unprofitable and impious in the practise . n. . that it is unprofitable . n. . that it is impious . n. . several remakable instances of impiety in this practice . n. , &c. the whole conluded with an account of the procession of the jesuits of luxembourg , may . . n. , &c. the answer to the fourth article . of images and reliques . the sum of this chapter reduced to three general considerations . sect . i. of the benefit of pictures and images . n. . concerning which it is observed : st , that the vindicator ought not at this time to confound pictures and images together . n. . dly , nor single figures , and historical representations . ibid. § . . dly , that it is impertinent to this point to discourse of the benefit , where the dispute is concerning the worship of images . ibid. § . . for that , thly , no benefit , were it ever so great , would be able to excuse this . ibid. § . . thly , that images are not useful to the ignorant , as is pretended . ibid. § . . thly , but on the contrary , very pernicious and injurious . ibid. § . . an account of horrible abuses in many of their images and pictures ; viz. of god the father . n. , . of the holy trinity . n. . of our saviour christ . n. . and of the b. virgin . ibid. &c. the pretence , that there is now no danger of idolatry in all this , proposed ; and the way open'd to the refuting of it . n. , . sect . ii. the charge of image-worship made good ; and the evasions answer'd , by which the vindicator endeavours to excuse his church from the guilt of it . n. . this is done in three particulars . i st , the voice of the ch. of rome proposed , in her definitions as to this matter . n. , . iidly , this voice interpreted by card. capisucchi , who approved monsieur de meaux ' s exposition ; and to whose book mr. de meaux himself appeals . n. . after rejecting several opinions , which in the cardinal's judgment did not allow sufficient honour to images . n. , &c. he concludes it to be the churches sense , that the same worship is to be given to the images , as is given to the things represented by them . n. . that aquinas allow'd supreme divine worship to the cross ; contrary to the vindicator's pretences . n. . some reflections upon what this cardinal has said , with reference to the point before us . n. , &c. an account of one of the roman church lately put into the inquisition , for denying the worship of images , recommended to the vindicator's consideration . n. , . iiidly , this farther shewn to be the sense of the church of rome , from those authorized practices i alledged in my defence . . the instance from the order of receiving an emperor , justified . n. . dly , the argument from the office of consecrating a new cross made good ; and the vindicator's evasions shewn to be inconsistent with the design of it . n. . of their agnus dei's ; and the superstition that is committed in the design and consecration of them . n. , . of holy water ; and the superstition committed in the design and use of it . n. . of incense . n. . that the primitive church used incense . n. . but that this is no plea for what the church of rome do's now . the consecrating and burning of incense in that church ; superstitious . n. . idolatrous . n. . dly , the instance of the good-friday service farther vindicated : and the exceptions made against it shewn to be frivolous . n. . that those of the church of rome do suppose this to be a good proof of their paying divine worship to the cross . n. . two extravagant proofs to excuse this worship from being idolatrous , proposed and answered . n. , , , &c. thly , the argument taken from the hymns of the church of rome justified . n. . and the vindicator's interpretation of them , shewn to be absurd . n. . sect . iii. that the church of rome thus worshipping of images , is truly and properly guilty of idolatry . this made good in two points , n. . i. point . of the true nature of idolatry . the late notion of idolatry proposed ; and that in this sense we do not charge the church of rome with it , n. . what idolatry , according , to the scripture is ; shewn in two particulars : i st , q. whether according to the scripture-notion of idolatry , those may not be guilty of it , who yet both know and worship the one true god ? n. . that they may , made manifest from the instances ; st , of the golden calf ; n. . dly , of the calves of dan and bethel , n. . other arguments to make good the affirmative of this question : n. . that this was the notion of the primitive fathers , n. . and is confess'd by the principal authors of the church of rome it self , n. . iidly , q. how this may be done by them ? two ways proposed from what has before been said , viz. st , by worshipping the true god after an idolatrous manner , n. . dly , by giving divine worship to any other besides him , n. . ii. point . that the church of rome in the worship of images is truly and properly guilty of idolatry . this shewn according to the vindicator's desire in two different respects : i st , with reference to those who hold that images are to be worshipped with the same worship as the things which they represent , n. . iidly , as it concerns their opinions , who denying , this , yet allow an inferiour , honour to them , n. . of reliques . two things proposed to be proved in answer to the vindicator's exceptions : i st , that those of the church of rome do truly and properly worship the reliques of their saints . for their expressions it is undeniable , n. . that their practice is agreeable to their words ; shewn , st , in the instance of that worship which they give to the wood of the true cross , n. . dly , to all the other reliques that have ever touch'd our saviour christ , n. . dly , from their allow'd practice of swearing by them , n. . a famous story of s. guria for the illustrating of this matter , n. . thly , from their other practices ; especially their carrying of them in procession , an instance whereof is given from the roman pontifical , n. , &c. iidly , that they do seek to them for help and assistance . my interpretation of the council of trent in reference to this point made good , against the new pretences of the vindicator , n. . the thing it self justified from the publick prayers of that church , n. . and from a memorable instance of a prince of the family of the dukes of radzevil ; with which the whole is concluded . errata . page . of the contents , for fourth article , read third article . p. . num . . line . r. our schism . p. . n. . l. . r. err. p. . n. . l. . uncertain , r. unsincere . p. . n. . l. . r. their usurpations . p. . l. . r. were now . p. . n. . l. . del . after all . p. . n. . l. . images , r. angels . p. . l. . r. recising . p. . marg. expos. r. def. of the expos. p. . marg. r. lib. carol. p. . marg. r. reg. moral . . p. . l. . for and i , del . and. p. . n. . l. . r. moliri . pervicaciâ . p. . l. . r. curarum . p. . l. ult . for v. r. vlth cent. p. . n. . l. . r. upon a verbal . p. . n. . l. . cloth with which . p. . l. . and only , del . and. p. . n. . l. . r. radzevil . the pages are interrupted in two places , pag. . and p. . an answer to the preface . the design of your preface seems reducible to these two points , viz. i. of the state of the controversy between the papists and protestants in general . and , ii. of the disputes that have heretofore been , and are at this day managed against you , by us of this church in particular . . ad pag. . ] the former of these you introduce with a short harangue of the mischief which heresie and schism bring along with them , not only to the individual persons that are guilty of them , but also to the nations in which they are propagated . you represent to us the miserable broils , and other worse consequences that have attended these controversies of religion in this and the last age : and from thence you conclude , how much they are to be commended who labour to establish truth and unity , and those to be condemned , who seek all means possible to obscure the one and obstruct the other . . answ. ] to all which i have only this to reply ; that we need no arguments to convince us of these things . there are none more sensible of the mischiefs of schism and heresie than we are ; or that do more truly lament the divisions that are in the church , or would more heartily contribute , what in us lies , to the closing of them . but then as we have good cause to believe both from the authority of holy scripture , and from the nature of mankind , that whilst there is a devil in hell , and men of interest and designs upon earth , there shall also be heresies , that they who are approved may be made manifest : so we cannot but complain that those should be the most forward to charge us both with the guilt and mischief of them , at whose doors the crime , and therefore the evil consequences of it , will one day be found to lie . the former of these , it will be the business of the following discourse to make good : and for the latter , whosoever shall impartially consider the origen of those broils with which the world has , you say , been agitated in this and the last age upon the account of religion ; not to mention those other mischiefs of treasons , plots , massacres , persecutions , and the like , will soon be convinced who they are that have cause to complain of these evils . for what you add , . ibid. ] that they who will but impartially consider matters , will find that catholicks have upon all occasions sought the most advantageous means to procure this christian peace ; tho to their grief they have still been hindred from effecting this good work. answ. ] i do not well know what you design by it . if by the most advantageous means , you understand those means of knowledg which god has given us whereby to come to discern the truth of religion ; such as , . a diligent reading of the holy scriptures , the using of all imaginable assistances for the understanding the sense of them , by studying the original languages in which they were written , searching of antiquity , collating parallel places , and the like . . the divesting of our selves of our prejudices , and forming in our minds an impartial desire to find out the truth , with an honest readiness to embrace it , on what side soever it lies . and lastly , to all this add our earnest prayer to god for his grace to bless and prosper our endeavours ; these i confess are the best means to discover christian truth ; and to exhort all others to the use of them , the most advantageous way to promote it . but then i cannot imagine why you should seem to appropriate these means to your selves , as if you only sought truth and peace by them ; seeing it cannot be deny'd but that we have employ'd all these with as great diligence as you can pretend to have done it . but now some other means indeed there are , which you have pursu'd , and which it may be you understand by this expression : and then we neither deny your assertion , nor envy you the glory of being singular in your endeavours of procuring peace by them . such are , . the means of force and violence ; your holy leagues , and private treacheries , your inquisitions , plots , persecutions , and such like . . the means of fraud and deceit , your false expositions and misrepresentations of your doctrine to deceive the ignorant and unwary , till you get them into your nets . . the means of confidence and uncharitableness , your bold anathema's and vain thundrings of damnation against all that differ from you , your assuming the name and priviledges of the church catholick to your single communion , and excluding all others out of it , as schismaticks and hereticks . and lastly , to mention no more , the means of gross ignorance , and blind obedience ; by depriving men of their liberty of reading the holy scripture , by keeping your service in an unknown tongue , by teaching men to depend intirely upon your churches dictates , and not to depart from them , tho sense , reason , scripture , all be contrary to them . these are , i confess , some of those peculiar means whereby you have sought to procure christian peace ; and experience tells you , that they are indeed the most advantageous of any to the cause you have to defend . and if these be the means which you say we have opposed , i hope we shall always continue so to do , and rather bear all the evils of these divisions , than either buy peace upon such terms , or pursue it by such means as these . . ad p. , . ] to what i observed from the late methods that had been taken up in our neighbour country to avoid the entring upon particular disputes , which i said you were sensible had been the least favourable of any to your cause , you reply , that you have never declined fighting with us at any weapon : which how true it is , the account before given of your managing the present controversie with us sufficiently declares . and indeed you seem in some sort to have been sensible of it ; and therefore recur to your antient authors for proof of your assertion . the sum of what you say is this : . reply . ] that there have been three sorts of protestants since the reformation ; . some who appealed to scripture only , neither would they admit of primitive fathers nor councils . . others who perceived that they could not maintain several tenets and practices of their own by the bare words of scripture , and despairing of fathers and councils of latter ages , pretended at least to admit of the first four general councils , and of the fathers of the first three or four hundred years . . others finally who ventured to name tradition as a useful means to arrive at the true faith. and all these you say you have convinced of their errors . . answ. ] it has always been your way to multiply sects and divisions among protestants as much as ever you were able , and then to complain against us upon the account of them ; and here you have given us a notable instance of it . the three opinions you have drawn out as so many different parties amongst us , do all resolve into the very same principle : that the holy scripture is the only , perfect , and sufficient rule of faith : so that all other authorities , whether of fathers , or councils , or unwritten tradition , are to be examined by it , and no farther to be admitted by us than they agree with it . this is in effect the common belief of all protestants whatsoever , as appears from their several confessions , and might easily be shewn out of the writings of our first reformers , and the most eminent of those who have lived since , and built their faith upon the same foundation . it is true indeed , there have been some who , the better to maintain their separation from the church of england , have from this sound principle , that nothing is to be received by us as a matter of faith , but what is either plainly expressed in the holy scripture , or can evidently be proved by it , drawn a very ill consequence , viz. that nothing might lawfully be done or used in the worship of god , unless there were some command or example for it in scripture ; and have by this means run themselves into great inconveniences . but the rule of faith , which an uninterrupted tradition , by the common consent of all parties of christians ; however otherwise disagreeing in other points , has brought down to us , and delivered into our hands as the word of god , this has among all protestants been ever the same , viz. the holy scripture . and if for the farther proof of the truth of our doctrine , we have at any time put the issue of our cause to the decision of the church of the first three or four hundred years , it is not because we suppose that those fathers who then lived ; have any more right to judg us , or determine our faith , than those that follow'd after ; but because upon examination we find them to have yet continued ( at least as to the common belief received and establish'd amongst them ) in their purity ; and that what was generally establish'd and practised by them , was indeed conformable both to their and our rule , the word of god. . this then is our common principle , and this you cannot deny to be most reasonable . for whatsoever authority you would have us give to those holy fathers , yet it cannot be doubted , but that , st , being * * * * * * men subject to the same infirmities with our selves , they were by consequence obnoxious to errors as well as we ; and therefore may not without all examination be securely follow'd by us . especially if we consider , dly , that we are expresly forbid in holy scripture , to rely on any persons whatsoever without enquiry , whether what they teach be true or not : dearly beloved , ( says st. john ) believe not every spirit , but try the spirits whether they be of god or no. the same is st. paul's doctrine , to prove all things , and then hold fast that which is good . st. peter exhorts all christians to be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them : and our blessed saviour himself once gave the same encouragement , of examining even his own doctrine ; and why ( says he ) of your selves do you not judg that which is right ? nay but , dly , these holy fathers were not only capable of erring , but in many things they actually did err , and are forsaken by you upon that account . the millenary opinion was generally received in the first ages of the church . they derived it from st. john to papias , from him to justin martyr , irenaeus , melito , tertullian , &c. yet is this opinion now rejected by you . the doctrine of the necessity of communicating infants , was the common doctrine of the fathers in s. austin's time ; and is confess'd by your most learned men , cardinal perron and others to have been generally practised in the church for the first six hundred years : yet have you anathematized those who shall now assert , with those fathers , that there is any necessity at all of communicating children before they come to years of discretion . i need not say what heats arose between one of your own popes and st. cyprian about rebaptizing of hereticks ; and both of them in the wrong . the ancient fathers generally believed , that the souls of the blessed do not yet enjoy the vision of god : but from the time of pope john the xxii . the contrary is become the catholick doctrine among you . the necessity of communicating in both kinds , was believed in the time of pope gelasius , and the council of constance , in that very canon in which it took away the cup from the laity , yet confess'd that christ had establish'd it in both kinds , and the church constantly administred and received in both kinds , in obedience to his institution : but 't is now no less than damnation to say , that one kind alone is not sufficient . in the primitive church it was generally received , that the souls of the faithful , after they are deliver'd from the burden of the flesh , are in joy and felicity . now you teach that they go first to purgatory , a place of pain and sorrow , inferior in nothing but the duration , to hell it self . other instances i might add to shew , that you your selves do no otherwise follow the fathers , than as you esteem them to have follow'd the truth , and therefore have thought fit to forsake them in the several points i before mentioned : and therefore certainly you ought not to condemn us , if we pay no other deference to them : nor appeal to them but only as witnesses of the doctrine of the church in those times , not as judges and masters of our faith. . ad pag. iv. ] reply . and in all these several ways you say you have shewn us to be mistaken , insomuch that there has not been any thing like an argument produced against your faith , or to justify your schism , but what has been abundantly answer'd and refuted . . answ. ] this , sir , is a boast which i believe the world will think you might very well have spared at this time . i need not send you back , as you have done us , to our ancient authors ; and desire you once more to consider what has been offer'd , both from scripture and antiquity , by monsieur de mornay , aubertine , chamiere , blondell , daillé , larrogue , and others abroad ; by bishop jewel , bishop morton , a. b. usher , dr. j. forbes , dr. white , dr. barrow , and many more of our own country : and whose names among the wisest even of your own church are much more valued , than for a coccius or a brerely to be able to obscure them . i appeal only to the present times to witness against you ; and would intreat you , before you tell us any more of your performances , to give some good reply to that catalogue i have sent you of above fourty treatises lately published in all these kinds of arguments that you speak of ; and your declining of which do's not very well suit with such vain pretences . . ibid. ] you add ; that you have so far complied with the infirmities of your adversaries , that you have left no stone unturn'd to reduce them to the unity of the faith , and that by meekness as well as powerful reasoning . . answ. ] it must be confess'd indeed that you have not been wanting in your endeavours to convert us . your zeal has even equall'd that which our saviour christ once remark'd , or rather reproved in your predecessors the scribes and pharisees : and i would to god it had not too often produced the same effect also . as for the means that you have made use of for the carrying on of this work , i have already in part recounted them to you . and shall only now add , that if your meekness has been no greater , than your arguments have been powerful , we shall have as little cause to applaud the one , as we have hitherto had to be convinced by the other . and indeed whosoever shall consider your behaviour towards those you call hereticks ; will find that some other word would better have suited your character than that of meekness . if there be any , who deluded by your present pretences of moderation doubt this , let them look only upon the actions of a neighbour kingdom , and whose clergy has ever been esteemed the most moderate of your church . for if such a deportment as theirs towards our brethren , be the meekness you boast of ; i shall only beg leave to say with solomon , that then the tender mercies of some men are cruel . but you go on to shew us wherein you have made a testimony of this meekness : you say , . ibid. ] you have not only condescended to satisfy the curiousity of them that have more leisure by writing large volumes upon every particular controversy — but you have gone a shorter way to work ; and to some have manifested the unerrable authority of the church of christ , against which he had promised that the gates of hell should not prevail . others you have shew'd it from the nature of truth and error , and the impossibility that a universal tradition could fail , especially when god had promised that the words he would put into their mouths , should not depart out of their mouths , nor out of the mouths of their seed , nor out of the mouth of their seeds seed , from hence forth and for ever . to others you have proved the innocence and antiquity of your doctrine from the testimony of learned protestants themselves . . answ. ] this indeed was a great condeseension ; that being so well satisfied on all these accounts that you had the truth your selves , you should so far vouchsafe , as for our sakes , to prove that you had so . but truly , unless you can produce some better proof that your church cannot error than this , that our saviour once said of his church , that the gates of hell should not prevail against it , you will never satisfy any reasonable man of it . how often , sir , have you been told , that here is something indeed to establish the perpetuity of the church , but nothing of its infallibility . unless you will suppose ( what you know we utterly deny ) that the church cannot subfist except it be infallible in every point . the church may fall into many errors , and yet continue a church still . a man is never the less a man , because he has an ague , or some other distemper upon him. and whilst the church thus subsists , christ's promise is made good , that the gates of hell should not prevail against it . though now , dly , were the infallibility of the church in this text clear to a demonstration , yet still the main thing would be wanting , how to prove your church to be the catholick church , and to have alone the right to this promise , which for ought appears from this passage any other may pretend to upon as good grounds as she. . again ; as to the point of tradition , with what confidence can you say it is impossible that should fail , seeing the instances i have before given of your departure from the tradition of the primitive fathers in so many particulars , plainly show that it has fail'd ? for your argument which you alledge from isa. . . it has the same faults with the foregoing , and one more . for that passage ; st , if it speaks any thing at all of these matters , it is for the perpetuity , not infallibility of the church . dly , that there is not one word in it of any priviledg , either in the one or the other kind bestow'd upon your church in particular ; and the greek , or any other church may as reasonably argue from it as your selves . nay , dly , 't is plain from the context that it do's not belong to any of us , the covenant here spoken of being made with zion , and those that turn from transgression in jacob ; that is ( as st. paul himself applies it , rom. . ) to the covert jews , when they shall come in and embrace the gospel of christ. . and for your last method , the concessions of protestants themselves , this will but little avail you : seeing if it could be proved that any of our particular writers had said some things in favour of your doctrine , this would be of no force against any but themselves , any farther than their arguments shall upon examination be found to warrant their assertions . we have often told you , that our faith depends not on any humane authority . such concessions may shew the weakness or error of him that made them , but they are nothing available to prescribe against the truth of the gospel . and this , i say , supposing that you could produce the opinions of protestants ( as you pretend ) in favour of your doctrines ! but now let me tell you , the collection to which you refer us , has been found so very insincere by those who have had occasion to examine it , that should we allow these kind of authorities to be as conclusive against us as you can desire , you would not yet be able either to advantage your selves , or to convince any others by them . . ad pag. . ] you see , sir , what little reason we have to expect very much from these methods , which in your great humility you have condescended to make use of in order to our conversion . and we cannot but congratulate our good fortune , that you seem to tell us you have yet some better arguments in reserve ; those which you say might have been brought to prove the authority of your church . and though you think us so fond of flying off to particular disputes , that no arguments can keep us from them ; yet i do hereby promise you , that when-ever you shall have clearly made out this proposition , that the church of rome is infallible , and whatsoever she proposes to be received by us is the truly catholick faith , without which there is no salvation ; and then shew me , how i shall infallibly know , amidst so many different proposals of her doctrine , what that faith is which this church teaches as necessary to that end ; i will from thenceforth become as blindly obedient a disciple , as the most implicit believer whose credulity you have ever yet imposed upon with these pretences . . ibid. ] for your next allegation , that you could never get us to take your doctrine aright , if what i have heretofore said be not sufficient ; i will once more put you in mind that you must first resolve to answer from point to point , the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented , before you can expect to be credited by us . and if from what we have truly said concerning you , you are indeed grown to be look'd upon ( in your own words ) to be as bad as devils , and your doctrines as the dictates of hell it self ; though i believe in this excess you do something misrepresent both your selves and us ; you may attribute it if you please to our calumnies against you , but i believe all indifferent persons will be able to find out some better reasons for it . . ad pag. . ] as for your expositions which you from hence thought fit to publish to the world , as your last reserve for our conversion ; the world is sufficiently satisfied with what sincerity you have proceeded in them . and for what you add , in the close of this first point , concerning the character of the times that we are fallen into , such as you say s. paul foretold , in which men will not endure sound doctrine ; it is indeed too true , but withal it is such a complaint as is equally made on all hands , whilst every one thinks his own way the best . but i will , in return , send you to another character of the same apostle concerning these days , which is all your own , thess. . vers . , to the th ; and i think it is so plain , that you may without an infallible interpreter understand the meaning of it . . and thus far you pursue the former consideration , of the state of the controversy between the papists and protestants in general . your next work is to give some accounts of your disputes with us of this church in particular . . you begin with the history of the first conversion of the english by augustine the monk , sent hither by pope gregory the great . but your account of it is so very uncertain , that i would willingly hope , however you quote bede for it , yet that you never read one word of him , but took it upon the credit of one of your new converts , whose errors in this point you have as blindly embraced , as his book testifies him to have most implicitly taken up your prevarications . . ad pag. . ] reply . you tell us , that notwithstanding the long want of intercourse with rome , and the members of that communion , occasion'd by great oppressions and persecutions during the reign of pagan kings , yet had there not many errors crept into this christian part of the nation . for s. augustine found only two customs amongst them which he could not tolerate , the one their keeping easter at a wrong time , and the other some errors in the ceremonies in administring baptism . these two he earnestly sollicited them to amend , but they were obstinate , and would not suffer any reformation in those two points , till god was pleased to testify his mission , and the authority he came with , by the authentick seal of miracles . . answ. ] in which relation you are many ways mistaken . for , st , as to the intercourse that you say was a long time lost between rome and the british churches , by reason of the persecutions of pagan kings ; this is not easy to be credited : it being the middle of the th century e're the romans left this island , and the saxons were called into it . it was near the middle of the th before the britains were disposses'd of the rest of their country , and forced to retrench themselves within the mountains of wales . during all this time their intercourse with rome , if they had any , might well have continued ; and it was not fifty years after , that austin the monk came into england . dly , you say , that austin found only two customs among the christians here that he could not tollerate . 't is true indeed , upon the second meeting that he had with the brittish bishops , he told them , that though in many things they were contrary to the custom of his church , yet if in those two mentioned they would obey him , and joyn with him in preaching the gospel to the saxons , he would bear with them in the rest : but did they therefore acknowledg his authority in complying with his desires ? so you would make us believe . they were obstinate , say you , till god was pleased to testify his mission , and the authority he came with by the authentick seal of miracles . as for his miracles , we have no great opinion of their authority , since we read in the passage to which i just now referr'd you , that antichrist himself shall come with this attestation . it is the doctrine that must give credit to the miracles , not these to the doctrine . should an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have received , st. paul has commanded us , for all the wonder , to bid him be anathema . but i return to the history , in which you so notoriously prevaricate , that i cannot imagine how one that pretends in this inquisitive age to deliver the antiquities of his own country , durst betray himself so notoriously ignorant of it . see , sir , the words of your own author bede , expresly contrary to your allegation . but they answer'd , that they would do nothing of all this , nor receive him for an arch-bishop . insomuch that austin came to high words with them , threatning them with that destruction which they afterwards , to their cost , met with from his new saxon converts . and your illustrious annalist card. baronius , cannot forbear making some severe reflections upon the state of our island at that time , as if god had therefore given it into the hands of the barbarians , because of the refractory and schismatical minds of these bishops . . ibid. ] reply . your adversaries ( you say ) acknowledg , that when st. austin came into england , he taught most , if not all the same doctrines the roman catholick church now teaches , &c. . answ. ] if s. austin ( as you call him ) taught the same doctrine which pope gregory the great taught , who sent him hither , and whose disciple we are told he was , i must then put you in mind that a very learned man has lately shew'd you ( and i may reasonably presume you could not but know it ) that he did not teach most , much less all the doctrines which you now teach . no , sir , the mystery of iniquity was not yet come to perfection ; and tho your church had even then in many things declined from its first faith , yet was it much more pure than now it is . had you when you took this pretence from your friend mr. brerely , look'd into the answer that was at large made to it ; i am perswaded you would have been asham'd to have again advanced so false and trifling an objection . look , sir , i beseech you into the protestants appeal , or if that be too much for one of your employments , look into the treatise to which i refer you : there you will find , . that the scripture was yet received as a perfect rule of faith. . the books of the maccabees , which you now put into your canon , rejected then as apochryphal . . that good works were not yet esteem'd meritorious : nor , . auricular confession a sacrament . that , . solitary masses were disallow'd by him : and , . transubstantiation yet unborn . that . the sacrament of the eucharist was hitherto administred in both kinds : and , . purgatory it self not brought either to certainty or to perfection . that by consequence , . masses for the dead were not intended to deliver souls from those torments : nor , . images allow'd for any other purpose than for ornament and instruction . . that the sacrament of extreme unction was yet unform'd ; and even . the pope's supremacy so far from being then establish'd as it now is , that pope gregory thought it to be the fore-running of antichrist , for one bishop to set himself above all the rest . these are the instances in which you have been shewn the vast difference there is between pope gregory's doctrine , and that of the council of trent ; and which may serve for a specimen to satisfie the world with what truth you pretend , that we acknowledg that s. austin when he came into england , taught most , if not all the same doctrines that you now teach . and this may also suffice for your next argument founded upon it , viz. . add pag. , . ] reply : that these doctrines and practices were either then taught and exercised by the british christians also , or they were not . if they were not taught by them , certainly we should not have found them so easily submitting to them . if they were taught by the british bishops also , then they were of a longer standing than s. austin ' s time : and we must either grant they were introduced by the first preachers of the gospel here , or evidently shew some other time before st. austin when this church embraced them . . answ. ] a dilemma is a terrible thing with sense and truth , but without them 't is a ridiculous one ; as i take this to be . for , . it is evident from what i have before said , that austin did not teach the same doctrines , nor establish the same practices that you do now teach and establish ; but did indeed in most of your corruptions differ from you . so that like the unwise builder , you have erected a stately fabrick , and founded it upon the sand. . had he been as very a romish missionary as your self , yet is your argument still inconclusive . for whereas you suppose the brittish bishops submitted to him , they were on the contrary so far from either obeying his authority , or following his prescriptions , that , as i have shewn you , they utterly rejected both : and i will presently add , that for above a hundred years after his death , they utterly refused so much as to communicate with his proselytes , nor esteem'd them any more than pagans . so that i may now turn your own argument upon you , that seeing they had such an abhorrence for austin and his followers , that they look'd upon them no better than heathens , it very probably was , because they neither approved what he taught , nor saw any cause to submit to that authority to which he pretended . you see , sir , what an admirable argument you here flourish with ; and how little cause we have to expect any great sincerity from you in other matters , when in the very history of your own country you so wretchedly prevaricate , and against the express authority of that very person whom you quote for your relation . . having thus given us a proof either of your skill or your integrity in the account of the first conversion of our island under pope gregory the great ; you next make a very large step as to the progress of your religion , and such as still confirms me more and more , how very unfit you are to turn historian . . add pag. . ] reply . this faith and these exercises ( say you ) taught and practised by st. austin were propagated down even till king henry the viiith's time . answ. ] in which account , whether we are to complain of your ignorance or your unsincerity , be it your part to determine ; this i am sure , they cannot both be excused . . i have already shewn you that that faith which was found in the church of england in king henry the viiith's time could not have been propagated down from the time of austin's coming hither , seeing that monk neither taught nor practised the greatest part of those corruptions which were afterwards by degrees brought into ours , as well as into the other churches of the roman communion . but however not to insist upon this fundamental mistake : can you , sir , with any conscience affirm , that the doctrine which you now teach was till king henry the viiith's time without interruption received and practised in this country ? . first ; for the brittish bishops whom you before bring in as submitting themselves to austin ; your own author bede expresly declares that in his time ( which was an hundred years after the death of austin ) they entertain'd no communion with them . seeing ( says he ) to this very day it is the custom of the britains to have no value for the faith and religion of the english , nor to communicate with them any more than with pagans . which henry of huntingdon thus confirms : that neither the britains nor scots , ( i. e. irish ) would communicate with the english , or with austin their bishop any more than with pagans . so that for one age , at least , the british bishops then neither own'd the authority of your church , nor had any manner of communion with the members of it . but , . secondly ; have you never heard of some other kings of england , who , with their parliaments , have most stifly opposed the pretences of the pope , and refused all messages from him , and made it no less than high-treason for any one to bring his orders or interdicts into the kingdom ? what think you of another henry , no less brave than his successor , whom you so revile , in his defence of himself against his rebellious subject , but your saint , thomas a becket ? i could add many acts of parliament made long before king henry the viiith's time to shew you , that tho he indeed proved the most successful in his attempts to shake off the pope's authority , yet that several other of our princes had shewn him the way , and that the usurpations of that see were neither quietly own'd , nor patiently submitted to by his royal predecessors . and then , . thirdly ; for the matter of your doctrine , it must certainly be a great piece of confidence in you to pretend that this came down such as you now believe and practise , from the time of austin the monk , to king henry the viiith's days . i speak not now of the great opposition that was made to it by wickleffe , tho supported by the duke of lancaster , the lord marshall of england , and divers others of chiefest note in this kingdom , in the time of edward the third , and richard the second . i need not say in how many points he stood up against the doctrine of your church ; what a mighty interest he had to support him against the authority of the pope , and the rage of the bishop of london and his other enemies on that account ; so as both freely to preach against your errors , and yet die in peace in a good old age. the number of his followers was almost infinite , and tho severe laws were afterwards made against them , yet could they hardly ever be utterly rooted out . but yet , least you should say that wickleffe was only a schismatick from your church , which constantly held against him ; i will rather shew you in a few instances , that even the church of england it self , which you suppose to have been so conformable to your present tenets , was in truth utterly opposite to your sentiments in many particulars . and because i may not run out into too great a length , i will insist only upon two , but those very considerable points . . the first is the doctrine of transubstantiation : which as it came but late into the roman church , so did it by consequence into ours too . certain it is , that in the th century the contrary faith was publickly taught among us . now , not to insist upon the authority of bede , who in several parts of his works , plainly shews how little he believed your doctrine of trans●bstantiation ; this is undeniably evident from the saxon homily translated by aelfrick , and appointed in the saxons time to be read to the people at easter before they received the holy communion ; and which is from one end to the other directly opposite to the doctrine of the real presence as establish'd by your council of trent . and the same aelfrick in his letters to wulfine bishop of scyrburne , and to wulfstane archbishop of york , shews his own notions to have been exactly correspondent to what that homily taught . the housell ( says he ) is christes bodye not bodelye , but ghostlye . not the bodye which he suffred in , but the bodye of which he spake when he blessed bread and wyne to housell a night before his suffring , and said by the blessed bread , thys is my bodye , and agayne by the holy wyne , this is my bloud which is shedd for manye in forgiveness of sins . understand nowe that the lord who could turn that bread before his suffering to his bodye , and that wyne to his bloude ghostlye , that the self-same lorde blesseth dayly through the priestes handes bread and wyne to his ghostlye bodye and to his ghostlye bloud . all which he more fully explains in his other letter . nay it appears by a recantation of wickleffe mention'd by knyghton , that even in the latter time of that man's life there was no such doctrine then in england as transubstantiation publickly imposed as an article of faith. by all which it is evident that your great doctrine of the real presence with all its necessary appendages , was not , as you pretend , propagated down from austin's to king henry the eight's time , but brought in to the church some hundreds of years after that monk died . . the other instance i shall offer to overthrow your pretences is no less considerable , viz. the worship of images . it is well known what opposition was made not only by the emperor charles the great , and the fathers of the synod of franckfort , but by the french clergy in their synod at paris , and by almost all the rest of the bishops of the western church against your pretended general council of nice , wherein this doctrine was first establish'd . the definitions of this council being sent to the emperour out of the east , he transmitted a copy of them into england . hereupon alcuinus , who had formerly been his school-master , wrote an answer to him in the name of the clergy of england , to declare their dislike of this doctrine : and the account of which our ancient histories give us in these words . in the year from the incarnation of our lord charles king of france sent to britain a synode booke which was directed unto him from constantinople : in the which book alas ! many things unconvenient and contrarye to the true fayth were found : in especial , that it was establyshed with a whole consent almost of all the learned of the east , no less than of three hundredth bishops or more , that men ought to worship images , the whiche the churche of god doth utterlye abhorre . against the whiche alcuine wrote an epistle wonderouslye proved by the authoritye of holy scripture , and brought that epistle with the same booke , and names of our byshops and princes to the king of france . and thus neither was this doctrine nor practice propagated down from austin to king henry the eighth ; but on the contrary unknown to austin , and rejected as you see by the church of england , almost years after his first conversion of it . . ibid. ] and this may suffice to shew both your skill in church-history , and the little pretence you have for that vain and most false assertion , that your religion was taught and practised by s. austin , and propagated down even to king henry the eighth ' s time ; whereas indeed it is made up of such corruptions as crept into it long after his decease . your next business is to rail at king henry the eighth , which you do very heartily , tho let me tell you that better men than you are , even of your own commuion , and who were much more acquainted with the affairs of those times , speak better things of him . and had he been as bad as you are able to represent him , yet i could send you to some of the heads of your church , who have as far excell'd him in wickedness as ever any of your canonists have pretended they did in authority . but the merits of princes , as well as ordinary persons , are measured by some men , not according to their real worth , but as they have served their interests , or opposed the usurpations . and tho king henry the eighth be now such a monster , yet had he not thrown off the pope's supremacy , you would have made no difficulty to have forgiven him all his other sins whilst he lived , and would have found out somewhat to justify his memory now he is dead . we know how one of the best popes of this last thousand years called heaven and earth to celebrate the praises of a traytor that had murder'd his master , and possess'd himself of his empire . and cromwell himself , tho a usurper , and heretick , yet wanted not his panegyrists among those pretenders to loyalty , who now cannot afford a good word to the honour of a prince , from whose royal line their present sovereign at this day derives his right to the crown he wears . . but however , were the vices of that prince otherwise never so detestable ; yet i shall leave it to the world to judg who proceeded with the most care and sincerity in the point you insist upon of his divorce with q. catherine : the king who consulted almost all the learned men , as well as the most famous universities of europe , and then acted according to their determination : or the pope who by his notorious jugling with him in the whole process of that affair , shew'd that he resolved to decide it not by any laws of god or the church , but meerly as his greater interests with the emperor or the king should move him to do . . ibid. ] the next step you make is from king henry , to his son king edward the sixth . and here you tell us , reply , p. . ] that as schism is commonly follow'd with heresy , so now the protector , who was tainted with zuinglianism , a reform from luther , endeavour'd to set it up here in england . in which you again discover your zeal against us , but not according to understanding . there is hardly any one that knows any thing of the beginning of this reformation , but will be able to tell you that the chief instrument of it was one whom you have not once mentioned , arch-bishop cranmer . i will not deny but that the protector concur'd with him in his design , but whether he was zuinglian , or what else , neither you nor i can tell . dr. heylin , who on this occasion is usually your oracle , seems rather to think he was a lutheran , tho easie to be moulded into any form . but this i know , that had you been so well vers'd in these things , as one who pretends to write historical remarks ought to be , you would have spared that idle reflection of zuinglius's being a reform from luther , it being evident to those who understand his history , that neither himself , nor the cantons in which he preach'd were ever lutherans . but on the contrary , whereas luther appear'd but in the year , zuinglius began to preach against the corruptions of the church of rome some years before , when the very name of luther was not yet heard of : and had several conferences with cardinal matthews then in switzerland to this purpose , before ever the other appear'd in publick against them . so unfortunate a thing is it for men to pretend to be witty upon others , without considering their own blind side . but you go on ; . ad pag. . ] reply . and from that time the catholick doctrine which had been taught by our first apostles , and propagated till then , began to be rejected and accused as erroneons , super stitious , and idolatrous , and they who profess'd it , persecuted . answ. ] this is still of the same kind , as false , as it is malicious . how false it is that the doctrine you now profess was either planted here by our first apostles , or propagated till this time in the church of england , i have already shewn . and for the persecution you speak of , methinks you should have been asham'd to mention that word , being to name q. mary's reign in the very next line . but what at last did this persecution amount to ? were any roman catholicks banish'd , or put to death for their religion ? were the laws turn'd against them ; or any dragoons sent to convert them ? no ; bonner and fisher , and two others , heath bishop of worcester , and day bishop of chichester were deprived of their bishopricks , and the three first imprison'd . a very few of the inferiour clergy suffered in the same manner , and all after much provocation . this was the very utmost of what you call persecution : and soon after we meet other kind of trials : for this king dying , . ibid. ] reply . you tell us the catholick religion began again to bud forth under q. mary . answ. ] and then as if you were afraid of burning your fingers in those fires which her * * * * * * persecution kindled against us ; you immediately pass to her sister's succession : and to whose reign i will so far comply with you , as to pass without one word of reflection , which you know i might here have occasion enough to make . . ibid. ] reply . but that bud being early nipped by her death , queen elizabeth , by the advice of the new council which she chose , and to secure her self in the throne , resolved to destroy the catholick interest , and set up a prelatick protestancy , which might have the face of a church . but other pretended reformers opposed her prelats , and call'd their orders anti-christian , and would needs have the rags and remnants of popery , as they called them , taken away : telling them , that if the word of god was to be the sole rule of reformation , such things as were not to be found in that rule were certainly to be rejected . answ. ] the method by which queen elizabeth proceeded in her reformation , was such as will sufficiently justify both her piety and prudence in the choice of it . never was more care taken that nothing should be done out of interest or passion ; but all things be establish'd upon the best and surest foundations . and had not some misguided zealots , out of a too great affection to those models they had seen abroad , run into unreasonable oppositions at home , the church of england had at this day been the most flourishing , as it is the most primitive church in the world. . but though this then be a matter justly to be lamented by us , yet certainly you have no cause to complain of that great queen's proceedings towards you . it is well known how many years pass'd before any severe laws were made against recusants ; and how the attempts of the pope , and the king of spain from abroad , and of your brethren in compliance with them at home , forced her to that severity , which was afterwards , but with great moderation , used against you . bonner , though infamous for his cruelties in queen mary's days , was yet suffered to go in safety now . heath lived not only in great security , but even in favour with the queen her self . tonstal and thirleby , found a retreat with the arch-bishop at lambeth : the rest of the bishops continued in quiet amongst us ; only three chose to retire beyond sea. when the high commission was establish'd for visiting the churches of england , they were expresly ordered by her majesty's injunctions to reserve pensions for those that refused to continue in their benefices : and the reformation it self appear'd so reasonable to them , that of nine thousand four hundred beneficed men in england , there were but fourteen bishops , six abbots , twelve deans , twelve arch-deacons , fifteen heads of colledges , fifteen prebendaries , and eighty rectors of parishes that left their benefices upon the account of religion . consider , sir , this procedure , and then compare it with that of the queen her sister ; or if these things be too far out of your reach , look upon the methods that have been used in our neighbour country , and that not in the severe accounts of any particular persons , but in the publick edicts , in the report which one of your own party , monsieur le fevre has publish'd with the king's permission ; and then say freely , which has most in it of the true spirit of christianity , the meekness whereby this princess establish'd the truth in her kingdoms , or that furious zeal which has been employ'd to root it out of this other . . ad pag. . ] reply . from that time ( you say ) the nation has been variously agitated with disputes . answ. ] and give me leave to tell you we are in great measure to thank you for it . they were your brethren , that creeping into chambers and conventicles , under pretence of a purer reformation , endeavoured to divide us among our selves , and especially to draw as many as they could from the establish'd religion , which you have ever the most hated . such was faithfull commin in the th year * * * * * * : father heath in the th of that queen's reign : and both discover'd to be priests in masquerade . and it was in this very year † that the puritans chiefly began to appear : and the heads of them which our historians mention , hallingham , coleman , and benson , are named in a letter that dropt out of father heath's pocket , to have been some of your emissaries . how far the same policies have kept open our divisions since it is now no longer a mystery . we know how provision has been made to tutor up scholars , not only in learning , but in handy-craft trades too , in italy , france , germany , and spain : how they have been taught twice a week regularly to dispute pro and con , concerning presbytery , independency , anabaptism , atheism ; every one to take his part among us , according as his fancy or genius leads him . who was it but a st. omer's josuit that confess'd ( as we are credibly informed ) that they were twenty years in hammering out the sect of the quakers ? and indeed the principle they go upon to refuse all oaths , is a neat contrivance for priests and jesuits to avoid the oaths of allegiance and supremacy , without a possibility of being discover'd . but this may suffice to shew how unreasonable you are to complain of those divisions which your selves have in great measure been the authors of amongst us : and shall , i hope , make us hereafter better understand one another , than to give you any longer the opportunity of keeping up these differences amongst us , and then i am sure we need not much fear whatever you can do in your own shapes to ruin us . . ibid. ] during this time , you say , all things were carried to an extremity against you : so furious was our rage against the truth . answ. but certainly you here again make history , and do not report things as they truly pass'd in those days . i am sure if we may conclude any thing , either from the writings or actions of those times , nothing can be more moderate than we shall find them both to have been . it was then our xxxix articles were drawn up , and in which i am confident you will not have the face to say , that things were carried to any undue excess against you . and if the homilies in some particulars may seem somewhat severe , yet i believe there are but few expressions in them that you have not very well deserved . but this first dream gives you occasion in the next paragraph to run into a contrary extravagance , and that as groundless as the foregoing : for you add , . ad pag. , . ] reply . that things growing calmer in king james and king charles the first time , such calumnies and accusations ( as had before been used ) were looked upon by the more learned party as the effects of passion ; and moderation taught them to acknowledg the church of rome to be a mother-church , and that salvation was to be had in her. that many of those accusations which were brought against her , were but the dreams of distracted brains ; and the more moderate persons begun to look upon her with a more favourable eye . . answ. ] i wish you had here given us some proofs of what you say , that so we might have known who these learned men were , and what those charges that they begun to leave off against you . it is well known how earnestly king james wrote against your church ; king charles the first was your avow'd enemy even to his death : the most learned men of those times have left such volumes against you as you never were , nor ever will be able to answer : and i shall hereafter shew you , that even those whom you alledge as excusing you from idolatry ( which is i believe in your own estimation , our severest charge against you ) are for all your preten●… far from thinking that there is either falshood or calum●… in such an accusation . . it is therefore great confidence in you , without the least shadow of authority for what you do , to represent such eminent persons as favourers of your doctrine . but ●…s has been ever your way , and we ought not to wonder at it , seeing we can remember the time that we our selves were reported to be popishly affected : and it is but a few months since that some of you put out a book to shew an agreement at this day between the church of england , and the church of rome ; though i suppose he may by this time begin to repent of an undertaking , which has brought nothing but infamy to the author of so false and scandalous an attempt . . what you mean by our acknowledging your church to be a mother-church , i do not very well comprehend . we confess indeed it was a roman missionary that especially contributed to the conversion of the saxons : and this i believe no man ever denied ; but let me tell you , that if your own historian bede be to be judg , our country was much more beholden to the labours and prudence of the scots & french , than to the romans . look into the account that has lately been given by a learned person of our church in his answer to one of your new converts . there you will find that they were columba , aidan , ced , ceadda , finan , colman , trumhere , agilbertus , and felix , that restored christianity and propagated it among the saxons ; when the planting of it by austin was almost lost . insomuch that at the death of deus-dedit arch-bishop of canterbury , there was in all brittain but one bishop of roman ordination , remaining ; viz. wini , who called in two brittish bishops to his assistance for the ordaining of ceadda to be arch-bishop of york . and to shew what great obligations we have to own the church of rome as a mother-church ; when things are now in peace , and the paschal controversy laid aside , and great hopes that all things would come to a right understanding , wilfrid returning from rome , revived again the old quarrells , and forced colman and his followers to retire into ireland ; st. chad to leave his bishoprick of york ; and so deprived our country of the benefit of so many excellent pastors , as bede himself , no friend to them , could not chuse but give an extraordinary character of them . but that you may see what little reason we have to acknowledge your church above all others to be our mother-church , i will lay this whole affair in short before you . our whole island heretofore was divided into four languages ; of britains , scots , picts , and english. as for the britains , they were so far from being converted by austin , that at his coming he found an establish'd church amongst them , and that utterly refused to have any thing to do with him. for the scots , they were establish'd christians before austin's time , under palladius their bishop ; and your own annalist carries their conversion yet higher . the picts embraced our faith at the preaching of columbanus , who came hither out of ireland , years before austin's arrival . and lastly , for the english , tho we are far from detracting any thing from the labours of s. austin , yet neither may we forget that the glory even of their conversion is not his alone ; but must be ascribed to those other holy men who were his fellow-workers in the gospel , felix , aidan , ceadda , lethardus , &c. and some of which had begun before him , and prepared the way for that success which afterwards attended his preaching . . as to what you add , that they began to confess then too , that salvation was to be had amongst you ; it is what we do not any more deny at this day . we do hope that some men amongst you may be saved , because we hope there may be some in your church who live in a more excusable ignorance of the truth , and that these holding still the foundation , and being ready to submit to any conviction that should be offer'd , may by god's grace , and a general repentance , even for their very errors among the rest of their unknown sins , be saved through faith in christ jesus . but yet that you may not mistake our charity , give me leave to tell you , ( . ) that we think it much more difficult for any one to be saved in your church now , than it was before the reformation ; because that then your errors were neither so well known , nor so fully refuted as they have been since : and therefore ignorance was in those days much more invincible , and by consequence more fit to excuse than it is now . ( . ) that for those who live , as you do , in a country where you might , would you sincerely apply your selves to it , find sufficient means of instruction , it is yet more dangerous than in those parts where these helps are wanting . but especially ( . ) will this hold good against you whom god has call'd to be the pastors of his church , and whose character engages them to be in an especial manner , sedulous and inquisitive ; earnest in their prayers , and unprejudiced in their desires to know the truth , more than against the lay-members of your church . so that however we will not judg you , yet neither can we with any comfort say that god will acquit you . and ( . ) for those whom by this argument you endeavour to draw away from us ; that we confess that men in your church may be saved , but that you utterly deny that they can be in ours , and therefore it is best for them to be on yours , that is , the safer side . if they do indeed use all possible means to be satisfied in the points in debate betwixt us ; if they indifferently apply themselves to the examination of them ; and after a diligent trial , remain at last convinced in their consciences that yours is the best and purest church ; we shall then be encouraged to hope well of them , as we do of others of your communion , notwithstanding such a change . but now , should interest , or prejudice , or any humane motives chance to have interposed to byass their judgments ; if they chuse your religion , without this diligent , and impartial examination , and suffer themselves without reason to be seduced by you : we must freely profess our charity in this assertion is not meant for them ; nor do we think your church in this case any way of salvation at all to such converts , much less a safer than that of the church of england . in short , the sum of this matter is ; we hope honest men may be saved in your communion ; but we are sure they shall be in ours . whether god will condemn you for professing errors that you do not know to be such , we cannot tell , we believe he will not ; sure we are he would damn us , should we who are convinced of your corruptions , be seduced by any base motives to go over to you . and this is enough for us to know ; the other is your concern , and do you look to it . but you go on , and tell us ; . ibid. ] reply . that the aversion which the people had imbibed from so long continu'd slanders , could not be removed ; and the arising factions in the state blew up the coals afresh , and pretended this moderation was nothing but an inclination to popery , which so frighted the mobile , that they were ready to join with any party that pretended to suppress such a monster as they thought it to be : from hence came rebellions , and the horrid murder of king charles the first . . answ. ] that the people had an aversion to popery then , i can easily believe , from what i have the satisfaction to find in them at this day . but that this aversion sprung from any slanders that had been laid upon you heretofore , i no more believe , than i do that it proceeds from our misrepresenting your doctrine now . no , sir , believe me , there is enough in popery to make an honest man hate it , without raising any calumnies against it to render it the more odious : and i do not find since your endeavours to vindicate your selves against us , that it begins to be at all more liked than it was before . . for what you mention of the original of the civil wars in king charles the first 's reign , i readily grant that the fears of popery contributed much to blow up the people into rebellion . but i am perswaded we must look somewhat farther , if we mean to rise up to the true authors of them . shall i tell you freely what i think ? i do believe there was more at the bottom of those civil wars , than either the people did then believe , or it may be the wisest men are at this day able sufficiently to dive into . but yet thus much we do all know , st , that the king himself in the very first breaking out of them , observed , that the fanaticks proceeded upon popish principles against him . their maxims ( says he ) are the same with the jesuits ; their preachers sermons have been deliver'd in the very phrase and stile of becanus , scioppius , and eudaemon johannes . their poor arguments which they have deliver'd in their seditious pamphlets printed or written , are taken almost verbatim out of bellarmine and suarez ; and the means which they have used to induce a credit of their conclusions with their proselytes , are purely and meerly jesuitical fables , false reports , false prophesies , pretended inspirations and divinations of the weaker sex ; as if now herod and pilate were once again reconciled for the ruin of christ and of his true religion and worship . . that in the year , there was discover'd to the arch-bishop of canterbury a design , in which the pope , cardinal richlieu , many of the english papists , but especially the jesuits , were concerned in stirring up those divisions that had just before broke out in scotland , for the ruine of the king and of the arch bishop . this may be seen at large in the histories of those times , and the very papers themselves may be found in mr. rushworth's collections . . that sir william boswell , his majesty's resident at that time at the hague , and to whom this discovery was first made ; did find out that the romish clergy gull'd the misled party of our english nation under a puritanical dress . that they had received indulgences from the see of rome and council of cardinals , to educate their scholars in principles and tenets contrary to the episcopacy of the church of england . that within the compass of two years , above sixty of the romish clergy were gone out of france , to preach up the scotch covenant , and to pull down the english episcopacy , as being the chief support of the imperial crown of our nation . . that arch-bishop bramhal being in france , some time after the king's death , did there learn how all these things were managed : that in the year , above an hundred romish clergy were sent over into england ; who were most of them souldiers in the parliament army ; and were daily to correspond with the romanists in the king's army : that in the year . they had a consult with one another , wherein they discoursed about the death of the king , and england's being a commonwealth ; that hereupon the romish orders wrote to their several convents , but especially to the sorbonists , to know whether it might be lawful to make away the king and the prince ? in short , that the sorbonists return'd , that it was lawful for roman catholicks to work changes in governments for the mother-churches advancement , and chiefly in an heretical kingdom , and so lawfully make away the king. . * * * * * * that after the engagement at edge-hill , several romish priests were found among the slain of the parliament army . this father salmonet declares in his history of those civil wars , printed in france , with the allowance of the king : and adds , that the parliament had two companies of walloons , besides others of that religion in their army . . when the rebellion broke out in ireland , it was we know bless'd with his holinesses letters , and assisted by his nuntio , whom he sent on purpose thither for that service . † † † † † † lastly ; that monsieur du moulin has confirm'd this with several plain instances , which he declared himself ready to make a legal proof of before his judges , and after years attendance , in a new edition of his book desired once more that he might be called to account for it , and yet died without being ever attempted to be disproved . these things , i say , we know of this matter , and therefore tho i do confess that the fears of popery was the pretence to blow up the people , yet whether there might not be some other persons and designs at the bottom , i shall leave it to the reader to consider what credit he will think fit to give these relations , and then judg as he sees cause . . ad pag. . ] reply . during this war , there was ( you say ) a good understanding between the papists and the prelatick party , which was the cause of a no less pleasing union after the restauration of king charles the second till shaftsbury and his adherents invented a malicious calumny , laying a pretended plot to their charge — the truth of which being detected by a subsequent real one , the more moderate of the church of england again began to favour them : only still the laws enacted against them being in force , there were persons enough ready to put them in execution . answ. ] to all which i have nothing more to say , but that being come now to the affairs of our own times , i suppose every man is already satisfied what to believe as to these things : or , if he be not , i am sure there is nothing here to direct him . the accounts of these transactions have been publish'd by authority ; and those who desire more nearly to consider them , may recur to the history of the latter of the plots mention'd ; and to the several trials and narratives , especially to mr. coleman's letters , for his information in the former . . ad pag. . ] reply . in this posture were affairs , when it pleased god to take to himself his late majesty : no sooner was his present majesty ascended upon the throne , but he declared himself a catholick : yet was pleased to declare that he looked upon the church of england as proceeding upon loyal principles , and that he would protect her. this gain'd the hearts of that party , and had so much power over the parliament , that notwithstanding the conclusion of a sermon preach'd before them , in which it was declared , that an english man might be loyal , but not a papist , that parliament testified its loyalty to such a degree as shall never be forgotten . and thus after a long story nothing to the purpose , and that too fraught ( as we have seen ) with many falsifications , we are at last come to the point to be considered , of the controversies that are now depending betwixt the two churches , and the original whereof you here recount to us . . ad pag. , . ] reply . this was the occasion of our following controversies , and the first thing that appeared in print against the roman catholicks , tho the author of the present state of the controversies would not take notice of it . and the more considering men of your party ( you say ) look'd upon it as the throwing out of the gauntlet , and bidding defiance to all the catholicks of england . this produced a remonstrance from you , and that an answer from the doctor , and there ( as almost all our controversies have done since ) it ended , tho a reply was prepared and approved of . but it was thought fit by those ( who were to be obeyed ) to let the controversie die , rather than stir up a religious litigation upon a point which not only the protestations of catholicks , but their practices had justified them in . . answ. ] what you thought of that passage in dr. sherlock's sermon i cannot tell ; but others think that by your clamours against it you have given the doctor occasion to satisfy the world that what he had said was but too true . and since you tell us that there is an answer ready prepared and approved , and that the controversial spirit is now let loose , so that our quarrels will not be much increased by such an accession , i dare say the doctor will be very glad to see that answer , and whether it has force enough to convince him of his mistake . as for your pretence why you declined engaging any farther in this dispute , viz. that it was a point , which not only your protestations , but your practices had justified you in ; tho i readily acknowledg that the english-man has in many of your communion been too strong for the papist , ( and far be it from us to detract from their worth ) yet as to your assertion in the general , that both your protestations and practices have sufficiently justified you in this point , give me leave to tell you that we are not very forward to credit the one , because we have known too much of the other . we cannot so soon forget the names of mariana , suarez , bellarmine , of parsons , stapleton ; and many others of your communion , as not to remember what sort of loyalty has sometimes been taught in your schools . who were they that sainted thomas à becket , and have applauded even the assassines of some princes since , but the venerable heads of your church ? and in what esteem campian and garnet are at this day among you , we are not ignorant . when that wicked wretch j. castell assaulted henry the fourth of france , he found an apologist among you ; and the arrest of the parliament of paris against him , stands at this day among the prohibited books in the last index set forth at rome . they were these things that moved our king james the first , to set out his admonition to all christian princes against you ; and even that your card. bellarmine was not ashamed to answer , in defence of his doctrine of the popes authority over kings : in short , he that would know what credit is to be given to you in your assertion as to this matter , need only recur to mr. foulis collection , and i am confident he will then confess that the distinction the doctor made in behalf of his country-men of your religion , is the best apology that can be offer'd , and the most to the honour of our nation , tho it may be not so much for the credit of your church , viz. that your principles consider'd , the english man may be , i will add , and has often been found loyal , but then he has laid aside the papist to be so . . ad p. . ] reply . you tell us , that this imputation of the doctor 's , joyned with the mistakes that most men had conceived of your doctrine , gave occasion to the representer to shew your doctrines truly as they are in themselves , without the mixture of the particular opinions of the schoolmen , or the practices which are neither universally nor necessarily received . answ. ] and this book , tho it produced not any manner of authority for its representations , and was contrary in most points to the opinions of the chiefest writers of your church , soon received an answer in every particular . there your doctrine was truly stated from your own authors , his false colours detected , and to your shame never replied to . for i suppose no one will be so far mistaken , as to think that tristle that came out against it deserves the name of an answer . . ad pag. . ] and whilst this book yet subsists in its full force , and that we have so effectually shewn you the opinions of the most eminent divines of your church , the practice of the generality amongst you , and the very words of your councils and liturgies , to be utterly inconsistent with your new representations , that you are not able to make any reasonable defence of the one , and are forced utterly to reject after all the other ; what a forehead must that man have that can tell the world as you do , that we cannot deny ( what yet you complain of me in this very book for denying ) that all catholicks do believe according to that doctrine which the representer expresses , and which you in vain endeavour ( as i shall hereafter shew you ) to defend . . ad pag. . ] reply . during this dispute two books ( you say ) were publish'd , with the same intention : the first , the acts of the clergy of france in their general assembly , . in which was shewn in one column the doctrine of your church from the words of the council of trent , in the other the calumnies of protestants against you , from the very words of their authors . and this you think to have been so clear a proof of what the representer had said , that you suppose his adversaries would not think fit to contest it longer against such plain and ample testimonies . answ. ] and here you think you have found out somewhat to boast of : a wonder indeed not every day to be seen ; a book never yet answered by us . 't is true , i do not know of any one here at home , that has taken the pains to examine the clergy's quotations , as the answer to papists protesting against protestant popery has done , for the instances there offer'd by their humble imitator the representer . but then the discovery that was made by that worthy author of the whole cheat , by distinguishing matters of dispute , from matters of representation , has abundantly confuted all their pretences . we charge you ( for instance ) with idolatry , for worshipping of images , praying to saints , and for adoring the host. if you do not worship images , nor pray to saints , nor adore the host , then indeed we misrepresent you . but now for the other point , that therefore you commit idolatry , this is our consequence which we draw from those practices , and must be put to the trial betwixt us . if our reasons be good , our conclusion will be so too : if they are not , we are then mistaken in our opinion , and you may say we are in an error , but we do not therefore misrepresent you . we never yet pretended that you thought idolatry to be lawful ; or that you confess'd that you committed it : we accuse you of it only as a thing which upon the premises before mention'd , we conclude you to be guilty of ; and in that certainly , if we misrepresent any body , it must be our selves , not you . now this one thing being observed , the book you mention is utterly overthrown , and both the artifice and the evidence fall together . . ibid. ] the other book you tell us you publish'd was the bishop of meaux's exposition , and what has been done on this occasion is very well known , and i shall not need to give any account of it . . ad pag. . ] and thus have we done with the two points to which i reduced the sum of your preface : what farther remains is your advice to the readers of our books , what they are to take notice of , and what to pass over in them . you tell them that you will lay down the true state of the difference betwixt us , and that whatever they find written by us that does not immediately oppose some of those tenets , they should pass it over , tho never so plausible or pleasing . . now how politick such an advice as this may be to hinder the good effect of our writing , i will not dispute ; but sure i am it is highly unreasonable . for what if the very subject of the controversie should be ( as indeed at this time it is ) whether those things which you here lay down be your churches doctrine , or only your private exposition of it ? ought not the judicious reader in this case to consider our allegations , and see whether we have not reason to say that you do endeavour to delude them , by pretending that to be your belief , which in truth is not received by the generality of your church as such ? as for instance : you positively deny that the holy cross is upon any account whatsoever to be worshipped with divine worship . now this we deny too , and therefore as to this point there can be no dispute betwixt us . but now what if i should undertake to shew , that you here impose upon your reader , and that whatsoever you pretend , yet your church does teach , that the holy cross is to be worshipped with divine worship , and practises accordingly ? is not this think you fit to be considered by him ? or is the bishop of meaux's exposition become so far the guide in controversie in france and england , that all other expositions are to be look'd upon as superannuated , and this only to contain the true interpretation of your pretended catholick faith. . but indeed i do not wonder that you would perswade your proselytes not to read our books , since you easily guess that those things may well stagger them , which were not your obstinacy or your prejudices too strong , for your reason and conscience to grapple with , must long e're this have convinced , as they have sufficiently confuted , your own selves . . ad pag. . ] and because you are not willing to prolong disputes , you do here declare , that if the defender do meddle hereafter with such points as those which are not of necessary faith , you shall not think your self obliged to answer him , tho after that he may perhaps boast how he had the last word . answ. ] that is to say , the great business of the defender has been to discover your true doctrine , and yours to dissemble it . now if the defender makes any answer at all to your reply , it must be to maintain those doctrines to be yours which he had laid to your charge , and which you deny ; and this if he does , you here declare you will have done with him : which i think is plainly to confess , that you have had enough of this argument . . but , sir , the defender has such a kindness for his subject , and such a respect for you , that he is resolved not to part either with you or it . and therefore , for what concerns his subject , he will still make good in the several points in which he advanced it , his distinction of old and new popery against you , and which in your last defence you have been shewn your self to allow of : he will prove that you do palliate the ancient doctrine of your church ; and that greater men than any either the bishop of meaux or your self , have and do interpret your churches sense in a much other manner than you represent it . and to this you may return or not , as you think fit . for your self , he is resolved to be so far your humble servant as to joyn issue with you upon your own terms , and shew you how you have abused the world to no purpose at all ; for that even taking your doctrine as you misrepresent it , yet still we are not able nevertheless to embrace it . but then for your other proposal , of throwing aside all the rest of our points , only for the sake of those t●o which you mention , here he desires to be excused : it being much more for the edification of his friends the populace ( and whose applause you know he courts ) to give them a full prospect of your doctrine , and your misrepresentations of it , than to run the circle with you in the single point of the churches authority , in which they may more easily be amused and deluded by you . but you say , . ad pag. . ] reply . that you may be bold to foretell without pretending to be a prophet , that nothing of this will be done by me , but that i shall either still fly to the tenets and practices of particulars , or misrepresent your doctrine , or fob off your arguments with such an answer as i think sufficient to monsieur arnaud's perpetuité , which i said wanted only diogenes ' s demonstration to confute it . answ. ] i am very glad , sir , you profess your self to be no prophet , ( and i have long been convinced that you are no conjurer ) for if your arguments be no better than your guesses , i shall have a very easie task of it . i have already told you what method i resolve to proceed in , and i hope you will comply so far with me as to excuse one part of it , seeing i go utterly besides my measures to gratify your desires in the other . as for your fear that i should fob off your arguments , by which i suppose you mean that i shall endeavour to elude them with some imperfect answer , i do promise you it is groundless ; i will very carefully sift your reply to the bottom , and not let any thing , that is not very impertinent , pass my examination . but shall i beg leave now that i have satisfied yours , to confess my own fears ; and that is , that as far as i can yet judg by what i have hitherto read of your reply , i shall find but few arguments in it either to fob off , or to answer . for having already consider'd your calumnies , i much doubt by that time i have rectified your mistakes too , i shall have little more remaining to encounter . . as to monsieur arnaud's perpetuité , i do still say that diogenes's demonstration is the best confutation of it . the case in short is this ; monsieur aubertine has shewn in the first ages of the church , that the doctrine which we now embrace of the holy eucharist contrary to transubstantiation , was the ancient catholick doctrine of the church . this he confirms by a multitude of clear testimonies drawn out of the writings of those fathers who lived in those times . now for monsieur arnaud after this to think to confute this evidence by a logical argument , that had not the doctrine of transubstantiation been the doctrine of the church at the beginning , it could never have become so afterwards ; and that such a little shift is sufficient to overthrow all those testimonies , this must certainly be a meer reverie , ( you will i hope excuse me that expression , now you know the meaning of it ) and needs no other confutation , than to shew him that the matter of fact is evidently opposite to his pretences . . ad pag. . ] reply . but such things as these ( you say ) are now adays put upon the world without a blush : and they who are this day ingenuous , learned , honest men , shall be to morrow time-servers , blockheads , and knaves , if they chance to cast but a favourable eye towards popery . answ. ] o tempora ! o mores ! to what a sad state are we arrived , that men should be able to do such ill things , and yet not blush at them ! but what now is the matter ? why , men who were yesterday esteem'd very honest men , are the next found out to be knaves and time-servers . good sir , be not too hasty ; 't is possible this may be done , and yet no cause of blushing neither , unless for those persons who are so found out . for , . what if we mistook those men for honest men , who at the bottom were not so ? and when we saw our error , alter'd our opinion ? and as every thing that is done , must be done some day or other ; what if we took them for honest men to day , and to morrow find that they were not so honest ? is it any crime for one upon good grounds to change his mind in this case ? again , . there is a certain season when the worst man first begins to be so . now , what if one that had hitherto done nothing to forfeit his reputation , should begin to do such notorious ill things as to deserve our censure ? here we had both reason to believe him an honest man whilst he was so , and as much reason to believe him otherwise , since his actions have declared his change. so that then , for ought i can find , we must come at last to the grounds of these charges , before we can judg of them . and for that , whenever you will please to give us your instances of the persons who have been thus censured by us ; that have been heretofore esteemed honest , ingenuous men , and are now found out to be knaves and blockheads ; though i shall have no occasion to justify any such censure , till you can prove that i have been concern'd in passing of it ; yet i doubt not but those who have done this , will be able to give you abundant satisfaction for it . . ibid. ] reply . you conclude all with an insinuation , the most likely to catch those that are not well acquainted with you , of any thing in your whole book : that it is not likely you should palliate your doctrine to gain proselytes , seeing that proselyte the first time he should see you practise contrary to your doctrine , would be sure to return and expose your villany . answ. ] but yet to this i answer ; st , that 't is possible you may palliate your doctrine , and your proselyte never discover it . it is no such strange thing for men to profess one thing and do another ; and yet by subtle distinctions justify themselves to those who are prepared to deny sense and reason , rather than not believe them . you tell us for instance , that the holy cross is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped ; and yet certainly your good-friday service directly leads you to it . but then if your new proselyte begins to enquire what this means ; presently you tell him a story of absolute and relative worship ; and he who knows nothing more of the matter than you are pleased to let him , humbly submits himself to yours and the church's judgment . . if we urge your expressions against you , and he fortunes to get something of this by the end ; either you confidently deny that you have any such words , ( a case which has happen'd to my self in this very allegation ) or if you are baffled there ; then 't is not ( for instance ) come , let us adore the cross ; but , come , let us adore christ who suffered on it : concerning which we must discourse a little by and by . . if this too fails , and we shew you plainly that you say , we adore thy cross , o lord : so that our saviour is himself distinguish'd from his cross which you worship ; then the cross there is put to signify christ's passion ; though i am afraid the adoring of christ's passion is something like that which you call jargon , and we in plain english , nonsence . . if even this be beaten off , and other hymns produced in which that cross is plainly specified which bore christ's sacred members ; the tree upon whose arms the price of the world hung : then you have your figures ready , 't is a metonymie in one line , a prosopopaeia in the next ; in the third a conjunction of both together : and with these quirks the poor implicite proselyte's head is turn'd round . he believes there is something meant by all these hard words , though he knows nothing of the matter ; and his opinion of your integrity , joined with the good assurance with which you pronounce your oracles , and thunder out your anathema's against us as hereticks and schismaticks ; calumniators , falsifiers , misrepresenters , and what not ? makes him that he no longer questions your pretences . . as for your authors he knows nothing of them ; or if he did , yet those who have so many tricks to elude such clear expressions of their publick rituals , could not want distinctions enough to expound them . or however a general out-cry against them as private men , and for whose opinions the church is not to answer , will at once silence all such allegations that they shall not make any the least impression upon them . by all which it appears that you may ( as we affirm you do ) palliate your doctrine , and yet your proselyte be never the wiser for it . . but now , dly , if he should discover something of this kind , yet is it not necessary , that he should therefore presently return and expose your villany . i will suppose that those few proselytes you have made , may all be reduced to these two kinds ; men of conscience , or men of interest and design . for the latter of these , whilst they serve their interests by the change , there is no great fear of their making any such dangerous discoveries . religion is not their concern ; and whether it be new popery or old that they embrace , they neither know , nor care : it is to them indifferent ; and they understand , as well as value , both alike . as to the conscientious converts , ( allowing for their capacities , and that they are able to overcome all the foremention'd difficulties , and to discover the cheat , which i fear is what the much greatest part of these are not able to do ) : it is indeed hard to say what a terrible conflict this will be apt to make in them . but yet the point of reputation , the opinion of the world , shame of return . and the dangers those commonly run who venture to reveal such sacred mysteries ; these considerations have sometimes kept good men a longer time in suspense , than any of your proselytes have yet had to resolve upon a return to us . and who can tell , what time and changes may one day bring forth ? . again : we know there have been many in your church , who though they have discover'd these prevarications , yet have thought , that as long as they did not themselves join in your errors , they might hold their tongues , and live quietly in an external communion with you : and their eyes have been so dazled with the splendor , succession , extent , &c. of your church , that they have preferr'd it with all its faults to others who seem to them to want these advantages . such were the famous george cassander , father barnes , and others that i might mention . nay , it is no very long time , since a person yet living , monsieur ferrand , has publish'd a book to shew , that were the church of rome as corrupt as we pretend it to be , yet we ought not nevertheless to separate from it . and should any of your converts be of this perswasion , they may still continue to all appearance in your church , though they see the errors , and your falsifications of the true doctrine of it . . but , dly , though i do affirm that what you publish is not the ancient doctrine of your church , yet i do not deny but it is that which you endeavour to make pass with your converts as such . this you teach your proselytes , the bishop of meaux his dioces ; and they rarely meet with any one that maintains the contrary . but this do's not hinder , that because this is the popery of a few english missionaries , and french expositors ; that therefore it has been all along the common doctrine of your church ; or is conformable to the practice of other countries at this day . and all men have not the leisure to go into italy or spain ; or the ability to read over your several authors for satisfaction in it . . but , thly , to quit all these suppositions ; yet since you make it no less than a mortal sin to have any doubts of your religion ; you are sure , as soon as any such arise in their minds to hear of it in confession from them . being thus acquainted with the first motions of this kind , you presently take all the ways imaginable to stifle them , and hinder them from coming to an open defection from you . so that though your proselyte should begin to stagger ; yet unless he utterly abandon your party without ever consulting you in it , ( which men of conscience will never do ) he is almost under an impossibility of ever doing it at all . . to all which i will add but this farther : which well may , and i am perswaded do's keep many from telling of tales , and exposing ( as you call it ) your villany ; and that is , that when you receive a new convert into your church , you require a terrible oath from him , never by any argument to leave or to forsake you , upon pain of perjury and damnation if he do's . and to the end the reader may know , what is the last step he is to make , if he has any thoughts that way ; and to convince him what little force there is in your suggestion , i will here transcribe it from your pontifical , in its full length . the oath that is ordered by the church of rome to be administred to a new convert . ( pontif. rom. ord. ad reconc . apost . schism . vel haeret. ) i. n. having found out the snare of division with which i was held , after a long and diligent deliberation with my self , am , by the grace of god , return'd with a forward and ready will , to unity of the apostolick see : and lest i should be thought to have return'd not with a pure mind , but only in shew , i do hereby promise , under the pain of falling from my order , and under the obligation of an anathema to thee bishop of such a place ; and by thee to peter prince of the apostles , and to the most holy father in christ our lord n. pope , and to his successors , that i will never through the perswasions of any persons whatsoever , or by any other means return to that schism , from which by the grace of our redeemer freeing me , i am deliver'd : but that i will always remain in all things in the unity of the catholick church , and in the communion of the bishop of rome ; and therefore i do say upon my oath , by god almighty and these sacred gospels , that i will without wavering remain in the unity and communion aforesaid ; and if ( which god forbid ) i shall by any occasion or argument divide my self from this unity , may i incurring the guilt of perjury , be found condemn'd to eternal punishment , and have my portion with the author of schism in the world to come . — so help me god , &c. thus do's your new proselyte swear himself firm to your party ; at least i 'me sure he is here required to do it . and now you may as well expect that a fellow conspirator should discover the treason he is to commit , as a convert thus engaged to you , ( though he should find it out ) expose your villany . an answer to the reply , &c. being a further defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england . introduction . it was the opinion of a late author concerning a very short treatise that he had publish'd upon most of the points in controversy between us and the church of rome ; that tho he had neither put himself to the expence of any new arguments against us ; nor produced the authority of either ancient fathers , or even of modern writers to back his assertions ; he had nevertheless answer'd in that one treatise , not only all those late discourses that had just before been publish'd by our divines on those subjects , but a great part of all the books and sermons that had ever been writ or preach'd against his church . tho i am not very fond of following any copy which that author can set me , and in this especially do think his vanity so ridiculous , that he is rather to be pitied than imitated ; yet being once more called upon for a farther vindication of my self , to another review of the most considerable articles wherein we differ from those of the other communion , i cannot but observe , that not only my present adversary has not advanced in this new attempt one jot beyond what i had before confuted , but that in all their books , their whole business is meerly to transcribe one another ; so that from the † † † † † † bishop of condom's exposition , even to the * * * * * * eye catechism , there is nothing new ; but the same answer that is made to one , do's really in effect overthrow them all . . 't is this has put me upon the troublesome design , not only of resuming and collating the bishop of meaux's exposition , and the vindication of it , with the reply that is now before me on every article ; but to search all those other treatises that have been publish'd since the representer first broke the peace with us : to convince the world that matters are now driven as far as they can go ; so that in reading any one of their books they may really find as much , as when they shall have taken the pains to consult them all . if this will not engage them to produce something more than they have yet done to answer our arguments , it shall at least i hope excuse us , if we from henceforth dispense with our selves the trouble of large confutations ; so that instead of transcribing again our own books , as often as they shall please to furnish out a new title to their old objections , we shall need only to direct them to those replies that have been already made ; and in which their pretensions have been confuted before they were publish'd . . it was the complaint of s. austin against such kind of antagonists as these in his time ; that whether out of too much blindness , by which even the clearest things are not seen ; or out of an obstinate stubbornness , whereby even those things which are seen , are not endured , they would defend their own unreasonable notions after a full answer had been given to them , as if it were reason and truth it self that they maintain'd . — and therefore ( says he ) what end shall there be of disputing , what measure of speaking , if we must always answer those that answer us ? for they who either cannot understand what is said , or are so harden'd with a spirit of opposition , that tho they did understand , yet would they not submit ; they answer , as it is written , and they speak iniquity , and are indefatigably vain . whose contrary sayings if we should as often refute , as they have resolved with an invincible forehead not to care what they say , so they do but by any means contradict our disputations ; who do's not see how infinite , and troublesome , and fruitless this would be ? the answer to the first article . you will excuse , sir , this little address to my reader ; i shall from henceforth keep close to your reply , and notwithstanding st. austin's insinuation to the contrary , attend you once more whithersoever you shall please to lead me. and to shew how exactly applicable what i have before said of your books in general , is to your reply above any in particular ; the first observation i have to make is , that for what concerns the common cause of religion in this first article , you have entirely taken , or rather indeed stollen it ( since i do not remember that you have once mention'd your author ) out of t. g's discourse against dr. stillingfleet , and which that most learned man had fully answered some years since . and yet you neither take notice of his answers , nor offer any one thing to prevent the same replies from being made by me to the same objections . . you begin your * * * * * * vindication with a scandalous charge of calumnies , misrepresentations , &c. this you persist in in your † † † † † † reply ; and so does ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ t. g. against his adversary . he tells him how in the prosecution of his argument , he should be forced to lay open his frequent contradictions , calumnies , and misrepresentations : by which the reader may now see that you meant me no harm in all these hard words against me ; but you found them in your author , and you transcribed the railing with as little judgment as you have done the reason of his books . after this short and civil preface , you tell me , . ad pag. . ] reply . that there was a time in which the * * * * * * genuine sons of the church of england , excused the roman catholick church of that odious imputation of idolatry ; and * some of them ( never † † † † † † excommunicated nor censured by the church of england for it ) maintain'd , that we cannot defend the charge of idolatry against the church of rome , without denying that church to be a true church , and by consequence without contradicting our selves , and going against the intention of the reformation , which was not to make a new church , but to restore a sick church to its soundness , a corrupt church to its purity , &c. [ see t. g. first answer , pref. p. . ] answ. ] had you but ingenuously own'd from whence you had taken this objection against our church , the reader would presently have known whither to have gone for the confutation of it . but seeing you are resolved to make it your own , i shall answer two things ; st , that what you have said is false . dly , that you either did , or ought to have known it to be so . . first , it is false that those whom from t. g. you are pleased to stile the genuine sons of the church of england , have excused your church of that odious imputation of idolatry , or by consequence did think that we could not defend it against you without contradicting our selves , and going against the intention of the reformation . . your first author is dr. jackson ; and he so far from excusing you in this point , as you most wretchedly assert , that in a set discourse under this very title , * * * * * * of the identity or aequivalency of superstition in rome heathen , and rome christian , he spends above sheets on purpose to prove the charge of idolatry upon you : and answers all your evasions , by which you endeavour in vain to clear your selves of the guilt of it . the very subject of his first chapter is to shew , that rome christian in latter years , sought rather to allay than to abrogate the idolatry of rome heathen ; p. . in his th chapter , having mention'd that conclusion of your church , * * * * * * that saints are to be worshipped with religious worship : he pronounces sentence against you in these very words , * this we say is formal idolatry . the title of his th chapter is positive , † † † † † † that the same expression of our respect or observance towards saints or angels locally present , cannot without superstition or idolatry be made to them in their absence . and in the th chapter , speaking of your form of commending a departing soul ; [ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ depart out of this world in the name of god the father almighty who hath created thee , in the name of jesus christ the son of god , who suffer'd for thee ; in the name of the holy ghost , who was poured forth upon thee ; in the name of angels and arch-angels ; in the name of thrones and dominions ; in the name of principalities and powers ; in the name of cherubims and seraphims ; in the name of patriarchs and prophets ; in the name of holy apostles and evangelists ; in the name of holy martyrs and confessors ; in the name of holy monks and hermites ; in the name of virgins , and of all god's saints and saintesses ; this day let thy soul be in peace , and thy habitation in holy sion . ] if ( says he ) thus they pray with their lips only , they mock god as well as the saints . if thus they pray with internal affection of heart and spirit , they really worship saints with the self-same honour wherewith they honour god — they might with less impiety admit a christian soul into the church militant , than translate it into the church triumphant in other names besides the trinity . they might better baptize them only in the name of god the father , and of s. francis , s. benedict , and s. dominick , &c. without any mention of god the son and holy ghost , rather than joyn these , as commissioners with them in dismissing souls out of their bodies . to censure this part of their liturgy as it deserves , it is no prayer but a charm , conceived out of the dregs and reliques of heathenish idolatry , which cannot be brought forth but in blasphemy , nor be applied to any sick soul without sorcery * * * * * * . . this is the first of our church-men that you say excused you from the odious imputation of idolatry . and since i perceive his authority is of some weight with you , as being one of the genuine sons of the church of england , which t. g. would not allow his adversary , nor it may be will you therefore esteem me to be ; i hope you will for his sake , who here charges your offices with charms and sorcery , as well as with superstition and idolatry , be from henceforth a little more favourable to my reflection on another occasion of your † † † † † † magical incantations . . i have been detain'd a little longer than i designed in this first author ; but i will make amends for it , by referring you for the ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ three next to the like account which * * * * * * dr. st. gave to your friend t. g. from their own words : as for † † † † † † mr. thorndyke , it is confess'd he was once in the opinion that you mention ; but you knew very well that he changed his mind before his death . you may see by an extract that has lately been ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ publish'd out of his will , what an ill notion he had of your church in general , and for the point before us , t. g's reverend and learned adversary eight years ago publish'd a paper from * * * * * * mr. thorndyke's own hand , in which , among other exceptions against you , he makes this his th : to pray to saints departed for those things which only god can give ( as all papists do ) is by the proper sense of their words down-right idolatry . if they say their meaning is by a figure , only to desire them to procure their requests of god ; how dare any christian trust his soul with that church , which teaches that which must needs be idolatry in all that understand not the figure . . such was the last judgment of this learned and pious man in this matter . if after this it be necessary to say any thing to his former opinion ; i will only observe , that the ground of it was this mistake , viz. † † † † † † that a christian church without renouncing the profession of the true god , cannot be guilty of idolatry . now this ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ card. bellarmine himself , and others of your church , do utterly deny : for ( says he ) it is idolatry , not only when one adores an idol leaving god , but also when an idol is adored together with god. . the last of your divines whom you cite as excusing you from idolatry , is the reverend * * * * * * dr. hammond : but your falseness is as notorious in him as in all the rest . for in a particular discourse of idolatry , § . he approves and explains the design of our homilies against the peril of idolatry : § . . he says , that your worshipping of images in the most moderate way that can be , is for ought he knows a kind of idol-worship , but to be sure a prohibited act : § . . that to put up those petitions to the blessed virgin which are terminated in her self , ( as many forms , if not her whole office may appear to be ) are acts parallel to the old idolatry . § . . that your worshipping of images , notwithstanding all your distinctions of worshipping god mediante imagine , or relativè , &c. is idolatry . § . . that the worship of the bread in the sacrament must certainly be idolatry . that your error about transubstantiation , and your good design of worshipping christ there may , he hopes , be some excuse for you ; but that your opinion will not hinder it from being at least material idolatry , and the worshipping of something that is not god. . so that now upon the whole it remains , that there is not so much as a shadow of truth in your assertion , that the true and genuine sons of the church of england have excused your church of the odious imputation of idolatry . my next business is to shew , that you did or ought to have known that there was not one word of truth in what you said . . now this will depend upon the answer which i shall leave any honest man to give to these two plain questions . . whether when you stole all this out of t. g. you either did not , or ought not to have known , that dr. st. had answered all these cavils many years since , and shewn that there was no truth nor sincerity in them ? . whether a man that quotes but six authors for an assertion derogatory to the establishment of their church , and contrary to the publick doctrine of the homilies and injunctions ; and to the private opinions of the generality of the divines of it , ought not to have been sure that those authors at least did affirm that which he pretends they did ? the latter of these will conclude against you , that you ought to have known that what you here say is false , because you ought to have examined these authors , and then you would have known it to be so . and for the former ( were not your conscience unfit to be appeal'd to in a matter of truth against your self ) i durst appeal to your own soul , whether you did not know , that the learned man i have so often mentioned , had shewn t. g. how false these pretences were ? but i go on with you to your next paragraph : where you tell me , . ad pag. . ] reply . you would gladly know , wherefore at this time i charge you with the odious imputation of adoring men and women , crosses and images , &c. answ. ] to satisfie you in which demand , i reply , . that i charge you with this , because it is true , and i have both shewn it already , and will yet farther shew it to be so . . i do it at this time , because at this time you have the confidence to deny it , nay to charge us with calumny , and misrepresentation for having ever accused you of it . so that your wise question is in effect but this ; we the vindicators and representers of new popery have publickly exposed you to the world as a pack of knaves , that have misrepresented our doctrine , and wherefore do you go about to vindicate your selves , and not suffer us to make silly people believe in quiet that what we say is true ? . ibid. ] reply . where ( say you ) do i find any thing of this in the articles ? and for the book of homilies , i must be little versed in our own doctrine not to know , that several eminent divines of our own church , do not allow that book to contain in every part of it the dogmatical doctrine of the church of england [ thus t. g. speaks into your mouth , and you , as his engine , eccho them to us . t. g's first answer to dr. st. pref. p. , . ] answ. ] now to this you should have known that dr st. gave this answer . that the articles of our church have confirm'd those homilies ; that these articles were not only allow'd and approved by the queen , but subscribed by the whole clergy in convocation , anno. . now ( says the dean ) i desire t. g. to resolve me whether men of any common understanding would have subscribed to this book of homilies in this manner , if they had believed the main doctrine and design of one of them had been false and pernicious , as they must have done , if they had thought the practice of the roman church to be free from idolatry . i will put the case that any of the bishops then had thought that the charge of idolatry had been unjust , and that it had subverted the foundation of ecclesiastical authority : that there could have been no church or right of ordination , if the roman church had been guilty of idolatry ; would they have inserted this into the articles when it was in their power to have left it out ? and that the homilies contain'd a wholsome and godly doctrine , which in their consciences they believed to be false and pernicious ? i might as well think that the council of trent would have allow'd calvin's institutions as containing a wholsome and godly doctrine , as that men so perswaded would have allow'd it the homily against the peril of idolatry . . for your objection from * * * * * * t. g. that several eminent divines of our church , do not allow that book to contain in every part of it the publick dogmatical doctrine of the church of england ; and three of whose names ( from * t. g. still ) you adorn your margin with . he answers , † † † † † † be it so : surely there is a great deal of difference , between some particular passages and expressions in these homilies , and that which is the main design and foundation of one of them . but in this case we are to observe , that they who deny the church of rome to be guilty of idolatry , do not only look on the charge as false , but as of dangerous consequence , and therefore altho men may subscribe to a book in general as containing wholsome and godly doctrine , tho they be not so certain of the truth of every passage in it , yet they can never do it with a good conscience , if they believe any great and considerable part of the doctrine therein contained to be false and dangerous . . thus did this reverend person confute your oracle : if you had offer'd any thing to prevent the same answer from being return'd to you , i should have been far from complaining against you for advancing of an old argument with new strength : but when you saw how unable ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ t. g. was to defend these cavils , nevertheless still to produce them ; and tho you could not but be conscious to your self at the same time that they were not to be maintain'd ; i shall only say , that it serves to convince me of the truth of what an ancient greek poet once observed , and the meaning of whose words you may enquire among the learned at your leisure ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . . ad pag. . ] reply . your next paragraph consists of a story of q. elizabeth , and that too eccho'd form t. g's inspiration : but to this i have already return'd my answer , and when you shall think fit to speak out what you mean by it , you shall not fail of a farther consideration from me , if i be not prevented by your receiving it from a more proper hand . . and thus have we done with what concerns the general cause , in this introduction ; and the sum of all is this ; that of four paragraphs of which it consists ; the first is calumny ; the second false ( and i am reasonably perswaded known by you to be so ) : the third impertinent , and long since answered ( as was also the foregoing ) by the reverend dr. st. the last seditious : i go on to the following part of this first article , to examine what relates to my self in it . . where first you except against my quoting your particular authors to find out your churches meaning , and call it calumny , tho what calumny it is to say that those authors , whom you cannot deny but that i truly cite , have expounded your churches sense otherwise than you and some others do , i cannot imagine : but however you tell us ; ad p. , . reply . ] that you have nothing to do with the doctrine of the schools : that i must take your doctrine from your councils ; the publick , authentick , and universally recieved definitions and decisions of the church . answ. ] and in this you still follow your old guide t. g. but i have † † † † † † already shewn you the weakness of this pretence ; and for your next supposal that even those authors do not say what i affirm they do , if your proofs are as convincing as your assertion is confident , i have already promised you all you can desire , that i will not fail to confess that you deserve not so ill a character as i thought . ad pag. . ] reply . your next paragraph charges me with unsincerity in stating the question betwixt catholicks ( as you call them ) and protestants , for that i represented you as allowing us to hold the ancient and undoubted foundation of the christian faith. answ. ] and is it not the ancient and undoubted foundation of the christian faith which we hold , and which has been deliver'd down to us in those very creeds which your selves profess , and into the faith of which you still baptize your children ? nay , do not you your self confess this to be true in the very place where you cavil against me for this assertion ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ vindic. p. . where you grant , that what we hold is the ancient and undoubted foundation , and only deny that it is intirely so ? and again , in this very reply in which you repeat your accusation ; * * * * * * p. . i told him ( say you ) that we do not allow that proposition , especially if he mean all fundamentals . so that then the unsincerity lies not in my saying that what we hold is fundamental ; for this you tell me ( vindicat. p. . ) no body ever deny'd , but for pretending that you allow'd that we held all which you esteem'd to be fundamental . now for this i must observe , st , that you dare not say positively that i affirm'd any such thing , † † † † † † i told him ( say you ) that we do not allow that proposition , if he mean all fundamentals . so that you positively charge me with unsincerity for pretending that you granted what you do not , upon supposition that i meant any such thing . dly , that to make something of this charge , you are forced to go back from your own concession : for whereas in your vindication you had said plainly , that tho you do not allow us to hold all fundamentals , yet no body ever deny'd that we held some of them ; here you clap in an insinuation even against this too : i told him that we do not allow . that they hold the ancient and undoubted foundation ; especially , if he meant all fundamentals . so that tho you do deny it especially if we mean all fundamentals , yet you do not altogether allow even that what we hold is fundamental . but , dly , where at last do you find that i ever said , that you granted that we held all which you esteem to be fundamental ? in my exposition , i tell you , in the very next words to those you cavil at , that this was the thing to be put upon the issue ; whether those articles which you had added to this ancient and undoubted foundation as superstructures to it , were not so far from being necessary articles of religion , as you pretend , that they indeed overthrow that faith which is on both sides allow'd to be divine . and when in your vindication you first made this little exception ; i again repeated it in these very words , which you take no notice of in your reply : but the vindicator , jealous for the authority of his church , and to have whatsoever she proposes pass for fundamental , confesses that we do indeed hold a part , but not all those articles that are fundamental . this therefore must be put upon the issue . — so that whereas you accuse me of perverting the bishop of meaux's sense , it is indeed you that have ( i fear wilfully ) perverted mine . what i said , both of you acknowledg , viz. that what we hold is the ancient and undoubted truth ; and you cannot deny the state of the question to be just as i have said , whether what you farther advance , and what we reject , be not so far from being fundamental truth , that it is indeed no truth at all , but rather contrary to , and destructive of that truth which is on both sides allow'd to be divine ? . ad p. . ] reply . but you go yet farther in this point against me ; and accuse me in the next place of perverting your own sense too , by saying that you confess that those articles which you hold , and we contradict , do by evident and undoubted consequence destroy those truths that are on both sides agreed to be fundamental . and you wonder with what spectacles i read this . answ. ] the spectacles i use are p'ain honesty and plain reason ; if you have better , i envy you not . in stating the question between us , i said * * * * * * the thing to be put upon the issue was , whether those additions which the church of rome has made to the ancient and undoubted faith , were not so far from being fundamental truths , that they do , even by your own confession , overthrow those truths that are on both sides allow'd to be fundamental ? this you deny you ever said , and yet in the very next word● you confess the contrary : † † † † † † 't is true ( say you ) i tell him , that were the doctrines and practices which he alledges the plain and confess'd doctrines and practices of the church of rome , he would have reason to say that they contradict our principles : but i tell him also that we renounce these doctrines and practices . but this is not now the question , whether you renounce these doctrines and practices or no : did not you confess that those doctrines which i charge you with do overthrow the truths that are on both sides allow'd to be divine ? this you cannot , nay you do not deny : and this was what i asserted , and for which you most injuriously accuse me of perverting your sense . as to your denial of these things , that i have already shewe to be a groundless pretence , and shall yet farther prove you to be as guilty of prevaricating in your evasion , as it is evident you have been in your accusing of me . . ibid. ] for the parallel you add between our charging you as guilty of idolatry upon the account of your worship , and the fanatick's clamours against us for our ceremonies , and against the justice of which you think we have little to say , it still more confirms me that the ancient poet i before mention'd was a wise man : for after so full a confutation as has been given to this parallel by * * * * * * two several hands , for you to presume still to say , that we have little to reply to it ; this would certainly have made any other creature in the world blush , but a man that has taken his leave of modesty . . ad pag. . ] for your last little reflection , which you have dubb'd with the title of protestant charity and moderation ; i shall only tell you , that to charge you with adoring men and women , crosses , images and relicks , is no more a breach of charity , than it would be to charge a man with murder or theft whom i actually saw killing his neighbour , or stealing away his goods . if you are indeed guilty of doing this , 't is charity to admonish those of their danger , whom you might otherwise ensnare by your confident denying of it . but the truth is , it is the justice of this reflection that so much troubles you : and you could be well enough content we should accuse you of doing this , if you could but find out any means to prevent our proving of it . the answer to the second article . that religious worship terminates ultimately in god alone . . ad p. . ] reply . in the beginning of this article you seem a little concern'd that i took no more notice of what you had said in your vindication , concerning your distinctions of religious worship : you pretend that i did not do it , because if i had , all my quotations out of your liturgies would have signified just nothing ; neither could i have made so plausible an excuse for my calumnies and falsifications : and you conjure me not to obstruct the hopes of a christian unity by a future misapplication of these terms . . answ. ] it is perhaps none of the least instances of that perplexity , into which sin and error commonly lead those who have been involved in them , to consider what a multiplicity of obscure and barbarous terms the iniquity of these latter ages has invented to confound those things , which are otherwise in themselves of the greatest clearness and evidence . whilst men kept to that primitive rule of the gospel , * * * * * * thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve ; the law was simple and easie , and there was no need of any distinctions , either to excuse or to condemn the worship of any other besides him . the command was so plain , that the devil himself had nothing to say to it : as for the sophistry we are now to encounter , ( and by which you would have been able to have taken that offer which our saviour refused , and yet have salved your conscience of any breach of the precept too ) he was either yet to learn it , or else it appeared to him so thin and contemptible , that however he has since inspired others with it , yet he was ashamed himself to insist upon it . but however , seeing mens words are their own , and let them express their conceptions after what manner they please , it is enough for us that we understand their meaning ; i shall content my self to draw up a short summary of what you here offer , and which indeed is all that your party has to insist upon on this occasion , and we shall hereafter see when you come to the application of these distinctions , whether there be any thing in them to excuse you of that guilt we here charge you with . . but before i enter upon this enquiry , i cannot but observe the change you make in the title of this article . hitherto we have had it in these words , † † † † † † religious worship is terminated only in god : now you add another restriction , ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ that religious worship terminates ultimately in god alone : by which you would seem to imply , that religious worship may terminate upon the objects to which you pay it , as saints or angels ; ( and wherein you certainly depart from your own and the bishop of meaux's former principle ) but that ultimately it must end in god alone . but the truth is , ( * * * * * * what you have been already told ) all worship do's properly terminate in the object to which it is given . you may honour a saint for god's sake , and it is an honour to god by accident so to do : but when all is done , still the proper honour that is given to the saint terminates in him , and do's not pass to any other . and this you must confess , unless you will spoil all your own distinctions . for whatever the honour be that you give to the saints , either it must finally terminate in them , and then your new addition is useless ; or if it pass on to god , you must either dishonour god if you give him such an inferior honour as you do the saints , and which is altogether unsuitable to his infinite nature and majesty ; or if you give the saints the same honour you do god , then you raise them up into a state above the condition of meer creatures , and so yet more dishonour god , by setting up competitors with him in his service . so that then your new modelling of this position will stand you in no stead : and you must after all say , either that no religious honour must be given to any other but god , ( as our saviour has declared , and as we affirm ) if you do truly believe that all religious honour ought to terminate in him alone ; or you must confess , that religious worship may be terminated , and that ultimately , upon the creature ; which indeed your practice shews you do believe , and for which we justly accuse you of idolatry . . but we will examine your own scheme , that so we may the better understand your pretences . and , ad pag. , . ] reply . st , as to the words ( you say ) that honour , and worship , and adoration , may admit of different senses , and according to them be differently applied . there is a divine worship proper to god , and there is a civil worship that is paid to men ; and a dulia , or inferior sort of religious worship , that you give to saints angels , and holy things . dly , that as to the outward actions of the body , whether bowing , kneeling , &c. there may be a difference in these two ; they being not so appropriated to god , but that they may be paid to the creature also . that therefore , dly , both the actions and expressions are to be distinguish'd , according to the excellency of the object on which they are terminated . if the excellency be natural , or naturally acquired ; then the honour that is paid is civil or humane . if it be supernatural , then the honour is religious . and this religious honour is either a sovereign honour proper to god alone , call'd latria ; or it is inferior , and of which there are several degrees according to the several measures in which god bestows his supernatural gifts upon his servants ; and is that you call dulia . and this inferior religious honour may be paid , not only to rational natures , but sometimes also to inanimate things . . answ. ] this i think is the sum of what you desire me to take notice of ; and i will now return you a few general reflections upon it . and , st , though we are contented to take all these hard words in your own sense , yet i must observe to prevent any misapplication of them to the passages of either holy scripture , or primitive antiquity , before st. austin's time. that for what concerns the hebrew phrases of the old testament , by which this worship is express'd , they are all of them promiscuous , and indifferently used with reference both to god and the creatures . but now with the greek phrases in the new testament it is otherwise . one of them indeed , viz. that from whence you derive your term dulia , is ambiguous ; but for the other two , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the former is never at all , the latter never but once , and that too in a parabolical sentence , applied to any other worship than that of god only ; not to any humane or civil respect . dly , as to the distinction you make between civil and religious honour properly so called , we readily embrace it : and we do confess , that the difference must be taken from the diversity of excellency in the objects on which they are terminated . from which we infer , that there must be therefore the same proportion between civil and religious worship , as there is between god and men. seeing then there can be no analogy between these two , neither can there be any between the worship that is paid to the one , and to the other . by consequence , that properly speaking , there can be no other honour attributed to a creature but what is civil , and which must be diversified , according to the different excellencies of those to whom it is given . and this you your self allow in your vindication , [ p. , . ] where you declare that this honour is but an extrinsecal denomination from the cause and motive , not from the nature of the act ; and that you do renounce any other sort of religious worship which is so from the nature of the act , and by consequence only due to god. and here again in your reply you found the appellation of religious honour with reference to the saints , either upon the motive of it , which is religious ; or , because it ultimately refers to god , for whose sake , and upon account of whose gifts we honour them . now taking this then to be not only your own private opinion , but the sense of your church ; and that you may see , i desire to close as far as possibly i can with your notions , i add , dly , that as to the first of these , the religious motive ; we are content in this respect to allow the denomination of religious worship to others besides god. such is the honour we render to our parents , to civil magistrates , &c. upon the account of god's command so to do . and thus the two terms of civil and religious are not opposite , but co-ordinate , and consistent with one another . secondly , for the other grounds on which you call this honour , religious , namely upon the account of those supernatural gifts or excellencies which god has bestow'd upon his creatures ; we are ready to allow of this too . and thus we confess , that the honour which we , as well as you , pay to the saints , may be called religious ; when we bless god for their excellencies , and pray to him for grace to follow their examples . we never denied but that godly and religious men were to be reverenced , not only for their other qualities , but yet more especially for their sanctity and devotion . but then , thly , as for religious honour properly so called , and as it respects not meerly the religious motive , or the supernatural gifts which god has bestow'd upon his servants , but the very nature and quality of the act it self ; such acts by which we pay not only all that worship which may be due to the excellencies of a pure creature , but the proper exercises of religion , as prayer , confession , and such like ; and these with all the circumstances of a proper , religious worship ; in the house of god , in the midst of his solemn service ; it may be in the same breath and form in which we address to the creator ; this is that religious worship which we constantly affirm , and which you your self confess may not without impiety be given to any but god only ; and it is for this we charge you with that , which by your own acknowledgment none of your distinctions reach to , nor will therefore excuse you of , viz. idolatry . thly , as for the outward expressions of this honour by bodily actions , as bowing , kneeling , prostrating , &c. these we confess are ambiguous , and must be determined by the other circumstances . but then we deny that they are to be interpreted meerly according to the intention of him that performs them . there is an external adoration , which no internal act of the understanding or will can excuse , if it be applied to any besides god. such as is perform'd with those circumstances of a religious worship before mention'd , as to time , place , words , and the like . in short , it is , we say , idolatry by any external act whatsoever , to shew that we do attribute religious honour to any other but god alone . thly , and for the rest , we do affirm , that there are some other kind of external actions so peculiarly appropriate to god , that they cannot without idolatry be attributed to any other . such as , st , sacrifice * * * * * * , by your own confession : † † † † † † to which i will , dly , add all those other things of the like kind which god appropriated to himself under the law ; as religious adoration , erection of temples and altars , burning of incense in token of divine worship , solemn invocation , and vows ; in all which neither our saviour nor his apostles having made the least alteration , we ought certainly ( as both the jews and primitive christians most undoubtedly did ) to esteem them still his own peculiar prerogative . having thus establish'd in general our notion of religious worship ; let us see if any of these distinctions will ( as you pretend ) excuse you of that imputation which has been laid upon you . answer to the third article , of the invocation of saints . in the beginning of this article i cannot but acknowledge a commendable endeavour in you to clear the true state of the question betwixt us : and tho i am not absolutely of your mind , nor do i see any cause for your supposal that mr. † † † † † † thorndyke spoke the sense of the church of england in every one of those particulars mention'd by you in order thereunto , yet i will not enter into any controversie with you about them . . and first , be it allow'd that the words prayer , invocation , calling upon , address , &c. are or may be equivocal ; i. e. ( as that learned man phrases it ) that we may make use of the same expressions in signifying our requests to god and to man ; tho yet for the two first of these , viz. prayer and invocation , they are seldom applied to any other than a religious sense . this t. g. long since observed , and you have now borrowed it from him ; and you may make what use of this remark you please in managing of this controversie . . we do not deny but that we ought to honour the saints departed , as well as holy men upon earth ; only we desire that that honour be such as becomes them to receive , and us to pay . we honour them when we praise , and much more when we follow their faith and patience . and because the reason and end of this honour is religious , you may without being contradicted by me call the honour it self religious too ; seeing you explain your self to mean no more by it , than an an external denomination from the cause and motive , but not from the nature of the act its self . . nor will i dispute with you , lastly , whether the saints in happiness do not in general pray for the church militant : for 't is to as little purpose to deny what cannot be disproved , as to affirm what one cannot prove . i have as great an honour as any man for mr. thorndyke's memory ; but yet i cannot see the proof even of this in those scriptures which ( as you say ) he proves it by . some fathers i know have said so ; but their saying it is not to me a sufficient proof of a point of doctrine . when all is done , the congruity of the thing is the best that can be brought for it . and if upon this account you are resolved to call them advocates or intercessors between god and us , you will i hope excuse me if i do not comply with you in it . that they are full of charity towards us who are members of the same body with them , i make not the least question : but how they express it i do not certainly know , because many particulars there are from whence such a matter is to be concluded , which are all hidden from my knowledge . one thing i know , that we have a mediator at the right hand of god , who knows all our wants , which i see no reason to believe the greatest saint in heaven does . i am likewise assured that his right to intercede for us is founded upon the sacrifice of his death . and since the gospel gives this honour and prerogative to him only , to appear in the presence of god for us , i shall never whilst i live help forward an ambiguity in those titles , of a mediator with god , or an advocate with the father , or an intercessor in heaven , by attributing of them to any saint whatsoever . these expressions so applied are dangerous , and scandalous ; and 't is but a frivolous pretence for the doing of it , that possibly the saints may do something for us in heaven , upon the account of which the titles of our redeemer may in some sense be given to them . . as for the state of the question which you next propose , you should know by this time that we are by no means agreed that the only thing in dispute betwixt us is , whether it be lawful for us to pray to the saints that they would pray for us ? and , whether such kind of addresses as these are of such a nature as to make gods ( for so you tell me i very disrespectfully call them ; tho i believe you will find 't is your misrepresenter's phrase , and not mine ) of men and women . you do indeed with your guides t. g. and the bishop of meaux tell us , that all the prayers of your church , be their words never so repugnant , must yet be reduced to this sense , pray for us : but you have often been told , that this is utterly disallow'd by us . however , to take off all occasion of cavil , as far as is possible , i will offer you the state of the question in such terms as you shall have no just cause to except against it ; viz. whether it be lawful to pray to the saints , after the manner that is at this day prescribed and practised in the church of rome ? and i will so far comply with you , as to consider it in both respects : . according to your own representation of it : . according to that which is indeed your practice , and fre●ly acknowledged by the greatest men of your church to be so . i. point . whether it be lawful to pray to the saints , to pray for us ? . this is the least that can possibly be made of this matter : and because i would bring the point to the fairest issue that may be , as i have proposed the question according to your own desire , so i will dispute it with you upon your own principles . . and first ; for what concerns the terms of the question , they are exactly taken from your own words : you tell us in your vindication , that all you say is , that it is lawful to pray to the saints ; and here in your reply , that the difference between us is whether it be lawful for us to pray to them ? in which yet you seem to fall a little below even the bishop of meaux himself , who tells us , that your church teaches that it is profitable at least to pray to them . but however such is our security according to both of you , that neither you nor he care to say it is our duty so to do , or that we run any danger in the neglect of it . whatever therefore be the issue of this dispute , it is wholly your concern to look to it ; thus much we are agreed in , that there is no sin in our omission . for where there is no law , there is no transgression . . but i will now presume to go farther : and since you dare not say that such an invocation is necessary , i will undertake to affirm , that neither is it profitable , nor indeed lawful , but utterly forbidden . and for proof of this , i shall lay down no other foundation than what you have your self establish'd ; viz. that religious honour or worship may be taken in a double sense : first , strictly , and so is due only to god : secondly , more largely , and so may be paid to creatures . and what you mean by these terms , you thus more fully express : that by religious honour in this latter sense , and as you apply it to the saints , you understand only an honour so called by an extrinsecal denomination from the cause and motive , but not from the nature of the act it self . that is such an honour as may be in it self civil , and is only called religious because it is done for god's sake , and in obedience to god's commands . but for a strict and proper religious worship , such as is in its own nature so , this you confess with us to be due to god only . from whence i conclude , that to give such a worship to any creature , must be to pay that service to the creature which is due only to the creator ; and that is , in our sense , to commit idolatry . . and now from this principle which you have your self laid down , and which you think will be alone sufficient to answer all objections brought against your doctrine ; i take leave to inferr , that if even such an invocation as you confess you pay to the saints , be strictly a religious honour , in the very nature of the act it self , and not barely by an extrinsecal denomination from the cause and motive of it ; it will then remain that you are guilty in this service of giving that worship to the saints which is due only to god , and are by consequence therein guilty of idolatry and this i shall shew , i. from the very nature of the act it self . ii. from the circumstances of it . i. that the very nature of the act it self of invocating the saints , does shew , that it is strictly and properly a religious worship . . this is what i know monsieur de meaux denies : he tells us , that when you pray to the saints , you do it in the same spirit of charity , and according to the same order of brotherly society , which moves us to demand assistance of our brethren living upon earth . thus he smooths your invocation of saints departed , to make it lie even with our desires of one anothers prayers . but did he in good earnest believe , that nothing but a spirit of charity , and the order of brotherly society , is to be discerned in the act of calling upon departed saints to pray for us ? we have indeed that charity for them , as to believe , that they have charity for us : and though they are highly advanced above us , we yet take them to be our brethren . but is this all that is implied in the act of calling upon them to pray for us ? for my part , i cannot but believe , that monsieur de meaux himself was sensible of a vast difference in the case , as appears by his endeavouring to blind it afterwards . and i shall now offer some reasons , that may perhaps convince others , as they have fully satisfied my self about it . . for . if the nature of that act of invoking the saints in heaven , be the same with that of desiring my christian brother to pray for me upon earth , then on the other hand this is also of the same nature with that . and by consequence , i may as well fall down upon my knees here in london , and desire my christian brother , who is now , it may be , in japan , or somewhere in the east indies , or perhaps on his return homewards , to pray for me , as do the like to s. peter or s. paul , who , for any thing i can tell , are at a vastly greater distance from me , than my friend upon earth is . but if there be something more than a spirit of charity , or an acknowledgment of brotherhood , in calling upon my living friend , who is out of all natural distance of hearing , there is also something more than this in calling upon the dead , who it may be are a thousand times farther from me , than the living can be from one another . would not such an invocation of my friend , think you , suppose him to be more than a brother , or a man ? would not the nature of the act ascribe to him not only the praise of charity , but likewise the power of hearing and knowing all that is said upon earth , at any distance whatsoever ? i grant , that if this were indeed no more than according to the order of fraternal society ; neither would it be any more than so for you to call upon the saints deceased to pray for you . but if the former would be more , when you have said all that you can , the latter must necessarily be so too : and you do thereby elevate the saints above the condition of creatures . for whether you believe them to be omnipresent or not , the very act of invoking them indifferently in any place , and their being called upon in several places at the same time , does imply their omnipresence , unless you could give us some other ground of certainty , that they hear you , besides this , that wherever they are when they are spoken to , and wherever you are when you speak to them , 't is all one , they do as surely know what you say , as if they stood within the common distance of hearing . now that action , which in the very nature of it ascribes an immensity of presence to the object , about which it is conversant , is religious in the very nature of the act. and then i leave it to you to determine whether it be idolatrous or not , if it be paid to any thing that is not god. but , . secondly , if you are not yet satisfied , i would desire to know , whether prayer to god , which you will not deny to be in its own nature a religious act , be not so upon this account as well as others , that 't is an acknowledgment of his immense presence . but how is it such an acknowledgment , otherwise than as we do in all places , and at all times call upon him . since therefore you do in all places , and at all times call upon the saints as well as upon god , i pray tell us why this invocation should not also be in its own nature religious worship . if you allow this , then you have already pass'd sentence upon your self : if you do not , i should be glad you would find a little leisure to shew us the difference . this is an argument that has been often enough urged to be taken notice of ; and if you shall still go on to say nothing to it , we shall conclude the reason to be , that indeed you have nothing to object against it . . and what i have now said of this invocation , upon the account of the distance of the saints from us , that they are now out of the compass of all civil commerce ; and therefore to pray to them must be properly a religious worship , will be yet further confirm'd , thirdly , by another of your practises ; in that your church allows not only vocal , but even mental prayer to be made to them . now this can be no act of civil honour , seeing no creature , such as man ( the object of all civil honour ) is , can be capable of searching the heart , so as to find out the secrets of it . for god , even god only knows the secrets of all the children of men. and therefore to pray in our minds to the saints , to offer up the secret aspirations of our souls , in honour to any creature , this must be an act of religious worship , and such therefore as by your own acknowledgment is due to god only . . now that you could not be ignorant of these things , and by consequence are the more inexcusable in this your worship , appears from what monsieur de meaux has told us ; viz. that by addressing prayers to the saints , and honouring them all the world over as present , you do not attribute to them a certain kind of immensity , nor the knowledge of the secrets of the heart , which god has reserved to himself ; seeing it is manifest , that to say a creature may have the knowledge of these things by a light communicated to him by god , is not to elevate a creature above his condition . thus he gives that to the saints in the close , which he deny'd in the beginning . they have not a kind of immensity , nor do they know the secrets of our hearts ; no , by no means , for that is necessary to be said to save your selves from giving divine honour to the saints : but for all that they have the knowledge of these things by a light communicated to them by god ; and this is also necessary to be said , to save your invocation of them from being a foolish and absurd devotion . and for the same reason he supposed before , that some grounds , which he would not examine , might be had to attribute to the saints some certain degree of knowledge as to those things that are acted amongst us , as also of our secret thoughts . thus he doubles , and treads with fear , like a man that has lost his way in a dark night , and is afraid of a ditch every step he takes . to say that the saints know all our wants and desires , and the secrets of our hearts , is to give them a certain kind of immensity which he dares not say they have ; and therefore those words are slipt in , that some grounds may be had to attribute to them a certain degree of knowledge , as to these things . now a certain degree of knowledge , seems not to be a certain kind of immensity ; and so you are for a while safe on that side . well , but a certain degree of knowledge as to these things , will not serve to make all the prayers of all men , at any time , and in any place , to this or that saint , wise and profitable prayers . for a certain degree is but a degree ; and to answer all that is , or that you would have to be done in this kind , nothing will serve but a certain kind of immensity . and therefore on the other hand , a creature may have the knowledge of these things , i. e. of all these things . so that now the prayers are profitable again ; but then what shall we do to keep off immensity from being attributed to the creature ? he has a trick for that , and it is this ; viz. that this kind of immensity or knowledge of all prayers that are or can be any where offer'd to them , is communicated to them by god , and as long as god has made them thus immense , we may do so too . . and thus he represents the saints as dii facti , made gods , and that by the almighty himself ; which being done with respect to omnipresence , may , whenever a wretched cause requires it , be done as well with respect to omnipotence , and all the other divine perfections ; and in one word leads to such consequences , as cannot but stir up the indignation of all good men. nothing should be maintain'd in the minds of christian people with more care than the distinct notion they ought to have of god and his creatures . but your doctrine and practice in this kind does so confound these apprehensions of the one and the other , that they cannot tell what prerogative , as to the matter of hearing prayers , god has above his saints ; since they hear all , as well as he. prayer to god every where is that which principally supports in the minds of men the apprehension of his being every where present : and tho much of it is due to the natural impressions which god has left of himself in our souls , yet the reflexions we make upon it , are chiefly owing to the frequent addresses we make every where , publickly and privately , to the invisible being , the lord of all , of whom we have some knowledge by nature , and more by christian instruction . but when prayer is made to other invisible beings as generally as to god , how can it be otherwise , but that the people should conceive them to be as omnipresent as god himself is ? especially if it be considered , that when their educated and philosophical men , come to vindicate their practice and doctrine from this imputation , they cannot so much as speak sense about it , but with all their art , talk more meanly and confusedly than meer nature would instruct an honest man to do . the difference between the people and the blind guides on the one side , and between the seers on the other , being only this , that the worship , and the notions of the former go together , and are of a piece ; but the latter , with as bad a worship , have better notions ; and give that honour to the saints by their practice , which their notions ( as they would have us think at least ) deny to them . but for that reason they are the more to blame ; and tho their idolatry be not so gross as the peoples , yet it is more inexcusable . . and yet if we may judge of their thoughts by their words , some of the refined controvertists do not come much behind the common people in this stupidity . if they think otherwise than they say , they are to answer to god for that too . cardinal bellarmine , and others , who had none of these expounding designs to carry on , speak out freely , and tell us , that the saints are dii per participationem , god's by participation ; and upon that account he justifies the practice of the church of rome , in swearing by them , and making vows to them . nor indeed do i see how that differs very much from monsieur de meaux's giving them the knowledge which the hearing of all prayers requires , as by a light communicated to them by god. for what is that but to say , that god has ( in effect ) made them partakers of his immensity ? nay , the representer ( if we may conclude any thing from his arguing ) seems plainly to yeild , that the saints have a natural knowledge of our prayers : for ( says he ) abraham heard the petition of dives , who was yet at a greater distance from him ( than the saints are from us ) , even in hell : and told him likewise the manner of his living whilst as yet on earth . nay , since 't is generally allow'd , that the very devils hear those desperate wretches who call on them , why should we doubt that the saints want this priviledge ? . no wonder therefore if bellarmine makes a greater difference between the prayers to the saints , and our desires of good mens prayers upon earth , than monsieur de meaux seems willing to acknowledge ; and looks upon it to be a worship due to them , thus ( in the words of your synod of trent ) suppliantly to call upon them : for what can be more reasonable than to esteem that prayer , the invocation of suppliants , and the worship of invocation , which is made with such deference of respect from the very nature of the act , as is due to god the only omnipresent being ? and what more unreasonable and foolish , than to call our desires of each others prayers by such titles as these ? and hitherto have i shewn , that in the very act of praying to the saints , without any regard had to the form or substance of your petitions , or the circumstances with which you call upon them , you give proper , religious worship to them , which you acknowledge it is unlawful for you to do . i proceed , secondly , to shew this yet more plainly , ii. from the circumstances of it . . and here to avoid , if it be possible , all your little cavils so usual upon this occasion , as in speaking to the former part of this argument , i have managed it so as not to concern my self with any of your distinctions of supreme and inferiour religious worship ; so here i will not insist on those exteriour actions of the body , which you tell me are equivocal , and of which monsieur de meaux roundly affirms , that the nature of that exteriour honour which you render to the saints , must be judged from the internal sentiments of the mind . the circumstances i shall now insist upon are such , as are not liable to any of these evasions ; but will , if not silence a contentious spirit , yet i am confident , satisfie any unprejudiced christian , that the prayers which you make to the saints are properly a religious act , and not only called so by an external denomination from the cause and motive of them . . for . what else can be gathered from those outward circumstances , of the place , time and manner ( to say nothing of the gestures of the body ) with which you call upon them ? do not all these speak plainly to us what the nature of this worship is ? you pray ( for instance ) to the saints in the house of god , it may be , in a temple which you have consecrated at once to the service of god , and to the honour of the saint whom you invoke . you accompany these prayers with incense smoking before their images ; a circumstance which was once reckon'd as a peculiar instance of external religious adoration ; and which was therefore thought so appropriate an act of divine worship among the primitive christians , that they chose to die rather than to throw a little incense into the fire upon the heathen altars . you call at the same instant upon the one and upon the other , and too often place them in an equal rank with one another . thus , if you confess your sins , you do it to god almighty , to the b. virgin , to st. michael the archangel , to s. john baptist , to the holy apostles s. peter and s. paul , and in short , to all the saints : if you commend a departing soul , you bid him go out in the name of god the father almighty , who created him ; and of jesus christ , son of the living god , who suffer'd for him ; and in the name of the holy ghost , who was poured out upon him ; in the name of angels and archangels , of apostles , evangelists , &c. if you conjure a tempest , you call upon god and the holy angels ; you adjure the evil spirit , you contradict him , by the vertue of our lord jesus christ , and the blessed virgin mary . in the offices of the church , your addresses to god , and the blessed virgin , are so inter-woven with each other , that there is no alteration but only in the manner of the expression , and very often not in that neither : as when you pray ( for instance ) that the virgin mary and her son would bless you . in the doxologies of your greatest men at the end of their works , nothing more frequent than to see glory and praise return'd to god and the blessed virgin ; and in your ordinary conversation no exclamation more frequent than that of jesu-maria . even your solemn excommunications and absolutions are made in the name and authority of the holy trinity , the blessed virgin , and all the saints ; and the passion of christ joyn'd in equal rank with the merits of the virgin mary for the remission of their sins . by all which it undoubtedly appears , that either your invocation of god himself is not properly a religious ●…t ; or if that be strictly a religious worship , the other will be so also . . secondly , another circumstance which plainly shews your invocation of saints to be in the very nature of the act a religious service , is , that you offer not only your prayers , but your very sacrifice too to their honour and veneration : and this i am sure you will not deny to be truly a religious act. thus in the missal of salisbury . accept , o holy trinity , this oblation , which i , unworthy sinner , offer in honour of thee , and of the blessed virgin mary , and of all saints . and in the common roman missal , accept , o holy trinity , this oblation which we offer to thee in memory of the passion . resurrection , and ascension of our lord jesus christ , and in honour of the ever blessed virgin mary , and of the blessed john the baptist ; and of the holy apostles peter and paul. and in the post-communio of the mass of the b. virgin. having received , o lord , the defence of our salvation , grant , we beseech thee , that we may every where be defended by the patronage of the blessed virgin , for whose veneration we have offer'd this to thy majesty . now , not to enter on an enquiry , how far these expressions will in some measure apply the very sacrifice it self to those saints ; it being hardly intelligible otherwise what honour can be done to the saints , by a sacrifice offer'd solely to god ; it cannot be doubted , but that this being confessedly a proper religious act , whatever honour is hereby done the saints , must be strictly and properly a religious honour ; not meerly in denomination , but in the very nature of the thing it self . and i desire monsieur de meaux to tell us , whether this too be done with the same spirit of charity , and in the same order of brotherly society with which we intreat our brethren upon earth to pray for us . and what would be thought of him , that out of kindness or respect to his fellow christian , should offer up the son of god for his honour , or ( as the last prayer has it ) in his veneration . i do not pretend that this is properly an act of prayer to saints ; and therefore i propose it only as a circumstance from whence to conclude what the true nature of your invocation of them is . for if it appear , that the other parts of that worship you pay to the saints , are properly religious acts , it will not be doubted but that your praying to them is certainly so too . and tho you have restrain'd the terms of our question to this one particular instance , of calling upon them , yet it suffices me in general to conclude against you , that you do give proper religious honour to others besides god , if it appear , that any part of that worship you pay to the saints is such . . nor is it by any means to be forgot here , that in almost every one of these masses you desire to be accepted by the merits of that saint in whose honour or veneration the mass it self is offer'd . i will give you an instance or two of this . regard , we most humbly beseech thee , o lord , these things which we offer to thee : and by the merits of thy blessed bishop julian , deliver us from all sin . let the merits of s. bathildis obtain , that these gifts may be accepted by thee . we load thy table , o lord , with mystical gifts , in commemoration of s. agatha thy virgin and martyr ; humbly beseeching thy majesty , that by the help of her merits we may be freed from all contagions . thus ( as i have heretofore observed ) do you joyn the merits of christ , whom you suppose to be the offering , with the merits of your saints ; and make a bathildis or a julian , joynt intercessors with the son of god for your forgiveness . what is this but truly to ascribe to the creature the honour of the creator , and to worship them with a religious worship , in the utmost propriety of the expression ? . i shall add but one circumstance more , and that of another sort of service with which you sometimes accompany your prayers to the saints , and which i think will undeniably convince you , that you do give them the most strict acts of religious service ; and that is , your making of vows to them . that this is a proper act of religion , both the holy scripture evidently shews , and the reason of the thing it self declares ; a vow being in its own nature nothing else than a promise made to god ; and such by which he is acknowledged to be the searcher of the heart , and the just avenger of all perfidious promisers , as he is the bountiful rewarder of those who are faithful in his service . and your own authors unanimously acknowledge it to be an act , not only of proper , but of supreme religious worship . . and yet even this too is paid by you to the saints : and i desire you to consider what you then did , when at the entry into your order ( if you herein , as i suppose , agree with the manner of your brethren the dominicans ) , you solemnly vow'd to god , to the b. virgin , to s. benedict , and to all the saints , that you would be obedient to your superiors . now this i the rather remark , because the answer that is made by your writers , to justifie this practice , plainly condemns you ( not only in this point , but in that of your prayers too ) upon your own principle , as idolaters . they acknowledge the act to be properly religious ; that these vows are made after the very same manner to god and the saints . and card. cajetane anticipating this objection , that to vow is an act of supreme religious worship ; and how then may it be given to the saints ? answers , that it is an act of the same kind to vow and to pray ; but ( says he ) we pray to the saints in order to god , and therefore in the same manner we vow to them too . and the main excuse which he makes for both , is the utter ruine of yours and monsieur de meaux's pretences , viz. that the saints are gods by participation . a remark which card. bellarmine thought so considerable , that he from thence distinguishes between the promises that are made to men on earth , and to the saints in heaven ; so that the former are only promises , the latter are vows ; because a vow does not agree otherwise to the saints , than as they are gods by participation . . the consequence of all is this plain conclusion , that if a vow be strictly and properly an act of religious worship , and not only call'd so by an extrinsecal denomination from the cause and motive of it ; and prayer ( as card. cajetane says ) be an act of the same kind with it ; then are they both acts , by your own acknowledgment , due only to god : and therefore it must be a sin to give them to any other ; and being a sin in a matter of religious worship , whereby that honour is given to the creature which is due only to god , it remains , according to our notion , that it must be idolatry . . and thus have i hitherto argued against that worship you pay to the saints , upon your own principle , and according to your own proposal : i shall only add , to close this first point , that whether these arguments shall be thought of force sufficient to convict you of what i am persuaded you are guilty in this service , it is your concern alone to weight . if they are , i need not say any thing to exaggerate your offence which you commit in this matter : if they are not , yet whilst we are neither defective in our veneration towards those blessed souls , but pay them all that honour ( as i have before shewn ) of which they are now capable ; whilst we transgress no command of god in our omission of these superstitions ; nor fail continually to address our selves to the throne of grace , through our great and only mediator jesus christ ; we are not only sure of his intercession , who we know is able both to hear and help us ; but also in a most likely way of obtaining the charitable assistances of those holy souls too , who , if they have any knowledge of us , or concern for what passes here below , will doubtless need no sollicitation to be kind to us ; but without our intreaty offer up their prayers to god , for all those who thus serve him in sincerity and truth . . but i must now go much farther , and bring my charge more closely against you , by shewing , secondly , ii. point . what the true doctrine and practice of the church of rome is , as to the point of invocation of saints ? now the sum of this point may i think best be reduced to these four considerations , by which you endeavour in your reply to justifie your selves in this particular . for , i. as to the prayers themselves , you cannot deny but that in the natural sense of them they do imply a proper and formal invocation of the saints to whom you address : but then you tell us , that the churches sense is much otherwise ; and therefore that whatever their words may seem to imply , yet the intention of them all is one and the same , viz. pray for us . ii. that as to what we object concerning the merits of the saints , your concluding of all your prayers in this form , through jesus christ our lord , plainly shews , that you mean no more by it than this , that god would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious actions and sufferings of his saints , performed in and by his grace , and upon those accounts accept your sacrifices , or hear your prayers . iii. that for those addresses you have the warrant both of scripture and antiquity . whereas , iv. we have neither against them : those pretensions i offer'd in my defence being either false or deceitful ; or at least not conclusive enough to engage you to lay aside a practice which has been so many hundred years in the church , and that by our own confession . this is the sum of what is said on this occasion , not only by your self , but by the generality of your party : and to this i shall answer with all the plainness and candour that i am able . sect . i. whether all the prayers that are made to the saints by those of the church of rome , are fairly to be reduced to this one sense , pray for us ? . for thus it is that you expound your selves . that in what terms soever those prayers which you address to the saints are couch'd , the intention of your church reduces them always to this form , pray for us . you charge me with voluntary fixing the words of your addresses , which are equivocal , to a univocal sense ; and that had i either as became a christian or a scholar taken notice of this direction laid down by the bishop of condom , both in his book , and in his advertisement , i should have saved my self the labour of amassing such an appendix as i have made to this article , and the reader the trouble of perusing it to as little purpose . since tho your church does indeed make her addresses to the saints for protection and power against your enemies ; for help and assistance , and the like ; yet it does appear manifestly to any one who is not wilful in his mistakes , that all these are reduced to an ora pro nobis ; it being a kind of aid , succour , and protection , to recommend the miserable to him who alone can succour them . . answer . ] such then are your pretences . to your reflections i have spoken already ; i come now to examine your reasons : and to convince others , if not you , that i was not wilful in my mistakes as to the meaning of your prayers , but that you are a sort of miserable shufflers , in your pretended expositions of them . for tell me now , i beseech you , by what authority is it that your new guides * * * * * * t. g. and the bishop of meaux undertake thus to detort the plain expressions of your addresses to a signification utterly repugnant to the natural meaning of them ? have any of your general approved councils positively defined this to be all your design in them ? and if they have not , are you not , according to your own language , in your accusing of me on this occasion , a falsifier , a calumniator , and a misrepresenter too ? does the council of trent , where it decrees this service is to be paid to them , say that this shall be the universal , ecclesiastical sense of these devotions ? nay , does but so much as one single rubrick in all your offices give us the least intimation of it ? . it is , i know , pretended by monsieur de meaux , that your catechism authorizes this exposition of them ; where it teaches the difference there is between your praying to god and to the saints . for that you pray to god either that he would give you good things , or that he would deliver you from evil , but to the saints , that they would undertake your patronage , and obtain for you those things you stand in need of . that from hence arises two different forms of prayer ; for that to god you say properly have mercy upon us , or hear our prayers ; but to the saints , pray for us . . such are that bishops pretences , and it must be confessed they have something that is plausible in them ; tho what will soon vanish when it comes to be examined to the bottom . for be it allow'd , as he desires , that there are here proposed two different forms of prayer ; for indeed we do not deny but that in general you may pray with other sentiments to god , than to the saints ; tho too often in your prayers themselves we find no great care taken to distinguish them : to god , as to the first and supreme dispenser of all good ; to the saints only as his ministers , and inferiour distributers of it . but does this therefore reduce all the prayers you make to the saints , in whatever terms they are conceived , to this one form , pray for us ? judge , i beseech you , by those words which immediately follow in the catechism , but were not for the turn of an expounder , and therefore his lordship thought good to omit them : altho it be lawful , in another manner , to ask of the saints themselves that they would have mercy upon us , for they are very merciful . . if this be another manner from the foregoing then i am sure all the prayers of your church are not to be reduced to that one form , pray for us . but what is this other manner ? we may pray ( says the catechism ) that being moved at the misery of our condition , they would help us with their favour and deprecation with god. so that here then is somewhat more , at least in the opinion of your own catechism , than a meer praying for us ; here is encouragement to ask not only their prayers , but also their favour and interest too . but indeed the catechism goes yet farther : for giving a reason why angels are to be invocated , they are ( says the catechism ) to be prayed to , because they both continually look upon god , and most willingly undertake the patronage of our salvation which is committed to them : and from thence in the next section it infers the like necessity of honouring the saints . . this is plain dealing , and gives us an authentick exposition of that passage in the council of trent , whose sense you no less pervert than that of your liturgies ; viz. that for obtaining the benefits of god by his son jesus christ , you should betake your selves to their ( the saints ) prayers , aid , and assistance : and to this end , that you should not barely invoke them , but invoke them in a suppliant manner ; as those who reign now with christ. a circumstance this which was not put in by chance , but was thought so considerable as to be mention'd in pope pius's profession of faith , where nothing superfluous was to be admitted ; and where you declare , that you firmly believe that the saints who reign together with christ , are to be venerated and invoked . insomuch that ( as i have before observed ) your great cardinals , cajetane and bellarmine , doubt not to call them gods by participation ; and to deliver it as the catholick doctrine ( and we know how conformable the catholick practice is to it amongst you ) that the saints are set over us , and take care of us , and that the faithful here on earth are ruled and govern'd by them . by all which it appears with what sincerity you pretend that all your church teaches is only to pray to to the saints in the same spirit of charity , and according to the same order of fraternal society , with which you demand the assistance of your brethren living upon earth . and how false it is , that you are taught to reduce all the forms of your addresses to this one meaning , pray for us ; seeing you both direct the faithful to recur to them for their prayers , aid , and assistance ; and suppose them capable as reigning together with christ , and gods by participation , but especially as having the care of the faithful committed to them , to rule and govern them , to lend you other help and assistance besides that of their prayers , and ( as i shall presently shew ) pray to them accordingly so to do . . but secondly , we will examine this point a little further ; for indeed the whole mystery of this service in the church of rome depends upon a right understanding of what notion they have of the saints above . and because i will do this without any suspicion of falsity , i will deliver nothing but from card. bellarmine's own words . in his book of the eternal felicity of the saints , among other reasons that he gives why the place and state of the blessed should be called the kingdom of heaven , he has this for one , because all the blessed in heaven are kings , and all the qualities of kings do most properly agree to them . the just ( says he ) in the kingdom of their father , shall be themselves kings of the kingdom of heaven ; for they shall be partakers of his kingly dignity , and of the power , and riches , and other goods that are in the kingdom of heaven . which is , i suppose , a plain paraphrase of what he elsewhere says , that they are gods by participation , or partakers of the dignity and power of god. . having thus established his foundation , he now goes on to the practical demonstration of it . the goods ( says he ) of an earthly kingdom are usually reckon'd to be these four , power , honour , riches , and pleasure . an earthly king has power to command his subjects ; if they do not obey him , he can punish them with bonds , imprisonment , exile , scourging , death . again ; kings will be honour'd with an honour almost above the nature of men ; for they will be adored upon the knee ; nor will they vouchsafe oftentimes to hear those that speak to them , unless in this bended posture , and with their face down to the ground . but yet ( as he afterwards shews ) this power is mix'd with infirmity ; this honour oftentimes changed into disgrace . but with the saints above it is much otherwise : for their power is exceeding great , and without any mixture of infirmity . this he illustrates with a story , which at once shews what their power is with reference to us , and how they are pray'd to in the church of rome upon presumption of it . st. gregory ( says he ) relates in his book of dialogues , that a certain holy man , being just ready to be slain by the hangman , whose arm was stretch'd out , and sword drawn for that purpose , cry'd out in that instant , saint john hold him ; and immediately his hand wither'd , that he could neither put it down again , nor so much as move it . s. john therefore ( continues the cardinal ) from the highest heaven heard the voice of his client , and struck his executioner with this infirmity so suddenly , as to hinder the stroke already begun . this is the power of those heavenly kings , that neither the almost infinite distance of place , nor the solitariness of a poor and unarm'd righteous man , nor the multitude of armed enemies , could prevent s. john from delivering his suppliant from the danger of death . . i shall not need to transcribe what he in the next place adds concerning the worship that upon this and other accounts is paid to the saints , beyond that of any earthly monarch . but from what has been said , i conclude , that it is the opinion of those in the church of rome , that ( as the council of trent expresses it ) the saints reign together with christ ; and , are gods by participation ; that is , are made partakers of the dignity and power of god. . that therefore whatever intercourse the faithful upon earth may have with them , it must be vastly different from what they have with their brethren here below , who are neither admitted to such a dignity , nor partakers of this power . . that since the saints are thus kings in heaven , when those of the roman church address to them in a suppliant manner , as their clients , for help and assistance , they do not do this in the same spirit of charity , nor after the same order of fraternal society with which they would desire the prayers of their fellow-christians yet living . and , . that seeing the bless'd in heaven have power together with god of taking care of us , and bestowing blessings upon us ; there is neither truth nor reason in that vain pretence , that all the prayers that are made to them , must be reduced to this one form , pray for us ; but that we ought indeed to understand them to desire of the saints , what both their principles allow them to do , and their words declare that they do desire ; viz. their help and assistance , as reigning together with christ. . but , thirdly , i have yet more to say in answer to this evasion . it is well known how much those prayers you make to the saints , scandalized many of the most eminent men of your church . wicelius doubted not to say of one of your hymns , that it was full of downright blasphemy , and horrible superstition ; of others , that they were wholly inexcusable . ludovicus vives profess'd , that he found little difference in the peoples opinion of their saints , in many things , from what the heathens had of their gods : and that numbers in your church worshipp'd them no otherwise than god. now this the council of trent could not but know , and it then lay before them to redress it . if therefore those fathers had thought , that there was no other form of invocation allowable to the saints , than ( as you now pretend ) to pray to them to pray for us , is it to be imagined , that at such a juncture as this they would have taken no care about a thing so justly scandalous , not only to the protestants , whom they desired to reduce , but even to many of their own communion ? how easie had it been for them to say , that to satisfie the complaints of these learned men , and of their enemies ; and to prevent any mistakes of the like kind for the future , it seem'd good to the holy ghost and to them to declare , that in what terms soever the prayers of their church were conceived , yet that the ecclesiastical sense of them was in all one and the same , viz. pray for us . but now instead of such a declaration , and which such wise men in this case would never have omitted , they regard no complaints that were made against this service ; but roundly decree an invocation to be due to them , and establish it upon the old foundation before-mention'd , and which had given rise to all these excesses , viz. that the saints reign together with christ ; and were therefore in a supliant manner to be call'd upon ; and that for the obtaining benefits of god , they were to fly , not only to their prayers , but also to their help and assistance : and when according to their order for reciting the missals and breviaries , they were again set out , the one four , the other six years after the council was ended : the hymns and prayers were left still as we see , and not so much as the least note in a rubrick , for a right exposition of them . . nay , i will go yet farther : there was not only no care taken then , but at this day men are suffer'd to run , without censure , into the same excesses . we know to what extravagance card. bona , father crasset , and but the other day doctor j. c. our own countryman , have gone ; and no one of your church censures them for it . cassander immediately after the council , no less complain'd of these things than vives and wicelius before ; and that too was disregarded . on the contrary , whilst the extravagances of these votaries are encouraged , the moderation of the others is censured by the highest authority of your church . the psalter of s. bonaventure goes abroad with permission , but the comments of lud. vives are put in the expurgatory index , and george cassander's works absolutely prohibited . if advices are given from the blessed virgin to her indiscreet worshippers , all the servants of the b. virgin run to arms to encounter him : the learned of all nations write against him , the holy see condemns him , spain banishes him out of all its dominions , and forbids to read or print his book , as impious and erroneous . but if a crasset in his zeal for the mother of god , runs into such blasphemous excesses as no pious ears can hear , without indignation ; if he rake together all that the folly and superstition of former ages has said or done the most excessively on this subject , to make up a volumn scandalous to that church and society that endures him ; not only the divines of his order approve it , but his provincial licenses it to be printed ; the king's permission is obtain'd for 〈◊〉 ; and the expounders themselves are so very good natur'd , that they cannot see any harm in it . and then let the world judge what your true doctrine , as to the invocation of saints , must be . for , . fourthly , had the council of trent been of the same opinion with monsieur de meaux , i shall leave it to any reasonable man , that will but be at the pains to examine your offices , to say , whether there was not great need of some such advertisement as i before said . as for example : in the office of the blessed virgin you thus address to her : we fly to your protection , o holy mother of god ; despise not our prayers which we make to you in our necessities ; but deliver us from all dangers , o glorious and ever blessed virgin . — and again , vouchsafe that i may be worthy to praise thee , o sacred virgin : give me strength and power against thine enemies . now that these prayers are conceived in as formal terms as any can be to god himself , is not to be deny'd : i desire you therefore to tell me by what rules of interpretation , by what publick and authentick decree of your church , we are to expound a prayer made to the blessed virgin , that she would give strength and power , into a desire that she would pray to god that he would do this ? . but however , let us for one moment suppose this to be reasonable , and try whither such a method of interpreting will carry us . for instance , thus you * * * * * * pray to the apostles . o ye just judges and true lights of the world , we pray unto you with the requests of our hearts , that ye would hear the prayers of your suppliants . that is to say , we do desire you in a friendly way , and only after the order of brotherly society , though in complement we call our selves indeed your suppliants , and intreat you to hear our prayers , that you would pray for us . ye that by your word shut and open heaven , deliver us , we beseech you by your command from all our sins . that is , you who by your prayers to god are able to incline him either to shut or open h●aven , we intreat you , that by your command , meaning only your prayers , you would deliver us ; that is to say , would pray to god , that he would deliver us — , from all our sins . you to whose command the health and sickness of all men are submitted , heal us who are sick in cur manners , and restore us to vertue . that is to say , o ye holy apostles , to whose command , as far as prayers may be so called , the health and sickness of all is subjected ; forasmuch as your requests can prevail with god to submit it to you : heal us , i. e. pray to god that he would heal us , who are sick in our manners ; and restore us ; that is to say , intreat god , that he would restore us to vertue . . such , according to your principles , is the paraphrase of this prayer . if this be a natural way of expounding , then be also your pretences allow'd of : but if to pray in such words as these , meaning no more than what i have express'd , be a downright mocking both of god and his saints , then let the world judge what we are to think of your interpretations . . but however , for once let us allow even this too : what shall we do with those prayers where god and the saints are both join'd together in the same request . as for instance , let mary and her son bless us . here , i doubt , it will be something difficult to reduce them to what you call the churches sense , pray for us , unless you pray to god too as well as to the saints , to pray ( to whom i cannot imagine ) for you . . i shall add but one consideration more , from your service of the saints , to overthrow your new expositions ; but that such as i shall be very glad to receive an honest answer to . for be it that in defiance of all sense and reason , your prayers to the saints , in what terms soever they be conceived , must all be interpreted , as you pretend . yet what shall we do in those cases where the very nature of the service utterly refuses such kind of colours ? as , i. when in your vows , you vow'd ( as i before observed ) , to god , and the blessed virgin , and to st. benedict , and to all the saints , that you would be obedient to your superiours . ii. when in your doxologies , you give glory to god , and the b. virgin mary , and last of all to jesus christ. so greg. de valencia . praise be to god , and the virgin mother mary , also to god jesus christ , the eternal son of the eternal father , be praise and glory . so card. bellarmine closes this very dispute of the worship of saints . honour and glory be to god , and to the most holy virgin mary , and to all the saints . so your collector of the lives of the saints . vers. open my lips , o mother of jesus . resp. and my soul shall speak forth thy praise . vers. divine lady , be intent to my aid . resp. graciously make haste to help me . vers. glory be to jesus and mary . resp. as it was , is , and ever shall be . so dr. j. c. now what you will think of all this i cannot tell , but sure i am s. athanasius pronounces it to be downright idolatry , and what no good christian would ever be guilty of . iii. when in your commendation of a departing soul , you bid him , depart out of the world , in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost ; of angels and archangels , of patriarchs , prophets , apostles , and of all saints , as i have before at large recited it . iv. when in the confession of your sins , you confess , to god almighty , and the blessed virgin mary , to s. michael , the archangel , to s. john baptist , to the holy apostles peter and paul , and to all the saints . v. when in absolving your penitents from them , you join , the passion of our lord jesus christ , and the merits of the blessed virgin , and of all the saints ; together , for the remission of all his sins . vi. when in your conjurings against storms , you contradict the evil spirit by the vertue of our lord jesus christ , and of the blessed virgin. vii . when in your excommunications , you shut men out of the church , in the authority of god almighty , the father , son , and holy ghost , and of the blessed apostles , peter and paul , and of all the saints . viii . when in absolving them from this sentence , you remit this bond , in the same authority of god almighty , and of the blessed apostles , peter and paul. lastly , when in consecrating of a church or altar , you bid this stone be sancti ✚ fied , and conse ✚ crated , in the name of the fa ✚ ther , and of the s ✚ on , and of the holy ✚ ghost ; and of the glorious virgin mary , and of all the saints . and again , let this church be sanc ✚ tified , and con ✚ secrated , in the name of fa ✚ ther , and of the s ✚ on , and of the holy ✚ ghost ; to the honour of god , and of the glorious virgin mary , and of all the saints . now in all these several instances , there is no room for any such interpretation as you pretend in the case of your prayers ; but here either your hearts join in what your lips utter , and then it is plain you give as proper divine worship to the saints as you do to god , which you confess to be unlawful : or if they do not , what is this but to speak words of vanity in your most solemn service , and in which you ought especially to take heed not to offend ? . thus do the very words of your liturgies utterly refuse such an exposition as you pretend to be your only meaning in all your prayers to the saints . i will add yet one consideration more , to shew the insincerity of it , fifthly , from the concurrent practice of the most eminent persons of your church , and whose authority you cannot with any justice except against . . now of this the famous psalter of s. bonaventure , may alone serve for a sufficient evidence ; which as it has been publickly set forth , and authorized amongst you , so i need not tell you , that the design of it was to apply all the addresses that are made to god in the psalms and hymns of the church ; nay , and even the very creeds to the blessed virgin. come unto mary all ye that labour and are heavy laden , and she shall refresh your souls . come unto her in your temptations , and the serenity of her countenance shall establish you . when i called upon thee thou heardest me , o lady , and from thy high throne didst vouchsafe to remember me . blessed art thou , o lady , for ever , and let thy majesty be exalted for evermore . o lady , in thee do i put my trust , deliver my soul from mine enemies . o give thanks unto the lord , for he is good : o give thanks unto his mother , for her mercy endureth for ever . . i might pass at this rate through all the other psalms , and to these add the te deum , benedicite , athanasian creed , &c. all burlesqued to he● honour : but there has been so many large collections of these already publish'd , that i shall subjoin only one prayer at the close of all . o my holy lady mary ! i commend to thy blessed trust and especial custody , and into the bosom of thy mercy , this day and every day , and in the hour of my death , both my soul and body : i commit all my hope and consolation , all my troubles and my miseries , my life and the end of my life , to thee ; that by thy most holy intercession and merits all my works may be directed and disposed , according to thine and thy sons will. amen . . i will not now insist upon this , that this book has been often printed among you with licence and commendation , and particularly my editions of it ; the one italian and latin , printed at genoa , . with the licence of the superiors , and submitted by the translator giovan battista pinello to the censure of the church ; the other at leige in the same year , by le sage : but this last had the honour of being particularly commended by the vicar of that church , and censor of books , as a piece that was profitable to be printed , and very piously and commendably to be recited by all men in their private prayers , to the honour of the b. virgin. the author of it is at this time a canonized saint in your church , and is now in his turn worshipped by you . if therefore you approve these addresses ( as i presume you must ) be pleased to try , ( 't will be a pretty expounding task ) how you can reduce all these hymns and prayers to this one sense of your church , pray for us . but if you disallow these addresses , as ( what in truth they are ) scandalous and idolatrous , what then shall we say if you pray to those as in heaven now , who whilst they lived were guilty of such desperate superstitions ? . and now i am instancing in your saints , i cannot forbear presenting you with a strain or two of your pious , but very superstitious and indiscreet st. bernard : and this too to try your faculty of expounding . to thee , o holy virgin mary , as to the ark of god , as to the cause of things , as to the business of ages , do all look that are both in heaven and hell ; both they that have gone before us , and we who now live , and they who shall hereafter be born . — all generations shall call thee blessed , o mother of god! — in thee the angels have found joy , the righteous grace , and sinners pardon for ever . worthily do the eyes of the whole creation look upon thee , because in thee , and by thee , and of thee the kind hand of the almighty hath re-created whatever he had created . we embrace thy footsteps , o mary , and with most devout supplication we fall down before thy blessed feet . we will hold thee , and not let thee go till thou shalt bless us . for thou art able , &c. . but i insist too long upon these matters ; and therefore in stead of multiplying new instances , shall refer you to those i have already offer'd : and from your saints descend to the heads of your church ; one of which thus piously call'd upon s. peter and s. paul at the head of a synod , in excommunicating the emperour henry iv. anno . in these words . blessed peter , prince of the apostles , and thou o blessed paul , doctor of the gentiles ; vouchsafe , i beseech you , mercifully to incline your ears unto me , and hear me . and then , after some particulars too large to be transcribed , he thus goes on : go to now i beseech you , o fathers and holy princes , that all the world may know and understand , that as you have in heaven the power of binding and loosing , you have also on earth power over empires , kingdoms , principalities , &c. for you have often taken away patriarchates , &c. from the wicked and unworthy , and have given them to religious men. let the kings and all the princes of the world now learn how great you are , and how much you can do , and fear to undervalue the command of your church : and execute judgment on the aforesaid henry so suddenly , that all men may know that he shall fall , not by chance , but by your power . this is a blessed prayer for a pope to make ; and i doubt will be found to signifie somewhat more than to pray to those saints to pray for him. if you think otherwise , let us see your paraphrase , and then we shall be able the better to judge of it . to conclude , let any man but read over the late books of father crasset , and dr. j. c. and then i will leave him to believe if he can , that all you mean in your invocation of saints , is only to desire them to pray for you . . and this may suffice to your first pretence , of the interpretation you would put upon these addresses . as for the authority you would be thought to have from holy scripture , for them , it is so very trifling , as not to deserve a consideration . for who would not laugh at that man that should seriously argue after this manner ? . when the children of israel were under oppression , god raised up a deliverer or saviour for them , who delivered them : therefore it is lawful to pray to saints as our saviours in heaven . again , . st. stephen calls moses a ruler and a deliverer of the children of israel ; and st. paul a mediator , because at the delivery of the law god sent it by his hands to them : therefore we may now give the titles of mediators and redeemers to the saints departed , with reference to our spiritual and eternal concerns , tho they neither are , nor have been , either redeemers or mediators to us . . st. paul tells timothy , that if he discharged the part of a faithful pastor , as he exhorted him to do , he should be a blessed instrument of salvation both to himself and others : therefore we may now pray to timothy as our saviour in heaven . . are not these , sir , weighty arguments ? and were you not resolved utterly to confound us , when you alledged such proof out of holy scripture as this ? but you have one passage at least that will do our work. grace and peace are the proper gifts of god : but this st. john wishes to the seven churches of asia , not only from god , but also from the seven spirits which are before the throne : therefore we may warrantably pray to the blessed virgin , let the virgin mary and her son bless us . a notable proof this , and almost as terrible as that which follows : the holy scripture says of princes , that they are gods ; therefore we may pray to the saints as gods too . but we will consider every part of it . grace and peace are the proper gifts of god. this is confess'd : what will you infer from thence ? but these st. john wishes not only from god , but also from the seven spirits . i answer , . if your own gloss be good , those seven spirits are set to signifie the seven fold gifts of the holy ghost ; and your own rhemists in their annotations ( from whence i am apt to believe you borrow'd this argument ) confess it may be well understood so . but , . not to deal too strictly with you ; let us allow these seven spirits to signifie created angels ; what will be the consequence ? st. john wisheth all grace and peace to the churches of asia from god , by the ministration of his holy angels , whose ministry he employs in dispensing his graces and blessings for the preservation of his church : therefore we may wish to the church now , grace and peace from christ and the blessed virgin , who is neither angel nor ministring spirit , nor that we know of any way employ'd by god for the service of it . nay , but this will not do yet : we must carry it yet further . st. john wishes all peace and happiness from god and his holy angels to the church : therefore we may not only wish the like from god by their ministration , but may solemnly pray to saints and angels themselves , together with god , for grace and peace . and if this be your way of arguing from holy scripture , 't is well you have infallibility of your side , for i am confident otherwise you would never persuade any man , by way of reasoning , to submit to your conclusions . . but the representer has yet a passage to justifie the utmost extravagance of former times , and prove even that prayer , which bellarmine was fain to deny they ever used , of the virgins commanding our saviour by the right which as a mother she had over him , to be most agreeable to holy writ . for does not the scripture say of joshua , c. x. . that he spoke to the sun , and it stood still , the lord obeying the voice of a man ? this is an argument that must be carefully look'd to , or , like wit that depends upon a turn of expression , 't will be utterly lost . and therefore in the vulgar latin and doway bibles , this is a good proof ; but in our own , 't is none at all . for as we render it , it would be a most wild inference thus to conclude ; joshua pray'd unto god that the sun might stand still ; and god hearkned unto his voice , and answered his request : therefore we may pray to the blessed virgin by the right of a mother to command her son. but be it as he desires ; god obey'd the voice of joshua ; i. e. as the chaldee paraphrast has it , he accepted his prayer ; as the doway bible it self expounds it , he condescended to work so great a miracle at the instance of his servant : how will it even thence follow , that we may desire the blessed virgin to command our saviour by the right of a mother over him ? but such twigs as these must be laid hold on , when men are resolv'd to keep to their conclusion , tho at the same time they have not so much as the shadow of a proof to support it . sect . ii. after what manner it is that the church of rome prays to god through the merits of her saints ? this is the next point to be considered by us ; and thus you establish it . . reply , p. . ] you tell us , that the word merit is equivocal , and misapplied by me : that the truth of your doctrine is , i. to reduce all your prayers to this form , that god would be pleased not to regard your unworthiness , but ( the merits of our redeemer ever supposed ) respect the merits of his saints also , and for their sakes hear your prayers , and accept your sacrifices . ii. that this is plainly shewn in your solemn concluding of all your addresses in this manner , through jesus christ our lord. whereby it appears , that you mean no more , than to beg of god almighty that he would vouchsafe to call to mind the glorious actions and sufferings of his saints , performed in and by his grace , and upon these accounts accept you . iii. and finally , that for this you have the authority of the holy scripture it self . . answ. ] for answer to which discourse , i must first desire you to come a little out of the clouds , and not play with us in ambiguous terms , whilst you charge me with it . the word merit , you say , is equivocal ; and the two senses you give it are , first , to signifie that we do by our own natural force alone deserve the reward of grace and glory . and in which sense if you pretend that we charge you with pleading your own merits , you do certainly most falsly accuse us . the other sense you give the word is , that our good works may be said to merit , because they apply the merits of jesus christ to us , and are the means by which we attain eternal life , in vertue of the promises of god , and merits of our blessed redeemer . in which were you sincere ( for all the impropriety of the speech ) yet we should not be far from agreeing with you . but now what is all this , to your praying to god to hear you by the merits of the saints ? this may do well in its proper article ; but here it serves only to amuse the reader with that which is nothing to the purpose , that so he may be disposed to forget what you were to prove . jam dic posthume de tribus capellis . . you tell us then , in the next paragraph , that you pray , that god would not respect your own unworthiness , but regard the merits of his saints , and for their sakes , i. e. for their merits , hear your prayers , or accept your sacrifices . but where then is the misrepresentation ? for this is the very thing we charge you with , viz. that not content to address your selves to god , in the name and through the merits of our only mediator jesus christ , you have sought out to your selves other intercessors , in whose name , and through whose merits to offer up both your prayers and sacrifices to god. and whether we do not in this very justly accuse you , let your addresses themselves satisfie the world. o blessed john the baptist , reach out thy hand to us , and be to us continually a holy intercessor , to the clemency of the most high judge , that through thy merits we may deserve to be freed from all tribulation . o god! by whose grace we celebrate the memories of thy saints saturninus and sisinnius , grant that by their merit we may be helped , through our lord. mercifully accept , o god , our offerings which we have made unto thee , for the sake of the passion of thy blessed martyrs saturninus and sisinnius ; that by their intercession they may be made acceptable to thy majesty . and in the breviary of salisbury , we find this to be a part of the constant service : be propitious we beseech thee , o lord , unto us thy servants , through the glorious merits of thy saints whose reliques are contain'd in this church ; that by their pious intercession we may be protected in all adversities . grant we beseech thee , almighty god , that the merits of thy saints whose reliques are contain'd in this church may protect us , &c. it were infinite to recount all the other prayers which run in the same strain throughout all your offices , insomuch that the very * * * * * * canon of the mass is infected with it . i will mention only one instance more , which is indeed a singular one ; not so much because of the expression of it , wherein the general word of merit is restrain'd to the particular merit of his death , as because it was made to one who died in actual rebellion against his prince ; and concerning whom therefore it was for some time debated amongst you , whether he were damn'd or saved ? by the blood of thomas ( a becket ) which he shed for thee , make us to ascend to heaven whither he is gone . . it remains then , that you do recur to the saints not meerly for their prayers , but that by their merits and intercession they would obtain grace and pardon of god for you . this is the doctrine of your catechism : that the saints help us by their own merits , and are therefore the rather to be worshipped and invoked , because they both pray continually for the salvation of men , and that god bestows many benefits upon us by their merit and favour . 't is from hence that the master of the sentences interprets your praying for their intercession , to be the same thing as to pray that by their merits they would help you . and aquinas , we pray to the saints ( says he ) not to inform god of our petitions by them , but that by their prayers and merits our prayers may become effectual . we may say to the saints ( says card. bellarmine ) save me , or give me this or that ; provided we understand , give it me by thy prayers or merits . so that in all this we say no more of you , than what both your doctrine and practice warrant us to do . . let us see therefore how you excuse your selves in this matter . you say , that your concluding of all your prayers through jesus christ our lord , shews that you desire all at last by his merits . but indeed this is but a poor shift ; and as a very learned man has long since told you , that close comes in in your addresses , much after the same manner that the mention of a certain sum of money does in deeds of trust , only pro formâ : and you are never the less guilty , for this conclusion , of what we charge you with , viz. that you join the merits and intercession of the saints , with the merits and intercession of christ for pardon and acceptance . and to the end that you may see what sensless petitions you hereby make to god in these addresses , i will only take one of your prayers in the literal meaning of it , and apply it in a plain paraphrase to your pretensions , by way of petition to some earthly prince . thus then you pray upon the third of may. grant we beseech thee , almighty god , that we who adore the nativity of thy saints , alexander , &c. may by their intercession be deliver'd from all evils that hang over us , through jesus christ our lord. now changing only the names , this , according to your exposition , will be the paraphrase of it . i beseech your sacred majesty that you would vouchsafe to pardon my offences against you , and deliver me from those evils that hang over me for them , at the intercession of your lord chancellor , &c. and in honour of this his birth-day ; and that for the sake of the prince your son , our royal lord and master . in this extravagant petition , the very transcript of the foregoing prayer , he must be blind who sees not that the conclusion of it , for the princes sake , &c. is very impertinent , and does not at all hinder but that the request is formally made by the interest of my lord chancellor , and in honour of his birth-day : and therefore that notwithstanding this conclusion ( which is really the remains of your old forms , before ever any new intercessors were put into them ) you remain justly chargeable with what i accused you of , that you make the saints joint intercessors with christ to god ; and desire not only through his merits , but by theirs also , to obtain your requests . . as for your last pretence of holy scripture for this practice , it is every jot as little to the purpose in this , as i have shewn it to be in the foregoing point . . god tells isaac ( say you ) that he would bless him , for his father abrahams sake . moses , praying for the people , desires god to remember abraham , isaac , and jacob , i. e. because god , in pursuance of his covenant made with abraham , blessed his son , and moses put him in mind of that covenant , to appease his anger , that he should not destroy the israelites ; therefore it is lawful now to pray to god not only by the merits of christ ( the only mediator of god's covenant with us ) but also of the saints too , for pardon and salvation . god , in remembrance of his promise made to david , shew'd mercy unto solomon for his sake : therefore solomon might have urged to god the merits of david for pardon of his sins ; and therefore we ( who have another , and better , and only advocate ) may address to god by the merits and intercession of the saints for forgiveness . i wonder you did not put in the city jerusalems merits too , to prove that we may not only pray through the merits of the saints , but of their cities also : for the text seems as express in this , as in the other : i kings xi . . but he shall have one tribe for my servant david's sake , and for jerusulems sake , the city which i have chosen out of all the tribes of israel . what you mean by your last passage , i must confess i cannot divine ; unless you think that because elijah , who was sent by god's express command to make a proof of his divinity before all the people of israel , who were gone after baal , began his prayer with that usual character of his being the god of abraham , isaac , and jacob ; it was therefore through their merits that the fire came down from heaven , and burnt up his sacrifice . sect . iii. in which the arguments offer'd by the vindicator for the establishing of this worship are particularly consider'd , and their weakness laid open . . hitherto we have been clearing the matter of fact , what your practice in this invocation of saints is ; i come now in the next place to examine your arguments , and see what grounds you have to support so great a superstition . and first , for what concerns the holy scripture , i find you do not much care to be try'd by that : you plead possession for your warrant , and are resolved that shall be sufficient , till we by some better right can throw you out of it . now in this i cannot but commend your discretion ; for indeed those who go about to found this article upon the authority of holy writ , do in the opinion of many of your own church but loose their labour , since ( as they tell us ) for the old testament , the holy patriarchs and prophets that lived before christ's incarnation were not yet admitted into heaven , and therefore were not capable of being pray'd to ; and for the new , it was not express'd there for fear of scandalizing the jews , and least the gentiles should have been thereby moved to think , that the worship of new gods had been proposed to them . . wherefore passing by the holy scripture , which you look upon as unfit to be appeal'd to in this case , let us come to the possession you so much boast of ; and see how you defend it against those arguments i offer'd to prove that this custom of calling upon the saints had no footing in the church before the latter end of the iv. century ; and was then but beginning to creep into it . and to reduce your confusion to the clearest method i can , i will distinctly consider your allegations in these two periods . first , of the first years , wherein i affirm that there was no such prac●ice in the church . secondly , of the f●urth century ; towa●ds the latter end of which i confess it began to appear ; tho' still with very great difference from what you now practise . i. period . that the custom of praying to saints had no being in the church for the first years . . now for this i shew'd you in my defence , that the fathers of the iv. century did certainly herein depart from the practice and tradition of the ages before them ; because * that you were not able to produce so much as one instance out of the first three centuries of any such invocation : * but rather were forced to confess , that nothing of that kind was to be found amongst them . * that this was in effect what your greatest authors , card. du perron , card. bellarmine , and even the bishop of meaux himself had done : * and that indeed your own principles oblige you to this acknowledgment ; seeing you both allow that without believing that the saints departed go forthwith to heaven , they could not have pray'd to them ; and yet cannot but say that this , the holy fathers of the first three ages did utterly deny . these were my arguments ; let us see how you clear your possession from the force of them . . first , you clap a marginal note upon my assertion ( in earnest of your future civility ) primitive fathers calumniated by the defender : and to wipe off this calumny you undertake to shew that they did pray to the saints within the first years . this is i confess to the purpose , and if you can do it , let the note of calumny stick upon me ; but indeed i rather think that this undertaking will fix another , and a much more proper note upon you. but let us hear your proofs . ibid. ] and first you say , my brethren the centurists of magdeburg acknowledg that origen prayed to job , and admitted the invocation of angels . . answer ] if this be true , then , sir , i tell you in one word , that my brethren the centurists were mistaken ; and that , ( considering the time they wrote in ) is no great wonder . but now did you never hear in your life , that your brethren , erasmus , sixtus senensis , possevin , bellarmine , baronius , labbé , du pin , &c. have all confess'd , that neither the tracts , nor comments upon job were origen's ? has no one ever told you , secondly , that another of your brethren card. du perron , has utterly rejected the authority of origen , as an incompetent witness in matter of fact , and that especially in the very point before us ? were you indeed so ignorant , thirdly , as not to know how opposite this father is to you ( as i shall presently shew ) in his undoubtedly genuine works as to this matter ? as for the other passages you quote , fourthly , out of his comments upon ezekiel ; besides that he there supposes the angel present with him : could you look upon this place and not see that another of your brethren , your own editor , calls it an apostrophe to his guardian angel ; and i desire you to try if you can make any more of it . and lastly , for what you finally alledge out of his lamentations ; did you in good earnest not know that it was a book mark'd , not by your brethren only , but by your holy father pope gelasius as apchryphal ; and rejected as such by all the learned men of your own communion ? so unfortunate , or rather unfaithful have you been in your first entry upon antiquity . it may be you will go on a little better . reply . ] you tell us in the next place a story of one justina , how being in danger of making shipwrack of her chastity by the magical art of st. cyprian , she had recourse to the intercession of the blessed virgin mary , begging of her to assist her whose virginity was in danger . . answer . ] if by this story you design to prove the invocation of saints to have been the practice of the church within the first years , ( and indeed it is for this you do produce it , ) i must then again complain of your unsincerity ; seeing it is both acknowledged by your own authors , and indeed confess'd by your own self , that gregory nazianzen was mistaken in the relation , and attributed that to the great st. cyprian , bishop of carthage , which could not belong to him. as for the other cyprian to whom card. du perron , baronius , &c. apply it , he is not pretended to have lived within that period , and so your proof is without the compass of what you undertook to shew . . but secondly , had there been any truth in this story , even with reference to this other cyprian , how comes it to pass that none of the ancient martyrologies , no not your own breviary , since the reformation of it , makes the least mention of any such thing : would all these have omitted so considerable a passage had there been any grounds of certainty in it . . to reply therefore to this instance , i say , it is more than probable that st. gregory took up this story either from some flying report , or out of some counterfeit acts : for one part of it , at least that which relates to st. cyprian bishop of carthage , you confess your † † † † † † selves that in this he was certainly mistaken . and if any other cyprian we hear nothing either in eusebius , or any other historian or writer of that age. the first cardinal baronius has produced being beda and adelhelmus , who lived not till the eighth , and metaphrastes in the latter end of the ninth century . but however let us see even what they say of this matter . they tell us that the cyprian here meant was bishop of antioch , and suffer'd martyrdom at nicomedia with st. justina : and thus it stood in your own breviary too till the reformation of it by the order of the council of trent . but now it is beyond dispute evident that this is utterly false ; for that in those times there was no such bishop of antioch , both the accounts of the succession of that sea given us both by ancient and modern historians plainly shew ; and card. baronius himself confesses it : who is therefore forced for the credit of the business contrary both to his own authors , and to your ancient brevaries , to degrade him from a bishop to a deacon . and for this he has no authority . so evident do's it remain , that this whole matter is what the card. calls , one part of it at least , a fable to be exploded by all wise men. and this is another proof either of your integrity or ability in church history . but we will hope the next may be better . . reply . ] and thus you go on with your undertaking , you tell me you will not cite dionysius the areopagite , because it may be i will not allow him to be the author of the book under his name : nor justin martyr , because i shall be apt to say he does not speak plain enough : nor irenaeus , tho' he says plainly that the virgin mary was made an advocate for the virgin eve ( i presume you mean that eve pray'd to the virgin mary years before she was born , as father crasset says they built temples to her ere she came into the world ) because it may be i shall find out an evasion for that too . . answ. ] quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu ? you will not insist upon dionysius , nor upon justin martyr , nor upon irenaeus : but what then will you insist upon ? for you have said nothing at all to the purpose yet . after all this gaping , we have two testimonies only offer'd to us for the practice of years : one a passage of origen already rejected as spurious : and the other out of a tract of methodius , if not certainly spurious , yet justly suspected by your own critick's , being neither quoted by any of the ancients , nor mention'd by photius ; and of a stile more luxuriant than that fathers other writings are ; and that speaks so clearly of the mystery of the trinity , of the incarnation , and divinity of the word , whom he calls , in a phrase not well known in his time , consubstantial with the father ; of the trisagion never heard of for above years after his death ; of the virginity of mary after her conception ; and of orginal sin ; that your late critick monsieur du pin had certainly reason to place it among his spurious works , however it be now cited with such assurance by you . . but to quit this exception against the book : the very passage it self is so manifest a piece of oratory , that had you ever consulted it , in the greek set out by combefis , you could not have doubted of it . he had begun his apostrophe two or three pages before what you produce ; and he ushered it in with this express introduction , to prepare us for it , that he would conclude his speech with an address to the city of the great king , and to all his brethren and fathers there , as if they were now present with him ; and accordingly he apostrophe's the city jerusalem , p. . the whole catholick church , p. . a. all the people of god , ibid. b. the blessed virgin , ibid. c. holy simeon , p. . b. and so concludes all , joyning with that blessed man in his address to our saviour christ. and tho his expressions may be very high , ( as the whole sermon is ) yet we cannot but think it very unreasonable to conclude the dogmatical sense of the church from the rhetorical flights of a single man , were the piece otherwise never so genuine : but indeed it is worthily rejected ( for the reasons before mentioned ) by the learned criticks both of your and our communion . . this then is the sum of your arguments to establish this practice in the first three centuries . were it necessary , after what has been done by so many better hands , to recount the opinions of those holy fathers as to this point , i should certainly be able to make some better proof of the antiquity of our praying to god only , than you have been able to do of your addressing to the blessed virgin and to the saints . . in the epistle of the church of smyrna concerning the death of polycarp , anno . we find that the jews had perswaded the heathens , that if they suffer'd the christians to have the body of that holy martyr , they would leave christ , to worship polycarp : not knowing ( says that letter ) that it is not possible for us to leave christ , who hath suffer'd for the salvation of all those that are saved in the world ; nor to serve or religiously adore any other . for as for jesus christ , we adore him as being the son of god. but as for the martyrs we love them as the disciples and imitators of the lord. and that very justly considering their insuperable zeal which they bore to their king and master , and god grant that we may be both the disciples of their piety , and partakers of their glory . . this is indeed the true spirit of christianity , and the exact account of the honour we now pay to the saints . we adore only our saviour christ , as the son of god , and therefore ( as the ancient latin translation of this letter reads it ) we pray to no other . but for the saints , we love and honour them ; we recite and magnifie their noble acts : we encourage our selves by their examples to the like performances , as those who earnestly desire to be partakers of their glory . this is all the honour they are now capable of receiving ; and this was all that the primitive church in those best ages , was ever known to have given to them . . the church of christ ( says irenaeus ) does nothing by the invocation of angels , nor by any other perverse curiosity ; but by addressing her prayers purely , and only , and openly to the lord who has made all things . . * * * * * * origen tell us , that to invocate the lord , and to adore god , are the same thing . so do tertullian and cyprian , using the words to pray and to adore promiscuously in the same signification . in a word , this was the constant doctrine of those first ages ; and i will chuse to deliver it in the words of that father whom you have especially alledged to the contrary : we worship ( says † † † † † † origen ) the one only god , and his one only son , and word , and similitude , with our utmost supplications and honours ; bringing our prayers to the god of all things , through his only begotten son ; — * * * * * * we must pray to god only , who is over all , and to his only begotten son the first born of every creature , and beseech him as our high-priest to carry our prayers which we make to him , to his god and our god , to his father , and the father of all those that live according to the word of god. — a a a a a a this is our profession of faith , which we constantly maintain as long as we live , by the blessing of god , and of his only son jesus christ , who was manifested amongst us . as for the favour of others , ( if that be to be look'd after ) we know that thousands of thousands stand before him , and ten thousand times ten thousand minister unto him. these as our brethren and friends when they see us imitating their piety towards god , work together to the salvation of those that call upon god , and pray as they ought to do . . i will add but one testimony more in a matter both so plain in its self , and so often insisted upon by others , and it is of novatian proving the divinity of christ , from the churches praying to him , for none but god ( says he ) knows the secrets of the heart as our saviour did — if christ be only a man , how is he every where present to those that call upon him ? seeing this is not the nature of a man , but of god , to be able to be present in every place . if christ be only man , why is a man called upon as a mediator in prayers , seeing the calling upon a man is judged of no value to give salvation ? if christ be only man , why is any hope put in him , seeing that hope is represented as accursed that is placed in man ? . such was the opinion of the church in the first three centuries : as for that extraordinary discovery you are pleased next to make , that all you do in your liturgies is , to beg of god to hear the prayers of his saints , and that for this you are able to furnish me with many examples out of the ancient liturgies and fathers within the first years ; it is so false an assertion , and so vain an undertaking , that either you must be ignorant even to astonishment both in the doctrine of your own church , and in the acts of primitive antiquity , or else most certainly you never believed , either what you say or what you promise . . but tho you are not then able to answer my challenge of producing any warrant from the fathers of the first years for this doctrine and practice ; it may be you are able at least to answer my presumption from those times against it : viz. that those fathers did not believe that the souls of the just went streight to heaven , and therefore by your own principles could not have believed that they ought to be prayed to as there . . reply ] to this you say , that you are not bound to defend every argument that bellarmine and suarez bring , especially when others of your writers think them unconclusive . in short , you cannot deny the matter of fact , tho you would be thought to suppose rather than allow it to be true ; and all you have to say is , that whatever they believed besides , sure you are they did pray to the saints . . answ. ] that the fathers about the latter end of the iv. century began to invocate the saints we do not deny ; tho' it were rather in the way of a rhetorical compellation , than of a formal address . and if herein they contradicted any other of their principles , we know they were but men , and as such might possibly in their religious heats do some things not entirely consonant to themselves in their cooler hours . now then taking it for granted that those fathers i heretofore mentioned did teach , that the saints departed do not yet enjoy the beatifick vision , i say with those great men of your church , whom you here forsake , that they could not reasonably pray to them . since it is upon this vision , especially , that you found your opinion of that particular knowledge you suppose they ordinarily and constantly have of those things that are done here below , and without which it would be vain and absurd to call upon them . and therefore tho you have no regard to bellarmine's or suarez's authority , yet for the sake of sense and reason answer their arguments ; and tell us a little ( upon your own principles ) how those fathers could think the saints were fit to be pray'd to , if by denying them to be yet in heaven , they by consequence must have deny'd them to have any ordinary and certain knowledge of what is done here upon earth ? . reply . ] but sixtus senensis ( you say ) after all concludes , that those fathers do not intend to exclude the saints departed from the beatifick vision , but only from that perfect happiness which we shall enjoy after the resurrection . and it would have been much more christian-like in me , to have imitated his example , than to argue as i do against their praying to saints from this principle . . answ. ] had i been crampt , as he was , with a defininimus of my church , i might possibly have been tempted to make excuses for those fathers , as he did . but a man need only look upon their words , as they are cited by him , to see how little such shuffling will avail , to reduce their doctrine to your pretences . and the truth is , this sixtus senensis was so honest as to confess , tho you were not so honest as to take notice of it . for having offer'd that exposition of their words which you mention , he immediately subjoins , thus ( says he ) have i interpreted the expressions of s. ambrose , austin , and chrysostome . but if there be some sayings of the holy authors which cannot suffer such an interpretation , yet we should at least remember that this errour ought not to prejudice the learning and piety of such illustrious fathers , seeing the church in their time had not yet determined any thing certain to be believed in this matter . thus sixtus senensis ; ingenuously confessing how the case stood . and this you cannot be presumed not to have seen in him , seeing they are in the very same place with what you transcribed from him . and what then must i think of such a one , as values not how he reports things , so he may but by any means seem to say somewhat ; tho he knows at the same time , that he cannot expect long to triumph in his unsincerity . . and now there is but one thing more remaining , to get over this unlucky period of the first years . reply . ] for what if the few writings of the ancients of the first years which remain , be silent in this particular , does it follow that they approved not the practice ? answ. ] no , sir , this in not the case : we do not pretend to a bare silence of those holy fathers , but we produce their express authorities against you : and that i hope is a good argument that our possession is at least years better than yours ; and that you , not we , have been innovators in this particular . . reply . ] had this custom of praying to saints been only introduc'd in the fourth age , and been so dangerous as moderns would persuade the world that it is , certainly the succeeding general councils would have taken notice of it , or some one of the fathers would have written against it . but , on the contrary , we find the fourth general council allowing this invocation in the third person , let flavian the martyr pray for us . . answ. ] to your instance from the fourth general council , i reply , that besides that you your self confess that it is nothing to the purpose , there being a mighty difference between wishing that the saints would pray for us , and praying to the saints for their aid and succour , you should have known that this council was held in the middle of the fifth age , and so is without the compass of what i am here to consider . . but i will go yet farther with you as to this instance ; and to that end i must tell you , that your authors have very much deceived you in their accounts of it . for first , it was not the synod , but only a party in that synod , that cry'd out , let flavian the martyr pray for us . and secondly , even they that did cry out thus , were as far from designing to pray to flavian at all , as you were from understanding the meaning of their exclamation . the occasion of those words in short was this : in the eleventh and twelfth actions of that council there arose a difficult debate concerning bassianus and stephanus , whether of the two was lawful bishop of ephesus . bassian had this plea , that he had held it quietly four years ; that proclus and his successors , bishops of constantinople , had communicated with him as lawful bishop of that see ; among whom was flavianus but lately deceased . upon this the fathers that were of bassianus party urged to the synod , that flavian by communicating with him , had acknowledged him to be lawful bishop of ephesus : and thereupon press the holy bishops to have this respect to flavian a catholick and martyr , as to acknowledge bassianus to be the true bishop , seeing he had communicated with him as such . and here comes in among other expressions , this that is the subject of our present debate . the bishops and clergy of constantinople cry out , in honour of their late martyr , this is the truth ; this we all say : let the memory of flavian be eternal ; let the memory of the orthodox flavian be eternal : flavian lives after his death ; let the martyr pray ( or entreat ) for us ; flavian judges with us . this was the occasion of those words ; and it plainly shews , that all they meant by them was , that the judgment of flavian , a holy bishop and martyr , should prevail with the synod to judge of bassianus side , with whom he had communicated . . as for your argument , that had this custom of praying to saints been introduced in the fourth age , it would certainly have been condemned in the following : i reply , first , that this is at most but a meer presumption , against plain and undoubted matter of fact , and such as not only this , but too many other corruptions which have crept into the church , without any notable opposition for some time made to them , abundantly overthrows . but , secondly , tho your argument therefore ( if we should allow it ) would be good for little ; yet it has another misfortune too , which most of your proofs labour under , that it is as false as it is unconclusive . for , good sir , did you never , in your enquiry into these matters , hear of such a canon as the thirty fifth of the council of laodicea , anno . expresly condemning the worship of angels ? did you never meet with such an order as that of the third council of carthage in s. austin's time , commanding all the prayers that were made at the altar to be directed to the father ? at least i am confident you cannot be ignorant what vigilantius did in opposition to this superstition ; and whose piety s. hierome himself ( tho his hot antagonist ) could not but acknowledge . nor was he alone in this quarrel : s. jerome speaks of several bishops that were of his party , and join'd with him in his endeavours against this growing evil. even s. austin himself , as appears from many places of his works , spoke not a little contrary to it , and plainly insinuates he would have done more , had not this practice already so possess'd mens minds , that it was not safe so to do . . but to quit all these , the publick declaration which epiphanius made against the collyridians ( a sort of women in those days superstitious in their honour of the blessed virgin ) is alone enough to shew that this practice did not pass without opposition in those times . 't is true ( says he ) the body of mary was holy , but she was not therefore god. she was a virgin , and highly honour'd but she was not set forth to us to be worshipped ; but she her self worshipped him who was born of her flesh . and therefore the holy gospel has herein armed us before hand ; our lord himself saying , woman , what have i to do with thee ? wherefore do's he say this ? but only least some should think of the blessed virgin more highly than they ought ; he called her woman , as it were foretelling those schisms and heresies that should arise upon her account . — but neither is elias to be adored , tho he be yet alive : nor is st. john to be adored ; nor tecla ; nor any of the saints — if god will not permit us to worship angels how much less the daughter of anna ? — let mary be held in honour , but let the father , son , and holy ghost be worshipped . let no one worship mary . for tho she were most fair , and holy , and honourable ; yet she is not therefore to be adored . in a word ; let mary be held in honour , but let god be adored . to conclude this point you tell us ; reply ] that it seems most extravagant to you that protestants should demand of you to shew them some testimonies of the fathers of the first three hundred years , who lived under persecution , few of whose writings remain , the greatest part being lost and destroy'd , and yet reject the fathers of the ivth . age who wrote when the church began first to be in a flourishing condition . can any one imagine that the church when in grots and caverns taught one thing , and when she came into the light practised another ? . answ. what meer harangue is this ? but we must be contented where better is not to be had . and therefore i reply , st . as to your insinuation , which since cardinal perron first invented it , has been the constant common place of the little crowd of controvertists that have follow'd after , viz. that the fathers of the first three hundred years lived under persecution , and therefore wrote but little , and of that little the greatest part was lost too ; tho i can easily excuse this in you as a sin of ignorance , yet i must needs say of the cardinal and others , that they have herein greatly injured those holy men ; who were neither so lazie nor fearful as they have represented them to have been . . for not to say any thing of the foundation of all our religion , the holy scriptures , which were written within this period ; how large a catalogue has eusebius alone preserved of the works of those holy fathers : and yet how many of the latin church has he omitted : look into his history , and there you will find those great names , clemens romanus , papias , quadratus , aristides , hegesippus , justin martyr , dionysius of corinth , pinytus , apollinarius , melito , modestus , irenaeus , theophilus , tatian , bardesanes , clemens alexandrinus , rhodo , miltiades , apollonius , serapion , heraclitus , moscarinus , candidus , sextus , and arabien ; all to have been writers of the second century : tertullian , judas , beryllus , hippolytus , caius , africanus , dionysius alexandrinus , nepos , cyprian , origen ; in the third . and the writings of which last author only were said to have amounted to six thousand volumes ; and which tho st. jerome retrench'd to a third part , yet still he left two thousand to him . . in what sort of writings were these holy men defective ? some publish'd apologies for our religion ; others disputed against the heathens , the jews , the heretick's of those times . some wrote of the discipline of the church ; others moral discourses , for the direction of mens lives and manners . their histories , their accounts of the holy men , who suffer'd for the faith ; their comments on the holy scripture , their sermons are yet upon record : and when such was their diligence , why should it be insinuated as if living under persecution they wrote but little ; and therefore that it is unreasonable to appeal to them ? . nor is your next pretence any better : that their writings are lost and destroyed : for tho it be indeed in great measure true , that in respect of what they wrote there is but a small part brought down to us ( and we have some reason to believe that the opposition they made to your corruptions has been in some measure the cause of it ; ) yet have we still enough to shew us what the faith of those times was , and how vastly you have declined from it . and when both the writings of holy scripture , and of those fathers that do remain speak so plainly against you , we have no great reason to believe that those which are lost were at all more favourable to you . . but can any one imagine , that the church when in grots and caverns should teach one thing , and when it came into the light practise another ? i answer , yes ; this is very easie to be imagined . affliction keeps men close to their duty , whereas prosperity too often corrupts the best manners . when it pleased god to convert the empire to christianity , there were but too many instances of heathen customs , accommodated to the principles of the gospel ; and this was one . whether it were that they could not so soon forget their ancient rites ; or that they thought it a religious policy to extend the pale of the church by suiting christianity as much to the heathen ceremonies as it was possible , and to dispose men thereby the more readily to embrace it ; or whether finally , that simplicity of the gospel which suited well enough with a state of persecution , was now thought too mean for an establish'd church , the religion of the emperour , and they were therefore willing to render it more pompous , and set it off with greater lustre in the eyes of men , tho in so doing they a little departed from the purity of their lower and better state. . let us add to this , the opinion which then began to prevail among those holy fathers , of the particular intercession of the saints for us ; and which both the prayers that were made in those days at the memories of the martyrs , and the miracles god was sometimes pleased to work there ; not to say any thing of the visions and apparitions that were sometimes thought to be seen there , very much confirm'd them in . now this naturally prepared the way for the invocation which follow'd upon it . for now the poets began instead of their muses , to call ( more christianly ) upon the saints and martyrs to assist them . the orators , following the genius of the age , indulged themselves all the liberty of their eloquence , in apostrophe's to the saints at their memories . and as things seldome stop in their first beginnings , by degrees through the ignorance of some , and superstition of more ; they fell into a formal invocation , about the beginning of the vth. century . . but here another accident fell out for the carrying on of this service . for about this time nestorius began to teach that men ought not to call the blessed virgin the mother of god. now this made some think his design was secretly to revive the heresie of arrius or sabellius under a new cover ; and their zeal for the divinity of christ made them in the council of ephesus , anno condemn his opinion as heretical ; and in opposition to him they fell into the contrary extream , of an immoderate magnifying of her ; tho' ( as i shall presently shew ) they still continued within much better bounds than you do now : it being almost three hundred years after this , before ever the invocation of her or the saints , was publickly establish'd in the church . and this brings me to my next proposal ; which was secondly ; ii. period . to consider what grounds this superstition had in the ivth . century . . and here , first , to what i said concerning the first beginnings of this invocation , viz. that the most part of your allegations from this age were rather rhetorical flights than formal prayers ; you return very pleasantly . reply . ] that the rhetorick lies wholly at my door , who fly to so poor a shift . that these passages are some of the duriores loci more difficult places which some only nibbled at ; others could not digest ; and i shift off under the notion of rhetorical flights or novelties . . answ. one would think by this droll you had been lately reading the judgment of your university of doway concerning bertram . altho ( say they ) we do not much value that book , yet since he has been often printed and is read by many , and that in other ancient catholick's we tollerate many errors , and extenuate , or excuse them ; often times find out some contrivance or other to deny them , or to set a convenient gloss upon them when they are opposed to us in disputes , or in engaging with our adversaries ; we do not see why we should not allow the same equity to bertram . . but what now is this shifting ? why i said that , which all the learned men in the world must allow to be true , viz. that the fathers of the ivth . age were many of them great orators , and made use of rhetorical addresses to the saints . and that from those conditions they sometimes expresly put into their writings , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. if thou hast any sense , if thou hast any concern for what is done here below , and the like ; we may reasonably conclude , that this was all they meant , even where they do not express any such thing . . but did not those fathers do somewhat more than this ? can all their expressions be fairly reduced to such apostrophe's ? to this i have already said , that we do acknowledge that about the latter end of this century , s. basil , gregory nazianzen , gregory nyssen , amongst the greeks , and their great imitator s. ambrose among the latins , did begin to invocate the saints . and had you thought fit to consult that excellent treatise to which i referr'd you , or rather to take notice of what was said there , ( for i am apt to believe you did consult it ) i should not have been troubled with these impertinences here . and therefore tho it were not difficult to find some considerable faults with those few passages you have alledged from those holy men ; ( as when you say that s. basil exhorts those who are in tribulatian to flie to the saints , those who are in joy to have recourse to them , whereas he only historically relates what they did do , he ( says he ) who is afflicted flies to them , he who is in joy runs to them ) yet i shall quit all to you , and without either shifting or nibling leave you to make the most you can of them . . but then that you may not put any more such crude notes upon your reader as you have done here , where you say , that protestants grant praying to saints to have been established in the ivth . age : i will very briefly transcribe from two learned men of our church some considerable differences between what the ▪ fathers of this century did , and what you do now ; and of which if you will not yet be perswaded to take any notice , i hope at least all indifferent persons will see by them how impertinently you alledge their authority for your excuse . first , that in your church , prayer to saints is look'd upon as a part of worship that is due to them ; insomuch that ( as i have shewn ) cardinal bellarmine places it among one of those advantages that accrues to them upon their canonization : but this those holy fathers never believed ; on the contrary they absolutely define prayer , as a service proper to god only , and argued against the arrians upon this very topick , that christ must needs be god , because the church prayed to him . if you pretend that there are two sorts of prayers , one proper to god , another that is not : i reply , . that this is false , because ( as we have seen ) all prayer is a religious worship , and therefore proper to god only . secondly , it concludes nothing ; because you offer the most proper sort of prayer for help and assistance to the saints , that you can do to god himself . secondly , in your church you allow mental prayer as well as vocal to be made to the saints : but in the primitive , this was reserved as peculiar to him who searcheth the heart , and alone knoweth the secrets of all the children of men. thirdly , in your church it is resolved that the saints are capable of hearing and knowing your requests : in the primitive this was never determined , and the contrary seems to have been the most generally received . fourthly , in your church formal prayers are made to the saints ; but the addresses of these holy fathers were either wishes only , or requests of the same nature with those which are in this kind usually made to the living ; where they who are requested , be evermore accounted in the number of those that pray for us , but none of those that are prayed unto by us . fifthly , in your church the saints are made not only joynt petitioners with us , but advocates too ; and that to plead not only christs merits , but their own likewise . but against this these fathers openly protested as an open derogation to the high prerogative of our saviors meritorious intercession , and a manifest encroachment upon his great office of mediation . sixthly , in your church it is thought a more proper way of access , and a surer means of obtaining your requests to address by some saint to god , than to go immediately to the throne of grace , through our saviour christ. but this those fathers earnestly opposed , exhorting all men to go directly to god by his son jesus christ. seventhly , in your church the saints are indifferently called upon all the world over ; which does in effect attribute a divine perfection , viz. that of omnipresence to them : but in the primitive church , those who sought the intercession of the saints , limited their presence to some determinate places , as particularly to their memories , where they thought them within hearing ; and did not call upon them indifferently every where . eightly , this in your church is an establish'd practice ; they who oppose it are declared to do wickedly , and an anathema is pronounced against them on that account . but in the primitive there was no rule , or order for it ; it was the effect of a private and voluntary zeal , encouraged it may be by the guides of the church , but no part of the established service of it . . and this may suffice to shew how vain your pretences to the antiquity even of this age are to warrant your superstition ; and upon what slender grounds you affirm , after your master the bishop of meaux , that this invocation of saints was establish'd , nay that we grant it was establish'd in the fourth age. but to convince you yet more with what little reason you either boast of this , or tax us with receding from our old principle of being tryed by the fathers of the first four general councils ; upon this account i will now make you a more liberal offer ; and that is to prove if you can any authentick establishment of this service in the church . i do not say now in the sixth century ; but in the seventh : nay or even before the latter end of the eighth : in short , i do affirm that the first solemn establishment of it was in the second council of nice . and indeed that synod which decreed the worship of images in opposition to the second commandment , was the most proper to define the religious invocation of saints contrary to the first : and because there is something almost as bad in the manner of the establishment , as in the thing it self , i will close all with a brief account of it . . about the end of the sixth century both the worship of images , and the invocation of saints , having taken deep root in the minds of many superstitious persons ; controversies began to arise about them ; and generally the same persons were found to be either friends or enemies to both . in the year constantine copronymus called a synod of bishops , to examine into these matters , and both the invocation of saints , and worship of images were utterly condemned by them . . thirty years after this council the abettors of these superstitions prevailing , another anti-synod was convened by the au●hority of the empress irene at nice . in † † † † † † this the acts of the former council of constantinople were recited , and instead of the canons which they made in condemnation of this worship ; ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ two others were read in their names , establishing of it . how this came to pass it is not known ; but this the † † † † † † nicene fathers themselves acknowledge that the other synod had established the quite contrary : nay they were such enemies to this invocation , that binius tells us , they exacted a solemn ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ oath of all their party , that they would never invocate the saints , apostles , martyrs , or the blessed virgin. and yet have these good fathers transmitted down to posterity those two spurious canons of the council of constantinople , as approving that very worship , which the council in the true definitions of it had utterly disclaimed . . as for the synod of nice its self ; if the definitions there made were of any force ; that of frankford , seven years after , has utterly taken it away ; in which it was so wholly abrogated , and annulled , as not to be placed in the number of synods , or be any otherwise esteem'd of than that of ariminum . and i should beglad you would find me any other ( but pretended ) establishment of it , before your synod of trent in the very last age. i have only now remaining in the last place to shew ; sect . iv. what our reasons are against this service ? . you had ask'd me in your vindication , what authoritie have you to oppose us ? you say that [ to invocate saints ] is repugnant to gods word : shew that word , if you cannot we are in possession , and the antiquity and un-interruptedness of our doctrine , besides the reasonableness and innocency of it , confirms us in our belief . . to this i answered ; that every text of scripture that appropriated divine worship to god alone was a demonstration against you : and that that one passage of st. paul , rom. x. . how shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed ? were not men willing to be contentious , might end the controversie . and for the authority you speak of , that it was rediculous to pretend prescription for that , which has not the least foundation neither in holy writ nor in primitive christianity ; of which not one instance appears for the first three hundred years after christ , and much to the contrary . . to this you now reply in your margin with great assurance ; protestants destitute of scripture proofs against the doctrine of invocation of saints : but all you have to say in the book is , that you do not give divine worship to the saints , nor call upon them in that strict sense in which they are duties only to be paid to god. that is to say , you play with words , and make use of such distinctions as if they were allowed , a man might evacuate any other of gods commands , without a possibility of being confuted . and i desire you to tell me what answer you would make an impudent woman that should give her husbands bed to another , and being charged by you for breaking the seventh commandment , should tell you that you were not to be so uncharitable as to judge of what she did by the external act , that the law forbad only lying with another man , as with her husband ; and that in this strict sense she was still innocent , by reserving that highest degree of conjugal affection to him only , the giving whereof to another would make her guilty . . but since you are so desirous to know what our reasons against this invocation are , i will now very freely lay them before you , if you will first give me leave only to prepare the way for them , by stating truly the difference between us in this matter , which you are wonderfully apt either to mistake or to palliate . . you tell us in your vindication , that all you say , is that it is lawful to pray to the saints ; and so again in your reply . the difference ( you say ) between us is , whether it be lawful for us to beseech or intreat them to pray for us ? monsieur de meaux in the same moderate way tells us , that the church teaches that it is profitable to pray to the saints : and the representer ( from the council of trent ) says of a true papist , that his church teaches him ( and he believes ) that it is good and profitable , to desire the intercession of the saints , reigning with christ in heaven . in your discourses with those of our communion , there is nothing more ordinary with you , than to make them believe , that you value not praying to the saints , nor condemn any for not doing it . that if this be all they scruple in your religion , they shall be received freely by you , and never pray to a saint as long as they live . nay i have heard of some who have gone so far in this matter , as to venture their religion upon it , that you do not necessarily require the practise or profession of this service at all ; nor pronounce any anathema against us for opposing of it . . but this is not ingenuous ; nor as becomes the disciples of christ. for tell me now i beseech you : if we unite our selves to your church , will you not oblige us to go to mass with you ? or can you dare for our sakes to alter your service , and leave out all those things that relate to the blessed virgin and to the saints in it ? shall we be excused from having any thing to do with your litanies and processions , your vespers or your salves ? or will you purge all these too in order to our conversion ? when we lie in our last agonies , will you be content to anoint us in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost ; and leave the angels , arch-angels , patriarchs , prophets , and apostles , martyrs , confessors , virgins , and all the saints out of the commission ? and when our souls are now expiring , shall we be sure you will not then at least trouble us with that long beadroll which your office prescribes to be call'd upon in that ceremony ? if you have indeed the liberty to do this , why do ye not use it , and remove so great a stumbling block as this out of our way ? but if you cannot dispense with these things for our common conversion , how shall we believe that you can do it to satisfie a private proselyte ? . the truth is invocation of saints in your church is not esteemed so indifferent a matter as you would have it thought to be . it is a worship you suppose due to them : and to which they acquire a right by their canonization . so cardinal bellarmine informs us : and therefore in your profession of faith set forth by the order of pope pius ivth . you are obliged with a firm faith to believe and profess , that the saints , who reign together with christ , are to be venerated and invoked . and tho the alarm which the council of trent was in upon the news of the popes sickness , and the haste which thereupon they made to conclude that synod permitted them not to frame any canons in this last , as they had done in the other sessions ; yet the materials put together in the chapter shews us what anathema's would have been thunder'd against us . for to take it only as it lies in that session . there we find the bishops and pastors of the church commanded to teach ( what therefore i hope is undoubtedly the churches sense in this point ) that the saints who reign together with christ offer up their prayers to god for men : that it is good and profitable in a suppliant manner to call upon them : and that for the obtaining benefits of god by his son jesus christ our lord , who is our only saviour and redeemer , we should flie to their prayers , aid and assistance . they declare that those who deny ( which you know we all do ) that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are not to be invoked , or say that this invocation is idolatry ( as we generally believe it to be ) or that it is contrary to the word of god ; or derogatory to the honour of the one mediator between god and man christ jesus ; or that it is foolish to supplicate those who reign in heaven in word or in mind ; do think wickedly . . these are the words of your council . if therefore you permit your prosolytes to profess what they do not believe ; if you receive those as good catholicks into your church , whom nevertheless you know to remain still infected with wicked opinions , contrary to the doctrine and practise established amongst you ; if you allow them to assist at your prayers , without any intention to joyn in them , nay in an opinion that they could not pray with you , without committing a grievous sin ; then go on to make folks believe , as you do , that you oblige no body to pray to the saints , and that they may be of your church , and yet still believe or do what they please in this matter . but if otherwise this be all gross hypocrisie , if there be nothing but cheat and design in these pretences ; then may i humbly desire all sincere members of our communion to beware of such guides , as value not how they charge ours , or palliate their own religion , so they may but by any means draw unwary men into their net. . but the council of trent goes yet further : it does not only establish this doctrine , but in express terms anathematises those who oppose it : for in the close of that chapter i but now mentioned , thus it decrees : if any one shall teach or think contrary to these decrees : let him be anathema . all which your epitomator caranza thus delivers in short , the synod commands ( all those who have the care of souls ) that they should teach the invocation of saints ; the honour of reliques ; and the use of images ; and that those who teach otherwise do think wickedly . and if any one shall teach or think contrary to these decrees , let him be anathema . . it remains therefore that your church does teach and require of all its members both the profession and practise of such an invocation , as i have before explain'd : and of which i now undertake to shew : . that it is repugnant to gods holy word . . contrary to antiquity . . that is unreasonable in the constitution ; and . unprofitable and unlawful in the practise . i. it is repugnant to gods holy word . . and here , first i will not doubt once more to tell you that to pray to saints after the manner that it is now done in the church of rome , is contrary to all those passages of holy scripture which attribute religious worship to god only ; such as deut. vi. . thou shalt fear the lord thy god and serve him , and swear by his name ; and again chap. x. , . xiii . . &c. all which our saviour christ has taught us to interpret with such a restrictive term , as excludes all others from a share in our service . mat. iv. . it is written , thou shalt worship the lord thy god , and him only shalt thou serve . i have already shewn that all prayer made to a person that is absent , with a confidence that he is able both to know our wants , and to hear our prayers , and to answer our desires , is in its own nature a religious worship . now then from these places of holy scripture , i thus argue : it is repugnant to gods word to give any proper acts of religious worship to any but god only ; but all such prayer as is made in your church to the saints departed , are proper acts of religious worship ; and therefore it must be contrary to gods word to pray to any but god only . . nor am i here at all concern'd in your distinctions of a supreme and an inferior religious honour ; seeing both you and i are agreed that all honour properly religious ( such as prayer ) is comprised under these prohibitions . if i were , i would then tell you that the devil here did not require of christ such a supreme worship , but on the contrary acknowledged himself to have a superior , from whom he derived his power of disposing of all the kingdoms of the earth , and the glories of them . all he desired was to have some religious honour paid to him. and our saviour by alledging this sentence of the law against it , evidently shews that it is not only such a supream religious worship as some of you pretend , but that all such honour in general , is the peculiar service of god alone . but this ( if you stand to your own principles ) you cannot object , and for others , what i have now said may suffice to obviate their pretences . . secondly , what i have now concluded from this general principle of holy scripture , i will in the next place more particularly inforce from these other passages , where the worship of creatures is expresly prohibited . in the xth. of the acts , when cornelius fell down at st. peters feet , and would have worshipp'd him , he took him up saying , i my self also am a man. it is a poor shift here to say , that cornelius would have worshipp'd st. peter with a supream divine worship ; he was not certainly so ignorant as to think , that when the angel bid him send to joppa for simon peter , who lodged with simon a tanner , he meant he should send for the great god that had made heaven and earth . nor is it of any more moment which others amongst you suggest , viz. that cornelius did well to adore him , but that st. peter out of modesty refus'd it . and the answer he gave , i my self also am a man , utterly overthrows all such insinuations ; being as much as if he had said , that no man whatsoever was to be worshipped . . but this will more evidently appear in another instance , viz. that of st. john , revel . xix . . who when in his ecstacy he fell down and would have worshipp'd the angel that discoursed with him , the blessed spirit utterly forbad him ; see ( says he ) thou do it not , for i am thy fellow servant : worship god. in which words are plainly establish'd these two conclusions against this service ; st . that angels ( and so likewise the saints ) being our fellow servants are not to be worshipp'd : dly , that god only is to be adored . . but st. paul is yet more plain : he exhorts the colossians in general , and in them us : colos. ii. . let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels . it is answered by some among you , that this was said in opposition to the heresie of simon magus who would have sacrifice offer'd to the angels : or at least of some others , who thought that tho' christ had abolish'd the law , yet was it still to be observed out of respect to the angels by whom it had been deliver'd . but besides that i do not find any such thing charged by any of the ancients upon simon magus , as is pretended ; had s. paul designed only to forbid one particular act of religious worship being paid to them , would he in general have said that they were not to be worshipped ? or had he intended to signifie the abolishing of the law , would he not have said so here , as well as in his other epistles ; and not have given such an obscure insinuation of it , as when he meant to forewarn them against observing the law , to bid them have a care of worshipping angels . but the truth is the meaning of the text is too plain to be thus eluded . and i shall give it to you in the words of an ancient father who lived in those very times in which you yet pretend such a service was establish'd : those who maintain'd an observance of the law together with the gospel , taught also that angels were to be worshipped ; saying that the law was given by them . this custom remained a long time in phrygia and pisidia . upon which account the synod of laodicea in phrygia , forbad them by a law to pray to angels . but. . thirdly , and to come more immediately to the worship of invocation . the same apostle in that question , rom. x. . how shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed ? furnishes us with another maxime of holy scripture against all such prayers ; viz. that no one is to be invoked in our religious addresses , but he only in whom we believe . but now reason , scripture , the common creeds of all christians shew that we are to believe only in god the father , son , and holy ghost , and therefore upon him only must we call. as for your distinction that this indeed in one sense is very true , but then in another and secondary sense others besides god may be both believed in , and called upon ; if you mean in a civil respect , it is indeed very true , but nothing to your purpose , seeing in this sense we can no more believe in than we can call upon such persons as are absent from us , and know nothing at all of us , which is the case of the saints departed . but for believing in a religious sense , as it is properly an act of divine faith , and the foundation of that assurance with which we call upon god by our saviour jesus christ ; this admits of no distinction , nor may it by any means , or in any measure be applied , without sin , to any other than god alone . . i will add but one principle more of holy scripture against this service , and so close this first point . rom. xiv . . that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. but now those prayers which have no foundation in holy scripture cannot be of faith ; for ( says the same apostle rom. x. . ) faith cometh by hearing , and hearing by the word of god ; and therefore such prayers must be sin. if god has any where revealed it to you , that you may lawfully give such a religious worship to the saints , shew this , and our dispute is ended . but if you cannot do this , nor by consequence cannot pray to them with any well grounded perswasion of conscience , that this is what god allows , and what the saints are capable of receiving , i do not see how it can be avoided but that to you it must be sin so to do . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . as an ancient father argues from this very principle in the like manner . . for the other part of this service , the intercession of the saints for us ; i might to this oppose all those passages of the new testament , where christ is set forth to us as our only mediator . but i shall content my self with one single text , . tim. ii. , . there is one god , and one mediator between god and men , the man christ jesus , who gave himself a ransome for all . now if there be but one mediator , then saints and angels are not mediators as you pretend . if the foundation of christs mediatorship be this , that he gave himself a ransome for all ; then seeing the saints have not done this , it must follow that neither can they be our mediators . and this cuts off your new distinction of a mediator of intercession , and a mediator of redemption ; which besides that it is the issue of your own brains , and was invented only to support a tottering cause , is here utterly destroy'd ; seeing the foundation of christs mediating now in heaven , and appearing in the presence of god for us , is by vertue of his being our mediator of redemption upon earth ; and he therefore is become our intercessor there , because he shed his bloud for our expiation here . this is that great argument upon which the author to the hebrews so much insists , chap. ix . x. and the analogy of the high priest under the law , making first the expiatory sacrifice for the people , and then entring into the holiest to appear before god for them , most evidently confirms it to us . and this may suffice for the st . point , that this service is contrary to the principles of holy scripture . ii. it is contrary to antiquity . . and here i am fallen into a vast ocean ; and should never have ended , should i go about particularly to shew how vain your pretences are to possession for this superstition . it shall suffice me at present only to point out to you a few of those remarks which others have more largely pursu'd ; and which do abundantly declare how little conformable the best and highest antiquity has been to what you now practise . . i have already given some short account of the first three centuries : and how little able you are to lay any claim to the authority of them . you have there seen what the opinion was of those holy fathers , touching the state of the saints departed : how they thought that they do not yet enjoy the beatifick vision , and by consequence were not in a condition to be called upon by the church on earth . i have shewn you the fathers arguing against the arrians for the divinity of christ from the churches praying to him ; and which evidently proves that they thought none but god was capable of such a service . i have offer'd you the definition which those holy men gave of prayer ; viz. that it was an address to god , a conversing with god , and the like ; and in all which they still restrain'd it to him as his own peculiar prerogative . there we find no mention of any calling upon the blessed virgin or the saints . no distinction of supreme and inferiour religious worship ; of mediators of redemption and intercession : in short none of those evasions with which all your discourses on this point are now filled ; and without which indeed , according to your principles , it is impossible to explain it . . but i will now add yet more . it was a general custome in the third and following ages ( concerning which we are particularly to enquire ) to pray for the saints departed , for martyrs and confessors , nay for the blessed virgin her self , as has been elsewhere fully proved , and i suppose you will not have the confidence to deny it . now let me appeal to any reasonable man to say ; could the church in those times have prayed in a suppliant manner to the saints , as reigning with god , nay and gods themselves by participation , to aid , and assist them , when on the contrary they thought them in such a state as to need prayers to god for them ? is it to be believed , that they addressed to those as mediators and intercessors with god , for whom they themselves interceded to god ? it is a memorable remark that has been made to confirm the force of this argument , that since the prevalency of this praying to saints in the church of rome , your publick rituals have had a notable change . those very saints which in your ancient missals you pray'd for , being now a la mode pray'd to . thus upon iv. kalends of july in the sacramentary of pope gregory i. above years after christ we find this prayer made in behalf of s. leo , one of your popes . grant o lord that this oblation may be profitable to the soul of thy servant leo. but in the present roman missal , the collect is changed , and the address made by the intercession of the saint now , that was formerly made by way of intercession for him. grant to us , o lord , that by the intercession of blessed leo , this offering may be profitable to us . and of this change , pope innocent the d. gives this honest account : viz. that the authority of holy scripture says , that he injures a martyr , that prays for a martyr ; ( wherein yet his infallibility mislead him , it being s. austin and not the scripture that said so ) and they do not want our prayers , but we theirs . which the gloss thus more fully expresses ; it was changed ( viz. this prayer for pope leo ) because anciently they pray'd for him , but now to him. and from whence therefore we may warrantably infer , that in those first ages praying to saints was not establish'd , seeing it was then the general custom to pray for them . . the truth is , the whole face of the ancient church seems clearly opposite to the present practise : some doubted whether the holy saints departed , do at all concern themselves for us , or conduce any thing to our salvation . so origen . and these to be sure never prayed to them . others made open opposition to such service . so the council of laodicea ; s. epiphanius , vigilantius , and others before mention'd . now you canonize saints , and esteem it necessary so to do , to prevent mens praying to those in heaven , who are it may be at this time tormenting in hell. but in those first ages we find none of these apotheoses ; and bellarmine himself could not find out any instance of any saint that was canonized before the viiith . century . if we go into your churches , we find them filled with altars and chappels , images and reliques of the saints : candles are lighted up before them ; incense is burned to their honour : but in those primitive ages , not the least shadow is to be met with of any such superstitions . your books of devotion are now filled with little else than advises how to pray to the blessed virgin ; to list your selves into her service ; to vow your selves to her worship ; her psalter , and rosary , and salutation is in every part of your performances . even the catechism of the council of trent it self , the most cautious book that has been set forth for some ages in your church , having taught you first how to pray to god , fails not to instruct you that you must in the next place have recourse to the saints , and make prayers to them . how comes it to pass , if this were the primitive practise too , that none of those holy fathers , in any of their practical discourses have ever treated of these things ? nay on the contrary , they every where thunder in our ears , that protestant , heretical maxim , that we must pray to god only , and that we ought not to address our selves to any other . . in all your sermons , you call upon the blessed virgin for assistance . in the ends of your books , her name seldom fails of standing in the same return of praise in which god and our saviour are glorified . your publick service , and private prayers , are all over-run with this superstition . but is there any thing of this in the primitive rituals ? look i beseech you into the account that has been given us of the publick service of the ancient church by justin martyr , tertullian , nay by the clementine constitutions themselves : consult the relation which pliny made to the emperour trajan of their manners . try those famous liturgies of the church within the first years , which no body has the happiness to be acquainted with but your self ; see if you can pick us up but one instance , but some shadow of an instance to flourish with on this occasion . . what are the lives of your saints , but continued histories of their devotion to the blessed virgin , and the saints , and the favours which upon that account they received from them ? but in the ancient compilers of such kind of discourses , we find only dry accounts of their piety towards god ; of their zeal and constancy in the faith ; of their patience in suffering any thing , rather than submit to such superstitious practises as these , which the heathens indeed would have drawn them to , but which the church utterly abhorred . but for their knight errantry in honour of the blessed virgin ; for watching whole nights before her images ; or in her chappels ; for turning vagabonds in order to the visiting her chamber at loretto ; or fetching a feather from compostella ; of this new method of piety there are not the least traces . . i might run out these remarks into almost infinite examples , were they not things as well known , as your contrary superstition is notorious . but i shall reserve these , and some other observations of the like kind , till you think fit to call me to account for them . in the mean time i conclude from this short specimen i have here given , that certainly the face of the church must be very much changed as to these things ; or otherwise that so great a difference could not possibly be found in the lives , the writings , the actions , the customs , the opinions , the expressions , prayers , practises , of those holy fathers , from what we see and lament in your church at this day . i go on thirdly to shew ; iii. the unreasonableness of this service . . and for that i shall offer only this one plain argument ; if the saints cannot ordinarily hear your prayers , nor are able to attend distinctly to those addresses that are made to them : if those whom you canonize are not indeed such as you suppose , but many at this day tormented in hell , upon whom you call for assistance in heaven : if some of those to whom you pray never had any being , but either in the heralds office , or in the fruitful womb of a legendaries brain : then it cannot be doubted but that to pray to the saints must be the most unreasonable devotion in the world ; you speak to the wind , and call upon them to as little purpose as if you should here in england make an address to a man in china or tartary ; and you might as well have continued the deities , as you do the practise of the ancient heathens in this service : it being altogether as wise a devotion to pray to a jupiter or an apollo that never lived in the world , as to a st. george or a st. christopher that never had any more being in it than they . and yet were we now to inquire into these circumstances , without a full knowledg of which this invocation can never be a reasonable service , what uncertain accounts should we receive from you . for , . first . as to the main foundation of all whether the saints hear your prayers ? in what doubt is your bishop of meaux still in his exposition , and you know he was once in a great deall more ? all he has to say is that you teach that your prayers to the saints are very profitable , whether it be that they know them by the ministry and communication of the angels ; or whether it be that god himself makes known to them our desires by a particular revelation ; or whether it be that he discovers the secret to them in his divine essence in which all truth is comprised . if we enquire of your more ancient authors , we shall find all full of uncertainty . lombard thought it was not incredible to suppose that the saints might know the prayers that were addressed to them . scotus went a little farther , and judged it to be probable that god revealed these things to them : and so did gabriel biel. those who pretend to more certainty yet are able to give but very little reason why ; * * * * * * unless you will take this for a reason , that their church generally belives so , and that otherwise it would be vain and absur'd to pray to them . in short , how the saints hear your prayers you do not pretend to know ; and i desire you to give me but one rational argument to convince me that ( by whatever means it is ) they do ordinarily , and constantly , and certainly , and particularly , understand the addresses that you make to them . for to deal freely with you , i never yet met with any thing that but inclined me to believe this , but much to the contrary . . secondly , concerning the canonization of your saints , may i beg leave to ask you : are you sure that all those whom your church has placed in heaven are truly there ? if you are not , i am sure you do very unreasonably to pray to them . now this i the rather desire to be satisfied in because here again i find your authors very much unresolved what to say . first , it is but the common opinion , ( no matter of faith ) that the power of canonizing saints belongs to the pope ; and therefore it cannot be without all doubt whether those whom he canonizes are infallibly saints or no. secondly , the jesuit vasquez tells us , there are catholicks ( he means those of your communion ) who do not think it without doubt that all whom your church has canonized are indeed saints : and he mentions no less a man than cardinal cajetane for one . and that cardinal in the book to which vasquez refers , alledges the great doctour of your schools s. thomas for another . to these i will add melchior canus , antoninus , and gerson , who at most esteem it but piously credible , not absolutely certain . but augustinus triumphus goes farther ; and doubts not freely to declare that all who are canonized by the pope cannot be in heaven . and prateolus tells us that herman the author of the heresie of the fratricelli was for twenty years together after his death honour'd as a saint , and then his body was taken up and burnt for a heretick . and now if you are not yet sensible of the danger you run by this means , whilst you not only call upon a damned soul for aid and assistance , but ( as in some of your prayers you do ) pray unto god so to give you grace on earth as he has glorified them in heaven ; i shall leave it to your own cardinal bellarmine to inform you of it . thirdly , it is confessed by those of your own church that among your canonized saints , some there have been whose lives were not to be commended : others whose opinions have been condemned as heretical ; and for my part , when i consider the character of some to whom you pray , such as thomas a becket , dominick , &c. i cannot but say , that if these be the men whom you place in heaven , what the poor indians did of the spaniards , that then the other is certainly the more desirable portion . for , and i am perswaded that were but s. martin again alive to summon their souls before him , as he once did that of a supposed saint in his time , they would make the same confession that wretched spirit is reported to have done , and prove much more worthy your compassion than your adoration . now that which the more encreases this danger is fourthly , the almost infinite number of saints that have been received amongst you , and whose consecration depending wholly on matter of fact , in which you do not pretend the pope to be infallible , it can hardly be supposed but that he must have very often proved mistaken . for to keep only to your own order ; a late author of yours tells us , that your domestick saints alone did long since by computation amount to fourty four thousand . and i find another † † † † † † list increasing them to fifty thousand . now to consider all the arts and intrigues that are used to procure these canonizations ; by what popes many of them have been placed in heaven ; what characters several among them have in your own histories of their lives ; these and many other reflections would i confess prompt me , were i otherwise as well satisfied of the innocence of this worship , as i am fully convinced of the unlawfulness of it , yet to pray to the greatest part of your saints , as he once did to saint cutbert ; si sanctus sis , ora pro me : if thou art a saint , pray for me . . it is i know , the last refuge of many , who consider this uncertainty , to say , that at least your good intention shall render these prayers acceptable to god ; for what ( says the learned erasmus ) if the saints do not perceive our desires , yet christ do's know them , and will for them give us what we ask ? but yet still this will not make it a reasonable service ; nor can you with a firm faith call upon those in heaven , of whom you have at most , but a pious credulity that they are there : and tho' some of your authors do believe , that your own piety shall excuse you , yet others utterly deny it , and doubt not to say , that you may as well excuse the heathens themselves , who in worshipping the parts of the world , supposed ( according to varro's divinity ) that they worshipped the divine nature , that was diffused through it . but . thirdly , that which is the worst of all , is , that you have not only no certainty of the happiness of those saints whom you canonize , but you pray to some who ( for ought appears ) never had any being in the world. now among these , i shall not doubt in the first place , to account our own country saint and champion st. george , and of whom our english legends still recount so many miracles ; tho' cardinal baronius himself has confess'd that they are for the most part absolutely false . in the roman breviary since the reformation of it by pope pius v. there is no account at all of his life ; and your own * * * * * * authors tells us the reason is , because there is no certain truth of any of those things that are extant concerning him . and indeed , if the antient histories of this saint were justly censured by pope gelasius , as apocryphal , we have no great reason to believe , that the latter legends deserve any better reception . as for the famous story which still continues in those equally books of the ignorant , the english lives of the saints , and the sign posts ; where we see this great champion , like another perseus , mounted to deliver the fair andromeda from the dragons mouth ; baronius charges jacobus a voragine with the pure invention of it , and almost every body now , but our english compiler , is grown asham'd of it . in short , if there be any foundation at all in antiquity for this story , it is but little for the satisfaction of those who worship this saint . your own authors confess , that this george lived about the time of dioclesian , that he was by birth a cappadocian ; that he had encounters with athanasius a magician : now all this seems to perswade us , that our s. george was no other , than george the arrian bishop , who was also a cappadocian by birth , who had encounters with s. athanasius , whom the arrians called a magician ; and who was deified by those hereticks , after his violent death in the time of julian . and in memory of which perhaps it was , that they first mounted him upon a camel , ( being led through the streets upon one ) and then for greater decency changed it into a horse ; to which jacobus a voragine added the dragon and the lady ; with the warlike equipage of cask and lance : and thus is our tutelary saint , brought under suspition of being , if any thing at all , a wicked heretick ; that persecuted one of the greatest bishops of his time , for asserting the divinity of the son of god ; and yet is this man still pray'd to in your church ; and i have now by me an antient ritual in which he is seen armed at all points , his spear in the dragons mouth , the lady by him on her knees : and these prayers addressed to him . saint george , famous martyr ; praise and glory become thee : by whom the princely lady being grieved by a wicked dragon , was preserved . almighty and everlasting god , who mercifully hearest the prayers of those who call upon thee ; we humbly beseech thy majesty , that as for the honour of thy blessed and glorious martyr s. george thou causedst the dragon to be overcome by a maid , so by his intercession thou wouldest vouchsafe to defend us against all our enemies visible and invisible , that they may not be able to hurt us , through jesus christ our lord. now what is this but to mock god in his solemn service ? to pray to him through the intercession of a man that either never lived in the world , or it may be was one of his most hated enemies ; and deified by a crew of wretched hereticks , for his fury in opposing the eternal generation of the saviour of us all . . and what i have thus chosen more particularly to insist upon in this example , i might shew in several others not a whit less fabulous . our saviour in s. luke gives a parabolical account of the different states of men in the other world , under the names of dives and lazarus . as for the former there was no great danger of making him a saint . but for lazarus he is transubstantiated into a real man. temples are built among you to his honour : anniversary solemnites are consecrated to his memory , and because he was represented in scripture as full of sores , he is now made the patron of the lepers in heaven . from the greek word signifying a spear , you have first found out a name for the centurion that ranour blessed lord into the side ; and having metamorphosed the spear into a man , it was no hard matter to make the man a saint : and now upon the th . of march , who so much honour'd , as s. longinus . nay what is yet more pleasant , baronius assures us that his venerable body is kept in the church of st. austin at rome . . s. christopher is another of your saints that never lived . he is pretended to have suffer'd under dagnus king of lycia , who also never was in the world ; and being of a giantly stature to have dwelt by a river side where there was no bridge , and there he made it his business in charity to carry over all that pass'd that way : which our saviour so much approved as to suffer him once upon a time to carry himself over upon his shoulders . now all this cardinal baronius confesses to be a meer legend ; but our thorough paced english-irish collector , tho he confesses he never saw any approved author that said it , yet for the pictures sake which are so common amongst you , declares generously that he was resolved to believe it . and the ancient ritual i before mention'd , prays to our saviour that in consideration of his riding over the river upon s. christophers back , he would deliver you from all dangers . . i should never have done should i insist on this manner upon all the other imaginary saints whom you worship . such were our own country-woman again , s. ursula and her virgins ; who is pretended to have been daughter to dionet king of cornwall , in the time of marcian , when there was no such king in england ; and to have been martyr'd at cologn , whither she went by ship , being the first and last that ever sail'd thither ; and yet this lady makes no mean figure in your church . she is patroness under god and the blessed virgin , of a whole religious society ; and with great devotion pray'd to , december . i might to this visionary saintess , add others of the same sex ; s. catharine , s. margaret , &c. but i shall content my self with one memorable instance , not so commonly known , which may suffice to shew with what uncertainty you pray to many in these devotions . the account is given by one of your own communion , and who himself discover'd the mistake . . about eight miles from evora a city of portugal , there is a place which they call the cave of the martyrs ; where they pretend were slain a great number of christians with their bishop and his two sisters ; to one of which , called columba , there was a chappel erected , and in the place where the other was slain , there issued out a spring of sweet water , called to this day , holy-well , and very good for curing a weak sight . the sepulchre of the bishop himself is in a church of the blessed virgins , empty , and open . over it is a table of stone supported by four pillars , so that a man might go under it . hither came all those that had pains in their loyns , and imploring the aid of this martyr , they went away certainly cured . there was also the picture of this bishop : and upon this stone table they sacrificed the mass , in honour to him , calling him by his proper name viarius . . this was the ancient tradition , and worship . when ressendius , who relates this story , came hither , in order to the publishing the life of this saint , among others he was then writing ; he desired the priest who had given him this account of their martyr , to shew him if there were any antient records , or inscriptions , that confirm'd it . upon this he brought him to the altar beforemention'd , and there he found this inscription . s. q. jvl. claro . c. v. iiii. vi ro viarvm cvranda rvm ann. xxi . q. jvl. nepotiano . c. i. iiii. viro . viarvm cvran darvm . ann. xx. calp . sabina . filiis . the priest pointing with his finger to these words viarum cvrandarum , see ( says he ) the proper name of the martyr viarius : and for curandarum , it is as much as to say cura cutarum , i. e. a bishop . as for the other names ( continued he ) i suppose they may be the proper names of the other martyrs that suffered with him . . ressendius held his countenance as well as ever he could , but went immediately away to cardinal alphonsus , who was at that time bishop of evora , and told him all that had pass'd , and how a couple of heathens , overseers of the high-ways , had been worshipp'd there for christians , and martyrs . the cardinal commanded the tomb to be stopped up , to the great discontent of the people , who had been wont to receive mighty relief by their addresses to this viarius ; and cursed the learning and curiosity of ressendius , that had deprived them of so great and useful a saint . . i shall make no other application of this story , than what i find in the complaint of another learned man of your church , as to this very matter . there is also ( says he ) another error , not uncommon ; that neglecting , in a manner , the antient and known saints , the common people worship more ardently , and diligently , the new and unknown ; of whose holiness we have but little assurance , and some of which are known to us only by revelation ; insomuch that of several of them it is justly doubted , whether ever there were any such persons in the world . . from all these considerations , i now conclude against the reasonableness of this invocation . . no man can reasonably pray in faith to such persons , as he can never be sure are able either to hear his prayers , or to answer his desires : but you can never be sure that your saints are able to do either of these ; and therefore you cannot reasonably pray with any good assurance to them . . it is unreasonable to pray to those as saints , who , it may be , are not in heaven , nor ever shall be there : but this is very probably the case of many of your saints , and you cannot be sure it is otherwise , when you address to them ; and therefore it is unreasonable in you to pray to them . . to pray to those who never were in the world , is the most unreasonable thing that can be imagined ; but in your prayers to many of your saints , you address to those that never were in the world ; and therefore upon this , and upon all the foregoing accounts , i conclude it very unreasonable to pray to the saints at all . there is yet one thing more remaining to finish this whole subject of invocation of saints , viz. iv. that it is unprofitable , and impious in the practice . first , that it is unprofitable . . and if the former consideration stand good ; this will necessarily follow from it . for if either those whom you pray to are meer figments of your own brain , that have neither truth nor existence ; or if tho they do exist , yet they are not saints as you suppose ; or tho they should be saints too , yet have no means ordinarily and particularly to hear your prayers , nor can attend to those numberless addresses that are at the same time from all the parts of the world put up to them ; it must then be a most unprofitable , as well as a most senseless practise to pray to them ; and what our saviour once objected to the samaritans , will be found no less true of you , that ye worship ye know not what , nor why . . but let us allow that you invoke none but what have lived , and are sanctified : let us also grant that which yet the holy fathers so much doubted of , that the saints do already enjoy the beatifick vision ; and therefore ( according to your divinity ) are capable of understanding your prayers , by whatsoever way it be that they do so : i dare yet ask of you , what profit is there in this service ? for tell me now , i beseech you , o ye worshippers of dead men ? have we not an advocate in heaven , jesus christ the righteous , who is the sole and full propitiation of our sins ? has he not promised that whatsoever we ask the father in his name , we shall receive it ? has he not told us that he is the way , the truth , and the life ? and that no one can come to the father but by him ? is it not he that has set us an example how we ought to pray ; when ye pray say , our father which art in heaven : shew us if you can any precept , or encouragement , or example , for going to any other . is it that our saviour christ has not compassion enough for us , that you go to others as more merciful ? thus some of you i know have said : but on the contrary the scripture tells us that we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities , but was in all points tempted like as we are : and from thence presently infers let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace , that we may obtain mercy , and find grace to help in time of need . or is it finally , that the interest of the blessed jesus is not great enough with his father ; unless you add a mad francis , a bloody dominick , a rebellious becket , an enthusiastick ignatius , to be joynt advocates with him ? if these indeed be your thoughts , let us plainly know the impiety of them ? and upon what unchristian foundations the benefit of this practise is established by you ? but if you dare not say that any saint in heaven can prevail , where christ alone cannot ; if you are ashamed to own , that you think any one can love us more dearly , than he who gave himself for us , and redeem'd us with his own most precious blood ; or by consequence can be more ready to hear and intercede for us : tell me then , what profit is it , that having this fountain of living water , you run to the broken cisterns of the merits and intercession of your fellow creatures , which can hold no water . . but i will go yet further , to shew you the unprofitableness of this service . it was objected by a great man of your own church ; if ( says he ) the saints know our necessities , and those defects which we express in our prayers : how comes it to pass that we do not oftner find our selves relieved by them ? to this he answers ; that altho the saints in heaven have doubtless the greatest charity imaginable for us , yet they have withal their wills so intirely conformed to the will of god , as not to lend any assistance to us , but according to what they see the knowledge and will of god disposed towards us . an excellent reflexion certainly ; and which no one can doubt to be most true . but then it will follow from it , that you do in vain sollicite the saints , who cannot lend you any assistance , till god is pleased to permit himself to be intreated for you . whilst our heavenly father is our enemy , all the host of heaven are so too . we must first be reconciled to him , before ever we can expect any favour or acceptance with them . in short , it was the conclusion of an antient father , whom i before mentioned , that the only way to make the angels and saints our friends , is to make god so first : and tho' we know little of what those blessed spirits above do for us , yet we have all the reason in the world to believe that they love and hate according to the divine pleasure ; and if they do pray for us , the most ready way to obtain their prayers , is to be constant , and zealous , and persevering both in our prayers and piety towards god , through his son jesus christ our lord. . i shall conclude this with the words of s. austin , let it not be any matter of religion to us to worship dead men ; because if they have lived well , they desire no such honour , but rather that we should worship him ; by whose illumination they rejoyce , that we are companions of their piety . they are therefore to be honoured for our imitation , not to be worshipped out of religion — and the same let us think of angels ; that they above all things , desire that we should , together with them , worship god only , in whose vision they are happy — tying our souls to him alone , from which religion derives its very name , let us lay aside all superstition . behold i worship one god , the one principle of all things — whatsoever angel loves this god , i am sure that he loves me too . whosoever remains in him , and can understand the prayers of men , in him he hears me . whosoever has god for his good , do's in him help me — let the adorers of the parts of the universe tell me : what good person is there that he does not reconcile to himself , who worships him only whom every good person loves , and in whose knowledge he rejoyces , and by recurring to which principle , he becomes good . let therefore religion bind us to the one god almighty , &c. but i insist too long on these reflections : i add only , secondly , to close all , that this invocation of saints departed , is as impious , as it is unprofitable . . for first , to take this practice in the most moderate sense that may be , yet to pray to any creature after the manner that you do to the saints departed , is to make them the objects of a proper religious worship , and to pay that service to the creature , which is due only to the creator ; and this certainly cannot be done without a very great impiety . . secondly , to pray to the saints but only as intercessors , even this do's usurp upon the peculiar prerogative of our blessed saviour , who is our only mediator , and whose singular priviledge it is to appear in the presence of god for us . and to joyn others with christ in his great office and employment , to make to our selves new mediators ; what is this but tacitely ( at least ) to imply , that we dare not trust either his mercy , or his interest ; in the concern of our everlasting salvation . but then . thirdly , to pray , as you evidently do , not only that the saints would intercede for you , but that god would be merciful to you , not only through the merits of christ , but of the saint whose memory you celebrate ; this is a downright undervaluing of our saviour's bloud , and do's despight unto the covenant of grace . . fourthly , to pray to the saints , ( as if we may be allow'd to understand the meaning of plain words you do ) as the arbitrary dispensers of benefits to you , that they would themselves grant you those things which you ask of them ; this makes your service yet more intollerable . and tho' you seek to evade the justice of this censure by those unreasonable expositions of your prayers , i have before refuted , yet i am sure it ought to be more than enough to make us avoid that practice which cannot be excused but by such forced interpretations , as should men use the like on other occasions , all society must be overthrown , and mens words be no longer relied upon as sufficient to declare the sense of their minds . . fifthly , as to what concerns the practice of the people in this point , it cannot be deny'd ; nay , it is by some of your own church openly complain'd of , how much their hope and confidence , their love and service are hereby lessen'd towards god ; and what greater signs of zeal appear in them towards the blessed virgin , than towards our saviour christ himself . and indeed , you who ought to have better inform'd them , are the very persons that have especially help'd to mislead them . 't is from you they have learnt , as a great practice of piety , to salute her ten times , for god's once . 't is you that have taught them to joyn mary still with jesus in their mouths : insomuch , as if it be possible , to let her name be the last expression of their dying breath . 't is you that have told them , that to list themselves into her fraternity , is one of the surest means in the world to ascertain their salvation . from you they learn in all their prayers to call upon her : at the sound of a bell thrice every day wherever they are , or whatever they are about , to fall down upon their knees and salute her . your confessions , absolutions , excommunications , vows , thanksgivings , visitations , commendations , conjurations , are all transacted in her name , as well as in the name of the holy trinity . whilst our saviour christ is represented by you either as still in the state of pupillage , an infant in her arms , or expiring upon his cross , she has her crown , and glory about her head ; sometimes the moon under her feet , and not seldom the whole trinity joyning to set forth her honour . her titles in all your offices are excessive : the queen of heaven , the mother of divine grace , the mirrour of righteousness , the seat of wisdom , the cause of our joy , the tower of david , the ark of the covenant , the gate of heaven , the refuge of sinners , the help of christians , the queen of angels , patriarchs , prophets , apostles , martyrs , confessors , and all saints : these are the common names you give her , in your hymns , your litanies and prayers to her . and what impression all this must make upon untutor'd minds ; how much greater value they will be hereby apt to set upon her than upon christ himself , every mans reason will soon tell him , and a sad experience confirms it to us . . but indeed sixthly , it is here ( in the words of the prophet ) as with the people so with the priest : your superstition is not at all less , tho much more inexcusable than theirs . witness those great names for whom you have appeared to be so much concern'd ; st. bernard , st. germain , st. anselme , st. antonine , st. bernardine , &c. and whose blasphemous devotion i have before exposed to the world. let the writings of card. bona , and father crasset , the contemplations of the blessed virgin , and the late apology for them in our own language be consider'd . for i am very much mistaken , if it be possible for the most ignorant zealot to be more unreasonably extravagant , than these learned men have approved themselves to be . . nor may you turn off these with your old distinction , that they are but private persons , and for whose excesses therefore your church is not to answer . they were approved in what they did , and many of them are at this day worshipped by you as canonized saints ; and 't was this superstition that especially contributed to their exaltation . who was it that composed that exorbitant hymn , yet used in your church , ave maris stella , but your devout st. bernard ? s. herman , another of your own order , made those others neither less extravagant , nor less authorized by you , salve regina , alma redemptoris mater , and ave regina caelorum . and the late editor of his life tells us , that being lame in body , and dullin mind , he pray'd earnestly to the blessed virgin in this romantick manner : help , o help , the doubly wretched herman . his prayer smote the tender hearted virgin , and immediately she appear'd to him , and offer'd him his choice , whether he would have firmness of body , or accuteness of mind . he chose the latter , and express'd his gratitude to his great benefactress , by composing those famous hymns beforementioned to her honour . . it was another of the same order , and that had in your opinion two the greatest characters any man can pretend to ; a pope in the church militant , and now a saint in the church triumphant , who appointed the three solemn [ devotions i have spoken of , to be every day paid to the blessed virgin at the sound of a bell , and composed the course of the virgin , that what was done before by the monks only , might from thenceforth become the public service of the church to her . . what is the great commendation that is given of s. gerard , and he too a saint of your own order . but that having caused an image of the blessed virgin to be curiously wrought , he set it up in a chappel built on purpose for it , and appointed incense and sweet odours to be every day for ever burnt to it . that he taught the hungarians to call her their lady , having perswaded their king stephen to make his kingdom tributary to her . in short , that he never heard the name of mary pronounced , but he worshipp'd it , bowing his face towards the ground . . 't was this was the great thing for which yet another of your order st. joscio was canonized . whose piety to the virgin whilst he lived , was rewarded with a notable miracle at his death . for no sooner was he dead , but there grew five roses of an extraordinary sweetness out of his head , two out of his eyes , two out of his ears , and one out of his mouth ; and upon every one of them a letter of the virgin mary's name ; so that the whole m. a. r. i. a. was composed by them . . thus has this devotion to the saints , almost wholly overcome your piety towards god. your devotions , your histories , your lives , your miracles , are all framed to promote it . and now i am mentioning those evils which from these kind of legends have been derived to corrupt both the opinions and practice of those who are acquainted with little else than these fables : i will refer it to your self to tell me , whether you can endure to see the dignity of our saviour , and the majesty of god himself , so lessen'd as it is by many of your communion , to encrease the veneration of the saints . . when st. gothardus was chosen by the emperor henry to succeed bernard in the bishoprick of hildersheim , and the monk modestly declined that honour ; the blessed virgin the same night appears to him , and sharply reproves him in this ranting rhetorick , scito imperatorem meo id jussu motiri . peccasti penicaciâ tua in me & filium . know ( says she ) that the emperour has done this at my command ; thou hast sin'd by thy obstinacy , against me and my son . this indeed was as became the queen of heaven ; and one would think by it , that she still maintain'd the right of a mother over her son. . but you have dealt yet worse with our saviour than this ; your writers represent him at this day as a little child in heaven , as if he were ever to continue in the same impotent state , in which your pictures and images express him . thus we read in the life of st. paula , that the blessed virgin appear'd to her with her little boy , who kist paula , and squeezed some of his mothers milk into her mouth . nor was this any thing extraordinary ; the writer of her life assures us , that she was often wont to take him into her arms and play with him . and the like happened to many other of your saints ; as for instance , saint aldegundis , st. francisca , of whom we are told , that being committed to the care of an arch-angel , she did oftentimes read the office of the blessed virgin in the night , by the light that proceeded from his rays : and was for her diligence in it so acceptable to the virgin , that she several times came down from heaven to refresh her , and offer'd her son to be kiss'd , and embraced by her . . but the favours of the blessed virgin to st. ida were of all others the most considerable . for coming down into her cell with her infant jesus ; behold ( says she ) o ida ! thy love : take him into thy lap , and satisfy thy self with the kisses and embraces of him whom thou lovest . — my author goes on beyond all bounds even of common decency : but i must stop here , and not repeat those blasphemies , which cannot be read without trembling . but , o blessed jesus ! how long wilt thou suffer this dishonour ? and permit an unbounded superstition to run to these excesses ? i appeal to all the christians of the world , what mean , dishonourable notions must they have of the god of heaven and earth , that in such a discerning age can presume to publish such romances ? these stories might indeed become a homer , or a virgil ; but what is fancy in them , being applied to a venus and a cupid , is an unpardonable blasphemy to be thus used of the saviour of the world , who is god over all blessed for ever . . these are the effects of this superstition : i might add many other examples no less horrible , in which our blessed lord has been diminish'd to make up the honour of his servants . but i shall shut up all with an impiety of another kind , though the effect of this worship ; and which ought the more to be taken notice of , both because it was done by a society which would be thought at least the most zealous of any for their faith ; and was exposed publickly in the sight of the sun , and before the eyes of many to whom i now write . the thing i mean is the late procession of the jesuits at luxemburg , may . . designed for the glory of the blessed virgin the honour'd and affectionate patroness of france and luxembourg . the procession indeed was singularly extravagant ; and it needed the skill of that learned society , to put prophaness into so scholastick a dress . heathenism and christianity walk'd together , as if the fathers of the society had equally reverenced the ancient deities of the one , as the modern deities of the other . on the one side were carried the image of the blessed virgin , and the holy sacrament . on the other , mars , vulcan , the cyclops and nayades , ceres , flora , pomona , &c. and these too with all the pomp , and even under the names of gods and divinities . at several stations , where the procession was to rest , theatres were erected , to serve to inspire agreeably ( say the learned fathers in the account which they printed of this days work ) a piety towards our lady of consolation . so the blessed virgin there is called . the second of these theatres , was for the god mars ; who commands his warriors to take heed not to commit any insult from henceforth upon the chappel of our lady of consolation . this is mars's care : and the device for the god mars , was procul , ô , procul ite profani . virg. in the third theatre , ceres , flora , pomona , &c. rejoyce at the return of our lady of consolation . and their motto , still under the title of divinities , was jam redit & virgo , redeunt saturnia regna . it were too long to transcribe all the other follies and impieties of this days solemnity , in which the holy scripture found no room ; the sacrament but very little : the whole piety was designed to the blessed virgin ; and because christianity had not gods enough in it , to set forth her glory , all the poetic deities were revived , to inspire agreeably a devotion into the people for her. this was indeed a master-piece of contrivance ; and what invention shall next be had , to excite a devotion to her , we may expect to see the first time the gentlemen of the society shall have occasion to make their complying consciences do something extraordinary , for the flattery of a prince so much their friend , and therefore so much their favourite as he , for whose honour this solemn procession was in great measure designed . in the mean time , i shall leave it to the reader seriously to consider , what sad effects such a devotion as this has given birth to ; and what just cause we have to oppose a superstition , contrary to the holy scripture , unknown to the best and most primitive antiquity ; unreasonable in its self , and which is worst of all , not only , very unprofitable , but very wicked too in its practice . answer to the fourth article , of images and reliques . in the beginning of this article you tell me ( but with very little reason ) that you might have past over this point without any further consideration ; the best argument you bring for it , being , if i mistake not , this , that you are not obliged to defend what i had advanced against you upon it . and indeed tho the reason be but a poor one , yet i am perswaded you had done better both for the interest of your cause , and for your own credit , to have contented your self with it , and have past over this article altogether ; rather than by giving such loose answers to my allegations , to have satisfied the world , that you have no just exceptions to make against them . . were i minded in return to excuse my self the trouble of any farther answer to you , i could , i believe , give you some more plausible pretences for it . i might tell you , ( st , ) that your distinctions are now so well known , and have been so often exploded by us , that there is no longer any danger that even my friends the vulgar should be circumvented by them . i might add , ( dly , ) and that with great truth , that this whole subject has been utterly exhausted by that learned man , i have so often mention'd , in his defence of the charge of idolatry against t. g. and from whom you have here again borrow'd your chiefest strength . i might mind you , ( ly , ) how after two endeavours to reply to him , t. g. was forced to give over ; and it is now above eight years since neither he nor any of your church has thought fit to carry on the dispute . i might desire you , ( thly , ) to compare your performances upon this point with what the representer ventur'd not above a year since to make a flourish with ; and see if you could find out but any one thing in all you here repeat , that his learned and judicious adversary had not utterly confuted . but he too has forsaken the cause ; and i am now called upon to give you the same answers that have been made to both these , and then without pretending to be a prophet , i dare be bold to say for all your blustring , you will go off the stage as tamely and quietly , as any of your predecessors have done before you . there is a certain circle of shifts and distinctions which you all run ; and no sooner are those spent , but your bolt is shot ; you drop the question , and begin again upon a new score . . these and many other reasons i might offer to decline any farther examination of this point ; but i have promised you before , that i would neither misrepresent your doctrine , nor fobb off your arguments . and i will here perform it with such exactness , that●even your incense and holy water shall not be forgotten . and if for our diversion you shall think fit the next time you write to add to these all your other follies , of holy ashes , consecrated candles , agnus dei's , and in one word , whatever superstitions of the like kind , your pontifical , ceremonial , missal , breviary , office of the blessed virgin , with all the rationals and comments that have ever been written upon them can furnish you with , i do once more promise you , that no pretence of their impertinence shall hinder me from sifting both them and you to the bottom . as to the present subject , i shall observe this plain method : i. i will make good the charge of image-worship against you . ii. i will shew you , that in this service too , you are truly and properly guilty of idolatry . . but before i enter upon these particulars , i must stop so long as to consider the new introduction you endeavour to amuse your reader with : viz. sect . i. of the benefit of pictures and images . and which brings to my mind what tully ( reckoning up the several opinions of the philosophers concerning the nature of the soul ) said once of aristoxenus , who of a fidler became a philosopher , and asserted the soul to be a harmony ; hic ab artificio suo non recessit , & tamen aliquid dixit . you tell us then , . reply , § . . ] that they are the books of the ignorant , silent orators , apt to increase in us the love of god and his saints , and ( o elegant ! ) blow up the dying coals of our affections into a flame of devotion , that the representations of holy persons , and of their glorious actions , do by their powerful eloquence inflame us towards an imitation of their graces and virtues , and renew in us afresh the memory of the persons whom they represent , with a reverence and respect for them . . answ. ] in all which tho you fight with your own shadow , and say nothing that either contradicts our principles concerning worship , or justifies your practises ; yet have you been so unhappy as to offer just matter for our animadversion : for , st . it is no small mistake in you , thus to joyn pictures and images together , as if they were all one ; when yet both your own superstition , and the opinion both of the jews and gentiles ( as to the point of worshipping of them ) have always made a very great difference between them . as for the ancient heathens , they adored their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , statues , or graven images ; because they conceived them most apt to be animated by their gods , of which they were the resemblances . whereas pictures were not thought so capable of receiving that animation . the same was the distinction of the jews too , who upon this very account have always look'd upon the former sort of † † † † † † sculptures to be the thing especially forbidden in the second commandment ; insomuch that they thought it unlawful to have them even for ornament ; but for * * * * * * pictures painted or woven , those they did not esteem to have been absolutely forbidden to them . and at this day in your church , your images are set up with solemn consecrations to receive your adoration . but i do not know that any pictures are dedicated for altar-pieces , or other uses , with the like solemnity . . another confusion of the like kind you make in what follows , in speaking of the pictures not only of holy persons , but of their actions too . for every body knows how much more use there may be , and how much less danger there certainly is in historical representations , than in single figures , but especially carved images . . were the benefit of images never so great , yet you know this is neither that which we dispute with you , nor for which they are set up in your churches . your trent synod expresly defines that due veneration is to be paid to them . your catechism says that they are to be had not only for instruction , but for worship . and this is the point in controversie betwixt us . we retain pictures , and sometimes even images too in our churches for ornament , and ( if there be such uses to be made of them ) for all the other benefits you have now been mentioning . only we deny that any service is to be paid to them ; or any solemn prayers to be made at their consecration , for any divine vertues , or indeed for any vertues at all , to proceed from them . this is our business ; the rest is all impertinence in such discourses as these , where men are to dispute , not harangue . and for images set up in churches , with these ceremonies , and for this purpose , i add . that were the benefits of them otherwise never so great , yet will not this be any manner of excuse to you for the violating of god's law , seeing , as you have been often told , and indeed do your self confess , no evil is to be done , for any good whatsoever that may come of it . tho now . i am not altogether satisfied of the great usefulness of images for the instruction of the ignorant . they may indeed serve to call good things and persons to their remembrance , when they have before been instructed , and by consequence in that respect are no longer ignorant of what is represented by them . but let a man , that is properly ignorant , i. e. who never heard of the xiith ( for instance ) of the revelations , see the virgin mary ten thousand times painted with a half-moon under her feet , i do not believe he would become one jot the wiser for it . nay , . in opposition to your pretences , though all this is out of the way , yet i dare affirm , lastly , that for such images and pictures as are too often ●…d both in your churches and ●ouses , they are so far from serving to any of those uses you pretend , that on the contrary , if men are not very well instructed , they will be apt to beget in them most pernicious notions , contrary to the honour of god , to the nature of our saviour christ , and to the covenant of his gospel . . for tell me , i beseech you ; was not this the great reason wherefore god forbad any resemblance to be made of himself under the law , that it was a lessening and debasing of his nature so to do ? and does not st. paul urge this very consideration against the athenian idolatry ? acts xvii . . and is not the divine nature as excellent now , and as much debased by yours , as ever it was by their representations of it ? i need not tell you of the frequent pictures of god the father in the shape of an old man , and commonly in a pope's dress ; and the meaning of which ( if one may conjecture the design of this by the natural tendency of it ) can be no other than this , viz. to perswade the ignorant , that as you sometimes call the pope a god on earth , so god is no other than the pope of heaven . . and this , were it only in some sacred places , would yet be too prophane for any pious christian to endure . but alas ! you have not been so reserved . every office carries this abuse in it ; hardly a psalter or catechism without it : nay , i will add , what i should hardly be credited in , had not thousands among us with indignation beheld it , that in the open streets of your cities , we may see that god who is over all blessed for ever , exposed to the scorn and meanness of a sign-post . . how miserably have you by these pictures , abused the mystery of the sacred trinity ; sometimes you make it a monster ; as where you paint one body with three heads ; one head with three faces ; sometimes one body with two heads , and a pigeon in the midst ; of which card. capisucchi makes mention . the sacred trinity in the belly of the virgn , which gerson says , he saw with his own eyes in a church of the carmelites ; the most ordinary figures are , either an old man holding a crucifix in his hands , and a pigeon upon his shoulder ; or , ( as in your eye-catechism ) on one side an old man with a globe , on the other a younger with a cross upon his shoulder , and a dove betwixt them : and what is all this but to debase the glorious godhead ? in st. paul's phrase , to change the truth of god into a lie , by representing the incorruptible god by an image made like unto a corruptible man ? and where is there a christian so insensible of that dishonour that is hereby done to the majesty of that god , whom the wiser heathens themselves never debased to the likeness of any created being , as not with the same apostle to have his spirit stir'd within him , at the sight of such impiety ? . nor are you at all less excusable in your representations of our blessed saviour , and the holy virgin ; not to descend to any other of the saints . for besides that such similitudes exhibit only one , and that his inferior nature , viz. his manhood ; how do these pictures insensibly breed a mean opinion of him , in the minds of the ignorant and unwary ? as st , nothing is more ordinary in the most solemn places of your worship , than to see our blessed lord still set forth as a child , in the arms of his mother . and what notions this has bred in many of your communion , i would to god the greater esteem they seem to have for the virgin , than for christ , did not too plainly shew . but that which renders this more intollerable , is , that you thus represent him not only upon earth , but at this time even in heaven ; and indeed , seeing in your legends , you speak of him as a child still , i do not wonder if in your pictures , you represent him too as such . . thus in one of your eye-catechisms , set forth in portugal , for the instruction of the people ; the latter part of the ave-maria , is set in this manner before them . all sorts of men and women upon earth , are drawn in an open scene , upon their knees , and hands lifted up to heaven , and in the clouds over them , the blessed virgin in glory with our saviour ( as a child ) in her arms ; and under it this inscription , o holy mary , mother of god , pray for us sinners now , and in the hour of death . amen . jesus . . in the calender of the saints of your order , there is a figure of st. odilo , devoting himself to the blessed virgin in this manner . o most holy virgin , and mother of the saviour of all ages , receive me from this day forward as your servant , and in all my causes , be my most merciful advocate . for from this time , after god , i set nothing before thee , but voluntarily deliver my self for ever to be your possession , as your proper servant . amen . above him sits the blessed virgin in glory , with our saviour in her arms , holding her about the neck , after the manner of a little child . many of the like kind are there in those volumes ; but i may not insist upon them ; i will add only some of those figures , in which the whole trinity are made to concur to her honour . thus in the office in the virgin , printed at antwerp . she is set forth in glory in heaven , with god the father on the one side , and god the son on the other , holding a crown over her head , the holy ghost above overshadowing her , and all the people on the earth below adoring . . i will not deny , but that these may be very good instructions for father crasset's , or doctor j. c's disciples . but i cannot see how any of the expounding and representing party , will be able to prove such pictures as these , to be much for the edification of the people . i shall finish these remarks , ( which have already run out into a greater length than i design'd , tho i might have added much more ) with the account which the learned gerard vossius gives us , of a picture over an altar in flanders , in which that blasphemous epigram is express'd of mens doubting whether they should run to the blood of christ , in which alone there is redemption to be obtain'd ; or to the milk of the virgin. this is certainly to contradict the very foundation of the gospel ; and to lead the ignorant into error in that point , in which it is of all others the most dangerous to be mistaken ; viz. whether they ought to place the hopes of their salvation in the redemption of christ , or in the mercy and interest of his mother . . you may at your leisure consider how to improve these things into helps of devotion , and useful instructions for the illiterate populace . i might have added , what has lately been elsewhere observed , of the prophaness of many ( in italy especially ) in this point : where the most celebrated madonna 's , are the pictures of the painters whores , set up in their churches , as objects of the peoples veneration . but this and other excesses of the like kind i purposely forbear , lest i should be thought to please my self in your impieties , which i heartily lament , and earnestly be-beseech god to reform in you . nor should i have said thus much , but only to shew how little reason you had to enter on this new and most impertinent subject of the benefit of images ; and that were our cause to be try'd by this alone , we might even so expect to carry it against you . and this to your first pretence . . the next thing you offer in favour of your images , is reply § . ] that there is no now danger of idolatry in this practice , seeing all persons are taught that there is but one god , to whom adoration is only due ; and therefore , that they cannot be capable of erring so grosly , as to give divine honour to an image , or to think any virtue annexed to them for which they ought to be adored . in short , it is ( you say ) by the subtilty of the devil ( who hates any thing that excites devotion ) that these helps to piety , are now branded with the horrid note of idolatry , and catholics represented , as if they paid the act of adoration to the images themselves . . answ. ] that the devil is an enemy to piety , and to all those things that may any way serve to promote it , i can easily believe ; but that it is he , who upon this account stirs up us to oppose your idolatry , i shall hardly credit , tho you should give me as good an assurance of it , as ever your brother the old monk did the second council of nice , when he told them that the devil himself had confess'd to him , how much he hated your holy and venerable images . i am sure tertullian was so far from this , that he thought 't was the devil that instigated men to bring them into the world , and not to help to cast them out . but to overthrow at once , both your reflection and argument together , i do here roundly affirm , that what you say is so far from being true , that there is now no danger of idolatry in the worship of images , that on the contrary i will shew , that in the worship of them publickly authorized and practiced amongst you , you do actually commit it . and then every body will see what spirit it is that acts us in opposition to this service ; and who it is that blinds you so far , as to make you contend for that , which both the holy scripture condemns , and the primitive christians neither knew , nor would have endured . and this brings me to my first proposal ; wherein i am sect . ii. to make good the charge of image-worship against you , and answer those evasions , by which you endavour to clear your selves of it . . now that you give religious worship to images , has been so fully proved in that learned book i have before refer'd you to , in answer to t. g. both from the definitions of your councils of nice and trent , and from the unanimous voice of almost all the great men of your church , who have written any things of this matter , that i shall need say but very little here in confirmation of it . and therefore not to multiply quotations by transcribing what has been already collected as to this matter , i shall content my self with this plain , and i think unexceptionable manner of proceeding against you ; st , i will propose to you the voice of your church in her definitions . dly , i will give you the interpretation of her sense in these definitions , from card. capisucchi only ; and out of that book to which mons. de meaux himself appeals . dly , i will from both vindicate the account i have given of the practice of your church , in conformity to these principles . . st , for what concerns the first of these , the voice of your church , as to this point ; the council of trent declares , that the images of christ , of the blessed virgin , and of the saints , are more especially to be had and retained in temples , and that due honour and veneration is to be paid to them . not that it should be believed that there is any divinity or virtue in them , for which they are to be worshipped ; or that any thing is to be asked of them , or that any trust is to be put in images ; but because the honour which is given to them , is referr'd to the proto-types which they represent ; so that by the images which you kiss , and before which you uncover your heads , and fall down ; you adore christ , and worship the saints which they represent . . thus that wary synod ; neither determining what honour should be given to images , nor yet setting any bounds to any . but then , as it expresly allows them the external marks of divine worship , so by fixing the grounds of this honour to be the passing of it to the proto-type , not only soto , turrian , and naclantus , three great divines concern'd in that synod , but also the generality of those who have treated since of this matter , have concluded , that the same adoration is to be paid to the image , and the proto-type ; so that if christ himself be worshipp'd with divine worship , then must the crucifix also be worshipp'd with the very same . but this will better appear , . dly , from the account i am to give of the doctrine of your church , as to this worship , from cardinal capisucchi . and to whose book since mons. de meaux has thought fit to appeal , i am content to submit the decision of this controversy to his sentence , and shall leave the world to judg whether i have misrepresented , or whether the bishop and you have not departed from the doctrine of the council of trent . . now that we may know precisely , what in his opinion , that due honour and veneration is , which you pay to images , and which the council so cautiously declined the telling us ; we will consider first of all , what was thought to be so by them , whose opinions he rejects , as not fully delivering your churches sense . such were . first of all durandus ; who thought that properly speaking , the images are not to be adored ; but because they resemble things worthy adoration , which by remembrance are adored in presence of the images , therefore the images themselves improperly are , and may be said to be adored . now this he rejects , because ( says he ) in truth , it takes away the worship of images ; and concludes it with another of your great men , raphael de tuire , to be dangerous , rash , and savouring of haeresy ; or as ferdinandus velosillus phrases it , false , rash , and erroneous ; but especially , since the definition of the council of trent . the next whose opinion he rejects , is vasquez ; who taught that the images themselves were no otherwise to be adored , but because in the presence of them , and about them , are exhibited the external signs of honour , such as kneeling , kissing , uncovering the head , &c. but that for the inward act of adoration , this was by no means to be directed to the image , but to the thing represented by the image . and this too he rejects upon the same grounds that he did the foregoing , viz. because that by asserting , that the inward act of the adorer terminates only upon the thing represented by the image ; he do's by consequence affirm , that the images themselves are not truly and properly to be adored . . the next opinion which he rejects , is that whereby an inferior honour is supposed due to images , and not an honour of the same kind with that which is paid to the exemplar . and this has been proposed with some variety . catherine and peresius thought that no other worship besides this inferior , honorary respect , was due to them . sanders distinguish'd , that the images consider'd by themselves , and without any regard had to the exemplars , deserved only an inferior honour ; but being consider'd conjunctly with the exemplar , were to be worship'd with the very same worship that the exemplars themselves were . and this was also the opinion of suarez , that images consider'd only as sacred utensils , were to have no other honour than was usually given to any other the like holy things ; but that being consider'd as images , they were to have the very same worship with the proto-types whom they represented . lorca deliver'd his opinion yet more subtilly : . that the image of christ might by accident be adored with the same adoration as christ himself ; but that this was only improperly call'd the adoration of the image , it being christ himself that alone was truly and properly adored . . that for that adoration which terminates on the image , it is an adoration much inferior to that wherewith christ himself is adored . . that tho the adoration wherewith the image of christ is adored , be in the kind of the act different from that with which christ himself is worshipped ; yet that it proceeds from the same habit , the virtue of religion , from which the adoration of christ himself proceeds , and upon that account may be called by the same name with it . and all these opinions the cardinal still rejects upon his old principle , that the image is adored with the very same act with which christ himself is adored , and by consequence must be worship'd with the same divine worship . . the next whose opinion he refutes , is card. bellarmine ; who supposed that , the worship which is properly given to an image , is not the same with that which ( for instance ) is given to christ himself ; but a sort of imperfect worship , which may by a certain analogy be reduced to the same kind of worship that is paid to the exemplar . but yet that the image may by accident be worshipped with the same worship as the exemplar , when the exemplar is considered as shining forth in its image . this also he refutes , utterly denying that any inferior honour is to be given to an image , which requires properly , and in its own nature the very same worship that is paid to the exemplar which it represents . . lastly , cardinal lugo's opinion was , that the image and the exemplar were to be adored as two distinct objects of adoration ; as when a man sees the son of his friend , he at the same time loves both the son and the father , not together with the very same act , yet both directly : the son for the father's sake , and the father accidentally upon the occasion of the son 's bringing him to his remembrance . thus in the present case , when a christian beholds the image of christ , presently he calls his blessed saviour to mind , and directly worships both the image for christ's sake , and christ for his own . and this also the cardinal rejects , not so much for that it does not give sufficient honour to the image ; for lugo also held that the same divine honour was to be given both to christ and his image , as because it distinguish'd the objects ; whereas according to card. capisucchi , christ and his image are to be adored not only with the same act , but also as the same object of worship . . having thus rejected all those several opinions , he finally concludes , that the true opinion , and which ought to be held , is , that the worship of the images and the exemplars , is one and the same ; so that the worship of the images is not distinct from that of the exemplars , but they are both worshipped together . this he proves to be the churches sense by a cloud of witnesses , from st. thomas to this day ; and shews it to be what both the second council of nice , and the later synod of trent designed in their definitions . and then finally , closes all with the instance of aegidius magistralis , i heretofore mentioned , who having deni'd that divine worship was to be paid to images , was forced by the inquisition to recant and abjure it as heretical ; and exhorts all those to consider it who find fault with st. thomas for saying that the cross and images of christ were to be adored with supreme divine worship . . and this may suffice by the way to answer your exception against the authority of aquinas ; who as you see allow'd a true and proper worship to be paid to the cross as well as to christ. and that you may not shift off this reply ( as you have done my former answer ) only with scorn and derision , i must mind you , that 't is not now a doctor of the populace whom you think uncapable of penetrating into the profound mysteries of scholastick niceties , that says this ; but card. capisucchi , a schoolman and disciple himself of st. thomas , and whom perhaps you will allow to have as deep a reach as your self in these matters . for vasquez having brought the very same interpretation of aquinas's doctrine that you now insist upon against me , the cardinal thus roundly answers him , that according to st. thomas the image of christ is absolutely and simply to be adored with the same adoration with which christ is adored . — and that therefore the same adoration which is given to christ , ought to be given to his image also . . and thus have i in short laid before you the sum of this cardinal's doctrine , who both approved m. de meaux's exposition , and to whom monsieur de meaux himself appeals for the vindication of this very part of it . i have already sufficiently shewn how inconsistent these two are with one another ; i will now only apply what i have here further added to my former account of this matter , to the point before us . and , . first , it may not be amiss to observe what great diversity of opinions there has been in stating of that worship which is paid by you to images , and what difficulty you have found to defend your practice against that charge of idolatry we have so justly brought against you upon the account of it . how the caution of some , and the distinctions of others amongst you , have been branded by the rest as scandalous and erroneous ; and one forced to abjure as heretical , what others have set up as the only true exposition and representation of the churches sense . and this you will give me leave the rather to remark , because you are so often pleased to reflect upon our divisions , which yet are neither so frequent nor dangerous , as among you who pretend not only to truth , but infallibility in all you believe . and if the consequence you are wont from thence to draw against us , that because we differ in some things , therefore we have no certainty in any , be good , ( as you say it is ) you may now see that it will equally fall upon your selves too ; and by so much the more heavily , by how much your pretences in this matter are greater than ours . but , . secondly , tho there be then such a diversity of opinions amongst you as to this worship ; yet it is to be remarked that they who have allow'd the least honour to images , have yet still confest that some honour was due to them . in this ( says capisucchi ) all catholicks do agree that images are to be worshipped , and are rightly worshipped by the faithful . even durandus himself , who disapproves the images of the holy trinity , yet allowing both the use and worship of other holy images . from whence therefore i conclude , that those in this cardinal's opinion , are no catholicks who tell us that , all the honour they have for them , is only such a respect as they pay to any other sacred utensils . that if they seem to act in their presence some external signs of veneration , this is meant only to the persons whom they represent , but not to the images themselves , which can claim nothing of that kind from us . in short , as monsieur de meaux expounds it , that they do not worship the images ; no , god forbid ; but only make use of them to call to mind the originals . the council of trent teaches no other use of them . . thirdly , it may from hence farther appear , that the worship which this cardinal thought due to inages , was not an improper , accidental , abusive worship , but a true , proper , and real adoration ; the image being to be adored in the very same act with which the exemplar was . so that now according to this exposition , the cross of christ is to be worshipped truly and properly with a supreme divine adoration . and that not only as to the outward acts , but by the inward sense of the soul too ; all which are so to be paid to christ , as to terminate at once both upon him , and upon the crucifix by which he is to be adored . and this , . fourthly , we are to look upon , not as a private opinion , or a meer scholastick nicety , but as the true and proper sense of the church , and to be held of all . so the cardinal expresly declares ; as being the doctrine of the councils both of nice and trent ; and for denying of which , aegidius magistralis was by the inquisition forced to recant , and renounce his doctrine contrary thereunto , as heretical . . this is an instance which with card. capisucchi i will take the liberty to recommend to your consideration . for certainly if what he says be true , you who deny that the cross is upon any account whatsoever to be worshipped with divine worship , can be no otherwise than a downright heretick . and tho you are at present secure in a happy expounding country , where you may safely make what representation of your doctrine you please , or rather that the necessity of your present circumstances moves you to do , without any other danger than that of losing your credit with honest and inquisitive men , which you do not seem much to value ; yet should time and other circumstances invite you hereafter into a hotter climate , you might run some worser hazards among those who have not given themselves up to follow your innovations . it happened not many years since , that a french gentleman being travelling in the east-indies , fell into some company at goa , and there discoursing about matters of religion according to your principles , maintain'd , that the crucifix was no otherwise to be adored , than by reporting all the honour to our saviour christ represented by that image . and another time , he fortuned to say of an ivory crucifix which hung up at his beds-head , that it was onely a piece of ivory . for this he was clapt into the inquisition , and after some years imprisonment for his heretical sayings , hardly escaped the fire , with this sentence , that he was declared excommunicate ; that for reparation of his fault , all his goods should he confiscated ; himself banish'd the indies ; and condemn'd to serve in the galleys ( or publick prisons ) of portugal five years ; and further accomplish those other penances which should more particularly be enjoin'd him by the inquisitors . as for his crime , it is thus set forth in the preamble to his sentence , that he had said that we ought not to adore images ; and had blasphemed against that of a certain crucifix , by saying of a crucifix of ivory , that it was a piece of ivory . . this was plain dealing , and a sensible convicton that it is not meerly a scholastick nicety with the fathers of the inquisition , that the cross is to be worshipped with divine worship . the truth is , the contrary opinion of durandus , holcot , mirandula , and some others , ( and who allow'd all the acts of external honour to be paid to them , only they deni'd them that inward veneration which makes it properly a religious worship ) has been always esteemed as false and scandalous , and savouring of heresie ; and is expresly censured as such by those great men , suarez , medina , victoria , catherine , arriaga , cabrera , raphael de turre , vellosillus , and many others at large , collected by cardinal capisucchi on this occasion , as abettors with himself , of a true divine adoration to be paid to the holy cross , and other images of god , and the blessed trinity . i go on finally from these principles , . thirdly , to vindicate the account i have heretofore given of your practices in consequence to this doctrine . and first , i observed that in the solemn procession made at the reception of the emperor , the legat's cross is appointed by the pontifical to take place of the emperor's sword , because latria or divine worship is due to it . . this you cannot deny to be faithfully quoted out of your pontifical : but you say there is some kind of impropriety in the speech ; and we must understand it so , not as if divine worship were due to the cross , but to christ crucified upon it . a strange liberty of interpreting this , which turns plain affirmatives into downright negatives ; and this contrary to the sense , not only of your greatest authors , ( as i have shewn ) but in their opinion contrary to the sense of your church too . these all say with the rubrick , that a divine worship is due to the cross ; you declare 't is no such thing ; no , god forbid . such worship is upon no account whatsoever to be given to the cross , but only to christ represented by the cross. i will not desire you to consider what wise arguing you make of what your pontifical here says ; that the cross must take place of the emperor's sword , because christ is to be worship'd with divine worship : it shall suffice me to leave you to the censures of your own learned writers and inquisitors , who have already pronounced this exposition to be false , scandalous , and savouring of heresie . only let me once more caution you to remember the hard fate of poor monsieur imbert , of aegidius magistralis , and the french traveller i just now mention'd ; for however it may be safe enough to dissemble with us here , yet will it behove you to take great heed that you alter your tone , if ever you should chance to fall into those parts , where the old popery doctrine is still the measure of the inquisitors proceedings . . my next instance was from your form of blessing a new cross : to your cavil about my omitting some words , i have said enough heretofore ; but the dear calumny must be continu'd , tho not only those two words were added , but so many more set down , that you seem as much dissatisfied with my length here , as you pretended to be with my brevity before . . you pray , that the wood of the cross which you bless , may be a wholsome remedy to mankind : a strengthner of faith ; an increaser of good works ; the redemption of souls ; a comfort , protection , and defence against the cruel darts of the enemy . you incense it ; you sprinkle it with holy water ; you sanctify it in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost ; and then both the bishop and people devoutly adore it , and kiss it . . this is in short the sum of that ceremony ; in which you desire to know what is amiss ? i answer ; that take this whole office together , with the ceremonies , prayers , and other circumstances of it , and it is superstitious and idolatrous ; and i shall not doubt once more to repeat , what before so much offended you , that the addresses you here make , look more like magical incantations , than christian prayers . for , . first , if we enquire into the design of this ceremony ; it is to consecrate a piece of wood or stone , that it may become a fit object of adoration : which being directy contrary to the second commandment , cannot be done without a very great sin. . dly . to this end , secondly , you pray that several benefits may proceed from this wood of the cross ; and if those words signify any thing , whereby you beseech god , that it may be a wholsome remedy to mankind , a strengthner of faith , &c. we must then look upon it , that you do believe , that by this consecration there is a virtue , if not residing in it for all these purposes , yet at least proceeding from it ; which your council of trent confesses was one of the things that made the worship of images among the heathens to be idolatrous . nor will your little evasion here stand you in any stead ; that you pray only that the cross may be a means for the obtaining all these benefits ; and that this is no more than a preacher may desire for his sermon , or the author of a good book for what he is about to publish : for , . a piece of wood or stone , carve it into what figure or shape you please , is not certainly so proper a means for the conveying of such benefits to men , as a good book or a good sermon are : and therefore what may be very naturally desired for the one , cannot without great superstition be applied to the other . i may , and i heartily do pray , that what i am now writing may be a saving remedy to you , by correcting your faith , and encreasing your charity ; because i am perswaded here are arguments proper to such an end , if it shall please god to dispose you impartially to consider them ; but now , i believe , you would think me very extravagant , should i pray to god to sanctify the paper on which 't is printed , or my bookseller's sign that sells it , as you pray to god to sanctify the wood of the cross ; that as often as you see the leaves of this book , or look upon the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard , these good effects may be wrought in you . . again , . as the thing it self is not a proper means of producing these effects in us ; so the manner by which you pray it may be done , renders it yet more superstitious . to get instruction by hearing or reading ; to have ones faith confirm'd , or charity enlarged , or zeal heightned , by pious considerations , or powerful motives , all this is very natural ; and we may therefore lawfully pray to god for to bless them to us in order to these ends. but to pray to god , that by bowing our selves down before a cross , we may find health of soul and body ; to sanctify a piece of wood , that by its merits it may free men from all the sins they have committed , this must be more than a natural effect , neither the thing nor action being proper to produce it ; and whether such requests be not more like magical incantations than christian prayers , i shall leave it to any indifferent person to consider . . but dly , that this which you pretend , is not all that your church designs by those prayers , is evident , in that this exposition cannot possibly be applied to several of those things which you ask of god in those addresses . for instance , you pray , that the blessing of the wood upon which our saviour hung , may be in the wood of the cross which you consecrate ; and that by the holiness of that , he would sanctify this ; that as by that cross , the world was delivered from guilt , so by the merits of this , the devout souls who offer it , may be free from all the sins they have committed . now tell me in conscience , if you dare speak the truth ; is not all this somewhat more , than to pray that the cross may accidentally become a means of working good effects in you , by putting you in mind of the price of your redemption ? do you not here see somewhat , which your council of trent calls the idolatry of the gentiles ? viz. an encouragement to worship the cross , as if some divine virtue were in it , for which it ought to be adored . for , so certainly he must do , who believes that by these prayers , the blessing of that cross , on which our saviour hung , is in this which he worships ; and that bowing down before it , he shall find health both of soul and body . nay , but . thly , i must once more ask you that question , i before proposed on this occasion ; and which , tho you heartily rail at , yet you shift it off without answering one wise word to it . if you design no real virtue to proceed from the cross which you thus consecrate , nor allow any adoration to be paid to it , but intend it meerly for a memorative sign , and no more : to what purpose all these prayers , and sprinklings , and smokings , and blessings , and other ceremonies for the consecration of it ? as to your question , why we dedicate our churches to god ? i will then allow it to be a parallel , when you can prove that we pray that god would sanctify the walls or seats of them , that they may become a wholesome remedy to mankind , and by their merits free us from all the sins we have committed . in the mean time it shall suffice to tell you , that as all we design in those ceremonies , is no more than a solemn setting of it apart for prayer and devotion to god only ; so all we desire , is , that god would vouchsafe favourably to accept our offering of that place to his service , and give a blessing to those holy offices that are from thenceforth to be peformed in it . . but thly ; and to conclude this point ; he that would know what your intention in these prayers is , need only consider what prayers you make in behalf of other things of the same nature : and in which you so evidently desire a divine virtue may proceed from the very things themselves which you sanctify , that there is no doubt to be made of it . i shall give but one instance of this , viz. the prayer you make at the consecration of your agnus dei's ; in which you thus address your selves to god. do thou vouchsafe to bless ✚ , sanctify ✚ , and consecrate ✚ them , that being sanctified by thy liberal benediction , they may receive the same virtue against all diabolical subtilties , and the deceits of the evil spirit ; that for those who carry them devoutly about them , no tempest may prevail against them , no adversity may get the dominion over them , no pestilent breath , no corruption of the air , no falling-sickness , no storm at sea , no fire , nor any iniquity may overcome them , or prevail against them . . such are the admirable virtues which you desire may proceed from these little images ; and by the prayers you make at the consecrating of these , we may easilly understand how to interpret your addresses for the same purpose in the other . but now to make your practice exactly parallel with the old heathen superstition ; i must observe , that it is not enough that you carry these agnus dei's devoutly about you , but they must be worshipped too ; for so your prayer of consecration says ; bles ✚ , and sanctify ✚ these blessed things , that through the veneration and honour of them , the crimes of us thy servants may be blotted out . and now i shall leave it to you , to try once more your gift of expounding , and see if you can bring all this to your new sense : and for your encouragement in it , i will promise you if you can , to give you something more of this matter , which will be more difficult , and which i forbear at present to insist upon . . i should now go on to the next instance ; but i must intreat the reader 's excuse , if i stop one moment to follow your rambling discourse in two points , as little to your purpose , as the handling of them will appear to have been for your reputation . . i. the first is concerning the use of holy water . reply ] which you tell us was established by pope alexander the i. an. . and is good for dispelling incantations and magic frauds , rather than introducing them ; and has been famed for sundry miracles , which god has been pleased to work thereby in several ages . . answ. ] for the antiquity of this usage , i wonder you should stop at pope alexander i. when had you but look'd into the clementine constitutions ( a much more authentick piece than your decretal epistle ) you might have found st. matthew to have been the author of it . and the one would have been as easily believed as the other . . nor have you been less defective in setting out the benefits of it , than you were in your account of its antiquity . and therefore to spare your modesty , i will help to publish them for you . holy water then ( if all be true that is in print ) is good , not only to drive away evil spirits , but more over to cure infirmities ; to wipe out venial sins ; to cleanse the pollutions of defiled consciences ; to cure distractions ; to elevate the mind , and dispose it for devotion ; to obtain grace , and dispose men for the holy sacrament . it cures barrenness , preserves the health , purges the air from pestilential vapours ; besides a great many other good things that are not so fit to be named . all the mischief is , that it is nor certain it do's any of these things ; because ( as * * * * * * bellarmine well observes ) there is no promise of god made to it ; but yet being sanctified by the prayers of the church for these ends , you may as securely believe it , as many other things that have no better a foundation . . and are not these now rare follies for a man to force us to publish whether we will or no ? did ever any mountebank set out his false ware with greater vanity , than those of the church of rome have here done theirs ? and indeed was there ever less reason to believe his remedies , than in this case there is to credit your pretences ? in short , seeing you sanctify water in the name of god , by prayer for these ends , either shew us some promise , some warrant at least from the holy spirit of god so to do ; or all reasonable men will look upon this after all you have said for it , as none of the least both of your follies , and of your superstitions . ii. the other thing you mention is your incense . . and this is indeed to our purpose ; and i shall presently shew you how little you consider'd your own interest in the mention of it . i pass by your pretended significations of it , as impertinent in a discourse where truth only is sought . for the antiquity of it you refer us to dionysius and st. ambrose ; in which you again shew your skill in church-history . the one of these being an author that lived not till the latter end of the fourth century , and the other probably much later . but now the use of incense , in the greek church especially , was of a much earlier date . the apostolical canons speak expresly of it : and if that oration of hyppolitus about the end of the world , be truly his , as from st. jerome's mentioning of it in his catalogue it seems to be ; we have then two considerable instances to assure us that it was in use in the greek church even in the third century . you see how far i am from detracting any thing from the force of your argument : but yet now after all , without fear of censuring primitive antiquity in this matter , whose innocence i as freely acknowledg , as i heartily honour its piety ; i shall not doubt to say that the present usage of it in your church is so far from being innocent , that it is in truth superstitious and idolatrous . . first , it is superstitious . for indeed what else can we make of your praying to god , ( as in this very ceremony of consecrating a cross you do ) that , he would bless ✚ , and sanctifie ✚ this creature of incense , that all weaknesses and infirmities , and all the snares of the enemy perceiving its smell , may flie and be separated from his creatures ; that they may never be hurt by the biting of the old serpent , who have been redeemed with the precious blood of his son. . now if you make this prayer in faith , that it is pleasing to god , and have a confidence that it shall be accepted by him , you must then shew us some grounds , some security in the word of god for it . but if you cannot do this , what is it but superstition , that is , a vain and fond service , to intreat the favour of god in the usage of a thing to which he has neither annexed any promise , nor for the doing whereof has he any where given us the least encouragement . but , . secondly , the use you make of this incense , is yet worse than the consecration of it . you offer it up to creatures , nay to the very images which you worship ; and in doing of which i do not see how you will excuse your selves of being guilty of idolatry . that the burning of incense was part of that religious worship under the law , which god was pleased to appropriate to himself only , is not to be denied . it was indeed a more peculiar act of divine worship , than that of bloody sacrifices themselves . and therefore both the altar on which it was offer'd was covered with gold , and it stood in a more holy place than that of the burnt-offerings ; and is in a more singular manner said to be most holy unto the lord , exod. xx. , . hence it was that king hezekiah immediately brake to pieces the brazen serpent , as soon as he consider'd that the children of israel burnt incense before it . and yet if we enquire into the use that is made of it in your church , we shall find it offer'd not only to the saints , but even to their very images and reliques . vasquez ingenuously confesses , that the israelites gave no other worship to the brazen serpent than what you give to your images at this day ; and that hezekias therefore commanded it to be broken in pieces , not that he thought the people adored it as a god , but because he saw such a divine worship paid to it . it is one of the chief things remarked by your own writers in the life of a great saint of your order , st. gerard bishop of chanade in hungary , whom you commemorate septemb. . that he caused a church to be built in chanade , his episcopal see ; and in it dedicated a chappel to the honour of the blessed virgn ; where having set up her statue , he every day offer'd incense to the figure , and took care by an ordinance which he made , that her altar should never be without fine odours upon it , which should continually smoke to her honour . . now this being the undoubted practice of your church , and such as you cannot deny to be contrary to the express command of god under the law ; insomuch , that cardinal bellarmine freely confesses it would have been criminal in a jew to have offer'd incense to any besides god only ; either you must evidently prove to us , that those acts which were then appropriate acts of divine worship , are not so now , but remain indifferent to be paid to the creature , as well as the creator ; or you must give us leave to conclude , that you do in this , attribute that honour to an image , which god has reserved as peculiar to himself ; and are by so doing , guilty of idolatry . . and thus have i dispatch'd the two things you called me , without any provocation of mine , to examine ; and which it may be you will now begin to think you might as well have let alone : i return to my defence , in which i am next to consider , what you have to except against my third argument , which i brought to shew , that you do truly and properly adore the cross ; and that was from your good-friday service . reply . ] to this you answer , that you bad here also shown my unsincere tricks , in adding and diminishing words , to make your church speak as i would have it . and you pronounce me once more a calumniator , for saying , that this proves that your church do's adore the cross , in the utmost propriety of the phrase . . answ. ] these are hard words ; but i have always observed , that men are most uneasy when truth touches them to the quick . if you are not yet sensible that it was indeed a pitiful cavil to pretend i had false translated your service , by what i have offer'd in my former part from mons. imbert's case , and who for opposing that interpretation of those words which i deliver'd , was used after the manner that i have declared ; i am confident you are the only person even of your own church , that needs to be convinced of it . in all the french translations of your missal , i have ever seen , it is render'd in the very words that i gave it , behold the wood of the cross , come let us adore it : and particularly in that of mons voisin , approved by those of your church , even to excess , you will find it in these express terms , voila le bois de la croix , r. venez adorons le. . in the missal of salisbury , the determination of that address to the cross , is undeniably evident . the priests uncover the cross , and sing the whole antiphone , behold the wood of the cross , come let us adore ; to which the quire kneeling down , answer ; we adore thy cross , o lord. and i cannot but observe , that when jo. aegidius canon of sevil ( of whom i have so often spoken ) was forced to retract , as heretical , his denial of supreme divine worship to the cross ; ludovicus de paramo tells us , that the fathers of the inquisition convicted him of his heresy , especially by this argument , taken from your good-friday service ; viz. that the church on that solemn day did truly and properly adore the cross , when it said , we adore thy cross , o lord. . and this may by the way suffice , to shew how falsely you expound even those words , not to signifie the cross of christ , but his passion . which besides , that it is foreign to the ceremony of worshipping the cross , which you are then about ; and not a little nonsence into the bargin ; is here interpreted , not only by me , but by the fathers of the inquisition , of the cross properly so called ; and whose authority i presume you will not care to despise . and now i shall leave it to any jury that you please , to judg of my translation ; and what character you deserve for your little reflection upon me . and i do assure you withal , that i will never from henceforward so far distrust my reader 's memory , as to say the same things again , tho you should give me the same occasion . . for the other point ; that this do's plainly shew , that your church adores the cross in the utmost propriety of the phrase ; if you will allow those great men i before quoted , to understand the sense of your church in this point , then 't is plain , that my assertion must stand good . you see they freely confess it ; nay , what is more , they pronounce you a heretick for denying it . as for your applying of this worship to our saviour christ ; if you mean thereby to signify that christ only is worshipp'd in this ceremony , exclusive to the cross ; it is evidently false , seeing the whole action , as well as words , shew , that the cross is at least worshipped together with him ; or rather ( to speak more precisely ) christ is worshipped together with the cross. nor will cardinal bellarmine , to whom you direct me , stand you in any stead . for even he allows the cross to be improperly and accidentally worshipp'd with the same kind of worship that christ himself is . and if you please to let me send you to another cardinal , and who being both a great schoolman himself , and master of the sacred palace , may be presumed to know somewhat of your churches sense ; he will tell you , that your cardinal bellarmin was too wary in his distinctions : and that he ought without any of those softning limitations , freely to have asserted , that the cross was truly and properly to be worshipped with divine adoration . and that i think , is much the same with what i said , that you do worship the cross in the utmost propriety of the phrase . . but you have here two singular arguments to excuse this service from the charge of idolatry , and which ought not to be forgot . for , reply . ] first , st. paul ( you say ) lookt upon it to be no superstition , to fall on our face in the assembly , and worship god , cor. xiv . . answ. ] ergo ( ô lepidum caput ! ) if st. paul may be judg , 't is no idolatry in you to fall on your faces in the assembly , and worship the cross . what would t. g. have given to have met with such a consequence in his learned adversary ? but indeed we needed not this proof to convince us ( in that gentleman's phrase ) that you never look'd over aristotle's threshold , however your ill genius has prompted you to become a controvertist . . well , ●…t if st. paul wont do , yet at least you are sure the primitive christians were on your side . and you prove it by an instance most fit to keep company with the foregoing argument . the case in short is this . reply . ] st. athanasius relates how some jews in his time , in the city of berthus ( berytus ) in syria , used great indignities to a crucifix , which a christian had accidentally left behind him , when he removed from his lodgings . and you desire your antagonist to answer you this question : whether i would have excused those jews , because they did those actions to an inanimate being ; or would not rather have interpreted their intention , as passing from the cross to our blessed saviour . . answ. this is indeed a most melting argument , and which as i remember , set all the good fathers of the second council of nice , a crying . but sir , be not you too much affected with it , for i will venture to give you that consolation , which one of your * * * * * * brethren once did his congregation in france ; when having preach'd in a most tragical manner about the passion , not of a crucifix , but of our blessed saviour himself , insomuch , that the whole assembly was in tears at it ; the good father bid them not weep , for that , after all , it may be it was not true . for st , as to the book which you cite for this goodly story , 't is certain it was written above years after athanasius was in his grave , and is of no manner of credit among the learned . dly , as to the story : it was invented in the time of irene the empress , when all the world was set upon making and finding out fables and miracles , for establishing the worship of images . dly , all the authority we have , that ever there was any such thing done , and that it was not a meer invention ( as were many others of the like kind at that time ) is that of sigebert , whose chronicle besides , that it was written yet another years after this supposed insult upon the crucifix , was also an author whom bellarmin himself confesses , is not to be credited in every thing he says . and especially , when in all probability he had no other warrant for it , than the acts of the council of nice , and the pretended treatise of st. athanasius , which you quote for it . so unlucky a thing is it for you to meddle with church-history . . but whether the relation be truth or fable ; the question is put , and must be answer'd : would i not have thought that these jews hereby intended to affront our saviour christ ? i answer , yes ; no doubt they did . and why then ( say you ) should i not in like manner interpret this service of yours to terminate not upon the crucifix , but to tend to him who suffer'd upon the cross ? i answer , . that had you put your question as you ought , you should have ask'd , why then we do not look upon your intention to be to honour , not the cross , but him that suffered upon it . now there is a very great difference between these two . and however your friend t. g. supposes , that actions must necessarily go whither they are intended ; yet i think both he and you ought by this time , to be satisfied of the falseness of that maxim ? and therefore should we allow your intention to be only to worship christ , and not the cross , yet it do's not thence follow that all your worship must by the interpretation of gods law terminate upon him . but now , . i have shown , that for all your pretences , it is not your intention that your worship should so terminate upon christ , as not to terminate also upon the cross together with him . . if it were , yet for all your intention you would nevertheless be far from honouring christ : seeing that to worship christ by an image is a prohibited act ; and god cannot be honour'd in the very same act in which he is disobey'd . and though an intention to dishonour chris● , by abusing his image , is sufficient to do it , ( as in all other cases , one ill circumstance will make the whole action to be evil ; ) yet a good intention alone is not sufficient to make an act good , nor by consequence for the glory of god , unless that intention it self be also govern'd by the rules of his commandments . for otherwise a man might do the worst things with a good intention , and that should be sufficient to sanctify all his villanies . so far have you hitherto been from producing the least shadow of an answer to overthrow the force of my allegations . my last instance was : . fourthly ; from the hymns of your church . in which i shewed that you address your selves to the cross , and beg spiritual graces of it ; and that you could not say the cross was here put by a figure to signify christ crucified upon it ; because the very words of the hymns shew , that 't is the material cross as distinguish'd from christ , of which they speak . . and here you are in a great distress ; you catch at every thing that comes near you ; but for the most part without considering whether it be to any purpose or no. as for instance : you observe , first , that i am brisk and confident , and have a mind to expose your literature as well as your idolatry . but , sir , may i beg leave to ask you on this occasion the very same question that you do me. who is it you mean , when you say , i have a mind to expose your literature ? if you understand that of your party , i must tell you i am so far from exposing it , that i shall presently shew you that they are the most learned men of your church whom i follow in the application of that hymn i alledged . but if by your literature you meant your own , you have then made a most unlucky piece of work of it , in joining your literature and your churches idolatry together ; and i doubt your brethren will have but little cause to applaud the comparison . for do but grant it to be as easie to prove the one , as it is to expose the other , and i will never desire a fairer advantage against both , than you have here offer'd to me. for , . secondly , you say i must confess that your churches hymns were made by poets , unless i will be so great a hypocrite as to deny that prudentius and fortunatus were poets . i suppose prudentius and fortunatus clubb'd together to make the hymn that i refer to : only the mischef is , that the one lived in the end of the ivth , the other not till about the middle of the vth century . nay , but what now if neither of these were author of that hymn ? i am sure gretser , a very inquisitive man in these matters , speaks very doubtfully of it , and leaves it in question , whether venantius fortunatus , or theodulphus bishop of orleans , was the author of it ; and he lived yet later , about the beginning of the ixth century . but to let this pass ; and consider , . thirdly , how you prove these men to be poets , for indeed it is very remarkable . you tell me , that if i will but look into the corpus poetarum , i shall find them to have had a place among the poets . a most undoubted way this , to find out whether an author were a poet or a schoolman ; and i dare say you were beholden to no man's literature but your own for this remark . . well , but to grant that which i perceive you do not know very well how to go about to prove , that the author of this hymn , whoever he was , was a poet ; what will follow ? why then you say , fourthly , i shall presently find the figure he there uses ; his title being not of the cross , but of the passion of our lord . and then you take a great deal of pains to prove , what no man ever deni'd , that the cross in holy scripture is oftentime put to signify , the force , effects , and merits of christ's death and passion . now if this be any thing to the purpose , as all that drops from a person of your literature must be supposed to be ; then i must conclude , that seeing the title of that hymn is of the passion of our lord , whereever i meet the word cross in it , i am to understand it not of the material cross , but of christ's passion . this you must mean , or else all this ado is meer reverie , and impertinence . now then let us see what mad work we shall according to this new exposition make of that hymn . the passion of our king comes forth ; the mystery of the passion shines ; upon which passion the maker of our flesh was hanged in the flesh. beautiful and bright passion ! adorned with the purple of a king. chosen of a fit stock to touch such sacred members . blessed passion ! upon whose arms the price of the world hung . hail , o passion ! our only hope ; in this time of the passion , increase righteousness in the godly , and give pardon to the guilty . . now this i am confident a man of so much literature as you are , will not allow to be a proper paraphrase of this hymn : and if instead of the passion , you put christ for the cross , this will yet more increase the nonsense and confusion . in short ; if all the corpus poetarum were alive , and should lay their heads together with you , they could not find out any of their figures that would do the business ; but must have some new ecclesiastical figure found out to make the cross signify christ and his passion , at the same time , and in the same place in which it distinguishes both from the cross. and such a figure i do say would be as great a mystery , in verse , as transubstantiation is in prose . and i desire you , if you can , to give me but one parallel text of scripture , in which the cross is at once taken both literally for that cross on which christ suffer'd ; and figuratively , for christ and his sufferings upon it . . in the mean time it shall suffice me once more to mind you of what i perceive you have nothing to say to ; viz. that aquinas and his followers , who have been sometimes reckon'd men of literature in your church , have understood this hymn according to the plain and literal meaning of it : and that so confidently as to conclude from it , that your church holds divine honour to be due to the cross. we ought to worship the images themselves ( says soto ) for the church doth not say , we worship thee , o christ ; but , we adore thy cross , o christ. and again , o crux ave , &c. we direct our words and signs of adoration to the images , ( says catherine ) to which likewise we burn incense : as when we say to the cross , o crux ave. and to the same purpose , marsilius ab ingen ; ludovieus de paramo ; philippus gamachaeus , &c. see dr. st. answer to t. g. part . . but if all this will not yet satisfy you , but you are still resolved to adhere to your new figure , i will then give you another instance , and which i believe may be prose , for i do not remember i ever saw it in the corpus poetarum , though this i shall leave to your literature to determine : and i pray be pleased to send us the paraphrase of this antiphone , according to your new method of expounding : o cross ! brighter than all the stars ; famous in the world ; exceeding amiable to men ; more holy than all things ; which alone hast been thought worthy to bear the weight of the world. sweet wood ! bearing the sweet nails , and sweet burdens ; save the present company gathered together this day to thy praise . and this may serve for the second point ; which was , to make good the charge i had brought against you , of giving divine worship to images . i proceed now finally to shew ; sect . iii. that the church of rome thus worshipping of images is truly and properly guilty of idolatry . . there is nothing in all our disputes with those of the church of rome that seems so much to offend them , as this charge . they think it not only unreasonable to suppose that men in the clear light of christianity should be capable of falling into idolatry , but even destructive of the very nature of a church , and by consequence contrary to all those promises of christ in his gospel , that the gates of hell should never prevail against it ; and indeed were our notion of idolatry the same with what some of their late advocates have set forth as the true and only notion of it , i should not at all wonder at their resentments ; but rather confess that we had justly deserved all those reproaches which their intemperate pens have of late bestow'd upon us . . but whatever their opinion of the true and only notion of idolatry be , yet common equity should have taught them to confess , that we mean no more in our charge of it against them , than this , that those of the church of rome , in their worship of the host , of saints and images , do give that honour to the creature , which ought to be given only to god. we do not pretend that you have either renounced the worship of the supreme deity ; or that you do adore either the sun , moon and stars ; or even angels and saints as such . and therefore howsoever you may dislike our notion of idolatry , yet you ought not to revile us for fixing a false charge against you , but to shew that we give an ill name to a true charge . and because i now desire not to be mis-understood , i do first of all declare , that by my present conclusion i intend no more than this , that you do give the proper acts of divine worship to images , as i have already shew'd you do to saints ; and that this is truly and properly idolatry . . to discharge therefore this last part of my undertaking as i ought to do ; i will proceed distinctly upon these two things , ist. to fix our notion of idolatry , against those new idea's that have of late been given of it . iidly . to shew , that according to the true notion of it , the church of rome in her worship of images is guilty of idolatry . i. point . i. of the true nature of idolatry . . this is what you desire me to reflect upon , and i hope it will not be thought amiss if i here with all imaginable tenderness communicate my reflections to you . reply , p. . ] three things ( you say ) there are required to make that honour which we do pay to any thing , become idolatrous . st , the understanding must acknowledge an excellency in the object truly divine , and worthy of adoration in the strictest sense , where really there is no such excellency . dly , the will must have a propension and inclination to it as such , and pay that honour to it . and lastly , the body must pay the exterior obeysance , of bowing , kneeling , prostrating , kissing , &c. in pursuance of this interior love and knowledge . . ans. that is to say , that no one is an idolater , but what takes somewhat to be god that indeed is not so , and upon that account gives the worship due to the supreme god to a created being . and this explains what you had said before ; that you wonder how it could enter into the minds of men of common sense to conceive it possible , that in the clear light of christianity , where all persons are taught there is but one god to whom adoration is only due , they should yet fall down and adore a stock or a stone , and pay divine honour to it . that the idolatry of the ancient jews and heathens consisted in believing a plurality of gods , and adoring them as such : so that in short , let men but keep to the knowledge of the one true god , and not worship saints , or images , as such ; and then there is no danger of idolatry for any other worship that may be paid to them . . and now let idolatry be as stabbing and cut-throat a word as it will ; be its punishment , if it were possible , greater than what a reverend author has lately told us is its least , death and damnation ; if this be the only idolatry , viz. to worship somewhat else besides god , as supposing it to be very god ; i dare confidently affirm in behalf of all those popular divines that have ever used that scolding word , that the church of rome is not idolatrous in the worship of saints or images , nor has it in this sense ever been charged by us as such . but to shew the vanity of this pretence ; and yet more clearly express what we mean by this charge , i will now very plainly examine these two things : i. whether , according to the scripture-notion of idolatry , those may not be guilty of it , who yet both know and worship the one true god ? ii. how such persons may become guilty of it ? i. whether , according to the scripture-notion of idolatry , those may not be guilty of it , who yet both know and worship the one true god ? . and here it is not my design to enter on any large discourse about the general nature of idolatry ; but still remembring the particular point before me , to prove it only in such instances , as are more immediately applicable to it . and such are especially these two : st , the idolatry of the golden calf . dly , of the calves of dan and bethel . . as to the former of these , it has of late been suggested , that it was made by aaron as the symbol of the egyptian apis or osyris ; and to whose idolatry the israelites now return'd in the worship of it . but this is indeed a very weak suggestion ; and whosoever will but consider the circumstances of what was done by that people on this occasion , will presently see , that they design'd that calf to be the symbol not of any egyptian deity , but of the true god , whom accordingly they worshipp'd in presence of it . and this will appear ; . st , from the occasion of this idolatry ; which was not any infidelity as to the true god , or that they had now any better reasons given them for the worship of others besides him ; but because moses delayed to come down from the mount , therefore they urged aaron to make them a god , that might go before them . they had now rested a long time in that place , and were impatient to go on towards the land of promise . but having now no moses to enquire of gods pleasure , they wanted an oracle to consult upon these occasions . and therefore they cri'd out unto aaron , up , make us gods that shall go before us , for as for this moses the man that brought us up out of the land of egypt , we wot not what is become of him . . now that this was all they intended by it , will appear , dly , from the character which the people presently gave to the calf , as soon as it was made : this is thy god ; or as the chaldee paraphrast renders it , this is thy fear , o israel , which brought thee up out of the land of egypt . for sure the people were not so stupid as to think it was either that image which had brought them up out of egypt ; or that the gods of egypt had plagued their own people for their sakes , and with a high hand deliver'd them out of their power . no , doubtless they understood by it their god , who but just before at the delivery of the law , had assumed this as his own peculiar character , i am the lord thy god , which have brought thee out of the land of egypt , and out of the house of bondage . and this naturally suggests to me a third evidence of this truth . . from the title which aaron himself gave to that god , of which this calf was the symbol . ver. . and when aaron saw it , he built an altar before it ; and aaron made proclamation and said , to morrow is a feast unto the lord . this was the peculiar and incommunicable name of the god of israel , which he assumed unto himself , exod. vi. . when he renew'd his covenant with them ; and we do not find any one place in all the holy scripture , where it has ever been attributed to any other . . thly , had the people hereby designed this to be the symbol of the egyptian deities ; how comes it to pass , that ( as we read in the next verse ) they offer'd burnt-offerings , and peace-offerings unto it . for this , both the scripture tells us , was an abomination to the egyptians ; and a late advocate for you , freely confesses , that they esteem'd bullocks and rams to be sacred animals , and therefore never offer'd any of them to their gods. . lastly , the scripture plainly distinguishes this idolatry from that of the egyptians , and makes the one to have been the punishment of the other . it is confess'd , or rather contended for by the author i but now mentioned , that the egyptian idolatry consisted in worshipping the sun , moon and stars , as the supreme deity : now , this st. stephen tells us , that god afterwards permitted them to fall into , and therefore it must have been some other idolatry , which in this case they were guilty of ; for speaking of their setting up the golden calf , acts vii . . he thus goes on , ver . . then god turned , and gave them up to worship the host of heaven . . as for the other instance i proposed to consider ; the calves of dan and bethel ; the occasion of their making , was this . when the ten tribes had thrown off rehoboam from being their king , and had chosen jeroboam to reign over them ; this new usurper , fearing lest if the people went up at the yearly sacrifices to jerusalem , where rehoboam still reigned over the other two tribes , it might in time occasion their falling away from him , set up two calves in dan and bethel , and made altars before them , and perswaded the people , saying , it is too much for you to go up to jerusalem : behold thy gods , o israel , which brought thee up out of the land of egypt . . now that jeroboam intended these calves to be symbols of the god of israel , appears , st , from most of those reflections i before made . he gives them the same character by which they constantly understood the god of israel ; behold ( says he ) thy god , that brought thee up out of the land of egypt . he offer'd sacrifies before them , and consecrated the priests that ministred unto them , with a young bullock and seven rams . all which is exactly agreeable to what god required of them , but was utterly inconsistent with the idolatry of egypt . but . dly , we have some more peculiar proofs of this matter . i speak not now of the readiness of the people in complying with him , which it is not imaginable they would so easily have done , had he intended to lead them to the worship of strange gods. nor will i insist upon the danger , which so sudden an innovation might have brought to this new king , and who was not so little a polititian , as to attempt such an alteration at a time when he was hardly yet well establish'd in his new usurpation . these are indeed great probabilities , but such as this cause needs not ; seeing it has the evidence of holy scripture fully confirming it ; it being certain that the idolatry of these calves did not take them off from the service of the true god. let us examine all along the history of the kings of israel ; we shall find them constantly worshipping the jehovah , the god of israel . jehu was zealous for him ; he destroy'd the idolatry of baal out of his concern for the lord ; and had the kingdom by gods own immediate promise setled upon his posterity for his so doing . and yet it is expresly said of him , howbeit from the sins of jeroboam , who made israel to sin , jehu departed not from after them , viz. the golden calves that were in bethel , and that were in dan. . who was it but the true god for whom elijah appear'd so zealous ? king. xviii . when he enter'd into that famous trial with the prophets of baal ; if the lord be god , follow him ; but if baal , than follow him . and the fire came down from heaven , and burnt up the sacrifice , and all the people confest , saying , the lord he is the god ; the lord he is the god. . hence it is , that when ahab fell into that other kind of idolatry which consists in worshipping of false gods , he is represented as much more heinously offending god , than the other kings of israel , who worshipp'd the calves of dan and bethel , kings xvi . . and it came to pass , as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of jeroboam the son of nebat , that he went and served baal , and worshipped him . . by all which it undoubtedly appears , that in both these cases , they design'd by those calves to worship the true god ; and then seeing it is confest they did commit idolatry in that service , it must remain that men may know , and serve the true god , and yet by worshipping him in this prohibited manner , may in the interpretation of the divine law commit idolatry . . i shall conclude this with that confession which the evidence of truth in this matter has extorted from cardinal bellarmin and and some others of your own communion ; where answering this objection , that when the golden calf was set up , aaron proclaimed a feast not to any other strange god but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the lord , to the jehovah , it is ( says he ) the solution of abulensis and others , that there were two sorts of idols among the hebrews . one without the name of any certain god , as that of micha , judges xvii . and perhaps the golden calf which aaron made , exod. xxxii . and jeroboam renew'd , king. xii . for the scripture does not call the calf the god moloch , or the god baal , these are thy gods , o israel . the other sort of idols had a certain name ; as baal , moloch , ashtoreth , chamos , &c. as is plain , king. xi . &c. they say therefore , and that not improbably , that it may be admitted of the former kind , that the jews did think that in the idol they worshipped the true god. . and now tho this might suffice to shew how consistent the guilt of idolatry is with the acknowledgment of one true god , yet will i add a reflection or two more , for the farther confirmation of it . for , first , were such a notion as this of idolatry to be admitted , it would serve no less to excuse the heathens than those of the church of rome of the guilt of it . for however they worshipp'd other inferior deities , as these do saints and angels with a lower degree of religious honour ; yet even they too acknowledged one supreme god , who was over all , and to whom the highest worship and adoration alone was due . this has been so largely proved by t. g's worthy and learned antagonist , not to mention any others who have occasionally treated of this argument , that i shall not need to enter on any particular induction in order to the asserting of it . . secondly , it cannot be question'd but that this new notion of idolatry , set up on purpose to excuse you from that imputation , is utterly repugnant to the principles of the ancient fathers , who certainly charged those with idolatry , who yet believed and worshipp'd the very same god with themselves . thus st. athanasius charges the arrians with idolatry for adoring christ , whom they esteem'd to be a creature . he tells them , that no supposition of any excellencies whatever in him , altho derived from god , would excuse them . but that if they thought him a meer man , and yet adored him , they would be found worshippers of men for all that . nay he doubts not to parallel them with the gentiles , and to compare the service they paid to our saviour upon this supposition , with that which the other gave to their inferior deities . and the same was the opinion of all the rest of those great men , gregory nazianzen , nyssen , epiphanius , &c. and whose words are so well known , that i shall not need to transcribe them . . but now that i have mentioned epiphanius , i may not forget another sort of idolatry exploded by him , and yet more near our purpose than the foregoing . i mean that worship which some superstitious women in his time paid to the blessed virgin by offering a cake to her . now this that holy father condemns as downright idolatry , and the device of the devil . and to shew how consistent the charge of idolatry is with the worship of one god , he gives us a similitude that would almost imply a necessity of acknowledging the one true god to compleat the nature of it : idolatry ( says he ) comes into the world through an adulterous inclination of the mind , which cannot be contented with one god alone : like an adulterous woman that is not satisfied with the chast embraces of one husband , but wanders in her lust after many lovers . so possible did those ancient fathers think it to be for men in the clear light of christianity , and retaining the acknowledgment of the true god , nevertheless to commit idolatry . . i might add here the exhortations of the new testament , where both s. paul and s. john , among other cautions to the christians of their times , place that of fleeing from idolatry ; and this in such a manner , as evidently supposes them very capable of continuing the profession of christianity , and the knowledg and worship of god , and yet of falling into it . but i shall content my self , lastly , to close up this with the confessions of learned romanists themselves , who have acknowledged idolatry to be consistent with the worship of the true god. . s. thomas defines idolatry to be a sin , whereby the singularity of god's dominion is taken from him : and card cajetane in his notes upon this same question , supposes that a christian may commit idolatry , and yet be so far from renouncing the true god , as not to violate any part of his faith in him . gregory de valentia , says 't is idolatry ; whensoever a man intends to apply to a creature , either by words or by actions , any estimation which is proper unto the majesty of god , whether it be done directly or indirectly . vasquez reckons those to be idolaters , who give to an image the service due to god ; and defines an idol in general to be , whatsoever is worshipped as god that is not truly so . now all these either manifestly suppose the knowledg of the true god , or at least do not exclude it . . but what need i insist upon generals , seeing if we may believe those of your own communion , you are not only capable , for all your christianity , of falling into idolatry ; but in this very point of image-worship , are actually guilty of it . for , st , cardinal bellarmine disputing against that which i have shewn by such a number of witnesses to be the true doctrine of your church , viz. that the image of christ is to be worshipp'd with proper divine worship ; doubts not to say this is idolatry ; and therefore argues in this manner against it : that this worship is either given to the image for it self , or for the sake of another . if for it self , it is plainly idolatry ; if for another , it is not proper divine worship , because the very nature of that is to be given for it self . again ; either the divine worship ( says he ) which is given to the image relatively for another , is the same with that which is given to god , or it is an inferior worship . if it be the same , then the creature is equally worshipped with god , which certainly is idolatry . for idolatry is not only when god is forsaken , and an idol worshipped , but when an idol is worshipped together with god. if it be an inferior worship , then it is not the proper divine worship . . so that now then the point is reduced to a fair issue . either we must pay the same adoration to the image that we do to the original , and then card. bellarmine pronounces us idolaters ; or we must give it only an inferior honour , and then card. capisucchi , and the inquisition , damn us as hereticks . nay , but there is idolatry committed go which way you will. for vasquez , another learned jesuit , and whose works have been no less approved than card. bellarmine's , tells us ; that if a man give inferior worship to an image , distinct from that which is given to the thing represented by it , he thereby incurs the guilt of idolatry , because he expresses his submission to a meer inanimate thing , that hath no kind of excellency to deserve it from him . and now seeing there is so much danger of idolatry , whatever the honour be that is given to images , i hope we may be the easier excused , if admonished by these confessions , and directed by god's commandments , we refuse to give them any honour at all . and thus much be said to the first point , that a man may be capable of falling into idolatry , though he continues both to know and worship the one true god. my next business is , dly , to shew , how this may be done by him . . i shall mention only two ways , and which i have already before infinuated ; ●iz . . by worshipping the true god after an idolatrous manner . . by giving divine worship to any other besides him. . by worshipping the true god after an idolatrous manner . . this was the case of the israelites , in the examples i have before mention'd , of the calves of aaron and jeroboam . they directed their adoration to the jehovah , the lord their god that brought them up out of the land of egypt . to him they proclaim'd the feast , and offer'd burnt - offerings and sacrifices upon their altars . yet because they set up a symbol of him , contrary to his command , and worshipp'd him after an idolatrous manner , they are expresly charged as idolaters in holy scripture ; and the worship that was intended by them to god , is represented as given to a molten image . . and the same was the case of that other image which card. bellarmine joins with these , viz. the teraphim of micha , judg. xvii . that these were designed for the service of the true god , is plain , seeing both his mother is said to have consecrated the silver of which they were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the jehova , vers. . and micha himself hired a levite of the lord 's to be his priest , vers. , . and he comforted himself upon this consideration , vers. . now know i that the lord will do me good , seeing i have a levite to my priest. and again , chap. xviii . . the priest asked counsel of god ; for some of the danites that enquired of him , and god , or the jehova , gave them a true answer . it is supposed by some in favour of this micha , that being a religious man , and the publick service of god being very much obstructed by the miserable violence of those times , he made himself a little oratory , and placed in it all the furniture of the tabernacle , with these teraphim to resemble the cherubims of the ark , whose figure s. hierome and others suppose them to have had . but whatever becomes of this fancy , that which i have to observe now is , that what the original hebrew stiles teraphim , the old vulgar latin calls idols ; and in that famous passage , sam. xv . . they are both join'd in the same rank of ilness with one another ; for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft ; and to transgress an idol and a teraphim : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , so symmachus rendèrs it ; and so both the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place must undoubtedly be understood . and indeed card. cajetan himself confesses as to the very point before us , that the whole work ( however micah intended it ) was in god's estimation without question idolatry : and to whose opinion we have already seen card. bellarmine to have agreed ; not to mention tostatus and others whom he refers to as acknowledging the same likewise . . dly , as for the other way by which a man may commit idolatry , who yet both acknowledges and worships the true god , viz. by giving divine worship to any other together with him ; i have already offer'd instances of that in the cases of the arrians and collyridians ; the one of which for worshipping christ , whom they supposed to be but a creature ; the other for offering a cake to the virgin mary , are charged by the ancient fathers as guilty of idolatry . nor is this without foundation from the holy scripture . for besides , that first of all we find there all religious worship appropriated to god only ; and therefore to give such worship to any other , must be practically to set up another god. to say nothing , dly ; that if any such worship has at any time been offer'd any holy men or angels , they have not only constantly refused it as a great abomination , but have still given this reason for it , that they were creatures , and by consequence not to be adored : stand up ( says st. peter to cornelius ) for i also am a man. sirs , why do ye these things ? ( says st. paul to the men of lystra , who would have offer'd sacrifice to him ) we are also men of like passions with you . see thou do it not , ( says the angel to st. john ) for i am thy fellow servant : worship god. all which sufficiently shew , that to worship any other besides god , is to raise them above the state of creatures , and in effect to make idols of them . we may observe , dly , that to give even the least part of that service which is due only to god to any creature , is expresly called idolatry . thus because we ought to trust in god only : covetous men who ( as st. paul tells them ) trust in uncertain riches , are in the new testament called idolaters . and sure those do not less deserve this character , who trust in the blessed virgin and the saints , or by any other act of proper religious worship , such as prayer , and in one word all those other instances of religious adoration i have heretofore mentioned , shew that they divide the proper service of god with them . . let us add to this , thly , that cardinal bellarmine himself confesses that idolatry is committed , not only when god is forsaken and an idol worshipped , but when an idol is worshipped together with him . and this he proves from exod . xx. . ye shall not make with me gods of silver , &c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. says your learned vatablus , to worship them together with me : for i will that ye should worship me alone , and not joyn any companion with me. . i shall finish this with the consideration of that charge which s. paul brings against the gnostick hereticks , and in which he plainly argues against their idolatry , rom. . . that they changed the truth of god into a lie , i. e. says theodoret , they gave the name of god to an idol : and worshipped or served the creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides , but yet togethér with the creator , who is blessed for ever , amen . for whereas ( says the same father ) they ought to have worshipped the true god , they gave divine worship to the-creature ; to the same accusation are they subject , who calling the only begotten son of god of a creature , do yet worship him as god. for they ought in their divinity either not to rank him among the creatures , but with god that begat him , or if they will have him to be a creature , they ought not to give worship to him as a deity . . hence athanasius calls this the folly of the arrians and greeks : to worship the creature , besides or with the creator . and again , the apostle ( says he ) accuses the greeks that they worshipped the creatures , seeing that they served the creature besides the creator ; seeing then the arrians say that our lord is a creature , and serve him as such , wherein do they differ from the greeks or gentiles ? and lastly , s. jerome in answer to the charge of vigilantius , who accused them of idolatry for worshipping the reliques of the martyrs , utterly renounces the charge upon the same foundation : but as for us ( says he ) so far are we from adoring the reliques of the martyrs , that we do not worship the sun or the moon , not any angels or arch-angels , not the cherubims nor seraphim , nor any name that is named either in this world or in that to come , lest we should serve the creature rather than the creator , who is blessed for ever . . and thus have i endeavour'd in as short a compass as i could , to clear the general nation of idolatry , as far as concerned the point before me , and in which i suppose you to have erred more for your churches sake , than for any great difficulty there is in understanding the nature of this sin. it will now be an easie task from these principles to infer , ( which is my next point . ) ii. that your church in the worship of images is truly and properly guilty of it . and this i shall shew according to what you desire ; st , with reference to those who hold that images are to be worshipped with the same worship as the things which they represent . dly , as it concerns their opinion , who denying this , yet allow an inferiour honour to them . first , that they are guilty of idolatry , who worship images with the same honour as the things which they represent . . where first i must observe , that this , however of late opposed by you and the rest of our new representers , is yet not only the most general received doctrine of the roman church , but so esteem'd to be the sense of your two councils of nice and trent , that card. capisucchi produces a long catalogue of your greatest writers who have look'd upon it as savouring of heresy to oppose it . and not only monsieur imbert in france , but also aegidius magistralis , and the french gentleman , whose case i before represented , will assure you , that in the inquisitions of italy , spain , and portugal , 't is somewhat more than a scholastick nicety , or a probable opinion , which may without danger be opposed by you . and therefore , tho to make good my promise , i shall also dispute this point with you too upon your own principles ; yet i must needs declare that 't is here i esteem my self truly to oppose the doctrine of your church in this particular . . now that they who hold this sort of image-worship are thereby guilty of idolatry , is so evident that your own card. bellarmine could not forbear reproaching them with it : and whose words i will once more produce , not more for the authority than the weight of them ; where maintaining this conclusion , that images of themselves and properly are not to be worshipped with the same worship with which the exemplar is worshipped , he thus argues against the contrary opinion : either that latria or divine worship which is given to the image , for another is the same with that worship which is paid to god , or it is some inferiour honour : if it be the same , then the creature is equally worshipped with god himself , which is certainly idolatry ; for it is idolatry , not only to forsake god and worship an idol , but to worship an idol together with god. as it is written , ye shall not make gods of gold or of silver together with me. thus this great writer . and tho i ought not to expect such free declarations from you , whose business it is to dissemble , and soften , and accommodate things all you can , yet have you plainly enough insinuated the very same . for when you lay down this position , that the image of our saviour christ , or the holy cross , is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipped with divine worship , that worship being due only to god : all you have to say for the other opinion is , that it may , nay that 's not enough , it may possibly be defended , which is , i think , a tacit confession , that , to say the truth , you doubted it could not . 't is true , you afterwards grow more confident , and improve your possibly into easily ; i say these expressions of the schools may be easily defended ; but then you add , that it must be done by interpreting them so as not to shock this first principle , that god alone is to be worshipped ; that is to say , by changing the conclusion ; and whereas they say , that the cross is to be worshipped together with christ with divine worship ; you give it the new turn , that not the cross , but christ in presence of the cross is to be worshipped with divine worship . for otherwise you had before told us , that the holy cross it self must upon no account whatsoever be worshipped with divine worship ; and again here , this first principle ( say you ) must not be shock'd , that god alone is to be adored with divine adoration . . it appears by this how uneasy you are in this case , and it is not a little confirmation to us of the security of our condition , to see that you whose concern it so much is to be very well assured of what you do , yet cannot agree among your selves what honour is to be given to images . but one party thinks that cannot be maintain'd without idolatry , which the other declares may not be deny'd without heresie . as for the images of the blessed virgin and the saints , that those commit idolatry who worship them with the same religious worship that they pay to the exemplars , will follow from what i have before said of your worshipping the blessed virgin and saints themselves . for if it be idolatry to give religious worship to the prototypes , it must then be much more so , to pay it to the images . . for your other images , those of our saviour christ and the holy trinity , i shall need no other argument than that of card. bellarmine before-mention'd , to shew the worship of those too to be idolatry . it being evident that to give divine adoration to any creature , that is , to worship any creature as god , is to make an idol of it , and therefore the service that is thereby paid to it must be idolatry . now that this is the case of those who hold this opinion , if what i have already cited from them be not sufficient to show , and especially where they declare ( as we have seen ) that not only christ , but the image it self too is to terminate the divine worship which is paid to christ by it ; i am sure the reason which they bring to establish their conclusion will be more than enough to do it : viz. that the same indivisible act is at once and indivisibly the worship both of the image , and of christ represented by the image . and if the image of christ be adored with the same indivisible adoration with which christ is adored , that adoration must be the supreme divine adoration , seeing with such only christ is to be adored . . but how then do's the cardinal excuse this from being idolatry . he answers , that it is not idolatry , because the image as an image is in that respect christ himself . for in this respect ( says he ) the image of christ is not consider'd precisely as it is a creature , but as it is a divine thing , and christ himself by representation . and then he dogmatically concludes , that it is not at all inconvenient that a creature as it is a divine thing , and after a certain manner one with god , should be honour'd with the very same divine honour , with which god himself is honour'd . in short , he confesses that the images of christ , upon the account of their being so , may be adored with the very same adoration that christ himself is ; and that in such a respect it is not at all inconvenient for the creature to have divine worship paid to it . he looks upon idolatry to be then only committed when the image is worshipped exclusively to god , but that it is none to worship god by an image , or to worship an image together with god. but yet since he confesses that images consider'd as images , in their representative natures , are still but creatures , and to worship any creature with the worship due only to god ( whatever the pretence be for the so doing ) is in effect to set up another god , which must needs be idolatry ; it will remain that no pretence of scholastick niceties will be able to excuse this great man from card. bellarmine's censure of idolatry ; seeing ( as he truly tells us ) it is idolatry not only to forsake god and worship an idol , but to worship an idol together with god. but all this will more evidently appear from the other consideration , in which i am to shew , secondly , that even those who deny this supreme divine honour to images , are yet guilty of idolatry in what they allow to them . . the truth is , the case of these men is , i think , rather more inexcusable than that of the other kind , because that ( in s. paul's words ) rom. . . knowing the judgment of god that they which commit such things as these are worthy of death , they not only do the same , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . they assent to those who do them . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , so theophylact ; they defend and patronize them : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . as theodoret very well observes upon this place . . now that this is indeed truly your case appears , st , in that at the same time that you assert in express terms , that you do not worship images , god forbid : that the cross is upon no account whatsoever to be worshipp'd with divine worship ; you nevertheless comply with those others before mention'd in all the most forbidden instances of divine adoration . you incense them , you carry them solemnly in processions , you consecrate them for this very end that they may be worshipped , you prostrate your selves before them in the church of god , and in the time of prayer , you desire several graces to accrue to you by your serving of them , nay you address your very prayers to them , which your own aquinas makes use of to prove that a proper divine adoration is due to the cross ; for having laid down this conclusion , that the cross is to be adored with the same adoration that christ himself is ; he immediately subjoins , and for this cause it is that we speak to the cross , and pray to it as to christ himself . where you must observe ( says card. cajetan in his notes on that passage ) that s. thomas brings our speaking to the cross as an effect of the same adoration with which christ is adored . for because we speak to the cross as christ , 't is a sign that we recur to the cross as to christ. by all which it appears that you are in this matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or self-condemned : if you believe this worship to be lawful and yet deny it , of hypocrisy towards us ; if you think it to be idolatrous , and yet comply with it , of a great sin towards god. . and that which yet farther confirms me in this is , to consider what wretched evasions you make use of to excuse your selves in these particulars . can any thing be more pitiful than the expositions you have here offer'd , of your consecrating of crosses , of your good-friday-service , and of the hymns of your church , which i had alledged as instances of that worship you give to images ? do not these plainly shew a desperate cause : and that you are but too sensible that your old practices are not to be reconciled with your new pretences . . if while i am endeavouring to convince you of idolatry , i do by the way discover your insincerity , 't is what i cannot help . but all the use i shall make at present of these remarks shall be to observe , that even those among you who pretend the most to deny a divine worship to images , yet must allow such acts of it as these i have here recounted . now that even this will involve you in this guilt , is evident from the scripture-notion of idolatry before establish'd . for i desire you to tell me , if you can , what did those israelites do when they worshipped the golden calf , that you do not at this day practise in the very same manner ? was it , . that they worshipped god by an image ? but if this be idolatry , you cannot deny but that you do the very same . or , was it , . that they did not refer their worship finally to god , but terminated their adoration upon the very image it self ? nay , but aaron in express terms proclaim'd a feast unto the lord ; and to whom can we suppose that they offer'd their burnt-offerings and their peace-offerings , but to the same lord to whom the feast it self was proclaim'd ? . to conclude ; there is nothing in that whole history to make us doubt but that they design'd that calf only as a symbol of the god of israel : and their idolatry by consequence was no other than what the most moderate men of your church must confess themselves to be guilty of , viz. that , contrary to god's express command , you set up graven images as representations of our saviour christ and the holy trinity ; and worship the infinite and incomprehensible god , in a figure made like unto a mortal man : which god himself has warranted us by his holy word to call idolatry . . it remains therefore upon the whole , that either you must shew us to be mistaken in our notion of idolatry ; or you will never be able to acquit your selves of the charge of it . and when you have done this , we shall then only tell you , that you commit a sin in this service , that you violate god's holy law which forbids it ; but for the denomination of it , we shall leave it to you , whose sin it is , to give it what particular name you your selves think fit . of reliques . . in the point of reliques you offer only two things in answer to all that i had said upon that subject , viz. reply ] first , that the whole of my discourse proceeded upon verbal dispute , what we are to call that honour which you give to them , and which you deny to be properly worship . secondly , you once more egregiously cavil about the translation of that part of the council of trent which concerns this subject , and deny that you seek to the sacred monuments or reliques of the saints for the obtaining of their help and assistance . . answ. ] for answer to which pretences , because i as little love to prolong disputes at any time , as you do when you have no more to say in order to the carrying of them on ; i will lay aside words , and bring the issue to the things themselves , and shew how miserably you have prevaricated in this point too , as wellas in the foregoing , by proving , i. that you do properly worship the reliques of your saints . ii. that you do seek to them for help and assistance . and when this is done , i shall not need say any thing to prove that you here also commit idolatry ; seeing you allow the cases of images and reliques to be the same ; and the council of trent makes this to be the very difference between the heathens and them , and that by which they hope to escape the censure of idolatry , viz. that they do not believe any divinity or virtue in images for which they ought to be worshipped , or that any thing is to be asked of them , or any trust to be put in them . tho how truly they declare this , the account i have before given of your consecrating both of crosses and agnus dei's will sufficiently show . i. that you do truly and properly worship the reliques of your saints . . this is a point that in any other age , or country but ours , would have needed no proof . and it is not the least argument of an innovating spirit in you , that no words or expressions are of any value with you , as often as you are minded to give us what you call the churches sense . let your writers use never so many phrases to assure to us their opinion that reliques are to be worshipp'd , all this signifies nothing , they meant no more by it than an honour or veneration due to the sacred remains of those saints who were once the temples of the living god ; and not a worship or adoration taken in its strict sense . there is hardly an expression that can signifie a proper worship which your own authors have not made use of to declare the service they thought due to them . i adore , worship , embrace the reliques of the saints , said one in the second council of nice , and the whole assembly resolved , act. iv. that their bones , ashes , raggs , blood , and sepulchres , should be adored , only men should not offer sacrifice unto them . card. baronius speaks of it as an honour done him by pope clement viiith , that tho most unworthy of so great an undertaking , he was yet sent by him to examine and adore the venerable body of s. cecilia . and though the cautious synod of trent said only that reliques should be venerated , yet seeing it neither condemned the opinions of those who taught they were to be worshipped , but rather allow'd the acts of proper divine service to be paid to them . what can we conclude , but that they made use of a loose expression to satisfy the more moderate party of your communion , at the same time that they resolved by their practice to favour the superstition of those who properly adored them ? . now that this was truly the case , will appear , first , from what i have before said , concerning the holy cross ; which is consider'd by you in a double capacity , both as an image and as a relique ; and is upon both accounts declared to be worthy of the very same adoration that christ himself is ; and i hope that is a proper worship in the strictest sense . for thus st. thomas argues ; if we speak of the very cross upon which christ was crucified , it is to be worshipped with divine worship , both as it represents christ , and as it touch'd the members of christ , and was sprinkled with his blood. and for this cause we both speak to the cross and pray to it , as if it were christ crucified upon it . where note , ( says cajetane ) that our speaking to the cross is here produced as an effect of the same adoration with which christ is adored . this i think is plain enough , and may serve to shew both with what sincerity you deny that properly speaking you do worship reliques ; or that 't is not the cross , but christ crucified upon it , to whom you speak in these addresses ; and which i have before vindicated against your cavils . . now this is the more to be consider'd , in that here you cannot say , as you do in the case of images , that the figure and the proto-type are in a manner united together , and that therefore the image in its representative nature is in some sort very christ : the reason of this worship being only a former relation to our saviour ; because ( says aquinas ) it heretofore touch'd his sacred members , or was sprinkled with his blood. upon which single account cardinal capisucchi doubts not to affirm , that the wood of the cross is so sanctified and consecrated by christ , that every the least particle of the cross divided from the whole , and from the other parts do's remain consecrated and sanctified ; and therefore that every the least piece of the cross is to be adored with the very same supreme divine adoration that christ himself is . so truly have you told us , that you do not allow relicks a worship or adoration taken in its strictest sense . . and what i have now said of the cross , will in the next place no less hold for the nails , lance , and other instruments of his passion . upon which account , as we have seen that you address to the cross , so you also do to the lance ; hail o triumphant iron ! happy spear ! wound us with the love of him that was pierced by thee . it is possible you may find out this too in the corpus poctarum ; and by the same figure that the cross signifies at once both the material cross , and our saviour that hung upon it , may make the spear here signify at once both s. longinus's spear , and the body of christ that was wounded with it . and that you may see how much it will be worth the while to have such an ecclesiastical trope invented . i will add one instance more of another relique that has an address made to it altogether as much wanting it as either of the foregoing . the relique i mean is the veronica , or cloth which our saviour christ wiped his face , and left the impression of his visage upon it . and to this you thus pray ; hail holy face of our redeemer , printed upon a cloth white as snow ; purge us from all spot of vice , and join us to the company of the blessed . bring us to our country , o happy figure ! there to see the pure face of christ. this is i suppose a plain instance enough what kind of honour you pay to reliques . and that this cloth might never want votaries to worship it , your pope john xxii , has vouchsafed no less than ten thousand days indulgence to every repetition of this prayer . i might add other instances of this kind of superstition : but i go on , . thirdly , to another instance of your giving religious worship to reliques ; and that is your allow'd practice of swearing by them . now that to swear by another , is to give that thing by which you swear the vvorship due to god only ; both the nature of an oath , which implies a calling of god to witness , and therebly acknowledges him to be the inspector of the heart , and the just avenger of the falshood of it , and the authority of holy scripture plainly declare ; thou shalt fear the lord thy god , says moses , deut. vi . . and shalt serve him only , and swear by his name . how shall i be favourable unto thee ? says god by the prophet jeremy , chap. v. . thy children have forsaken me , and sworn by those that are no gods. but now the catechism of your late synod of trent allows you to swear by the cross , and reliques of your saints ; and there is nothing more common among you than so to do . when the emperor comes to rome to take the imperial diadem at his holiness's hands , he thus swears : i king of the romans swear — by the father , son , and holy ghost ; and by the vvood of the cross , and by these reliques of the saints , &c. in which we find the holy trinity join'd in the same rank with the wood of the cross , and with the reliques of the saints . . nor am i here concern'd in those pretences that are sometimes brought to excuse this , viz. that you hereby intend no more than to swear by god , seeing it is plain that you do it at once both by god and them. and again ; that you do not believe that thereby any strength is added to the oath which it would not otherwise have ; for allowing this , yet still you do swear by them ; and if there be neither any reason for it , nor benefit in it , you are never the less culpable , but the more inexcusably so upon this account . but indeed you do expect a benefit by this swearing ; and suppose that the saints do hereby become sureties with god to you to see the oath fulfill'd , and to punish the perjury if it be not . and so you not only swear by the reliques as well as by god , but ascribe all the reason and design of an oath to the saints in common with god. i will illustrate this in one of your own instances , which will clear this matter to us . it happen'd that one of your saintesses , s. guria , was married to a goth , a souldier in the roman army , that was sent to deliver the city edessa from the hunns . the siege being raised , and the army recall'd , the souldier required his wife to go home with him . her mother could not bear this ; but being forced to comply , she brings the souldier and her daughter to an altar , under which were buried the bodies of three saints . and being there , she thus spake to him ; i will not give thee my daughter , unless laying thy hand upon this tomb , in which are contain'd the reliques of the holy martyrs of christ , thou shalt swear that thou wilt treat my daughter well . this he readily did : but yet soon after , without any regard to his oath , he used her very ill . it were too long to recount all the circumstances of her misfortunes , or her miraculous deliverance out of them , by the aid of these holy martyrs . i observe only as to my present purpose , that being reduced to the utmost degree of despair , the saint now , as her last refuge , puts the holy martyrs in mind of her husband 's swearing by their reliques , and how they were thereby become sureties to her mother for her good entertainment , and ought not to suffer her to be thus abused . immediately , the martyrs spoke to her , and told her , that as faithful sureties they would deliver her : and straightway she was miraculously brought out of a coffin under ground ( for her husband had buried her alive ) to the very place where their bodies lay , and where her husband had sworn to her . and then they once more spoke to her to this effect : we have now satisfied our suretiship , go to thy mother . it was not very long after this , that the war breaking out again , the same souldier came back to edessa , where he was surprised to find his wife alive ; and being prosecuted for the injuries he had done her , and for the perjury he had committed , was condemn'd to be hang'd for it . but , . fourthly , and to conclude this point . i will to these add those superstitions which are your common practice ; and of which every one that has lived any time among you , must needs have been eye-witnesses . such are your running to visit the shrines of your saints upon their solemn festivals ; which with what devotion you do it , all paris on the d of january every year is sufficiently sensible . your carrying them in procession is indeed very remarkable ; and of which i shall leave those who have ever known a dry time in the city i last mention'd , to consider what they have then seen . but because i must not expect to be credited by some men in any thing that can possibly be deny'd ; i will leave these matters of fact to those who have been spectators of them : and for the satisfaction of those who have not , will give a short extract of the form of procession , with which you bring the reliques of your saints into a new church . . first the bishop with his clergy leads the procession to the place where the reliques were lodged the night before ; when they are come to it , they sing this anthem , move your selves , o ye saints of god from your mansions , and hasten to the place which is prepared for you . then the bishop uncovering his head before the reliques prays thus . grant unto us , o lord , we beseech thee , that we may worthily touch the members of thy saints that are more especially dedicated unto thee . then the incense being prepared with the cross , and lighted candles leading the way , and follow'd by the clergy , singing their anthems , the priests appointed take up the carriage , and one going by them all the way incenses the reliques . the bishop and clergy singing , among others , this anthem , rise up ye saints of god from your habitations ; sanctify the places ; bless the people , and keep us sinful men in peace . — walk o ye saints of god ; enter into the city of the lord , for a church is built unto you , where the people may adore the majesty of god. being come to the door of the church , they make a stop whilst some other ceremonies are performed . then the bishop crosses the door with holy chrism , and bids it be blessed , and sanctified , and consecrated , and consign'd , and commended , in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost . and so they carry in the reliques , the bishop and clergy singing as before . this is the order of that solemnity . what name it deserves i shall leave it to others to say . but sure i am , that all this is somewhat more than such an honour and respect which you pretend is all that you give to them . let us see , iidly , whether you do not seek to these sacred monuments for help and assistance ? . it is indeed a hard case that we must be forced now to prove that which is a known practice of daily experience amongst you . the council of trent it self confesses , that by them many benefits are bestow'd by god upon men ; and then i am confident it will not be thought at all improbable , that it should encourage men to recur to them for their help . but here you have a notable evasion . you do not deny but that men go to these sacred monuments and reliques to receive benefit ; but this you say will not justify my translation unless when they come there they pray to the reliques , instead of desiring the saints , whose they are to pray for them . and to make this look like a rational answer , you change the terms of the question ; which was not ( as you falsly insinuate ) whether the council of trent directs you to * * * * * * implore the aid of the monuments or sacred reliques ; but whether it do's not condemn those who say that for the † † † † † † obtaining of their help the memories of the saints are in vain frequented . and though they do not pray to the reliques ; yet if for the obtaining their help your people do recur to them , which you cannot deny but that they do , the presumption offer'd in vindication of my rendring that passage of your council is still good ; and you have shewn nothing but your own falseness in this new answer to it . if it were necessary to prove that you do pray to reliques , you may see by what i have already offer'd , that even so you would not have secured your self from having made your self a false translation , where you charge me with one. but you have chosen your jury , and i accept of it ; and only for their better direction , i must desire them to look the words in the council it self , and not in your transcript of them ; who have purposely omitted all the antecedent to which the eorum refers ; that so they might be sure to see no more than what made for your purpose . should i have done this , i should have found all the variety of hard words muster'd up against me , mutilation , falsification , false imposition , wilful prevarication , wilful mistake , unsincere trick , &c. that either your margin could have contain'd , or your malice have invented ; and the truth is , i should have deserved them . but i shall leave this also to your jury to judg of : and for all your good assurance , i dare venture all my little learning , against all your little , that the verdict is brought in against you ; and that you are concluded in this matter to have been either very blind , aut illud quod dicere nolo . . for what concerns the thing it self ; whether you do not seek to the monuments of the saints for the obtaining the help of their reliques ; this is what will need no proof to those who are but never so little acquainted with your superstition : and have seen with what zeal you touch your beads and psalters at the very shrines in which they ae contain'd , to sanctify them thereby . how upon all occasions they are brought forth by you : to cure your sickness ; to preserve you from tempests at land , and in storms at sea ; but especially to drive away evil spirits , for which they are the most beneficial . the messieurs du port royal , have given us a whole volume of the miracles wrought by the holy thorn. there you may see how sister margaret , one of the nuns , being ill of the palsy , was carried to adore the holy thorn. how another being sick , recurr'd to it for its help , and found it too ; having no sooner adored the holy thorn , and kissed it , but she was well of her infirmity . infinite examples of the like kind might be produced , but i shall content my self to shew what opinion you have of the power of your reliques , from the very prayer that you make at the blessing of those little vessels in which they are put . we most humbly beseech thee almighty god , father of our lord jesus christ , that thou wouldst vouchsafe to bless these vessels that are prepared for the honour of thy saints through the intercession of the same saints : that all those who shall venerate their merits , and humbly embrace their reliques [ may be defended ] against the devil and his angels , against thunder , lightning and tempest ; against the corruption of the air , and the plagues of men and of beasts ; against thieves and robbers , and invasions of men , against evil beasts , and against all the several kinds of serpents and creeping things , and against the wicked devices of evil men. here i hope are benefits enough to invite a man to seek to them , and if they can help in all these cases , we need not doubt but they shall have votaries enough to recur to them for it . . but that which is most admirable is , that in all these cases , false reliques are every jot as good as true ones ; and which makes somewhat for the opinion of vasquez , that provided a man do's but think 't is the relique of a saint , he may securely worship it , tho it may be 't is no such thing . we have before heard what mighty cures were wrought at the monument of the famous bishop and martyr viarum curandarum : and whether the council of trent prescribed it or no , ressendius assures us , all the country round about did come to the monument of this pretended saint , for the obtaining help and assistance , and fancied at least that they found it too . tho it afterwards appear'd that 't was an old heathen inscription , and those words far enough from signifying either the name of a man , or the character of a bishop . many have been the cheats of the like kind , and which ought very much to lessen the credit of those miracles that you pretend are wrought in your church : but i shall finish all with one so much the more to be considered , in that it was the happy occasion of undeceiving a very great person , and disposed him to receive that truth he afterwards embraced : and may it please god , that the recital i shall here make of it , may move those who are yet in captivity to these superstitions to deliver themselves from the like impositions . . prince christopher , of the family of the dukes of radzecil , a prince much addicted to the superstitions of your church , having been in great piety at rome to kiss his holiness's feet ; the pope at his departure presented him with a box of reliques , which at his return soon became very famous in all that country . some months had hardly pass'd when certain monks came to him to acquaint him that there was a d. man possess'd of the devil , upon whom they had in vain try'd all their conjurations , and therefore they humbly intreated his highness that for his relief , he would be pleased to lend them his reliques which he had brought from rome . the prince readily complied with their desires , and the box was with great solemnity carried to the church , and being applied to the body of him that was possess'd , the devil presently went out with the grimaces and gestures usual on such occasions . all the beholders cry'd out , a miracle ! and the prince himself lifted up his hands and eyes to heaven , and blessed god who had favour'd him with such a holy and powerful treasure . it happen'd not long after that the prince relating what he had seen , and magnifying very much the virtue of his reliques : one of his gentlemen began to smile , and show by his actions how little credit he gave to it . at which the prince being moved , his servant ( after many promises of forgiveness ) ingenuously told him , that in their return from rome he had unhappily lost the box of reliques , but for fear of being exposed to his anger , had caused another to be made as like as might be to the true one , which he had filled with all the little bones , and other trinkets that he could meet with , and that this was the box that his monks made him believe did work such miracles . the prince the next morning sent for the fathers , and enquired of them if they knew of any demoniaque that had need of his reliques : they soon found one to act his part in this farce ; and the prince caused him to be exorcised in his presence . but when all they could do would not prevail , the devil kept his possession , he commanded the monks to withdraw , and delivered over the man to another kind of exorcists , some tartars that belonged to his stable , to be well lash'd till he should confess the cheat. the demoniaque thought to have carried it off by horrible gestures and grimaces , but the tartars understood none of those tricks , but by laying on their blows in good earnest quickly moved the devil , without the help of either hard names , holy water , or reliques , to confess the truth , and beg pardon of the prince . as soon as morning was come , the prince sent again for the monks ( who suspected nothing of what had pass'd ) and brings their man before them , who threw himself at the princes feet , and confess'd that he was not possess'd with the devil , nor ever had been in his life . the monks at first made light of it , and told the prince it was an artifice of the devil who spoke through the mouth of that man. but the prince calling for his tartars to exorcise another devil , the father of lies , out of them too , they began presently to relent , and confess'd the cheat , but told him they did it with a good intention to stop the course of heresy in that country . upon this he dismiss'd them , but from that time began seriously to apply himself to read the holy scriptures , telling them that he would no longer trust his salvation to men who defended their religion by such pious frauds , so they called them , but which were indeed diabolical inventions . and in a short time after , both himself and his whole house made open profession of the reformed religion . anno . and thus much be said in answer to your ivth article . finis . books lately printed for richard chiswell a discourse concerning the celebration of divine service in an unknown tongue . quarto . a papist not misrepresented by protestants . being a reply to the reflections upon the answer to [ a papist misrepresented and represented ] . quarto . an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , in the several articles proposed by the late bishop of condom , [ in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church ] . quarto . a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england ; against the exceptions of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , and his vindicator . o. a catechism explaining the doctrine and practices of the church of rome . with an answer thereunto . by a protestant of the church of england . o. a papist represented and not misrepresented : being an answer to the first , second , fifth and sixth sheets of the second part of the [ papist misrepresented and represented ] ; and for a further vindication of the catechism , quarto . the lay-christian's obligation to read the holy scriptures . quarto . the plain man's reply to the catholick missionaries . o. an answer to three papers lately printed , concerning the authority of the catholick church in matters of faith , and the reformation of the church of england . quarto . a vindication of the answer to three papers concerning the unity and authority of the catholick church , and the reformation of the church of england . o. mr. chillingworth's book , called [ the religion of protestants a safe way to salvation ] made more generally useful by omitting personal contests , but inserting whatsoever concerns the common cause of protestants , or defends the church of england , with an exact table of contents ; and an addition of some genuine pieces of mr. chillingworth's , never before printed , viz. against the infallibility of the roman church , transubstantiation , tradition , &c. and an account of what moved the author to turn papist , with his confutation of the said motives . an historical treatise written by an author of the communion of the church of rome , touching transubstantiation . wherein is made appear , that according to the principles of that church , this doctrine cannot be an article of faith. o. the protestant's companion : or an impartial survey , and comparison of the protestant religion as by law established , with the main doctrines of popery . wherein is shewed , that popery is contrary to scripture , primitive fathers and councils ; and that proved from holy writ , the writings of the ancient fathers for several hundred years , and the confession of the most learned papists themselves . o. a sermon preached upon st. peter's day : by a divine of the church of england . printed with some enlargements . the pillar and ground of truth . a treatise shewing that the roman church falsly claims to be that church , and the pillar of that truth mentioned by s. paul in his first epistle to timothy , chap. . vers. . o. the peoples right to read the holy scripture asserted , o. a short summary of the principal controversies between the church of england and the church of rome ; being a vindication of several protestant doctrines , in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , [ protestancy destitute of scripture proofs . ] o. an answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , [ the judgment and doctrine of the clergy of the church of england concerning one special branch of the king's prerogative , viz. in dispensing with the penal laws . ] o. a discourse of the holy eucharist in the two great points of the real presence , and the adoration of the host ; in answer to the two discourses lately printed at oxford on this subject : to which is perfixed a large historical preface relating to the same argument . two discourses ; of purgatory , and prayers for the dead . the fifteen notes of the church , as laid down by cardinal bellarmin , examined and confuted . o. with a table of the contents . preparation for death : being a letter sent to a young gentlewoman in france , in a dangerous distemper of which she died . by w. w. m. a. o. the difference between the church of england and the church of rome , in opposition to a late book , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and church of rome . a private prayer to be used in difficult times . a true account of a conference held about religion at london , sept. , , between a. pulton , jesuit , and tho. tenison , d. d. as also of that which led to it , and followed after it . o. the vindication of a. cressener , schoolmaster in long-acre , from the aspersions of a. pulton , jesuit , schoolmaster in the savoy ; together with some account of his discourse with mr. meredith . a discourse shewing that protestants are on the safer side , notwithstanding the uncharitable judgment of their adversaries ; and that their religion is the surest way to heaven . o. six conferences concerning the encharist , wherein is shewed , that the doctrine of transubstantiation overthrows the proofs of christian religion . a discourse concerning the pretended sacrament of extreme unction ; with an account of the occasions and beginnings of it in the western church . in three parts . with a letter to the vindicator of the bishop of condom . the pamphlet entituled , speculum ecclesiasticum , or an ecclesiastical prospective-glass , considered , in its false reasonings and quotations . there are added , by way of preface , two further answers , the first , to the defender of the speculum ; the second to the half-sheet against the six conferences . a second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the new exceptions of mons. de meaux , late bishop of condom , and his vindicator . the first part . in which the account that has been given of the bishop of meaux's exposition , is fully vindicated ; the distinction of old and new popery historically asserted ; and the doctrine of the church of rome , in point of image-worship , more particularly considered . o. the incurable scepticism of the church of rome . by the author of the [ six conferences concerning the eucharist . ] o. mr. pulton considered in his sincerity , reasonings , authorities : or a just answer to what he hath hitherto published in his true account ; his true and full account of a conference , &c. his remarks ; and in them his pretended confutation of what he calls dr. t 's rule of faith. by tho. tenison , d. d. a full view of the doctrines and practices of the antient church relating to the eucharist , wholly different from those of the present roman church , and inconsistent with the belief of transubstantiation . being a sufficient confutation of consensus veterum , nubes testium , and other late collections of the fathers pretending to the contrary . o. an answer to the representer's reflections upon the state and view of the controversy ; with a reply to the vindicator's full answer , shewing that the vindicator has utterly ruin'd the new design of expounding and representing popery . imprimatur . ex aed . lamb. feb. . . guil. needham rr mo in christo p. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. à sacris domest . a collection of several discourses against popery . by william wake , preacher to the honourable society of grays-inn . london : printed for ric. chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxviii . a table of the discourses contained in this collection . i. an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , &c. in answer to the bishop of meaux . ii. a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the exceptions of monsr . de meaux and his vindicator . iii. a second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the new exceptions of monsr . de meaux and his vindicator . part i. part ii. part iii. iv. a discourse of the holy eucharist , in the two great points of the real presence , and of the adoration of the host . v. an historical account of the doctrine of the real presence profess'd in the church of england , &c. vi. two discourses of purgatory , and prayers for the dead . vii . a discourse of the nature of idolatry , in answer to the bishop of oxon's reasons for abrogating the test . viii . the present state of the controversy between the church of england , and the church of rome . ix . a continuation of the present state of the controversy , &c. other treatises written by the same author . x. a sermon on the xxxth of january , preach'd at paris , anno / xi . preparation for death : being a letter sent to a young gentlewoman in france , in a dangerous distemper of which she died . a discourse of the holy eucharist , in the two great points of the real presence and the adoration of the host. in answer to the two discourses lately printed at oxford on this subject . to which is prefixed a large historical preface relating to the same argument . london , printed for richard chiswell , at the rose and crown in s. paul's church-yard . mdclxxxvii . the preface . the nature of the holy eucharist is a subject that hath been both so frequently insisted upon , and so fully explain'd in our own and other languages , that it may well be thought a very needless undertaking for any one to trouble the world with any farther reflections upon it . for not to mention now those eminent men who have heretofore labour'd in this work , nor to run beyond the points that are here designed to be examined ; what can be said more evidently to shew the impossibility of the pretended substantial change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ in this holy sacrament , than has been done in the late excellent discourse against transubstantiation ? it is but a very little time since the adoration of the host has been shewn not only to be a novel invention , contrary to the practice of all antiquity , but the danger of it evidently demonstrated , notwithstanding whatever pretences can be made of a good intention to excuse them from the charge and danger of idolatry , who continue the practice of it . and both these not only still remain unanswer'd ; but if we may be allow'd to judge either by their own strength , or by our adversaries silence , are truly and indeed unanswerable . it is not therefore out of any the least opinion that any thing more need be said to confirm our cause , much less that i esteem my self able to undertake it with the same success that those other champions of our faith have done it , that i venture these discourses to a publick view . but since our adversaries still continue , without taking notice of any of these things , to cry up their great diana no less than if she had never at all been shewn to be but an idol , i thought it might not be amiss to revive our instances against it : and that we ought not to appear less sollicitous by a frequent repetition of our reasons , to keep men in the truth , than others are by a continual insisting upon their so often baffled sophistry , to lead them into error . 't was an ingenious apology that seneca once made , for his often repeating the same things ; that he did but inculcate over and over the same counsels , to those that over and over committed the same faults : and i remember an antient father has left it as his opinion , that it was useful for the same truths to be vindicated by many , because that one man's writings might possibly chance to come where the others did not ; and what was less fully or clearly explain'd by one , might be supplied and enlarged by the other . and a greater than either of these , s. paul , has at once left us both an example and a warrant for this sollicitude ; phil. . . to write the same things to you , to me ( says he ) is not grievous , but for you it is safe . indeed i think if there be any need of an excuse for this undertaking , it ought to be rather to apologize for a far greater absurdity which we all commit in writing at all against those men , who in these disputes concerning the holy sacrament , have most evidently shewn that to be true of christians , which was once said of the antient philosophers , that there can be nothing so absurd which some men will not adventure to maintain . in most of our other controversies with those of the church of rome , we shew them to be erroneous ; in this they are extravagant ; and as an eminent pen has very justly express'd it , the business of transubstantiation is not a controversie of scripture against scripture , or of reason against reason , but of downright impudence against the plain meaning of scripture , and all the sense and reason of mankind . the truth is , as the same person goes on , it is a most self-evident falshood : and there is no doctrine or proposition in the world that is of it self more evidently true , than transubstantiation is evidently false . and if such things as these must be disputed , and this evidence , that what we see and handle , and taste to be bread is bread , and not the body of a man ; and what we see and taste to be wine is wine , and not blood , may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof , i cannot discern why any man that hath but confidence enough to do so , may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is , or affirm it to be what all the world sees it is not , and this without all possibility of being further confuted . but yet since it has pleased god so far to give over some men to a spirit of delusion , as not only seriously to believe this themselves , but also vashly to damn all those that cannot believe it with them , we ought as well for the security of those who have not yet abandoned their own sense and reason , in compliance only with others who in this matter profess to have laid aside theirs ; as in charity to such deluded persons as are unhappily led away with these errors , to shew them their unreasonableness : to convince them that christianity is a wise and rational religion : that 't is a mistaken piety to suppose that men ought to believe contradictions ; or that their faith is ever the more perfect , because the object of it is impossible : that our senses ought to be trusted in judging aright of their proper object ; that to deny this is to overthrow the greatest external evidence we have for our religion , which is founded upon their judgment ; or if that will be more considerable , is to take away all the grounds that even themselves can pretend to , wherefore they should disbelieve them in favour of transubstantiation . and this i perswade my self i have in the following discourse sufficiently shewn , and i shall not need to repeat it again here . for the words themselves , which are the grounds of this great error , i have taken that method which seemed to me the most proper to find out the true meaning of them ; and , as far as the nature of the enquiry would permit , have endeavour'd to render it plain and intelligible even to the meanest capacity . and i have some cause to hope that the most learned will not be dissatisfied with the design , what ever they may be with the performance ; it being from such that i have taken the greatest part of my reflections , and in which i pretend to little of my own besides the care of putting together here , what i had observed scattered up and down in parts elsewhere . it was so much the more fit at this time to insist upon this manner of arguing , in that a late disturber of the fathers , the better to shew the antiquity of his new religion , has pretended to search no less than into the secrets of the jewish cabala after it , and to have found out transubstantiation there amongst the rest of the rabbinical follies : now however the very name of galatinus be sufficient to learned men to make them esteem his judgment in his jewish to be much the same as in his christian antiquity which follows after , in those eminent pieces of s. peter ' s and s. matthew ' s liturgies , s. andrew ' s work of the passion of our lord ; dionysius ' s ecclesiast . hierarch . &c. yet because such stuff as this may serve to amuse those who are not acquainted with the emptiness of it , i was so much the rather inclined to shew what the true notions of the jewish rites would furnish us with to overthrow their pretences ; and that the rabbins visions are of as little moment to confirm this conceit as their own miracles . but whatever those of the other communion shall please to judge of my arguments , yet at least the opinions of those eminent men of their own church may certainly deserve to be consider'd by them , who have freely declared that there is not in scripture any evident proof of transubstantiation ; nay some of whom have thought so little engagement upon them either from that or any other authority to believe it , that they have lived and died in their church without ever embracing of it . and of this the late author of the * * * historical treatise of transubstantiation , and which is just now set forth in our own language , may be an eminent instance , being a person at this day living in the communion of the church of rome , and in no little esteem among all that know him. it is not fit to give any more particular character of him at this time . they who shall please to peruse his book , will find enough in it to speak in his advantage ; and if they have but any tolerable disposition to receive the truth , will clearly see , that this point of transubstantiation was the production of a blind and barbarous age ; unknown in the church for above one thousand years , and never own'd by the greatest men in any ages since . the truth is , if we enquire precisely into this business of transubstantiation , we shall find the first foundation of it laid in a clayster by an unwary monk about the beginning of the th century : carried on by a cabal of men , assembled under the name of a a a a general council to introduce the worship of images into the church , ann. . b b b formed into a better shape by another c c c monk ann. . and he too opposed by almost all the learned men of his age ; and at last confirmed by a d d d pope of whom their own authors have left us but a very indifferent e e e character ; and in a f f f synod of which i shall observe only this , that it gave the pope the power of unmaking kings , as well as the priests that of making their god. but indeed i think we ought not to charge the council with either of these attempts ; since , contrary to the manner of proceeding in such assemblies , received in all ages , nothing was either judged or debated by the synod : † † † the pope only himself formed the articles , digested them into canons , and so read them to the fathers ; some of which , their own historian tells us , approved them , others did not , but however all were forced to be contented with them . such was the first rise of this new doctrine ; years after christ. but still the most learned men of that and the following ages doubted not to dissent from it . a a a aquinas who wrote about years after this definition , speaks of some , who thought the substantial form of the bread still to remain after consecration : b b b durandus doubted not to assert the continuance of the matter of the elements , whatever became of the form ; and that 't was c c c rashness to say that christ's body could be there no otherwise than by transubstantiation : to which d d d scotus also subscribed , that the truth of the eucharist might be saved without transubstantiation , e e e and that in plain terms ours was the easier , and to all appearance the truer interpretation of christ's words ; in which f f f ockam and * * * d'alliaco concurr'd with him . g g g fisher confess'd that there was nothing to prove the true presence of christ's body and blood in their mass : a a a ferus would not have it inquired into , how christ's body is there ; and b b b tonstall thought it were better to leave men to their liberty of belief in it . those who in respect to their churches definition did accept it , yet freely declared that c c c before this council it was no matter of faith , nor but for its decision would have been now ; that the ancients did not believe it ; that the scripture does not express it ; in short , that the interpretation which we give is altogether as agreeable to the words of christ , and in truth free from infinite inconveniences with which the other abounds . all which plainly enough shews that not only the late private heretical spirit , whose imperious sentiments , and private glosses , and contradictory interpretations ( as a late * * * author has elegantly expressed it ) like the victorious rabble of the fishermen of naples riding in triumph , and trampling under foot ecclesiastical traditions , decrees , and constitutions , ancient fathers , ancient liturgies , the whole church of christ , but especially those words of his , this is my body , has opposed this doctrine ; but even those who are to be supposed to have had the greatest reverence for all these , their own masters and doctors , found it difficult to embrace so absurd and contradictory a belief . and here then let me beseech those into whose hands these papers may chance to fall , seriously to consider this matter , and whether the sole authority of such a pope as innocent iii , whose actions towards one of our own kings , and in favour of that very ill man dominick and his inquisition , were there nothing else remaining of his life , might be sufficient to render him detestable to all good men , ought to be of so great an authority with us , as to engage us to give up our senses and our reason ; nay and even scripture and antiquity it self , in obedience to his arbitrary and unwarrantable definition . it is i suppose sufficiently evident from what has been before observed , how little assurance their own authors had , for all the definition of the council of lateran , of this doctrine . i shall not need to say what debates arose among the divines of the council of trent about it . and though since its determination there , men have not dared so openly to speak their minds concerning it as before , yet we are not to imagine that they are therefore ever the more convinced of its truth . i will not deny but that very great numbers in the roman communion , by a profound ignorance and a blind obedience , the two great gospel perfections with some men , disposed to swallow any thing that the church shall think fit to require of them , may sincerely profess the belief of this doctrine ; because they have either never at all considered it , or it may be are not capable of comprehending the impossibility of it . nor shall i be so uncharitable as to suppose that all , even of the learned amongst them , do wilfully profess and act in this matter , against what they believe and know to be true . i will rather perswade my self that some motives or prejudices which i am not able to comprehend , do really blind their eyes , and make them stumble in the brightness of a mid-day light . but yet that all those , who nevertheless continue to live in the external communion of the church of rome , are not thus sincere in the belief of it , is what i think i may with out uncharitableness affirm ; and because it will be a matter of great importance to make this appear , especially to those of that perswasion ; i will beg leave to offer such proofs of it as have come to my knowledge , in some of the most eminent persons of these last ages , and to which i doubt not but others , better acquainted with these secrets than i can pretend to be , might be able to add many more examples . and the first that i shall mention is the famous † † † picherellus , of whom the testimonies prefix'd to his works speak so advantagiously , that i shall not need say any thing of the esteem which the learned world had of him . * * * i must transcribe his whole treatise should i insist on all he has delivered repugnant to their doctrine of transubstantiation . suffice it to observe that in his exposition of the words of institution , this is my body , he gives this plain interpretation of them , this bread is my body which is both freely allowed by the papists themselves to be inconsistent with their belief as to this matter ; and which he largely shews not only to be his own , but to have been the constant doctrine of the primitive fathers in this point . but in this it may be there is not so much ground for our admiration , that one who was not very fond of any of the errors of that church , should openly dissent from her in this : it will more be wondred that a person so eminent amongst them as cardinal du perron , and that has written so much in defence of transubstantiation , should nevertheless all the while himself believe nothing of it . and yet this we are assured he freely confess'd to some of his friends not long before hisdeath : that he thought the doctrine to be monstrous ; that he had done his endeavour to colour it over the best he could in his books ; but that in short he had undertaken an ill cause , and which was not to be maintain'd . but i will set down the relation as i find it in monsieur drelincourt ' s * * * answer to the landgrave of hesse ; and who would not have presum'd to have offer'd a relation so considerable , and to a person of such quality , had he at all fear'd that he could have been disproved in it . † † † your highness ( says he ) may believe me if you please : but i can assure you with all sincerity and truth that if the late cardinal du perron has convinced you of the truth of transubstantiation , he has convinced you of that of which he could never convince himself , nor did he ever believe it . for i have been informed by certain persons of honour , and that are in all respects worthy of belief , and who had it from those that were eye witnesses ; that some friends of that illustrious and learned cardinal who went to see him as he lay languishing upon his bed , and ill of that distemper of which he died , desired him to tell them freely , what he thought of transubstantiation : to whom he answer'd , that 't was a monster . and when they farther ask'd him , how then he had written so copiously and learnedly about it ? he replied , that he had done the utmost that his wit and parts hadenabled him , to colour over this abuse and render it plausible ; but that he had done like those who employ all their force to defend an ill cause . and thus far monsieur drelincourt . i could to this add some farther circumstances which i have learnt of this matter , but what is here said may suffice to shew what the real opinion of this great cardinal , after all his voluminous writings , as to this doctrine was ; unless some future obligations shall perhaps engage me to enter on a more particular account of it . to these two great instances of another nation i will beg leave to subjoyn a third of our own country : father barnes the benedictine , who in his pacific discourse of most of the points in controversie between us and the papists , expresly declares , that the assertion of transubstantiation , or of the substantial change of the bread , though it be indeed the more common opinion , is yet no part of the churches faith : and that the scripture and fathers , when they speak of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be sufficiently expounded of that admirable and supernatural change of the bread , by the presence of christ's body added to it , without the departure of the substance of the bread it self . it appears by these words how little this monk thought transubstantiation an article of faith. but a greater than he , and who not only did not esteem it necessary for others , to receive it , but clearly shews that he did not believe it himself , is the illustrious monsieut de marca , late archbishop of paris , and well known to the world for his great learning and eminence . his treatise of the eucharist was publish'd with authority , by one of his near relations the abbé faget at paris . with some other little tracks which he had received from the archbishops own hands . in the close of that treatise he thus delivers his opinion : † † † the species of the bread is in its essence and nature distinct from the body of christ adjoyn'd to it , although the reason of the eucharist requires that the inward substance of the bread should be converted into that body after a manner that exceeds all imagination . but yet this change hinders not but that the bread which is seen still retains its own nature , being , and essence , or substance , together with the proprieties of its true nature , among which one is the faculty of nourishing our bodies , &c. whence it follows that it was rightly observ'd by gelasius , that the sacrament of the body and blood of christ was a divine thing , because the bread and wine being perfected by the holy spirit pass into the divine substance , viz. the spiritual body of christ ; but on the other side , that the substance and nature of the bread and wine do not cease to be , but continue still in the propriety of their own nature . and here i suppose any one who reads this passage alone of this treatise might without the help of * * * monsieur baluze's animadversion easily have concluded , that if this be indeed the work of monsieur de marca , 't will be impossible to hinder him from passing with many persons for a heretick as to the point of the eucharist . but before i quit this instance , i cannot but observe with reference to this treatise , what care the romanists take to hinder the sentiments of learned men in this point from coming to a publick knowledge : and which might give us some cause to suspect , that their great concern is not so much whether they do indeed believe transubstantiation themselves , as not to let the world know that they do not . this has been heretofore shewn in another treatise with reference to s. chrysostom ; whose * * * epistle to caesarius some of the sorbonne doctors caused most shamefully to be out out of monsieur bigot's edition of palladius , because it too plainly spoke the doctrine of the protestants as to this point . and the same has almost happened to this treatise of monsieur de marca here mentioned : † † † before it came to a publick sight , the passages that seemed most visibly to oppose their doctrine , were either changed or suppress'd ; * * * ( of which the passage before cited is one ) as appears by the paris edition now extant of them . but † † † the providence of god that brought to light the other , has discover'd this cheat too ; for before the alarm was given , and that the chancellor , a a a the sorbonne doctors , but especially monsieur baluze by his letters to the president de marca , the archbishop's son , upon this occasion , had awakened the abbé faget to consider more nearly what he had done ; b b b several presents had been made of the intire work as it was in the authors ms. ; and , if we may credit their own relations , the printer who was a protestant and the same that printed c c c monsieur claude's books against the perpetuire , had obliged that learned person with a copy ; by which means both the genuine sentiments of monsieur de marca in opposition to transubstantiation are preserved , and their fraudulent endeavours to suppress his opinion discovered . to this eminent person i will beg leave to subjoyn a fifth , and he too no less known to the world both for his learning and reputation , nor less a heretick in this point , however not hitherto so openly discovered as the other : and that is father sirmond the jesuit . in his life of paschasius radbertus , he tells us , that this monk was the first who explained the genuine sense of the catholick church in this mystery : and indeed if what * * * blondel and some others have observed concerning him be true , that it was for impanation , not transubstantiation ; the jesuit perhaps spoke his real judgment of him , though not in that sense that he is usually understood to have done it . but however that be , certain it is that this learned father so little believed the doctrine of the present roman church as to this point , that he freely confess'd he thought it had herein departed from the antient faith ; and at the desire of one of his friends wrote a short treatise to confirm his assertion . this though it be not yet made publick , is neverthess in the hands of several persons of undoubted integrity : i will mention only one , whose learning and worth are sufficiently known to the world , viz. monsieur bigot : who discoursing with father raynauld at lyons about this matter , the jesuit confess'd to him that it was true , that he had himself a copy of his treatise which he would communicate to him , and that it was father sirmond whom upon this account he reflected upon in his book , de bonis & malis libris , where he observes , that men of great parts love to innovate , and invent always somewhat of their own in difficult matters . when monsieur bigot return'd to claim the performance of his promise , the jesuit excused himself to him that he could not light upon it ; which when he afterwards told to father chiflet another jesuit of dijonois , he again confirmed to him the truth of the relation , and voluntarily offer'd him a copy of the treatise , which he told him was transcribed from father sirmonds original . this monsieur bigot has not only acknowledged to some of his friends of my acquaintance , but promised to communicate to them the very treatise ; and i dare appeal to the candor of that worthy person for the truth of what i have here related , and whose name i should not have mentioned , but only to remove all reasonable cause of suspicion in a matter of such importance . and what i have now said of father sirmond , i might as truly affirm of a fourth person of as great a name , a doctor of the sorbonne , whose treatise against transubstantiation has been seen by several persons , and is still read in the ms. but because i am not at liberty to make use of their names , i shall not any further insist upon this example . my next instance will be more undeniable , and it is of the ingenious monsieur de marolles abbot of ville-loyn , well known in france for his excellent writings and great abilities . a little before his death , which happen'd about the beginning of the year . being desirous to free his conscience as to the point of the holy eucharist , in which he supposed their church to have many ways departed from the right faith , he caused a paper to be printed , in which he declares his thoughts concerning it ; and sent it to several of his most learned acquaintance , the better to undeceive them in this matter . one of these persons , to whom this present was made , having been pleased to communicate to me the very paper which by the abbot ' s order was brought to him , it may not perhaps be amiss to gratifie the reader ' s curiosity , if i here insert it at its full length . * * * permission hoped for to speak freely for the truth . i cannot but exceedingly wonder that a certain preacher , who reads the holy scriptures , and will maintain nothing but by their authority , should nevertheless undertake to defend against all opposers by the scriptures , the real presence in the eucharist out of the act of receiving ; and think himself so sure to overcome in this occasion , as to talk of it as a thing certain , and in which he knows he cannot be resisted . it would certainly be more safe not to be too much prepossessed with anything . i will not name the person , because i have no mind to displease him , but in the mean time , neither sense , nor reason , nor the word of god have suggested to him one word of it ; unless the apostle was mistaken when he said , if ye are risen with christ , seek those things that are above , where christ is sate at the right hand of god. set your affection on things above and not on things upon the earth . coloss. . , . for how could he speak after this manner , if jesus christ be still upon earth by his real presence under the species in the eucharist ? when he ascended into heaven , he said not to his disciples which saw his wonderful ascension ; i shall be with you always by my real presence under the species of the eucharist , which shall be publickly exposed to you . in his sermon at the supper which he had just now celebrated , and which immediately preceded his passion , jesus christ according to s. john says expresly to his apostles , that he was about to leave them , that he should not be long absent , that he would send to them the comforter ; but not one word of his real presence in the eucharist , which he had so lately instituted under the bread and wine , to be a mystery of our faith for the nourishment of the soul to life eternal , as ordinary bread and wine are for the nourishment of the body to a temporal life , and that too for all the faithful , as is clearly signified by those words , drink ye all of this . whereupon i have elsewhere remark'd the custom of libations which were in use time out of mind throughout the whole roman empire , and which custom was establish'd in honour of the gods : as may be seen in the version of athenaeus in ; and as i had observed long before upon virgil and horace , though there was but little notice taken of it . which makes me think it very probable , that our saviour intended to sanctifie this profane custom , as he did some others , which i have remarked in the same place . when men undertake to prove too much , they very often prove nothing at all : to maintain that jesus christ is intire in the eucharist with all his bodily extension , and all his dignity , so as he is in heaven ; so that under the roundness of the bread there is nothing that is round ; under the whiteness there is nothing white ; this is what the scripture has not said one word of , they are indeed meer visions , and which are not so easie to maintain as men may think . the priest who celebrates breaks the host in three pieces ; one of these he puts into the cup , of the two others he communicates , in memory as 't is plain of what we read , that jesus the night in which he was betray'd took bread , and when he had given thanks he brake it , and said , take , eat , this is my body which is broken for you , do this in remembrance of me. cor. . , . in the mass there is here no more bread , they are only the appearances of bread , that is to say , the accidents , and which are not tied to any substance . and yet so long as there is but one atom of those accidents which they call eucharistical species in the consecration that has been made , the true flesh of the lord jesus is so annex'd to them , that it remains there whole and intire , without the least confusion , and may be so in diverse places at the same time . i doubt not but those who teach us this doctrine have thought of it more than once ; but have they well consider'd it ? for there is not one word of it in all the sacred writings . is it nothing that jesus christ said to his apostles but a little while before his passion , when he was now about to celebrate his holy supper with them , you shall have the poor always with you , but me ye shall not have always , matth. . . his real presence in the eucharist , out of the act of communicating , not excepted ? they say to the people , behold your creator that made heaven and earth : and the people seeing the consecrated bread in the ciboire wherein 't is carry'd abroad , says , behold the good god going in procession to confound the hereticks : and according to their natural inclination , they adore with all their hearts they know not what , because so they have been instructed ; and the better to maintain their prejudice intire in this matter , they become mad : but alas ! they know not what they do , and we ought to pity their excess . on the other side , who can tell whether the priest has consecrated , or indeed whether he be capable of consecrating ? is it a point of faith to believe , that among so many priests , not one of them is a cheat and an impostor ? this certainly cannot be of faith ; and if this be not , neither is that which exposed with so much pomp , to carry the true body of the lord through the streets , of faith. thus the belief is at best but conjecture ; and then whatsoever in such cases is not of faith is sin , according to the apostle , rom. . . i know not what colour can be sufficient to excuse so strong an objection , unless men will absolutely resist the holy scripture , and right reason founded upon it . 't is further said , that jesus christ is in many places at the same time , in the hosts which are carried in very different manners ; but neither for this is there any text of scripture . you will say , this may be ; i answer , the question here is not of the infinite power of jesus christ , but of his will , and which we must obey when it is known to us ; and of this as to the present point we read nothing in the holy scripture . the shorter way then would be to say , that the sacrament of one parish is not the same with that of another , although both the one and the other concur in the same design to worship god ; as the paschal lamb of one family , was not the lamb of another , although both the one and the other were to accomplish the same mystery . thus for instance , on corpus christi-day , the sacrament of s. germain d' auxerrois , where the perpetual vicar consecrates the host , and monsieur the dean , the first curé , carrys it the procession under a rich canopy crown'd with flowers , this host is not the same with that of s. paul's which is carried after another manner , viz. the image of that apostle made of silver gilt , falling from his horse at his conversion , under the sacrament of jesus christ hung up in rays of gold , and carried under the covering of another stately canopy ; and so of all the other churches . as for the stories of several hosts that have been stabb'd with penknives , and have bled , they serve only to bring in some superstition contrary to the word of god , which never pretended that there was material blood in the consecrated bread , because it is the body of jesus christ in a mystery of faith. for what is said of an infant that was seen in the stead of the host , and of the figure of christ sitting upon a sepulchre instead of the same host , are meer fables suggested by the father of lies . it is further reported of certain robbers that carrying away the vessel in which the host is kept , they have thrown the host it self upon the ground , and trampled it under foot , sometimes have cast it into nasty places , without any fear that it should avenge it self ; this is a most horrible thought , and of which we ought not to open our mouths , but only to detest so dreadful a profanation . the same must be said of those hosts which have been cast up , as soon as received , whether by sick persons , or sometimes by debauched priests , disordered with the last nights intemperance ; both which have sometimes happened , not to say any thing of those other terrible inconveniences , remark'd in the cautions concerning the mass. all which shew that men have carry'd things too far , without any warrant from the word of god. it is not therefore so easie , as some imagine , to maintain the doctrine of the real presence out of the use , against the opinions of any opposer . in the mean time the truth is terribly obscured , and few give themselves the trouble to clear it . on the contrary it seems that among the many writers of the age , there are some who make it their whole business to hide it , and to keep themselves from finding it out , as if they desired never to be wiser than they are . the vanity of lying flatters them but too much in all the humane passions which sway them . there are nevertheless some faithful disciples , and apostolick souls who are exempted , to obey god by his grace , and to give glory to his name . it was not long before his departure that david said , every man is a lyar : psal. . . and s. paul to the romans . . to show that god only is true , adds immediately after from psalm * * * . . thou mightest be justified when thou speakest , and be clear when thou judgest . such was the opinion of monsieur de marolles as to this point : i should too much trespass upon the reader 's patience to insist thus particularly upon others of lesser note . the author of the late historical treatise of transubstantiation , has fully shewn not only his own opinion , but the tradition of all the ages of the church against it : and though i dare not say the same of whoever he was that set forth the † † † moyens surs & honnestes , &c. that he did not believe transubstantiation himself , yet this is clear , that he did not desire any one should be forced to believe it ; or indeed be encouraged to search too nicely into the manner how christ is present and eaten in the holy sacrament . whether monsieur de meaux believes this doctrine or not , his authority is become of so little importance , that i do not think it worth the while to examine . yet the first french * * * answer to his exposition observes , that in the suppress'd edition of it he had not at all mentioned that the bread and wine are turned into the body and blood of christ those words in the close of that paragraph which we now read , viz. that the bread and the wine are changed into the proper body , and proper blood of jesus christ , and that this is that which is called transubstantiation , being put in † † † for the greater neatness of the discourse and stile , since . but now for his vindicator , 't is evident , if he understands his own meaning , that he is not very well instructed about it . * * * it is manifest , says he , that our dispute with protestants is not about the manner , how jesus christ is present , but only about the thing it self , whether the body and blood of jesus christ be truly , really , and substantially present after the words of consecration , under the species or appearance of bread and wine , the substance of bread and wine being not so present . in which words , if his meaning be to exclude totally the manner , how jesus christ becomes present in the eucharist , as his expression is , from being a matter of faith , it might well have been ranged amongst the rest of their new popery . but if he designs not to exclude the manner of christ's presence , but only the mode of the conversion , as he seems by some other of his words to insinuate , viz. whether it be by adduction , &c. from being a matter of faith , he ought not then to have deny'd the manner of christ's presence in the eucharist , which their church has absolutely defined to be by that wonderful and singular conversion so aptly called transubstantiation ; but more precisely to have explain'd his school-nicety and which is altogether as unintelligible , as the mystery which 't is brought to explain . i might to the particulars hitherto mentioned , add the whole sect of their new philosophers , who following the hypothesis of their master des-cartes , that accidents are nothing else but the modes of matter , must here either renounce his doctrine or their churches belief . but i shall close these remarks , which have already run to a greater length than i designed , with one instance more , from a prelate of our own church , but yet whos 's truly christian sincerity will i am perswaded justifie him even to those of the roman communion : and it is the learned archbishop usher , who having been so happy as to convert several roman priests from their errors , and inquiring diligently of them , what they who said mass every day , and were not obliged to confess venial sins , could have to trouble their confessors so continually withal ; ingenuously acknowledged to him , that the chiefest part of their constant confession was their infidelity as to the point of transubstantiation , and for which as was most fit , they mutually quitted and absolved one another . and now that is thus clear from so many instantes of the greatest men in the roman church , which this last age has produced ; and from whose discovery we may reasonably enough infer the like of many others that have not come to our knowledge , that several persons who have lived and enjoyed some of the greatest honours and dignities in that communion , have nevertheless been hereticks in this point ; may i beseech those who are still mis-led with this great error , to stop a while , and seriously examine with me two or three plain considerations , and in which i suppose they are not a little concerned . and the first is , of their own danger : but especially , upon their own principles . it is but a very little while since an ingenious person now living in the french church , the abbé petit publish'd a book which he calls a a a the truths of the christian religion proved and defended against the antient heresies by the truth of the eucharist : and what he means by this truth , he thus declares in his preface , viz. the change of b b b the bread into the body of the son of god , and of the wine into his blood. he there pretends that this doctrine however combatted by us now , was c c c yet more undoubted in the primitive church than either the divinity of christ and the holy ghost , or the certainty of our future resurrection . and this he wrote as the title tells us , d d d to confirm the new converts in the faith of the catholick church ; meaning according to their usual figure , the roman . how far this extravagant undertaking may serve to convince them i cannot tell ; this i know , that if we may credit those who have been that abbot ' s most intimate acquaintance , he believes but very little of it himself , unless he also be become in this point , a new convert . but now if what has before been said of so many eminent persons of their church be true , as after a due and diligent examination of every particular there set down , i must beg leave to profess i am fully perswaded that it is ; 't will need no long deduction to shew how dangerous an influence their unbelief must have had , in some of the chiefest instances of their constant worship . for . it is the doctrine of the e e e council of trent that to make a sacrament , the priest must have , if not an actual , yet at least a virtual intention of doing that which the church does : and in the f f f rubricks of their missal , the want of such an intention in the priest is one of the defects there set down as sufficient to hinder a consecration . now if this be true , as every roman catholick who acknowledges the authority of that synod must believe it to be ; 't is then evident that in all those masses which any of the persons i before named have said , there could have been no consecration : it being absurd to suppose that they who believed not transubstantiation , could have an intention to make any such change of the bread into the body of christ , which they thought it impossible to do . now if there were no consecration , but that the bread continued meer bread as it was before ; then secondly , all those who attended at their masses , and adored their hosts , pay'd the supream worship of god to a bare wafer , and no more . how far the modern plea of their good intention to adore christ in those sacred offices , may excuse them from having committed idolatry , it is not necessary i should here examine . they who desire a satisfaction in this matter , may please to recur to a late excellent treatise written purposely on this subject , and where they will find the weakness of this supposal sufficiently exposed . but since a a a many of their own greatest men confess that if any one by mistake should worship an unconsecrated host , taking it to have been consecrated , he would be guilty of idolatry ; and that such an error would not be sufficient to excuse him ; may they please to consider with what faith they can pay this divine adoration to that which all their senses tell them is but a bit of bread ; to the hinderance of whose conversion so many things may interpose , that were their doctrine otherwise as infallible , as we are certain it is false , it would yet be a hundred to one that there is no consecration : in a word ; how they can worship that which they can never be secure is changed into christ's body , nay when , as the examples i have before given shew , they have all the reason in the world to fear , whether even the priest himself who says the mass does indeed believe that he has any power , or by consequence can have any intention , to turn it into the flesh of christ. and the same consideration will shew , thirdly ; how little security their other plea of concomitance , which they so much insist upon , to shew the sufficiency of their communicating only in one kind , viz. that they receive the blood in the body , can give to the laity , to satisfie their consciences that they ever partake of that blessed sacrament as they ought to do . since whatever is pretended of christ's body , 't is certain there can be none of his blood in a meer wafer : and if by reason of the priest's infidelity , the host should be indeed nothing else , of which we have shewn they can never be sure ; neither can they ever know whether what they receive be upon their own principles , an intire communion . and then lastly , for the main thing of all , the sacrifice of the mass ; it is clear that if christ's body be not truly and properly there , it cannot be truly and properly offer'd ; nor any of those great benefits be derived to them from a morsel of bread , which themselves declare can proceed only from the flesh and blood of their blessed lord. it is i know an easie matter for those who can believe transubstantiation , to believe also that there is no hazard in all these great and apparent dangers . but yet in matters of such moment men ought to desire to be well assured , and not exposed even to any possible defects . i do not now insist upon the common remarks , which yet are authorized by their own missal , and may give just grounds to their fears ; that if the wafer be not made of wheat but of some other corn , there is then no consecration : if it be mixed not with common , but distill'd water , it is doubtful whether it be consecrated . if the wine be sowre to such a certain degree , that then it becomes incapable of being changed into the blood of christ ; with many more of the like kind , and which render it always uncertain to them , whether there be any change made in the blessed elements or no ; * * * the relations i have given , are no● of counterfeit jews and moors , who to escape the danger of the inquisition have sometimes become priests , and administred all the sacraments for many years together , without ever having an intention to administer truly any one of them , and of which i could give an eminent instance in a certain jew now living ; who for many years was not only a priest , but a professor of divinity in spain , and all the while in reality a meer jew as he is now . the persons here mention'd were men of undoubted reputation , of great learning and singular esteem in their church ; and if these found the impossibilities of transubstantiation so much greater than either the pretended authority or infallibility of their church ; certainly they may have just cause to fear , whether many others of their priests do not live in the same infidelity in which these have died , and so expose them to all the hazards now mentioned , and which are undeniably the consequences of such their unbelief . but these are not the only dangers i would desire those of that communion to reflect on upon this occasion . another there is , and of greater consequence than any i have hitherto mentioned , and which may perhaps extend not only to this holy eucharist , but it may be to the invalidating of most of their other sacraments . * * * it is the doctrine of the roman church that to the validity of every sacrament , and therefore of that of orders as well as the rest three things must concur , a due matter , a right form , and the person of the minister conferring the sacrament , with an intention of doing what the church does . where either of these is wanting , the sacrament is not performed . if therefore the bishop in conferring the holy order of priesthood has not an intention of doing what the church does , 't is plain that the person to be ordained receives no priestly character of him ; nor by consequence has any power of consecrating the holy eucharist , or of being hereafter advanced to a higher degree . now the form of conferring the order of priesthood they determine to be this ; † † † the bishop delivers the cup with some wine , and the paten with bread into the hands of the person whom he ordains , saying , receive the power of offering a sacrifice in the church for the living and the dead , in the name of the father , and of the son , and of the holy ghost . by which ceremony and words , their catechism tells us , he is constituted an interpreter and mediator between god and man ; which is to be esteemed the chiefest function of a priest. so that then the intention necessary to the conferring the order of priesthood is this ; to give a power to consecrate , i. e. to transubstantiate the host into christ's body , and so offer it as a sacrifice for the living and the dead . if therefore any of their bishops , for instance cardinal du perron , or monsieur de marca , did not believe that either the church or themselves as bishops of it , had any authority to confer any such power , they could not certainly have any intention of doing in this case what the church intends to do . having no such intention , the persons whom they pretended to ordain were no priests . being no priests they had no power to consecrate . all the hosts therefore which were either offered or taken , or worshipped in any of the masses celebrated by those priests whom these two bishops ordained , were only meer bread , and not the body of christ ; and as many of them , as being afterwards advanced to a higher dignity , were consecrated bishops , received no episcopal character , because they were destitute of the priestly before . thus the danger still encreases : for by this means , the priests whom they also ordain are no priests ; and when any of them shall be promoted to a higher degree , are uncapable of being made bishops ; and so by the infidelity of these two men , there are at this day infinite numbers of priests and bishops , who say mass , and confer orders without any manner of power to do either ; and in a little time it may be there shall not be a true bishop or priest in the whole gallicane church . but , ii. a second consideration which i would beg leave to offer from the fore-going instances is this : what reliance we can make upon the pretended infallibility of their church ; when 't is thus plain that so many of the most learned men of their own communion did not only not believe it to be infallible , but supposed it to have actually erred , and that in those very doctrines that are at this day esteemed the most considerable points in difference between us. it is plain from what has been said in the foregoing reflection , that disbelieving transubstantiation , they must also have lookt upon all the other consequences of it , viz. the adoration of the host , the sacrifice of the mass , &c. as erroneous too . nom though it be not yet agreed among them , nor ever likely to be , where the supposed infallibility of their church is seated , yet since all manner of authority has conspired to establish these things ; popes have decreed them , councils defined them , and both popes and councils anathematized all those that shall presume to doubt of them ; 't is evident either these men did not believe the church to be infallible , as is pretended ; or they did not believe the roman , to be , according to the modern phrase , indeed the catholick church . iii. and upon the same grounds there will arise a third reflection , which they may please to make with us ; and that is , with what reason they can press us with the authority of their church in these matters ; when such eminent persons of their own communion , and who certainly were much more obliged to it than we can be thought to be , yet did not esteem it sufficient to enslave their belief . it is a reproach generally cast upon us , that we set up a private spirit in opposition to the wisdom and authority of the church of god : and think our selves better able to judge in matters of faith , than the most general council that was ever yet assembled . this is usually said , but is indeed a foul misrepresentation of our opinion . all we say is , that every man ought to act rationally in matters of religion , as well as in other concerns ; to employ his understanding with the utmost skill and diligence that he is able , to know god's will , and what it is that he requires of us . we do not set up our own judgments against the authority of the church ; but having both the holy oracles of god , and the definitions of men before us , we give to each their proper weight . and therefore if the one at any time contradicts the other , we resolve , as is most fitting , not that our own , but god's authority revealed to us in his word , is to be preferred . and he who without this examination servilely gives up himself to follow whatever is required of him ; he may be in the right , if his church or guide be so ; but according to this method shall never be able to give a reason of his faith ; nor if he chance to be born in a false religion , ever be in a capacity of being better instructed . for if we must be allowed nothing but to obey only , and not presume to enquire why ; he that is a jew must continue a jew still ; he that is a turk , a turk ; a protestant must always be a protestant : in short , in whatsoever profession any one now is , in that he must continue , whether true or false , if reason and examination must be excluded all place in matters of religion . * * * and indeed after all their clamours against us on this occasion , yet is this no more than what themselves require of us when 't is in order to their own advantage . is a proselyte to be made , they offer to him their arguments : they tell him a long story of their church ; the succession , visibility , and other notes of it . to what purpose is all this , if we are not to be judges , to examine their pretences whether these are sufficient marks of such a church as they suppose ; and if they are , whether they do indeed agree to theirs , and then upon a full conviction submit to them . now if this be their intention , 't is then clear , let them pretend what they will , that they think us both capable of judging in these matters , and that we ought to follow that , which all things considered we find to be most reasonable , which is all that we desire . and for this we have here the undoubted examples of those eminent persons of their own communion before named ; who notwithstanding the authority of their church , and the decision of so many councils esteemed by it as general , have yet both thought themselves at liberty to examine their decrees , and even to pass sentence too upon them , that they were erroneous in the points here mentioned . and therefore certainly we may modestly desire the same liberty which themselves take ; at least till we can be convinced , ( and that by such arguments as we shall be allow'd to judge of , ) that there is such an infallible guide whom we ought in all things to follow without further inquiry , and where we may find him , and when this is done i will for my part promise as freely to give up myself to his conduct , as i am till then , i think reasonably , resolved to follow what according to the best of my ability in proving all things , i shall find indeed to be good. iv. i might from the same principles , fourthly , argue the reasonableness of our reformation , at least in the opinion of those great men of whom we have hitherto been speaking : and who thinking it allow'd to them to dissent themselves from the received doctrine of their church , which they found to be erroneous , could not but in their consciences justifie us , who , as a national church , no way subjected to their authority , did the same ; and by the right which every such church has within it self , reformed those errors , which like the tares were sprung up with the good seed . this 't is evident they must have approved ; and for one of them , the abbot of ville-loyne , i have been assured by some of his intimate acquaintance , that he had always a particular respect for the church of england , and which others of their communion at this day esteem to be neither heretical nor schismatical . v. but i may not insist on these things , and will therefore finish this address with this only remonstrance to them ; that since it is thus evident , that for above years this doctrine was never establish'd in the church , nor till then , in the opinion of their own most learned men , any matter of faith ; since the greatest of their writers in the past ages have declared themselves so freely concerning it as we have seen above , and some of the most eminent of their communion in the present have ingenuously acknowledged that they could not believe it ; since 't is confess'd that the scripture does not require it ; sense and reason undoubtedly oppose it , and the primitive ages of the church , as one of their own authors has very lately shewn , received it not ; they will at least suffer all these things to dispose them to an indifferent examination , wherefore at last it is that they do believe this great error ? upon what authority they have given up their senses to delusion ; their reason to embrace contradictions ; the holy scripture and antiquity , to be submitted to the dictates of two assemblies , which many of themselves esteem to have been rather cabals than councils : and all to support a doctrine , the most injurious that can be to our saviour ' s honour ; destructive in its nature not only of the certainty of the christian religion , but of every thing else in the world ; which if transubstantiation be true , must be all but vision : for that cannot be true unless the senses of all mankind are deceived in judging of their proper objects , and if this be so , we can then be sure of nothing . these considerations , if they shall incline them to an impartial view of the following discourses , they may possibly find somewhat in them , to shew the reasonableness of our dissent from them in this matter . however they shall at least i hope engage those of our own communion to stand firm in that faith which is thus strongly supported with all sorts of arguments ; and convince them how dangerous it is for men to give up themselves to such prejudices , as neither sense nor reason , nor the word of god , nor the authority of the best and purest ages of the church , are able to overcome . a table of the principal matters contained in this treatise . preface . the occasion of this discourse . page i the method made use of for the explaining the nature of this holy eucharist . iv no proof of transubstantiation in holy scripture . v the rise and establishment of it . vi , vii several of their greatest men before the council of trent believed it not . vii , viii and many have even since continued to disbelieve it . x so , picherellus . x cardinal du perron . xi f. barnes . xii monsieur de marca . xiii f. sirmond . xv monsieur l — . xvii mons. de marolles . ib. others . xxiv , &c. consequences drawn from these examples : i. of the danger of the papists , especially upon their own principles . xxvii with reference to this sacrament : and therein to the . consecration . xxvii . adoration . ib. . communion in one kind . xxix . mass. xxx with reference to their entire priesthood . xxxi ii. against the infallibility of the roman church . xxxiii iii. against its authority . xxxiv iv. as to the reasonableness of our reformation . xxxvi v. that these things ought to dispose those of that communion to an impartial search into the grounds of their belief as to this matter . xxxvii part i. the introduction . of the nature of this holy sacrament in the general . pag. christ's design in the institution of it . that he establish'd it upon the ceremonies of the jewish pas●over . , , , the method from hence taken to explain the nature of it . , chap. i. of transubstantiation ; or the real presence established by the church of rome . what is the doctrine of the church of rome in this point . ib. — this shewn upon the principle before laid down , to be repugnant , . to the design and nature of this holy sacrament . . to the expression it self , this is my body . the papists themselves sensible of it . that the sixth of s. john does not at all favour them . — this doctrine shewn further to be repugnant , i. to the best and purest tradition of the church . ii. to the right reason . iii. to the common sense of all mankind . conclusion of this point , and transition to the next . chap. ii. of the real presence acknowledged by the church of england . the notion of the real presence falsly imputed , by a late author to our church . in answer to this four things proposed to be considered , i. what is the true notion of the real presence as acknowledged by the church of england . . ii. that this notion has been constantly maintained by our most learned and orthodox divines . — so those abroad ; calvin . — beza . — martyr , &c. — for our own divines ; consider the express words of the twenty ninth article , in k. edw. vi. time . — archbishop cranmer . — bishop ridley . — that the same continned to be the opinion of our divines after . shewn . from the history of the convocations proceeding as to this point in the beginning of q. eliz. reign . ib. . from the testimonies of our divines . — bp. jewell . — mr. hooker . — bp. andrews . — a. b. of spalatto . — bp. montague ib. — bp. taylour . — mr. torndyke . whose testimonies are cited at large : of . reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum . . bp. morton . . a. b. usher . . bp. cosens . . dr. jo. white . . dr. fr. white . . dr. jackson . . dr. hammond . whose authorities are refer'd to ; , iii. that the alterations which have been made in our rubrick , were not upon the account of our divines changing their opinions , as is vainly and falsly suggest●d . iv. that the reasons mentioned in our rubrick , concerning the impossibility of christ's natural body's existing in several places at the same time , is no way invalidated by any of this author's exceptions against it . . not by his first observation . ib. . nor by his second . . nor by his third . . nor by his fourth . the objection , of this opinion's , being downright zuinglianism ; answered . and the whole concluded . part ii. chap. iii of the adoration of the host as prescribed and practised in the church of rome . two things proposed to be considered ; i. what the doctrine of the church of england as to this point is . our authors exceptions against it , answered . ii. what is the doctrine of the church of rome ; and whether what this author has said in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their practice as to this matter . their doctrine stated . ib. the defence of it , unsufficient : shewn in answer , . to his protestant concessions . . to his catholick assertions . first . second . third . ib. fourth . fifth . sixth . seventh . eighth . ib. . to the grounds he offers of their belief . the lutherans practice no apology for theirs . ground first . second . third . fourth . fifth . answer'd . some arguments proposed , upon their own principles , against this adoration . conclusion . errata . pag. xvii . l. . fourth r. sixth . p. xviii . l. . in r. on . p. xxii . l. . r. they are . p. xxiv . l. . r. that thou . p. . marg . hammond . l. . p. . p. . marg . casaubon . ib. l. . body is of christ. p. . l. . dele . which . p. . l. . then that . p. . l. . r. this holy. p. . l. . for then r. the. p. . l. . catholicâ . l. . asks . a few lesser faults there are , which the reader may please to correct . a discourse of the holy eucharist , with particular reference to the two great points of the real presence , and the adoration of the host . introduction . of the nature of this holy sacrament in the general . to understand the true design of our blessed saviour , in the institution of this holy sacrament , we cannot , i suppose , take any better course than to consider first of all , what account the sacred writers have left us of the time and manner of the doing of it . now for this st. paul tells us , cor. . . that the lord jesus the same night in which he was betray'd ( having first eaten the passover according to the law , exod. . matt. xxvi . . ) took bread , and when he had given thanks he brake it , * * * and gave it to the disciples , and said , take , eat , this is my body which is broken for you , this do in remembrance of me. after the same manner also he took the cup when he had supp'd , saying , this cup is the new-testament in my blood : this do ye , as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me . such is the account which st. paul gives us of the original of this holy sacrament : nor do the evangelists dissent from it ; only that st. matthew with reference to the cup , adds , drink ye all of it , matt. xxvi . . to which st. mark subjoins a particular observation , and which ought not here to be pass'd by , that they all drank of it , mark xiv . . it is not to be doubted , but that the design of our blessed saviour in instituting this holy sacrament , was to abolish the jewish passover , and to establish the memory of another , and a much greater deliverance , than that of the first-born , now to be wrought for the whole world in his death . the bread which he brake , and the wine which he poured out , being such clear types of his body to be broken , his blood to be shed for the redemption of mankind , that it is impossible for us to doubt of the application . and as god almighty under the law , designed that other memorial of the paschal lamb , now changed into a so much better and more excellent remembrance , to continue as long as the law its self stood in force : so this blessed eucharist , establish'd by christ in the room of it must no doubt have been intended by him , to be continued in his church , as long as the covenant seal'd with that blood which it exhibits , stands : and therefore , that since that shall never be abolish'd ; 't is evident that this also will remain our duty , and be our perpetual obligation to the end of the world. this is the import of our saviours addition , do this in remembrance of me ; and is by st. paul more fully expressed in those words , which he immediately subjoyns to the history of the institution before recited , cor. xi . . for as often as ye eat this bread , and drink this cup , ye do shew , i. e. in the jewish phrase , set forth , commemorate the lords death till his coming . and that this holy sacrament now establish'd in the place of the jewish passover , might be both the better understood , and the easier received by them ; it is a thing much to be remarked for the right explaining of it , how exactly he accommodated all the notions and ideas of that ancient ceremony to this new institution . i. in that paschal supper , the master of the house took bread , and presenting it before them , instead of the usual benediction of the bread , he brake it , and gave it to them , saying , ‖ ‖ ‖ this is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in egypt . in this sacred feast , our saviour in like manner takes bread , the very loaf , which the jews were wont to take for the ceremony before mentioned ; breaks it , and gives it to his disciples , saying , this is my body which is broken for you ; alluding thereby , not only to their ceremony in his action , but even to their very manner of speech in his expression , to the passover before them , which in their language they constantly called , * * * the body of the paschal lamb. ii. in that ancient feast , the master of the house in like manner after supper took the cup , and having given thanks , gave it to them , saying , † † † this is the fruit of the vine , and the blood of the grape . in this holy sacrament our blessed lord in the very same manner takes the cup , he blesses it , and gives it to his disciples saying , this cup is the new-testament in my blood ; his action being again the very same with theirs ; and for his expression , it is that which moses used , when he ratified the ancient covenant between god and the jews ; [ exod. xxiv . . compared with hebr. ix . ] saying , this is the blood of the testament . iii. in that ancient feast , after all this was finish'd , they were wont to sing a * * * hymn , the psalms yet extant , from the cxiii . to the cxix . thence called by them , the great hallelujah . in this holy supper , our saviour and his disciples are expresly recorded to have done the like , and very probably in the self-same words . [ see matt. xxvi . . mark xiv . . ] in a word , lastly , iv. that ancient passover the jews were commanded to keep in memory of their deliverance out of egypt . the bitter herbs were a * * * remembrance of the bitter servitude they underwent there , exod. i. . the red wine was a † † † memorial of the blood of the children of israel slain by pharaoh : and for this they were expresly commanded by moses , exod. xiii . . to * * * shew , i. e. to annunciate or tell forth to their children what the lord had done for them . and so in this holy sacrament , christ expresly institutes it for the same end , * * * do this , says he , in remembrance of me ; which st. paul thus explains , cor. xi . . for as often as ye eat this bread , and drink this cup , ye do ( or rather , do ye ) * * * shew ( the very word before used ) the lords death till his coming . so clear an allusion does every part of this sacrament bear to that ancient solemnity ; and we must be more blind than the jews themselves , not to see , that as that other sacrament of baptism was instituted by christ from the practise and custom of the ‖ ‖ ‖ jewish doctors , who received their proselytes by the like washing ; so was this holy eucharist establisht upon the analogy which we have seen to the paschal supper , whose place it supplies , and whose ceremonies it so exactly retains , that it seems only to have heightned the design , and changed the application to a more excellent remembrance . i know not how far it may be allow'd to confirm this analogie , that it was one of the most ancient traditions among the * * * jews of old , that the messiah should come and work out their deliverance , the very same night in which god had brought them out of egypt , the night of the paschal solemnity . but certainly considerable it is , that as god under the law , the same night in which he deliver'd them , instituted the passover to be a perpetual memorial of it throughout their generations ; so here our saviour instituted his communion not only in the same night in which he deliver'd us , but immediately after having eaten his last passover ; to shew us , that what that solemnity had hitherto been to the jews , this sacrament should from henceforth be to us ; and that we by this ceremony should commemorate ours , as they by that other had been commanded to do their deliverance . this the holy scriptures themselves direct us to , by so often calling our blessed saviour in express terms , the lamb of god , joh. i. . st. peter speaking of our redemption wrought by him , tells us , that it was not obtained by corruptible things , such as silver and gold , but by the precious blood of christ , as of a lamb without blemish , and without spot , pet. i. . and st. paul so clearly directs us to this allusion , that no possible doubt can remain of it ; christ , says he , our passover is sacrificed for us , therefore let us keep the feast , cor. . v. . and now after so many arguments for this application , as , being joined together , i think i might almost call a demonstration of it ; i suppose i may without scruple lay down this foundation both for the unfolding of the nature of this holy sacrament in the general , and for the examination of those two great points i am here to consider in particular , viz. that our saviour in this institution addressing himself to jews , and speaking in the direct form of the paschal phrases ; and in a ceremony which 't is thus evident he designed to introduce in the stead of that solemnity ; the best method we can take for explaining both the words and intent of this communion , will be to examine what such men to whom he spake must necessarily have conceived to be his meaning , but especially on an occasion wherein it neither became him to be obscure ; and the apostles silence , not one of them demanding any explication of his words , as at other times they were wont to do , clearly shewing that he was not difficult to be understood . this only postulate being granted , which i think i have so good reason to expect ; i shall now go on to examine by it , the first great point proposed to be consider'd , viz. of the real presence of christ in this holy sacrament , and that st . as established by the church of rome . dly . as acknowledged by the church of england . part i. chap. i. of transubstantiation , or the real presence establish'd by the church of rome . transubstantiation is defined by the * * * council of trent , to be a wonderful conversion of the whole substance of the bread , in this holy sacrament , into the whole substance of the body of christ , and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood ; the species or accidents only of the bread and wine remaining . for the better understanding of which wonderful conversion , because the church of rome , which is not very liberal in any of her instructions , has taken † † † particular care that this should not be too much explain'd to the people , as well knowing it to be a doctrine so absurd , that even their credulity could hardly be able to digest it ; it may not be amiss if , from the very words of their own catechism , we examine a little farther into it . now three things there are , which , they tell us , must be consider'd in it : i. * * * that the true body of christ our lord , the very same that was born of the virgin , and now sits in heaven at the right hand of the father , is contained in this sacrament . now by the true body , they mean not only his human body , and whatsoever belongs to it , as bones , sinews , &c. to be contain'd in this sacrament ; ‖ ‖ ‖ but the intire christ , god and man ; so that the eucharistical elements are changed into our saviour , as to both his substances , and the consequences of both , his blood , soul , and divinity its self , all which are really present in this sacrament ; * * * the body of christ by the consecration , the rest by concomitance with the body . again : when 't is said , † † † that the whole substance of the bread is changed into his whole body , and the whole substance of the wine into his whole blood ; this is not to be so understood , as if the bread did not contain the whole substance of his blood , as well as of his body , and so the wine , the whole substance of his body , as well as of his blood ; ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ seeing christ is intire in each part of the sacrament , nay in every the least crumb or drop , of either part . ii. the * * * second thing to be consider'd for the understanding of this mystery , is , that not any part of the substance of the bread and wine remains ; tho nothing may seem more contrary to the senses than this ; in which they are certainly in the right . iii. † † † that the accidents of the bread and wine , which either our eyes see ( as the colour , form , &c. ) or our other senses perceive ( as the tast , touch , smell ) all these are in no subject , but exist by themselves , after a wonderful manner , and which cannot be explain'd . for the rest , the conversion its self , ‖ ‖ ‖ it is very difficult to be comprehended , how christs body , which before consecration , was not in the sacrament , should now come to be there , since 't is certain that it changes not its place , but is still all the while in heaven . nor is it made present there by creation , * * * nor by any other change ; for it is neither increased nor diminish'd , but remains whole in its substance as before . † † † christ is not in the sacrament locally ; for he has no quantity there , is neither great nor little. * * * in a word , men ought not to inquire too curiously , how this change can be made , for it is not to be comprehended , seeing neither in any natural changes , nor indeed in the whole creation , is there any example of any thing like it . such is the account which themselves give of this mystery : from all which we may in short conclude the state of the question before us , to be this ; that we do not dispute at all about christ's real presence , which after a spiritual and heavenly manner , we acknowledg in this holy eucharist , as we shall hereafter shew ; nor by consequence of the truth of christs words which we undoubtedly believe : but only about this manner of his presence , viz. whether the bread and the wine be changed into the very natural body and blood of christ , so that the bread and wine themselves do no longer remain ; but that under the appearance of them is contain'd that same body of christ , which was born of the blessed virgin , with his soul and divinity ; which same body of christ , tho extended in all its parts in heaven , is at the same time in the sacrament without any extension , neither great nor small , comes thither neither by generation , nor by creation , nor by any local motion ; forasmuch as it continues still at the right hand of god in heaven , at the very same instant that it exists whole and intire in every consecrated host , or chalice ; nay more , is whole and intire , not only in the whole host , or the whole chalice ; but in every the least crumb of the host , and every the least drop of the chalice , here upon earth . and here it might well be thought a very needless , indeed an extravagant undertaking , to prove that those elements , which so many of our senses tell us ; continue after their consecration the very same , as to what concerns their natural substance , that they were before , are in reality the very same : that what all the world sees , and feels , and smells , and tasts , to be bread and wine , is not changed into the very natural flesh and blood of a body actually before existent ; had it not entred into the minds of so great a part of the christian church to joyn in the maintaining of a paradox , which has nothing to defend it , but that fond presumption they have certainly done well to take up , that they cannot possibly be in the wrong , and without which it would be very difficult for them to perswade any sober man that they are here in the right . to shew that those words , which they tell us , work all this miracle , and are the only reason that engages them to maintain so many absurdities as are confessedly the unavoidable consequences of this doctrine , have no such force nor interpretation as they pretend ; i must desire it may be remembred what i before remark'd , that this holy sacrament was establish'd by our saviour in the room of the jewish passover , and upon the very words and ceremonies of it . so that , if in that all things were typical ; the feast , the customs , the expressions merely allusive to something that had been done before , and of which this sacred ceremony was the memorial ; we ought in all reason to conclude , that both our saviour must have designed , and his apostles understood this holy sacrament to have been the same too . now as to the nature of the passover ; we have already seen that it was appointed by god as a remembrance of his delivery of the jews out of the land of egypt , when he slew all the first-born of the egyptians , exod. xii . the lamb which they ate every year in this feast , was an eucharistical sacrifice and type of that first lamb which was slain in the night of their deliverance , and whose blood sprinkled upon the posts of their doors had preserved their fore-fathers from the destroying angel , that he should not do them any mischief . the bread of affliction , which they broke , and of which they said , perhaps in the very * * * same manner that christ did of the very same loaf , take , eat , this is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in egypt ; they esteem'd a type and figure , of that unleaven'd bread which their forefathers so many ages before had eaten there ; and upon that account called it * * * the memorial of their delivery out of egypt . † † † the cup of blessing which they blessed , and of which they all drank in this feast , they did it at once in memory both of the blood of the children of israel slain by pharaoh , and of the blood of the lamb , which being sprinkled upon their doors , preserved their own from being shed with that of the egyptians . now all these idea's with which the apostles had so long been acquainted , could not but presently suggest to them the same design of our blessed saviour in the institution of this holy sacrament : that when he , as the master of the feast , took the loaf , blessed , and brake it , and gave it to them , and bid them in like manner henceforward , do this in remembrance of him ; he certainly designed that by this ceremony , which hitherto they had used in memory of their deliverance out of egypt , they should now continue the memory of their blessed lord , and of that deliverance which he was about to work for them . that as by calling the lamb in that feast the body of the passover , they understood that it was the remembrance of god's mercy in commanding the destroying angel to pass over their houses when he slew their enemies ; the memorial of the lamb which was killed for this purpose in egypt ; so christ calling the bread his body , nay , his body broken for them , could certainly mean nothing else but that it was the type , the memorial of his body , which as yet was not , but was now just ready to be given for their redemption . this is so natural a reflection , and in one part at least of this holy sacrament so necessary too , that 't is impossible to explain it otherwise . this cup , says our saviour , is the new testament in my blood ; that is , as * * * moses had before said of the old testament in the very same phrase , the seal , the ratification of it . now if those words be taken literally , then st . 't is the cup that is transubstantiated , not the wine ; ly , it is changed not into christ's blood ( as they pretend ) but into the new testament in his blood ; which being confessedly absurd and impossible , it must in all reason follow , that the apostles understood our saviour alike in both his expressions ; and that by consequence we ought to interpret those words , this is my body which is broken for you , of the bread's being the type , or figure of his body ; as we must that of the cup , that it was the new testament in his blood , i. e. the sign , or seal of the new testament . so naturally do all these notions direct us to a figurative interpretation of his words ; the whole design of this institution , and all the parts and ceremonies of it being plainly typical , in remembrance ( as christ himself has told us ) of him. but now if we go on more particularly to inquire into the expression its self , this is my body which is broken for you , that will yet more clearly confirm this interpretation . it has before been observed , that these words of our saviour in this holy sacrament , were used by him instead of that other expression of the master in the paschal feast , when in the very same manner he took the very same bread into his hands , and blessed it , and brake it , and gave it to those who were at the table with him , saying , this is the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in egypt . and can any thing in the world be more plain , than that as never any jew yet imagined , that the bread which they thus took every year , was by that saying of the master of their feast changed into the very substance of that bread which their forefathers had so many ages before consumed in egypt , in the night of their deliverance ; but being thus broken and given to them , became a type , a figure , a memorial of it : so neither could those to whom our saviour christ now spake , and who as being jews had so long been used to this phrase , ever imagine , that the pieces of that loaf which he brake , and gave them , saying , this is my body which is broken for you , do this in remembrance of me , became thereupon the very body of that saviour from whose hands they received it ; and who did not sure with one member of his body , give away his whole body from himself to them ; but only designed that by this ceremony they should remember him , and his body broken for them , as by the same they had hitherto remembred the bread of affliction which their fathers ate in egypt . i ought not to omit it , because it very much confirms the force of this argument , that what i have here said of this analogy of the holy eucharist , to the jewish passover , was not the original remark of any protestant , or indeed of any other christians differing from the church of rome in this point : but was objected to them long before the reformation , by the * * * jews , themselves to shew that in their literal interpretation of these words , they had manifestly departed from the intention of our blessed saviour , and advanced a notion in which 't was impossible for his apostles , or any other acquainted , as they were , with the paschal forms , ever to have understood him . and if † † † st. augustine , who i suppose will not be thought a heretick by either party , may be allow'd to speak for the christians ; he tells us , we are to look upon the phrase , this is my body , just , says he , as when in ordinary conversation we are wont to say , this is christmas , or good-friday , or easter-day ; not that this is the very day on which christ was born , or suffer'd , or rose from the dead , but the return or remembrance of that day on which christ was born , or suffer'd , or rose again . it is wonderful to consider with what confidence our new missionaries produce these words on all occasions ; and thereby shew us how fond they would be of the holy scripture , and how willingly they would make it their guide in controversie , did it but ever so little favour their cause . can any thing , say they , be more express ? this is my body ; is it possible for words to be spoken more clear and positive ? and indeed were all the expressions of holy scripture to be taken in their literal meaning , i will not deny , but that those words might as evidently prove bread to be christs body , as those other in st. john , i am the bread that came down from heaven , argue a contrary transubstantiation of christ's body into bread , john vi . , . or those more usual instances , i am the true vine ; i am the door of the sheep ; that rock was christ ; prove a great many transubstantiations more , viz. of our saviour into a vine , a door , and a rock . but now , if for all this plainness and positiveness in these expressions , they themselves tell us , that it would be ridiculous to conclude from hence , that christ was indeed turned into all these , and many other the like things ; they may please to give us leave to say the same of this before us , it being neither less impossible , nor less unreasonable to suppose bread to be changed into christ's body , than for christ's body to be changed into bread , a vine , a door , a rock , or whatever you please of the like kind . but i have already shewn the ground of this mistake to be their want of considering the customs and phrases of the jewish passover , and upon which , both the holy eucharist it self , and these expressions in it were founded : and i will only add this farther , in confirmation of it ; that in the stile of the hebrew language in general , there is nothing more ordinary , than for things to be said to * * * be that which they signifie or represent . thus joseph interpreting pharaoh's dream , gen. xli . . the seven good kine , says he , are seven years ; and again , the seven good ears of corn are seven years , i. e. as is plain , they signify seven years . and so in like manner in this place ; christ took bread , and blessed , and brake it , and gave it to his disciples , saying , take , eat , this is my body which is broken for you : that is , this bread thus taken , and blessed , and broken , and given to you ; this bread , and this action , signifies and represents my body which shall be broken for you . and indeed , after all this seeming assurance , it is nevertheless plain , that they themselves are not very well satisfied with their own interpretation . † † † we have shewn before , how little confidence their greatest schoolmen had of this doctrine ; those who have stood the most stifly for it , could never yet * * * agree how to explain these words , so as to prove it : and cardinal bellarmine alone , who reckons up the most part of their several ways , and argues the weakness too of every one but his own , may be sufficient to assure us , that they are never likely to be : and might serve to shew what just cause their own great * * * catharinus had so long since to cry out , upon his enquiry only into the meaning of the very first word , this : consider , says he , reader , into what difficulties they are thrown , who go about to write upon this matter , when the word this only has had so many , and such contradictory expositions , that they are enough to make a man lose his wits , but barely to consider them all . 't was this forced so many of their † † † greatest and most learned men before luther , ingenuously to profess , that there was not in scripture any evident proof of this doctrine ; and even cardinal cajetan since to own , that had not the church determined for the literal sense of those words , this is my body , they might have passed in the metaphorical . it is the general acknowledgment of their ‖ ‖ ‖ greatest writers at this day , that if the pronoun this in that proposition , this is my body , be referr'd to the bread , which our saviour christ held in his hand , which he bless'd , which he brake and gave to his disciples , and of which therefore certainly , if of any thing , he said this is my body , the natural repugnancy that there is between the two things affirm'd of one another , bread and christs body , will force them to be taken in a figurative interpretation : for as much as 't is impossible that bread should be christ's body otherwise than in a figure . and however , to avoid so dangerous a consequence , they will rather apply it to any thing , nay to nothing at all than to the bread ; yet they would do well to consider , whether they do not thereby fall into as great a danger on the other side ; since if the relative this do's not determine those words to the bread , 't is evident that nothing in that whole proposition do's ; and then how those words shall work so great a change in a subject to which they have no manner of relation , will , i believe , be as difficult to shew , as the change its self is incomprehensible to conceive . and now after so plain an evidence of the weakness of that foundation which is by all confessed to be the chief , and has by many of the most learned of that church been thought the only pillar of this cause ; i might well dispense with my self from entring on any farther examination of their other pretences to establish it . but because they have taken great pains of late to apply the † † † sixth chapter of st. john to the holy eucharist , tho' it might be sufficient in general to say that no good argument for a matter of such consequence , can be built upon a place which so many of the * * * most eminent and learned of that communion have judged not to have the least relation to this matter ; yet i will nevertheless beg leave very briefly to shew the weakness of this second attempt too ; and that 't is in vain that they rally these scatter'd forces , whilst their main body continues so intirely defeated . it is a little surprizing in this matter , that they universally tell us , that neither the beginning nor ending of our saviours discourse in that chapter belongs to this matter ; that both before and after that passage which they refer to , 't is all metaphor ; only just two or three words for their purpose , literal . but that which raises our wonder to the highest pitch , is , that the very fifty first verse its self on which they found their argument , is two thirds of it figure , and only otherwise in one clause to serve their hypothesis . i am , says our saviour , the living bread which came down from heaven ; this is figurative : if any man eat of this bread , he shall live for ever : that is , they say , by a spiritual eating by faith : and the bread which i will give , is my flesh , which i will give for the life of the world. this only must be understood of a proper manducation , of a real eating of his flesh in this holy sacrament . it must be confessed , that this is an arbitrary way of explaining indeed , and becomes the character of a church whose dictates are to be received , not examined ; and may therefore pass well enough amongst those , with whom the supposed infallibility of their guides , is thought a sufficient dispensation for their own private consideration . but for us , who can see no reason for this sudden change of our saviours discourse ; nay think that the connexion of that last clause with the foregoing , is an evident sign that they all keep the same character ; and are therefore not a little scandalized at so capernaitical a comment , as indeed who can bear it ? v. . they will please to excuse us , if we take our saviours interpretation to be at least of as good an authority , as 't is much more reasonable than theirs , v. . do's this , says he , offend you ? do's my saying that ye must eat my flesh , and drink my blood scandalize you ? mistake not my design , i mean not any carnal eating of me ; that indeed might justly move your horrour ; it is the spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that i speak unto you they are spirit , and they are life . he that desires a fuller account of this chapter , may please to recur to the late excellent † † † paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it , and which will be abundantly sufficient to shew the reasonableness of that interpretation which we give of it . i shall only add , to close all , that one remark which * * * saint augustine has left us concerning it , and so much the rather in that it is one of the rules which he lays down for the right interpreting of holy scripture , and illustrates with this particular example : if , says he , the saying be preceptive , either forbidding a wicked action , or commanding to do that which is good , it is no figurative saying : but if it seems to command any villany , or wickedness , or forbid what is profitable and good , it is figurative . this saying , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , you have no life in you , seems to command a villanous or wicked thing : it is therefore a figure , enjoining us to communicate in the passion of our lord , and to lay it up in dear and profitable remembrance , that his flesh was crucifi'd and wounded for our sakes . and now having thus clearly , i perswade my self , shewn the weakness of those grounds , on which this doctrine of the substantial change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ in this holy sacrament is establish'd ; i shall but very little insist on any other arguments against it : only in a word , to demonstrate , that all manner of proofs fail them in this great error , i will in the close here subjoin two or three short considerations more , to shew this doctrine opposite , not only to holy scripture , as we have seen , but also , . to the best and purest tradition of the church . . to the right reason , and . to the common senses of all mankind . i. that this doctrine is opposite to the best and purest tradition of the church . now to shew this , i shall not heap together a multitude of quotations out of those fathers , through whose hands this tradition must have past : he that desires such an account , may find it fully done by one of the roman communion , in a little * * * treatise just now publish'd in our own language . i will rather take a method that seems to me less liable to any just exception , and that is to lay down some general remarks of undoubted truth , and whose consequence will be as evident , as their certainty is undeniable . and , i. for the expressions of the holy fathers ; it is not deny'd , but that in their popular discourses they have spared no words ( except that of transubstantiation , which not one of them ever used ) to set off so great a mystery : and i believe that were the sermons and devotional treatises of our own divines alone , since the reformation , searcht into , one might find expressions among them , as much over-strain'd . * * * and doubtless these would be as strong an argument to prove transubstantiation now the doctrine of the church of england , as those to argue it to have been the opinion of those primitive ages . but now let us consult these men in their more exact composures , when they come to teach , not to declaim , and we shall find they will then tell us , that these elements are for their * * * substance what they were before , bread and wine : that they retain the true properties of their nature , to nourish and feed the body : that they are things inanimate , and void of sense : that with reference to the holy sacrament they are images , figures , signes , symbols , memorials , types and antitypes of the body and blood of christ. that in their use and benefit , they are indeed the very body and blood of christ to every faithful receiver , but in a spiritual and heavenly manner , as we confess : that , in propriety of speech the wicked receive not in this holy sacrament the body and blood of christ , although they do outwardly press with their teeth the holy elements ; but rather eat and drink the sacrament of his body and blood to their damnation . ii. secondly , for our saviours words which are supposed to work this great change , 't is evident from the liturgies of the eastern church , that the greek fathers did not believe them to be words of consecration ; but to be the same in this holy eucharist that the haggadah , or history of the passover was in that ancient feast ; that is , were read only as an account of the occasion and design of the institution of this blessed sacrament , not to work any miracles in the consecration . and for the * * * african churches , they at this day expound them in this very sacrament after such a manner , as themselves confess to be inconsistent with transubstantiation , viz. this bread is the body of christ. iii. let it be considered , thirdly , that it was a great debate in the primitive church for above a thousand years , whether christs glorified body had any blood in it or no ? now how those men could possibly have questioned whether christ's glorified body had any blood at all in it , had they then believed the cup of eucharist to have been truly and really changed , into the blood of his glorified body , as is now asserted , is what will hardly , i believe , be ever told us . iv. we will add to this , fourthly , their manner of opposing the heathenism of the world. with what confidence could they have rallied them as they did , for worshipping gods which their own hands had made ? that had neither voice , nor life , nor motion ; exposed to age , to corruption , to dust , to worms , to fire , and other accidents . that they adored gods which their enemies could spoil them of , thieves and robbers take from them ; which having no power to defend themselves , were forced to be kept under locks and bolts to secure them . for is not the eucharistical bread and wine , in a higher degree than any of their idols were , exposed to the same raillery ? had their wafer , if such then was their host , any voice , or life , or motion ? did not their own hands form its substance , and their mouths speak it into a god ? could it defend its self , i do not say from publick enemies , or private robbers , but even from the very vermine , the creeping things of the earth ? or should we suppose the christians to have been so impudent , as notwithstanding all this , to expose others for the same follies of which themselves were more notoriously guilty ; yet were there no * * * heathens , that had wit enough to recriminate ? the other † † † articles of our faith they sufficiently traduced ; that we should worship a man , and he too a malefactor , crucified by pilate ; how would they have triumph'd , could they have added , that they worshipped a bit of bread too ; which coster himself thought a more ridiculous idolatry than any the heathens were guilty of ? since this doctrine has been started , we have heard of the reproaches of all sorts of men , jews , heathens , mahometans , against us on this account . ‖ ‖ ‖ were there no apostates that could tell them of this secret before ? not any julian that had malice enough to publish their confusion ? certainly had the ancients been the men they are now endeavour'd to be represented , we had long ere this seen the whole world filled with the writings that had proclaimed their shame , in one of the greatest instances of impudence and inconsideration , to attacque their enemies for that very crime , of which themselves were more notoriously guilty . v. nor does their manner of disputing against the heretical christians any less speak their opinion in this point , than their way of opposing the idolatry of the heathens . it was a great argument amongst them to expose the frenzy of eutyches , who imagined some such kind of transubstantiation of the humane nature of christ into the divine , to produce the example of the eucharist ; that as there the bread and the wine , says p. gelasius , being perfected by the holy spirit , pass into the divine substance , yet so as still to remain in the property of their own nature , or substance of bread and wine ; so here the humane nature of christ still remains , though assumed by , and conjoyned to the divine . which words , as their editor has done well to set a cautè upon in the margent to signifie their danger , so this is clear from them , that gelasius , and so the other writers that have made use of the same argument , as st. chrysostome , theodoret , &c. must have thought the bread and the wine in the eucharist no more to have been really changed into the very body and blood of christ , than they did believe his humane nature to have been truly turned into the divine ; for that otherwise the parallel would have stood them in no stead , nay would have afforded a defence of that heresie which they undertook to oppose by it . vi. yet more : had the primitive christians believed this great change ; how comes it to pass , that we find none of those marks nor signs of it , that the world has since abounded with ? * * * no talk of accidents existing without subjects , of the senses being liable to be deceived in judging of their proper objects ; in short , no philosophy corrupted to maintain this paradox . no adorations , processions ; uows paid to it , as to christ himself . it is but a very little time since the † † † bell came in play , to give the people notice that they should fall down and worship this new god. the ‖ ‖ ‖ feast in honour of it , is an invention of yesterday ; the adoring of it in the streets no ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ older : had not those first christians respect sufficient for our blessed saviour ? or , did they perhaps do all this ? let them shew it us if they can ; but till then , we must beg leave to conclude , that since we find not the least footsteps of any of these necessary appendages of this doctrine among the primitive christians , it is not to be imagined that we should find the opinion neither . vii . but this is not all : we do not only not find any such proofs as these of this doctrine , but we find other instances directly contrary to this belief . in some churches they ‖ ‖ ‖ burnt what remained of the consecrated elements ; * * * in others , they gave it to little children to eat : † † † in some , they buried it with their dead ; in all , they permitted the communicants to carry home some remnants of them ; they sent it abroad by sea , by land , from one church and village to another , without any provision of bell or taper , canopy or incense , or any other mark of adoration ; they sometimes made ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ poultices of the bread ; they mix'd the ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ wine with their ink ; all which we can never imagine such holy men would have presumed to do , had they indeed believed them to be the very body and blood of our blessed lord. viii . lastly : since the prevalence of this doctrine in the church , what opposition has it met with ? what schisms has it caused ? what infinite debates have there risen about it ? i shall not need to speak of the troubles of berenger in the eleventh : of the waldenses , albigenses , and others in the twelfth century . of wickliff , hus , &c. who continued the opposition ; and finally , of the great reformation in the beginning of the last age ; by all which this heresy has been opposed ever since it came to any knowledg in the church . now is it possible to be believed , that so many centuries should pass , so many heresies should arise , and a doctrine so full of contradictions remain uncontested in the church for almost a thousand years ? that berenger should be one of the first that should begin to credit his senses , to consult his reason , or even to defend his creed ? these are improbabilities that will need very convincing arguments indeed to remove them . but for the little late french trick of proving this doctrine necessary to have been received in the primitive church , because it is so in the present , and if you will believe them , 't is impossible a change should have been made ; i suppose , we need only turn the terms of the argument to shew the weakness of the proof , viz. that from all these , and many other observations , that might be offer'd of the like kind , 't is evident that this doctrine at the beginning , was not believed in the church , and let them from thence see , if they can conclude that neither is it believed now . thus contrary is this doctrine to the best and purest tradition of the church : nor is it less , secondly , ii. to right reason too . it were endless to heap together all the contradictions that might be offer'd to prove this ; that there should be length , and nothing long ; breadth , and nothing broad ; thickness , and nothing thick ; whiteness , and nothing white ; roundness , and nothing round ; weight , and nothing heavy ; sweetness , and nothing sweet ; moisture , and nothing moist ; fluidness , and nothing flowing ; many actions and no agent ; many passions , and no patient ; i. e. that there should be a long , broad , thick , white , round , heavy , sweet , moist , flowing , active , passive nothing . that bread should be turned into the substance of christ , and yet not any thing of the bread become any thing of christ ; neither the matter , nor the form , nor the accidents of the bread , be made either the matter , or the form , or the accidents of christ ; that bread should be turned into nothing , and at the same time with the same action turned into christ , and yet christ should not be nothing ; that the same thing at the same time should have its just dimensions , and just distance of its parts one from another , and at the same time not have it , but all its parts together in one and the self-same point ; that the same thing at the same time should be wholly above its self , and wholly below its self , within its self , and without its self , on the right-hand , and on the left-hand , and round-about its self : that the same thing at the same time should move to and from its self , and yet lie still ; or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space , and yet not move . that there should be no certainty in our senses , and yet that we should know something certainly , and yet know nothing but by our senses ; that that which is and was long ago , should now begin to be ; that that is now to be made of nothing , which is not nothing , but something ; that the same thing should be before and after its self . these and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable , and most of them the avow'd consequences of transubstantiation , and i need not say all of them contradictions to right reason . but i shall insist rather upon such instances as the primitive fathers have judged to be absurd and impossible ; and which will at once shew both the falseness and novelty of this monstrous doctrine ; and such are these ; * * * that a thing already existing should be produced anew : that a finite thing should be in many places at the same time ; that a body should be in a place , and yet take up no room in it ; that a body should penetrate the dimensions of another body ; that a body should exist after the manner of a spirit ; that a real body should be invisible and impassible : that the same thing should be its self , and the figure of its self : that the same thing should be contained in , and participate of its self ; † † † that an accident should exist by its self without a subject , after the manner of a substance . all these things the primitive fathers have declared to be in their opinions gross absurdities and contradictions , without making any exception of the divine power for the sake of the eucharist , as some do now . and indeed it were well if the impossibilities stopp'd here : but alas ! the repugnancies extend to the very creed it self , and destroy the chiefest articles of our faith , the fundamentals of christianity . how can that man profess that he believes our saviour christ to have been born xvi . ages since , of the virgin mary , whose very body he sees the priest about to make now before his eyes ? that he believes him to have ascended into heaven , and behold he is yet with us upon earth ? there to sit at the right hand of god the father almighty , till in the end of the world he shall come again with glory to judg both the quick and the dead ? and behold he is here carried through the streets ; lock'd up in a box ; adored first , and then eaten by his own creatures ; carried up and down in several manners , and to several places , and sometimes lost out of a priests pocket . these are no far-fetch'd considerations ; they are the obvious consequences of this belief ; and if these things are impossible , as doubtless , if there be any such thing as reason in the world , they are ; i suppose it may be very much the concern of every one that professes this faith , to reflect a little upon them , and think what account must one day be given of their persisting obstinately in a point so evidently erroneous , that the least degree of an impartial judgment , would presently have shewn them the falseness of it . but god has not left himself without farther witness in this matter ; but has given us , thirdly , iii. the conviction of our senses against it . an argument this , which since it cannot be answered , they seem resolved to run it down ; as the stoick in lucian , who began to call names , when he had nothing else to say for himself . but if the senses are such ill informers , that they may not be trusted in matters of this moment , would these disputers please to tell us , what authority they have for the truth of the christian religion ? was not christianity first founded upon the miracles of our blessed saviour and his apostles ? or were not the senses judges of those miracles ? are not the incarnation , death , resurrection and ascension of our lord , the most fundamental articles of our faith ? have we any other argument to warrant our belief of these , but what comes to us by the ministry of our senses ? * * * did not christ himself appeal to them for the proof of his own rising ? the romanist himself believes transubstantiation because he reads in the scripture , or rather ( to speak more agreeably to the method of their church ) because he has been told there are such words there , as , hoc est corpas meum : now not to enquire how far those words will serve to warrant this doctrine , is it not evident that he cannot be sure there are any such words there , if he may not trust his senses : and if he may , is it not as plain , that he must seek for some other meaning than what they give of them ? let us suppose the change they speak of to be supernatural ; be it as much as miracle as they desire : the very character of a miracle is to be known by the senses . nor god , nor christ , nor any prophet or apostle , ever pretended to any other . and i shall leave it to any one to judge what progress christianity would have made in the world , if it had had no other miracles but such as transubstanation to confirm it : i. e. great wonders confidently asserted , but such as every ones sense and reason would tell him were both falsely asserted , and impossible to be performed . but now whil'st we thus oppose the errors of some by asserting the continuance of the natural substance of the elements of bread and wine in this holy eucharist ; let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mistakes of others ; as if this holy sacrament were nothing more than a meer rite and ceremony , a bare commemoration only of christ's death and passion . our church indeed teaches us to believe , that the bread and wine continue still in their true and natural substance ; but it teaches us also that 't is the body and blood of christ , which every faithful soul receives in that holy supper : spiritually indeed , and after a heavenly manner , but yet most truly and really too . the primitive fathers , of whom we have before spoken , sufficiently assure us , that they were strangers to that corporeal change that is now pretended ; but for this divine and mystical , they have openly enough declared for it . nor are we therefore afraid to confess a change , and that a very great one too made in this holy sacrament . the bread and the wine which we here consecrate , ought not to be given or received by any one in this mystery , as common ordinary food . those holy elements which the prayers of the church have sanctified , and the divine words of our blessed saviour applied to them , though not transubstantiated , yet certainly separated to a holy use and signification , ought to be regarded with a very just honour by us : and whilst we worship him whose death we herein commemorate , and of whose grace we expect to be made partakers by it , we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the types and figures , by which he has chosen to represent the one , and convey to us the other . thus therefore we think we shall best divide our piety , if we adore our redeemer in heaven , yet omit nothing that may testifie our just esteem of his holy sacrament on earth : nor suffer the most zealous votary for this new opinion , to exceed us in our care and reverence of approaching to his holy table . we acknowledg him to be no less really present , tho after another manner than they ; nor do we less expect to communicate of his body and blood with our souls , than they who think they take him carnally into their mouths . let our office of communion be examined ; let the reverence and devotion , with which we celebrate this sacred feast , be consider'd ; all these will shew how far the church of england is from a light esteem of this great mystery ; indeed , that it is impossible for any to set a higher value and reverence upon it . i shall close this with the declaration of one , who after many years spent in great reputation in their communion , was so happy as to finish his days in our church ; upon his first receiving the blessed communion among us : * * * tantam magnorum praesulum demissionem , tam eximiam principum & populi reverentiam , in sacra eucharistia administranda & recipienda , nusquam ego vidi apud romanenses , qui tamen se unos sacramenti istius cultores jactant . that he never saw in the church of rome , so great a reverence both in administring and receiving this holy eucharist , as he found among us ; insomuch , that he supposed it would hardly be believed among them , what from his own experience , he recounted concerning it . porro haec quae narravi & trita nimis ac vulgo nota videbuntur fratribus nostris reformatae ecclesiae : nova omnino & fortè incredibilia apparebunt romanae congregationis alumnis ; quorum scilicet auribus perpetuò suggeritur per suos instructores , nullam apud protestantes existere fidem praesentiae christi realis in eucharistiae sacramento , nullam devotionem aut reverentiam in eo sumendo . and this may suffice for the first thing proposed ; of the doctrine of transubstantiation , or of the real presence professed and established in the church of rome . our next business will be to inquire : ii. what that real presence of christ in this holy eucharist is , which is acknowledged by the church of england . chap. ii. of the real presence acknowledged by the church of england . it may sufficiently appear from what has been said in the foregoing chapter , what just reason we have to reject that kind of presence which the church of rome supposes of christ in this holy eucharist . but now in answer to our reflections upon them on this occasion , a late author has thought fit to make the world believe , that we our selves , in our opinion of the real presence , are altogether as absurd as they are ; and that the same exceptions lie against our own church , which we urge against theirs : all which , if it were true , would but little mend the matter , unless it may be thought sufficient for a man to prove , that he is not mad himself , because most of his neighbours are in the same condition . indeed herein he must be allowed to have reason on his side , that if the case be so as he affirms , we , of all men living , ought not to press them with such contradictions , as our own opinion stands equally involved in . 't is true , he confesses for what concerns the church of england , as it stood in the latter * * * end of king edward the oth's time , and as it may perhaps be thought to stand now , since the † † † reviving of the old rubrick against the adoration of the sacrament at the end of our communion-office ; it seems not to lye open to such a recrimination : but taking our opinion of the real presence from the expressions of our own divines , and of those abroad , such as calvin , &c. whose doctrine , amongst all the rest , the church of england seems rather to have embraced and agreed with , especially since the beginning of the reformation by q. elizabeth ; it plainly implies , that the very substance of christ's body ; that his natural body , that very body that was born of the blessed virgin , and crucified on the cross , is present as in heaven , so here in this holy sacrament , either to the worthy receiver , or to the symbols : which not only contradicts the present declaration of our church ; viz. that the natural body of christ is not in this blessed sacrament ; but will also lay a necessity upon us to quit our reason too that we give for it ; viz. that it is against the truth of a natural body to be in more places than one at one time ; and on which we seem to found our faith in this matter . this is , i think , the design of the former of those discourses lately printed at oxford , as to what concerns the real presence ; and in answer to which , that i may proceed as distinctly as possible , i shall reduce my reflections to these four generals : . what is the true notion of the real presence , as acknowledged by the church of england . . that this has been the notion constantly maintain'd by the generality of our divines . . that the alteration of the rubrick , as to this matter , was not upon any such difference in their opinions , as this author seems to surmise . . that the reason alledged by it , concerning the impossibility of christ's natural body's existing in several places at the same time , is no way invalidated by any of his exceptions against it . but before i enter on these reflections , i cannot but observe the unreasonableness of our adversaries , in repeating continually the same arguments against us without either adding of any the least new force to them , or even taking notice of those replies that have more than once been made against them . the publisher of this treatise has not been so indiligent an observer of what has past under his eyes , with reference to these kind of controversies , as not to know , that this very objection , which is the foundation of his first discourse , was made by his old friend t. g. above nine years since ; and fully answer'd by his reverend and learned adversary not long after . and therefore that he certainly ought either quietly to have let alone this argument already baffled , and not have put the world in mind where that debate stopp'd ; or , at least , he should have added some new strength to it . but to send it again into the world in the same forlorn state it was before ; to take no notice either from whose store-house he borrow'd it , or what had been returned to it ; this is in effect to confess , that they have no more to say for themselves : and 't is a sad cause indeed that has nothing to keep it up , but what they know very well we can answer , and that they themselves are unable to defend . but to return to the points proposed to be consider'd : and , first , to state the notion of the real presence , as acknowledged by the church of england . i must observe , st . that our church utterly denies our saviour's body to be so really present in the blessed sacrament , as either to leave heaven , or to exist in several places at the same time . we confess , with this author , that it would be no less a contradiction for christ's natural body , to be in several places at the same time by any other mode whatsoever , than by that which the church of rome has stated ; the repugnancy being in the thing its self , and not in the manner of it . dly , that we deny that in the sacred elements which we receive , there is any other substance than that of bread and wine , distributed to the communicants ; which alone they take into their mouths , and press with their teeth . in short , all which the doctrine of our church implies by this phrase , is only a real presence of christ's invisible power and grace , so in and with the elements , as by the faithful receiving of them , to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men. as the bodies assumed by angels , might be called their bodies , while they assumed them ; or rather , as the church is the body of christ , because of his spirit quickening and enlivening the souls of believers , so the bread and wine , after consecration , are the real , but the spiritual and mystical body of christ. thus has that learned man , to whom t. g. first made this objection , stated the notion of the real presence profess'd by us ; and that this is indeed the true doctrine of the church of england in this matter , is evident not only from the plain words of our xxviii . article , and of our church catechism ; but also from the whole tenour of that office which we use in the celebration of it . in our exhortation to it , this blessed eucharist is expresly called the communion of the body and blood of our saviour christ : we are told , that if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this holy sacrament ; then we spiritually eat the flesh of christ , and drink his blood. when the priest delivers the consecrated bread , he bids the communicant take and eat this in remembrance that christ died for thee , and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving . in our prayer after the receiving , we thank god , for that he doth vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries , with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of his son our saviour jesus christ , and doth assure us thereby of his favour and goodness towards us , and that we are very members , incorporate in the mystical body of his son. all which , and many other the like expressions , clearly shew , that the real presence which we confess in this holy eucharist is no other than in st. pauls phrase , a real communion of christ's body and blood ; or as our church expresses it article xxviii . that to such as rightly and worthily , and with faith receive the same , the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of christ , and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of christ. hence it was that in the prayer of consecration in king edward vi . time , the church of england after the example of the ancient liturgies of the greek church used that form , which our author observes to have been since left out . and with thy holy spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctifie these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine , that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved son jesus christ — i. e. as the sense plainly implies , may communicate to our souls all the blessings and graces which christ's body and blood has purchased for us ; which is in effect the very same we now pray for in the same address ▪ hear us , o merciful father we most humbly beseech thee , and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine , according to thy son our saviour jesus christs holy institution , in remembrance of his death and passion , may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood. between which two petitions there is so near an affinity , that had not our author been very desirous to find out mysteries where there are indeed none ; he would hardly have suffer'd his puritan friend to have lead him to make so heavy a complaint , about so small a variation . i will not deny but that some men may possibly have advanced their private notions beyond what is here said : but this is i am sure all that our church warrants , or that we are therefore concern'd to defend . and if there be indeed any , who as our author here expresses it , do believe christs natural body to be as in heaven , so in the holy sacrament ; they may please to consider how this can be reconciled with the rubrick of our church , that the natural body and blood of our saviour christ are in heaven and not here , it being against the truth of christs natural body , to be at one time in more places than one . in the mean time i pass on to the next thing i proposs'd , secondly , to shew in opposition to the pretences of our adversary , that this has been the notion of the real presence constantly maintain'd by our most learned and orthodox divines . and here , because our author has thought ●it to appeal not only to our own , but to the forreign divines for this new faith which he is pleas'd to impose upon us , viz. that the very substance of christs body , that his natural body , that that very body that was born of the blessed virgin , and crucified on the cross , &c. is present , as in heaven , so here in this holy sacrament ; i. e. in both at the same time : i must be content to follow his steps , and enquire into the doctrine first of mr. calvin and his followers ; next of our own country-men in this particular . and first for mr. calvin , and his followers , i cannot but observe what different charges are brought against them in this matter . on the one hand we are told by becanus the jesuit , that , * * * the calvinists , says he , deny the body and blood of christ to be truly really , and substantially present in the eucharist : on the other , here is one will prove , that they believe his very body , his natural body , now in heaven , to be nevertheless at the same time in the holy sacrament . it were to be wish'd that they would let us once know what 't is they will stick to , and not by such contradictory charges shew to all the world , that both their accusations may be false , but that it is utterly impossible they should both be true . and indeed in this very instance they are both false ; the calvinists hold neither the one or other of these extreams . in the edition of his institutions printed at basil . mr. calvin thus delivers his opinion , of the body and blood of christ in the holy eucharist . we say , that they are truly and efficaciously exhibited to us , but not naturally : by which we signifie , not that the very substance of his body , or that the true and natural body of christ are given there , but all the benefits which christ did for us in his body . this is that presence of his body , which the nature of the sacrament requires . but because i do not find these words in the editions of that book since , least any one should thereupon conclude that he had also changed his opinion ; we may observe the very same delivered by him in * * * another of his books , and which will be so much the more considerable , in that it was written purposely for the clearing of this matter . now in this he affirms , † † † that christs body was not only once given for our salvation , but is also every day reached out to us for our sustenance , that so , whilst he dwells in us , we may also enjoy the fellowship of all his goods . — then he explains how christ is our food , viz. † † † because by the incomprehensible vertue of the holy spirit , he inspires his life into us , that he may communicate it to us , no less than the vital juice is diffused from the root into all the branches of the tree , or than vigour flows from the head into all the members . — he declares christs body to be finite , and enclosed in heaven ; and therefore as to his flesh to be distant in place from us . — that it is not necessary that the essence of his flesh should descend from heaven , that we may be fed with it , but that to remove all such impediments , and overcome the distance of places , the virtue of the spirit is sufficient — in short , that all inventions contrary to this are to be rejected , such as , the ubiquity of christs body , the inclosing of it under the symbol of bread , and his substantial presence upon earth . by all which it sufficiently appears , that mr. calvin was no friend to our authors fancy ; but evidently explained the real presence after that spiritual manner we have before laid down . for beza , and the rest as he calls them , of the same sect ; we cannot better learn their opinion than from the acts of the colloquy of poissy , and which chiefly lay upon this point . at this conference the most eminent men of the calvinian party were assembled ; the first of them which spoke , was beza : in that part of his discourse which referr'd to the holy eucharist , his words were much like those which our author has quoted out of him . and by his own exposition of them , we shall be better able to judg of his meaning , than by his adversaries gloss. * * * we do not say that in the eucharist there is only a commemoration of the death of our lord jesus christ ; nor do we say , that in it we are made partakers only of the fruits of his death and passion ; but we joyn the ground with the fruits , affirming with st. paul , that the bread which by gods appointment we break , is the participation of the body of christ crucified for us ; the cup which we drink , the communion of the true blood that was shed for us ; and that in the very same substance which he received in the womb of the virgin , and which he carry'd up with him into the heavens — then descending to the popish doctrine of transubstantiation : it overthrows , says he , the truth of christs humane nature and of his ascension — so little did he suppose , that christs natural body could be at the same time both in heaven and in the sacrament . hereupon he explains himself yet farther ; — but now if any one should ask of us , whether we make christ absent from the holy supper ? we answer , by no means . but yet if we respect the distance of place ( as when we speak of his corporal presence , and of his humanity , we must ) we affirm , says he , that christs body is as far distant from the bread and wine , as heaven is from earth — if any one shall from thence conclude , that we make christ absent from the holy supper , he will conclude amiss : for this honour we allow to god , that though the body of jesus christ be now in heaven and not elsewhere , and we on earth and not elsewhere , yet are we made partakers of his body and blood after a spiritual manner , and by the means of faith. thus do's beza in like manner expound their doctrine of the real presence , by a real communion of christs body and blood , and flatly condemns our authors invention , of his natural bodie 's being either in the symbols , or any where else upon earth . the same is the account which † † † peter martyr in the same conference gave of it ; and of whom * * * espensius , one of the popish delegates , confess'd that no divine of that time had spoken so clearly and distinctly concerning this sacrament , as he did . and however ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ genebrard fasely pretends that the other protestants dissented from him , yet 't is certain they were so far from it , that they all subscribed the very same paper out of which he read his declaration . but i will close this with the same words with which these protestants did their final resolution in the colloquy as to this matter ; we affirm that no distance of place can hinder the communion which we have with christs body and blood ; because the supper of the lord is a heavenly thing , and though upon earth we receive with our mouths bread and wine , viz. the true symbols of his body and blood ; yet by faith , and through the operation of the holy spirit , our souls ( of which this is the chief food ) being carry'd up into heaven , enjoy the body and blood present . and in this respect we say that the body do's truly joyn its self to the bread , and the blood to the wine , but yet no otherwise than sacramentally , neither after a local or natural manner . but because they do effectually signifie , that god gives them to the faithful communicants , and that they do by faith truly and certainly receive them . and thus far i have consider'd the forreign divines produced by our author , and in which we find the very same explication which our church gives of the real presence . for our own authors , i shall insist the rather upon them , both to take off any impression which the scraps here put together by those whose business it is to represent their own sence , not their authors , might otherwise be apt to make upon some men ; and also to shew the exact concord there has been ever since the reformation amongst us as to this matter . now for what concerns our divines in king edward vi ths . time , we have our authors own confession , that towards the latter end of the reign of that excellent prince , they seem to have deny'd any such real and essential presence as he would fasten upon those of queen elizabeth's after . for as the first days of this prince , says he , seem to have been more addicted to lutheranism , so the latter days to zwinglianism ; as appears in several expressions of bishop ridley and peter martyr . and indeed the articles agreed upon in the convocation at london . plainly shew it ; in the xxixth . of which we find this express clause ; since the very being of humane nature doth require that the body of one and the same man cannot be at one and the same time in many places , but of necessity must be in some certain and determinate place ; therefore the body of christ cannot be present in many different places at the same time . and since , as the holy scriptures testifie , christ hath been taken up into heaven , and there is to abide till the end of the world , it becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess , that there is a real or corporal presence , as they phrase it , of the body and blood of christ in the holy eucharist . i shall therefore produce only a witness or two of this king's reign ; and so pass on to those that follow . and st , a. b. cranmer in his answer to gardiner , bishop of winchester , objecting to him , that he deny'd the presence of christ in this holy eucharist , replies , that it was a thing he never said nor thought . — my book in divers places saith clean contrary , that christ is with us spiritually present ; is eaten and drunken of us , and dwelleth within us , although corporally he be departed out of this world , and gone into heaven , pag. . — as he giveth bread to be eaten , with our mouths , so giveth he his very body to be eaten with our faith. and therefore i say , that christ giveth himself truly to be eaten , chawed and digested ; but all is spiritually with faith , not with mouth , pag. . — as the washing outwardly in water is not a vain token , but teacheth such a washing as god worketh inwardly in them that duly receive the same ; so likewise is not the bread a vain token , but sheweth and preacheth to the godly receiver , what god worketh in him by his almighty power secretly and invisibly . and therefore as the bread is outwardly eaten indeed in the lord's supper , so is the very body of christ inwardly by faith eaten indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do ; which eating nourisheth them unto everlasting life . and in his treatise of the holy sacrament , lib. . where he sets himself particularly to state this very question , how christ is present in this holy sacrament , he declares , cap. . that whereas the papists suppose christ to be under the species of bread and wine ; we believe him to be in those who worthily receive these holy elements . they think him to be received by the mouth , and to enter with the bread and wine ; we assert , that he is received only by the soul , and enters there by faith. that christ is present only sacramentally and spiritually in this sacred mystery , p. . that since his ascension into heaven , he is there , and not on earth , p. . and that he cannot be in both together , . — in short , he gives us this rule for interpreting the expressions of the fathers , where it is said , that we eat the flesh , and drink the blood of christ ; that we receive in the holy sacrament , the very body that hung on the cross , &c. cap. . p. . these , says he , and other expressions of the like kind ( which speak christ to be upon earth , and to be received of christians by eating or drinking ) , are either to be understood of his divine nature ( which is every where ) ; or else must be taken figuratively or spiritually . for he is figuratively only in the bread and wine ; and spiritually in those that receive this bread and wine worthily . but truly , and as to his body and flesh , he is in heaven only ; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead . thus did this learned and holy martyr understand our doctrine of the real presence ; and the same was the idea which his companion both in doctrine and suffering , bishop ridley , has left us of it . in his discourse of the lord's supper , pag. . he tells us , that the substance of the bread continues as the matter of this sacrament ; but so , that by reason of its change , as to use , office and dignity , it is turned sacramentally into the body of christ ; as in baptism , the water is turned into the laver of regeneration — that the humane nature of christ is in heaven , and cannot in any manner lye hid under the form of bread , p. . — then he enquires , whether therefore we take away the presence of christ's body from the sacrament ? p. . and utterly denies , that this is either said or thought by him . the substance of the true body and blood of christ , says he , is always in heaven , nor shall it depart thence before the end of the world. now this substance of his body and blood being conjoyned to his divine nature , has not only life in it self , but can , and is wont to bestow it upon all those who partake of it , and believe in his name . — nor is it any hindrance to this , that christ still remains in heaven , and that we are upon earth . for by grace , that is , life ( as s. john interprets it , c. ) and the properties of it , as far as may be profitable to us in this our pilgrimage here below , he is with us to the end of the world. as the sun , who though he never leaves his orb , yet by his life , heat , and influence , is present to us : pag. , . hitherto then there can be no doubt , but that both the church and the divines knew no other real presence than what has been before acknowledged to be still our doctrine . we must now go on to the times of tryal , the days of q. elizabeth , and her successors , when our author supposes , that men of different judgments had the power . now for proof of this , besides the expressions of particular men , which we shall presently consider , we have two general presumptions offer'd to us ; one , that dr. heylin , and others , have observed , he says , of this queen , that she was a zealous propugner of the real presence ; which may be very true , and yet but little to the purpose , if she propugned it in the same sense that her brother king edward the th , and the church of england had done before , and not in the new notion imposed upon her by this author , but without any manner of proof to warrant his suggestion . the other , that upon the re-view made by her divines of the common-prayer and articles , they struck out of the one the rubrick against the adoration of the sacrament , and the passage before mention'd ( being of the same temper as the declaration in the liturgy ) , out of the xxixth article ; and which has accordingly been omitted ever since . and here i cannot but again take notice of the disingenuousness of this author , in dissembling the true account that has so largely been given by our late accurate compiler of the history of our reformation of this whole matter , only for the advancing so pitiful an insinuation of what i dare appeal to his own conscience whether he did not know to be otherwise . i will beg leave to transcribe the whole passage ; and shall then leave it to the indifferent reader to judge whether a man so well acquainted with books , and so interested in this matter , could have lived so long in the world without hearing of so eminent a matter in our church-history as this . the author is treating about the difference between the article establish'd in king edward the six's time , and those in q. elizabeth's . in the article of the lord's supper there is a great deal left out ; for instead of that large refutation of the corporal presence , from the impossibility of a bodies being in more places at once ; from whence it follows , that since christ's body is in heaven , the faithful ought not to believe or profess a real or corporal presence of it in the sacrament . in the new article it is said , [ that the body of christ is given and received after a spiritual manner ; and the means by which it is received , is faith. ] but in the original copy of these articles , which i have seen subscribed by the hands of all that sate in either house of convocation , there is a further addition made . the articles were subscribed with that precaution which was requisite in a matter of such consequence : for before the subscriptions there is set down the number of the pages , and of the lines in every page of the book to which they set their hands . in that article of the eucharist these words are added ; christ when he ascended into heaven made his body immortal , but took not from it the nature of a body : for still it retains , according to the scriptures , the verity of a humane body ; which must be always in one definite place , and cannot be spread into many , or all places at once . since then christ being carry'd up to heaven , is to remain there to the end of the world , and is to come from thence , and from no place else ( as says s. austin ) to judge the quick and the dead : none of the faithful ought to believe or profess the real , or ( as they call it ) the corporal presence of his flesh and blood in the eucharist . but this in the original is dash't over with minium ; yet so that it is still legible . the secret of it was this ; the queen and her council studied ( as hath been already shewn ) to unite all into the communion of the church : and it was alledged , that such an express definition against a real presence , might drive from the church many who were still of that perswasion ; and therefore it was thought to be enough to condemn transubstantiation , and to say , that christ was present after a spiritual manner , and received by faith. to say more , as it was judged superflous , so it might occasion division . upon this these words were by common consent left out . and in the next convocation the articles were subscribed without them ; of which i have also seen the original . this shews , that the doctrine of the church subscribed by the whole convocation , was at that time contrary to the belief of a real or corporal presence in the sacrament ; only it was not thought necessary or expedient to publish it . though from this silence , which flowed not from their opinion , but the wisdom of that time , in leaving a liberty for different speculations , as to the manner of the presence ; some have since inferr'd , that the chief pastors of this church did then disapprove of the definition made in king edwards time ; and that they were for a real presence . thus that learned historian . and here let our adversary consider what he thinks of this account ; and whether after so evident a confutation from plain matter of fact of his objection before it appear'd , we may not reasonably complain both of his weakness and in-sincerity ; neither to take any notice of such a plain history of this whole transaction , or to imagine that so vain a surmise of q. elizabeth's being a great propugner of the real presence , would be sufficient to obviate so clear and particular an account of this matter . but though this might suffice to shew the continuance of the same doctrine of the real presence in this queen's , that was before profess'd in her brother's reign ; yet it may not be amiss to discover a little further the truth of this matter , and how falsly this author has alledged those great names he has produced . i will therefore beg leave to continue my proof , with an induction of the most eminent of our divines that i have at this time the opportunity to consult , to our own days . and first for bishop jewel ; though the part he had in the convocation before mention'd , may sufficiently assure us of his opinion ; yet it may not be improper to repeat the very words of a person of his learning and eminence in our church . in his reply to harding thus he expresses the doctrine of the church of england , as to the real presence : whereas mr. harding thus unjustly reporteth of us , that we maintain a naked figure , and a bare sign or token only , and nothing else — he knoweth well , we feed not the people of god with bare signs and figures , but teach them , that the sacraments of christ be holy mysteries ; and that in the ministration thereof christ is set before us even as he was crucified upon the cross. — we teach the people , not that a naked sign or token , but that christ's body and blood indeed and verily is given unto us ; that we verily eat it ; that we verily drink it ; that we verily be relieved and live by it : that we are bones of his bones , and flesh of his flesh ; that christ dwelleth in us , and we in him : — yet we say not , either that the substance of the bread and wine is done away , or that christs body is let down from heaven , or made really or fleshly present in the sacrament . we are taught according to the doctrine of the old fathers , to lift up our hearts to heaven , and there to feed upon the lamb of god — thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith we eat the body of christ , and drink his blood ; even as verily as his body was verily broken , and his blood verily shed upon the cross — indeed the bread that we receive with our bodily mouths , is an earthly thing ; and therefore a figure ; as the water in baptism is likewise also a figure . but the body of christ that thereby is represented , and there is offer'd unto our faith , is the thing it self , and not figure . to conclude , three things herein we must consider : st , that we put a difference between the sign and the thing it self that is signified : . that we seek christ above in heaven , and imagine not him to be present bodily upon the earth : . that the body of christ is to be eaten by faith only , and none otherwise . i shall not trouble the reader with any more of our divines who lived in the beginning of this queen's reign , and subscribed the article before-recited ; but pass on directly to him whom our author first mentions , the venerable mr. hooker , and whose judgment having been so deservedly esteemed by all sorts of men , ought not to be lightly accounted of by us . and here i must observe , that this . learned person is drawn in only by a consequence , and that no very clear one neither , to favour his opinion . the truth is , he has dealt with mr. hooker just as himself , or one of his friends has been observed to have done on the like occasion with the incomparable chillingworth ; has pick'd up a passage or two that seemed for his purpose ; but dissembled whole pages in the same place that were evidently against him . for thus mr. hooker in the chapter cited by him , interprets the words of institution : if we doubt , says he , what those admirable words may import , let him be our teacher for the meaning of christ , to whom christ was himself a school-master . let our lord's apostle be his interpreter ; content we our selves with his explication ; my body , the communion of my body ; my blood , the communion of my blood. is there any thing more expedite , clear and easie , than that as christ is termed our life , because through him we obtain life : so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood , because they are causes instrumental , upon the receit whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth ? — the real presence of christ's most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament , but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament — and again , p. . he thus interprets the same words ; this hallow'd food through the concurrence of divine power , is in verity and truth unto faithful receivers instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation , whereby as i make my self wholly theirs , so i give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yeild , and as their souls do presently need . this is to them and in them my body . and this may suffice in vindication of mr. hooker . those who desire a fuller account , may find several pages to the same purpose in the chapter which i have quoted . the next our author mentions , is the learned bishop andrews , in that much noted passage , as he calls it , in the answer to bellarmine . and indeed we need desire no other passage to judge of his opinion in this matter ; in which st . he utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the manner of christs presence in the eucharist . . he professes that a presence we believe , and that no less a true one than the papists . . he plainly insinuates that the presence of christ in the eucharist , was much the same as in baptism ; the very allusion which the holy † † † fathers were wont to make , to express his presence by in this holy sacrament ; which since our adversaries can neither deny , nor yet say is so real , as to be essential or corporeal ; they must of necessity allow that there may be a true presence ( which is all the bishop affirms ▪ ) without such a substantial one as this author here contends for . but to shew that whatever this bishop understood by the real presence , it could not be that christs glorified body is now actually present in this sacred mystery , will appear demonstratively from this , that he declares it is not this body which we either represent or partake of there ; insomuch that he doubts not to say , that could there be a transubstantiation , such as the church of rome supposes , it would not serve our turn , nor answer the design of this sacrament . 't is in his sermon on cor. v. , . we will mark , saith he , something more : that epulemur doth here refer to immolatus : to christ not every way consider'd , but as when he was offer'd . christs body that now is , true ; but not christs body as now it is , but as then it was , when it was offer'd , rent , and slain , and sacrificed for us . not as now he is glorified ; for so he is not , he cannot be immolatus ; for as he is , he is immortal and impassible ; but as then he was when he suffer'd death , that is passible and mortal . then in his passible state , he did institute this of ours , to be a memorial of his passible and passion both . and we are in this action not only carry'd up to christ ( sursum corda ) [ so that christ it seems is not brought down to us ] but we are also carry'd back to christ , as he was at the very instant , and in the very act of his offering . so , and no otherwise , doth this text teach ; so , and no otherwise do we represent him . by the incomprehensible power of his eternal spirit , not he alone , but he as at the very act of his offering is made present to us , and we incorporate into his death , and invested in the benefits of it . if an host could be turned into him now glorified as he is , it would not serve ; christ offer'd is it . thither must we look ; to the serpent lift up : thither we must repair ; even ad cadaver : we must hoc facere , do that is then done . so and no otherwise is this epulare to be conceived . and so i think none will say they do or can turn him . whatsoever real presence then this bishop believed , it must be of his crucified body , and as in the state of his death ; and that i think cannot be otherwise present than in one of those two ways mentioned above by arch-bishop cranmer , and both of which we willingly acknowledge ; either figuratively , in the elements ; or spiritually , in the souls of those who worthily receive them . and from this account of bishop andrew's opinion , we may conclude what it was that casaubon and king ●ames understood by the real presence , who insist upon that bishops words to express their own notion and meaning of it . nor can we make any other judgment of the arch bishop of spalato ; who in the next § * * * to that cited by our adversary is very earnest against those who receive unworthily this holy sacrament , and by consequence ties not christs natural body to the bread ; and declares it to be after a spiritual imperceptible and miraculous manner . as for the term corporaliter , which he there uses , and which melancthon and some others had used before him , that may be well enough understood in the same sence , as vere or realiter ; and is often so used both in scripture and in the holy fathers . as when st. paul says of christ , that in him dwelleth the fulness of the godhead bodily ; that is really , in opposition to the shechinah or presence of god in the tabernacle . and again , the body of christ ; that is the substance , the reality , opposed to the types and figures of the law. and so in the hebrew exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for essence as well as body , and applied to spiritual as well as corporal things . nor can i see any more reason to understand arch-bishop lawd in any other sence . he asserts the true and real presence of christ in this sacred feast ; but he do's not say , that christ's natural body which is now in heaven , is also in this holy sacrament , or in the worthy receiver ; nor have we any reason to believe that he understood it so to be . * * * and the same must be said of † † † bishop hall , bishop montague , and bishop bilson ; in whose expressions as they are quoted by our author , i find nothing that proves the sence he would impose upon them ; and whose works had i now by me , i might possibly be able to give some better account of them . though after all , should one of these in his violence against his adversaries , or the others in their pacifick design of reconciling all parties as to this point , have said more than they ought to do , i do not see but that it ought to have been imputed to the circumstances they were in and the designs they pursued , rather than be set up for the measure either of their own , or our churches opinion . and now i am mentioning these things , i ought not pass over one other eminent instance of such a charitable undertaking , and which has given occasion to our author of a quotation he might otherwise have wanted , in that excellent bishop of st. andrews bishop forbes ; concerning whose authority in this matter i shall offer only the censure of one , than whom none could have given a more worthy character of a person , who so well deserved it as that good bishop did ; i do not deny , but his earnest desire of a general peace and union among all christians , has made him too favourable to many of the corruptions in the church of rome : but though a charity that is not well ballanced , may carry one to very indiscreet things ; yet the principle from whence they flow'd in him , was so truly good , that the errors to which it carry'd him , ought to be either excused , or at lest to be very gently censured . there remain now but two of all the divines he has produced to prove his new fancy , which he would set up for the doctrine of the church of england ; and those as little for his purpose as any he has hitherto mentioned ; bishop taylor and mr. thorndyke . for bishop taylor , i cannot acquit our author of a wilful prevarication ; since it is evident that he has so plainly opposed his notion , and that in the very book he quotes , and which he wrote on purpose to shew our meaning of the real presence , that he could not but have known that he mis represented him . i shall set down the state of the question as it is in the beginning of that treatise . the doctrine of the church of england , and generally of the protestants in this article is ; that after the minister of the holy mysteries hath rightly pray'd and blessed or consecrated the bread and the wine ; the symbols become changed into the body and blood of christ after a sacramental , i. e. in a spiritual real manner . so that all that worthily communicate , do by faith receive christ really , effectually , to all the purposes of his passion — it is bread and it is christs body : it is bread in in substance , christ in the sacrament ; and christ is as really given to all that are truly dispos'd , as the symbols are p. . — it is here as in the other sacrament ; for as there natural water becomes the laver of regeneration ; so here bread and wine become the body and blood of christ : but there and here too the first substance is changed by grace , but remains the same in nature — we say that christs body is in the sacrament really , but spiritually . they ( the papists ) say it is there really , but spiritually . for so bellarmin is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this question . where now is the difference ? here ; by spiritually they mean present after the manner of a spirit ; by spiritually we mean present to our spirits only ; that is , so as christ is not present to any other sence but that of faith or spiritual susception — they say that christs body is truly present there , as it was upon the cross , but not after the manner of all , or any body — but we by the real spiritual presence of christ , do understand christ to be present , as the spirit of god is present in the hearts of the faithful , by blessing and grace ; and this is all we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence . such is the account which that excellent bishop here gives not only of his own , but , as he expresly terms , it of the church of england ' s , and the generality of the protestants belief in this matter . our author's dissimulation of it is so much the more inexcusable , by how much the more zealous an advocate he makes him of his cause , when all this that i have transcribed , was in the very same section , and almost in the same page with what he has cited . for his little remark upon the title of the bishops book , where he calls it of the real presence and spiritual , whence he would infer a difference between the two terms , and find something real that is not spiritual in this sacrament ; it is evident that the design of that distinction was this : there be several sorts of real presences ; the papists , the lutherans , the church of england , all allow a real presence in the sacrament , but after dif●erent manners ; it was therefore necessary to add somewhat more , to shew what kind of real presence she undertook to maintain , and he knew no word more proper to express it by than spiritual , which does not therefore imply a distinction from , but limitation of the other term real . and thus he explains it , n. . and . of that section , where he shews that the spiritual is also a real presence , and indeed more properly so than any other . in short , thus he concludes the state of the question , in the same section , on , between us and the church of rome , so that now , says he , the question is not , whether the symbols be changed into christ's body and blood or no ? for it is granted on all sides : but whether this conversion be sacramental and figurative ? or whether it be natural and bodily ? nor is it whether christ be taken really , but whether he be taken in a spiritual or in a natural manner ? we say the conversion is figurative , mysterious , and sacramental ; they say , it is proper , natural , and corporal . we affirm that christ is really taken by faith , by the spirit , to all real effects of his passion ( this is an explication a little different from our authors ) they say he is taken by the mouth , and that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect , is not sufficient , tho' done also in the sacrament . hic rhodus , hic saltus . if this does not yet satisfie him that he has injur'd this learned man in the representation of his opinion , directly contrary to his sense , i will offer him yet one passage more , taken from another part of his works , and which , i hope , will throughly convince him . it is in the th . letter , to a gentleman that was tempted to the communion of the church of rome . he had proposed to the bishop this question . whether , without all danger of superstition or idolatry , we may not render divine worship to our blessed saviour , as present in the blessed sacrament or host , according to his humane nature , in that host ? the question is certainly every way pertinent to our present purpose ; let us see what the answer is that he makes to it . we may not render divine worship to him as present in the blessed sacrament according to his humane nature , without danger of idolatry , because he is not there according to his humane nature , and therefore you give divine worship to a non ens , which must needs be idolatry . well , but still it may be the bishop does not intend to exclude the corpus domini , but only the corporal or natural manner of that body : let us therefore hear how he goes on . for idolum nihil est in mundo , saith st. paul , and christ as present by his humane nature in the sacrament is a no●ens . for it is not true ; there is no suchthing . what , not as christ there , no way as to his humane nature ? — no , he is saith the bishop , present there by his divine power , and his divine blessing , and the fruits of his body , the real effective consequents of his passion ; but for any other presence , it is idolum ; it is nothing in the world. adore christ in heaven ; for the heaven must contain him till the time of restitution of all things . this then is bishop taylor 's notion of the real presence : and now i am confident our author himself will remit him to the company of those old zuinglian bishops , cranmer , ridley , and the rest , who lived before that q. elizabeth had propugned the real presence of his new model into the heads of the governours of the church of england . and now i am afraid his cause will be desperate unless mr. thorndyke can support it . and how unlikely he is to do it , he might have learnt from what has been answered to t. g. on the same occasion . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ t. g. had in his first dialogue quoted the same place which our author has done since , to prove his belief of the real presence : his * * * adversary confesses this , but produces an●●her that explains his meaning ; † † † if it can any way be shew'd , says he , that the church did ever pray that the flesh and blood might be substituted instead of the elements under the accidents of them , then i am content that this be accounted henceforth the sacramental presence of them in the eucharist . but if the church only prays that the spirit of god coming down upon the elements — may make them the body and blood of christ , so that they which receive them may be filled with the grace of his spirit ; then is it not the sence of the catholick church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the elements in their bodily substance , because supposing that they remain , they may nevertheless come to be the instruments of gods spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are dispos'd to receive it , no otherwise than his flesh and blood convey'd the efficacy thereof upon earth . and that i suppose is reason enough to call it the body and blood of christ sacramentally , that is to say , as in the sacrament of the eucharist . thus mr. thorndyke expresses himself as to the real presence : but yet after all , i will not deny but that this learned person seems to have had a particular notion in this matter , and which is far enough from what our author would fix upon him . he thought that the elements by consecration were united to the godhead of christ , much after the same manner as his natural body was by incarnation ; and that so the very elements became after a sort his body . the church from the beginning did not pretend to consecrate by these bare words , this is my body , this is my blood , as operatory in changing the elements into the body and blood of christ ; but by that word of god whereby he hath declared the institution of this sacrament , and commanded the use of it ; and by the execution of this command . now it is executed , and hath always been executed by the act of the church upon god's word of institution , praying that the holy ghost coming down upon the present elements , may make them the body and blood of christ. not by changing them into the nature of flesh and blood ; as the bread and wine that nourished our lord christ on earth , became the flesh and blood of the son of god , by becoming the flesh and blood of his manhood , hypostatically united to his godhead , saith gregory nyssene . but immediately and ipso facto , by being united to the spirit of christ ; i. e. his godhead . for the flesh and blood of christ by incarnation , the elements by consecration being united to the spirit ; i. e. the godhead of christ , become both one sacramentally , by being both one with the spirit or godhead of christ , to the conveying of god's spirit to a christian. and thus have i consider'd the several divines produced for this new conceit concerning the real presence ; and shewn the greatest part of his authors to be evidently against it ; some not to have spoken so clearly that we can determine any thing concerning them ; but not one that favours what they were alledged for ; viz. to shew that they believed , christ's natural body to be both in heaven and in the sacrament ; only after another manner than the papists . it were an easie matter to shew how constant our church has been to the doctrine of the true , real , spiritual presence which it still asserts , and which it derived from its first reformers , whose words have been before set down by a cloud of other witnesses ; as may be seen by the short specimen i have put together in the * * * margent . but i have insisted too long already on this matter ; and shall therefore pass on to the third thing i proposed to consider ; viz. thirdly , that the alterations which have been made in our rubrick , were not upon the account of our divines changing their opinions , as is vainly and fasly suggested . to give a rational account of this affair , we must carefully consider the circumstances of the times , the tempers and dispositions of the persons that lived in them ; and what the designs of the governing parties were with reference to them ; and then we shall presently see both a great deal of wisdom and piety in the making of these alterations ; allowing the opinions of those who did it , to have continued , as we have seen , in all of them the same . when first this rubrick was put into king edward's liturgy , the church of england was but just rising up out of the errors and superstitions with which it had been over-run by the prevalency of popery upon it . it had the happiness to be reformed , not as most others were , by private persons , and in many places contrary to the desires of the civil power ; but by a unanimous concurrence of the highest authority both civil and ecclesiastical , of church and state. hence it came to pass , that convocations being assembled , deliberations had of the greatest and wisest persons for the proceeding in it , nothing was done out of a spirit of peevishness or opposition ; the holy scriptures and antiquity were carefully consulted ; and all things examined according to the exactest measures that could be taken from them ; and a diligent distinction made of what was popery , and what true and catholick christianity , that so the one only might be rejected , the other duly retained . now by this means it was that the ancient government of the church became preserved amongst us ; a just and wise liturgy collected out of the publick rituals : whatever ceremonies were requisite for order or decency , were retain'd ; and among the rest , that of receiving the communion kneeling for one , which has accordingly ever since been the manner establish'd amongst us . but that no occasion of scandal might hereby be given , whether to our neighbour-churches abroad , or to any particular members of our own at home : that those who were yet weak in the faith , might not either continue or fall back into error , and by our retaining the same ceremony in the communion that they had been used to in the mass , fancy that they were to adore the bread as they did before : for all these great ends this caution was inserted ; that the true intent of this ceremony was only for decency and order ; not that any adoration was thereby intended , or ought to be done unto any real or essential presence of christ's natural flesh and blood , which were not there , but in heaven , it being against the truth of christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one. and this is sufficiently intimated in the words of the rubrick to have been the first cause and design of it . thus it continued the remainder of king edward's time : but now queen elizabeth being come to the crown , there were other circumstances to be consider'd . those of the reformed religion abroad were sufficiently satisfied , both by this publick declaration , which had stood so many years in the liturgy of our church ; and by the conversation and acquaintance of our divines , forced by the dispersion in the foregoing reign , to seek for refuge among their brethren in other countries , of our orthodox faith , as to this point . our own members at home had heard too much of this matter in the publick writings and disputations , and in the constant sufferings of their martyrs , not to know that the popish real presence was a meer figment , an idolum , as bishop taylor justly stiles it ; and their mass to be abhorred rather than adored . there was then no longer need of this rubrick upon any of those accounts for which it was first establish'd ; and there was a very just reason now to lay it aside . that great queen desired , if possible , to compose the minds of her subjects , and make up those divisions which the differences of religion , and the late unhappy consequences of them had occasion'd . for this , she made it her business to render the publick acts of the church of england as agreeable to all parties as truth would permit . the clause of the real presence inserted in the articles of her first convocation , and subscribed by all the members of it ( to shew that their belief was still the same it had ever been as to this matter ) was nevertheless , as we have seen , struck out for this end their next session . the title of head of the church , which her father had first taken , her brother continued , and was from both derived to her , so qualified and explained , as might prevent any occasion of quarrelling at it by the most captious persons . that petition in the litany inserted by king henry viii . from the tyranny of the bishop of rome , and all his detestable enormities , good lord , &c. struck out : and in conformity to what was done in the articles as to this point , this rubrick also was omitted , lest it should give offence to those who were still zealous for their mistaken principles and worship . this was the wise and christian design of that excellent princess ; and how happy an effect this moderation might have had , if the bishop of rome had not by his artifice and authority with some of her subjects , prevented it , the first years of her reign sufficiently shew . thus was the occasion and reason of its omission in q. elizabeth's time , as great as the necessity of its first insertion in king edward's . and in this state it continued all the reign of that queen , and of her two successors , king james and king charles . st , i shall not need to say by what means it was , that new occasion was given for the reviving of it . we have all of us heard , and many of us seen too much of it . how order became superstitious , and decency termed idolatry : the church of england traduced as but another name for popery ; and this custom of kneeling at the communion , one of the strongest arguments offer'd for the proof of it . and now when panick fears had found such prevalence over the minds of men , as to destroy a king , and embroil a kingdom into a civil war , of almost twenty years continuance ; and tho by the good hand of god our king and our peace were again restored , yet the minds of the people were still unsetled , and in danger of being again blown up upon the least occasion ; what could be more advisable to justifie our selves from all suspicion of popery in this matter , and induce them to a conformity with us in a ceremony they had entertain'd such a dread of , than to revive that ancient rubrick ; and so quiet the minds of the people now , by the same means by which they had been setled and secured before ? this i am perswaded is so rational an account , as will both justifie the proceedings of our governours in these changes , and shew the dis-ingenuity of those , who not only knowing , but having been told these things , will still rather impute it to an imaginary wavering , or uncertainty of opinion , than to a necessary and christian accommodation to the times . for the change in the prayer of consecration , i have already said , that 't is in the words , not the sense : and if our governours thought the present expressions less liable to exception than the former , they had certainly reason for the alteration . for the other exceptions there is very little in them , whether the minister lay his hand on the sacred elements , when he repeats the words of institution , as at this time , or only consecrates them by the prayers of the church , and the words of christ , without any other ceremony , as heretofore : whether with the church of rome we use only the words of christ in the distribution ; or with most of the reformed churches , the other expression , take and eat this , &c. or ( as we chuse rather ) joyn them both together : whether we sing the gloria in excelsis deo — before or after the receiving ; but because the chiefest mystery he thinks lies in this , that whereas in king edward's days the rubrick called it an essential presence , which we have now turned into corporeal ; i must confess i will not undertake to say what the occasion of it was ; if they thought this latter manner more free from giving offence than the other would have been , i think they did well to prefer it . let every one entertain what notion he pleases of these things ; this i have shewn is the doctrine of the church which we all subscribe , that the natural body and blood of our saviour christ are in heaven , and not here ; i. e. in the sacrament ; and if there can be any other real presence than such as i have shewn to have been the constant belief of our divines consistent with this rubrick , i shall no more desire to debar any one the belief of it , than i shall be willing to be obliged to believe it with him . and now after so clear an account as i have here given of the several changes that have been made in our rubrick , were i minded to recriminate , and tell the world what alterations have been made in their mass , & those in points infinitely more material than any thing that can be alledged against us , i much question whether they would be able to give us so good an account of it . and something of this i may perhaps offer as a specimen of the wisdom of this author in the choice of his accusation before we part ; in the mean time i go on to the last thing proposed to be here consider'd . thly . that the reason mention'd in our rubrick concerning the impossibility of christs natural body's existing in several places at the same time , is no way invalidated by any of this authors exceptions against it . now these being most of them founded upon the former mistaken notion of the real presence falsely imputed to us , will admit of a very short and plain consideration . st . he observes that protestants , but especially our english divines generally confess the presence of our saviour in the eucharist to be an ineffable mystery . well , be it so ; what will he hence infer ? why this he conceives is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to , and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by humane reason . but supposing they should not think it so from being opposite and contradictory to , but because the manner how christ herein communicates himself to us is hid from , and above our humane reason ; might not this be sufficient to make it still be called an ineffable , and incomprehensible mystery ? whereas the other would make it rather plain and comprehensible nonsence . 't is a strange affection that some men have got of late for contradictions ; they are so in love with them , that they have almost brought it to be the definition of a mystery , to be the revelation of something to be believ'd in opposition to sense and reason . and what by their notions and parallels , have advanced no very commendable character of christianity ; as if it were a religion full of absurdities ; and as fisher the jesuit once told king james st . with reference to this very subject , the rather to be believed because it is contrary to reason . but if this be indeed our authors notion of mysteries ( and the truth is transubstantiation can be no other mystery ) we desire he will be pleased to confine it to his own church , and not send it abroad into the world as ours too . we are perswaded , not only that our worship must be a reasonable service , but our faith a reasonable assent . he who opposes the authority of holy scriptures , says bishop taylor , against manifest and certain reason , do's neither understand himself nor them . reason is the voice of god as well as revelation , and what is opposite to the one , can no more be agreeable to the other , than god can be contrary to himself . and though , if the revelation be clear and evident , we submit to it , because we are then sure it cannot be contrary to reason , whatever it may appear to us ; yet when the contradiction is manifest , as that a natural body should be in more places than one at the same time , we are sure that interpretation of holy scripture can never be the right which would infer this , but especially when there is another , and much more reasonable , that do's not . and in this we are after all justified by one whose authority i hope our author will not question , even his own self ; if , says he , we are certain there is a contradiction , then we are certain there neither is nor can be a contrary revelation ; and when any revelation , tho' never so plain , is brought ; we are bound to interpret it so , as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility . and let him that sticks to this rule , interpret christs words for transubstantiation if he can . but do not our own authors sometimes say , that notwithstanding all the difficulties brought against transubstantiation , yet if it can be shewn that god has revealed it , they are ready to believe it ? perhaps some may have said this , because for that very reason that there are so many contradictions in it , they are sure it cannot be shewn that god has revealed it . but if he means , as he seems to insinuate , that notwithstanding such plain contradictions as they charge it with , they thought it possible nevertheless , that god might have revealed it , and upon that supposition , they were ready to believe it ; i answer from his own words , that their supposa● then was absurd and impossible ; since he himself assure us , that none can believe a thing true , upon what motive soever , which he first knows to be certainly false , or which is all one , certainly to contradict . for these we say are not verifyable by a divine power ; and ergo , here i may say , should a divine power declare a truth , it would transcend its self . which last words if they signifie any thing and do not transcend sense , must suppose it impossible for such a thing as implies a certain contradiction , to be revealed . ii. observation , but our author goes on , i conceive that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a perfect contradiction , can no more be effected by divine power than another , or than many others the like may . seeing then we admit that some seeming contradictions to reason may be verified by the divine power in this sacrament , there is no reason to deny but that this may be also as well as any other . now not to contend with him about words ; whoever told our author , that we allow'd that there was any thing in this sacrament , as received by us , that seemed to us to include a perfect contradiction ? perfect contradictions we confess are all of them equally verifyable by a divine power , that is , are all of them impossible . and for this we have his own word before . now if there be any such things as perfect contradictions to be known by us , that which seems to us to be a perfect contradiction , must really be a perfect contradiction ; unless contradictions are to be discover'd some other way than by seeming to our reason to be so . and such it not only seems , but undoubtedly is , for the same one , natural , finite body , to be in more places than one at the same time ; if to be and not to be , be still the measure of contradictions . he that says of such a body , that it is in heaven and on earth , at london and rome , at the same time , says in effect that 't is one and not one ; finite and not finite ; in one place and not in one place , &c. all which are such seemingly perfect contradictions , that i fear 't will be a hard matter to find out any power by which they can be verify'd . iii. observation , he observes thirdly ; that those who affirm a real and substantial presence of the very body of christ to the worthy communicant , contradistinct to any such other real presence of christs body , as implies only a presence of it in virtue , and spiritual effects , &c. must hold this particular seeming contradiction to be true , or some other equivalent to it . if by the real presence of the very body of christ , he means , as he before explains it , that christ's natural body , that very body which is now in heaven , should be also at the same time here upon earth ; it is , i think , necessary for those who will affirm this , to hold some such kind of contradiction , as he says : and 't is for that very reason , i am perswaded , he will find but few such persons in the church of england ; which so expresly declares , that christ's natural body is in heaven , and not here , upon this very account , that it is contrary to the truth of a natural body to be in more places than one at the same time . however , if any such there be , as they herein depart from the doctrine of their church , so it is not our concern to answer for their contradictions . iv. he observes , lastly : it seems to me that some of the more judicious amongst them ( the divines he means of the church of england ) have not laid so great a weight on this philosophical position , as wholly to support and regulate their faith in this matter by it ; as it stands in opposition not only to nature's , but the divine power : because they pretend not any such certainty thereof , but that if any divine revelation of the contrary can be shewed , they profess a readiness to believe it . i shall not now trouble my self with what some of our divines may seem to him to have done in this matter ; 't is evident our church has laid stress enough upon this contradiction . indeed where so many gross repugnancies both to sense and reason are crowded together , as we have seen before there are in this point , it ought not to be wondered if our divines have not supported and regulated their faith wholly upon this one alone . we do not any of us think it either safe or pious to be too nice in determining what god can , or cannot do ; we leave that to the bold inquisitiveness of their schools . but this we think we may say , that if there are any unalterable laws of nature , by which we are to judg of these things ; then god can no more make one body to exist in ten thousand places at the same time , than he can make one , continuing one , to be ten thousand , than he can divide the same thing from its self , and yet continue it still undivided . and if any of our divines have said , that they cannot admit that one body can be in several places at once , till the papists can demonstrate the possibility thereof by testimony of holy scripture , or the ancient tradition of the primitive church , or by apparent reason . we need not suppose that they said this , doubting whether it implied a contradiction , but because the certainty of the contradiction secured them against the possibility of any such proof . * * * and now i know but one objection more that is , or can be offered against what i have said , and which having answered , i shall close this point : for if this be all the church of england understands , when it speakes of a real presence , viz. a real sacramental presence of christ's body and blood in the holy signs , and a real spiritual presence in the inward communion of them to the soul of every worthy receiver ; will not this precipitate us into downright ‖ ‖ ‖ zuinglianism , and render us after all our pretences as very sacramentaries as they ? indeed , i am not able directly to say whether it will or no , because i find the opinion of zuinglius very variously represented as to this matter . but yet , first , if by zuinglianism he means that which is more properly * * * socinianism , viz. a meer commemoration of christ's death , and a thaksgiving to god for it ; 't is evident it does not , forasmuch as we positively confess , that in this holy sacrament , there is a real and spiritual grace communicated to us , even all the benefits of that death and passion which we there set forth . and this , or somewhat very like it , i find sometimes to have been maintained by † † † zuinglius . but now , secondly , if by zuinglianism he understands such a real presence , as denies only the coexistence of christ's natural body now in heaven , at the same time in this holy sacrament , but denies nothing of that real and spiritual * * * communion , of it we have before mentioned ; this is indeed our doctrine , nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any ill names he is able to put upon it . but yet i wonder why he should call this zuinglianism ; since if the common name of catholick , or christian doctrine , be not sufficient , he might have found out a more ancient abettor of this real presence , than zuinglius , and the truth is , one of the most dangerous opposers both of their head and their faith that ever was ; i mean st. paul , who has not only clearly , express'd himself against them , as to this point of the eucharist , cor. x. . but in most of their other errors left such pernicious savings to the world , as all their authority and infallibility , let me add , nor all their anathema's neither , will not be able to overcome . i shall close up this discourse of the real presence acknowledged by us in this holy sacrament , with a plain familiar example , and which may serve at once both to illustrate , and confirm the propriety of it . a father makes his last will , and by it bequeaths his estate and all the profits of it to his child . he delivers it into the hands of his son , and bids him take there his house and lands , which by this his last will he delivers to him . the son in this case receives nothing but a roll of parchment , with a seal tied to it from his father ; but yet by virtue of this parchment he is intituled to his estate , performing the conditions of his will , and to all the benefits and advantages of it : and in that deed he truly and effectually received the very house and lands that were thereby conveyed to him . our saviour christ in like manner , being now about to leave the world , gives this holy sacrament , as his final bequest to us ; in it he conveys to us a right to his body and blood , and to all the spiritual blessings and graces that proceed from them . so that as often as we receive this holy eucharist , as we ought to do , we receive indeed nothing but a little bread and wine into our hands ; but by the blessing and promise of christ , we by that bread and wine , as really and truly become partakers of christ's body and blood , as the son by the will of his father was made inheritor of his estate : nor is it any more necessary for this , that christ's body should come down from heaven , or the outward elements which we receive , be substantially turned into it , than it is necessary in that other case , that the very houses and lands should be given into the hands of the son to make a real delivery or conveyance of them ; or the will of the father be truly and properly changed into the very nature and substance of them . part ii. chapter iii. of the adoration of the host , as prescribed and practised in the church of rome . we are now arrived at the last part of this discourse ; in which i must thus far change the method i pursued in the other subject , as to consider , first , what the doctrine of the church of england as to this point is ; and what our adversaries exceptions against it are . secondly , what is the doctrine of the church of rome ; and whether what this author has said in favour of it , may be sufficient to warrant their practice as to this matter . for the former of these , the doctrine of the church of england , we shall need go no farther than the rubrick we have before-mention'd ; wherein it is expresly declared , with reference to this holy sacrament , that no adoration is intended , or ought to be done , either to the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received , or to any corporal presence of christ's body and blood : for that the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored , ( for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians ) and the natural body and blood of our saviour christ , are in heaven and not here ; it being against the truth of christ's natural body , to be at one time in more places than one. this then being sufficiently cleared , let us see what this author has to observe against it . . he supposes that we will grant , that if there were a corporal presence of christ's natural body in this holy sacrament , then kneeling and adoration would be here also due upon such an account . he means , that were christ himself here in his body actually present , he ought to be adored ; and this he need not doubt of our readiness to grant . . tho the corporeal presence of christ's body , i. e. of its being there ad modum corporis , or clothed with the ordinary properties of a body , be deny'd ; as it is , not only by the english divines , but by the lutheran and roman : yet let there be any other manner of presence ( known from divine revelation ) of the very same body and blood ; and this as real and essential , as if corporeal ; and then i do not see but that adoration will be no less due to it thus , than so , present . now to this i shall at present only say , that the supposition being absurd , do's not admit of a rational consideration . those who deny a bodily presence of christ's body in the eucharist , and ask whether adoration may not be paid to his body , which is confess'd not to be bodily present there , supposing it to be there some other way ; ought to have no other satisfaction than this , that they suppose an impossibility , a thing which cannot be ; and therefore concerning which no reasonable answer can be given . some i know have been more free , and allowing for the unreasonableness of the supposal , have resolved contrary to our author : but i think it very needless to dispute of the affections of a chimera ; and wrangle about notions that have neither use nor existence . . he observes , lastly , that the church of england hath believed and affirmed such a presence ( he means of christ's body in the eucharist ) to which they thought adoration due . i presume it was then in the times of popery ; for since the reformation , i have shewn before , that she has always held the contrary . but our author will prove it , and that since the reformation ; for , he says , he has in his time met with no less than five of our writers , and those of no mean account neither , that have been of this opinion . this indeed is a very notable way of proving the doctrine of our church : but what now if i should bring him fifteen others that have deny'd it ; then i hope the doctrine of the church of england may be as fair for the contrary . but we will examine his evidence . first ; bishop andrews , he says , declares , that tho we adore not the sacrament , yet we adore christ in and with the sacrament , besides and without the sacrament : and assures the world , that k. james looked upon christ to be truly present , and truly to be adored in it . how this bishop thought christ truly present in the sacrament we have seen before ; and may from thence easily conclude how he supposed he might be adored there : viz. as in all other holy offices , in which we confess him by his divine power to be present with us , but especially in this sacred mystery . and thus we all adore him , both in and with , and without the sacrament ; we confess him to be truly present , and therefore truly to be adored by us . but now for christ's natural body , ( of which , and not of christ himself , our dispute is ) if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before shew'd , let it be remembred , that according to this bishop , it must not be his glorified body , his body as it now is ; but his body crucified , his body as offer'd for us , and in the state of his death ; so he expresly affirms ; and this i believe our author himself will confess in his sense to be impossible . his next witness is bishop taylor : we worship , he means , says this author , the body , or the flesh of christ [ in the eucharist ] . but is he sure the bishop meant so ? if he be , i am sure the bishop thought we all of us committed idolatry in so doing . for being consulted , as we have seen above , whether without all danger of idolatry we may not render divine worship to our blessed saviour as present in the blessed sacrament or host , according to his humane nature in that host ? he expresly declares , we may not render divine worship to him as present in the blessed . sacrament , according to his humane nature , without danger of idolatry , because he is not there according to his humane nature ; and therefore you give divine worship to a non ens , which must needs be idotry . and indeed this our author knew very well was his opinion , who himself in his next treatise , cites the xiiith section of his real presence , which was written on purpose to prove the unlawfulness of worshipping christ's body in this sacrament . but dissimulation of other mens opinions in matter of religion , is perhaps as lawful on some occasions , as if it were their own : and why may not an author prevaricate the doctrine of his adversary in defence of the catholick faith , since i have read of a * * * protestant minister , who in the troubles of france being brought over to the king's interest , was secretly reconciled to the church of rome , and permitted so far to dissemble his own opinion , as not only to continue in the outward profession of the protestant religion , but even to exercise the functions of his ministry as before ; and that by the express leave of his holiness , for three whole years , the better to carry on the catholick cause in betraying the secrets , and managing the debates of his brethren . as for bishop forbes , and the arch-bishop of spalatto , it is not to be wondred if men that had entertained the design of reconciling all parties , were forced to strain sometimes a little farther than was fit for the doing of it . and for mr. thorndyke , we have seen that his notion of the real presence was particular , and widely different both from theirs and ours ; and therefore that we are not to answer for the consequences of it . but however , to quit these just exceptions against them : will he himself allow every thing to be the doctrine or not of the church of rome , which i shall bring him three of their authors to affirm or deny ? if he will , then transubstantiation is not their doctrine , for i have already quoted above twice three of their most learned men against it . to adore an unconsecrated host by mistake , is idolatry ; for so s. thomas , paludanus , catharine , and others , assure us : to worship the host , supposing their doctrine of transubstantiation false , a worser idolatry than any heathens were ever guilty of ; so several of their writers confess . but now if our author will not allow this to be good arguing against them , with what reason do's he go about to urge it against us ? secondly ; we must in the next place consider what the doctrine of the church of rome as to this point is ; and whether what this author has advanced in favour of it , may be sufficient to warrant their practice of this adoration . for the doctrine of the church of rome , i find it thus clearly set down by the council of trent : there can be no doubt , but that all the faithful of christ , after the manner that has ever been received in the catholick church , ought to give that supreme worship which is due to the true god , to his holy sacrament . for it is nevertheless to be adored , because it was instituted by our lord christ that it might be received ; foras much as we believe the same god to be present in it , of whom the eternal father when he brought him into the world , said , and let all the angels of god worship him . that therefore , according to this council is to be worshipped , which christ instituted to be received ; and in which they believe christ to be present : but 't is no other than the holy sacrament , as these trent-fathers here expresly and properly stile it ; which we all confess christ instituted to be received , and in which they suppose christ to be present : and therefore 't is the sacrament which is to be adored . which reasoning i find card. pallavicini thus improving in his history of this council : it is well known , says he , that to make a whole adorable with the supreme adoration , it is sufficient that one part of that whole merits such a worship . this he illustrates in the example of christs humanity ; and thence concludes , how then ought we not in like manner to adore this sacrament which is a whole , that contains as its principal part the body of christ ? it is therefore , as i conceive , the undoubted doctrine of the church of rome , that the holy sacrament of the eucharist , for the reason here given , is to be adored , with that supreme adoration that is due to the true god. now to warrant their practice in this matter , our author thus proceeds in proof of it : i. he premises some propositions , which he calls , protestant concessions . ii. some others , which he stiles , catholick assertions . and then , iii. goes on to shew what warrant they have for that belief on which this adoration is founded . i shall distinctly follow him in every one of these . in his first part , which he calls , protestant concessions , i will go on with him thus far : st . * * * that supreme and divine adoration is due to our lord and saviour jesus christ. dly , that where-ever the body of our lord now is , there must also his whole person be . and therefore , dly , ‖ ‖ ‖ that where-ever christ's body is truly and really present , there his divine person is supremely adorable . but now for his next assertion ; * * * that it is affirmed by many protestants , especially those of the church of england , that this body and blood of our lord is really present , not only in virtue , but in substance in the eucharist . † † † if he means , as in his former treatise he explain'd himself , that the very natural body of christ , that body that was born of the virgin , and crucified on the cross , and is now in heaven , is also as to its substance truly and really present on earth in the holy eucharist , or to the worthy receiver : i have in the foregoing chapter fully shewn this new fancy to be neither the doctrine of the church of england , nor the opinion of those very writers whom he produces for proof of it . and as to the ‖ ‖ ‖ adoration of it upon any such account , i have just now declared his mistake of them in that point too . and i shall not follow our author 's ill example in repeating it all over again . for his * * * fifth remark , that the lutherans affirm that christ's body and blood are present , not only to the worthy communicants , but to the consecrated symbols , and whilst so present , which is during the action of the lord's supper ( i. e. says he , as i conceive them from the consecration , till the end of the communion ) are to be adored . i answer ; first , as to the former part , it is confess'd that the lutherans do indeed suppose christ to be present , not only to the worthy communicants , but also to the consecrated symbols . but now , secondly , for the other part , that during the action of the lord's supper , he is to be adored there ; this is not so certain . for , . i do not find any thing establish'd amongst them as to this matter , neither in the confession of auxpourg , nor in any other publick acts of their church . . i find several of their divines utterly denying , that christ's body is to be adored in the holy sacrament ; and our * * * author himself confesses it . tho now , . † † † i will not deny but that some others of them do allow , if not that christ's body , yet that christ himself is to be adored after a peculiar manner in the action of the lord's supper ; and as far as i conceive , do by the action mean , as our author here represents it , from the consecration to the end of the communion . so that then , with this limitation , his proposition i presume may be admitted ; that the lutherans do acknowledg , that christ is present during the action of the lord's supper ; and therefore it is by several of them supposed , that he ought to be adored in it . as to the sixth and last concession , which he draws from monsieur daille's apologie , that tho we do not our selves belive the real presence of christ ' s body in the signs , yet neither do we esteem the belief of it so criminal , as to oblige us to break off communion with all those that hold it ; and therefore , that had the roman church no other error but this , that it would not have given us any sufficient cause of separation from it ; we are ready to admit it ; always supposing that the belief of it had not been press'd upon us neither , as a necessary article of communion ; nor any anathema pronounced against us for not receiving it . and for the other part of it which he subjoyns , that a disciple giving divine honour , upon mistake , to another person , much resembling our saviour christ , would have been no idolater ; from whence he would infer , that therefore allowing a consecrated host to be truly adorable , a person that should by mistake adore an unconsecrated one , would not be guilty of idolatry . we are content to allow it ; tho what use he can make of it in this controversy , unless against his own brethren , s. thomas , paludanus , and others , i do not understand ; since he knows we utterly deny any host , consecrated or not , to be fit to be worshipped . and this may serve for his first foundation of protestant concessions , ; which were they every one as certain as his first is , that christ is to be adored , i cannot see what his cause would gain by it ; and he has not by any application of them in this treatise , given us the least reason to think that they are of any moment in it . but some men have a peculiar faculty of amusing the world with nothing : and i remember , i once heard a judicious and modest man give this character of an author much resembling ours , with reference to his guide in controversy , that for a book which carried a great appearance of reasoning , it had the least in it of any he ever met with . but i go on , ii. to his catholick assertions . and first : catholicks ( as he calls them ) affirm in the eucharist after the consecration , a sign , or symbol to remain still distinct , and having a divers existence from that of the thing signified , or from christ's body contained in or under it . this 't is true the papists , or if you please , the catholicks do affirm ; because that otherwise they could not call it a sacrament . but now , if we enquire what that which they call a sign , or a symbol in this holy sacrament is , we shall find it to be neither such as our blessed saviour establish'd , nor indeed any thing that can in propriety of speech be so termed . for our saviour christ , 't is evident that the symbols instituted by him , were bread and wine : they were these that he took and blessed , and gave to his disciples ; and commanded them also in like manner to take , and bless , and give to others in remembrance of him ; and as the symbols of his body and blood in this holy eucharist . but now for the papists ; they destroy the bread and the wine ; they leave only a few aiery , empty species , that is , appearances of something , but which are really nothing , have no substance to support them . the symbols establish'd by christ were festival symbols , a matter apt for our corporal nourishment ; so signify to us , that as by them , viz. by bread and wine , our bodies are nourished to a corporal life ; so by the body and blood of christ , which they both represent and communicate to us , our souls are fed to life everlasting . but for that which hath no substance , i. e. nothing which can be converted into our bodily nourishment ; how that can be a symbol of this spiritual food , i do not very well understand . indeed our author tells us , that tho after consecration , the substance of the bread and wine is deny'd to remain , yet is substance here taken in such a sense , as that neither the hardness , nor the softness , nor the frangibility , nor the savour , nor the odour , nor the nutritive virtue of the bread , nor nothing visible or tangible , or otherwise perceptible by any sense , is involved in it : that is to say , that the symbol or external sign then in this eucharist , is according to them , a hard , soft , frangible , gustible , odoriferous , nutritive , visible , tangible , perceptible nothing . verily a fit external species indeed to contain , a one , manifold ; visible , invisible ; extended , unextended ; local , illocal ; absent , present ; natural , supernatural ; corporal , spiritual body . secondly ; concerning the adoration of the sacrament , he tells us , that this word sacrament , is not to be taken always in the same sense ; but sometimes to be used to signify only the external sign , or symbols ; sometimes only the res sacramenti , or the thing contain'd under them , which is the more principal part thereof . this indeed is a sort of new divinity . i always thought hitherto , that when we talked of a sacrament , properly so called , we had meant an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace : and that this particular sacrament had been a whole composed of the external species , ( whatever they are ) as the sign ; and the body and blood of christ as the inward part , or thing signified . thus i am sure the catechism of the council of trent instructs us . first , for the name ; it tells us , that the latin doctors have thought that certain signs , subjected to the senses , which declare , and as it were set before the eyes , the grace which they effect , may fitly be called sacraments . and for the nature of them , thus it defines a sacrament from s. austin , it is the sign of a holy thing ; or more fully , as i before said ; a visible sign of an invisible grace , instituted for our justification . so that neither then symbols alone , nor the invisible part , or grace alone , can with any manner of propriety be called a sacrament ; but the sign referr'd to the grace ; and as it is the symbol instituted by christ for the conferring of it . this therefore can with no good reason be called a catholick assertion ; being neither general nor true : but however , since he seems content to allow it to be an impropriety of speech , and that , i confess , the * * * catechism of the council of trent does lead him into it ; let us see what use he can make of it . † † † and as protestants much press , so catholicks ( roman catholicks ) willingly acknowledg a great difference between these two , the worshipping of the sacrament , as this word is taken for the symbols ; and the worshipping of christ's body in the sacrament . there is , no doubt , a great difference between these two : but then they who tell us , the sacrament is to be adored , if they will speak rationally , must mean neither the one nor other of these , but the host ; that is , as card. pallavicini expounds it , the whole , of which christ's body is a part ; in the language of the council of trent ; the sacrament in which they believe christ to be present , and for that cause adore it ; as the cardinal again argues ; * * * that , to make a whole adorable , it is sufficient that one part be so ; and therefore since the body of christ is adorable , the sacrament for its sake is to be worshipped . it is therefore a meer shift to tell us that the sacrament is to be adored ; i. e. christ's body in the sacrament . nor will the remark of our author help us out , that tho the chapter indeed calls it the sacrament in which is christ's body , yet the canon speaks more precisely , and calls it christ in the sacrament ; unless he supposes the council to have been infallible in the canons only , and not in the chapters ; as some have thought , that they may be out in their proofs , but cannot be in their conclusions . but however , since he so much desires it , for my part i shall be content to allow them this too ; for i should be glad by any means to see them sensible of their errors . but yet so as that it be esteem'd only a private opinion this , not a catholick assertion . thirdly ; catholicks , he means the papists still , ground their adoration , not upon transubstantiation ; as if transubstantiation defeated , adoration is so too ; but on a real presence with the symbols , which in general is agreed on by the lutherans together with them . by which assertion , if he means only to make this discovery , that christ's real presence , together with the substance of the bread and wine , is in his opinion as good a ground for adoration , as if he were there only with the species of the bread , the substance being changed into his body ; i have no more to say to it . but if he would hereby make us believe , that 't is all one whether christ be adored , as supposed here by the lutherans in this holy eucharist , and as imagined there by the papists ; i must then deny his assertion ; and desire him to keep home to his own manner of real presence , and which i shall presently convince him , will leave them in a much worse condition than their neighbours , whom he would draw into the same snare with them . and therefore , whereas he concludes , fourthly ; that supposing transubstantiation to be an error , yet if the tenent of corporal or real presence ( as held by the lutherans , or others ) be true ; catholicks ( he would say papists ) plead their adoration , is no way frustrated , but still warrantable : i must tell him , that the adoration of those among the lutherans , who worship christ in this sacrament upon the account of his real presence in , or with the bread , tho it be an error , yet is infinitely more excusable than theirs , who suppose the bread to be turned into christ's body ; and because it may not be thought that i speak this out of any prejudice against them , i will here offer my reasons for it . st , they that adore christ as really present , together with the bread , do no violence to their senses : they confess , that what they see , and taste , and feel , and smell , is really bread and wine . whilst the papist in denying the bread and wine to remain ; or that what he sees , and feels , and smells , and tastes , is what all the world perceives and knows it is , contradicts his senses , and in them the law of nature , that means which god has given us to direct and lead us into the search of truth ; and by consequence errs against infinitely greater means of conviction , and so is more inexcusable than the other . dly ; they who worship christ , as supposing him to be together with the bread in this holy eucharist , are erroneous indeed in this , that they take christ's body to be where really it is not ; but yet their object is undoubtedly right , and in that they are not mistaken . but now for the papist ; he adores , 't is confess'd , what he thinks to be christ's body ; and would not otherwise adore it : but yet still 't is the host that he adores , the substance that is under those species which he sees ; and which if it be not christ , but meer substance of bread , the case is vastly alter'd between the lutheran and him. the former adores christ , only as in a place where he is not ; the latter not only do's this , but moreover adores a substance for christ which is not his body and blood , but a meer creature of bread and wine . monsieur daille therefore might rightly enough say of a lutheran , that his adoration is mistaken , not in this — that it addresseth it self to an object not adorable , but only that by error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not ; and so becomes only vain and unprofitable : and yet our author has no manner of reason from thence to pretend , that a papist who terminates his adoration upon a substance which really is not christ's body , but only mistaken by him to be so , shall be in the same condition : there being an apparently vast difference between worshipping christ in a place where he is not , and worshipping that for christ which really is not christ , but only a created substance . and this in truth our author seems to have been sensible of , and therefore thinks to evade it , by saying , that they do not worship the substance that is in that place , under such accidents whatever it be , ( which if bread should happen to be there , he confesses would make them bread-worshippers ) but they worship it only upon supposition that it is christ's body , and not bread. well , be this so : but what now if they are mistaken in their supposition : they worship , he confesses , the substance-that is under those accidents , supposing it to be christ's body ; but still , mistaken or not , that substance which is under those species , whatever it be , they do worship : and if they have , as he thinks , a rational ground for this supposition , which we shall see by and by , yet this will only excuse them from being formal idolaters ; but will not hinder but that their worship is still directed to an undue object , if that which is under the species be indeed but bread , and not christ's body as they imagine . and this then may serve to argue the falseness of what he lays down as his fifth , catholick assertion : that supposing both the lutherans and papists mistaken in their opinion , yet there can be no pretence why the one should not be as excusable as the others . since as i have said ; st , they err more grosly in abandoning the conviction of their senses , which the lutherans do not ; dly , they worship a substance for christ , which really is not : to which if this be not enough , i will add yet two other reasons : dly , that they make the consecration , without which christ is not present upon their own principles , to depend on such uncertainties ( as i shall more fully shew anon ) that they can never be sure that christ is there , which the lutherans are free from : and lastly ; they anathematize those who dissent from them as to this point , and so make a schism in dividing the unity of the church , which the lutherans are so far from doing , that they neither establish any doctrine of adoration at all , nay many of them do not believe it ; and upon occasion , freely communicate with those who dissent from them in their belief , both of their way of the real presence , and of the adoration . and for the same reason i cannot totally assent to his sixth assertion : that supposing there be no such real presence as either of them believes , yet that their adoration of christ , who is a true object of supreme adoration , and only by them mistaken to be in some place where he is not , cannot be termed any such idolatry , as is the worshipping of an object not at all adorable . this as to what concerns those of the lutherans who adore christ in the sacrament , is true : but for the papist it is not . he intends , i allow it , to worship christ , but he mistakes an object for christ , which is only a piece of bread. he worships his host , supposing it to be our saviour's body , but his error is gross , and he not only mistakes christ to be in a place where he is not , but he mistakes that to be christ which indeed is not , but only a simple wafer . his worship therefore is not like the manichees worshipping of christ in the sun ; but rather as if the manichee should , from some mistaken grounds , have fancy'd the sun it self to be turned into christ's body ; and then in defiance of all scripture , sense , and reason , should have fallen down before it ; but with a good intention not to adore the sun , but the body of our blessed lord under the species or accidents of the sun. this is the true parallel ; only that herein still the manichee would have been the more excusable of the two , by how much the sun is a more likely object to be mistaken for christ's glorified body than a morsel of bread ; and less capable of being discovered by our senses and examination not to be so . it remains then , that these lutherans only adore christ where he is not ; the papists not only do this , but more-over they adore that for christ which really is not , but a meer created substance . both the one and the other are erroneous ; but the papist's mistake , renders him at the least guilty of material idolatry , whereas the lutherans is only an undue application of his worship as to the place , but right as to the person . let us see , seventhly ; how far their mistake will excuse them , in answer to his seventh assertion : that however a manichaean may be guilty of idolatry for worshipping christ in the sun ; and an israelite for worshipping god as specially resident in the calves of dan and bethel , because it is adoring a fancy of their own , without any rational ground or pretence thereof ; and however meerly a good intention , grounded upon a culpable ignorance , can excuse none from idolatry , or any other fault ; yet if catholicks , ( i. e. the pretended roman catholicks ) can produce a rational ground of their apprehending christ present in the eucharist , tho possibly mistaken in it , they are to be exexcused from idolatry . which proposal is so just , that i am very willing to allow it ; and shall be heartily glad that the grounds of their mistake may in the end prove to have been so reasonable as to excuse them . but then it must be remembred too , that he confesses if these grounds be not reasonable , but as he says of the manichees , their adoring of the host be indeed an adoring a fancy of their own without any rational ground ; so that their ignorance in this matter is culpable , then by their own allowance they are idolaters . this therefore brings me to the last thing to be enquired into . iii. what grounds they have for this adoration ? and whether they be such as , should they be mistaken in it , will be sufficient to excuse them ? and thus after a great deal of preamble , but very little to the purpose , we are at last come to the main question . i have already so largely shewn our reasons against transubstantiation , or that real presence on which this adoration is built , that i shall not need to insist here . yet because the stress of this controversy depends principally on ●his last part , i will , st , examine the strength of those grounds which this author has offer'd , to warrant their adoration . dly , i will propose an argument or two upon their own allowed principles against it . but before we proceed to these points , we must vet have one touch more upon the old string : for the lutherans , he says , being allow'd to have such a plausible ground or motive for their adoration , whereby they become absolved by other protestants from idolatry , in adoring our lord as present there , i see not why the grounds of roman catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs . in answer to which , the reader may please to remember , that i have before said , that we do not excuse those lutherans who do this so much upon this principle , that they have a more plausible ground or motive for their adoration ; but for this rather , that confessing the substance of the bread to remain , they do not mistake their object , but pay their adoration indeed to christ , only supposing him to be there where in truth he is not . but , dly , this author is very much mistaken if he thinks the lutherans have no better a foundation for their real presence than the papists . indeed , were the difference no greater than between a con and a trans , it would , i confess , be hardly worth the while to contend about it . but when we come to the point it self , we may observe these four advantages , among many others of the lutherans side . . they confess for the outward elements , that they are really what they appear to be , bread and wine ; and so they do no violence to their senses ; which , as i have said , is a great aggravation against the papists . . by this means they are at no defiance with all those texts of scripture where they are so often called bread and wine after consecration : all which the papist contradicts , but the lutheran does not . . from the words of christ , this is my body ; we all of us confess may be inferr'd , that christ's body is in this holy sacrament : but whence do's the papist infer the destruction of the substance of the bread ; so that what is taken , and blessed , and given , is not bread , but christ's body under the appearance of bread ? this is an error which i am sure the text gives no manner of colour to ; and therefore our author cannot with any reason pretend , as he do's , whether we consult the text of holy scripture , or our own senses , that they have as good grounds for their real presence , as the lutherans have for theirs . to all which let me add , thly , that by transubstantiation they destroy the very nature of a sacrament , by leaving no true external sign or symbol , and which is another unanswerable argument against them , whilst the lutherans acknowledging the substance of the bread to remain , do not destroy at all the nature of this sacrament , but retain the same sign which our blessed lord established , and so have no objection on this side neither to convict them . but yet notwithstanding all this , do not some of our writers confess , that the papists interpretation is more rational than the lutherans ? i answer ; what certain protestants may have said in zeal for their own opinions , and in particular hospinian upon the account of his master zuinglius , i cannot tell : but sure i am , we are not bound to answer for all that any protestant author has said . and if these reasons i have here given for the contrary are valid , they ought to be more regarded , than the ungrounded assertions of a sacramentary historian . well , but still the papist do's not ground his adoration upon transubstantiation , but on corporal presence ; and so they must both be excused , or neither . this is a fetch to very little purpose : for let me ask this author ; he confesses he founds his adoration upon the corporal presence : do's he believe the corporal presence in the way of transubstantiation exclusive to all others , or no ? if he do's , then 't is evident that the corporal presence and transubstantiation , must with him stand or fall together ; and so if he adores on the account of the corporal presence , he do's it upon the account of transubstantiation . if he do's not believe this , 't is plain he is no papist , nor submits to the authority of the church of rome , which has defined the corporal presence to be after this particular manner , exclusive to all others , and anathematized all that dare to deny it . laying aside therefore this comparison , and which in truth will do them but very little kindness : let us view more particularly what rational grounds they have to exhibit for this their belief of their corporal presence of christ in the eucharist , and of the adoration of him upon that account . i. ground : and the first is divine revelation : for which our author offers the two usual instances , of the words of institution , and the th chapter of s. john ; both which therefore i have at large discoursed on above , and i believe sufficiently shewn how false a foundation these are of this belief . but yet since our author reminds us ; * * * that against these no argument taken from our senses or reason is valid : i will beg leave to remind him of his own assertion too , * * * that none can believe a thing true upon what motive soever , that he knows certainly to be false , or which is all one , certainly to contradict — so that if our reason then makes us certain of such a contradiction , we may be certain that there neither is nor can be a contrary revelation ; and when any revelation , tho never so plain , is brought , we are bound to interpret it so , as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility . from which principle it seems to me to follow , that were hoc est corpus meum , as evident a proof of transubstantiation , as their own authors confess it is not ; yet if our sense and reason tell us that there are certain contradictions against the common principles of nature , and the universal sentiments of all mankind , no otherwise to be avoided but by taking those words in the sense in which we do ; we are then bound to interpret them so , as to avoid these impossibilities . and this i am confident i have at large shewn above to be the case , and thither i refer the reader . ii. ground . their second ground is founded upon the authority of those councils that have determined this matter ; the declaration , as he calls it , of the most supreme and universal church-authority that hath been assembled in former times for the decision of this controversy , long before the birth of protestantism . these are great words indeed ; but i wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable * * * synods of particular prelats , such as are all those to which he refers us , assembled against berengarius , were the most supream and universal church-authority . for his little reflection , that they were assembled long before the birth of protestantism , i must tell him , i doubt he is mistaken . the religion of protestants , like that of papists , is composs'd of two great parts ; catholick christianity , common in some measure to us all ; and protestations against popery . now 't is true , for what concerns the latter of these , we allow popery to have the advantage of us , as to the point of antiquity , nor are we ashamed to own it : it being necessary that they should have fallen into errors , before we could protest against them ; but as to the present matter , our author in his * * * guide , to which he refers us , confesses that berengarius , against whom these little synods were called , proceeded upon protestant grounds , i. e. in effect was a protestant as to this point : and therefore 't is false in him now to say , that these councils were assembled long before the birth of protestantism . but i return to his church authority ; and answer ; . if this doctrine be certainly contrary to sense and reason , as was before said , then he has told us before , that no motive whatever , no revelation , tho never so plain , can be sufficient to engage us to believe it . . for his councils , the eldest of them was above a thousand years after christ , when by our own confession , the error , tho not of transubstantiation , yet of the corporal presence , was creeping into the church . . these councils were themselves a party against berengarius , and therefore no wonder if they condemned him . . they were neither universal of the whole church , or even of the western patriachate in which they assembled ; and therefore we can have no security that they did not err , tho we should grant this priviledg to a truly general council that it could not . . 't is evident that some of them did err ; forasmuch as the very * * * formularies of recantation prescribed to berengarius , do not agree the one with the other ; and one of them was such , that their own † † † authors tell us it must be very favourably interpreted , or it will lead us into a worser error than that which it condemn'd . . were they never so infallible , yet they none of them defined transubstantiation , but only a corporal presence ; and so whatever authority they have , it is for the lutherans , not the papists . . and this their own writers seem to own ; forasmuch as none of them pretend to any definition of transubstantiation before the council of lateran ; and till which time they freely confess it was no article of faith. such is the church authority which this discourser would put upon us . but now that i have mentioned the council of lateran , as i have before observed , that it was the same council which establish'd this error , that also gave power to the pope to depose princes , and absolve their subjects from their obedience ; so i cannot but remak further in this place , the zeal of our author in the defence of its authority . it is but a very little while since another of their church , ‖ ‖ ‖ father walsh , in his letter to the bishop of lincoln , did not think that the * * * learned person of our church , to whom he refers us , had so clearly proved these canons to have been the genuine † † † acts either of the council , or even of the papist himself , but that a man might still have reason to doubt of both : but indeed , tho that father be of another mould , yet there are still some in the world , and i believe of this author's acquaintance , who like this council , never the worse for such a decision ; but think the third canon as necessary to keep princes in a due obedience to the church , as the first , de fide catholià , to help out the obscurity of the text in favour of transubstantiation . but he goes on ; and upon these premises , ask us , what more reasonable or secure course in matters of religion can a private and truly humble christian take , than where the sense of a divine revelation is disputed , to submit to that interpretation thereof , which the supreamest authority in the church , that hath heretofore been convened about such matters hath so often , and always in the same manner decided to him , and so to act according to its injunction ? now , not to say any more as to his expression of the supremest church authority , which it may be he will interpret not absolutely , but with this reserve , that hath been convened about such matters ; i answer from himself , . it is a more reasonable and secure course to follow that interpretation which is agreeable to the common sense and reason of mankind , and against which he tells us , not only the authority of a synod , but even a divine revelation is not sufficient to secure us . . these synods , as i have shewed , besides that they were particular , were moreover parties in the case . and then , . it is false to say that they always decided the same , or , that that which they decided is the same which the church of rome now holds in this matter . all which our * * * authors have fully proved , and this discourser therefore ought to have answered . iii. ground . but now , he says , if these councils be declined , as not being so ancient as some may expect ; i. e. not held before some controversy happen'd in the church touching the point they decided : they have yet another very rational ground of their belief , and that is , the evident testimony of the more primitive times . it would have been more to the purpose , if he could honestly have said of the most primitive times . but however his modesty is the greater now , tho his argument be not so strong . as to the point of antiquity , i have already fully discussed it above ; and we are but very lately assured by one of their own authors , that antiquity is of our side in this point . for the six or seven fathers he has mentioned , ‖ ‖ ‖ some of them are spurious ; others have been † † † expresly answered by us ; and all of them at large by monsieur aubertine , larrogue , and others . if this does not satisfy him , he may shortly expect a fuller account in our own language ; * * * a specimen of which has already been given to the world in earnest of what is suddenly to follow . iv. ground . his next ground is taken from the universal doctrine and practice of the later both eastern and western churches till luther's time , and at present also excepting his followers . to which i answer ; that this ground is not certainly true ; and if it were , yet certainly 't is nothing to the purpose . . it is not certainly true : indeed , that the latter ages of the western churches before luther , that is , from the time of the council of laterane , did profess the belief of transubstantiation is confess'd : and that a great part of the greek church at this day do's the same , since their new colledge at rome , and their money and missionaries sent among them have corrupted their faith , i do not deny : but that this was so before luther is not so certain ; and whosoever shall impartially read over the long debate between the late monsieur claude , and monsieur arnaud concerning this matter , will , i believe , confess that this can be no rational ground for their belief . ludolphus tells us of the ethiopian church , that at this day , it neither believes transubstantiation , nor adores the host : and tellezius confesses it , because they consecrate with these words , this bread is my body : for the * * * greeks , the muscovites , the armenians , the nestorians , maronites , &c. those who please to interest their curiosity in a matter of so little moment as to their faith , may satisfy themselves in the authors , to which i refer them . tho now , . to allow the matter of fact to be true , i pray , what force is there at last in this argument , the church both eastern & western , in these last ages have believed transubstantiation ; therefore the papists have a rational ground to believe it . that is to say , you protestants charge us for believing transubstantiation , as men that act contrary to the design of christ in this holy eucharist , that have forsaken the tradition of the primitive ages of the church ; that destroy the nature of this holy sacrament , and do violence to the common sense and reason of mankind : be it so ; yet at least we have this rational ground for our belief , tho it should be false , viz. that we did all of us peaceably and quietly believe it , till you came with your scripture , and antiquity , and sense , and reason , to raise doubts and difficulties about it ; nay more , we all of us still do believe it , except those that you have perswaded not to do so . spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici ? v. ground . of no greater strength is his last ground for their belief , viz , that since luther's time no small number of protestants , even all the genuine sons of the church of england , have proceeded thus far , as to confess a real presence of our lord's body and blood in the eucharist , and adoration of it , as present there . for , . if we did acknowledg this , yet it seems we are mistaken in it ; and then what grounds can it be for a papist to believe transubstantiation , that we hereticks by a mistake do not believe it , but only a real spiritual presence , and as such are anathematized by them for our error ? . i have before shewn , that were this a rational ground , yet it fails them too ; for neither do the genuine sons of the church of england , nor any other that i know of , either believe christ's natural body to be substantially present in the holy eucharist , or to be adored there : i am sure if there be any such , they cannot be the genuine sons of the church of england in this matter , who believe so expresly contrary to her formal declaration , as this author has himself observed . and then for the lutherans , to whom he again returns ; it is hard to conceive what rational ground of security they can derive from their practice ; that because they commit no idolatry in worshipping what they know certainly to be christ , the papist commits none for worshipping what he do's not know certainly is christ ; in truth what , if he pleased , he might know certainly is not christ. and now after a serious and impartial consideration of the grounds produced in vindication of this worship ; tho i could have wish'd i might have found them as rational as our author pretends them to be , and shall be glad , as they are , that they may hereafter prove sufficient to excuse them from the guilt of formal idolatry in this adoration ; yet i must needs say , i do in my conscience think 't is more an excess of charity , than any necessity of argument , if our writers do sometimes , either not at all , or but faintly , charge them with idolatry . and the testimonies he produces , argue rather the candor of our affections towards them , even such as to hope , almost against hope for their sakes ; than give any security to them in their errors . and because i would willingly , if possible , convince them of it , i will very briefly subjoin a reason or two . dly ; why even upon their own principles i am not satisfied that they have such a rational ground for this adoration , as may be sufficient to excuse them . for , st , it is granted by this author , that a meerly good intention grounded upon a culpable ignorance , cannot excuse them from idolatry . so that if their ignorance then be really culpable , their good intention will not be sufficient to excuse them . now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded , is their mistaken interpretation of those words , this is my body ; and whether that be a rational or culpable mistake , we shall best be able to judg by two or three observations . . it is confess'd by the greatest men of their church , that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do ; so that had not the authority of their church interposed , they might have been equally verified in our interpretation . and this must be allow'd , unless we shall say , that all places of holy scripture must be understood in a literal sense , whatever the consequence be of so doing . . our author himself confesses , that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain contradiction , then it cannot be right ; but we are bound to seek out some other exposition to avoid a certain contradiction . . it is undeniable , that their interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of sense , and in that of the truth of the christian religion , which was confirmed by miracles , known only by the evidence of sense ; and by consequence of this particular point , that transubstantiation is revealed to us by god , or can be rely'd upon as coming from him . now from these principles i thus argue : if that sense of these words , this is my body , upon which they ground their adoration , do's necessarily imply many plain and certain contradictions , then by their own confession that cannot be the right sense of them . but that it do's so , and that without gross and culpable ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it , i thus shew . he that believes these words in the sense of transubstantiation , must believe the same natural body , at the same time , to be in ten-thousand several places upon earth , and yet still to be but one body , and that all the while in heaven : he must believe that the same natural body is at the same time extended in all its parts , and yet continuing still the same body without any change , to be unextended , and have no distinct parts , nor be capable of being divided into any : he must believe the same body at the same time , to move , and to lie still : to be the object of our senses , and yet not to be perceptible by any : with infinite others of the like kind * * * as i have more fully shewn before . but now all these are gross contradictions , contrary to the nature of a body , and to the common principles of reason in all mankind ; and no man can , without culpable ignorance pretend not to know them to be so : and therefore , notwithstanding any such supposed divine revelation as may be pretended from those words , this is my body , they cannot , by our author 's own rule , without culpable ignorance , not know that they are mistaken in this matter . again : no papist can have any reason to believe transubstantiation to be true , but because he reads those words of holy scripture , this is my body . that these words are in scripture , he can know only by his senses : if his senses therefore are not to be trusted , he is not sure there are any such words in scripture . if they are to be trusted , he is then sure that the interpretation which he puts upon them must be false . since then it is confess'd , that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense ; and that both upon the account of the contradictions that such an exposition involves to the common principles of reason , and to the certain evidence of the senses of all mankind , it is necessary to take them in some other meaning , it remains that without gross and culpable ignorance they cannot pretend not to know , that this could never have been the intention of our blessed saviour in those words ; and that such ignorance will not excuse them , our author himself has freely confess'd . but , dly , let us quit this reflection , and for once suppose the possibility of transubstantiation . yet still it is confess'd by them : . that there is no command nor example in holy scripture for adoring christ in the eucharist . . that infinite defects may happen to hinder him from being there ; and then what they worship is only a piece of bread. . that they can never be sure that some of these defects have not happened ; and by consequence , that what they suppose to be christ's body , is indeed any more than a meer wafer . from whence i argue ; he that without any command or warrant of god , pays a divine adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer creature , can never be sure that he do's not commit idolatry : but whosoever worships the host , worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer creature ; and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit idolatry . now concerning the former of these , how dangerous it is for any one to give divine worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer creature , be it considered , what jealousy god has at all times express'd of his honour as to this matter ; how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his supreme prerogative in such cases . how therefore he that will come to him , must be very well assured that it is god to whom he approaches ; and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it , ought not to worship with a doubting mind ; because he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault , but the doing of which may , for ought he knows , be a very great sin. and for the second ; whether every roman catholick , who adores the host , has not even upon his own principles , very great cause to doubt , whether he adores christ's body , or only a bit of bread , will appear from those infinite defects which they themselves allow as sufficient to hinder a consecration ; and which make it great odds , were their doctrine otherwise never so true , whether yet one host in twenty , it may be in five hundred , be consecrated . . with reference to the holy elements to be consecrated : if the bread be not all , or at least the greater part , of wheat-flower ; if it be not mix'd with pure water ; if the bread be corrupted , or the wine sour ; if the grapes of which the wine was made were not ripe ; if any thing be mingled with the wine but water ; or if there be so much water mix'd with it , that that becomes the prevailing ingredient ; in all these cases , and many others which i omit , there is no consecration . and of all this , he who adores either the bread or wine , can have no security . but , . be the elements right , yet if the priest , being either ignorant , or in haste , or unmindful of what he is about , should by mistake , or otherwise , err in pronouncing of the words of consecration ; whether by addition , or by diminution , or by any other alteration , there is no consecration : the bread and wine continue what they were ; and of this too he that worships them can never be certain . . let the words be never so rightly pronounced , yet if the priest had no intention to consecrate ; if he be a secret atheist , or jew , or moor : if he be a careless negligent man ; it may be do's not believe he has any power to make such a change , ( as i have shewn that several of their greatest men in this very age have doubted of it ) : if he consecrate a number of wafers for a communion , and in his telling mistakes , intending to consecrate but twenty , and there are one and twenty before him ; in all these cases , for want of a due intention in the priest , there it no consecration ; but that which is adored , is only a little bread and wine . . let the priest have a good intention , yet if he be no priest ; if he were not rightly baptized , or ordained ; if he were a simoniac , or irregular , or a bastard , &c. or if there were no defect in his ordination , yet if there was any in his who ordained him ; or in the bishops that ordained that bishop that ordained him ; and so back to the very time of the apostles , if in the whole succession of priests to this day , there has been but any one invalidity , whether by error or wilfulness , or for want of a due intention , or by ignorance , or by any other means ; then he that consecrates is no true priest , and by consequence has no power to consecrate ; and so all is spoiled , and whosoever worships in any of his masses , adores only a piece of bread instead of our saviour's body . when therefore so many defects may interpose upon their own principles to hinder this conversion , that 't is exceeding probable , nay 't is really great odds , that not one host in twenty is consecrated ; it must certainly be very hazardous to worship that for god , which upon their own principles they can never be sure is so ; nay , which 't is twenty to one is not god , but a meer inanimate creature of bread and wine . 't is this has forced their most learned men to confess , that they can never be sure of a consecration ; and our author himself to declare , that they do not worship the substance that is under the accidents of bread and wine , whatever it be , but upon supposition that it is christ's body ; which is what pope adrian th , following herein the authority of the council of constance , prescribed ; that they ought always to adore the host with such a reserve : the council of constance , says he , excuses those who in their simplicity adore an unconsecrated host , because this condition is tacitly implied , of it be rightly consecrayed : and therefore he advises , let them so adore the host , i. adore thee if thou art christ . but now if , as the apostle tells us in another case , whatsoever is not of faith , is sin ; and , he that doubts , is damned if he eats : i shall leave it to any sober christian to say what security there can be in such a worship , which is neither advised , encouraged , or commanded in holy scripture ; and which they themselves confess they can never be certain is addressed to a right object ; and therefore are forced to such shifts and reserves , as were they once admitted , might make any other creature in the world as warrantably adorable as their host. how much better were it for them to adore their blessed saviour in heaven , where his glorified body most certainly is : where there can therefore be no danger to lift up our hearts unto him . were his sacred body indeed substantially present in this blessed sacrament , yet still it would be in a manner to us imperceptible , in the state of his death , and by consequence of his humiliation ; and we might therefore have some cause to doubt whether , since we have received no command concerning it , it were our saviour's pleasure that his body should be adored by us in that state : so that there could be no sin in the not doing of it . but now amidst so many doubts , not only upon ours , but even upon their own principles , that they dare not themselves worship at a venture , that which yet they do worship ; tho i shall leave them to their own master to stand or fall at the great day , yet i must needs profess . i think there is very much hazard in it . a great sincerity , and great ignorance , may excuse a poor untaught , and therefore blindly obedient multitude : but for their guides , who lead them into error , for those to whom god has given capacities and opportunities ( as to those now among us he has done , of being better informed ) i can only say , lord , lay not this sin to their charge ! and this may suffice to have been said to the third thing proposed , of their rational grounds for this worship . for what our author finally adds ; that to adore that which the adorer believes not to be our lord , but bread , would be unlawful to be done by any , so long as the person continues so perswaded — but then if we suppose the church justly requiring such adoration upon such a true presence of our lord , neither will the same person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his conscience , and in his not adoring . i answer : it will then be time enough to consider this , when either the church to which we owe an obedience , shall require it of us , or they be able to prove that in such a case the church would not sin in commanding , and not we in refusing to obey her . but , blessed be god , there is no great danger of either of these : our church is too well perswaded of the unlawfulness of such a worship , ever to require it of us . and for that church which has so uncharitably undertaken to anathematize all those who will not own her authority , and receive her errors , tho never so gross , as articles of faith : we are so fully convinced of the unreasonableness of her pretences , and of our own liberty , that we shall hardly be brought to submit our selves to the conduct of such a blind guide , lest we fall into the same ditch , into which she her self is tumbled . and it would certainly much better become our author , and his brethren , to consider how they can justify their disobedience to their own mother , than to endeavour at this rate to lead us into the same apostacy , both to our religion and our church with them . the conclusion . and thus by the blessing of god , and the advantage of a good cause , have i very briefly passed through this author's reflections , and i am perswaded sufficiently shewn the weakness and falsity of the most of them . if any one shall think that i ought to have insisted more largely upon some points , he may please to know , that since by the importunate provocations of those of the other communion , we have been forced too often to interrupt those duties of our ministry , in which we could rather have wish'd to have employ'd our time , for these kind of controversies which serve so very little to any purposes , either of true piety , or true charity among us : we have resolved thus far at least to gratify both our selves and others , as to make our disputes as short as is possible ; and loose no more time in them , than the necessary defence of our selves and the truth do require . i have indeed pass'd by much of our author's discourses , because they are almost intirely made up of tedious and endless repetitions of the same things , and very often in the same words . but for any thing that is argumentative , or otherwise material to the main cause , i do not know that i have either let the observation of it slip , or dissembled at all the force of it . it was once in my thoughts to have made some reflections in the close upon the changes of their rituals , in requital for our author's observations on the alterations of our liturgie ; but i have insisted longer than i designed already , and shall therefore content my my self to have given the hint of what might have been done , and shall still be done , if our author , or any in his behalf desire it of me . in the mean time i cannot but observe the unreasonableness of that method which is here taken ; from the expressions of some of our divines , and the concessions of others , whose profess'd business it was to reconcile , if possible , all parties , and therefore were forced sometimes to condescend more than was fit for the doing it ; and even these too miserably mangled and misrepresented , to pretend to prove the doctrine of our church contrary to the express declarations of the publick acts and records of it . this has been the endeavour of several of our late writers , but of this discourser above any . had those worthy persons , whose memory they thus abuse , been yet living , they might have had an ample confutation from their own pens ; as , in the very instance before us , has been given them for the like ill use made by some among them , of the pious meditations of a most excellent and learned father of our church ; and who might otherwise in the next age have been improved into a new witness against us . i do not think that bp taylour ever thought he should have been set up as a favourer of popery , who had written so expresly and warmly against it . yet i cannot but observe a kind of prophetick expression in his book of the real presence , which being so often quoted by these men , i somewhat wonder it should have slipp'd their remark : where speaking of their shifts to make any one they please of their side , he has these words ; and — i know no reason , says he , but it may be possible , but a witty man may pretend , when i am dead , that in this discourse i have pleaded for the doctrine of the roman church . we have now lived to see some of those witty men that have done but little less than this ; tho how honest they are in the mean time , i will not determine . but i hope this design too shall be from henceforth in good measure frustrated : and therefore , since neither their new religion , nor their new advocates will do their business ; since it is in vain that they either misrepresent their own doctrine , or our authors in favour of it ; may they once please either honestly to avow and defend their faith , or honestly to confess that they cannot do it . such shuffling as this , do's but more convince us of the weakness of their cause ; and instead of defending their religion by these practices , they only encrease in us our ill opinion of that , and lessen that good'one which we willingly would , but shall not always be able to conserve of those , who by such indirect means as these , endeavour to support it . finis . books lately printed for richard chiswell . a dissertation concerning the government of the ancient church : more particularly of the encroachments of the bishops of rome upon other se●s . by william cave , d. d. octavo . an answer to mr. serjeant's [ sure footing in christianity ] concerning the rule of faith : with some other discourses . by william falkner , d. d. . a vindication of the ordinations of the church of england ; in answer to a paper written by one of the church of rome , to prove the nullity of our orders . by gilbert burnet , d. d. octavo . an abridgment of the history of the reformation of the church of england . by gilb . burnet , d. d. octavo . the apology of the church of england ; and an epistle to one signior scipio , a venetian gentleman , concerning the council of trent . written both in latin , by the right reverend father in god , john jewel lord bishop of salisbury : made english by a person of quality . to which is added , the life of the said bishop : collected and written by the same hand . octavo . the life of william bedel , d. d. bishop of kilmore in ireland . together with certain letters which passed betwixt him and james waddesworth ( a late pensioner of the holy inquisition of sevil ) in matter of religion , concerning the general motives to the roman obedience . octavo . the decree made at rome the second of march , . condemning some opinions of the jesuits , and other casuists . quarto . a discourse concerning the necessity of reformation , with respect to the errors and corruptions of the church of rome . quarto . first and second parts . a discourse concerning the celebration of divine service in an unknown tongue . quarto . a papist not misrepresented by protestants . being a reply to the reflections upon the answer to [ a papist misrepresented and represented ] . quarto . an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , in the several articles proposed by the late bishop of condom , [ in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church ] . quarto . a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england ; against the exceptions of monsieur de m●aux , late bishop of condom , and his vindicator . . a catechism explaining the doctrine and practices of the church of rome . with an answer thereunto . by a protestant of the church of england . . a papist represented and not misrepresented , being an answer to the first , second , fifth and sixth sheets of the second part of the [ papist misrepresented and represented ] ; and for a further vindication of the catechism , truly representing the doctrines and practices of the church of rome . quarto . the lay-christian's obligation to read the holy scriptures . quarto . the plain man's reply to the catholick missionaries . . an answer to three papers lately printed , concerning the authority of the catholick church in matters of faith , and the reformation of the church of england . quarto . a vindication of the answer to three papers concerning the unity and authority of the catholick church , and the reformation of the church of england . quarto . imprimatur , may . . guil . needham . two discourses : of purgatory , and prayers for the dead . london , printed for ric. chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church-yard , mdclxxxvii . the contents . introduction . the occasion of these discourses , the doctrine of purgatory derived from the ancient philosophers . the opinions of the primitive fathers concerning the state of men after death . all vastly distant from the doctrine of the romish purgatory . which had no foundation for the first years . how it then began to creep into the western church ib. in the other churches not received at this day sect . i. what it is that the church of rome means by purgatory . shewn — from the council of trent . ib. — from private writers of that church . sect . ii. that there is no ground for such a purgatory in holy scripture . shewn in a particular examination of the two main places alledged by them , viz. maccab. xii . matt. xii . . sect . iii. that the primitive church for years , knew nothing of the romish purgatory . shewn in the particular examination of the several passages alledged from origen . gregory nyssen . ib. st. jerome . st. hilary , &c. st. cyprian . gregory nazianzen . st. basil. theodoret. tertullian . ib. st. austin . sect . iv. that the principles of right reason do not engage us to the belief of purgatory . shewn in the examination of cardinal bellarmin's first reason . second reason . third reason . sect . v. that the doctrine of purgatory is contrary to scripture , antiquity , and reason . to scripture . — antiquity . — reason . discourse ii. of prayers for the dead . sect . i. of the practice of the primitive church in praying for the dead . that the primitive christians pray'd for the dead . ib. the grounds on which they did it . . that this do's not at all favour the present practice of the church of rome . sect . ii. the allegations brought by those of the church of rome , to justifie their practice of praying for the dead , examined ; and their weakness demonstrated . the pretences of the nubes testium considered , and in order thereunto , the case of aerius inquired into . the authorities of the fathers examined . dionysius areopagita . tertullian . arnobius . eusebius . theodoret. ibid. st. ambrose . st. jerom. st. austin . tertullian , cyprian . st. ambrose . st. chrysostom . the greek church . ib. close . in which a short apology is made , that we do not now pray for the dead , after the manner that we confess the ancient church did . errata . page . line . palinurus . p. . l. . pozzuolo . p. . l. . it must be , r. there must have been . in the marg. p. . l. . post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. p. . l. . for figments r. pigments . some of lesser moment there are , which the reader will please to excuse . a discourse of purgatory , &c. introduction . there is so near a connexion between the two points of purgatory and prayers for the dead , as they are now establish'd in the church of rome , that it is impossible to state the one as we ought , without entring on some consideration of the other . it has been so much the rather thought fit to give an account to the world of both these , in that the opinions of the primitive fathers touching the state of the souls departed , and the early practice of praying for the dead founded thereupon , being not well understood by the generality now a days , seem to give our adversaries a greater pretence to antiquity in these points , than in most others that are in debate betwixt us . for what concerns the latter of these , i shall in the next discourse , say what i suppose may be sufficient to shew how little grounds the ancient custom of praying for the dead in the primitive ages of christianity , will afford to the practice of those who pretend to be their followers in the same custom now . as to the business of purgatory , which is our present concern , we willingly allow it to have been of very venerable antiquity ; and to have exceeded not only our reformation , but even christianity its self for some hundreds of years . the truth is , the church of rome is beholding for this doctrine , as well as for many other things in her religion , to her worthy ancestors the heathen poets and philosophers : and tho i cannot tell how far cardinal bellarmin's argument will hold good to prove it from thence to have been the dictate of right reason it self , because this might engage us to give up the cause to paganism , not only in the points of the worship of images and inferior deities , &c. which perhaps the cardinal may be content to think the voice of nature too ; but even as to all the other parts of their superstition , in which they were more universally agreed than in their notion of a purgatory ; yet for what concerns the thing its self , we do not deny but that many of them did certainly believe it . eusebius recounts it of plato , that he divided mankind into three states : some who having purified themselves by philosophy , and excelled in holiness of life , enjoy an eternal felicity in the islands of the blest , without any labour or trouble , which neither is it possible for any words to express , or any thoughts to conceive . others , that having lived exceedingly wicked , and therefore seemed incapable of cure , he supposed were at their death 's thrown down headlong into hell , there to be tormented for ever . but now , besides these , he imagined there were a † † † middle sort , who , tho they had sinn'd , yet had repented of it ; and therefore seemed to be in a curable condition , and these he thought went down for some time into hell too , to be purged and absolved by grievous torments ; but that after that , they should be deliver'd from it , and attain to honours according to the dignity of their benefactors . now that they supposed those who were in this state migh●●eceive help from the prayers and sacrificings of the living , the complaints of the ghosts of * * * elpenor in homer , and of ‖ ‖ ‖ palniurus in virgil abundantly shew . and indeed the ceremonies used for their deliverance , as described by those poets , † † † so nearly resemble the practice of the present roman church , that were but their poems canonical , it would be in vain for the most obstinate heretick here to contend with them . it must then he confessed , that our adversaries in this point have at least four hundred years antiquity , not only against us , but even beyond christianity it self . and i suppose i may without any injury to the memories of those holy men , who have been our fore-runners in the faith , say , that 't was the impression which these opinions of their philosophy had made upon them , that moved them when they became christians to fall into conjectures concerning the state of the soul in the time of separation , not very much different from what they had believed before . it is not necessary to recount the errors of origen as to this matter : who turn'd even hell it self into a purgatory , and thought that not only wicked men , but the very devils too might be so purged in it , as to come forth angels of light. st. augnstine tells us , that the platonicks were of an opinion not much different from this , who though they would not have any sins past unpunished , yet supposed that all punishments , whether of this life or the next , were designed to amend , and therefore that whatever pains awaited men after death , they were all purgatory . and though this conceit of origen has been condemned by the church as heretical , yet there remained other opinions for some centuries after , not much differing from it . * * * some thought that all men whatsoever should in the end be saved ; others , and among these * * * st. jerome himself , that all christians should be delivered : † † † some who restrain'd their charity yet more , still allow'd salvation to all that dyed within the pale of the catholick church ; to which , others finally added this further condition , that they had not only stood firm to the faith , but also been charitable to the poor . which last circumstance is the very same that virgil from the platonicks again required in those who should be translated to the elisian fields ; in which therefore he places not only them whose virtue and piety had intituled to that happiness , but also by their alms had made others mindful of them . quique sui memores alios fecere merendo . but not to insist more particularly on these things , three opinions there seem to have been among the ancient fathers concerning the state of men after death , more generally received . * * * . that the souls departed do not straightway go to heaven , but remain in a quiet and pleasing state free of all troubles and pains , yet earnestly expecting their final consummation in glory . . another opinion there was , which from the credulity of * * * papias became almost the universal belief of the first ages of christianity concerning the ‖ ‖ ‖ millenary kingdom of christ ; that our blessed saviour before the final judgment should come down from heaven , and raise from the dead those of the faithful , whose piety had been most eminent and approved ; and with them reign a thousand years at jerusalem , in great plenty , and with extraordinary splendour ; and that this was that which st. john meant by the first resurrection , and at the end whereof the other was to follow . . a third opinion , and that too embraced by many of the most ancient fathers , was , that all men being raised up at the last day , should pass through a certain * * * probatory fire , in which every man should be scorched and purified ; and some be tormented more , others less , according as they had lived better or worser lives here upon earth . such were the opinions of the primitive fathers as to this matter . it is evident to any one that shall please to compare these with the account i shall hereafter give of the present roman purgatory , how vastly different they were from what is now proposed to us as an article of faith. but yet from these opinions it is , that those of that communion , impose upon the unwary their pretence of antiquity for this doctrine ; whilst whatever those holy men have written of a third place , meaning the place of sequester * * * before-mentioned ; but especially of the ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ purgatory fire of the end of the world , they presently apply it all to their own fancy , and which in those first ages found no manner of entertainment , it is , i know , generally pretended by those of the other communion , that st. augustine at least began to favour their opinion . and indeed i will not deny but that he does sometimes speak of a purgatory after this life ; but yet so as that it refers either to the same purgation we before spake of , at the end of the world ; or else to that * * * grief which he imagined those souls who had been passionately tied to the things of this world , might still retain in their place of sequester : and which he therefore thought to be the meaning of that obscure place of s. paul , cor. iii. . so confidently produced by our adversaries on all occasions , in favour of their doctrine . but all this he proposes with so much doubt and uncertainty , as plainly shews it to have been in this fathers time so far from an article of faith , that he durst not affirm any thing at all concerning it . thus then had the roman doctrine of purgatory no manner of foundation in the primitive church . about dc years after christ , pope gregory the great first began to give countenance to it . the publick practice of praying for the dead continuing still in force in the church , and those opinions of the primitive fathers upon which that was first established , being now no longer received with that universal belief they had heretofore been , it was but natural to seek out some other grounds for a practice which they saw so generally received , and yet could not well tell what account to give of the reason of it . let us add this , that about that time a sad barbarity began every where almost to overspread the world : the goths and lombards in italy , the franks and burgundians in . france , the vandals and west-goths in spain , the saxons in britain , destroying almost all learning out of the world. from henceforth miracles and visions govern'd the church : the flames of aetna and vesuvius , were thought on purpose to have been kindled to torment departed souls . some were seen broiling upon gridirons , others roasting upon spits , some burning before a fire , others shivering in the water , or smoaking in a chimney . the very ways to purgatory were now discovered ; one in sicily , another in pozzueto , a third nearer home , in ireland . one found out by the help of an angel , another of the devil . insomuch that pope gregory himself was carried away with these illusions , and which some are not ashamed even at this day to support . by these means came purgatory first establish'd in the roman church , in the vi , vii and viii . centuries : but yet , still the article continued rude and unpolish'd . pope gregory discover'd how certain souls for their punishment were confined to baths , and such like places on earth , but he had not as yet found out any one common place for them to be tormented in , in hell. nay for some ages after , it seems not to have been risen to a matter of certainty , so far was it yet from being an article of faith. insomuch , that in the xii . century many doubted of it , as we may gather by that expression of * * * otto frisingensis , ann. . that there is in hell a place of purgatory , wherein such as are to be saved , are either only troubled with darkness , or decocted with the fire of expiation , some ( says he ) do affirm ; plainly enough implying that all did not believe it . it is not necessary to say , what opposition this novel invention met with in the several centuries in the latin church , from claude bishop of turin , in the ix . century , from peter bruges and henry his successor at tholose ; from the waldenses in france and piemont , among whom this doctrine was never received , and who are therefore condemned by cardinal bellarmin himself on this account . i will rather observe , that the eastern churches have continued all along free from this error . for however the pope and his ministers so far prevailed with the greeks in the † † † council of florence , as to perswade them to yield to a kind of pretended union in this matter ; yet both their apology penn'd by * * * marcus eugenicus arch-bishop of ephesus , and presented to cardinal cusan , and the deputies of the council of ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ basil the year before , wherein they positively declare , that they neither had received any such doctrine from their ancestors , and therefore neither would they ever accept it ; plainly shews they had no such tradition amongst them ; and the proceedings of the same marcus , and of the greek church after , neither of which would be drawn to consent to this union , more fully confirm it . and it is well known how the christians of ‖ ‖ ‖ asia and africa do not at this day consent with the roman church in this point , as some of their own authors confess ; tho others not so ingenuous , would endeavour to perswade the contrary . but however this be , purgatory is now become an article of faith , and of too comfortable an importance to be easily parted with ; nor have i the vanity to hope i shall be able to argue those men out of it , who by this craft gain their living , and will no doubt therefore be as zealous in defence of it , as ever demetrius was of the great goddess diana upon the same account . but for those whose interest it rather is to be freed from these terrors after death , which serve only to enrich the priests , and keep the laity all their lives in fear and subjection ; i hope to satisfie them , that these are only imaginary flames , invented for gain , establish'd upon false grounds , and kept up by artifice and terrors to delude the people , but which themselves many of them no more believe , than did that great cardinal , who minded one day to pose his chaplain , and proposed this question to him ; how many masses would serve to fetch any soul out of purgatory ? to which when he appear'd , as well he might , unable to reply ; the cardinal thus pleasantly solved the doubt , that just so many masses would serve to fetch a soul out of purgatory , as snow-balls would serve to heat an oven . but 't is time now to come to a closer examination of all these things , and in order thereunto , let us first see ; sect . i. what it is that the church of rome means by purgatory . had the doctrine of purgatory been as clearly explain'd by the council of trent , as it was peremptorily defined in it , we should have had the less need to make the present enquiry . in pope pius the iv's creed , it is only said in general terms , that they constantly believe that there is a purgatory , and that the souls there detain'd , are helped by the suffrages of the faithful . nor is their decree concerning it at all more clear ; it only adds , that they are assisted by the suffrages of the faithful , but especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the mass ; and therefore , that the bishops should diligently take care that the wholesome doctrine of purgatory deliver'd by the holy fathers and councils , should be believed , held , and taught by all the faithful in christ. indeed in the foregoing sessions , we find two other things defined with reference to this doctrine , but such as conduce very little to the better understanding of it . st . it anathematizes those who shall say , that after the grace of justification , the fault and guilt of eternal punishment is so remitted to the penitent sinner , that there remains no guilt of a temporal punishment to be paid by him , either now , or hereafter in purgatory , before he can attain to the kingdom of heaven . and dly , in their canons of the mass they resolve , if any one shall say that the mass is not a propitiatory sacrifice , or that it ought not to be offer'd for the living and the dead , for their sins , pains , satisfactions , and other necessities , let him be anathema . and accordingly the bishop of meaux in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church , contains himself within the same bounds . those ( saies he ) who depart this life in grace and charity , but nevertheless indebted to the divine justice some pains which it reserved , are to suffer them in the other life . — this is what the council of trent proposes to our belief touching the souls detain'd in purgatory , without defining in what their pains consists , or many other such like things . the misrepresenter calls it , a place or state where souls departing this life , pardon'd as to the eternal guilt or pain , yet obnoxious to some temporal penalty , or with guilt of some venial faults , are purged and purifi'd before their admittance into heaven . alexander natalis is yet more precise : he distinguishes what is of faith in this matter , and what not , and thus resolves . that it do's not at all belong to the faith. st , concerning the place , whether it be in this world , or upon earth , or in the dark air where the devils are ; or in the hell of the damned ; or in some place underneath nearer the earth , that the souls are purged . dly , concerning the quality of those sensible pains which the souls held in purgatory undergo ; whether it be true and corporeal fire , or whether darkness and sorrow , or any other torment inflicted by the justice of god , punishing them after a wonderful , yet true manner . dly , concerning the duration of these purgatory pains , how long the souls are detained there . for tho soto thought that no soul continu'd in purgatory above ten years , yet it is a matter altogether uncertain how many years those pains shall last . — the only thing therefore , he says , that is in controversy between the catholicks ( as he calls them ) and protestants , is this , whether the faith teaches that there is a state of the dead , in which they shall be expiated by temporary punishments , and from which they may be freed , or otherwise helped by the prayers of the church . but tho this then be all which these men suppose is to come into our inquiry ; yet i must observe , that the catechism set out by order of the council of trent , determines concerning the pains themselves , that they are caused by fire . there is ( says that catechism ) a purgatory-fire in which the souls of the faithful being tormented for a certain time , are expiated ; that so a passage may be opened for them into their eternal country , into which no defiled thing can enter . so that i do not see how they can chuse but allow the pains of purgatory to be determined by them to the particular kind of fire . st. thomas is yet more precise ; not only that it is fire in which the souls are tormented , but that it is the very same fire that torments the damned in hell , and the just in purgatory . and bellarmin himself confesses , that almost all their divines teach , that the damned and the souls in purgatory , are tormented in the same fire , and in the same place . but yet , since they suppose that nothing ought to come into this dispute , but what is just defined in the council of trent ; we will take the state of the question according to their own desire , and enquire only in the words of cardinal bellarmin , whether there be any such place , ( as they suppose ) in which , as in a prison , the souls are purged after this life , which were not fully purged before : that so being cleansed , they may be able to go into heaven , where no unclean thing shall enter . sect . ii. that there is no ground for such a purgatory in the holy scripture . to demonstrate this , it will not , i presume , be expected that i should shew the weakeness of all those places , which tho some of their controvertists have alledged , yet the more learned among them freely confess to have nothing to the purpose in them . cardinal bellarmin has put together xix several texts out of both testaments ; but yet was far from thinking them all to his purpose ; confessing either of all , or at least of all out of the old testament , except the first , that they are but probable arguments . of these alexander natalis utterly rejects xvi ; and one he mentions not , as indeed he needed not to do it , when bellarmin himself had set a particular mark upon it , as impertinent . the misrepresenter unwilling to see his cause reduced to two only places of holy scripture , restores again to its authority † † † one of those which natalis had rejected ⸪ ⸪ ⸪ , and adds another which they had all of them over-look'd , but very unfortunately : for that st , they have ever been esteemed ‖ ‖ ‖ two of the most difficult ard obscure places of all the new testament ; and therefore , certainly must be very unfit to build an article of faith upon . and then dly , for st. austin , upon whose authority he would be thought to alledg them ; 't is evident that he utterly mistook the design of that father , if he thought that he understood them of the roman purgatory , as both his words evidently shew , and his own masters * * * natalis , has ingenuously confess'd for the one , and ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ bellarmin for the other so that then i may reasonably presume to have answer'd the design of the present section , if i can give a fair account of those two places which they all agree to be the principal supports of this doctrine ; and from whence some of them doubt not to say it may be demonstratively concluded . now the first of these , is that noted passage in the maccab . cap. xii . where ⸪ ⸪ ⸪ ( they tell us ) it is said , that money was sent to jerusalem , that sacrifices might be offerr'd for the slain ; and 't is recommended as a holy cogitation to pray for the dead . this not only bellarmin ranks in the front of his scriptnre proofs , but the misrepresenter has again advanced it , and natalis doubts not to call it a demonstrative testimony . but to all this our exceptions are very just : st , that the book it self is not of sufficient authority to establish a matter of faith. dly , that if it were , yet is not the text by any means clear for the proof of that , to which it is applied by them . st , for the authority of the book it self . thus much our adversaries themselves confess , and i think we need desire no more ; that this book was never received by the * * * jews as canonical : that st. jerome therefore rejected it our of the canon of the christian church : that it was not of a ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ long time after received into it ; insomuch , that in ‖ ‖ ‖ pope gregory the great 's time , that is dc years after christ , it was lawful to doubt of its authority ; for indeed , that pope himself did not receive it as canonical . and sure then it ought not to be thought unreasonable in us to doubt of the authority of a book , which being a part of the old testament , was yet never received by the jews as canonical , and of whose authenticalness therefore , the primitive christian church for the first dc years declared themselves altogether unsatisfied . but dly , to allow the book the credit which they desire ; yet still the text is by no means clear for the proof of that to which it is applied by them . the story its self is this , that when judas the day after the battel came to bury the bodies of them that were slain , they found under the coats of every one that had been killed , things consecrated to the idols of the jamnites , which was forbidden to the jews by the law. this discovered to them the cause of their death , and how they were slain by god for their sin. hereupon judas and all his men betook themselves to prayer , and besought god that the sin might wholly be put out of remembrance . and judas upon this occasion exhorted the people to keep themselves by their example from the like sin ; and lastly , he made a collection among them of a sum of money , and sent it to jerusalem , to offer a sin-offering unto the lord. this is the story , and the design of all is very easy ; that judas considering the danger he had been in by the sin of these men , pray'd to god that it might not be imputed to the people , and offer'd a sin-offering for the congregation according to the law ; remembring what the whole people had once suffer'd in the like case for achan's transgression . but our adversaries will have this sin-offering to have been for the dead , and the history expresly says it was so . i answer , st , the history says no more than what we have set down , that judas did this : for the rest , it is the conjecture of the historian , not an historical narration of what design judas had in it . now that this could not have been his design , is evident , dly , in that neither the law of moses , nor any other part of the holy scripture , makes any mention of any such sacrifice either prescribed or allow'd of , for the dead . and dly , had the law in some cases approved of sacrifices for the dead , yet certainly it could not have done it in this , idolatry being one of those sins for which there was no offering allowed , nor any atonement to be made for it . but what then is it that this historian designed ? i reply , it was this : that judas by this sacrifice made an atonement for the dead , to the end that their sin being forgiven , they might have a happy resurrection . this he expresly declares , v. , . for considering ( says the historian ) that there is an excellent reward laid up for those that dye godly , which was a holy and godly thought ; he therefore made an expiation for the dead , that they might be absolved from their sin. for many of the jews then , as some christians have done since , thought offerings might be made for the forgiveness of those sins after death , that were not forgiven before . therefore seeing that these souldiers died in a grievous sin before they had time to repent , the historian supposed that judas might have designed this offering to expiate their offence , that so they might obtain a happy resurrection . but now this was only the conjecture of the historian , and as before we have seen very ill grounded , to be sure far enough distant from the roman purgatory . for st , this respected the future resurrection● , that the present sufferings of the dead . dly , the prayers here spoken of , were offered for men who dyed in a mortal sin ; but the papists deny that any such go to purgatory , or can receive any benefit from the prayers of the living . dly , whatever becomes of all the rest ; how was it possible that these prayers should have been designed for the slain to deliver them out of purgatory , when if we will believe the papists themselves , their souls were not there , but either in hell , or in the limbus , where they supposed the souls of the ancient fathers were detained , till our saviour christ descending thither , set them free . so that which way soever then we consider this passage , it cannot give us any manner of satisfaction . if we look upon it as a part of that history , the book is not canonical ; nor was ever esteem'd so by the jews , or by the christians of the first years . if we take it as the history of what judas did , this respected not the dead at all ; nor by consequence can it belong to purgatory . if , according to the opinion of the relator , it regards the dead indeed , but then with reference to their future resurrection , not their present punishment ; and so is still impertinent . if finally , according to the hypothesis of the papists themselves , it is utterly impossible it should belong to purgatory , because there was as yet no such place , and therefore these souldiers could not be there , or by any sacrifices be delivered from thence . and this i hope may be a sufficient reply to this first passage . the other , from whence they also tell us their doctrine of purgatory may be demonstratively concluded , is in the xiith of st. mat. v. . where our saviour speaking of the sin against the holy ghost , tells us , that it shall not be forgiven neither in this world , nor in that to come . he would , i believe , be thought to make a very strange conclusion , that should without more ado argue thus abruptly from this passage , therefore there is a purgatory : and indeed they themselves are sensible of it . and therefore bellarmin confesses , that according to the rules of logic , purgatory cannot be inferr'd from hence : but according to the rules of prudtnce he thinks it may , because that otherwise , he says , christ must be said to have spoken improperly , which we ought not to suppose he did . but if there be nothing in this place to prove purgatory , according to the rules of logic , i suppose it must be some mistake then , in that which he told us before , that it may be demonstratively inferr'd from thence . for as for the rule of prudence , that will at most make it but very probable . but indeed this rule will fail them as well as the other , as we shall evidently see in examining the proofs which they make from it . now their argument lies thus : our saviour christ says , that the sin against the holy ghost shall not be remitted neither in this world , nor in that to come : we must therefore suppose that some sins shall be remitted in the world to come , or else our saviour spake improperly , which according to the rules of prudence we may not say . now the world to come , must signifie the state of the soul between the day of every mans death , and the final resurrection , because that after that , no sins shall be remitted : and it must be to those who are in a middle state , because those who are blessed , are already forgiven ; and those who are damned shall never be remitted . this is the sum of their arguing from this place : but now if it appear that we can have no manner of assurance of any of these suppositions ; much more if it be clear that not one of them is true ; then i presume it will follow , that neither is it prudentially credible that our saviour here intended to establish a purgatory , but rather altogether certain that he did not . st , then : our saviour says , that the sin against the holy ghost shall not be forgiven , neither in this world , nor in that to come ; therefore , they conclude , some sins shall be forgiven in the world to come . i answer : it is most certain that some sins shall be forgiven in the world to come , even all those that are forgiven in this , and for which therefore god shall not call us to account at the last day . as if one should say , to him that repents and believes , his sins shall not be imputed neither in this world nor in the world to come ; that is , they shall never be imputed . and so both st. mark and st. luke interpret the phrase , * * * he shall not be forgiven , says the one ; he shall not be forgiven for ever , says the other : what is this to purgatory ? but our adversaries are more acute : christ says the sin against the holy ghost shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in that to come ; therefore some sins that are not forgiven in this world , shall be forgiven in the world to come . this indeed is no consequence , according to the rules of logic , as bellarmin acknowldges ; but how then does it follow ? because that otherwise our saviour christ would have spoken improperly , which according to the rule of prudence we ought not to say . the cardinal might have added , according to the rule of civility and good breeding too . but still how does this appear ? why because that otherwise it would have been impertinent to say that it shall not be forgiven neither in this world , nor in the world to come , if no sins should be forgiven in the world to come , that are not forgiven in this . i answer , st , he might have said it to exaggerate his speech , and so the better enforce the hainousness of the crime ; and it is a thing very ordinary on such occasions to use many words , when one would have been sufficient : but dly , he might , and certainly did do it , to prevent the mistake of the jews , and cut off all hopes of pardon for this sin : two things there were which they understood by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or world to come ; the kingdom of the messiah , and the state after death ; and in both these they thought a remission might be had for some sins , that were not otherwise to be forgiven : our blessed saviour therefore to take away all hopes of remission for this sin , and make the deeper impression upon their minds , bids them not flatter themselves with any such fond expectations ; that this was a sin that should never be forgiven them , neither in this world , nor in the world to come ; i. e. neither now nor in the kingdom of the messiah ; neither in the hour of death , nor in the day of judgment . but dly , they suppose , that the world to come must signify the time between every mans death and the general resurrection . but now for this , there is no manner of ground , either in the holy scripture , or in the language of the jews ; nor can it be with any propriety so esteem'd . for the world to come , cannot be supposed to begin till this world ends , i. e. till the time be , that according to their own * * * confession , purgatory shall be no more . whatever then our saviour christ means by the world to come , or however sins shall be remitted there ; it cannot be understood of purgatory , which now is in this present world , and in the other shall be destroy'd . dly , they suppose , lastly ; that the persons whose sins shall be forgiven , are not the perfectly just , in whom there is no spot of sin remaining ; nor yet the damned , whose sins are irremissible ; but such as are in a middle state , i. e. that depart with sanctifying grace and charity , but yet guilty of some lesser sins , of which they are to be purged . i relpy , st , that there is not a word of all this so much as hinted in the text ; and any one might from thence as reasonably conclude for either of the other kinds , as they do for this middle sort . for as concerning the just , it is not certainly at all absurd to say , that their sins are then forgiven , when they are finally acquitted at gods tribunal , as they shall be in the world to come . and for the wicked , since we here are told that blasphemy against the holy ghost is the only sin that shall not be forgiven ; nay , our saviour expresly says , that all other sins shall be remitted ; it may with much more agreement to the text follow , that all men , be their sins what they will , shall have grace of repentance whereby they may be pardon'd in the world to come , the blasphemers of the holy ghost alone excepted , than that those only shall be forgiven , who die with venial sins . but dly , what have we here to do with the remission of sins ? purgatory is a place , not where sins are remitted , but where they are punish'd with the greatest severity ; nay , what is still more , punish'd after they are remitted ; nay , what is still more extraordinary , therefore punished , because they are remitted . for if the guilt were not remitted , the sinner could not go to purgatory , nor have the favour of being punish'd there . and therefore it is utterly impertinent from the remission of some sins in the world to come , to conclude there is a place where all sins , even the least , are exacted , and that so rigidly , that there is no escaping thence , till either by their selves or their friends , they have paid the very uttermost farthing . in short , if we will conclude any thing as concerning the remission of sins from this ; the rules both of logick and prudence will direct us to make one part of the opposition answer to the other : and then it will stand thus . the sin against the holy ghost shall never be at all forgiven , whether as to guilt or punishment , but shall be avenged to all eternity . therefore all other sins upon repentance shall be forgiven , both as to the fault and punishment , so as not to be required , neither now or hereafter . any other remission than this , the scripture no where speaks of , nor do's this text infer it : and to suppose without proof that there is any other , is in good earnest to beg the question . the sum of all , is what i before said : that our blessed saviour intended by this phrase , to cut off all hopes of pardon for this sin , by telling them that it should not be remitted , neither by any expiation in this life , nor by any extraordinary grace of god in the age of the messiah , or in the life after this ; which are the only notions of the world to come , that the jews knew , and in both which they fanci'd some sins not elsewhere remissible , might be forgiven . and this may suffice to have been said to shew how far the holy scripture is from establishing this doctrine as an article of faith ; for sure , if these places which they call demonstrative , are so little to the purpose , we can have no great expectation from the rest , which themselves esteem but only probable proofs of it . sect . iii. that the primitive church for . years , knew nothing of the romish purgatory . but if the scriptures be thus silent in this matter , let us see if the fathers of the church in the first ages of the gospel received the present doctrine of purgatory as an article of their belief . i shall need to insist so much the less on this here , because the greatest part of the authorities , that are usually produced to this effect , relate not immediately to purgatory , but to prayers for the dead ; and therefore will be more proper to be consider'd in the next discourse . those that speak precisely to this point are but few ; and i shall take them in such order , as seems most natural for our examination . and the first i shall mention , is origen . we ought so much the rather to complain of the sophistry of our adversaries in making use of his testimony ; in that , either they themselves must deny that his opinion concerning purgatory , was the same with theirs , or they must confess that those fathers and councils who condemned him as an heretick on this account , have in him pronounced their sentence also . i have before observed of this father , that he thought there were no pains but purgatory after this life ; insomuch , that after a certain time not only all men , tho never so wicked , but the devils themselves should be purified by them , and so saved in the end . this bellarmin elsewhere confesses to have been his opinion , and to this the place which he quotes out of him clearly refers : he that is saved , is saved by fire , that so if by chance he has any thing of lead mixed in him , the fire may melt and separate it , that so all may be made pure gold. and is not this a rare testimony for purgatory , which neither they themselves approve of , and which , both the ancient fathers epiphanius , st. jerome , st. austin , nay , and even the th general council its self , has condemned as heretical ? and what i have now said of origen , i must in the next place assirm of another father , and he the first which bellarmine produces on this occasion , viz. gregory nyssen , who has long since been observed as to this matter , to have favour'd the heresie of origen . indeed we are told by photius , that germanus patriarch of constantinople in the vii . century , wrote an apology for him , in which he shews that this was not the opinion of gregory nyssen himself , but that his works had been corrupted by the followers of origen , the better to countenance their error ; which so ever it were , it is the same thing as to the authority of his writings in this controversy : and indeed the very places cited by bellarmin shew , that this was the purgatory he contends for ; viz. such , in which all were to be purified , and at last saved for ever . he distinguishes two orders of men , of which one by the discipline of christ are purged here on earth , * * * such are the patriarchs , prophets , apostles , disciples , martyrs , and as many as preferred ( says he ) a virtuous life before a sensual and material enjoyment ; in the other he ranks , all other men whatsoever , who shall return , he says , to that grace that was once given them , after that by the future discipline ( i. e. in the world to come , after the final judgment ) they shall have cast off in the purgatory fire their propension to matter : for so it is in the original ; and not as bellarmin renders it ; a wiping away the spots of matter in a purgatory fire after this life . to these two i must in the next place subjoin st. jerome , whom , tho' i will not with ‖ ‖ ‖ ruffinus accuse of being involved in the error of origen , yet † † † bellarmin himself cannot deny him to have been charged with an opinion not very much differing from it , viz. that all catholick christians shall in the end be saved , after they have been tried and purified in the fire . and this the very place which they cite in favour of their purgatory , plainly shews to have been his opinion ; as we believe ( says he ) the torments of the devil , and of all that deny the faith , and of those wicked men who have said in their heart there is no god , to be eternal : so for those who are sinners and wicked , but yet christians , whose works are to be tried and purged in the fire , we believe that the sentence of the judge shall be moderate , and mixt with clemency . in which words , this opinion which the romanists themselves confess to be erroneous , is plainly contain'd , viz. of the moderate punishment of wicked men and sinners , if christians ; i. e. of their salvation after a certain time of purgation in the fire of the last judgment ; ( for so the opposition to the eternal punishment of the others , requires us to expound it ) : but for the burning of good men , whose sins are forgiven , and who depart this life in a state of charity , and in the grace of god , such as are punish'd in the popish purgatory , of this there is no mention . and the same is so evidently the meaning of the other passage alledged by bellarmin from this father , that there can be no doubt of it : if , says he , origen says that all rational creatures are not to be destroyed , and allows repentance to the devil ; what is this to us , who say , that the devil and his companions , and all wicked and prevaricating men shall perish for ever ; and that christians , if they are overtaken in their sins , shall be saved after punishment ? and hitherto we have considered such passages as the error of origen , sufficiently different from the doctrine of the romish purgatory , has given occasion to . but there was another opinion in the primitive church , which i have mentioned above , and to which many other expressions of the other fathers do allude , viz. that all those who at the last day shall appear before the judgment-seat of christ , shall be proved by a certain terrible fire , by the force of which the good and bad shall be separated , and if any evil of their past life still adheres to the good , it shall then in that purgatory fire be intirely done away . now to this belong those passages that are produced on this occasion from lactantius , hilary , st. ambrose , eusebius emissenus , and some of st. austin himself . i shall offer one proof of this in the last instance of cardinal bellarmin , st. hilary , which he thus quotes , an unwearied fire is to be undergone by us , in which are to be endured those grievous punishments , of a soul to be expiated from its sins . but the whole passage is indeed this : st. hilary in his annotations on the v. of the . psal. my soul breaketh for the longing that it hath unto thy judgments ; applies it unto the future judgment ; and among other observations has this passage , seeing we must render an account for every idle word , do we desire the day of judgment in which that unwearied fire is to be passed through ? in which those grievous punishments are to be undergone for the expiating of a soul from sin ? a sword shall pass through the soul of the b. virgin mary , that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed . if that virgin who bore god , is to come into the severity of the judgment , will any one dare desire to be judged by god. this certainly is such a testimony as had bellarmin ever examined it , he would have been ashamed to have produced it for a proof of purgatory . the authority of st. cyprian , as it is commonly cited by them , seems more considerable ; 't is one thing to be purged from sins by a long time of torments , and to be mended a great while by fire ; another by suffering to have purged all sins . but the truth is , this is as little to the purpose as any we have yet seen . st. cyprian in that epistle to antonian , defends a certain new decree of his church that had been made in favour of those who fell in times of persecution , whereby they were admitted to penance , and by which it was feared by some , lest the christians should be rendred more slow to suffer for the faith. in this epistle st. cyprian shews antonian , that though the church had granted something of favour to these libellatick christians , yet still their condition was infinitely worse than that of the martyrs , so that there was no cause to doubt but that every one ought to prefer martyrdom , notwithstanding the new favour that was allow'd to them . and then entring upon the comparison , 't is one thing ( says he ) to stand in expectation of pardon , ( as the penitents did ) another to be arrived at their glory ( as the martyrs were ) : 't is one thing being clapt into the prison , not to go out thence till they have paid the uttermost farthing ; ( i. e. not to be admitted into the church till they had past through all the several parts of the penance inflicted on them ) another presently to receive the reward of their faith and courage : one thing to be cleansed by a long grief for sin , and to be purged a long time by fire ; another to have purged away all sins by suffering . ( all which still refers to the afflictions and troubles of the penance they were to undergo , and concerning which all this discourse of st. cyprian is ; whereas the holy martyrs by suffering , were already cleansed from all their sins . there is nothing more ordinary than by the phrase of fire to signifie any kind of afflictions : and if the conjecture of the reverend editor of the oxford cyprian , be accepted , as the authority of several manuscripts , seems to render it exceeding probable , that instead of diu igne , it ought to be diutine : then it will follow , that this father spoke nothing at all of fire , but only said this , that it is infinitely better with the martyrs to be justified from all their sins in heaven , than with the penitents be put under a long course of severe discipline for them here in the church on earth . and this interpretation the learned rigaltius approves ; and what s. cypr. himself adds , plainly shews that it cannot refer to the romish purgatory , where going on still with the antithesis , he adds , 't is one thing in the day of judgment to expect with anxiety the sentence of the lord , ( as these penitents were to do ) ; another to be presently crown'd by the lord , as these martyrs were . now this could not be said of the souls in purgatory , who if you believe them , are in no anxiety about their future sentence , but actually secure of their salvation , as soon as they shall be deliver'd from those severe , yet temporary pains in which they are . for gregory nazianzen , both his * * * scholiast nicetas interprets the fire he speaks of , to be that of hell , and the occasion of his words , and the persons to whom he addresses , shew it can be understood of no other . the persons were the novatians ; the occasion to exhort them by the fear of this punishment to return to the communion of the church . now for schismaticks , if they continue obstinate in their separation , i suppose the church of rome will allow there shall be reserved some worser fire than that of purgatory . the next father produced by bellarmin , is st. basil , who upon is. ix . . says , that sin is therefore by the prophet compared to grass , because grass is the most fruitful among herbs : — and then he goes on in the words produced for purgatory ; if therefore we shall lay open our sins by confession , we shall make this grass dry , and worthy to be devoured by the purgatory fire . now that this purgatory-fire cannot be that which the romanists mean , is evident from this , that the sin is not devoured by that , but being first devoured by confession and repentance , is here punish'd in this fire . we must therefore seek out some other meaning , and for that we can take no better than what this same commentary affords us ; viz. that it signifies the holy spirit , operating upon the hearts of the penitent , and with his coelestial fire consuming those sins which by confession are dried , and made fit for that holy flame . so on the th of isaiah , speaking of the altar which the prophet there saw , he says was signified by it , a certain coelestial altar , namely the place of the purifying of souls ; from whence that purgatory-fire is sent out to the sanctified powers . with this fire did the heart of cleophas and simon burn , when our lord open'd to them the scriptures . with this fire are they heated , who are warm'd by the holy ghost , &c. as for the other passage that is alledged from the same comment , it is so clear , that by the purging , or rather the castigating fire which he there speaks of , he understands those evils and afflictions that god was about to bring upon the israelites for their amendment , that i shall not need say any thing more to it . for theodoret , whom bellarmin cites out of his comments on cor. . he is indeed the clearest of all to their purpose : we believe , says he , this to be the very purgatory fire , in which the souls of the dead are try'd and purged as gold in a crucible . but now the misfortune is , that theodoret has no such words ; nay , though they themselves are the editors of his works , yet have they never yet dared to insert this pretended explication into them . it is indeed an instance of the peculiar confidence of these men in their pretences to antiquity , not only to go on to alledg * * * theodoret for an abetter of their doctrine , after they had been publickly challenged by a ⸪ ⸪ ⸪ greek author in his tract against purgatory concerning it ; but especially , when his comments on this very place of st. paul , which themselves have set forth , interpret the fire he there speaks of , to be ‖ ‖ ‖ the fire of hell ; and the day which is to reveal it , the day of judgment . there are yet remaining two of the writers of the latin church to be consider'd by us ; the first tertullian in his book de anima , c. . so bellarmin alledges him ; but it should have been the . but this author is utterly forreign to his purpose : all he says is , that the souls of men shall be restor'd to their bodies , some sooner , others later , in christs millenary kingdom , according to what their sins or piety have deserved : that if we live wickedly , the judg shall cast us into the infernal prison , from whence we shall not go out , until every the least offence has been paid for by the delay of our rising . and this was all that rigaltius himself understood by it . as for st. austin , the last father to be considered by us , i have already said enough to obviate whatever authorities can be brought from him . he was in the opinion of those who believed a probatory-fire at the end of the world ; and to this , many of his expressions refer . again , he thought that those who departed hence , did not go straight to heaven ; and therefore , that those whose † † † affections were very much tied to the things of this world , might still retain in their separate state some desires towards them , and be troubled for the loss of them : and by this we must explain some others of his sayings . but in all these he expresses himself with so much doubt and uncertainty , as plainly shews how little he thought any of these things to be articles of faith ; and whatever they were , yet are they , to be sure , all of them vastly different from the roman-purgatory . and now after so particular an examination of the several testimonies produced in favour of this doctrine ; i think i may venture to conclude with the same that i began this section , that neither the holy scripture nor fathers of the first . years , do at all authorize the romish purgatory . let us see , finally , whether the reasons offer'd for the establishment of it , will have a sufficient weight to engage us to believe it . sect . iv. that the principles of right reason do not engage us to the belief of purgatory . and st , thus they argue . there are some sins in their own nature venial , and worthy only of a temporal punishment : but it is possible a man may depart out of this life with such only : therefore it is necessary that he may be purged in another life . to this rope of sand , rather than argument , i reply ; st , that the supposition it goes upon , is false . dly , that the conclusion it infers , is inconsequent . for the former of these ; that some sins are less than others , it is confessed ; but that any sins are properly venial , we deny . to be venial , is to be worthy of pardon , or not to deserve punishment ; but whatsoever do's not deserve punishment , can be no sin , for all sin infers an obligation to punishment ; and therefore to be a sin , and yet be venial , is in proper terms no better than a flat contradiction . again , the sins here spoken of , are supposed to be worthy of a temporal punishment ; but sins that are worthy of a temporal punishment , are not properly venial ; therefore , either the sins here spoken of , must not deserve even a temporal punishment , or they cannot be said to be properly venial . but dly , be the sins , as they desire , venial ; how do's it from hence follow , that it is necessary that these be punish'd in another life ? and why is not the blood of christ which cleanses the greatest sins , a sufficient purgatory for the least infirmities ? venial sins are by themselves confess'd to be intirely consistent with the grace of god ; nay , so consistent as not to destroy , or but even lessen it . now for a christian , who has lived so well as to be still in the grace and favour of god ; that has received an actual pardon of all his other sins , through the merits and satisfaction of christ , so as to be absolutely certain of a crown of glory for ever ; to think that such a one , i say , shall be punish'd with torments , inferior in nothing but the duration to those of hell-fire its self , for such slips and infirmities as the best of men are encompass'd with , and which no man can ever hope perfectly to overcome ; and this , notwithstanding all the promises of mercy and forgiveness , which god has declared to us ; this certainly is so far from being a dictate of right reason , that it is impossible for any one that has any reason at all , and is not exceedingly carried away with prejudice for his opinion , ever to believe it . again , dly , thus they argue : when sinners are reconciled to god , the whole temporal pain is not always remitted with the sin : now it may happen , and often do's happen , that in a mans whole life , he do's not fully satisfie for that temporal pain ; and therefore there must be a purgatory wherein to do it . i answer , that this too proceeds upon a false supposition , that god when he forgives our sins , do's not also forgive the intire obligation to punishment , which by our sins we stood engaged to ; and which both scripture and reason contradict . st , that god do's sometimes afflict those persons whose sins he forgives , whether to prove , or to amend , or to secure them for the future , this 't is confess'd we read in scripture ; and that this is most reasonable , cannot be deni'd upon the account of those excellent ends that are to be served thereby , both to the benefit of the sinner , and to warn others by his example not to offend . but where is there any mention of any thing of this kind either threatned or done in another life ? what end is there to be served in this ? when men go to purgatory , they are already in the grace of god , or otherwise they could not come thither ; they are already forgiven their sins , and secure of their salvation . the punishments therefore of that place can serve no end , either of improving him that suffers them , or of keeping others by his example from offending . add to this , that the justice of god is already intirely satisfied by the merits and sufferings of christ : so that then these punishments can be inflicted for no other purpose than for the delight god takes in punishing . but to say that god delights in the punishment of any , much more of good men , who are his children , who love him , and whom therefore he both loves and intends to glorify to all eternity ; this is certainly to advance a notion unworthy of god , and contrary to all those kind and endearing idea's which the holy scriptures have given us of him ; and therefore ought not without evident proof , which is not so much as pretended to by them , to be admitted . dly , when we say that god forgives sin , we must understand by it one of these two things , viz. that he remits either the stain , or the guilt of it . for by sin there is only these two contracted . as for the stain or pollution of sin , that is not properly forgiven , but is wash'd away by god's sanctifying grace upon our repentance and reconciliation to him : and for the guilt , that is nothing else , but that obligation to punishment , which every man by sinning , renders himself obnoxious to ; so that to remit the guilt , is to remit the obligation to punishment . to say therefore that god forgives the guilt of sin , and yet that our obligation to punishment remains , is in effect to say , that god forgives the guilt , which he do's not forgive , which must be a contradiction . but may not god forgive the guilt as to the obligation it lays upon us to eternal punishment , and yet retain it as to a temporal one ? no doubt he may ; and had he declared that he would do so , we must have believed it . but then this would not have been properly to forgive the guilt , but to commute it , to lessen it . and since neither has he any where declared that this is all he does when he forgives sins ; nor does his justice require that he should do no more ; but especially , seeing wherever god speaks of the remission of sins , he does it without restriction , in the most large , comprehensive terms that can be imagined : we see no cause either to suspect his goodness , or to lessen his mercy by our own arbitrary and ungrounded limitations . but dly , there is yet another argument , and it is this : the opinion that takes away purgatory , is not only false but pernicious ; for it makes men lazy in avoiding sinning , and in the doing of good works . whilst he that believes that there is no purgatory , but that all sins are abolish'd by death to those that die in faith , saith to himself , to what purpose do i labour in fastings and prayer , in continence and almsdeeds ? why do i defraud my heart of its delights and pleasures , since at my death , my sins , whether few or many , shall all be done away — habeat jam roma pudorem ; tertius e coelo cecidit cato . — for is not this rare cant ? to hear those who have taken away the fears of hell , with a demure countenance exclaim against us as wicked , in throwing off so great an engagement to piety as , if you will believe it , they esteem purgatory to be ? but yet since the point is brought at last to this issue , let us see the comparison . st . we who deny purgatory , thus press the practise of good works upon our auditors . that god , to whom we are engaged by all imaginable ties of love , duty , and gratitude , expresly requires them of us , as the only means to retain his favour . that if we be zealous in his service now , we shall certainly receive an eternal weight of bliss and glory in his kingdom . but that if we be careless and negligent of our duty , nothing but everlasting torments shall remain for us . that , let us not deceive our selves , or flatter our souls with any new ways of getting to heaven ; without holiness no man shall ever see the lord. repentance is the only thing that by faith can reconcile us to his favour : and repentance cannot be true , except there be a true love of god , and an utter detestation of sin , and a hearty contrition that we have ever committed it ; and a stedfast resolution never to fall any more into it ; and this improved in an actual , sincere endeavour , what in us lies , to abound in good works , and fulfil that duty which he requires of us . that without this , 't is not any power or authority of the church , absolving us from our sins ; any pardons or indulgences , either before or after our commission of them , that can stand us in any stead , or restore us to god's favour and the hopes of salvation . but that if we do this , then indeed we may assure our selves of his acceptance ; we may raise our hopes to the blessings that he has promised ; and that we may be the more encouraged to pursue them , may assure our selves that all those joys which he has prepared for us , and which it does not now enter into the heart of man but to conceive any thing of as he ought to do , are not at any great distance : as soon as ever we have finish'd our course here , we shall presently be translated , if not to a perfect fruition of them , yet to such an antepast , as shall be more than a sufficient reward for all our endeavours in the pursuit of them . this is the method of our preaching : let us now set cardinal bellarmin in the pulpit , and see how much more effectually he will press these things upon his congregation . and because i would not make the worst of the matter , we will not consider him in quality of a jesuit , instructing the people by artifice and distinction , how to evacuate the whole morality of the gospel , by stating precisely the point , how often a man is obliged to love god ? whether upon all sundays and holydays ? or only once a year ? or once in five years ? or but any one time in a mans whole life ? or finally not at all , neither living nor dying ? this were , it may be , to carry matters too far ; we will stop within the bounds of their more common belief . and here first of all , as is most fitting , we must be sure to put them often in mind of the obedience they owe to the church : of the high opinions they ought always to retain of her , and of that intire submission wherewith they are to yield themselves up to her conduct . that they be sure not to fail to go to mass every sunday and holyday ; that they eat no flesh on any of the fasts of the church , unless they are otherwise dispensed with to the contrary : that once at least every year they receive the sacrament , and before they do so , that they fail not to go to confession ; that they make no doubt but by the priests absolution they are certainly forgiven their sins whatsoever they were ; that indeed it were well that they were contrite for them ; but if they are not , 't is all one , attrition with the sacrament of penance do's the same thing : that this therefore sets them free of all danger of hell , so that be their lives what they will , there is no great fear of that ; but yet that to secure their piety , the church has thought fit to discover to them another very terrible place called purgatory , whither they must go to satisfie for their sins before they can get to heaven . that , indeed , let them live how they will , hither they must come : but yet let them not be discouraged ; there are several secret ways of avoiding it , with infinitely more security than the best life in the world can give them . first , an indulgence may be had , and that too before-hand , to secure the greatest sinner from ever coming thither . if this fail , yet they may enter themselves into some holy fraternity , as for instance that of the scapulary , and then they certainly get out of purgatory the saturday after they dye . at least , that let the worst that can happen , a good number of masses when they are dead , infallibly does the business . 't is true , none of these things can be had without money , and therefore the poor must take heed and have as few sins as they can to answer for ; but yet that if they watch their time , an indulgence will come at an easie rate , and the church in charity will fall her price , rather than refuse that money that will be so much to the benefit of her faithful children . this is , i think , the difference between us : let the world now judg , who it is that give the greatest encouragement to vice , the cardinal in these easie methods of salvation , or we by retaining the old scripture-way of repentance and a good life . but the truth is , the argument ought to have lain thus ; the opinion that takes away purgatory , and leaves men that have lived well , in repose at their death , cuts off all the benefit of masses , prayers for the dead , and the like ; not to say any thing of the dear concern of indulgences , by which our church and our clergy in great measure subsist ; and therefore tho' we know we have nothing to say for it , yet we are resolved we will not quit the belief of it : and this indeed is the honest truth ; but for the rest , 't is in good earnest nothing to the purpose . sect . v. that the doctrine of purgatory is contrary to scripture , antiquity , and reason . hitherto we have seen how little grounds the church of rome has to establish this doctrine as an article of faith ; we will now go yet further , and shew not only , that there is no obligation upon us either from scripture , or antiquity , or reason , to believe this doctrine ; but that according to the principles of every one of these , we ought not to do it . st . for scripture . it is not a little to be consider'd in opposition to this doctrine , that these sacred writings not only every where represent to us this present life as the time of tryal and exercise , of sufferings and afflictions ; but also encourage us on this very consideration to bear them with patience and resignation , that as soon as we die they shall all end , and we shall receive the blessed reward which god has prepared for them that bear them as they ought to do . i look upon it , says st. paul , rom. viii . . that the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed . and again , cor. iv . . for the sufferings of this present life work out for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory . many other places of this kind there are , in which our present sufferings are compared with , and opposed to , our future reward . now if when all these encounters are ended , there be still another , and a more dreadful sort of tryal to be undergone elsewhere , how could the apostle have used those kind of antitheses ; and have encouraged us to a constancy in our present afflictious , from the prospect of a time , when according to these men there are yet greater and more severe ones to be undergone by us ? and this then may be a second observation ; that the scrpture always speaks of the death of good men as a blessing , an immediate rest from their labours ; and therefore sure understood nothing of those torments to which the church of rome now condemns them . so revel . xiv . . i heard a voice from heaven saying unto me , write ; blessed are the dead which die in the lord , from henceforth , yea saith the spirit , that they may rest from their labours . 't was this assurance made the holy men of old so desirous of their dissolution , that they might find an end of all those labours and evils which they suffer'd here : phil. . . i am in a straight , says st. paul , betwixt two , having a desire to depart and to be with christ which is better , &c. surely st. paul never thought of purgatory , when he talk'd thus of going to christ ; nor would he have appear'd so desirous of his dissolution , had he known he should have been cast into such a fire as the romanists suppose to be in this infernal region . nor can it here be reasonably said , that this was the apostles peculiar happiness ; and therefore that tho' he indeed was secure of going immediately to christ , yet others were not therefore to expect the like favour : for cor. v. . we find him promising the very same to all christians indifferently ; we know , says he , that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved , we have a building with god , a house not made with hands , eternal in the heavens . and again , verse . when we are absent from the body , says he , we are present with the lord : by all which it appears , that when good men dye , they go to the lord ; to christ ; to their heavenly house ; and that sure is not purgatory . to this agree those few instances we have of just mens dying , in the new-testament . lazarus in the parable , was in abraham's besome ; the penitent thief on the cross was promised that he should be that day with christ in paradise : and we have good reason to believe that the same is the state of all others , not only from the passages already mentioned , and many more of the like kind that might have been offer'd ; but also from this , that we have not in all the holy scripture the least intimation of any such place as purgatory : that there is neither precept nor example of any one that either pray'd for the delivery of their friends departed , out of these pains , or any directions left for any one hereafter so to do : now certainly it is not easie to be imagined , that the holy penmen should have been so perfectly silent in this matter , had there been so great a cause for it , as the delivery of their souls out of purgatory undoubtedly would have been ; or had they then esteemed it so excellent and necessary a piece of christian charity , as it is now pretended to be . and this presumption against purgatory the holy scriptures will afford us . if we look dly , to the holy fathers , we shall find them proceeding exactly upon the same principles : they thought the just when they were departed were presently in a state of happiness ; that it was injurious to christ , to hold that such as died in his faith were to be pitied ; that christians therefore ought not by any means to be afraid of dying : 't is for him , says s. cyprian , to fear death , that is unwilling to go to christ. it is for him to be unwilling to go to christ , who doth not believe that he beginneth to reign with christ. — simeon said , lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace ; proving and witnessing that the servants of god then have peace , then enjoy free and quiet rest , when being drawn from these storms of the world , we arrive at the haven of our everlasting habitation and security . — let us therefore embrace the day that bringeth every one to his own house , which having taken us away from hence , and loosed us from the snares of this world , returneth as to paradise , and to the kingdom of heaven . i shall leave it to any one to consider , whether this holy father , who discoursed thus of our dying , believed any thing of these tormenting purgatory-fires , that now keep men in anxiety , and make the best christians afraid to dye . and the same is the language of all the rest . st. chrysostom particularly inforces the same considerations , from those psalms that were usually said at the burial of the dead . return to thy rest , o my soul , for the lord hath been gracious unto thee . you see , says that holy father , how that death is a blessing , a rest. — god calls it a blessing , and dost thou lament ? what couldst thou have done more , if thou hadst been his enemy ? but to put this matter , as to the point of antiquity , beyond all doubt , i will remark distinctly two or three things . st , that several of the most ancient fathers not only believed the souls of the faithful to be in happiness , immediately upon their departure , but to be carried immediately into heaven . so athenagoras , st. cyprian , origen , gregory nazianzen , chrysostom , cyril alexandrinus , st. hierom and others . now , certainly they who believed that just men when they dye go straight to heaven , could not have believed that they were for a long while after their death tormented in purgatory ; and therefore all these at least must have been of an opinion different from the church of rome , in this matter . dly , another thing remarkable in some of the ancient fathers , is , that they utterly deny that the soul is capable of being purged in another world ; and this is , to be sure , expresly contrary to the present doctrine of the romanists in this point . thus gregory nazianzen speaking of the judgment after death ; 't is better , says he , to be now chastised and purged , than to be deliver'd over to that torment , when it shall be no longer a time of purgation , but of punishment . where we see the father expresly opposes the time of purgation in this life , to the time not of purgation , but of punishment in the next . and st. chrysostom , if the soul be purged here , ( i. e. from sin ) that fire shall not hurt it , when it departs hence : but the soul that goes hence in sin , that fire ( not of purgatory , but of hell ) shall receive . this was the doctrine of those times ; the soul that was clear of sin , by gods pardon and forgiveness , no fire could hurt ; that which was not , no fire could cleanse ; but it was to remain in torments of hell for ever . nor may we omit to observe , dly , that the fathers take no notice of purgatory in such places , as had they believed it , they could not well have omitted it . hence we see no mention of it in any of their creeds or councils , or catechetical discourses , in which the other articles of their faith are set down and explain'd . the th general council , which condemned origen for his errors concerning the pains after death , never mentioned any other purgatory in opposition to that which he had heretically invented . but that which shews it yet more plainly to have been unknown to them , is , that not only st. austin , but pope gregory himself , the great patron of this error , yet spoke of it with some doubt ; not as they use to do of a point firmly believed by the church , but as a peculiar thing in which they were not themselves very well resolved . when the fathers disputed against origen , they none of them mention any of the purgatory-pains , which the orthodox faith taught , to distinguish them from those from which he erroniously had invented . when epiphanius disputed against aerius , concerning the reason and benefit of praying for the dead , is it to be imagined he could then have forgot the great concern of delivering the souls departed out of purgatory , had the church then believed any such thing ? to all which , if we finally add , that the greek church neither at this day do's , nor ever did receive this doctrine , i cannot tell what clearer evidence we can desire to shew , that this whole business of purgatory , is but an error of the latin church , not an article of the catholick faith. dly , for reason . i shall only offer this one reflection : whether there can be any reason to think there should be such a place , and such punishments as purgatory , for no end or purpose in the world. they who go thither , must be perfect in charity , in the grace of god , secure of their salvation ; their satisfaction must have been made by christ's blood , and so god's justice satisfied . now when all this is already done , to what end is it that they should be tormented ? had there been any means by such a purgatory , either to fit them for heaven , or to satisfie the divine justice , there might then have been some pretence for it . but to think that god punishes men only for punishing-sake ; and this too his own servants , men who are in his favour , that have lived well , and upon that account are justified by him through the blood of christ ; this is such an idea of an infinite love , mercy and goodness , as sure can never be the dictate of right reason ; i think i may say , is utterly inconsistent with it . of prayers for the dead . we have now pass'd through the former part of our undertaking , and found but little reason to be concern'd for those imaginary flames , which so much terrify those of the other communion . it only remains that we descend to the great argument that is most usually insisted upon by them , to prove at least the antiquity of their error , and that is from the undeni'd primitive custom of praying for the dead ; and concerning which , i suppose , it may be sufficient to offer these two things . st , to give a general account , what the practice of the primitive church was ; from whence it will appear how little advantage the church of rome can derive to themselves by it . dly , to answer those allegations , that are from hence brought by them in favour of that praying for the dead , which is now practised by them in their church . sect . i. of the practice of the primitive church , in praying for the dead . now that i may give the clearer account of this , i must observe ; st , that it is one thing to enquire whether we may not innocently pray for the dead ; and another , whether we ought to do it ? . that there is a great difference between praying for the dead in general , without defining what the particular intent of it is , and what advantages accrue to the dead thereby , and determining that we are to pray for the dead upon such a certain account , as for instance , to delive their souls out of purgatory , and that our prayers are effectual in order thereunto . . as to the former of these , we do not deny but that the fathers did begin very early to pray for the dead ; and some of them were so zealous for it too , that epiphanius ( as we shall see below ) made it no small part of his accusation of aerius , that he opposed the practice of it . but yet , we do not find that they pretended it was any part of a christian's duty to do this : that the gospel has any where required it of us , or recommended it to us : in short , they did it as something which seemed to them very pious and fitting ; but they tied up no man's conscience with any decisions or anathema's about it . . for the benefit and advantage of it , in this they were yet less agreed than in the other : insomuch , that when aerius , whom i before mentioned , earnestly demanded what good came to the dead from our prayers ? * * * epiphanius chose rather to fly off to the custom of the church , to the necessity of these prayers to distinguish the condition of our blessed lord from that of all other persons , and the like ; than he would say expresly , how or wherein the dead were profited by them ? many were the private opinions of those holy men , as to this matter . some who believed the millenary doctrine before mentioned , that the dead in christ should revive within the compass of a thousand years , some sooner , others later , according as they had lived better or worser lives on earth ; flatter'd themselves , that by their prayers they might hasten the felicity of their friends , and accordingly pray'd , * * * propter maturam resurrectionem , for their speedy rising in christs kingdom . . others supposed that in the general conflagration of the world at the last day , all men should pass through the fire ; that the better christian any one had been , the less he should feel of the torment of it : and these pray'd for the dead , that god would have mercy on them in that day , and not suffer them to be too much singed and burnt , not in the fire of purgatory , but in the general conflagration at the end of the world. . some believed that the souls of just persons departed , went not straight to heaven , but were reserved in a certain place of sequester , where they earnestly expected and continually wish'd for their absolute consummation with all the faithful in christ's kingdom . and these pray'd that god would give them ease , rest and refreshment , in the bosom of abraham , that they might be comforted with the blessed company of the holy angels , and the vision of our saviour christ , till the so much wish'd-for day of judgment should come . . and lastly , not to mention any more ; others there were who thought that the sentence was not instantly pronounced as soon as men died ; or if it were , yet not so peremptorily , but that still , till the last day , an encrease of glory might be added to the crown of righteousness which god hath designed for the just ; and some diminution made of the torments of the wicked . now these pray'd for the dead out of this hope , to render them either more happy or less miserable , to augment their glory , or to diminish their pains for ever . and all these were the private opinions of particular men , no definitions of the faith of the church in this matter : † † † many of the holy fathers declaring no other cause of their praying for the dead than only to shew their hopes of them , that they still lived , and therefore ought to have some communion maintain'd with them : or else to distinguish all , even the greatest saints , from our blessed saviour , and shew his infinite prerogative above them , whilst they pray'd for all the rest , to testifie their infirmity , and only gave thanks for him to manifest his glory . having given this particular account of the opinions of the primitive fathers as to this point , and to some or other of which i shall shew , that all the passages produced out of them , in vindication of the doctrine of purgatory may be applied ; it will be no difficult matter to shew how little all this can favour the present doctrine of the roman church in this matter . . the primitive christians , 't is true , pray'd for the dead , but they never put it into any of their creeds , as the council of trent has done now . nay epiphanius himself , in the close of his book , making a distinct recapitulation of what was the catholick faith , and what the constitution of the church , places prayers for the dead among * * * the latter ; and which were therefore used , because the custom of the church gave authority thereunto . . the prayers that are made for the dead by the church of rome , are expresly determined to this particular end , to help and relieve the souls that are detained in purgatory . whereas we do not find in the primitive church any thing at all defined as to the immediate design and benefit of them ; and are only sure of this , that it was not to deliver the souls out of purgatory . now this in general is evident , in that we find them to have pray'd for the best persons , for the holy apostles , martyrs , and confessors ; for the blessed virgin her self ; for those whom they supposed at the same time to be in happiness , and whom the papists themselves do not suppose to have ever touch'd at purgatory . thus we find in the liturgies , said to be of the ancient church , that their prayers were made for all these : the author of the ecclesiastical hierarchie , having first described the party deceased † † † as replenisht with divine joy , and now no more fearing any change for the worse ; being publickly pronounced a happy man , and verily admitted in to the society of the saints that have been from the beginning of the world ; then brings in the * * * bishops praying for him , that god would forgive him all the sins he had committed through humane infirmity , and bring him into the light and land of the living , into the bosom of abraham , isaac , and jacob : into the place where there is no more any pain , or sorrow , or sighing . in the liturgy said to be st. basils , we find them thus praying for the dead ; be mindful , o lord , of them which are dead , and are departed out of this life , and of the orthodox bishops which from peter and james the apostles until this day have clearly professed the right word of faith ; and particularly of ignatius , dionysius , julius , and the rest of the saints of worthy memory . be mindful , o lord , of them also , who have stood unto blood for religion , and by righteousness and holiness have fed thy holy flock . in the liturgy ascribed to the apostles , thus they pray , we offer unto thee for all the saints which have pleased thee from the beginning of the world ; patriarchs , prophets , just men , apostles , martyrs , confessors , bishops , priests , deacons : surely , i hope not to deliver all these out of purgatory . in the liturgy of the church of aegypt ascribed to st. basil , gregory nazianzen , and cyril of alexandria , it stands thus : be mindful , o lord , of thy saints ; vouchsafe to remember all thy saints which have pleased thee from the beginning ; our holy fathers the patriarchs , prophets , apostles , martyrs , confessors , preachers , evangelists , and all the souls of the just which have died in the faith ; especially , the holy glorious , the evermore virgin mary , mother of god ; and st. john the forerunner the baptist and martyr : st. stephen the first deacon and martyr ; st. mark the apostle , evangelist , and martyr , &c. in the liturgy of the church of constantinople , said to be st. chrysostoms , we find the very same : we offer unto thee , this reasonable service for those who are at rest in the faith ; our fore-fathers , fathers , patriarchs , prophets , and apostles , preachers , evngelists , martyrs , confessors , religious persons , and for every spirit perfected in the faith : especially , for our most holy , immaculate , and most blessed lady , the mother of god , the ever-virgin mary . i suppose , i need no other evidence than these publick records of the very prayers of the primitive church , to shew that they did not pray for the dead , with any intent to the bringing them out of purgatory ; and by consequence that there can be no manner of proof derived from what those holy men did , to justifie what the church of rome now does . were it at all needful to enforce this from the testimonies of private writers , i could easily run them out into a greater length than i am willing to do . * * * st. cyprian pray'd for laurentinus and ignatius , whom he in the same place acknowledges to have received palms and crowns for their sufferings . † † † st. ambrose pray'd for the religious emperors valentinian and gratian ; for ‖ ‖ ‖ theodosius ; for his brother * * * satyrus ; all which at the same time he declares he thought to be in happiness . gregory nazianzen did the like for his brother caesarius : and all these and many other proofs might at large be produced , were it needful to insist . but this will more properly be done in the next point ; wherein i am to examine the proofs offered by those of the roman church in favour of their own present practice from the custom of the primitive fathers which we have hitherto been speaking of . sect . ii. the allegations brought by those of the church of rome , to justifie their practice of praying for the dead , examined ; and their weakness demonstrated . before i enter on this debate , it may not be amiss to premise what the true state of the point in controversy is ; viz. not whether the primitive fathers did not pray for the dead , after the manner we have now seen ; for that we have already confess'd they did : but whether they pray'd for the dead upon the same principles that the church of rome does now , as supposing them to be in a state of torment , undergoing the temporal pains due to their sins , and in which , therefore they were charitably to be relieved by the prayers and suffrages of the living . this is that which our adversaries are to prove to us ; and i will now enquire what one of the latest of them in his collections upon this point , has offer'd to this purpose . and here , st , i cannot but observe his loose proposing of the point in debate , and the short account he gives of the case of aerius in this matter , whom he sets at the head of his enquiry . in the first century , says he , about the year of christ . aerius went out of the church , and teaching many erroneous doctrines , related by st. epiphanius , haer. . endeavour'd to draw numbers after him . his principal tenets were those wherein he condemned prayers for the dead , &c. — and a little below , aerius condemned praying for the dead : the fathers practised it , and own'd it as advantageous to the souls departed . that the fathers practised praying for the dead , and that many of them believed it advantageous to them , we have before freely allow'd : and that aerius was to be condemned for what he did in opposition hereunto , we shall hereafter shew : in the mean time this gentleman ought to have known , that this is neither what they affirm , or we deny : if he will state the question as he ought , it must be as we have before done it . aerius condemn'd praying for the dead , to deliver them out of purgatory ; the fathers practised it , and own'd it as advantageous in order to this end : but this neither did aerius condemn , nor the fathers practice ; and therefore , the state of this question alone , had it been sincere , would have confuted his whole chapter . to give then such an account of aerius , as may let us distinctly see what his error was , and how little chargeable we are with it , however it has pleased the writers of the roman church not without some ignorance , as well as much uncharitableness to impute it to us : i must first observe a small mistake in our author , as to the point of his chronology , whereby he is pleased to place * * * aerius in the first century , about the year of christ . i shall not need to say that there must be something of an error in this , because his own friend natalis , out of whom he has transcribed every article of this chapter , will assure him , that he was contemporary with epiphanius , and living at the time that that father wrote : so that unless we shall suppose him to have been almost years old , we must conclude that this gentleman has placed him near years before his time . but this only by the way : as for the error its self with which epiphanius charges him , it is this , that he opposed the mentioning the names of the dead : asking , to what purpose they did it ? he that is alive prayeth , or offereth the sacrifice ; what shall this advantage the dead ? but if the dead are indeed profited thereby , then let no man from henceforth trouble himself to live well ; only let him oblige his friends , or give money to persons to pray for him , that none of those inexpiable sins he hath committed may be required of him . this was the case of aerius : and had the church indeed universally believed , as some of the fathers did , that the judgment after death was suspended till the general resurrection , and that in the mean time the sins of the dead might be expiated by the prayers of the living , he had but justly enough opposed so dangerous an error . but this was not the common opinion of the church , nor her design in those prayers : which as the author of the ecclesiastical hierarchy tells us , were made only for good men : either for such as had committed no notorious faults , or had repented of them , and so died in an assured hope of god's favour and acceptance . and therefore epiphanius in answer to this objection , gives other reasons why they pray'd for the dead ; viz. to declare their faith and hope concerning them ; to distinguish the infinite prerogative of our saviour christ above all , even the chiefest of his saints , by praying for these , but giving thanks only for him : and then for the benefit these prayers did the dead , he tells him that tho' they were not of force to cut off all sins , which was the foundation of his objecting , yet they were profitable to them , to implore the mercy of god for those who had been sinners , but repented ; and to obtain for them a recompence for all in the resurrection of the just . the prayers therefore of the church , for the rejecting of which epiphanius here justly reproves aerius , were not such as the church of rome now useth ; it being not imaginable , had the church then known any thing of praying of souls out of purgatory , that either aerius could have ask'd the question , to what purpose are these prayers ? or epiphanius being ask'd , not presently have replied , to deliver the souls departed from the flames of purgatory . the prayers that aerius condemned were those which the primitive fathers made upon the account that from epiphanius i have just now given : and which those of the church of rome do no less condemn than he did ; whilst they so often tell us , that if there be no purgatory , prayers for the dead must be unprofitable : so says † † † aquinas : that the manner of praying for the apostles , martyrs , &c. is by disuse deservedly abolish'd : ‖ ‖ ‖ so mendoza : nay , that to offer sacrifices for those that are in bliss is plainly absurd and impious : so says * * * azorius ; who in this certainly outruns aerius himself , who only pretended that it was unprofitable ; but never durst say it was impious and absurd . it is therefore very improper in our collector of the primitive fathers to insinuate as if we were aerians upon the account of our not praying with them for the dead . aerius rejected the prayers that the primitive church made , upon those principles that we have said , and which the romanists themselves reject and condemn with him : we reject those prayers which the church of rome makes now for delivering souls out of purgatory . had we lived in those times that aerius did , we had readily complied with the practice of those holy men , upon such grounds as they used it : had those holy fathers lived now in the dregs of the church , and seen the abuse of the romanists in this matter , i make no doubt but they would have censured both the cause and the practice of the present praying for the dead , as false and unfitting ; i am sure epiphanius elsewhere gives us sufficient reason to believe that he would ; where speaking concerning the state after death , he tells us , that in the age to come , after the death of a man , there is no advantage of fasting , no call to repentance , no demonstration of charity ; — there lazarus does not go to the rich man , nor the rich man to lazarus : neither abraham sends the poor man to labour that he may grow rich , nor do's the rich man obtain , tho' with prayers , intreating merciful abraham . then the garners are sealed , the time is ended , the combat finish'd , the lists are empty , and the crowns distributed . those that have not yet encountred have no more opportunity , and they who have been overcome in the lists are cast out . in short , all is perfectly ended when once we are departed hence . and now having thus prepared the way to the following enquiry ; let us see whether his fathers will prove any better advocates for their cause , than this loose and imperfect state of the question between us seems to promise . and st . i must take notice that the greatest part of those he has here cited , say only in general , that they were wont to pray for the dead , that god would forgive them their sins , and instate them in the light and land of the living ; or something of the like kind . now it is evident from what has been before observed , that all these argue nothing more than what we have already confess'd to have been the practise of the primitive church , but give not the least authority to those prayers which are made in the church of rome to deliver the souls departed out of purgatory . so dionys. areopag : the venerable prelate coming , prays over the dead body , he implores the divine clemency to pardon all the sins committed by the deceased party , through humane frailty , and that he may be received into the state of bliss , and region of the living . this is indeed the sense of what the pretended dionysius says , tho' not his words : but then i must observe st , that this prayer is made over those , who having lived holy lives , are now come to the end of their combats , and therefore rest in joy and in a certain hope , and are already received into those most holy seats , to which all those in time shall be promoted , who are here endued with a divine perfection . so that it must be an intollerable presumption to pretend that this prayer was designed to deliver the deceased out of a place of torments , nothing inferiour to those of hell fire , such as we are told purgatory is . dly , the author inquiring to what purpose these prayers were made , answers , that the holy bishop knowing the promises of god to those who had lived well , now pray'd that those sins which by human frailty had been committed by the person deceased , being forgiven , the rewards promised to the just might be accomplished in him . here then is a plain account of the design of their praying , but no way favourable to the business of purgatory . dly , pachymeres in his paraphrase , explaining what the meaning of those hymns and lessons was , which were read at the funeral of such a one for whom they thus pray'd , says , 't is to signifie those eternal mansions , to which the party deceased is gone , and to exhort the living to strive after the like holy end . now , surely these eternal mansions of the blest were not the roman purgatory ; and it would have been but an uncomfortable exhortation to have proposed to the living , that they should use their utmost endeavours , that they might come into this place of torments . thly , in his account of the prayers themselves , he says , that the bishop knows from the holy scriptures , that by the just judgment of god , a blessed and divine life is prepared for the just , the divine goodness mercifully overlooking the spots which by humane frailty we contract , and from which no man is free . and therefore knowing this , he prays , that whatever spots of this kind , he by his frailty may have contracted , that god would mercifully overlook them , and give him his sacred reward . and the same was the language of the ancient liturgies of the church , which we have before cited ; in which , having named the holy apostles , martyrs and confessors , which even the romanists themselves will not send to purgatory ; they pray , that they may rest in the country of the living ; in the delights of paradice , in gods kingdom , in the bosom of abraham , isaac and jacob ; as † † † st. james's liturgy has it in the very words of dionysius : make them * * * rest in the tabernacles of thy saints , says st. mark ‖ ‖ ‖ in the light of thy countenance , says st. basil , and st. chrysostom ; ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ give them rest , says st. cyril : now , if these prayers for this rest were to this end , that god would deliver them out of purgatory , and set them at ease , as the church of rome pretends , then certainly the holy apostles and the blessed virgin , must have been in a very ill condition , who after years ( for so late , some of these prayers must be confess'd to have been ) were still esteem'd by the church to lie in those purgatory-flames ; and it was great uncharitableness in st. peter and his successors , that they would not all this while open the treasure of the church , and by some powerful indulgence set them at liberty . conclude we therefore , that there is no manner of consequence in this argument , the primitive fathers pray'd for the rest of the souls departed ; therefore they thought them in torment in a purgatory-fire , suffering the temporal punishment due to their sins , and by these prayers believed they could deliver them from thence . and yet is this the most that the greatest part of the testimonies which are offer'd to us , say ; and by consequence are , as we see , wholly impertinent to the purpose of the church of rome : i shall need only name them , since the same answer i have given to this first , will by application serve for all the rest. so tertullian , whose words our * * * collector thus renders , ‖ ‖ ‖ we make oblations for the dead , and keep the anniversary of their birth . — he is speaking in that chapter of several customs of the church , which tradition and long usage had establish'd , but for which there was no authority of holy scripture ; and this he gives as one instance . but were these oblations to deliver them out of purgatory ? i shall only desire him to consider the interpretation which their own editor gives of the natalitia , which he renders anniversaries , and then affirm it if he can . by the natalitia , says he , is meant the solemnities used to be kept in honour of the martyrs , every year , on the day when by dying to the world they were born to heaven . it seems then these solemnities tertullian here speaks of , were for those who were already born to heaven , for the holy martyrs ; and not as is pretended , to deliver their souls out of purgatosy . nor does † † † arnobius add any thing more : what reason was there that our churches should be so outragiously thrown down , in which prayers were offered to our soveraign god , peace and mercy was implored for all , for magistrates , armies , kings , friends and enemies , whether alive or dead . here is mention of praying for the dead ; but as for purgatory , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . what eusebius speaks concerning the death of constantine , is no way more pertinent . he tells us that they offer'd up prayers to god for the soul of the emperor ; but that these prayers were to deliver his soul from the temporal pains of purgatory , he says not one word . i have already consider'd epiphanius , and we find in his reprehension of aerius much against them , but nothing in their favour : as for what * * * theodoret relates of theodosius the younger , that he pray'd for his father and mother , begging that they might obtain pardon for all their sins of frailty . it still confirms that they did in those days pray for the dead , and for the forgiveness of their sins ; but for the remission of any present temporal punishment which they thought they were undergoing for them , this we do not find that they pray'd for . for st. ambrose , had his whole words been transcribed , we should have seen at first view that they were nothing to the purpose . he exhorts faustinus , not so much to bewail his sister , as to pray for her . what to deliver her soul out of purgatory ? no surely , for in the words immediately foregoing , he tells him , that being taken for a time from us she doth pass a better life there . but this little oversight ought not in justice to be imputed to our collector ; who transcribes natalis , and not the fathers themselves ; and could therefore give us no more than what he found in him . the next from whom he supposes may be inferr'd the doctrine of praying souls out of purgatory , is st. jerom : who in the epistle mention'd to pammachius some time after the death of his wife paulina , particularly commends him that he had sold all his goods , and given them to the poor , and taken up the resolution of leading a monastick life . other husbands , says he , dress their wives tombs with violets , roses , and purple flowers , and by these services ease their disturbed mind : but our friend pammachius pays no other duty to the holy ashes , and venerable bones , but by giving alms , cherishing them by this sweet odour , because he knows 't is written , as water extinguishes the fire , so do alms blot out sin . this is in some measure , st. jerom's sense , but by no means suitable to the elegance of his expressions : but not to insist on that ; was this charity , to deliver her soul out of purgatory ? nay , but st. hierome in the close of that very epistle says , that she was with her sister bloe●ila already with the lord : that they both enjoy'd a sweet and pleasant sleep : and in the very words cited , there are so many expressions of her present quiet , as can never be reconciled to the purgatory torments . but this the translator left out : cherishing them ( say he ) by this sweet odour : st. hierom's words are these : with these figments and these odours he cherishes her dead ashes now at rest : which plainly enough shews that he thought her in a state and place vastly different from the condition of souls in purgatory ; all that st. hierom then meant by this , was only thus much , that this charity of pammachius was most pleasing to paulina , that her soul rejoiced in it , as in a fragrant and delightful odour ; and that hereby he should engage the mercy of god not for himself alone , but for his wife too , in whose name he did it , and to whose salvation it should therefore not a little conduce . as to what is alledged of st. austin's praying for his mother monica , nothing certainly could have been more inauspicious to the consequence that is pretended to be drawn from it ; for besides , that in all which he says there is not one word of any temporal pains , which he desired she might be freed from ; he expresly declares , that he believed god had already done all that he desired : if therefore he desired to have her deliver'd out of purgatory , he believed god had already done it , and therefore the prayers he now made , could not be to obtain her freedom . but this circumstance our author cautiously omitted , tho in the middle of what he set down ; and that the charge of such false dealing may not always lye upon natalis , i must here free him from it ; this being the only passage in the whole chapter which our collector has not borrowed from him ; and must therefore bear now the blame himself , unless he has some other friend , that i do not at present know of , upon whom to lay the imputation . i shall not need to give any answer more to the other passage or two from the same father ; in none of which is there the least mention of any purgatory pains , or that the prayers were made for their deliverance from them . and hitherto then we have considered such testimonies as cannot with any shew of reason be pretended to make any thing for the custom of praying for the dead , now used in the church of rome . but now dly , some others there are that may seem more immediately to their purpose ; in which they expresly desire rest , comfort , and refreshment for the dead . i have already answered in great measure this argument , by shewing that these things they prayed for , even for the apostles and martyrs , and the b. virgin her self ; and therefore that these expressions cannot be said to signifie that the persons for whom they prayed , were either in purgatory or any other place of torments . but i will now more expresly remove this difficulty , and to that end i must repeat what i have before observed , that many among the ancient fathers supposed that the souls departed , do not go straight to heaven , but are kept in a place of sequester , where they earnestly desire the accomplishment of the number of christs saints , that they may be consummated with them in glory . now with reference to this opinion it was , that they prayed to god to give them rest : so tertullian , and st. ambrose , alledged by our collector ; to grant them repose ; a quiet sleep : so st. cyprian , i. e. as tertullian himself explains it , that they might have comfort in the bosom of abraham , till the time of the resurrection shall come . if it shall be objected against this , that to pray for their rest implies as if they were not now in ease , and so reduce us to a necessity of confessing either a purgatory or some other the like place of punishment . i answer st , if this be so , then the b. virgin , the apostles , martyrs , and confessors were all at this time in purgatory , above years after their death ; for thus we see they prayed in the primitive church by name for them , which yet the church of rome dares not say . but dly , in the continuance of their prayers for the dead , they used the same supplications that they did at their first departure ; and therefore pray for their rest and repose , as if they were but now just about to enter into it ; and this account cardinal bellarmin himself gives us of it . to which let me add dly , that the ancient fathers thought , that in this place of refreshment there were divers degrees of it ; and therefore they prayed that god would give them rest , not as if they were now totally destitute of it , but as desiring it might be increased to them in a yet higher degree : or else thly , as tertullians words seem to imply , they desired hereby their rest , i. e. the continuance of that rest they now enjoy'd to the day of judgment . nor is it any prejudice to this , that the dead were now out of a capacity of having their state ever alter'd , and therefore that it was in vain to pray for that happiness which they were already secure of , since as bellarmin himself confesses , the ancients thought it no way improper to pray for those things which they knew god was resolved to give : and we see our blessed saviour in his own short prayer has commanded us to pray that god's kingdom may come , which whether we pray or no , will in its due time most infallibly be accomplish'd . whether these reasons may , any or all of them appear to be a sufficient vindication of such kind of prayers i cannot tell : but this is certain , that the primitive christians did pray for the rest of those whom they esteemed already in happiness , and by consequence that these prayers do not argue a state of torments from whence the dead were to be delivered by them . and because it may be of great moment to be well assured of this , i will subjoyn an undeniable instance of it , in one of the very particulars offer'd by our collector , but with what sincerity i shall leave the reader to judge , in favour of purgatory . st. ambrose in his oration on the death of theodosius , thus prays for him : give perfect rest to thy servant theodosius , that rest which thou hast prepared for thy saints . let his soul ascend thither from whence it had its origine ; where it may be out of the power of death , where it may know that death is not an end of nature but of sin. i loved him , and therefore i pursue him to the region of the living ; nor will i leave him , till by my tears and prayers i bring him whither his merits call him , into the holy mount of our lord , where there is life without end . thus our collector tells us st. ambrose prayed for theodosius : but did this holy bishop think him as yet in purgatory , and that by his prayers he should set him at rest from the torments of it ? let us judge by what goes before in the same oration : theodosius of honourable memory , being freed from doubtful fight , doth now enjoy everlasting light , and continual tranquility ; and for the things which he did in this body , he rejoiceth in the fruits of gods reward ; because he loved the lord his god , he hath merited the society of the saints . and again in the same oration : he hath not laid down , but changed his kingdom , being taken by the right of his piety into the tabernacles of christ , into the heavenly jerusalem . now surely the tabernacles of christ , the jerusalem that is above , are no characters of purgatory ; and yet here st. ambrose thought theodosius at the same time that he pray'd for him . but st. ambrose is yet more express ; * * * theodosius therefore ( says he ) remains in light , and glorieth in the company of the saints . let the reader now judge , whether the prayers of this holy man for the rest of theodosius , be any president for those prayers that are made for the rest of souls , by the church of rome . . there is yet one witness to be consider'd , and upon which our collector insists more largely than ordinary , and that is st. chrysostome : who in the places cited out of him speaks indeed of certain benefits which came to the dead by our prayers ; and thereupon exhorts all persons to perform this office to them . i have before mentioned an opinion of some fathers , that even the damned in hell might be advantaged by the prayers of the living ; and if not be freed from , yet be at least alleviated in their torments . and in this excessive charity st. chrysostome was one of the forwardest ; as is evident in the very ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ homilies cited by this collector , were i at liberty to insist on a thing so well known . we are not therefore to wonder if we find this father so earnestly pressing this charity of praying for the dead , which he thought of so great a force as even to relieve the greatest sinners . if this be either the belief or practise of the roman church , we shall not deny them a patern in this holy father ; but if this be what they neither believe nor allow of , how impertinent must it be to produce his praying for the dead , on such principles as they condemn , to be a witness of the antiquity of their praying for the dead to deliver them out of purgatory , which he knew nothing at all of , nor did at all intend by his prayers . . as for what is finally added concerning the greek church , it is confessed that they do pray for the dead upon the same grounds , and after the same manner that the ancient church did ; but that they pray for them as the romanists would now insinuate , this is false , as we have before shewn ; nor do the testimonies produced at all convince us of it . and this may suffice to have been said to the several proofs that are offer'd by those of the roman communion in favour of this error , concerning prayers for the dead ; for as for isidore hispalensis , he is beyond the period i have fix'd to my reflections ; and for st. perpetua's dream which the misrepresenter , from natalis too , heretofore insisted upon , i may reasonably presume by our collector's omission of it , that he thought it sufficiently answer'd by the learned author that first undertook the examination of his pretences against us . close . and now after so particular examination of all these things , there is but one objection more remaining that i can foresee may possibly be made against us , on this occasion : for be it that we have reason to throw off the romish error of purgatory , and by consequence those prayers for the dead which are made in that church to deliver the souls from thence ; yet since we cannot deny but that the primitive christians did pray for the dead for many other ends , and which we do not presume to condemn them for , wherefore at least do we not continue the ancient practice , and pray for them as those holy men of old did ? this perhaps may be a scruple that some may raise , and having answer'd it i shall conclude : and st , if he be one of the roman communion that makes this objection , he may please to tell us , wherefore it is , that they of his own church do not do this ? or why he should require us to follow the ancient practice of the church in those things which themselves do not think sufficient to oblige them to a conformity ? they may call us aerians or what else they please upon this account ; but if to follow the error of aerius , this be to become properly aerians , we have before seen that they do so ; nay they outstrip him in it ; whilst that sort of praying for the dead , which the ancients used , he thought only needless and irrational ; but there are amongst them those who doubt not to call it impious and absurd . i have before shewn what the grounds were on which those holy men prayed for the dead : now there is not one of these which is not at this day disclaim'd by the church of rome , no less than by us , and especially that which was the chiefest foundation of all , viz. the opinion of the state of the soul out of heaven during its separation , they have in the council of florence flatly condemn'd . now if it be then no crime in them to reject the opinions of those primitive christians on which this practice was founded , nay to censure the very practice its self upon any other account but that which they now assert , and which the ancient fathers , as we have seen , never knew ; how comes it to be more unlawful in us to do this , than it is in them ; or why may not we as well give off praying for the dead as the ancient church did , as they themselves not only leave it off , but even censure it to have been impious and absurd , which we never presumed to do ? but dly , if the person who makes this objection , be of some other communion , i have several reflections to offer in our justification in this matter . st , let his reverence for antiquity be never be so great , yet he will not i am sure , say either , that those holy men were infallible in every thing they did , or that we ought to receive at all adventures whatever can be proved to have descended from them . we do indeed confess , that this custom of praying for the dead , was one of the most early practices of the church . but then we have seen what it was that introduced it : and their grounds are many of them such , as are now generally disclaimed by almost all christians ; such as that of christs millenary kingdom ; of the passing of all men , through the purgatory-fire at the end of the world ; of the souls of the just being in a place of sequester out of heaven till the last day , and the like ; the rest so inconsiderable , as that we cannot by any means think them sufficient to warrant so dangerous a practice . for what is it to engage us to this , that the ancients thought hereby to distinguish the best of men from our saviour christ ? to testifie their hopes of a future resurrection ? to maintain a kind of fellowship and communion with them ? there are other ways enough to do all this , without engaging in such a piety as the holy scripture , is not so much as pretended to countenance : the most that ever the holy fathers offer'd for it , being the custom of the church ; and tertullian expresly places it among those things which are no where written . how far such an authority might then have obliged us to compliance with the practice of the church had we lived in those primitive times , it is not necessary to enquire ; but since neither the holy scripture requires it , nor do's the custom of the church now exact it of us , nor do we acknowledg those opinions on which it was heretofore used , nor can we see any benefit that we are able to do the dead by them ; it is but reasonable to omit that , which might justly give offence to some , but cannot possibly bring advantage to any . but dly , we have yet a more particular reason , why it is by no means fitting at this time , thus to pray for the dead ; and that is , to prevent that danger which the present practice of the church of rome would be apt to expose men to , should we do it . to pray for the souls departed as that church do's , neither did the primitive fathers ever allow , and we have sufficiently shown how dangerously erroneous it is to do so . it is therefore by no means convenient to continue a practice , whereby it might be very easy to lead men into such gross mistakes ; and however , some might still be able to make the distinction , and see a great difference in the design and intention of the same kind of praying ; yet the ill use that is made , even of what those holy fathers did , sufficiently shews us how apt men are to confound those things together , that have so nigh a relation as to the practice , and the act being the same , to lead them to believe that the principle is so too . in short , dly , we cannot imagine , if there were indeed any such great piety in this practice , as to deserve our apology for the omission of it , how it comes to pass that neither precept nor example of any such thing , is to be found in the holy scriptures : and to those , who make that the rule of their religion ; we do not see that any more need be said than this , that we find nothing there to authorize such a devotion , and that , therefore we cannot think it fitting to make it a part of the churches service . i shall close up all with the words of our church in her homily upon this subject : let these and such other considerations be sufficient to take away the gross error of purgatory out of our heads ; neither let us dream any more that the souls of the dead are any thing at all holpen by our prayers : but as the scripture teacheth us , let us think that the soul of man passing out of the body , goeth straight ways either to heaven , or else to hell ; whereof the one needeth no prayer , the other is without redemption . the only purgatory wherein we must trust to be saved , is the death and blood of christ , which if we apprehend with a true and stedfast faith , it purgeth and cleanseth us from all our sins , even as well as if he were now hanging upon the cross. the blood of christ , saith st. john , hath cleansed us from all sin. the blood of christ , saith st. paul , hath purged our consciences from dead works , to serve the living god. also in another place , he saith , we be sanctified and made holy by the offering up of the body of jesus christ done once for all . yea , he addeth more , saying , with the one oblation of his blessed body and precious blood , he hath made perfect for ever and ever , all them that are sanctified . this then is that purgatory , wherein all christian men put their whole trust and confidence ; nothing doubting , but if they truly repent them of their sins , and die in perfect faith , that then they shall forthwith pass from death to life . if this kind of purgation will not serve them , let them never hope to be released by other mens prayers , tho they should continue therein unto the worlds end . he that cannot be saved by faith in christs blood , how shall he look to be deliver'd by mans intercessions ? hath god more respect to man on earth , than he hath to christ in heaven ? if any man sin ( saith st. john ) we have an advocate with the father , even jesus christ the righteous , and he is the propitiation for our sins . but we must take heed that we call upon this advocate , while we have space given us in this life , least when we are once dead , there be no hope of salvation left unto us . for as every man sleepeth with his own cause , so every man shall rise again with his own cause . and look in what state he dieth , in the same state he shall also be judged , whether it be to salvation or damnation . let us not therefore dream either of purgatory , or of prayer for the souls of them that be dead ; but let us earnestly and diligently pray for them which are expresly commanded in holy scripture , namely for kings and rulers , for ministers of gods holy word and sacraments , for the saints of this world , otherwise called the faithful ; to be short , for all men living , be they never so great enemies to god and his people , as jews , turks , pagans , infidels , hereticks . then shall we truly fulfil the commandment of god in that behalf , and plainly declare our selves to be the true children of our heavenly father , who suffereth the sun to shine upon the good and bad , and the rain to fall upon the just and unjust . for which , and all other benefits most abundantly bestow'd upon mankind from the beginning , let us give him hearty thanks , as we are most bound ; and praise his name for ever and ever . amen . finis . books lately printed for richard chiswell . . a discourse concerning the necessity of reformation , with respect to the errors and corruptions of the church of rome . quarto . first and second parts . . a discourse concerning the celebration of divine service in an unknown tongue . quarto . . an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , in the several articles proposed by the late bishop of condom , [ in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church . ] quarto . . a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the exceptions of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , and his vindicator . quarto . . an answer to three papers lately printed , concerning the authority of the catholick church in matters of faith , and the reformation of the church of england quarto . . a vindication of the answer to some late papers concerning the unity and authority of the catholick church , and reformation of the church of england . quarto . . an historical treatise written by an author of the communion of the church of rome , touching transubstantiation . wherein is made appear , that according to the principles of that church , this doctrine cannot be an article of faith. quarto . . an answer to the first , second , fifth and sixth sheets of the second part of the [ popish representer ] . the lay-christians obligation to read the holy scriptures . quarto . . the plaiu man's reply to the catholick missionaries , o. . the protestant's companion : or an impartial survey , and comparison of the protestant religion as by law established , with the main doctrines of popery . wherein is shewn , that popery is contrary to scripture , primitive fathers and councils ; and that proved from holy writ , the writings of the ancient fathers , for several hundred years , and the confession of the most learned papists themselves . quarto . . a discourse of the holy eucharist , in the two great points of the real presence and the adoration of the host. in answer to the two discourses lately printed at oxford on this subject . to which is pre●…ed a large historical preface relating to the same argument . quarto . . the pillar and ground of truth . a treatise shewing that the roman church falsly claims to be that church , and the pillar of that truth , mentioned by st. paul in his first epistle to timothy , chap. iii. vers. . quarto . . a brief discourse concerning the notes of the church , with some reflections on cardinal bellarmin's fifteen notes , of which eight are extant , the rest will be published weekly in their order . . a defence of the confuter of bellarmin's second note of the church [ antiquity ] against the cavils of the adviser . quarto . . the peoples right to read the holy scriptures asserted . in answer to the th , th , th , th and th chapters of the [ popish representer . ] . a short summary of the principal controversies between the church of england , and the church of rome . being a vindication of several protestant doctrines , in answer to a late pamphlet intituled [ protestancy destitute of scripture proof ] . imprimatur liber cui titulus , a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry , &c. ex aedib . lambeth , febr. . . guil. needham , r. r. in christo p. ac d. d. wilhelmo archiepisc. cant. à sacr. domest . a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry : in which a late author's true and onely notion of idolatry is considered and confuted . si inter solos pontificios versarer , &c. i. e. if i conversed with none but papists , and considered their religion corrupted with old wives tales , and were altogether destitute of a rule of faith , by which to discern the vast difference between the christian religion , and the trifles of popery ; and lastly , if no histories were extant , shewing how these dotages crept in : if it were thus , i say , then i frankly confess , that i should very much suspect the christian religion , nay i should utterly reject it as foolish and mean , and beneath the esteem of old gossips ; nor should i less hate the name of christianity , than i do that of popery . tentam. physic. theol. auth. samuele parkero , p. . london : printed for william rogers , at the sun over against st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . mdclxxxviii . the preface . were we to judge of the merits of a book meerly by the good opinion which the author seems to have of it , we might reasonably believe , that the discourse concerning the nature of idolatry , which i am about to consider , was not onely set forth in defence of a truly infallible church , but that the author of it thought himself delivering nothing but oracles all the while he was composing of it . if his reasons had born proportion to the nature of his attempt , we should easily have forgiven him , or rather we should have thanked him , no less than the gentlemen of the roman communion would have done in such a case . he does indeed treat men with contempt , whom all the world knows to be above his contempt , nor can i believe him to be so singular as not to know it himself ; but yet had he reasoned well , we had yielded to him : for an over-bearing spirit in an adversary , neither makes us to submit to a bad argument , nor to resist a good one . it seemed something strange , that that author should think to trample upon us now , for pretending that the church of rome has defined transubstantiation as 't is understood by us , and that she has established an idolatrous worship in her communion : for not only the greatest persons of the reformed religion have brought this charge against her , but to the truth of it himself has subscribed in his time . but it was much more amazing to find so new a confidence supported by arguments so weak , that 't is not without reason that some of the roman communion are said to complain , that they have been betrayed , rather than defended by him . how unsuccessfully he has managed his design of expounding transubstantiation , has been shewn in a late discourse proving transubstantiation to be the peculiar doctrine of the church of rome , and in the preface to the examination of the new articles of the roman creed by catholick tradition . if i make it appear that he has miscarried as much in the point of idolatry , his theological part will then be considered ; and for the rest , we do not by any means presume to meddle with it . as for the subject which i have undertaken , one would have thought , that a man who resolved to despise all that had ever written upon it , and not according to his opinion , should have taken care , if not to produce something that could not be answer'd , yet at least not to offer any thing that had been already confuted . but on the contrary , this author , after all this noise , has for the most part been only an humble transcriber of the old exploded pretences ; and which i may truly say were much more strongly , as well as more modestly urged by dr. godden against his learned adversary . and when i consider how much more roughly this author uses him , than that doctor did , i am apt to think it might in some measure proceed from the sence he had that dr. st. in discovering the sophistry of his old antagonist , had before-hand confuted whatever this new one could find out again to revive the controversie . and for this i shall leave the following discourse to be my evidence ; and of which i shall say no more here , than that in his own phrase : i have delivered my judgment , as i will answer for my integrity to god and the world. but now there is another thing , which i ought not in this place to pass by . it has been insinuated by this hot reasoner , as no small crime in us , that we charge the church of rome with idolatry , not only ( says he ) because of the falseness of the calumny , but the barbarous consequence that may follow upon it , to incite and warrant the rabble , whenever opportunity favours , to destroy the roman catholics and their images , as the israelites were commanded to destroy the canaanites and their idols . and in the next page he tells us , that this charge of idolatry has ever been set up as the standard against monarchy . there are many more passages of the like kind , in which he exercises his gift of eloquence : for i dare say he never learnt it , unless he has in his time studied to imitate a tempest ; for i know not what other original he could propound to himself . this stile is the fittest in the world to his purpose , and will perhaps be a copy for the future to them that intend to speak neither according to charity nor truth ; which are ever best heard in a calm . but however , if this too were for the declaration of his judgment , we will no more complain of the violence of his expressions , than we do of the force of his arguments ; only i would beg leave to say , that he should have been sure he could discharge the church of rome of that guilt , before he had fix'd a mark of calumny upon the whole body of the reform'd , who accuse them of it ; lest when men examine his proofs , and find them defective , they be tempted to retort the censure , especially considering with what freedom and violence he has been pleased to lay it upon us . but now for his great fear that this should incite the rabble to any violence against those of the other communion , i dare venture to say , there is not the least reason to be at all apprehensive of it . he knows very well how free the christians of the first three centuries were in laying the very same charge against the gentile world ; and yet we do not find that they ever shew'd themselves either the less obedient to their emperours , or the less charitable to their neighbours , upon the account of it . and though i am verily perswaded that the romanists , in the invocation of saints , and in the worship of images and reliques , and of the host , are guilty of idolatry ; yet i thank god i am not conscious to my self of one disloyal thought to my king , or of the least uncharitableness towards any of my country-men , who differ from me in these particulars . and what i can thus truly profess in my own behalf , i doubt not but i may do for all others the true and genuine members of the church of england ; and who by being such , must , i am sure by principle , be both obedient subjects , and charitable christians . as for this author , he has made as broad a signe that he intends to leave us , by insinuating , that the charge of idolatry ought to be followed with blows , as by his concern not to have idolatry charged upon the church of rome . we who do protest against certain practices as idolatrous , do also protest against violating either loyalty or charity , upon the account of religion . this author , it seems , likes us neither upon one account , nor the other ; or this at least is to be said , that he has been thus long of our communion , and has not all this while understood what we teach concerning a christian's duty to his neighbour . did we indeed profess that of idolatry , which some others do of heresie , that 't is a sufficient ground for the excommunicating of a king , and absolving his subjects of their allegiance ; had we ever been caught not in otesian conspiracies , but in real plots against our soveraign upon this account , there might then have been just cause for such an insinuation . but whilst our principles are so loyal , that we have even been laught at for our asserting them , and that too by some of those who would now be thought so zealous for their princes safety ; it was a very unreasonable apprehension , to think that the charge of idolatry ( and that too begun in the time of a prince of whom it was misprision of treason , but to say that he was guilty of it ) should in the bottom have been the designe against the monarchy , which we have so often declared , and in the very person of our present king have shewn , we think our selves obliged to support , whatever his religion be who is to sit upon the throne . and for what concerns our brethren of the roman communion , it is well known that we are not of those who destroy men for conscience sake . we have never been infamous either for parisian massacres , or military conversions . they are others that have ruined at once both the churches and the servants of the living god , out of zeal for their religion . we have indeed taken care to remove the idols out of our israel ; but for the worshippers of them , if they have suffer'd any thing , it has not been for their idolatry , but for that which shews there is something else more dangerous to the english monarchy than this charge . the truth is , when i consider how heinous a suggestion this is , and what little foundation there is , either from our principles , or our practices , to support it , i am under some temptation to reply to this author , as an ancient father once did to a heathen who accused them of such cruelties and filthiness in their ceremonies , as none but themselves were capable of committing . nemo hoc potest credere , nisi qui possit audere . and this i hope may serve for my excuse , if i have at this time appear'd in defence of a charge in which every true member of the church of england is so highly concern'd ; and for which all orders and degrees among us , have been so contemptuously exploded by this author . or if i must still be content to bear the censure of such as he , i shall at least comfort my self in this , that i can fall under no reproach , but what must at the same time reflect upon all the great names of the primitive christian church , with whom i had rather suffer the angry reflections of a few of our own communion , than flourish with them , and gain their applauses . to say the truth , when such learned defenders of our church are struck at , and that in so impetuous a manner as that most deservedly esteemed person he has so often mentioned , and i think never without something to raise his repute amongst honest and judicious men ; i should be even ashamed not to be ill spoken of by such a one at the same time , if i had had the honour of his acquaintance . as for what concerns the charge its self , i shall leave it to any one to judge , whether if the roman church be indeed guilty of what we say it is , we can discharge our duty either towards god , or our neighbour , as we ought to do , without endeavouring to convince them of their danger . and when others are so zealous for the reputation of a few men whose breath is in their nostrils ; sure we may be excused if we express some jealousie for the honour of that god who has made both them and us . it is indeed a most deplorable spectacle to consider whether blind superstition , and a zeal not according to understanding , has been able to carry otherwise good and pious men. nor is it the least of my wonders , to consider persons whose learning i admire , and whose sincerity i am unwilling to question , yet either by the prejudice of education , or by some other causes to me unknown , so byassed in their affections to the grossest errors , that the most plain and convincing arguments have not been able to prevail upon them . 't is hardly to be believed , but that they are themselves the publishers of their own doings , that in the clear light of christianity men should be so blind as to contend for giving religious worship to their fellow creatures , and set up senseless images to be joyned in the very same act of divine adoration with the great god the creator of heaven and earth . and i would to god their impiety had stopp'd here ; but indeed it has gone much farther ; they have found out ways how not only all other things , animate and inanimate , may be warrantably adored with divine adoration , but even the devil himself be worshipped , without sin ; by virtue of a good intention to honour god , and not certainly knowing it to be the devil . and if we may believe a man in his own case , one of them once went much farther : he made no scruple to worship the devil whom he knew to be so , and that without taking any care ( for ought appears by his relation ) to terminate his worship finally upon god. and because it is indeed a singular instance , to shew to what extravagance such principles as we oppose , are apt to carry indiscreet votaries , i will , to avoid all suspicion of falshood , give you a short account of it in his own words . father gauffre being sent for to exorcise a terrible devil call'd arfaxa , which was got into the foot of sister bonaventure a nun , she earnestly pray'd him that he would confess her ; for as the father observes , the devil had a particular desire to speak to him . after some discourse had pass'd betwixt them , and they began to understand one another a little better , i threw my self ( says the father ) upon my knees before him , telling him , that my designe was to confound my pride by that of the devils , and to learn humility of them that had none . the devil , enraged to see ▪ me in that posture , told me , that he had received a command to prevent me . but when i continued , for all that , to humble my self before him , he thought to take advantage of it , and told me , thou dost this to adore me. i replied , villain , thou art too infamous , i consider thee as the creature of my god , and the object of his wrath ; and therefore i will submit my self to thee , though thou dost not deserve it : and for that very reason i will immediately kiss thy feet . the devil surprized at this action , hindred me . upon which i conjured him to tell me , as far as he could guess at it , what the will of god was , whether that i should kiss his feet , or he mine ? he answer'd , thou knowest what motion god gives thee ; follow that . immediately i threw my self upon the ground , and kissed his feet : at which he was in a rage : and then i commanded him by the reliques of father bernard , to kiss mine ; which he did accordingly , with great readiness . after this , i continued upon my knees before him , for about half a quarter of an hour . and now when these things are publickly taught and done in the roman church , is it not high time for us to speak , and to assert the honour of god , and the purity of his religion ? shall others , without scruple , maintain and propagate their errours , and shall it be a crime in us , even when attacked in the most violent manner , to defend the truth ? nay , but let god be served , though all the world be dissatisfied . in the mean time , whilst forced by these considerations to assert our religion , we pursue these examinations , be it your parts ( for whose sake we principally labour ) to encourage our endeavours by a firm adherence to that form of sacred doctrine which you have received . as you have hitherto maintained an unreprovable zeal for your profession , so go on more and more to contend earnestly for the faith that was once deliver'd to the saints . and above all , be careful to adorn your holy religion with a suitable practice , that they may be ashamed , who falsly accuse your good conversation in christ. for so is the will of god , that with well doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men . let the same mind be in us , which was also in those primitive christians before-mentioned . let us boldly assert the truth , as those who know what account they are one day to give unto god for it ; but let us also be charitable towards our neighbours ? and if they will rather be esteem'd our enemies , let us remember , that even under that name , we are yet to love them . let us still be careful to maintain the character of the best subjects , as we have long asserted the most loyal principles : that as the prosperity of our king makes up a considerable part of our daily prayers , so by a sincere discharge of all humble obedience towards him , he may be convinced of the malice of those who would insinuate any false suggestions against us ; and effectually see , that , excepting only our duty towards god , we are much more forward and ready to do his majesty effectual service , than any man can be , whose loyalty is not supported by religion . chap. i. in which the charge of idolatry which we bring against those of the church of rome , is freed from those odious imputations that have been of late suggested against it . it may possibly appear to some not a little surprizing , that a church which makes no scruple of practising what is idolatrous , should yet be so very unwilling to lie under the imputation of it : there is nothing in all our disputes with those of the other communion , which they would be thought so highly to resent as this ; the very mention of it has seem'd to scandalize them ; and if heat and confidence could have born us down , they had long since effectually deliver'd themselves from all suspicion of it . it is not my business to enquire into the reasons of this proceeding , and which , when duly consider'd , will be found to have nothing in it , but what is exceeding natural . men are always more forward to do ill things , than to avow them , or to own them under their proper names : idolatry ( as our author says ) is a scandalous charge . by his leave , the charge is not always scandalous , though the crime be ever so , and the charge reputed scandalous by them who are charged with it . though a church that does countenance the commission of it , may by subtile arguments and bold denials keep up its reputation well enough amongst those who are resolv'd at any rate to believe her , yet 't were impossible she should long support her interest , should she freely avow the doing of it . but of all the methods that have been made use of to put a stop to this charge ; there has been none so surprizing as what this author has here found out ; and could he but have made it good , i am perswaded there would not have been any more effectual . he represents it as inconsistent not only with the principles of charity towards our neighbour , but even of loyalty towards our prince ; and makes the very mention of it to be little less than a setting up of the standard against monarchy . and yet he is not so unacquainted with the principles and dispositions of those of the church of england , as not to know , that next to our sollicitude for the honour of god , there are no two things in the world , we value our selves more upon , than that character we have so justly obtained , of teaching the best measures both of duty to our king , and of love , and kindness , and charity towards one another . i must therefore , before i proceed to vindicate our notion of idolatry , first say somewhat to remove this great prejudice that has been offer'd against it ; and this i shall do , i. by considering upon what weak grounds this author has undertaken to insinuate these crimes against us . ii. by shewing what horrible consequences would follow from it , should what he pretends indeed be true . . of the weak grounds upon which he has undertaken to insinuate such things against us . now all that he has to say for this odious charge , if taken out of his turbulent and declamatory stile , is but this : that idolatry is a sin very heighnous to god , and which he therefore , under the law , commanded to be punished with death . this is the sum of what he has dilated upon in three whole pages ; and against this i have many things to except . for , . what if idolatry be a damnable sin , may we not therefore say , without uncharitableness , that those are guilty of it , whom we effectually prove to be so ? must we therefore become mens enemies because we tell them the truth ? i am sure a very little charity would have taught him to have made a better conclusion ; nor can i imagine what greater instance of my affection , i could shew my best friend , if i saw him in such a course as i thought would render him eternally miserable , than to tell him freely of the danger of his sin , and press him with the best reasons i had to perswade him to forsake it . it may be he will say , he does not deny but that we may charge men with great sins , provided that they be truly guilty of them : but yet that the heighnousness of this crime should make us careful not to do it , but upon very good grounds ; for to this purpose i find he sometimes expresses himself : so black a crime as this ( says he ) is not lightly to be charged on any party of christians . and again , before so bloudy an indictment be preferred against the greatest party of christendom , the nature of the thing ought to be very well understood . and if this be all he means , we readily acknowledge the reasonablness of it : but then he ought not to fly out into such tragical common places against us for charging the church of rome with idolatry ; but to come close to the point , and shew that we have not sufficient grounds for what we do . if those whom we accuse of this crime , be indeed innocent of it , whether god had commanded idolaters to be stoned under the law or not , we could not justifie our charging of them with it : but if our arguments do prove them guilty , the heinousness of the sin , and the danger of it , may be a good motive to dispose them seriously to weigh our allegations , but i am sure it can lay no obligation upon us not to impute to it them . . as to the other insinuation , that god commanded idolaters under the law to be put to death : and for proof of which , we have two long passages transcribed out of exodus and deuteronomy ; what would he infer from it ? would he prove to us , that therefore they ought to be put to death by us under the gospel too ? does he look upon these precepts as obligatory to us now ? if so , i dare be bold to say , he has done more in one single page , to stir up the people against the romanists and their images , than all those popular divines he so complains of , in all the books they have ever written upon this subject . and yet this must be his meaning , if it has any meaning at all . for to examine this matter a little more closely : god ( he says ) commanded the israelites in deut. . . if thy brother , the son of thy mother , or thy son , or thy daughter , or the wife of thy bosom , or thy friend which is as thine own soul , entice thee secretly , saying , let us go and serve other gods , &c. thou shalt not consent unto him , nor hearken unto him , neither shall thine eye pity him ; but thou shalt surely kill him : thine hand shall be first upon him to death , and afterward the hand of all the people . and thou shalt stone him with stones that he die . now either he looks upon this precept as still in force , and would hereby insinuate to the people , that it is their duty , if they think the romanists guilty of idolatry , utterly to destroy them ; and this is certainly one of the most seditious , as well as one of the most false suggestions in the world : or if he does not believe this command obligatory to us now , nor would insinuate any such thing by the repetition of it , what impertinence must it be to say that we cannot in charity charge the church of rome with idolatry , because god commanded heretofore under the law that all those that were guilty of it should be put to death . but though these kind of precepts do not oblige us now , yet may not such a charge be apt to stir up the deluded rabble to think so ; and so upon occasion encourage them to destroy the roman catholicks and their images , as the israelites were commanded to destroy the canaanites and their idols ? answer , yes ; provided there were but a few such orators as himself among them , to fill their heads with such notions as these , and never tell them the impertinence of them . for instance : that these were onely the political laws of the jews , and therefore can no more warrant us now to do any violence to our neighbour , upon any such pretence , than because the jews were commanded to do no work upon the sabbath day , we may therefore lawfully stone any one that we see gathering a few sticks upon it . but if the question be , whether the charge of idolatry , as it is managed by us against the church of rome , may not be apt to cause any such mischief ? i say , it is not ; and that for these reasons : for , . let him examin all our books of controversie , and see if he can find any of these old laws produced , much less insisted upon , and inforced by us , to mislead the people into any such desperate mistakes : on the contrary , we take all occasions to declare to them , that no pretences of this kind can warrant us so much as to withdraw our affection from those who differ from us : that the jews indeed esteem'd themselves allowed to hate their enemies ; that is , those who were not of the same religion with themselves , but worshipped other gods ; and more especially those canaanites , whom we are told it pleased god to destroy from off the face of the earth for their idolatry : but that our saviour christ has utterly forbid us to make any such distinction : i say unto you , love your enemies , bless them that curse you , do good to them that hate you , and pray for them that despitefully use you , and persecute you . we set before them the examples of the primitive christians ; with what charity they behaved themselves towards the gentiles among whom they lived ; with what an humble obedience they submitted themselves to their idolatrous emperours , and underwent the most cruel persecutions for their religion's sake , even when they had power sufficient to have asserted their faith , and to have destroyed both the idolaters and their idols together . and by these maxims we exhort them to walk ; and according to these it is that we both now do , and i am perswaded shall always behave ourselves with all christian charity towards those of the roman communion , notwithstanding we both believe them to be guilty of idolatry , and charge them accordingly . but . we do not only tell them , that those kind of laws are now no longer in force , and that therefore we may not by vertue of them presume to run into any violence against our brethren : but we teach them moreover , ( what yet more shews the impertinent malice of this suggestion ) that they never were intended , even under the jewish state , to be in force against such idolaters as they of the church of rome are . it is manifest to every one that has impartially considered the notion of idolatry , in the old testament , that there were two very different kinds of it : . one whereby they totally apostatized from the law , to worship other gods than the god of israel ; as when 't is said that they fell off to worship strange gods ; i. e. they renounced the religion established by the law of moses , and took in another religion , with all the ceremonies and sacrifices belonging to it , as the aegyptian , canaanitish , or chaldaean : and such as these were concluded under the sentence of the law before mentioned . . but then another sort of idolatry there was , in which they still pretended to adhere to the law of moses , and worship the god of israel , but yet after an idolatrous manner , as when jeroboam set up the two calves in dan and bethel ; parallel to which , is that idolatry with which we charge those of the other communion at this day . now in this case ; though we find the prophets severely exclaiming against their new altars , yet we do not meet with any inforcement of this precept for putting such idolat●…rs to death , or that they are any where charged as guilty of it upon this account . in short , he that would know how innocent this charge is , of any of those ill consequences that are here brought against it , need onely look back to the state of the church in the days of constantine : there he will find our primitive fathers , freely accusing the arrians of idolatry , and sometimes warm enough too in their disputes against them ; but yet i believe all the records of those times , will not furnish this author with so much as one instance of any bishop that ever put the emperour in mind of this law against them ; or so much as insinuated to him , that he might warrantly destroy them out of his dominions for their idolatry . and sure our behaviour towards those of the church of rome , has not been so different from what theirs was against the arrians , that any such violence should be fear'd from us now , as was never so much as urged by the hottest opposers of idolatry in those days . but dly , if there be then no good grounds for such insinuations as these , which he has here offer'd onely to render our charge of idolatry odious , i am sure there is cause enough upon other accounts , to make them justly be detested by all good men. for . not to say any thing of the sad consequences that may arise from hence , should such insinuations as these ever be able to gain so much credit with his sacred majesty , as to make him entertain that ill opinion of us and our religion , as we should justly deserve , were we such as we are here represented to be : can any thing be more desperate , than to impeach at once the whole body of a great and orthodox church , of holding principles so inhumane , as to out do the very cannibals themselves ; and for which they have no other grounds than the ( rude and rash assertions of some popular divines , that have no other measure of truth or zeal , but hatred to popery . in short , of maintaining fanatick pretences , and such as have ever been set up as the standard against monarchy . what is this but , in other words , to say , that all the orders and degrees of men amongst us , that have ever been concern'd in charging the church of rome with idolatry , our princes and our nobles , the houses of parliament and convocation , as many as concurred either to the approving or subscribing the book of homilies , or to the establishing or the obeying of the laws made in the last reign , not to say any thing of those learned men who have from time to time written expresly on this subject , were all in plain terms neither better nor worse than a pack of unlearned , cruel , barbarous , cannibal , fanatical , antimonarchical villains . certainly , a man had need have either a very good cause , or a very hard forehead , that can have the confidence to pronounce such a sentence as this , and of which i will only say , in his own words , that how inconsistent soever idolatry may be with salvation , i fear so uncharitable a calumny can be of no less damnable consequence . but however , . to allow this great author to take any liberty he pleases with us : what shall we say as to the primitive christians , whose examples we follow , by whose principles we manage this whole controversie , and with whom therefore we must either stand or fall . were all they a parcel of seditious fellows too ? it cannot be deny'd , but that those holy men very freely charged the gentiles first , and then the heretical christians , the arrians , and others , with idolatry . and the passages of those writers , justin martyr , origen , clemens alexandrinus , tertullian , cyprian , athanasius , greg. nazianzen , epiphanius , theodoret , and others , have been too often alledged , to need a repetition here . and which ought not to be forgot , at the time that they did this , their emperours were themselves of that very religion which they so accused . now then , according to this learned gentleman , all these holy bishops and martyrs were even as bad as we ; and antiquity has been so sottish as to celebrate the praises , and recommend to us the examples of a long series of factious fanaticks , who for their rudeness to their emperours , and cannibal uncharitable censures of their brethren , justly deserv'd all the torments and persecutions that they underwent . but , . because those that pretend the highest regard to the authority of the fathers , can yet easily except against it , when they are pressed with it , what will this author say to that of the apostles ? it cannot reasonably be doubted but that st. paul very well understood the true nature of charity , who so often and earnestly recommended it to his disciples ; and that he was no friend to any seditious , anti-monarchical principles , i believe his th chapter to the romans , will sufficiently demonstrate . yet behold this very st. paul charging the emperours religion as idolatrous , exhorting all men to forsake it as such ; and going up and down in all parts , preaching where-ever he came against it , on this account . and i desire this gentleman to consider with himself what he can say in defence of this holy apostle , that shall not vindicate us too . so that now then upon the whole it appears , that out of an over-eager desire to traduce us , this judicious author has in his heat exposed all the christians of the first three hundred years , the catholicks of the following centuries , nay the blessed apostles themselves , besides the whole body of the reform'd religion in this and the last age , as the worst of monsters , and such as deserve to be esteem'd any thing , rather than christians . let those , whose cause he has so unfortunately undertaken , consider this ; and i am perswaded they will begin to grow asham'd of their advocate . and how unjust soever they may esteem our charge of idolatry , yet they will not say , it is such as cannot be maintain'd against them , without inspiring us at the same time with all the horrible impulses of cruelty and barbarity against themselves , and of faction and rebellion against the government ; which some men would insinuate . as for our selves , we earnestly beseech all those of the church of rome , against whom we at any time advance this imputation , that they will as candidly consider our arguments , as we can truly profess they are charitably proposed by us ; and whether they shall remain satisfied or not , that there is reason in our charge , yet to give us so much credit with them at least , as to believe that we think there is ; and shall be heartily glad to be convinced that we were mistaken in our opinion . chap. ii. in which this author 's true and only notion of idolatry is consider'd , and the method laid down for a more particular examination of it . i will now take it for granted , that under the shelter of so great an authority as i have shewn to be equally concern'd with us , in all the scandalous imputations that can be raised against our charging those of the church of rome with idolatry , i may venture to search a little more particularly into the nature of it , without being thought either a cannibal or a fanatick , or to have any design of setting up a standard against the monarchy , for my so doing ; especially considering that i resolve not to encounter any church or party of men in the world on this occasion , but meerly to shew that this man's notion of idolatry , though set off with such assurance as few writers have ever equalled , is yet , after all , so far from being supported either by scripture or antiquity , that it is indeed utterly repugnant to both . and therefore that the church of rome is only vindicated by him from the charge of an idolatry that no man ever produced against her , but for such idolatry as we accuse her of , she may still fall under the weight of that , for any thing that has here been offer'd to the contrary . according to this author , idolatry is neither more nor less than this : the worship of the heavenly bodies , the sun , the moon , and the stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity , as the supream god , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . from whence it follows , that to make a man an idolater , these three things are required . . that he cast off all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . . that he believes there is no other supream god than either the sun , moon , or stars , or some other the like visible and corporeal parts of the world. . that in pursuance of this apprehension , he worships these visible and corporeal deities as the supream god. now to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , and to believe no other supream god , but some visible and corporeal part of the world , in opposition to a spiritual and invisible godhead , is , i think , to be an atheist , though here is much ado to describe him . for to believe none but a visible god , in opposition to an invisible one , and to believe none but a corporeal god , in opposition to a spiritual god , is to believe no god at all ; unless a man can suppose a supream god , without understanding , or any perfection whatsoever of a spiritual and invisible nature . by consequence , for a man with these apprehensions to worship this god which he has made to himself , is not well capable of any other construction , than that he takes some pains , and goes a little way about to expose all religion and worship to contempt . i would be very glad to understand our author's notion of idolatry ; and therefore if it were possible , i should be content that his idolater should not be an atheist for a while , that we might see what else we can make of him . for a man to take nothing else for the supream god , but a certain visible being , from which he shuts out all apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , is certainly to be a downright atheist , though his atheism might have been described in fewer words . and yet on the other side , to worship something in good earnest as the supream god , seems to imply that a man is not an atheist : for an atheist is one that does not so much as believe that there is a supream god. but he surely believes a god , who worships any thing for the supream god , whatever that be which he so worships . now if thomas aquinas were here , it would strangely perplex him to clear this matter . i do not mean to make good sense of the words , for that i take to be impossible , but to tell us by the words , what the author's drift should be . for they make up a nonsense so very stiff , that it will not bend one way or the other . and if i must understand something by every word that he says , i can have no more notion of his idolatry than i have of nothing . and if he had said , idolatry is neither more nor less than nothing , i had been as much edified as i am now . unless he would give us to understand , that idolatry is meer speculative madness , which no body that has common sense and understanding , can possibly be guilty of . for all that part of the world that either is or ought to be out of bethlehem and the like hospitals , do by the supream god , understand something at least , that is not only able to help or to hinder , but knows also when to do one and t'other , and is willing to do accordingly . and therefore to worship any thing as the supream god , and at the same time to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , is to worship a thing because i am sure it knows something , while i take care to be as sure at the same time , that it knows nothing at all . i can compare this to nothing , as i have already intimated , but to some extraordinary instance of madness . for instance : if i should ever see a man fall down upon his knees , and seem in good earnest to ask blessing of a post , and to call it father , i should presently think of this author's idolater : for his idolater is rather more than less mad than he that fancies a post to be his father . for men in their wits , have at least as high an opinion of what they take to be their supream god , as they have of their parents : and therefore to worship that as the supream god , which no less wants the perfections of a spiritual and invisible nature , than a post does , is a misfortune that cannot light upon any body but a mad man. so that our author's idolater is a man whom either all the world must acknowledge to be out of his wits , or if you put him into his wits , he is a meer atheist ; though i am confident he would not have described himself so wittily , as this author has described him . this notion of idolatry is to me so monstrous a notion , that i am apt to look again and again into the book , to see if the words be there in which he has deliver'd it . but when at last i find that they are undoubtedly there , i am taken with a new fear , that the author did not mean what he says ; and therefore that i do not understand his meaning , though i understand the meaning of his words . in such a case as this , i have nothing to do , but to take another notion of idolatry ; which though it be not the true and only notion of it , has yet plain sense , and comes as near to his , as a notion that has sense can come to one that has none . and it is this : that idolatry is the worship of the sun , moon , or stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity , as the supream god , not so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead ; but so as to suppose that as they are visible beings , so they have invisible natures too , and some spiritual perfections , which are indeed proper to the true god. now this notion of idolatry is , in one part of it , quite contrary to our author's . for they who worship any visible deity as the supream god , with this perswasion , that it has indeed spiritual and invisible perfections , do not thereby exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead ; because they have the sense of such a godhead in the notion of that very thing which they worship . but though this is not the idolatry which his book speaks of , yet , as i said , 't is the likest to it that i can think of . and if he does not mean what his book says , 't is a hunder'd to one but he means this . but if i should be mistaken , 't is no great matter ; for if i can but shew that this is not the only notion of idolatry , it follows out of hand , that the notion of his book cannot possibly be so neither : so that one way or other i am sure to reach him , whether he and his book have one meaning or two . . according to this notion then , those who retain the sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , though they do worship the heavenly bodies , the sun , moon , and stars , but this only as inferior and subordinate deities , cannot be idolaters . and therefore if the gentiles , the aegyptians , for instance , or the chaldoeans , did believe one supream god , and worshipped the sun moon , and stars , upon the account of those coelestial spirits they supposed to reside in them , this worship was not idolatrous . in like manner , those gentiles that worshipped any corporeal deity , or any thing visible or invisible besides the supreme god , if they believed all the while that it was not the supreme god , and did not worship it as such , they i say could not be idolaters . and therefore i think if the gentiles were idolaters in worshipping any of their deities , it must be because they had no knowledge of the true god. so that either st. paul or this author was out in the true and only notion of idolatry . for though st. paul accused the gentiles of idolatry , yet he confessed , that they knew god. for ( says he ) though they knew god yet they glorified him not as god. rom. . . if we do but interpret the cautions of the new testament against idolatry , by our author's notion of idolatry , they will be paraphrased so as i believe they never were done before his time , and i suppose will never be after it . for instance ; when st. paul said to the corinthian christians , my dearly beloved , flee from idolatry ; this was as much as if he had said , my dearly beloved , idolatry being neither more nor less than the worship of the heavenly bodies , the sun , the moon , the stars , or any other visible or corporeal deity as the supreme god , i intreat and earnestly require you to flee from idolatry . and therefore though i do not bid you worship the heavenly bodies , or their images upon earth , yet i strictly charge you , not to worship them as the supreme god , or as if there were not an invisible god above them all ; if ever you should find it convenient to worship the sun or moon , or stars , or any representation of them here below . this would be an admirable paraphrase , and which i doubt not but our author would be able to make good against all those that neither do , nor can , nor ought to understand these things . but whether our nobility and men of quality are willing to come into this number i think i need not say . . but because to created beings he afterwards adds mortal ones , of which more hereafter , i suppose he means reasonable beings , let us see how things will go upon these new terms . dearly beloved , if ever you should worship saturn or jupiter , or such like men who died long since , still remember that they were once visible and mortal men , and have a care not to worship them as the supreme god. i mention here only dead heathens , there being yet no christian hero's in st. paul's time to whom any such worship was given , nor for some ages after . now i think this will pass as little as the other with men that ought and do understand . for besides the barbarous stuff which this notion makes the apostle to speak , it presses a meer monster upon us ; that the apostle supposes it utterly impossible for a christian that does not at once renounce his whole faith and profession , to be guilty of idolatry . st. paul certainly was a very deep man in hiding his purpose , if by intreating the christians to flee from idolatry , he meant no other thing than that they should not take and worship the sun , or the moon , or some dead man , as the supreme god. and our author is as deep a man in finding out this hidden purpose of the apostle , which till he arose no man was ever so happy as to do . but indeed with all his rhetorick he will never make himself and the apostle of one mind in this matter . for thus st. paul goes on : ye cannot drink the cup of the lord and the cup of devils ; ye cannot be partakers of the lord's table , and of the table of devils . do we provoke the lord to jealousie ? are we stronger than he ? now if they who partake in idolatrous sacrifices are idolaters , and if idolaters have no sense of a supreme god , above the pretended deities to whom they offer , they will not i conceive care one jot whether they partake of the lord's table or not , nor be concerned about the lord's jealousie at all . and yet st. paul plainly supposes , that if christians should be guilty of idolatry , they would yet probably be concern'd about god's jealousie , and desire to partake of the lord's table . thus when the same apostle wrote to the very same persons not to keep company , no nor so much as to eat with one called a brother , if he were a fornicator , or covetous , or an idolater , or a railer , or a drunkard . i cannot but wonder what an idolater has to do in this company , if this author's idolater , and st. paul's idolater were the same idolater . for whatsoever the fornicator , or covetous , or railer , or drunkard , might pretend for a title to brotherhood ; i am yet certain , that he is fallen even from all right to that name , who worships the sun ( for instance ) as the supreme god , and so renounces god the maker of the world , and the father of our lord jesus christ. st. paul speaks of his idolater as one within the church , and one of those wicked persons that were to be cast out of the civil as well as the religious communion of it . but if there be no idolater besides this author's idolater , who has renounced the maker of heaven and earth , and lost all apprehension of him , he has prevented the apostle's direction , and is out of the church by his own act. . these things do , i confess , give me a great prejudice against this author's true and only notion of idolatry . and there is one thing which i believe will make him less fond of it himself , when he comes to consider it ; and that is , that his notion does by no means suit with the sense of that church , to which he designed a good turn in all this . it is very well known how the fathers of trent , to vindicate their worship of images from being parallel to what the gentiles heretofore paid to theirs , did , among other differences , lay down this for one : that they do not believe any divinity or vertue to be in them , for which they ought to be worshipped . for to believe this , their catechism tells us , is to make the images become idols , and by consequence , the worship of them to be idolatry . now if it be idolatry to worship images with such an opinion , then it cannot be the only notion of idolatry to worship the sun , moon , or stars , or any corporeal deity , as the supream god , or their images as the images of a pretended supreme god : for without any thing of all this , one may believe divinity and virtue to be in images , and worship them upon that account . for example : the heathens had a mighty opinion of aesculapius after his death , that in his temples , and by his images , he could cure diseases . let us suppose now a person to fall down and worship one of these images , in hopes of some divine virtue coming thence . were this worship idolatry , or not ? if it were not , then was the council of trent to blame , to make this an instance of the gentiles ' idolatry ; if it were , then in the opinion of the roman church , the account of idolatry which this author has given , cannot be the only notion of it : for this was neither the worshipping of any corporeal deity , as the supream god , nor of any corporeal image of the supream god. lastly , in all the accounts which the missionaries of the church of rome have given us of the heathen nations where they have come , we find them generally acknowledging a supream , spiritual , and invisible godhead . and that if they worship the sun , moon , or stars , it is not that they esteem them to be meer visible and corporeal deities , much less think them to be the supream god , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible god above them ; but they worship them either as inferiour deities , to whom god has committed the government of the world under him ; or they look upon god to be the soul of the world , and that therefore the parts of it deserve honour upon that account : or finally , they esteem god to be of so great perfection and excellency , that he is above their service , and that therefore they ought to pay their external adoration to somewhat below him . now i shall leave it to this author to consider upon what grounds , according to his true and only notion of idolatry , he will charge these men with this guilt ; or if out of his great charity he shall think fit generously to acquit them of it , i will then send him to some of his friends of the roman communion for better instruction . these and many other reasons , that i might add , occur to me upon the very first view only , to make me suspect his hypothesis . but now when i examine it more particularly , i find it yet more gross and unreasonable . the sum of what he offers for it , is an historical deduction of the state of idolatry in the old testament , compar'd with the accounts that are given of the idolatry of the ancient , especially the eastern nations , who acknowledged no other deities , but the stars , among whom the sun was supream ; in opposition to which false principle , rabbi maimon says , god enacted the law of moses . and according to this law , it appears , that idolatry is giving the worship of the supream god to any created , corporeal , or visible deity , or any thing that can be represented by an image , which nothing but corporeal beings can ; and to suppose such a being the supream deity , is the only true and proper idolatry . in opposition to which positive conclusion , i will content my self at present to say , that there is not one word of truth in it ; for that neither was the religion of the eastern nations , such as he pretends , nor the nature of idolatry under the law , what he represents it to have been . and to the end i may plainly clear this whole matter , i will distinctly shew three things . first , that the idolatry of those nations whom he mentions , the egyptians , chaldeans , persians , arabians , &c. did not consist in worshipping the sun , moon , and stars , as the supream god ; so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . nor therefore , secondly , was this the only idolatry forbidden to the jews by the law. but thirdly , that as the jews retaining both the apprehension and worship of the god of israel , were yet guilty of idolatry for worshipping him after a gentile manner , so may christians be now . and therefore that the church of rome may justly be charged by us as idolatrous , though we do not pretend in any wise to say either that she worships the sun , moon , and stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity as the supream god ; or that she has lost all apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . and thus having established the true notion of idolatry , i shall last of all consider such objections as may be necessary to be replied to for the clearing of it ; and so leave the particular charges to be made good by those who shall have occasion so to do . chap. iii. of the idolatry of the ancient heathens ; especially , of the chaldeans , egyptians , and persians ; and that it did not consist in their worshipping the sun , moon and stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity , as the supreme god ; so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . this is the fundamental mistake of our author concerning his notion of idolatry ; and which being overthrown , his whole hypothesis built upon it , must fall together with it . for thus it is that he argues : god designed by his law , to preserve the jews from falling into the idolatry of the nations round about them : against this , we find not only all its precepts , but even the rights and ceremonies of it , to have been directed . but the idolatry of those nations was no other than the worship of the sun , moon and stars , or of some the like visible and corporeal deities , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . and therefore this must be the true and only notion of it in the old testament . i shall hereafter more fully shew the weakness of this proof , when i come to demonstrate , that there were two sorts of idolatry mention'd in those holy scriptures extreamly different the one from the other . and therefore that tho this were the true notion of idolatry in one respect , yet it would not follow that it was the only notion , by reason of the other . and this i shall do in the next chapter . my business at present is to shew , that what he has thus confidently laid down , is so far from being the only notion of idolatry , that it is indeed no notion of it at all ; for that those very heathens whom he insists upon for his warrant in this matter , were not guilty of such an idolatry as he pretends they were . we have already seen his definition of idolatry , that it is neither more nor less than this : the worship of the heavenly bodies , the sun , the moon , and the stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity , as the supreme god , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . this he pretends is the only scripture notion of it . and thus ( he says ) all learned men of all nations , all religions , ever understood the old notion of idolatry , till this last age , when folly and passion cast it at any thing that peevish men were angry with . so rabbi mamion , the most learned and judicious of the jewish doctors discourses at large , that the ancient idolatry was nothing but the religion of the eastern nations , who acknowledg no other deities but the stars , among whom the sun was supreme . and then he immediately subjoyns , that the ancient heathens worshipped only the stars , without any notion of heroes or d●mons : so diodorus siculus says of the egyptians ; herodotus of the persians and chaldeans ; strabo and justin , of the arabians , and caesar of the germans . he confesses indeed , that there was another sort of idolatry introduced afterward , the worship of men and women ; but this he takes to have been much more modern , and a meer invention of the vain and lying greeks ; but that whensoever it came in , it was grafted upon the old stock , of giving the worship of the supreme god , not only to created , but to mortal beings . so this author . to which i reply . i. that as to this latter sort of idolatry , seeing he has declin'd the consideration of it , as being of too young a date to found the scripture notion of idolatry upon it , i shall not insist upon it ; tho i am by no means satisfied , either in his account of its antiquity , or that it was a meer invention of the vain and lying greeks . for . it has been the opinion of very learned men , that this kind of idolatry was practised in egypt soon after the flood . and that the most ancient osiris , was no other than mitzraim , the son of cham , whom they worshipped together with his father , and from whom the whole country is in scripture called by his name . in the cv . psalm . it is expresly stiled , the land of cham : and plutarch informs us , that in the sacred rites of isis , they call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , very probably upon the same account . and that which makes this the more likely is , that in the division of the world among the sons of noah , gen. x. arabia fell to the lot of cham ; and in that chush his eldest son fixed himself , from whence the country is called , the land of cush , in kings xix . . and then it may easily be conceiv'd that his second son mitzraim , should go into the next adjoyning country , the land of egypt . now if this be so , then it follows , not only that this sort of idolatry was much more ancient than is pretended ; but that being practised in egypt before the children of israels going down thither ; it may be reasonably enough allow'd a sufficient antiquity for us to derive something from it of the notion of idolatry , with reference to the times under debate . but , dly , as to the very apis its self , the chief deity of the egyptians , and whom our author contends to have been the sun ; it is not improbable , but that they meant no other than the patriarch joseph by it ; and whom they honour'd with divine honours , upon the account of his wonderful preservation of them in the seven years famine , gen. xli . thus julius firmicus expresly interprets it , and what is more , adds , that this was according to the manner of their country : the egyptians ( says he ) after his death , according to the appointment of their country , built temples to him. and again , this man is worshipt in egypt , he is adored , &c. to him ruffinus agrees ; and st. augustin , or whoever else was the author of that book under his name , de mirabilibus scripturae , informs us , that the egyptians upon this account , set up the symbol of an ox over the sepulchre of joseph , in memory of their deliverance . thus suidas interprets their serapis ; who as clemens alexandrinus ( out of aristeas ) tells us , was the same with apis ; and both suidas , ruffinus , and julius firmicus , add , that his statue was set up with a bushel upon his head , to denote the plenty of corn which he provided for them . and in the very scripture it self , joseph is either call'd , or at least compar'd to an ox , deut. xxxiii . . and some of the rabbins have given this account of the very calves of jeroboam , that they were the symbols of joseph , set up by him in honour of his ancestors , from a part of whose tribe , viz. that of ephraim , he was himself descended . here it were an easie matter to multiply proofs upon this occasion , to shew that the idolatry of consecrating heroes into gods , and worshipping them as such , is by no means of so fresh a date , as this author would have it thought to be . for what he adds , that whensoever it came in , it was grafted upon the old stock of giving the worship of the supreme god , not only to created , but to mortal beings : i answer , . that this is evidently contrary to all the accounts we have of their worship ; and according to which it appears , that the heathens paid no other worship to their divi , or deified men , than what the church of rome at this day does to her saints ; but as carefully distinguish'd between the adoration of the supreme god , and these heroes , as the other do between him , and those blessed men that reign together with him , as their language tells us . . whenever this idolatry came in , 't is evident that the very nature of it utterly overthrows his only notion of idolatry before laid down ; unless he supposes that they thought their heroes , whom whilst they lived they knew to be but men , born into the world after the common order of nature , and even dying after the same manner as all others , became after death the supreme god that made heaven and earth ; and believed all this so firmly , as not only to give the worship of the supreme god to them , but to exclude all sense and apprehension of any god above them . for so ( he says ) a man must do , before he can be guilty of idolatry . now if this be his opinion , i would then ask this learned antiquary one small question : seeing the number of their heroes was very great , whom the same persons at the same time worshipped ; did they believe every one of these to be the supreme god that made heaven and earth , and give the highest divine honour accordingly unto every one of them as such ? that they did this , no man of sense will either say or believe ; and yet if they did not , the true and only notion of idolatry is at an end ; for which ever of their heroes they believed to be the supreme god , and worshipped as such , they must have adored the rest only as inferior deities , and with an honour suitable to their apprehensions of them . either therefore he must quit his true and only notion of idolatry , which he tells us is neither more nor less than , the worship of the heavenly bodies , the sun , the moon , and the stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity , as the supreme god , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead ; or he must give us some assurance that the egyptians ( for instance ) worshipping of joseph under the symbol of an ox , did believe him to be the supreme deity , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of any superior godhead , and did worship him accordingly ; that is , that those men were so sottish as to think that a man who had lived and died amongst them , was the great god that framed the world , and all things in it , many ages before himself had any being . but ii. to come to the other , and ( as he supposes ) the more ancient idolatry , and in his notion of which , i affirm him to have been utterly mistaken : and here i must observe , that it is not at all doubted , but that these heathens did worship the sun , moon , and stars ; that which i pretend is , that this author is very much out in the account which he gives of their worship of them . . he affirms , that they worshipped these heavenly bodies as visible and corporeal deities , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead : whereas on the contrary , they believed these very bodies themselves to be animated by celestial spirits who resided in them , and rendred them thereby proper objects of their adoration . . that they worshipped these visible and corporeal deities , as the supreme god ; whereas they constantly acknowledged a first and invisible godhead , superior to them . . that they worshipp'd no other gods but these , and amongst these the sun as supreme ; when on the contrary it is certain , even from the very authors that himself produces , that they worshipp'd other deities , both heroes and doemons , of which this man yet pretends with so much assurance , that they had no notion . and all these are not only gross errors for an author who writes with such confidence as if he would be thought to have been initiated into all the religions of which he discourses , but such as utterly ruin all that he has to say to support his true and only notion of idolatry . but i must examine these points more particularly . and . that these nations did not worship the heavenly bodies as visible and corporeal deities , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . this is an assertion not only so monstrously absurd in its self , but so contrary to all the accounts we have from antiquity , of the theology of those nations to which he refers us , that i must once more confess , that i never lay under a greater temptation to disbelieve my own senses , or to suspect my understanding of plain words than now : on the one hand , i am sure our author here defines idolatry to be , the worship of the heavenly bodies , the sun , the moon , and the stars , or some other visible and corporeal deity , not only as the supreme god , but so at to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead : that is to say , that he who is an idolater must worship them as mere corporeal parts of the creation , void of all understanding ; for so i think visible and corporeal gods must be taken , when opposed to all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . and yet on the other hand , how to reconcile such a paradox with either the common reason of mankind , as i have observed before ; or the clear evidences of the gentile world to the contrary , as i observe now , i am not able to comprehend : but let our author take his choice ; for i will here again do more than i need , rather than be thought to omit any thing that was fit to be taken notice of . if he thinks good to own this notion , i will then offer what may serve to confute it ; but if being admonished of the absurdity of it , he shall chuse rather to wrest his words to some other meaning than they naturally bear , i shall only have spent some little time in confuting that , which if he does not , i am certain no body else will ever affirm . and to begin where himself does , with the holy scriptures , not only the most certain , but the most ancient history in the world. he produces indeed a few texts from whence it may be concluded , that the heathens of old , did worship the sun , moon , and stars ; but that they worshipped them ( according to his notion ) as corporeal deities , and so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead ; for this he has not so much as offer'd at one single proof . for . as to his first instance , ( and which indeed is the first account we have ) of idolatry . the scripture , 't is true , tells us that terah , abraham's father , worshipped strange gods ; but that these gods were corporeal deities , and that they worshipp'd them so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , of this there is not a word : see josh. xxiv . . and i shall presently shew the contrary . if we go on with him to the next ( and as he thinks the first plain ) intimation we find of idolatry in palestine , in the history of jacob ; after his conversation with the shechemites , where upon his departure from that city by god's especial command , he builds an altar at bethel to god , and commands his family to put away their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or strange gods. neither here shall we find our author's notion so much as insinuated , but as i will now prove , much to the contrary . it is not to be doubted , but that these gods were the same that they worshipped in syria when they were in the house of laban ; and that therefore the images which jacob buried , could be no other than the teraphim , so usual amongst them , i. e. such as rachel stole from her father laban , gen. xxxi . . how far from hence it might be proved that their idolatry did not consist merely in their worshipping of the sun , moon , and stars , i shall not now dispute : let us suppose these teraphims to have been not only made by planetary influences , but designed to represent the sun , or some other heavenly bodies ; then , i say , it follows both from the history of laban , and from the accounts we have of these idols , that they did not worship the sun as a corporeal deity , and by consequence that that cannot be the true notion of their idolatry , which is pretended to be . for , . as to laban , we read gen. xxxi . . that when he ratified the covenant with jacob , he called to witness not only the god of abraham , but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , his own domestick deity too , i. e. in our author's opinion , the sun , the god ( says he ) of abraham , and the god of nachor judg betwixt us : now this plainly shews that laban lookt upon his father's god ( and who was also the god of tera before-mentioned , josh. xxiv . . ) not to be a mere corporeal deity , but as having an intellectual being incorporated in it , that was both capable of hearing their oath , and of judging betwixt them , and without which he could never have called him to witness their contract . . for what concerns the teraphim , it appears from holy scripture , that the chaldeans made use of them not only as symbols for worship , but for oracles too , and as such , were wont to consult them ; it was for this , that rachel is supposed to have stollen away her father's gods , gen. . that so when he should come , and miss her husband , he might not be able to enquire of them which way to pursue after him . we read in ezek. xxi . . that the king of babylon consulted with his teraphim , which st. jerome calls consulting with his oracle , after the manner of his country : and the prophet zachary x. . tells the people , that their teraphim had spoken vanity : now how could this possibly be , had the chaldeans worshipped only visible and corporeal deities ? is not this an undeniable evidence , that they acknowledged in the heavenly bodies , invisible spirits to descend and influence their teraphim , so as to make them speak ? many are the accounts that may be given of these idols , and which have been collected with much exactness by those great men , gerard vossius , mr. selden , &c. but i shall content my self to subjoin the authority of one only person , now living , and no way inferior to any that can be produced , it seems ( saith he ) to have been the opinion of those ancient idolaters , that some spiritualities from superior intelligences , and heavenly powers , did influence such images as they made in such figures as they thought acceptable to them , and dedicated to them ; and therefore called such their images themselves god , and thought them so , at least deos vicarios , inferior deities ; mediators between them and the superior , and did offer sacrifice , and burnt incense , that they might draw down and entice ( as it were ) those spiritual influences to reside on those images , that so they might declare to them , and do for them what they desired . and elsewhere he says , that the modern zabii not only pretend to succeed the old chaldees in their religion , but that as to their rites about telesms , and figures , and images , we cannot but easily believe , that they were derived to them from ancient times . and now that i mention the zabii , i cannot but observe the wonderful acuteness of our author in his reflections upon them ; he calls it the dream of the zabii ; and he decretorily condemns all that is said by learned men on their behalf , merely because he ( a person so acurately versed in all the learning of the east ) can find no ancient footsteps of any such people in the world ; and that dr. spencer has discover'd for him , that the name is ●no older than mahomet , who call'd them zabii , because they lay eastward from arabia ; for so the word signifies , easterlings . thus this author , and still , as becomes himself , he pronounces , dictator-like , and is alway in the wrong ; for the question is not about the name of zabii ( which from henceforth must signifie easterlings , tho the learned dr. spencer had collected no less than five several significations of it , and every one supported by probable conjectures ) ; but about the people , or rather the religion ; and to draw this matter out of the clouds , and shew what an admirable critick we have got here , it is just as if a man should undertake to prove the britains to be a people of no antiquity , because they are now called . welch , and that 's but a modern name . now according to this true state of this matter , it is evidently shew'd by that learned person i before mentioned , that the religion of the zabii is not only of no modern date , but is as ancient , or even more ancient than abraham . abulfeda calls it the most ancient religion ; and saidus batricides attributes the original of the zabii , thus consider'd , in their manners and superstitions , to the time of nachor , abraham's grandfather . to this subscribes the learned and inquisitive hornbeck ; and who thinks them to be the same with those that were anciently called saboei ; and abul-pharajius , cited by dr. spencer , thus confirms it , that which we certainly know of the sect of the zabii , is , that their profession is altogether the same with the profession of the ancient chaldeans . as for the point before us ; we are told that they worshipped the host of heaven , supposing the stars to be animated by divine understandings . dr. pocock adds , that they lookt upon the planets , as mediators between the supreme god , and men ; and cites gregorius , abulfaroeus and sharestanius , for his warrant ; which last expresly says , that they worship the bodies of the planets , as the habitations of the living , rational , and intellectual substances , which they suppose to animate them . now these are all plain and rational accounts , why they should worship these heavenly bodies ; but to talk of their worshipping the sun , moon and stars , as visible and corporeal deities , and that so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , is to represent their worship contrary not only to truth , but to common sense and reason too . but when men are resolved to advance such notions , as this author does , they must have proofs of the same kind . and this for the chaldeans . as to the egyptians , jamblicus informs us , that they worshipped indeed the sun , moon and stars , as visible gods ; but such as were compounded of soul and body , and they esteem'd those planets to be seats only of those coelestial spirits that were to take care of human affairs . it was a nice question put by porphyry , to an egyptian priest , how the sun , moon and stars could be gods , seeing the gods are incorporeal ? jamblicus answers , that the incorporeal gods assume those bodies , by which they become visible . and syrianus asserts , the coelestial animals ( as he calls them ) to be the images of the maker of the world , and to communicate sense to it . but it may be said , that these were philosophers , and endeavour'd to make the best of their idolatry . i answer , that jamblicus declares , he delivers nothing but according to the old egyptian books : and he delivers it for the true egyptian theology ; that there was one supreme god above all ; next him the demiurgus ; the third principle he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and some think the sun is meant by it , as the immediate governor of the world. if so , there is great reason why the sun should be worshipped under the names of moloch and baal , as being king and lord of this inferior world. and thus neither did the egyptians worship these heavenly bodies , so as to exclude all sense of a spiritual and invisible godhead . if from both these nations we pass finally to the persians , jac. golius will give us the very same account of them , viz. that the ancient persians did worship coelestial spirits , as having a particular presidency over the material part of the world. and now , after so many plain testimonies in this matter , were it yet needful to look into any other countries , we should find the case to be every where the same . pliny pleads much for the divinity of the sun ; but do's he believe it to be a visible and corporeal deity , so as to exclude any invisible and spiritual godhead ? no , on the contrary , he calls it the spirit and mind of the world. he attributes sense and understanding to it ; and affirms from homer , that it sees and hears all . and indeed this is so often insisted upon by that poet , that eustathius from thence observes , that the sun was to be consider'd not only as a luminary of the heavens , but as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a spirit cloathed with such an illustrious body . and in another place he takes notice of the decency of homer , that he calls the heavenly powers to be witnesses of oaths , and particularly the sun. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . so little truth is there in this first of our authors pretence , that the ancients did worship the sun , the moon , and the stars , as visible and coporeal deities , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . let us see dly , whether they who worshipp'd these planets , look'd upon them as the supreme deities , so as not to acknowledg any divinity above them . and here it must be confess'd , he has at least an appearance of truth . for , as for the chaldeans , maimonides tells us of the ancient zabii , that they had no other gods but the stars ; and that among them , they look'd upon the sun as supreme . from whence our learned pocock seems to think it not far from the truth , to say , that possibly they derived their very name of zabii ; saba in the hebrew , signifying an host , as if one should say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , worshippers of the host of heaven . the same is the account which sanchoniathon , mentioned both by eusebius and st. cyril , gives of the phoenicians , that they worshipped the sun , moon and stars , as the only immortal gods , among which the sun was chief , called by them beth-samen , lord of heaven . and for the persians , herodotus tells us , that the sun was their only god : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; to which strabo and trogus , in justin , assent . and hesychius , tho he rejects this , yet acknowledges him to be the first or supreme god amongst them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( says he ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . all which seems to be confirm'd by those ancient inscriptions collected by gruterus and others , deo soli invicto . omnipotenti deo . and again , soli invicto & lunae aeternae . from all which it may be thought to follow , that ( as this author here tells us ) the gods which those ancient heathens worshipped , were nothing but the heavenly bodies , or the sun as the supreme deity . but yet if we enquire more exactly into these things , we shall find their worship to have been much otherwise than what at first sight it appears to be ; for to begin with those i last named , the persians ; and than whom none have been more famed for adoring the sun : plutarch tells us that they had a notion of a deity whom they call'd oromasdes , superior to him , and the account of whom ( derived to them from zoroaster ) he thus delivers to us . they believed that there were two contrary principles , the one good , the other evil. the former of these they called oromasdes , whom they also look'd upon as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or creator , as agathias informs us ; the other arimanius . between these two , they placed their mithras , or the sun , who was esteem'd by them , as much inferior to oromasdes , as superior to arimanius . to this oromasdes , they ascribed the creation of the stars , and of the good gods , thus plutarch : but photius carries it yet a little further in his account of a book written by theodorus , bishop of movestia , concerning the persian rites , he says , that they believed the first principle of all , to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and that he begat the other two , which with some little difference , he calls ormisdas and satan . but not to insist upon these accounts : we are told by a learned man in his notes upon alferganus , that the persians gave the names of their gods to their months and days , according to the ancient religion of the persians and magi , whereby they did believe their gods to preside over them ; it being a principle amongst them , as well as among all other nations of the east , that the things of this lower world are administred by angels . the spirit over the sun , they called mihrgian , from mitro the sun. but above all those , they believed there was one supreme god. eubulus , who wrote the history of mithras ( which was extant in st. jeromes time ) hath given a particular account of the cave which zoroaster made in honour of another and superior mithras , the father and maker of the world. even herodotus himself , whom this author so confidently produces for his warrant ( but cites no particular passage of him ) distinguishes their jupiter from the sun , and says , by it they understood the whole heaven in which the sun is fixt ; and sacrificed to him distinctly from the other . and so does strabo , another of his authors : xenophon often mentions a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as a deity superior to the sun ; especially , where speaking of cyrus being admonished in a dream of his approaching death , he tell us , that he sacrificed to his country jupiter first , and then to the sun : and plutarch brings in darius in like manner addressing to him , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . thou our country jupiter , or supreme god of the persians . i might add here , that the same is the opinion of those persees , who stick to their ancient religion at this day . but these have been already collected by a very eminent hand . i shall conclude , therefore , with the form of that proclamation , which cyrus gave in favour of the jews , and by which it plainly appears that they believed the same first and soveraign deity with our selves , ezra i. . thus saith cyrus king of persia , the lord god of heaven hath given me all kingdoms of the earth , and hath charged me to build him a house at jerusalem . and in the next verse , he calls the same god , the lord god of israel . and i hope this author will not say that was the sun , or any other visible and corporeal deity . i have enlarged my self the more on this part of antiquity , because the persians , if any , must have been found to worship the sun , as the supreme god. i shall be very short in other nations , and so close this consideration . and for what concerns the egyptians , i have already given some account of their theology ; and we may learn from thence , how it came to pass , that the sun ( whom none of the heathens looked upon as absolutely the supreme and highest being ) is yet so often spoken of by them as such . for as jamblicus informs us out of the old egyptian books , they believ'd one supreme god above all , next him the demiurgus , and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the sun ; whom they esteem'd the supreme visible god , and as he who had the super-intendency over the visible world. to which i will add the authority of prophyry , and that the rather for that in his epistle to anebo , he seems to suspect that the old egyptians look'd no farther than the sun , moon and stars . but 't is plain that this was only a difficulty , which he puts to the egyptian priest ; since himself owns that they represented the creator , whom they call'd cneph , with an egg in his mouth , to signifie the production of the world ; and of which the sun is but a part. and here i may not omit another notion of the egyptians , and which was not theirs only ; and from whence we may again know how to understand those who seem to represent the sun as the supreme deity . it was a principle in their theology , that the supreme god of all , is not to be worshipped by any external and sensible thing , not so much as by vocal prayer , but only by pure silence and contemplation : but that sacrifices and hymns were to be made to powers inferior to him. among these they esteemed the sun , moon and stars to be the chief ; from whence it was obvious enough to mistake , that because these were the highest deities , to whom they paid any external adoration , therefore they had no other superior to them . and now there remains only the chaldeans and phoenicians , to be consider'd ; and of these , both gregarius abulfarajus and sharestanius , cited by our learned dr. pocock , gives us accounts very different from that of maimonides before mention'd ; and that judicious and reverend author , justly esteems the credit of abulfarajus , preferrable to r. maimon's , for that he was better acquainted with their writings , and read them in their own language , which the other did not . and if what sharestanius reports be true , that it was their principle , that between the supreme god and us , there must be some mediators ; this again will furnish us with yet another reason , why the sun may easily have been mistaken for their supreme deity , because he was the principal mediator betwixt god and them , and the highest to which they paid any immediate external adoration . and tho this author is as positive , as if he had all the evidence in the world for it , that god made an extraordinary discovery of himself to abraham , as lord of all things , in opposition to the idolatry of his own country , by which he would imply that the chaldeans in those days did not suppose god to be the lord of all things ; yet is it ( like the rest of his book ) all imagination , without any thing to support it . for indeed we have all the reason in the world to believe that the chaldeans had at this time the knowledg of the one true god. . it appears by manifest computation , that shem , from whom tera and abraham were descended , was yet living with them , and it is altogether unaccountable , either that himself should have lost the knowledg of the one true supreme god ; or that if he retain'd it , all the rest of his family should have been utterly ignorant of it . . it is indeed said in holy scripture , josh. xxiv . v. . that they worshipped strange gods ; but it is not said that they either worshipped them as the supreme god , or had utterly lost all sense and apprehension of any such spiritual and invisible godhead . . in all the history of god's calling abraham out of ur of the chaldees , we do not find any thing to make us believe that god was pleased to make the discovery of himself to him , as lord of all things , in opposition to the idolatry of his family . . it is hard to suppose , that when all the barbarous nations , as we have seen , preserv'd the notion of the true , supreme god , only these chaldeans should lose it ; it was but on the other side the river , that we find the knowledg of god preserv'd in the land of canaan . and lastly , we do certainly know , that but two generations after laban , tho he did worship ( as it is said of tera ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , strange gods too , yet he retain'd with them a very good sense and apprehension of the supreme god , as is plain from gen. xxxi . where the god of abraham is found to appear to him , v. . and again v. . he ratifies his covenant with his son jacoh , swearing by the god of abraham , as well as by the strange god , the god of nahor . to conclude ; macrobius , than whom none could have taken more pains to shew the universal worship of the sun , was yet so far from thinking that it excluded all sense and apprehension of a supreme god , that he plainly says in the beginning , that he intended to treat only of the dij qui sub coelo sunt , the lower sort of worldly gods ; and in his commentary upon the dream of scipio , he plainly acknowledges a higher divinity , whom he calls the prima causa , & omnipotentissimus deus ; the first cause , and most almighty god. i shall close all with a passage of plutarch , which will at once shew both that the heathens had a knowledg of the supreme god amongst them , and that it was he whom they all every where adored as such , however differing in their manners and ceremonies from one another : no inanimate thing can be a god to men ; but they who bestow upon us a continual supply of what is sufficient for us , have therefore been esteemed gods by us ; which gods are not different among different nations , as if the barbarians and greeks , the southern and northern people had not the same god ; but as the sun , and moon , and heaven , and earth , and sea , are common to all , but are called differently by different men ; so tho there be but one word , or reason , ordering all those things , and but one providence dispensing all things , and the inferior powers which are appointed over all , having had several names and honours from several persons , and by the laws of several countries , have been every where worshipp'd throughout the whole world. i pass on finally to enquire , . whether these ancient idolaters , as is pretended , did so worship these heavenly bodies , as to worship nothing besides , and in particular so as to exclude all notion of heroes and doemons . this indeed is an assertion worthy our author , who as he has hitherto advanced nothing but paradoxes , so he resolves he will not now alter his character by representing antiquity truly at the last . i have already shewn in opposition to this suggestion , how the egyptians had their divi , or canonized men presently after the flood ; and that we have some reason to believe their principal deities , viz. apis and osyris , to have been such ; i will now add , that the first dynasties of manetho , of gods and demi-gods upon earth , confirms this , and to which the old egyptian chronicon in syncellus adds yet more force . st. cyril tells us from sanchoniathon , that not only the most ancient greeks , but especially the phoeniceans and egyptians , from whom this superstition was derived to all others ( tho our author , ever in the wrong , will have the greeks to be the inventors of it ) esteemed those the greatest gods , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , who had either found out some things useful for the life of man , or otherwise deserved well of their country . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and looking upon them as their benefactors and causes of great good to them , they worshipped them as gods , and prepared temples for that purpose , and consecrated pillars and other ensigns of honour to their memory . and as the holy father from the same author goes on , these they greatly worshipped , and the phoenicians especially , dedicated festivals unto them . but it was not enough for our author merely to advance a most false conclusion concerning these gentiles , unless he also chuse an evidence for it that speaks the direct contrary to his assertion : for thus it became him to keep up a just decorum between his principles and his proofs , that so we may be satisfied , that he values truth alike in both . this ( says he ) is attested by all historians , viz. that the old heathen nations worshipped only the stars , without any notion of heroes and demons . and the very first he instances , in is diodorus siculus for the egyptians . but this is perfectly to astonish us , and too plainly shews that some mens assurance is without bounds , as well as without reason : for what ? does diodorus siculus say that the egyptians worshipp'd only the stars , without any notion of heroes and demons ? this is worse than to write history out of an invisible manuscript ; 't is indeed to write history directly contrary to the visible records out of which he pretends to have taken it : for let this author look into diodorus siculus , whom i would willingly hope he has never yet read , and there he will find him in his first book , so far from what he pretends , that on the contrary , he expresly distinguishes between two sorts of gods among the egyptians , and discourses of them in order : and first of the celestial gods , p. . two of which he says the egyptians first of all had , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the sun and the moon : having discoursed of these , he thus formally concludes his account , and this the egyptians say concerning their celestial gods , and such as had an eternal generation . and then goes on immediately on the other sort , which this author pretends diodorus siculus denies them to have had any notion of : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . but besides these ( the sun and moon , &c. ) they say there are other terrestrial gods , mortals indeed by nature , but for their wisdom and prudence , and the benefits they did to mankind , endued with immortality ; of which kind ( says he ) were some of the kings of egypt . in the next page he places amongst these , our author's friends , isis and osiris , whose history he relates : and finally , to raise his ill choice to the highest evidence , having given a long relation of these kind of deities , he conclud●… as directly against our author 's other assertion , that this kind of idolatry was the invention of the vain and lying greeks , as if he had been retain'd on our side , by shewing expresly how they derived this kind of idolatry from the egyptians , by the means of orpheus , who had been initiated in the egyptian rites ; and then gives us this universal conclusion , p. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . that the egyptians do in general say , that the grecians have appropriated to themselves the most eminent of their heroes and gods , as well as of their colonies . so much would it have been for our author's reputation , if diodorus siculus too , had been an invisible manuscript . . the next author he produces , is herodotus , who , he says , affirms the same of the persians and chaldeans , that they worshipped only the stars , without any notion of heroes and demons ; but concerning the former part of his assertion , i have already shewn , that they did not worship only the stars , but acknowledged a supreme deity above them ; and for the latter , the very same herodotus who says this of the persians , in his first book , does directly contradict his conclusion , that this was the sense of all the old heathen nations , but especially that the worshipping of men and women , was the invention of the vain and lying greeks , in the very next , where he tells us that they derived their twelve gods from the egyptians , who were the first inventors of this idolatry . . the same ( he says ) in the next place is affirmed by strabo and justin , of the arabians : had he been pleased to produce some passages from these authors wherein they do say , that the arabians worship only the stars , without any notion of heroes and demons , we should have had less cause to suspect his assertion ; strabo indeed says that the arabians worship the sun , but that either he or justin have ever affirmed what this author pretends , i am yet to learn ; in the mean time this i am sure , that other authors have given us a very contrary account of them . lucan tells us , that their only god was jupiter ammon , whom that learned critick , gerard vossius does not without reason suppose to have been cham , whose eldest son chus , as i have before shewn , first planted himself there . arrian in his history of alexander's expedition , says that they had two gods , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or the heaven , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or bacchus ; and that 't was this encouraged that great conqueror to invade them , that he might make himself a third god amongst them ; and this may be well enough consistent with the other account , if what some learned men suppose , be allow'd ; that these were their own proper gods , whereas jupiter hammon , was rather the deity of the ammonites , among whom his oracle stood , and to whom they only sent ambassadors to consult upon occasion , it not appearing that the arabians had any temple for him in their own country : so that here too our author is mistaken , for that the arabians had other gods than the stars , and were not without all notion of heroes and doemons . . his fourth instance is in the ancient germans , and of them i confess caesar does say what he pretends , but then it is to be observ'd , that in the very same place , he utterly overthrows all the use this author can be supposed to make of it , viz. to shew , that all the old heathen nations worshipped only the stars , without any notion of heroes or demons ; seeing in the very same place , he says of the ancient gauls , that they worshipp'd such kind of gods as he denies any of the heathen did , and that with a superstition so like that of some of his acquaintance , that i cannot forbear taking notice of it : the gauls , says he , are very superstitious , and therefore if they fall into any dangerous distemper , or are concerned in war , or in any other danger , they straightway sacrifice , &c. for this purpose they have their particular gods ; mercury to prosper them in their journeys , or help them in their traffick ; apollo to cure them in their sickness ; minerva to find out any artificial works ; mars for war , &c. and this our author could not but know , since in the very passage to which he refers , he opposes the germans to them ; the germans ( says he ) differ much from this custom ( viz. ) of the gauls , which he had just before recounted ; for they esteem them only for gods whom they see , and by whom they are manifestly help'd , the sun , vulcan , and the moon . but i have yet more to except against this instance ; for however cesar came to be so misinformed , the ancient germans had other gods , even such as this author denies to all the ancient idolaters . tacitus mentions mars as the chief god of the tencteri , a nation bordering upon the bhine ; and in his book de moribus germanorum , he speaks of hercules as another of their deities . that they also worshipped mercury , we learn from the same author , whom in their language they called gota , or wota , as gotefridus viterbiensis in his chronicon observes , from whence also he supposes , that their word got , signifying god , is derived ; tho in this , other learned men dissent from him . and lastly , the same tacitus mentions yet another god more ancient than all these , the first founder of their country , tuisto , whom they worshipped , with his son manus ; and these , some think , were no other than gomar , and his son thogorma or aschenar , by whom germany was peopled after the flood , tho vossius rather supposes them yet of a greater antiquity , believing tuisto to be adam , and manus , to whom also tacitus assigns three sons , noah , by whom the world was again established after the flood . . and this may suffice for his particular authorities . his next are universal ; for he says eusebius in his book de preparatione evangelica , has shewn this to be the sense of all the old heathen nations , as may be seen in his collections of their several opinions , where he proves , that the ancient heathens only worshipped the stars , without any notion of heroes or demons . good god! what can be done with such a man as this ? eusebius has proved that all the ancient heathens worshipped only the stars , without any notion of heroes and demons , which was a mere invention of the vain and lying greeks : and yet has this very eusebius quoted diodorus siculus , for his account of the egyptian theology . he distinguishes with him their gods into coelestial and terrestrial : of the first , he treats in his first book from that author ; of the second in his next . the very title of his chapter is , an epitome of the egyptian theology , and how it passed from them to the greeks . in the beginning of it , he speaks how their gods , who had been mortal men , were for their benefits they did to mankind , and for their wisdom , made immortal deities . he exemplifies this in a large account of their mythology ; and then concludes expresly with his author , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . that the greeks had appropriated to themselves , the principal hero ' s , and gods of the egyptians . and yet this is the author that has shewn at large , how all theold heathen nations worshipp'd only stars , without any notion of hero ' s and daemons . his other author is macrobius , who he says , has proved it of all the ancient idolaters , that they worshipped the sun as the supreme deity . he should have added to make good his conclusion , and that so as to exclude all notions of hero ' s and daemons . but this macrobius never undertook to do : and i have before shewn , that in the very book of his saturnals , here mention'd , he was so far from shewing that they worshipp'd the sun as the ( absolutely ) supreme deity , that in the beginning of his discourse , he expresly restrains it to the dii duntaxat qui sub coelo sunt , or sub-coelestial deities : and in his comment upon scipio's dream , he acknowledges above the sun and heaven , many other gods ; viz. . an eternal psythe , the creator both of the heaven , and the sun. dly , a perfect mind or intellect , and ( as he calls him ) omnipotentissimus deus , the most omnipotent of all gods. . he has two authors whom he produces ; our own learned selden , in his book de diis syris , and gerard vossius , in nothing inferior to him , who have proved all the idols mention'd in scripture , to have been so many appellations of the sun , whom the ancient idolaters believed to have been the supreme god , and creator of the world , ( and therefore of himself too , for he is part of it ) as baal , baal-peor , bel , molech , baal-zebub , and mythras ; tho i doubt this last was taken from some invisible manuscript of the bible , for i do not remember that i have ever met with it in any of the editions that are extant of those sacred volumes . but to let this pass too ; did mr. selden then , and gerard vossius in good truth , undertake to shew , that all the ancient idolaters worshipp'd the sun as the supreme god , so as to exclude all notion of daemons and hero's ? st , mr. selden gives only a critical account of the syrian deities ; and in several of them shews , that others at least have believed them to be somewhat else than the sun. dly , gerard vossius is so far from favouring this man's pretences , that on the contrary 't is he , who has spent his whole first book of idolatry , to give an account of the ancient hero's , that were consecrated by the gentiles into gods ; 't is he that interprets the egyptians osyris to be mitzraim ; the beel of the chaldeans to be nimrod ; the tuisco of the germans , gomer , or perhaps adam . in short , he shews this sort of idolatry to have been introduced among the heathens the very age after the flood , even before god called abraham from uz of the chaldees . and thus have i consider'd this author's pretences to antiquity ; and i think i may say , there is nothing but falseness and vision , in all his notions and authorities . upon the whole , i shall beg leave very briefly , to conclude as to the nature of idolatry . i. that seeing all these ancient idolaters , did acknowledg one supreme , invisible and spiritual godhead , their idolatry did not consist in worshipping the heavenly bodies , so as to exclude all sense and appehension of any such thing . ii. that seeing they believed the sun and other heavenly bodies , to be the vehicles only of immaterial and spiritual substances , who had the superintendency over the affairs of this lower world , and were to be applied to as mediators between god and them ; their idolatry did not consist in worshipping any visible or corporeal deities , as the supreme god , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , superior to their deities . by consequence , iii. that either this , which our author here lays down , is not ( as he pretends ) the true and only notion of idolatry ; or if it be , none of those ancient nations were idolaters . iv. tho i dare not presume to establish true and only notions in this case ; yet from what has been said , i think we may reasonably conclude their idolatry , to have consisted especially in these two things ; either , st , that they worshipp'd the true god by corporeal and visible symbols ; or that dly , together with the true god , they worshipp'd other inferior deities ; whether intelligences , ( which they supposed to reside in the heavenly bodies ) or daemons . and that by consequence , to worship the supreme god in any corporeal representation or image whatsoever ; or to pay divine worship to any created being , whether spirit or separate soul ; either as having the power over this inferior world to administer things in it , or as mediators between the supreme god and us ; this is , if not the only , yet at least a true notion of idolatry . chap. iv. of the notion of idolatry under the law ; and that it did not consist in the giving the worship of the supreme god to some created , corporeal or visible deity as supposing it to be the supreme god. this was the next point i proposed to examine , and our author thus delivers his opinion of it . that according to the law , idolatry is giving the worship of the supreme god to any created , corporeal , or visible deity , or any thing that can be represented by an image , which nothing but corporeal beings can , and to suppose such a being the supreme deity . and though there may seem to be two sorts of it . first , either to worship a material and created being as the supreme deity , or secondly to ascribe any corporeal form or shape to the divine nature ; yet in the result both are but one ; for to ascribe unto the supreme god any corporeal form , is the same thing as to worship a created being , for so is every corporeal substance . this is , i say , the true and onely notion of idolatry . this indeed is great and magisterial , and would almost dispose a man to think , that there should certainly be at least something of truth , where there is so very much confidence . but we have had already sufficient reason to suspect him , where he seems least to suspect himself . here i cannot but wonder that a person of his character should send abroad such notions into the world for the dictates of holy scripture , as are evidently contrary to the tenor of it ; unless he thought our nobility and gentry as little acquainted with that book , as some of their guides are said to have thought it fit they should be . to make a man an idolater according to the idea this author has given of it , two things are required , which i much question whether they ever yet concurred in any considerable number of men in the world , viz. . that he give the worship of the supreme god to some created , corporeal , and visible part of the universe . dly , that he give this worship to it as esteeming such a being to be the supreme god. i will not be so rude as to enquire by what rules of discourse he infers all this from the second commandment , that because god there forbids the israelites to make any graven image , the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above , or in the earth beneath or in the water under the earth ; to bow down before it and worship it ; therefore , this image must be the similitude of some visible and corporeal deity ; and that deity be supposed to be the supreme god , and be worshiped as such . he that can infer this from the second commandment , would doe well to tell us how he does it . but not to be importunate here . if this be the true and onely idolatry , according to the law , i would desire to know ; first , seeing the law was deliver'd by the ministry of angels , and these were no visible and corporeal deities ; what if the jews had paid divine adoration to them ? would this have been idolatry according to the law ? if it would , i should be glad to know what part of his definition it is that makes it to be so ? secondly , i have before shewn that the ancient heathens , the egyptians , chaldeans , &c. though they worshiped indeed the sun , moon and stars ; yet they neither believed them to be the supreme god nor the image of the supreme god ; nor that they were onely visible , and corporeal deities : they look'd upon them as the vehicles of celestial spirits , which dwelt in them ; and as such they pay'd their adoration to them . now then was this idolatry by the law , or was it not ? if it were not , how came the israelites to be charged with idolatry ( according to this author 's own principles ) for joyning with them in this service ? if it were , how will this agree with his true and onely notion of idolatry ? seeing they worship'd these heavenly bodies neither as the supreme god , nor so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible deity . but , thirdly , to come to the holy scripture it self we read kings . that soloman in his old age turned away his heart , and worshiped 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 other gods , viz. ashtoreth , and milcom , and chemosh , and moloch , i. e. according to this learned man's notion , the sun , and moon , and i suppose he will not deny that herein he committed idolatry . but now can any one believe that solomon who had been so well instructed in the knowledge of the lord god of israel ; he to whom god had twice himself appeared ; and whom he had endu'd with wisedom above all the men upon the earth ; finally who had not so long since built him a magnificent temple at jerusalem ; where the service of the true god was continued , even whilst he worshiped the gods of his wives . can any one , i say , be so stupid as to believe that this solomon gave the worship of the supreme god to the sun and moon , as supposing them to be the supreme deities , and that he did not onely not worship but likewise not so much as believe the onely supreme god ? and yet this we must say , if we will allow this author to have given us the true and onely notion of idolatry . besides it is certain that whilst he was engaged in his idolatrous worship , god did not utterly forsake him , but admonished him of it and threatned him with the loss of his kingdom for serving strange gods , which is inducement enough to conclude that he had still an apprehension of the true god. if solomon did immediately upon this admonition give over his impious worship , it shewed evidently that he retained the knowledge of that god who had twice appeared to him . for to suppose that he had quite lost all sense and apprehension of him just when he fell to idolatry , and just recovered some sense of him upon this admonition , and that all the while between , he believed his visible and corporeal deities , or some one of them to be the supreme god , and had no sense of him who is truely so , is to make solomon almost such a man as i before shewed our author's idolater to be according to the meaning of his words : i am sure it is not to make him one of the wisest men that ever was in the world. but supposing that solomon went on for some time after this to worship his strange gods , yet he must now at least have recovered some sense of the true god , it being this admonition in all likelyhood , that sooner or later brought him to repentance : and then our author's principles do from that time that he was admonish'd , acquit solomon of all idolatry , though he went on to serve the gods of his wives . it is a shame to run this matter any farther , and i make no doubt but that i have all men of sense whether of ours , or of the roman church with me in this matter against our author . but that i may not seem onely to destroy his idea , without fixing any other in the room of it ; i now proceed to observe , that we find two sorts of idolatry mention'd in the old testament ; and ( such is the misfortune of this positive man , ) both of them utterly destructive of his true and onely notion of it , viz. i. the worshiping of the true god , by a material symbol or representation . ii. the worshiping of other gods , than the god of israel , and that whether it be so as , . utterly to forsake the true god , and serve others onely , or . to worship other gods together with him. st . that according to the holy scripture , it was esteemed idolatry among the jews , to worship the true god by any material symbol or representation . and of this i shall desire no better proof , than those very instances which this author so much insists upon , for the establishing of his notion , viz. those of the golden calf , and of the calves of dan and bethel . that the children of israel did commit idolatry in the worship of these is on all hands agreed ; and yet that both these were designed as symbols of the true god , and not of any visible or corporeal deities , will i think appear evident , almost to a demonstration , from these following reflexions . st . that it is altogether incredible that the israelites in either of those cases , could so soon have forgotten the true god , as to give divine worship to visible and corporeal beings , as supposing them to be the supreme deity . if we consider their circumstances when they worshiped the golden calf , exod. . it was but a very few days since god had made a very great discovery of himself to them at mount horeb , when he gave them the law , and asserted himself to be the jehovah , their god which had brought them up out of the land of egypt , exod. . . and in the case of jeroboam's calves , the knowledge of god in which they had been bred up ; a continued publick service of him at jerusalem ; the feasts and sacrifices , and other ceremonies which they observed in obedience to his command , the very seal of his covenant which they carried about them in their flesh , not to say any thing of that temple which solomon had so lately built unto him ; all these must certainly have made too deep an impression upon their minds , to permit them so suddainly to fall away into such an utter forgetfulness of him , as to worship visible and corporeal deities as the supreme god , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of him who really is the supreme god. such an ignorance as this is hardly to be found , even among those infidels that have never had any revelalation of the true god at all made to them : but that men who had once been instructed in the knowledge and worship of him , should so suddenly fall off from both , as they must here have done according to this author 's true and onely notion of their idolatry , this i think is as incredible , as the notion it self , which he would prove by the supposition of it . but , dly . that the people did not fall into any such apostasie , but design'd in those calves to worship the god of israel , is evident from the characters given of that deity whom they served by them . for as to the golden calf , we read exod. . . that when it was set up they cry'd out , this is thy god o israel , which brought thee up out of the land of egypt , and aaron built an altar before it , and made proclamation and said , to morrow is a feast to the jehovah or the lord. and so jeroboam in the very same manner , having set up his calves in dan and bethel , kin. . . it is too much for you ( said he to the people ) to go to jerusalem ; behold thy god o israel , which brought thee up out of the land of egypt . now may i desire this learned author to tell us . . where in holy scripture do's he find the name jehovah , or the lord attributed to any other but the true god ? or if we should suppose the people to be ignorant in this case , yet could aaron the high-priest be so forgetfull , as not to remember that this was that peculiar name which god assumed to himself , exod. . . and of which our author himself takes notice , p. . . . whom should they then , and jeroboam mean after by the jehovah that had brought them up out of the land of egypt , but him who at the delivery of the law , appropriated this character to himself , ex. . . and who was under that title worshiped by the jews at jerusalem where his temple stood , and whither all the tribes were wont to go up to worship him . it is too much for you to go up to jerusalem . behold thy god , o israel , which brought thee up out of the land of egypt . . had jeroboam hereby designed to set up a new god amongst them , how came it to pass that he used no arguments with them at all as to that matter , but merely remonstrated to them the trouble of going up to jerusalem to worship ? never sure were people easier persuaded out of their religion than the ten tribes , if our author thinks , that the distance of place made him chuse rather to return to the idolatry of egypt , than to be at so much pains to worship the true god. dly . but all this will farther appear , in that it is altogether incredible that the egyptian gods should be the god that delivered the israelites out of the hand of egypt ; and sent all those plagues upon their own servants . but especially that thick darkness under which they lay for three days , seems to be a very odd effect for the sun to have wrought . but to quit such suppositions ; two things there are by which it undoubtedly appears that the israelites in these cases , could not have design'd any return to the egyptian idolatry . for , . as to the golden-calf , it is said that they offer'd burnt offerings , and brought peace offerings unto it . and jeroboam sacrificed unto the calves which he had made and consecrated priests with a bullock and seven rams to their service . now all this was most agreeable to what god required in his service : but so utterly repugnant to the superstition of the egyptians that our author himself confesses god commanded their beasts to be offer'd in sacrifice to him , in contempt of the sacredness in which they were held by those idolaters . he tells us that to offer a young ram was the greatest affront that could be put upon the egyptians , who held a ram not onely in religious esteem , but the most sacred of all their holy animals . and particularly upon the account of the sacredness . of these animals , the egyptians ( says he ) never offer'd any of their species in sacrifice . in so much that when pharaoh bid moses go sacrifice to the lord in the land of egypt , moses answers that they durst not doe it , because it would be an abomination to the egyptians , so that they would stone them : that is , it would be a prophaneness and open affront to the religion of the egyptians if they should offer in sacrifice those very animals that the egyptians had consecrated to the honour of their gods. and for the same reason the israelites were also commanded to sacrifice young-bullocks , as well as rams ; for that next to a ram the bullock was the most sacred of all the holy animals . our author is very large on this argument ; but i think what i have here offer'd , is little less than a demonstration against him as to this point ; that the jews in the worship of their calves did not return to the idolatry of egypt , seeing they offer'd such sacrifices before them as by his own confession were an open affront to the religion of the egyptians . dly . it is evident from holy scripture , that the idolatry of these calves was a distinct idolatry from that of worshipping the heavenly bodies ; and according to the estimate which god himself put upon it , much less heinous . and this we find in both the instances before mention'd . for as to the golden calf , stephen says acts . , . that they made a calf in those days , and offer'd sacrifice to the idol , and rejoyced in the work of their hands ; then god gave them up to worship the host of heaven . now here must be a manifest difference allow'd between these two , seeing the one is represented as the punishment of the other , and what a ridiculous paraphrase would it make of these words , to suppose that they adored the sun in both ; viz. that for worshiping the sun , under the symbol of the golden calf , god gave them up to worship the sun under the name of moloch . as for jeroboam's calves , we find this also distinguish'd from that of worshiping the heavenly host. for thus the idolatry of ahab was aggravated against him ; kings . . that as if it had been a small thing for him to walk in the sins of jeroboam the son of nebat ; he went and served baal , and worshipped him. now if the idolatry of the golden calves was the worship of the sun too , ( as this author would have it , ) then this passage concerning ahab must be expounded in this manner ; that as if it had been a small thing for him to worship the sun under the calves , he even proceeded to such a height of impiety , as to worship the sun under the name of baal . but thly , and to conclude this point ; that under the calves they worshiped the true god , is evident from the whole course of the history of the ten tribes , and of the state of religion under them . we find god as well revealing himself to these as to the other two . his prophets came amongst them , and though they often inveigh'd against their altars , yet never charged them as deserters of the god of israel . nay , in many cases we find those who worshiped the golden calves , yet accepted by god as zealous in his service . i shall instead of many , offer onely one example , that of jehu . kings . . who as he was expresly design'd by god to be king over israel , so he there bids jehonadab , come and see his zeal for the lord . now the zeal he there meant was in destroying of baal out of israel . this he most effectually did , as may be seen at large in that chapter ; and for the doing of it , had the throne confirm'd by god to his posterity for four generations . i shall therefore make bold to conclude , that jehu was no worshipper of baal or the sun , but of the god of israel , whose service he promoted , and for whom elijah not long before had appeared in opposition to this very baal , kings . . how long ( says he ) halt ye between two opinions , if the lord be god follow him ; but if baal then follow him . and yet jehu still worship'd the golden calves that were in bethel , and that were in dan ; he observed not to walk in the law of the lord god of isral with all his heart , seeing he departed not from the sin of jeroboam which made israel to sin. i conclude upon the whole , that that cannot be the true and onelt notion of idolatry which this author pretends , viz. the giving the worship of the supreme god to some created corporeal or visible deity , as supposing it to be the supreme deity , since ( as we have now seen ) to worship even the true god , under the worship of some corporeal symbol or representation , as the israelites did in these calves , is in the account of the holy scripture to commit idolatry . i go on , dly . to shew : that to worship any other god , besides the god of israel , whether it be so as to forsake the true god , or but onely to joyn the worship of any other with him ; this is also according to the sense of holy scripture , to commit idolatry . now this will appear from the examples of this kind of idolatry , that occur in those sacred writings ; i shall mention onely an instance or two in either kind . and , st . that to give divine worship to any other than to the god of israel , though they do not worship that being as the supreme deity , but on the contrary worship the true god together with it , is according to the censure of the holy scripture idolatry . this was the case of solomon in some of the last years of his life , for however , at the persuasion of his wives ; he neglected very much the service of the true god , yet we do not find that he utterly forsook either the worship or the acknowledgment of him . on the contrary , the holy scripture plainly enough insinuates , that he still served the god of israel , and his fault was , that he did not serve him onely , but worshiped moloch , and chemosh and ash●●reth , and milcom together with him . for thus speaking of his idolatry it says , kings . . that his heart was not perfect , with the lord his god : and again ver . . that he went not fully after the lord as did david his father , i. e. he did not wholly give up himself to serve the lord , and him onelt as his father had done . another , and a more notable instance of this we meet with in kings . where the kings of assyria having led the ten tribes into captivity , and planted some of his own subjects in their countrey , we read ver . . that god sent lions amongst them to destroy them , because they neglected to worship him . upon this the king of assyria ordered one of the priests of bethel to go up and teach them , the manner of the god of the land ; then one of the priests whom they had carried away from samaria , came and dwelt in bethel , and taught them how they should fear or serve the lord. howbeit every man made gods of his own , and so they feared the lord and served their own gods and their graven images . such was the state of these samaritans , and their practice will furnish us with two very usefull remarks upon this occasion . for . since these samaritans were punished for not worshiping the god of the countrey , i. e. of the god whom the israelites were wont to worship ; it follows that the god of the israelites was not the same with the god of the samaritans : and therefore since these are supposed to have worshipped the sun , it follows that the israelites did not worship the sun ; but some other and him the true god. dly . that these samaritans at the same time that they committed idolatry in serving their own gods , did also both know and fear the true god , and therefore their idolatry could not consist in giving the worship of the supreme god , to their created and visible deities , as supposing them so to be . but their sin was that they gave divine worship to their own false gods , after they had been instructed in the worship of the true , and joyned both the one and the other in their religious service . but , dly . as it was therefore thought to be idolatry , to worship any other being together with god , so must it much more have been esteemed so , to forsake the true god , and worship any other corporeal and visible deity . an instance of this we seem to have in ahab , who seduced by jezabel his wife , did evil in the sight of the lord , above all that were before him , and what this was we find in the next verse , viz. that not content with the idolatry of jeroboam , in worshiping god after an idolatrous manner , he utterly forsook him and served baal , and built a temple and an altar for him . now that ahab had utterly laid aside the service of the true god , seems evident upon two accounts , st . of the great persecution that he suffered his wife to make of the prophets of the lord , kings . . when as obadiah tells elijah , he hid them in caves from her fury . dly . from the miserable state of the kingdom , in that time as we find elijah reporting it even to god himself , kings . . the children of israel , says he , have forsaken thy covenant , thrown down thy altars , and slain thy prophets with the sword , and i even i onely am left , and they seek my life to take it away . indeed it is not to be doubted , but that the idolatry of this time was very deplorable . but now wherein did it consist ? did ahab worship baal or the sun as a corporeal deity , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a superiour , spiritual and invisible godhead ? this is not credible , seeing throughout his whole reign we find him corresponding upon all occasions with the prophets of the lord , and therefore sure he could not be without some sense and apprehension of him . and what i have now shewn in the example of ahab i will yet farther confirm in another , that will perhaps be liable to less exception , and that is the instance of manasse king of judah . this king not content to forsake the god of his fathers set up his idolatry in the very temple of the lord ; but yet neither had he lost all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . he had been bred up by his father in the knowledge of the true god , the prophets of the lord still continued to put him in mind of his danger , and no sooner did he feel the punishment of his rebellion , but he returned to his god , ver . . when he was in affliction he besought the lord his god , and humbled himself greatly before the god of his fathers . and thus have i taken a short view of the several sorts of idolatry which occur in the old testament , and from thence it appears , that this sin is consistent not onely with the acknowledgment but even with the worship of the true supreme deity , and therefore that it is a very false account , which this author has here given us of it , viz. that idolatry is neither more nor less than the worship of the heavenly bodies , the sun , moon and stars or any other visible and corporeal deity as the supreme god ; or as he elsewhere defines it , that idolatry is the giving the worship of the supreme god to any created , corporeal or visible deity , and to suppose such a being the supreme deity is the onely , true and proper idolatry . but before i quit this point it may not be amiss to observe yet one instance more of idolatry , ( i am sure generally supposed at least to be so ) and which i cannot tell whether it may properly be reduced to any of the foregoing kinds , and it is that of the brazen-serpent to which the children of israel burnt incense in hezekiah's time , as we may see kings . . this pious king observing their superstition caused it to be broke into pieces , and we find this recorded among the rest of his enterprizes , for rooting idolatry out of his country . he removed the high places and brake the images , and cut down the groves , and brake in pieces the brazen-serpent , that moses had made : for unto those days the children of israel did burn incense to it , and he called it nehushtan . i do not believe that even this author himself will have the confidence to say that this was an image of either the sun , moon or stars , or of any other visible and corporeal deity , or that the people worshiped it as supposing it to be the supreme god , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , and yet the learned men on both sides confess , that here was idolatry committed , though it may be the people were far from thinking that they did so , and then it will remain that to give any appropriate acts of divine worship to any creature , whatever sense men have of the thing to which they give them , or their intension be in so doing , is nevertheless esteemed by god to be idolatry . chap. v. the objections against the notion of idolatry laid down in the foregoing chapter consider'd , and refuted . since i first began the examination of this book , i have been under some temptations to doubt whether the author of it really designed to serve the interest of those of the church of rome in the writing of it , or by a seeming defence of their idolatry , intended onely to shew how little he could say in their behalf , and to give us an occasion by answering his arguments to convince the world upon what just grounds we advance that charge against them . it does indeed a little startle me when i consider how base a thing it is , and unbecoming the character of a christian , to put on onely an appearance of zeal in behalf of a party , to whom it must be confess'd he has been highly obliged , and whom therefore if he could not serve , yet at least he ought not to have betray'd . but then it seems to be something worse , i do not now say for a christian , but for a bishop that has not yet quitted either the revenues or the communion of the church of england , nor retracted the subscription he once made of this very charge of idolatry against those for whom he would now be thought to plead ; to revile that church which nourishes him , and whose opinions we must suppose him to hold , till we see him as formally renounce them , as ever he once subscribed to them . and if on the one hand he seems to shew a great deal of bitterness against us in his expressions , yet on the other , it must be confessed his arguments are so extremely civil as not to carry so much as the appearance of reason in them . and few of the romanists have ever undertaken this cause , that have not said a great deal more in their own defence , than this amphibious advocate has offer'd for them . but whether this author designed to expose them or us or himself onely , as i am not much concern'd to know , so neither will i undertake to determine . this is plain , that had he meant to ridicule the church of rome never so much , he could not have taken a more effectual way of doing it . and whether our nobility do , or can , or ought to understand transubstantiation or no , yet i am sure men of much meaner capacities than those honourable personages for the most part are , will be able to discern the truth of this remark . and that he must indeed have thought them not onely uncapable of judging of abstruse propositions , but even destitute of common sense and reason , if he hoped to impose such discourse as this upon them for arguing . now to make this appear , i shall need onely desire the reader to observe with me these two things : i. that the position he undertakes to defend is , that the notion of idolatry in holy scripture is neither more nor less than this . the worship of the heavenly bodies , the sun , the moon , and the stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity , as the supreme god , so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . ii. that to prove this , it is not sufficient to shew , that this is idolatry , or that the jews did sometimes fall into it : but it must be shewn that they never committed any other idolatry ; and particularly that this was the idolatry of the golden-calf , and of the calves of dan , and bethel . for though the worship of the heavenly bodies , ( as the author represents it ) were one sort of idolatry , yet if the scripture has charged the jews with this guilt for any other worship , wherein they did not adore the sun , moon and stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity as the supreme god , it will then follow that this , which is alledged , cannot be the onely notion of idolatry , and it must be false to assert , that idolatry according to the word of god is neither more nor less than this . now from these two remarks onely , it will presently appear what slender pretences some men will take up with to run out into the most excessive clamours against those whom they oppose . for , st . as to what he so largely insists upon , as if there were something very important at the bottom of it , viz. that the jews were a people prone to idolatry , and that the design of god throughout the whole law , was to preserve them from it , though it be a great truth , yet it is certainly in this place a great impertinence . seeing neither do we deny this , nor can he make any use of it , in establishing his true and onely notion of idolatry . for i hope he did not intend to argue thus , the jews were very prone to idolatry , and god intended his law to restrain them from it ; therefore idolatry is neither more nor less , than the worship of the heavenly bodies , the sun , moon and stars , as the supreme deity . dly . it will from hence appear , that all those passages of holy scripture , where god charges the jews with worshiping other gods , with serving the hoast of heaven , &c. conclude nothing , seeing it is confessed that they did fall into this idolatry too ; but that does not hinder but that they may have fallen into some other besides ; and we are assured that so they did ; nay , that they were suffered by god to fall into this , as a punishment for having committed the other , so st. stephen expresly tells us , acts . , . they made a calf in those days , and offered sacrifice to the idol , and rejoyced in the work of their hands . then god gave them up to worship the hoast of heaven . nor is it any more to the purpose , dly , to prove that the scripture says , that to worship the sun and moon is idolatry ; unless he could find out some text where it adds , that they who worshiped the sun and moon , worshiped them as visible and corporeal deities with the honor due to the supreme god ; and so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead , and that this is the true and onely idolatry . but now this which was the onely point in question , he has prudently forgot , and whilst he lives will never be able to prove it . in short if there be any thing more than noise and shew in what he has said , it must be in his account of the two points before consider'd . viz. the golden-calf and the calves of dan and of bethel : for as for the brazen-serpent and the honor paid to that , he is as silent as if there had been no such thing in his bible . for the former of these , the golden-calf , he expatiates very much , but sure never were words put together with less pertinence than here . the thing to be proved is , that the jews intended by this calf to worship the egyptian apis or serapis or osyris , that is , the sun as the supreme deity . but how does he go about to prove this . first , he learnedly shews that the apis whom the egyptians worshiped was not the king of the argives , nor son to jupiter . and this i think may be foreign enough to what we are seeking , which is the design of the jews in setting up the golden-calf . secondly , he assures us 't is much more propable that the greeks borrowed the very word apis from the egyptians . and thereupon he takes occasion to make a learned reflexion upon our translation of jer. . . which it may be was one of the passages for which he has been wont to censure our version with as little modesty as understanding . for to say no more of it than this , if we have rendred this verse amiss we have erred not onely with all the learned versions the syriack , the chaldee paraphrase , and even the vulgar latin it self , but with the original hebrew too ; and in all which there is this onely difference , that what they call valiant in one number , we render valiant men in the other . and all this is still as impertinent to the point in hand , as any thing can well be imagined to be . and yet from this , thirdly , he boldly infers , that the calf must have been the symbol of some egyptian idol , and that the people thinking themselves betray'd or deserted by moses after fourty days absence forced aaron to restore to them the symbols of their old gods to go before them , instead of this new god that seemed to have deserted them . and this indeed is pertinent , but it has another terrible defect , viz. that it wants proof . in short the onely reason he has to offer for what he says , is this ; that all their other worship seems to have been forced and constrained , but this is free and voluntary : and that there could be no other ground of that great joy they shew'd on this occasion , but that they were restored to the exercise of their former religion . and to this i have many things to reply . first , that this is at best but a plausible presumption , and such as if compared with the reasons i have alledged to the contrary , will not be thought to deserve the name of an argument . for , secondly , whereas this author ( always positive if that might pass for proof ) says , that there could be no other ground of this joy than that they were restored to the worship of their old gods ; i would fain know how he comes to be assured of this ? i am confident were it fit to establish a principle of this moment upon the sandy foundation of our own conjectures , one might be able to find out other reasons for it . for why might they not have had just cause of rejoycing to behold a symbol of their own god set up amongst them , as well as if it had been a figure of an egyptian idol ? what if despairing of moses's return to them , as they design'd this symbol to supply his place , to direct them in their journey , and to be an oracle at which they might continually enquire god's pleasure , so they testified some transports of joy upon the erecting of it ? nay but , thirdly , what if we should say that we cannot discern any such extraordinary joy , more than what the solemnity of a feast dedicated to the jehov ah for the setting up of a visible symbol of his presence amongst them might very well warrant ? the case in short was this ; moses delay'd to come down from the mount , the people were impatient to continue on their journey towards the promised land ; but how to learn god's pleasure they knew not , and for this purpose they cryed unto aaron , that he would make them a god to go before them ; such as very probably they had seen in egypt , and which might serve instead of an oracle unto them . this aaron makes , and for the dedication of it appoints a feast unto the lord , and offers such sacrifices as god indeed required , but which this author himself confesses were an abomination to the egyptians : and upon the occasion of this feast it was that it is said , they rejoyced in the works of their hands . acts . . and again , the people sate down to eat and drink and rose up to play , cor. . . and what this joy was we find particularly expressed , exod. . . they were singing , and dancing before the calf . now all this was very natural on such an occasion ; and what ever sin they committed in it , yet i cannot see any necessity there is to conclude that there could be no other ground for such a joy than their returning to the idols of egypt . and the arguments i have before given clearly shew that whatever it● was , it could not be that , seeing that the whole solemnity was consecrated to the jehov ah , and performed in a manner utterly inconsistent with the egyptian idolatry . as for the calves of dan and bethel , our author has ( if possible ) yet less to say against their being the symbols of the god of israel , than he had in the former case . he produces onely the learned visorius to prove that monceius was mistaken in imagining that jeroboam set up these calves in imitation of solomon's cherubim . but now this is not our question , whether the calves were made in imitation of the cherubim , but whether the god of israel , or the gods of egypt were worshiped by the ten tribes at dan and bethel ? and yet without saying one pertinent word , he concludes , with as good assurance as if he had made a demonstration of it ; so that it is plain that these calves were set up by him as idols , or symbols of a new or separate religion from the tribe of judah . one thing indeed there is that may seem to deserve an answer , and that is , why the people for three whole years did not comply with him , if he kept up the old religion that had been established under david and solomon ? but now this is a gross mistake in a person that would be thought so learned in the scriptures . the people did comply very readily with jeroboam , and were far from refusing for any such time as is pretended . and that passage to which this author must , i suppose , refer chron. . . is spoken not of the israelites , but of the kingdom of judah ; namely , that for three years they walked in the way of david and solomon . and now let any reasonable man consider what a pitifull vindication is this , to support so much clamour and confidence ? and how must all men of sense , even in the roman communion despise such trifling after what they have seen their own dr. godden perform upon this very subject ? the truth is we ought to give that learned man his due . he has said what was to be said to excuse his church from idolatry ; and his performance shews that he wanted nothing but a better cause to have acquitted himself to every one's satisfaction . but he had a hard mistress to serve , and he was not unsensible of it . but for this new advocate his arguments are as much short of the doctor 's , as his assurance is greater . there the d. of paul's found something worthy his consideration , but here is nothing but a great noise , and a great deal of anger and scorn , without any just occasion , though in such a case the cause ought to be very plain . in short , i cannot imagine any other effect this discourse can possibly have than to raise the credit of dr. godden's ; and after whom it is indeed a bold undertaking for another to engage : for could this point have been defended , he was the person that of any other seems to have been the most likely to have done it . but he too has fail'd , and because his performance was good , considering the matter of it , the worth of the man argues the badness of the cause , and the impossibility of defending it . chap. vi. that the account which has been given of the notion of idolatry under the law , is equally applicable to the case of the christians now . the objection from the cherubims answered : and the whole concluded . i am now come to the last point to be considered , and it is indeed so necessarily consequent upon the foregoing , that if what i have before said concerning the notion of idolatry under the old-testament be allowed , this cannot be denied : viz. that as the jews retaining both the apprehension and worship of the truely supreme god , were nevertheless guilty of idolatry , for worshiping him after a gentile manner , so may christians be now , and therefore that the church of rome may justly be charged by us as idolatrous , though we do not pretend in any wise to say either that she worships the sun , moon , and stars , or any other visible and corporeal deity as the supreme god , or that she has lost all apprehension of a spiritual and invisible godhead . i shall not much enlarge my self upon the proof of a consequence , both in it self very plain , and which this author is so far from denying , that his whole book is built upon the supposal that he makes of the truth of it ; it is indeed the onely thing wherein he seems to have any reason , nor can any thing be more just than for the understanding what idolatry is to search the holy scriptures , and see what is there declared to be so . as for the new-testament , we find the apostles earnest indeed in their cautions against idolatry , but we do not see that they any where defined the nature of it ; they spake as to men who understood these things , and were acquainted with the notion of idolatry , and needed onely to be warn'd against falling into it . they give not the least intimation that it was not the same then , it had ever been esteemed before , or that christians were to think any otherwise of it , than the jews had been wont to do under their law. all we can conclude from their exhortations to the christians to avoid it is , that christians were capable of falling into it , and by consequence that men who have not lost all sense and apprehensions of a supreme , spiritual and invisible godhead may for all that become idolaters . so that to know what the scripture notion of idolatry is , we must with this author search into the history of the old testament , and from thence i have shewn two cases wherein men may without excluding either the sense or worship of the true god , yet justly be charged with this crime . i. by worshiping the true god , by any corporeal image or representation . ii. by giving divine worship to any other besides god , though they do not onely retain the notion , but even the adoration too of the true god together with it . it were an easie matter to enlarge upon both these points here in the application of them , but my design now is not to accuse any particular church of this guilt , but onely to shew in general what idolatry it self is , and that the church of rome though it both knows and worships the true god yet may do it in such a manner , and give such worship to other beings , as justly to deserve the censure which has been brought against her , for any thing this author has said to clear her of it . indeed as to the former of these ways whereby i pretend a man may be guilty of idolatry , viz. by worshiping god by any corporeal image or representation , he has offer'd somewhat in prejudice of it . for did not god himself command two cherubims to be made , and used in his worship ? and were not these sacred images set up in the place of worship , and does not this shew that god was so far from forbidding the use of images in his service , that he would not be worshiped without them ? but , to this i answer that god did indeed command two cherubims to be made and placed at the two ends of the mercy seat ; but that they were put there for any use to be made of them in his service , or for any other purpose than to over-shadow the mercy seat , from whence god had promised to deliver his oracles unto them , this we utterly deny . hence we find that when god had directed moses how to make this throne of his glory , exod. . . he commanded him , to put the mercy seat above upon the ark of the testimony , and there ( says he ) i will meet thee , and i will commune with thee from above the mercy seat from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark , and in the viith . of numbers ver . . it is said , that when moses went into the tabernacle of the congregation to speak with god , he heard the voice of one speaking to him , from off the mercy seat , from between the two cherubims . now here we may plainly see what the object of divine worship was , not the cherubim but the invisible majesty which spake from between them , and communed with moses . the mercy seat it self was but the place where god had promised to meet them ; the cherubim were the ornament , and covering of that , but neither the one nor the other of these were the object of divine worship , or figures or similitudes of that god who alone was adored there . and this the learned men of the church of rome confess no less than we , aquinas having objected against the second commandment , that the cherubim were put in the tabernacle and in the temple : answers that they were neither put there as representations of god , nor for any worship to be paid to them . and explaining the ark and all that belong'd to it as a mystery , he says , that the holy of holies represented heaven ; the ark was the foot stool of the divine majesty ; but that because god was incomprehensible to any creature , propter hoc nulla similitudo ejus ponebatur , therefore was there no similitude of him placed there the better to denote his invisibility . as for the cherubim he says they represented the multitude of angels attending upon his throne ; and there was therefore more than one , that all worship might be excluded from them , to whom it had been commanded that they should worship onely one god. so far was aquinas from thinking — that these images were any representations of god , or that any worship was to be paid to them , and the same has been confessed by others of no less note of that church , vasquez lorinus , azorius and even by his own visorius , whom he has before alledged , but is not pleased to take notice of on this occasion . but here our author supposes he has something to boast of . for if we may believe him our own great defender of this charge has given up the cause as to this matter , and confessed that it was lawfull to worship towards an image , but not to give worship to one . this is i fear a wilfull perverting of that learned man's words . the question was about the jews adoration towards the ark , and the holy of holies . his answer is this ; that they onely directed their worship towards the place , where god had promised to be signally present among them , which ( says he ) signifies no more to the worship of images , than lifting up our eyes to heaven doth when we pray , because god is more especially present there . what is there in all this to allow it to be lawfull to give worship towards an image , but not to it ? nay he plainly deni'd that there were any images for worship there , or any worship directed towards them . but there was a symbol of god's immediate presence as on his throne between the cherubim , and this appointed by god himself , and thither the people directed their worship , and i desire this author , if he can , to tell me what there was more in this , than there is in directing our worship towards heaven when we pray . and whether according to his true and onely notion of idolatry , he may not as well say that we worship apis or baal or maloch , i. e. the sun , moon , and stars , in this , as that the jews worship'd the cherubim by that ? nor is there any more sincerity in what he calls his second reply , and in which he represents him as allowing that the cherubim might be adored once a year by the high priest , but not exposed to the people to worship . for in that very place he denies the cherubim to have been any representations of god , but says that his throne was between them on the mercy seat ; and adds in plain words , that they were never intended for objects of worship . and yet this author insults and triumphs upon this , in a very glorious manner , as if the cause had been gained by it . had that learned man said that the high priest adored the cherubims once a year , then indeed there might have been some colour forthose sweet expressions of shameless shifts and pretences . but this he utterly deny'd ; and he might as well have made him confess it to be lawfull to worship images , though he disputed against it , and have brought him in allowing that 't was no idolatry so to do , as to represent him confessing that the high priest adored the cherubim once every year . but what defence can there be against such adversaries , as will make men confess what they reject , and affirm what they deny ; and yet when they have done , dare to appeal both to god and the world for their sincerity ? and now from what has been said , i will venture to conclude in behalf of our church , and of those learned men of our communion , who have been concern'd in this controversie , that the notion of idolatry which both the one teaches , and the others have defended , is after all this author's clamours against it neither new nor unlearned , nor fanatical , nor anticatholick , nor antichristian , nor any of those ill things he pretends ; but the truly ancient , learned , and catholick notion of it . the notion which god in his holy word has established ; which the jews received ; the apostles taught , and the christian church till these latter days , that mens interest prompted them to seek out to themselves new inventions , constantly maintained . it was by this notion that st. paul censured the worship of the golden calf as idolatrous , and condemned the gentile world of the same crime , rom. . , . that though they knew god , yet they did not glorify him as god , but changed the glory of the incorruptible god , into an image made like unto corruptible man , and to birds , and fourfooted beasts and creeping things . this was the notion that made our fore-runners in the faith , chuse rather to suffer martyrdom than to give religious worship to any creature whatsoever . and whatever this author thinks of those primitive saints , i am confident he will find but very few besides , that will believe they sacrificed their lives to their folly and passion , and died onely to defend a mistaken notion of idolatry . it was this notion upon which the ancient fathers condemned the arians of idolatry ; they did not believe christ , to be either the sun or moon , or any other visible or corporeal deity , or the image , of the supreme and invisible godhead . they believed him to be the most divine and excellent being after god , onely they denied that he was coëternal and coëqual with the father ; and yet those holy , orthodox fathers censur'd them as idolaters , because supposing him to be a creature they worshiped him as a god. and upon the very same notion it is that the reformed churches have ever looked upon the worship of images and saints in the church of rome , as deserving the very same censure ; and i cannot but wonder that this author should charge the invention of this notion upon a person now living , which he must needs have known both our church and the writers of it have constantly asserted , before any of this generation ever saw the light . i should now add somewhat in answer to those bitter reflexions he has made upon the same reverend person , whom he seems to have resolved at any rate to run down : but though the charge be severe , yet is it so inartificially laid , as plainly shews there was no achitophel in the contrivance ; and i will onely say that whoso shall consider the little credit he had in those days , to which this author refers , with them whom himself looks upon as the contrivers and managers of that plot which he would be thought to lay to his charge , will soon discover a great deal of ill will utterly ruined , for want of a little skill in the management of it . but we ought not to wonder , if he who in the beginning of his discourse flew out into such violence against all the abettors of this charge as a company of fanatick , anti-monarchal villains has in the close thought fit to fix some particular marks of his displeasuere , upon the last and most learned assertor of it . this was the least he could do to make amends for the misfortune of a approving and licensing that very book which was written in defence of this charge . and it is well for us all that there are some men in the world , who as ulpian tells us can do no injury , sive pulsent sive concivium dicant . how far this author may be reckoned in the number of these i shall leave the final result of his judgement in this case to satisfie the world , viz. that idolatry made the plot , and the plot made idolatry , and the same persons made both . for whether this can be the result of any man's judgment that is well in his head , i shall leave it to those who have no distempers there to determine . but he has delivered himself , as he will answer for his integrity to god and the world. to this judgment i now leave him : and though i fear it be too late to provide against the sentence of the last , yet i heartily pray he may consider what he has done , and how he will stand in judgment before the other . finis . books lately printed for will. rogers . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , truly represented ; in answer to a book intituled , a papist misrepresented , and represented , &c. quarto . an answer to a discourse intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; being a vindication of papists not misrepresented by protestants : and containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux , late bishop of condom , his exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of invocation of saints , worship of images occasioned by that discourse . quarto . an answer to the amicable accommodation of the differences , between the representer and answerer . quarto . a view of the whole controversie , between the representer and the answerer ; with an answer to the representer's last reply ; in which are laid open some of the methods , by which protestants are misrepresented by papists . quarto . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason and tradition ; in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the first part : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation , in the books called , consensus veterum , and nubes testium , &c. quarto . the doctrine of the trinity , and transubstantiation , compared as to scripture , reason and tradition in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist , the second part : wherein the doctrine of the trinity is shewed to be agreeable , to scripture and reason , and transubstantiation repugnant to both . quarto . an answer to the eighth chapter of the representer's second part , in the first dialogue , between him and his lay-friend . of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. by a person of quality : with an answer to the eight theses , laid down for the tryal of the english reformation ; in a book that came lately from oxford . sermons and discourses , some of which never before printed : the third volume . by the reverend dr. tillotson , dean of canterbury . octavo . a manual for a christian souldier , written by erasmus , and translated into english. twelves . a new and easie method to learn to sing by book , whereby one ( who hath a good voice and ear ) may without other help , learn to sing true by notes . design'd chiefly for , and applied to the promoting of psalmody ; and furnished with variety of psalm-tunes in parts , with directions for that kind of singing . a perswasive to frequent communion in the sacrament of the lord's supper . by john tillotson , dean of canterbury , in octavo , price three pence . a discourse against transubstantiation . in octavo . price three pence . the state of the church of rome when the reformation began , as it appears by the advices given to paul iii. and julius iii. by creatures of their own. with a preface leading to the matter of the book . quarto . a letter to a friend , reflecting on some passages in a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of his first letter to mr. g. the reflecter's defence of his letter to a friend , against the furious assaults of mr. i. s. in his second catholick letter . in four dialogues . quarto . a sermon preached at the funeral of the reverend benj. calamy , d. d. and late minister of st. lawrance-jury , lond. jan. th . / . by w. sherlock . d. d. master of the temple . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion , from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome , evinced from the concertation of some of her sons with their brethren the dissenters . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . a preservative against popery : being some plain directions to unlearned protestants , how to dispute with romish priests . the first part by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . the present state of the controversie between the church of england and the church of rome ; or , an account of the books written on both sides . in a letter to a friend . imprimatur , guil. needham , may . . london : printed for tho. basset , james adamson , and tho. newborough , . the present state of the controversie between the church of england and the church of rome , &c. in a letter to a friend . sir , in pursuance of my promise made to you , to send you such an account as you desire , of what has been lately published here , with reference to the points in controversie between us and the church of rome ; i now give you the trouble of this address . it was you know the design of the clergy of this city some years since , to reduce the matters in debate with the dissenting party , to a certain number of cases , and in the plainest and most inoffensive manner that they could , to shew them how little cause they had to separate from our communion upon any of those pretences , which were said to be the cause of separation . i need not tell you what their performances were , for you have read their tracts , and are therefore able to judg , from your own knowledg , concerning them . as to the success which they have had , we that live here , have not only observed that our churches have been more charged since , but do also know , that several for whose sake those discourses were principally intended , have declared themselves abundantly satisfied , both with the strength and temper that appear'd in them . when this first undertaking was finished , their next resolution was to run through the principal points of difference between the papists and us after the same manner , that those who had not the liesure or opportunity to consult longer books , might here in short be led to a true knowledg of the controversie , and stand the firmer in the truth , by being better acquainted with the grounds of it . it was also hoped , that many who had hitherto been detained in their errors for want not so much of a will to embrace the truth , as of light to discern it by , might possibly take this opportunity of seeing with their own eyes , and discover that way of error in which their ignorance or their prejudices had so long detained them . but before they had finished this their second undertaking , the sudden and unexpected death of our late royal sovereign broke their measures , and from thenceforth they thought fit to be of the defensive side , and for some time published no more discourses of this kind , but waited to see whether the gentlemen of the roman communion would make any attaques upon us , or be contented that the controversie should rest as it was . but because you desire an account of all that has been done of this nature , i will let you know how far they advanced in their design , and give you a catalogue of their tracts , tho not just in the order as they came out , yet in that order which seems to have been design'd , and is most natural for you to peruse them . and in the first place , as a preparatory to all the rest , there is a little tract intituled , i. a perswasive to an ingenuous trial of opinions in religion , &c. and which they who know the unreasonable prejudices of those of the roman communion , as to any free enquiry , cannot doubt to have been exceeding necessary . to which i must add , ii. the difference of the case between the separation of protestants from the church of rome , and the separation of dissenters from the church of england . for both these tracts , as you may easily discern , were design'd to remove such mistakes and prejudices as are common to papists and to dissenters , and were therefore thought to be a proper transition from the first undertaking to the second . then follow those treatises that relate to the questions about the church , and for which our adversaries of late seem the most concern'd . iii. a discourse of the unity of the catholick church maintain'd in the church of england . iv. a discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed church of england , made by the papists , asking of us the question , where was our religion before luther ? v. the protestant resolution of faith , being an answer to three questions , . how far we must depend on the authority of the church for the true sense of scripture ? . whether a visible succession from christ to this day , makes a church which has this visible succession , an infallible interpreter of scripture ? . whether the church of england can make out such a visible succession ? vi , vii . two discourses concerning the necessity of reformation , with respect to the errors and corruptions of the church of rome . another sort of general questions necessary to have been premised to the particular disputes , do refer to the principle on which we are to proceed in the management of them . and to this purpose there were published the two following tracts , viii . a discourse about tradition , shewing what is meant by it , and what tradition is to be received , and what tradition is to be rejected . ix . a discourse concerning a guide in matters of faith , with respect especially to the romish pretence of such a one as is infallible . thus far they proceeded upon general points , and no farther , tho more were design'd to be debated , as one may see by the dividing and managing of the arguments which they finished , and as i my self have been told by some that were best able to inform me . but as these general discourses were coming abroad into the world ; the particular disputes were prepared , and those that follow were published . x. a discourse concerning the object of religious worship ; or , a scripture proof of the unlawfulness of giving any religious worship to any other being besides the supreme god. xi . a discourse concerning the devotions of the church of rome , especially as compared with those of the church of england , in which it is shewn , that whatsoever the romanists pretend , there is not so true devotion among them , nor such rational provision for it , nor encouragement to it , as in the church established by law amongst us . xii . a discourse concerning the invocation of saints . xiii . of prayer in an unknown tongue . xiv . of auricular confession , as it is prescribed by the council of trent . xv. a discourse against transubstantiation . xvi . of the adoration of the host. these are the tracts that were published in pursuance of that design i mention'd before , since which time , our divines have kept themselves , as i told you , upon the defensive part , their whole work having been little else than to answer such printed books , or papers scatter'd about in writing , as the romanists have from time to time sent abroad . i need not tell you that at length we were surprised with a book published by some romanist , which has made no little noise all over the kingdom , and has been the occasion of many more : but that which surprised us was this , that there was not the least notice taken in it , of those discourses now mentioned , and not long before published in behalf of the church of england against the church of rome . the discreet persons of that communion acknowledged they were above contempt ; and it was the general perswasion of our communion , that they would not admit of any just and reasonable answer ; and for this very reason , some appearance of an answer was generally expected to save , if it might be , the reputation of the roman cause , or at least of the ability of our adversaries to maintain it , unless they should think fit to let the controversie lye still , which if they had done , i believe our divines had thought themselves obliged by the example , not to publish new books upon it , but to content themselves with that diligence in their parochial stations , that might be sufficient to countermine any secret endeavours to draw people from the communion of this church : but it seems our adversaries thought fit to begin a dispute , and that without taking the least notice of what had been so lately done on our side : which tho we wondred at , at first , yet we have given over wondering at it now that we are something used to their way of controversie . for some of them ( as the representer knows ) can without blushing for the matter , drop the defence of arguments , and the maintaining of disputes begun by themselves ; and yet they write on still , as if the cause went for them , and they had not made one false step in the management of it . but i must now give you a particular account how these gentlemen began , and in what manner they carried on that assault , of which it is possible they may have had some cause to repent them since . the first that led the way , was one that calls himself r. l. with a book full of cunning and dissimulation , intituled a papist misrepresented and represented . in which he runs through most of the points in controversie between us in a two-fold character ; in one of which he pretends to shew that which papists are commonly misunderstood to be ; in the other , that which , as he says , they really are . the real design of this method , you must know is this . popery in its proper colours is so unlike catholick christianity , that it is in vain ever to hope to promote it , if it appear in its own shape . it is necessary therefore , that the religion , like the prophet , should come to us in sheeps cloathing , and the heresie to be made look as orthodox as is possible . some things are denied , others mollified , all disguised , and a double benefit thereby obtaind : popery is to be received as a very innocent , harmless thing ; and the protestants , especially the ministers and first reformers represented to the world , as a sort of people that have supported themselves by calumnies and lies , and made a noise about errors and corruptions , which are no where to be found , but in their own brains or books , but which the church of rome detests no less than we. but this trick was quickly discovered , and the design laid open by an excellent hand , in a treatise which he called i. the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented ; in answer to a book intituled , a papist misrepresented and represented , &c. in which the author passes through every point of his characters , and truly states the question between us , and gives a short , yet sufficient account of our reasons against their tenets . i shall not need enlarge my self to give you any account of this controversie which has been lately summed up , to satisfie the world , that this author has taken as little care to defend his characters , as he shew'd sincerity in the first drawing of them . the books themselves that have passed on both sides are these , reflections upon the answer to the papist misrepresented , &c. ii. a papist not misrepresented by protestants , being a reply to the reflections , &c. papists protesting against protestant popery ; in answer to a discourse intituled , a papist not misrepresented by protestants . iii. an answer to a discourse intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery , containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux late bishop of condom ' s exposition of the doctrine of the church of rome , in the articles of the invocation of saints , and worship of images . an amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and the answerer , in return to his last reply . iv. an answer to the amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and the answerer . a reply to the answer to the amicable accommodation . to which has lately been returned , v. a view of the whole controversie between the representer and the answerer , with an answer to the representers last reply . this is in short the sum of what has hitherto pass'd in this dispute , the misrepresenter not having yet taken any notice of this new antagonist , who it's thought by some , has summ'd up this controversie so effectually , as to put an end to it . as for his second part which he acted afterward under the character of the catholick representer , i shall have occasion to give you some farther account of it when i come to those pieces of our own divines that have either been the occasion of , or the answers to his sheets and half sheets . the next that appeared upon the stage , was the famous bishop of condom , the great abettor , if not founder of this new sect of expositors of their religion , and the occasion of his appearance this . our misrepresenter being answer'd the first time , as has been said by the learned author of the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented . the new method of expounding and representing , i. e. dissembling the good old doctrine of the church began to sink ; and the people who were principally design'd to be seduced by it , generally discovered the snare that had been laid for them . it was now too late to recede into the old popery again . the misrepresenter had not only forsaken , but in good measure anathematiz'd that , and profess'd that they abhorr'd it no less than we ; and therefore to own it now , was in effect to confess that we had reason to reform those errors which themselves were once ashamed to abet : so that what remained , was to put a good face upon the matter , and see if the original pattern , the pompous exposition of this bishop , with the long relation of an advertisement , and the glorious trains of briefs and approbations before and behind , might not possibly support the undertaking , and keep up the credit of their new popery , which must otherwise necessarily fall . such was the occasion , or rather the necessity of publishing this bishpps book , which you have seen under the title of , the exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church in matters of controversie . to which there have been two answers made , of one of which there has been no notice taken by the other party : 't is called i. an answer to the bishop of condom's exposition , &c. with refletions on his pastoral letter . the only excuse i can think of for the other parties not replying to this answer , was because another came out before it , which is yet but a lame pretence , since the book is not only a direct and full answer to all that was offered by the bishop of condom , either in the way of exposition or argument , but has also a considerable variety of useful reflections , which perhaps made it more advisable to let it alone , than to go about to consult it . the other is , ii. an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , in the several articles proposed by the bishop of condom , in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick faith this answer was so exquisite in all its parts , that it could not fail of gaining a general esteem ; but the suddenness in which it was dispatch'd , rais'd the admiration of all . and that which made it yet more taken notice of , was the preface prefix'd to it , in which the worthy author ( who had the advantage of informing himself of these matters , by living some time in france ) gives a large account of this bishops exposition , and of a suppress'd edition , which it seems had carried the trick a little too far , and therefore was not permitted to see the light , together with some other matters of fact that very much laid open the design . but to those particulars wherewith you are already well acquainted , i beg leave to add another piece of history which i have learn'd concerning this matter . you must understand then that the project of converting the french-protestants , which has been more or less carried on ever since henry the fourth's time , was more especially agitated at the conclusion of the pyrenean treaty almost years since : the spaniards being apprehensive of the french power , and willing to divert it by an undertaking , which they thought might find them work at home , and not leave them at leisure to disturb their neighbours . it was resolved there , at the same time that the civil power began to oppress them , the church should offer some terms of a reunion to them , and all possible endeavours be used to encline them to accept it : to this end money was secretly given to several of the ministers , to favour this project ; but the design being discover'd by a minister of bas-languedoc , the synod of nismes , ann. . and that of cevennes being assembled not long after , appeard so vigorously against it , that they were forc'd to lay aside the design for some time . about ten years after it broke out again ; but the ministers of languedoc and the synod of the isle of france opposing it , as those of nismes and cevennes had done before , it came to nothnig . now this second attempt was dated precisely at the same time that the bishop of condom's exposition began to see the light : and that which convinces me that it was purposely contriv'd for the advancing this design is this , that the marshal de turene , who was this bishops convert , and the principal defender of this exposition , was also at the same time the great undertaker for this project . 't is well known how to this end he sent a person through the several provinces of france , with private instructions to those ministers , which he thought he could most influence to close with it : and in effect he did obtain several of their subscriptions , whom when the protestant synods would afterwards have censur'd for their so doing , the kings commissioners took their parts , and would not suffer them to do it . and here i ought not to forget one particular which may be worth your knowledg , and that is this . among others to whom the marshal sent , one was the famous monsieur le blanc , he was at that time prisoner at sedan , and the moderation that he shewed in stating the controversies of grace , free-will , predestination , &c. gave them great hopes that he might easily be drawn in to the favouring their project of an accomodation with the church of rome , by meeting one another half way . the agent brought him a letter from monsieur de turene to this purpose , but was mightily surprized , when instead of what he expected , hee found him stiff and inflexible , and absolutely resolved not to relax any thing . indeed the very attempt that was made upon him , so disturbed him , that he could not be satisfied with his private resentment of it , but in the year . published a disputation to them , that the re-union which they had attempted with the lutherans made nothing to one with the papists , which he there shews to be impossible . this with what you have read in the preface to the tract , which has occasiond this digression , may seem to satisfie you , what the quality of the bishop of condom's exposition is , and what intreague it was designed to serve . you have the politiques of the clery of france , in which book you may see the very propositions that were made for this accommodation , and which are a pure original of new popery , and so conformable to the french expositor , and our english misrepresenter , that you cannot doubt but that they all designed to carry on the same design . for the little value that is to be set upon the approbations prefix'd to it : the author of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , has i think said enough to satifie you : to which you may add , that in the late divisions between the jansenists and their opposers in france , the books on both sides have been very solemnly approved , and the jansenists above any . and in the present case , either the approbations of the bishop of condom's exposition signifie nothing , or those heretofore prefix'd to cardinal bellarmines works , and their other learned controvertists are become super-annuated ; for all these cannot possibly stand together . but i run too far from my business , and must return to our expositor , who was not long without an answer , entituled iv. a vindication of the bishop of condom ' s exposition , with a letter from the said bishop . i will not tire you with giving my own sense of the performances of any whose titles i send you , and whose books i leave you to judg of when you read them . i will only observe to you , that we are very much beholding to the bishop , with confessing the particulars wich his adversary had charged him with , and which there are many that before did hardly believe . and for his excuses which he makes , the truth is , they are so little to the purpose , that he has gain'd but little credit even among his friends by them . and if this be as they say , the first notice he ever took of any adversary that appeared against him , he would do very well to have a care of setting out vindications of his works , at which he appears to be so horribly unlucky . but for all this you may recur to the reply that has been made by the same author who wrote the exposition of our doctrine in his second undertaking , called v. a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the exceptions of the bishop of condom and his vindicator . in which besides an answer to the bishops letter , and a particular review of all the several articles in debate , you will find in the appendix some pieces that will gratifie your curiosity , relating to the point of the invocation of saints . and in the close of all , the epistle of s. chrysostome to caesarius , which had been indeed very basely suppress'd by by them , but is now happily recovered , to the everlasting reproach of those who have so often and confidently urged the authority of that father for to support their new heresie of transubstantiation , and which he here in as plain words speaks against , as if peter martyr had not only first produced , but as some of them have said , had written the epistle for him . and thus far this controversie has proceeded , which at present stops here , though the reverend father who writ the vindication , had prepar'd us to expect that it should not long do so , but we now begin to think , that both the vindicator and the representer , are sensible that their design will not bear being driven on any further . but tho we have done with the business of the exposition , yet we must not so soon part with the bishop . for since the publication of that , these new popery-men , have favour'd the world with two other of his pieces , the . a pastoral letter to the new-converts of his diocess . the . a treatise of communion under one kind . the latter of these which had drawn in french an admirable answer heretofore , from that exact historian , monsieur larroque ; which 't is said , the bishop himself thought too strong to be answer'd with any advantage ; has also not long since produced us a treatise very worthy your perusing in our own language , intituled a discourse of the communion in one kind , in answer to a treatise of the bishop of meaux , of communion , &c. and in the two discourses , i mean the bishops and the answer , you may expect to find whatever artifice and insincerity can do on one side , or truth and learning reply on the other . for what concerns his pastoral letter , i have seen several answers to it in french , and one particularly very accurately done , called reponse à monsr . l'eveque de meaux sur sa lettre pastorale ; which if you think fit , i will send you : i do not know that any one has particularly undertaken it here , any farther than what was done by the author of the second answer to his exposition , who made some reflections upon the pastoral letter too . in this letter , there is one notable passage ; and the account of which , because you may not perhaps meet with elsewhere , i will run the hazard of another digression to offer it you here . in the d page , there is set in capital letters , this notable declaration , not one of you hath suffer'd violence , either in his person or goods . and page . so far , says he , have you been from suffering torments , that you have not so much as heard them mentioned ; i hear other bishops affirm the same : you are returned peaceably to us , you know it . i doubt not but this passage a little surprised you , as it did all the world that ever read it ; being so contrary to all the accounts that have come from thence . indeed his majesties brief alone may serve for a confutation to so shameful an assertion , and shew us how little we can rely upon those gentlemen , when they talk to us of things that were done . or . years ago , that make no scruple of dealing thus with us in a matter of fact , in the sight of the world , before whose eyes these things are acted : nay , to tell the very protestants themselves , that they had suffer'd no violence , that they knew it , when the contrary was as evident to them , as that their host is not the body of a man ; and no doubt the bishop might as easily be able to prove the one , as with all his fine words perswade the other . but i will open to you the mystery of this . you must know then , that , as far as i can learn , the dragoons were not lodged in the bishoprick of meaux ; but yet they came up to the very gates of the city . being thus in sight of their danger , and expecting every minute when it would fall upon them , the bishop thought that certainly now , if ever , they would be disposed to compliance . with this advantage he invites them to a conference , appears more moderate than even his own exposition ; and desires very little more of them than what any one might venture to subscribe . such advances backt with so good an authority as the dragoons at the gates , could not but prevail upon them ; they subscribed as he desired , and so the dragoons were dismissed without doing them any farther mischief . in this state , they continued for about three months , when the bishop began to visit his diocess , and especially , those parts in which there were the most protestants . his carriage upon this review was very different from what it had been before . he was now no longer the free , relaxing , good natur'd bishop of meaux , that held the conference with them , but rigid as any little emissary . he threatned those , who refused to go to mass , and assist at the other offices of the church ; and tho several told him that this was not what he had promised them , yet he took but little notice of it . mons. de soguier , lord of charmoi , and cousin to the late chancellor soguier , and several others more obstinate than the rest , both had the dragoons quarter'd upon them in his diocess , and are at this day prisoners upon this account . this i have read in some late french pieces , which have taken notice of it ; but the main of what i send you , is an extract of a letter , which was written to a friend of mine out of france ; and who being himself not long since there , confirm'd to me several of those particulars , as to this bishops diocess . i presume you have heard how this bishop , who in his pastoral letter dated march . denies , as you see , that there has been any thing of violence used to the protestants in france , did in another letter to a person of quality that had escaped thence , and whom he desired to draw back if possible to his country , and his church , both own and justifie the persecution . this letter was dated but apr. . after the other . this honourable person had such indignation against him for his double dealing , that he has permitted the bishops letter to him , to be printed ; and which agrees as well with his pastoral letter , as his exposition does with cardinal bellarmine's controversies ; the old popery from whence we reformed , with the new by which they would now seduce us . a third subject there has been for a more important controversie than either of the foregoing , occasioned by the papers left by his majesty concerning the authority of the catholick church ; and the method of which lies thus : the two papers written by the late king charles the second . . the answer intituled , an answer to some papers lately printed concerning the authority of the catholick church in matters of faith , and the reformation of the church of england . to these there came out almost at the same time two replies . a defence of the papers written by the late king of blessed memory . in which there is little remarkable besides the unhandsome levity of the stile , and the ungrateful drolls in a matter of so much seriousness . a reply to the answer made upon the three royal papers . this is much more to be commended both for its strength and decency ; and they would perhaps much more have served the interest of their cause , and shewn their respect to his late majesty , had they suffer'd no other to appear . but to both of them the same worthy author who wrote the former reply , has very lately publisht a most learned and excellent answer , and which i would very much recommend to your careful consideration , entituled , a vindication of the answer to some late papers concerning the unity and authority of the catholick church , and the reformation of the church of england . a discourse so learnedly and clearly written , that we ought to thank our adversaries for their importunity that has produced us so excellent a treatise in a point of such importance . i think i have now set down all the disputes that have proceeded to any length this last year : for the rest , they are either such as you may call occasional treatises only , or such as are not advanced into any set and regular debates . i. of the former kind i understand these following : first , concerning st. peter's supremacy , a discourse intituled , a sermon preacht upon saint peter ' s day , printed at the desire of some that heard it , with some enlargements . the occasion of which was this : dr. godden had the last year published a sermon on this subject which he preacht in the q. dowagers chappel ; whereupon the reverend author of this discourse having likewise preacht on the same day , and upon the same text , was prevailed with to print his too . another subject that has occasionally produced us two or three very good treatises , is , the worship of saints : our late misrepresenter and the bishop of meaux's exposition having been pleased very much to palliate the doctrine and practice of the church of rome as to this matter ; and pretending that what they now do is no more than what was done even in the fourth age of the church ; it was necessary some particular discovery should be made of this artifice , and it has accordingly been done very effectually in the following tracts . speculum b. virginis ; a discourse of the due praise and honour of the virg. mary . in which is clearly set forth what we allow , and what the bold extravagancy of the church of rome has carri'd them to do in the worship of the blessed virgin. a discourse of the worship of the blessed virgin and the saints , with an account of the beginning and rise of it among christians , in answer to monsieur de meaux ' s appeal to the fourth age in his exposition and pastoral letter . wholsome advices from the blessed virgin to her indiscreet worshippers . this last is but a translation : it was written originally by a papist , one mr. widenfelt , a person of good esteem and reputation in his country ; who being scandalized at the extravagant practices of his church in this matter , wrote this little treatise to awaken their consideration , and if possible , reduce the people from their usual extravagance , to the temper and moderation of the present advocates for their cause , as to this matter . but alas ! he found them too fond of their old popery , to leave it so easily : instead of doing any good upon them , his book was censured in a very extraordinary manner , and the honour of the blessed virgin vindicated against these new hereticks , by her faithful champion father crasset the jesuit : a short specimen of whose book you may see at the end of the defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england ; or if you had rather have it from their own pens , as indeed none can better expose their extravagancies of this kind , than they have done themselves , you may then consult a late popish book called , contemplations on the life and glory of holy mary the mother of jesus ; with a daily office agreeing to each mystery thereof . by j. c. d. d. to which he has since added , an apology for his contemplations , &c. but of all this , you will find a particular account in an excellent preface prefixt to these advices by the translator of it ; who professes himself to be a lay-man of our church , and has the character of a very worthy , as he has sufficiently shewn himself to be a very ingenious gentleman . it may be proper here to remark , that this preface has been attacked by the catholick representer ; or the misrepresenter transformed : in his th chapter of his second part ; and to which he has returned a smart reply , called , . a letter to the misrepresenter of papists . another occasional treatise came forth not long since , intituled , . a discourse concerning a judg of controversies in matters of religion ; with an address to wavering protestants , shewing what little reason they have to think of any change of their religion . it was written in answer to some papers that had been sent to the learned author , by a person of quality , asserting the necessity of such a judg. if i should tell you from whose pen this treatise came , you would need no other inducement carefully to read it . and to encourage you to it , i will only say thus much , that it has been generally received with great applause here , and do's certainly as well deserve it , as any thing that has hitherto been publish'd among us . here has been published likewise a short tract concerning the nature of the catholick church , and the authority of it . it is not level'd against any particular author ; but design'd to answer the little captious arguments now much in vogue ; and therefore , necessary to have been thus prevented : the chief points handled in it , are these three . . what is the nature of the catholick church . . that the church of rome is not the catholick church . . that the holy scriptures , and not the church , are the rule of faith. the title of this treatise , is this , . a plain and familiar discourse by way of dialogue , betwixt a minister and his parishioner concerning the catholick church . to these i may add a treatise , concerning the defection of the church of rome from what it once was . it is an answer to a popish paper , which the author has printed at the beginning of his book , given about it seems by those of that party , and sent by way of letter to a gentleman : it is called , . an answer to a late paper given about by some of the church of rome . another subject that has occasionally been handled , is , concerning schism and heresy : it is an answer to some things in a popish pamphlet , called , why are you a catholick ? the author treats of the nature of these two , and enquires to which church it is that they really do belong : in short , whether the papists or we , are schismaticks and hereticks ? the title is this , . a vindication of the church of england from the foul aspersions of schism and heresy , unjustly cast upon her by the church of rome . in two parts . the last subject that has occasionally , but yet more copiously been handled , and which upon that account , i reserved to this place , is concerning the worship of images , &c. it began by this means . a reverend divine of our church , took occasion from the late pretences of our misrepresenting the opinions of the papists , to set forth an excellent catechism , called . a catechism truly representing the doctrines and practices of the church of rome , with an answer unto them . it is not to be wonder'd that such a book as this should be thought proper to be set forth ; when the whole business of those of the other communion , was to palliate by any means the true doctrines and practices of their church ; it certainly became us to represent them to the world , as indeed they are . this has here been done from their own authors , and with great sincerity . but notwithstanding this , the misrepresenter that then was , in one of his answers to the first great controversy i have mentioned , took him to task for it : in the close of a new edition of this catechism , an answer was made to his exceptions . not long after this , the misrepresenter began a new undertaking , to oblige the world with a sheet a week , first ; called the second part of the papist represented and misrepresented ; and after , of half a sheet , which he has continued to the number of sixteen chapters , under the new character of the catholick representer . in his st , d , th and th sheets or chapters , he falls upon the author of this catechism , with reference to the point of the worship of images , and of the cross ; which has produced us three short , but yet excellent answers , called . . the papists represented and not misrepresented , in answer to the first sheet of the second part . . the like to the second . and . to the fifth and sixth . the business of all which is the same , viz. to shew what the true doctrine of the church of rome is in the points before mention'd , of the worship of images , and of the cross. for the other sort of tracts that have been written , ii. more immediatly in answer to some of their set discourses . they have also been on different subjects : such as these . ( . ) concerning transubstantiation . upon which their late attempts , either to set up that , or to ruin the other mysteries of the gospel , but especially , that of the trinity , have occasioned several short , but accurate discourses : i shall send you the titles of them . . the answer to the popish dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant , to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes upon the said dialogue . . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , as to scripture , reason , and tradition : in answer to the same , and in two parts . to which i will add for the affinity of the subject , two other treatises , viz. . a paraphrase with notes , and a preface upon the th chapter of st. john , shewing that there is neither good reason , nor sufficient authority to suppose that the eucharist is discoursed of in that chapter , much less to infer the doctrine of transubstantiation from it . . an historical treatise of transubstantiation , written by an author of the communion of the church of rome : wherein is made appear , that according to the principles of that church , this doctrine cannot be an article of faith. to these discourses upon this subject , we cannot more fitly add any thing , than what has lately been done on another relating to the holy eucharist , viz. ( . ) concerning the real presence , and adoration of the host. you ought to know very well what gave occasion to this controversie ; viz. the two discourses set out by mr. w — at oxford on this subject . as for the answer to them , it was sent you into the country , and bears this title : . a discourse of the holy eucharist in the two great points of the real presence , and of the adoration of the host ; in answer to the two discourses set forth at oxford on the same subject . it was i believe expected that this controversie would have either exposed our church , had we own'd the extravagant notion of the real presence mr. w — would put upon us , and which is indeed cousin german to transubstantiation ; or have raised , it may be , a civil war amongst us , if we did not . but i believe both their expectations will fail them ; for certainly whatever some particular persons may have believed themselves , yet the doctrine of the church of england is plainly as the answerer has represented it ; and as we expect it will be farther proved in the other reply which we are told is preparing at oxford by an eminent person there to the same book . there is prefixt to this extant , a very large preface , which has properly enough retorted mr. w's — argument ; and shewn the world that if other divines ( as he pretends ) have believed a substantial presence of christ's natural body in the holy eucharist , 't is more than many of the most eminent of theirs have done , who are here plainly discover'd not to have believed transubstantiation . a third subject that has given occasion to another answer , is what they have called a protestants plea for a socinian . the design was to prove , that in interpreting scripture by reason , and not submitting to the infallible interpretation of what they call the church , we make an apology for the socinians , and all other hereticks whatsoever . the falseness of this pretence has been at large shewn in the answer which an eminent person of our church has lately put out to it , called , . the difference between the protestant and socinian methods , in answer to a book , entituled , a protestants plea for a socinian . in which besides a full account of this matter , you will find many other curiosities relating to the method and principles of the socinians , which you have never it may be elswhere met with . to these i may add the answers that have been set forth by way of notes on some papers called , lucilla and elizabeth , or the donatist and protestant schisms parallel'd . and , a request to protestants to produce plain scripture directly authorizing certain tenets , which he there subjoins . the answers are called , . a protestant of the church of england no donatist . . an answer to the request to protestants , &c. which last answer has had a reply called , protestancy destitute of scripture proof , against which there is , i am told , a defence of the answer now in the press . there are some other little things which i ought not to forget , because they have done a great deal of good . as , the plain mans reply to the catholick missionaries . and an answer to the eighth chapter of the representers second part in the first dialogue between him and his lay-friend . published by the lay-man of whom i have spoken above . as for the conference at the d. of p. which you have heard of , one mr : g. who maintained the roman side , tried to resolve the infallibility of the church into oral tradition , and afterwards boasted so unmeasurably of the advantages he had made of the controversie , that he drew upon himself a just rebuke in a printed paper called , a letter to mr. g. concerning the conference at the d. of p. which having produced two letters from the other side , there presently came forth , a second letter to mr. g. in answer to two letters lately published concerning the conference at the d. of p. there is also lately published a discourse by an ingenious and worthy gentleman , concerning the authority of councils , &c. to which is added a short but an effectual answer to the eighth theses , by which mr. w. — in his part v. of church-government pretends to try the english reformation . the title is , of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. by a person of quality . with an answer to the eight theses laid down for the trial of the english reformation , in the book that came last week from oxford . after which there came forth a discourse which is here exceedingly well received , and the design whereof is sufficiently explained by the title , viz. an apologetical vindication of the church of england , in answer to those who reproach her with the english heresies and schisms , or suspect her not to be a catholick church upon their account . i ought not to conceal the answer to that libel upon the reformation which you have seen , called pax vobis ; though it is not a just answer to the book , but a preface rather to more that is to follow . the title is some dialogues between mr. g. and others , with reflexions upon a book called pax vobis . when the answerer has finished his design , you may have what remains , as i am told under the same title . i shall conclude your trouble at present with telling you of a sett of discourses concerning the notes of the church , as they are laid down by bellarmine . thus far the design has proceeded already . . a brief discourse concerning the notes of the church , with some reflexions on cardinal bellarmine ' s notes . . bellarmine ' s first note of the church , concerning the name of catholick examined . . the d note of the church examined , viz. antiquity . . the d note of the church examind , viz. duration . 〈◊〉 perceive we may expect the rest in order . i am sir , yours , &c. the end . postscript . when the author let this paper go out of his hands , there were some discourses omitted , which he intended to add towards the close ; but because it was published before he was aware , there was no other way left to supply the defects of the letter , but by sending abroad this postscript after it . to those discourses therefore that are mentioned in this letter , these are to be added . i. the plausible arguments of a romish priest answered by an english protestant . which is a book that seems to be contrived on purpose to make the most material differences between both churches , easie to be considered and sufficiently comprehended by persons of the plainest education . to which i must add , ii. a discourse between two protestants , in answer to a popish catechism , called , a short catechism against all sectaries . in which tract one shall find all that plainness which is fit to enlighten ordinary capacities , together with that solidity of reasoning , which cannot but gratifie persons of the best education and abilities . to the same purpose there was another book published not long since , called , iii. a plain defence of the protestant religion , fitted to the meanest capacity , being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men. above a year since there were some queries put to protestants , which were answered in a book that has this title . iv. some queries to protestants answered , and an explication of the roman catholicks belief , in four great points considered . . concerning their church . . their worship . . justification . . civil government . tho i omitted , how i know not , the defence of the dublin letter , yet it ought to have been remembred in the first place . 't is an answer to the third chapter of the second part of the catholick representer , and has this title , v. transubstantiation no doctrine of the primitive fathers . there is another tract which ought to have been mentioned among the discourses against transubstantiation ; in which , tho there is an attempt to explain the real presence by a singular hypothesis , that neither serves the turn of the papists , nor is needed by protestants ; yet 't is in many respects so very rational and useful , that i am glad i did not forget to mention it here . the title is vi. a brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the eucharist , against the bishop of meaux and monsieur maimbourg . and here i must not forget a book that will not be forgotten in hast , viz. vii . the school of the eucharist , with a preface concerning the testimony of miracles . the answer to mr. sclaters reasons , and to the nubes testium has been published in two parts ; the reverend author seeming to design to go through with the latter . the parts are called , viii . the antiquity of the protestant religion , with an answer to mr. sclaters reasons , and the collections made by the author of nubes testium . the first part. the antiquity of the protestant religion concerning images , with an answer to the collections made by the author of nubes testium . the second part. in the mean time , they that would farther know what little regard is to be had to that collector , may look into the first part of the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared : of which book i have given notice before . there was published last week another learned as well as smart answer to mr. sclater , whose consensus veterum , will now no longer be spoken of with contempt , after it has proved the occasion of the veteres vindicati : a book so excellent in it self , that it needs not the help of comparison with the book it answers , to set it forth . and i heartily wish that unhappy man who has a particular right to the instructions of those papers which his own have produced , may receive the greatest benefit by them . the title is , ix . veteres vindicati , in an expostulatory letter to mr. sclater of putney , upon his consensus veterum , &c. wherein the absurdity of his method , and the weakness of his reasons are shewn , his false aspersions upon the church of england are wiped off , &c. upon this occasion i will take leave to say , that altho many count it needless to answer authorities that are borrowed out of baffled books , that have been forty times urged , and as often reply'd to ; yet we are obliged to those that will undergo this task , not only because we know what advantages our adversaries desire to make , by saying , that such and such a book that quotes the fathers is not answer'd : but because our arguments and answers from antiquity are not at a stand , tho theirs are . ours , i do verily believe , need no improvement , but that now and then they are capable of it , is what several books of the learned men of our times are undeniable instances of . by the author of the plain mans reply to the catholick missionaries , there was another little tract published , which was not inserted in its place . the title is , x. the country parsons admonition to his parishioners , perswading them to continue in the protestant religion . to both these there has been lately published an answer by the other side , to which we expect a reply . the next that lies before me is , xi . the judgment of private discretion in matters of religion , defended in a sermon at s. pauls in covent-garden , by mr. kidder . and another tract there is written by a lay-gentleman , entituled , xii . a modest enquiry whether s. peter were ever at rome , and bishop of that church ; wherein the arguments of cardinal bellarmin and others for the affirmative are considered , and some considerations taken notice of , that render the negative highly probable . since the fifth part concerning church government which mr. w — published , he has sent us from oxford another book concerning the spirit of luther , and the celibacy of the clergy : he seems to have a set of books which he intends to publish one after another , for the diversion of this age , and to leave the defence of them to the next . for since his two discourses concerning the real presence , &c. he has thought fit to publish two other books , without taking any notice , or so much as offering to vindicate the first . which tergiversation will not i believe save his new books from being answered , since there is so great a choice of learned men in that famous university , of which he is a member , that some or other without doubt will be at leisure to attend his motions , and to do him right from time to time . this week was published the examination of bellarmin's fourth of his fifteen notes of the church , viz. amplitude ; and because the answer of the examination of the second is just now come to my hand , i am not unwilling to do our adversaries that kindness to publish it here , if it be a kindness to them , which will be better understood in a little time . i have no more to add but that we may expect in a little time , to see two discourses concerning purgatory and prayers for the dead ; a subject which has not been throughly handled since the revival of these controversies . it will be no injury to the performance to raise an expectation of it , if it be done by that hand , which i am told we are obliged to for it . errata . pag. . lin . . for charged , r. thronged . l. . for longer , r. larger . p. . l. . for he , r. is . p. . l. . for consult , r. confute . p. . l. . for prisoner , r. professor . l. . for them , r. shew . l. . for seem , r. serve . finis . a continuation of the present state of the controversy . imprimatur , liber cui titulus , [ a continuation of the present state of the controversie between the church of england , and the church of rome . ] junii . . h. maurice rr. in christo p. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. a sacr. a continuation of the present state of the controversy , between the church of england , and the church of rome . being a full account of the books that have been of late written on both sides . the second edition . london : printed for ric. chiswell , at the rose and crown in st. paul's church yard . mdclxxxviii . to the very reverend and worthy the authors of the discovrses here collected , in defence of the church of england . gentlemen , after so much pains as you have taken , and so much good as by the blessing of god on your endeavours you have done to that church of which i esteem it my happiness that i am a member , may it be permitted to a private and obscure hand to return you this small tribute , in acknowledgment of that sense which not my self alone , but i dare say every single person of our communion has of what we all owe to your learning and your integrity . i present you here with a short view of your own labours ; or rather , i offer to the world a small collection of those discourses you have written in defence of our religion . and how unsuitable soever it may appear to usher a few titles of books into the world under the protection of so many great names , yet i am confident the consequence of this undertaking cannot but be as honourable to you all , as i heartily wish it may , and as i am sure it ought to be : when it shall be consider'd how vast a number , and of what acurate and learned discourses is here comprised , and for almost all which we are in the compass of about three years indebted to you . it is indeed a matter of just wonder to all those who are acquainted with your method of living here , how persons engaged not only in a laborious attendance on their parochial cures , and a constant return of painful and acurate preaching ; but almost utterly distracted with that multitude of other business which in these last years has taken up the greatest part of your time , should yet find leisure to discharge all these , and at the same time to adorn the press with so many books as might alone have seemed more than enough to have employ'd your whole industry . but blessed be god , who has raised you up against such a time as this , and given us so great an earnest of his favour to us , that as we had never more need of able , and honest , and firm guides , than at this day ; so i may venture to challenge any age of the church , to shew such a number of truly learned , and pious , and constant pastors , as the church of england , and especially this city , do's now abound with . may your labours and your examples always find such a success as they deserve , and as they have of late met with amongst us . and since we cannot now have any excuse for our apostacy should we renounce our holy profession , after so much as you have done to convince even the most ignorant persons amongst us of the truth and purity of it ; may we ever firmly adhere both to you and it : that when we shall appear before the great bishop and pastor of our souls , we may all of us give up our accounts with joy . this , as it is my hearty wish , so i am perswaded it is the sincere resolution of every one of those whom god has committed to your care. and that in this firmness we may be all of us established more and more , shall be the continual prayer of him who in all thankful duty will ever remain , gentlemen , your most humble and obedient servant . to the reader . as for those who shall please to peruse this treatise , i have but very little to premise to them . they will here see an exact collection , as far as i was able to make it , of the controversie on both sides between our divines , and those of the church of rome . and in that , the victory of truth over error . never certainly was any cause more entirely baffled than the popish is at this time . never was a controversie more fully handled , and that in such a manner as to instruct even the meanest capacities , than this has been in these last years . insomuch that now there is scarce a person amongst us so ignorant , that is not able to make a stand against the rudest attacques of our adversaries . nay , our very footmen esteem themselves , ( and i think have satisfied the world that they are not mistaken ) an equal match for jesuits , i. e. for those who would at least be thought the most able men of their party , and dropt down from heaven on purpose to oppose the growth of protestant heresie . what others may judg of this , i cannot tell : but , for my part , i cannot but from thence conclude , that certainly the hand of god is with us for good. and that he who has given us this opportunity to understand the weaknesses and deceits of our enemies ; and endu'd us with so great and general a resolution , never upon any account whatsoever , to depart from our most holy religion , will also crown all our future endeavours with such a success , that the generations to come shall rise up and call us blessed ; when they shall see our firmness and our labours in the lord , and receive from our hands that pure and uncorrupted truth , which i am persuaded those excellent treatises i here mention , shall deliver down even to the very end of the world. the contents . the occasion and design of this continuation . page the whole divided into ii. generals . first part . of the cases against popery , begun in the lat e king 's time. ib. the catalogue of them reduced to the following heads . . preliminary discourses . , . of the church . . of the rule of faith. . of particular points . ib. an account of the disputes that have arisen , on the occasion of the discourse against transubstantiation . second part . of the discourses that have been publish'd in defence of the church of england , since the time of his present majesty : with an account of the popish treatises that occasioned them . these reduced to the several following heads . sect . i. of the representing controversie . the papist represented and misrepresented . the bishop of condom's exposition . good advice to the pulpits . and the disputes occasioned by these treatises . sect . ii. of the pretended agreement between the church of england , and the church of rome . sect . iii. of the disputes concerning the holy eucharist . . real presence . . . communion in one kind . . transubstantiation . sect . iv. of the disputes concerning the church . . of the notes of the church . . of the unity and authority of the church . . of the infallibility of the church . sect . v. of the prerogatives of st. peter , and the popes as his successors . sect . vi. of the reformation of the church of england , and the imputations of schism and heresie laid against us on the account of it . sect . vii . of the disputes concerning the rule of faith : and in particular , . of the holy scripture . . of tradition . sect . viii . of the disputes concerning the idolatry of the church of rome . . in general . . in particular . worship of images . invocation of saints . sect . ix . of the disputes concerning the validity of orders , in the church of england . in the church of rome . that the papists are upon their own principles , uncertain whether they have any true priests in their church . ib. sect . x. of other particular points in dispute betwixt us . popish treatises . discourses of the church of england . a full account of what pass'd on the occasion of the conference between dr. tenison , and father pulton the jesuit . sect . xi . in which the several treatises before mention'd are reduced to their distinct arguments , for the direction of those who would fully satisfie themselves in any particular point in dispute betwixt us , and those of the church of rome , viz. . general discourses . . of religious worship . . of prayer in an unknown tongue . — . of the invocation of saints . particularly of the b. virgin. . of images and reliques . . of idolatry . . of merits , satisfactions , purgatory and indulgences . — . of the sacraments . . of confession and penance . . of extreme unction . — . of orders . . of the real presence . . of transubstantiation . — . of the sacrifice of the mass. . of the adoration of the host. — . of communion in both kinds . . of the rule &c. of faith. . of the holy scripture . — . of tradition . . of the church . — . of st. peter and the pope . . of the reformation . — . of schism and heresie . . of the celibacy of the clergy . sect . xii . in which the whole is closed , with an account of the present undertaking , to examine the texts of scripture alledged in favour of the popish errors . a continuation of the present state of the controversie . it is now some time since it has been very much desired , that a full account might be given to the world , of the several tracts that have these late years been publish'd on the points in controversie between the church of england , and the church of rome . the present state of the controversie , set forth about two years since , being become very imperfect ; and serving rather to raise mens expectations of some further account to be given of this matter , than to satisfie their desires with what is there offer'd . i will not pretend to have been so diligent an observer of these things , as not to have let many discourses slip , in such a number as have appear'd on both sides : and must , therefore , humbly entreat the representer's favour to me , if he find some defects in my present undertaking ; and that he will not impute that to a spirit of misrepresentation in me , which really proceeds only from my ignorance or inadvertency . what discourses have come to my hands , i will faithfully give an account of ; and if he , or any other for him , will put forth an appendix of what is wanting here , it will be much more to the satisfaction of the world , than to run over once more , his common place against me , as a new and upstart sort of misrepresenter , and fancy that the eyes of all the world are set upon him , to chastise me for my unsincerity . the present state of the controversie gives an account how the divines of our church , at the time of the late king's death , were engaged in a design of publishing some discourses on the several points in controversie between us and the papists ; correspondent to what they had done , not long before , with reference to our disputes with our brethren the dissenters . and how the favourable reception their former attempt had met with from these , encouraged them to hope their labours would not be altogether unacceptable to those . but the catalogue of what they have done in pursuance of this design , is imperfect ; and it may not be amiss , before i proceed any farther , to give a more compleat one here . a full account of the cases that have been published on the points disputed between the church of england , and the church of rome . i. preliminary discourses . . a preservative to an ingenuous tryal of opinions in religion . . the difference of the case between the separation of protestants from the church of rome , and the separation of dissenters from the church of england . . a preservative against popery : being some plain directions to unlearned protestants how to dispute with romish priests . in two parts . by the reverend dr. sherlock , master of the temple . i place this discourse here , because i do not see to what other glass it could more properly have been reduced , though it is but just now publish'd , and perhaps , was never design'd by its learned author , to add to the number of this kind of treatises : but that which is more pertinent for me here to observe , is , that the former part of this undertaking soon met with such an answer as is now commonly given to our books , when any at all is given , viz. one single sheet from father sabran the jesuit , and who is now well known by his late little encounters of this nature . it was called , . an answer to dr. sherlock ' s preservative against popery , &c. to this an exact and solid answer was return'd by a protestant footman , one w. giles ; and who may justly be offer'd to the world as an instance of what use our late discourses have , or might have been , for the instruction even of the meanest persons in the matters in controversie between us , and the church of rome . the knowledge which this ingenious and diligent man obtain'd , being entirely due to them ; and yet how considerable it is , i shall leave it to any one to judge , that will but have the curiosity to examine his performance . it is called , . a defence of dr. sherlock ' s preservative against popery , in reply to a jesuit ' s answer : by w. giles , a protestant footman , living with madam h. in mark-lane . this defence , and the preface of the publisher of it , did put the jesuit quite out of all patience , and decency ; and made him forget himself so far , as once more to provoke the reverend dr. sherlock , by publishing an answer to both parts of the preservative against popery , and to the footman's defence of the first , under this title : . dr. sherlock's preservative considered , first part , with its defence , &c. by lewis sabran of the society of jesus . this answer was writ in such a violence of passion , and does charge the reverend master of the temple at such a rate with ignorance , calumny , and god knows what , that he hath at last condescended to chastise this ignorant jesuit himself ; and the world will very speedily see , that never man set pen to paper with such a stock of ignorance and confidence together , as this father sabran . after which , if he shall still continue to write in spite both of good learning , and of good manners , it is to be hoped , that at least we shall be excused by all those who have any share of either , if we do not give either our selves or them the trouble of any farther replies to him . a vindication of both parts of the preservative against popery : in answer to the cavils of lewis sabran , jesuit . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . ii. of the church . . a discourse of the unity of the catholic church , maintained in the church of england . . a discourse about the charge of novelty upon the reformed church of england made by the papists , asking of us the question , where was our religion before luther ? . the protestant resolution of faith , being an answer to three questions : . how far we must depend on the authority of the church for the true sense of scripture ? . whether a visible succession from christ to this day , makes a church which has this visible succession , an infallible interpreter of scripture ? . whether the church of england can make out such a visible succession ? . two discourses concerning the necessity of reformation , with respect to the errors and corruptions of the church of rome . there was a third part intended by the reverend and learned author of these two discourses , which we have hopes that it will be published ere long under the same title . iii. of the rule of faith. . a discourse about tradition ; shewing what is meant by it , and what tradition is to be received , and what is to be rejected . . a discourse concerning a guide in matters of faith , with respect especially to the romish pretence of such a one as is infallible . iv. of particular points . . a discourse concerning the object of religious worship ; or a scripture-proof of the unlawfulness of giving any religious worship to any other being besides the supreme god. . a discourse concerning the devotions of the church of rome , especially as compared with those of the church of england : in which it is shewn , that whatsoever the romanists pretend , there is not so true devotion among them , nor such rational provision for it , nor encouragement to it , as in the church establish'd by law amongst us . . a discourse concerning the invocation of saints . . of prayer in an unknown tongue . . of auricular confession as it is prescribed by the council of trent . . a discourse against . transubstantiation . . of the adoration of the host. these are the several discourses mention'd in the former † † † catalogue ; to these i must add several others that have since been publish'd . . two discourses of purgatory , and prayers for the dead . to which i may subjoyn a discourse just now publish'd , viz. . purgatory proved by miracles , &c. . a discourse concerning the sacrifice of the mass. . of extreme unction . and here it may not be improper to observe , that the author of this accurate discourse , thought fit to premise to it an address to the vindicator of the bishop of condom , upon the occasion of some things just then publish'd by him in his reply to our expositor , relating to this argument ; but especially concerning cardinal cajetan's confessing that their only text for this pretended sacrament , that of st. james , made nothing for it . to this the vindicator gave a half-sheet reply , called , a letter from the vindicator of the bishop of condom , to the author of a late discourse concerning the sacrament of extreme unction . and this produced another letter in reply to it , intituled , a second letter from the author of the discourse concerning extreme unction , to the vindicator of the bishop of condom . which put an end to this debate : though the vindicator made us hope for a reply to that excellent discourse ; but i presume will not esteem himself obliged to be as good as his word . . a treatise in confutation-of the latin service practised , and by the order of the trent council continu'd in the church of rome . . of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. . of the celibacy of the clergy . . of the incurable scepticism of the church of rome . . a discourse concerning the merits of good works . . an historical discourse concerning the necessity of the ministers intentions in administring the sacrament . i shall perhaps be look'd upon to have referr'd many tracts to the number of these discourses against the papists , that did not enter into the first design that was laid for them . but i know not to what head i could so properly refer them , as to this ; and if they help to make up the collection of particular points in debate betwixt us , it matters not by what occasion , or with what design they were first composed . i do not know that any more of these treatises have been particularly attack'd by those of the other communion , except that one only against transubstantiation : which having , after some years being let alone , given at last occasion to a formed controversie , yet in agitation , i will , before i go any farther , remark what has hitherto passed concerning it . the first that appear'd in answer to it , was a hot new-convert , under the glorious title of , reason and authority ; or the motives of a late protestant's reconciliation to the catholic church ; together with remarks upon some late discourses against transubstantiation . but the performance was so mean , so disproportion'd to the strength and merits of the discourse he had undertaken to attack ; that it is to be presumed , the weakness of the new convert obliged some more able controvertist to appear as his second ; and to publish not long after a new , and better answer , call'd , transubstantiation defended ; and proved from scripture , in answer to the first part of a treatise intituled , a discourse against transubstantiation . and to make all sure ; a third about the same time undertakes the same cause , in a discourse which he calls , an answer to a discourse against transubstantiation . it is no part of my design to give any character of these treatises ; i will only observe , that the second , which seems to have been written with the most care , continues still unfinish'd ; the author ( whoever he be ) having not yet thought fit to publish his d part. now this i the rather remark , to satisfie those who have long expected our reply to these treatises , what has been in some measure the cause of the deferring it : tho the multitude of other discourses that have since been published on this subject , may well excuse so small an omission : however , since after almost a years attendance , there is now but little hopes of any thing more to be expected from this antagonist , i may venture to promise the reader that he shall not continue much longer without the answer that has been prepared to what is already published ; and which might long since have been finished , had not the reverend author desired to acquit himself of all his task at the same time . and this may serve in short to have been remarked concerning the first part of this design , of the discourses which our divines began to publish in the late king's time upon the points in controversie between us and the church of rome . we must now pass to a more troubled and perplex'd undertaking ; and endeavour to reduce to the clearest method we can , those many tracts that have since come out in answer to one another on both sides ; and the number of which is now so great , that it is no easie matter to give an exact account of them . and for the doing of this , i shall consider them not in the order of their coming out , but reduce them as near as i can to the several distinct subjects to which they refer . now the first thing that began all our late disputes , was the pretence so much insisted upon , of our misrepresenting the doctrines and practices of the church of rome : and it shall therefore be the first kind of discourses i will here consider . sect . i. of the treatises that have been publish'd on the representing and expounding controversie . . what the occasion and design of this uundertaking was , has already been remarked in the first part of the present state : and therefore i shall not need to say any thing to it here . the treatises that have passed on both sides , may be consulted in this following order . i. a papist misrepresented and represented . r. the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented ; in answer to a book intituled , a papist misrepresented and represented , &c. ii. reflections upon the answer to the papist misrepresented , &c. r. a papist not misrepresented by protestants ; being a reply to the reflections , &c. iii. papists protesting against protestant popery ; in answer to a discourse intituled , a papist not misrepresented by protestants . r. an answer to a discourse intituled , papists protesting against protestant popery ; containing a particular examination of monsieur de meaux ' s late b. of condom ' s exposition of the doctrines of the church of rome , in the articles of the invocation of saints , and worship of images . iv. an amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and the answerer , in return to his last reply . r. an answer to the amicable accommodation of the difference between the representer and the answerer . v. a reply to the answer to the amicable accommodation . r. a view of the whole controversie between the representer and the answerer , with an answer to the representer ' s last reply . and here the matter rested when the first state of the controversie was published ; and it was then generally believed would have done so . but the representer had by this time got too much assurance to be easily put out of countenance ; and tho by the longer time he took in his answer to this last treatise , than to either of the foregoing , and which his performance sufficiently shews was not for any extraordinary pains he resolved to take in his reply to it , he seems to have struggled a little with himself , before he could get the better of his conscience , in going on at so pitiful a rate of vindicating his pretences , yet at last there came out something that was to be called an answer to our last piece , in a preface to a further continuation of his unjust pretences against us , viz. vi. the papist misrepresented and represented ; d part ; with a preface containing reflections upon two treatises ; the one , the state , the other , the view of the controversie between the representer and the answerer . but to this too , the worthy author of the view of the controversie soon returned such an answer as i find has not a little discomposed the representer : and i believe no less troubles the vindicator too of the bishop of condom's exposition , viz. r. an answer to the representer's reflections upon the state and view of the controversie , &c. to this the representer has now satisfied us , that he never intends to reply : for having lately set out an answer to another discourse of which we shall speak hereafter , viz. the apology for the pulpits : he adds triumphantly in the title , that it is not only an answer to that discourse , but also , a vindication of the representer against the stater of the controversie . but such a vindication as this , could certainly never have come from any other pen but the representer's : and is by the same figure a reply to this treatise , by which he heretofore told us , that his papist represented and misrepresented was enough to answer not only all our late discourses against popery , but a great part of all the books and sermons that had ever been writ or preached against them . the truth is , i can hardly forbear here to leave a while my design of pursuing the treatises that have been published on this controversie , to expose the confidence of this vain man : but since the worthy author of that book which he pretends to answer , has thought fit to give him up as a priviledged person , who is past either sense of modesty , or hopes of being reclaimed , i shall pay that deference to his judgment , as not to trouble my self with any vindication of his discourse against so trivial and occasional an attempt against it . but if there be any of this author's communion who shall think fit in good earnest to attack this , or any other of those discourses which he has published against them , i will then take the liberty to promise , that tho to our great regret , the incomparable author of them be now in his grave , and no longer in a state to vindicate his own works , yet neither his labours nor his memory shall want a defence , and let his adversaries whenever they please begin the experiment . and here i suppose we may now take a final leave of this first controversie ; the papist represented and misrepresented . i will only add , that since this first attempt of his began , he has carry'd it on in two other parts , under the title of the catholick representer . the second of which coming out weekly in several chapters , has received a very full , and i suppose a satisfactory answer ; there being no care taken to reply to what our divines have with great care and learning return'd to it . the third has been consider'd , as far as was thought necessary , by the late worthy and learned author of the defence of the state and view of the controversie before mentioned . ii. it was not long after the beginning of this , that the better to promote the same design , another engagement of the like kind was set on foot , under the title of an exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church in matters of controversie . i need not say that this piece was originally written in french , and published many years since by the bishop then of condom , now of meaux . the prosecution that has been made of this matter in the books that have been published on both sides , have given a very large account of this to the world ; and what is farther necessary for the understanding of the design of it , may be seen already set down in the former part of the * * * present state of the controversie . i will therefore only perfect the catalogue of what has past in this enterprize also on both sides , by adding to that already given , those other treatises , that have been publish'd since the former state was sent abroad . . an answer to the bishop of condom's exposition , &c. with reflections upon his pastoral letter . and concerning which i shall observe only , what was before remarked , that to this day no attempt has been made of returning one word in answer to it . . an exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , in the several articles proposed by the bishop of condom , in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick faith. to this in a little time came out an answer intituled , . a vindication of the bishop of condom ' s exposition , with a letter from the said bishop . and to that not long after , a reply , called , . a defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england against the exceptions of the bishop of condom , and his vindicator . and here this controversie rested for some time , and it was by many supposed would have ended . but at last both the bishop and his vindicator resolved once more to venture into the world ; and so after a long expectation , an answer was published to this last treatise , viz. . a reply to the defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england ; with a second letter from the bishop of meaux . to this there have been two treatises already returned , and we may in some time expect a third to be added to them , as soon as the author has discharged himself of a new ‖ ‖ ‖ adversary , which has since attacked him on another account . the vindicator it is hoped will not think much of a little delay in this matter ; especially since i am commissioned to promise him , that let him make what hast he will , the last part shall be got ready for him , before he has finished any reasonable answer to those already published . if it be enquired here , wherefore this last defence was divided into so many parts ; i presume this account may be given of it ; that the vindicator having run his answer into a greater length than the ordinary rate of these discourses usually allows of , either no just reply must have been made to it , which our expositor was unwilling they should be able to object to him ; or if there were , he thought it would be much more acceptable to the world , as well as less burdensome to himself , to publish his answer at several times , than to be opprest with so large a volume , as it would have amounted to all together . what is already finished will be found under these titles : . a second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , against the new exceptions of monsieur de meaux and his vindicator . part i. in which the account that has been given of the bishop of meaux ' s exposition , is fully vindicated ; the dictinction of old and new popery , historically asserted ; and the doctrine of the church of rome in point of image . worship , more particularly consider'd . part ii. in which the romish doctrines concerning the nature and object of religious worship : of the invocation of saints , and worship of images and reliques , are consider'd , and the charge of idolatry made good against those of the church of rome upon the account of them . and thus far our expositor has carried his reply : whilst the second of these parts was writing , the vindicator attacked the first according to their modern way of controversie , in a sheet and half ; yet call'd it , a full answer to the second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , in a letter to the defender . but the author of the view of the controversie being at that time engaged in a reply to the representer , and finding some congruity that the answer to both of them should come out together , for the reasons given in the preface to his treatise ; the defender was left at liberty to go on with his design , and yet the vindicator not suffered to complain for want of consideration : the reply i have in part mention'd before , but i will now give the title of it at its full length : an answer to the representer's reflections upon the state and view of the controversie . with a reply to the vindicator's full answer ; shewing , that the vindicator has utterly ruined the new design of expounding and representing popery . iii. having now given account of those two principal controversies that have of late been carried on among us , of expounding and representing the points in debate betwixt us and the church of rome ; i cannot better close this point , than with this remark , that in a very little time after the bishop of condom's exposition was set forth by the vindicator , we were also obliged with the translation of another of that prelate's pieces , called , a pastoral letter to the new converts of his diocess . it is not necessary to say that the bishop in this piece pursued still the design of his exposition . that has been already shewn in the answer to it , which i before remarked , at the end of the other reply that was made to his exposition , and which still continues unanswered . that which has made more noise is his open declaring to the new converts of his diocess , that they knew there had been no such thing as a persecution in france . and the falseness and unsincerity of which declaration has been sufficiently exposed , both in the former part of the ‖ ‖ ‖ state of the controversie ; and in the second defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england : and thither i shall remit those that desire to inform themselves more particularly of this matter . iv. i should here have dismissed this argument , had not the great misrepresenter that began this point , lately pursued it in a new undertaking , and of which i cannot better give an account , than in this place . it is not long since , that with the old design of exposing the ministers of the church of england to the censures of the world , as men who made it their business , at any rate , to run down popery , he set forth a malicious discourse , call'd by him , . good advice tu the pulpits , &c. in which he takes together out of the sermons published in the last years of the late king's reign , whatever he thought would serve to make them odious . the design was well enough laid ; and the circumstances of the times consider'd , it were not to be wondred if some things should have pass'd more hot against those of the church of rome , than was to have been wished . but either our ministers were then , as they have always been , very moderate ; or this author has been a very careless examiner of their excesses . however his attempt soon met with a solid confutation , in an excellent treatise , entituled , . an apology for the pulpits . and in which our divines are fully justified against his exceptions . to this he has lately set forth an answer , called , . pulpit-sayings ; or the characters of the pulpit-papist examined . to which there is an answer called , . pulpit-popery , true popery . and hitherto has this first sort of controversie been carried on : a second thing which has given occasion to some disputes these late years , and which , for the affinity it has to the foregoing . i chuse next to mention , is , sect . ii. of a pretended agreement of the church of england with the church of rome . and this too the representer is reported to have had a principal hand in . it is no very long time since a book was published in order to this end , and called in express terms , an agreement between the church of england and the church of rome . i think i needed not have made any change of my former head for this treatise ; there being perhaps not a more foul misrepresentation in the world , than what the great chastiser of misrepresenters has made here in such a pretence as this . but tho his title be general , yet the main design of his book was to expose a particular person of our church , and whom indeed they have all the reason in the world , if they can by any means , to run down ; for i know no man that does them and their cause more mischief , by those excellent treatises which he continues still to publish against them . however both the general and the particular design of this new contrivance , has been effectually answered in the two replies that have come forth to it , viz. . the difference between the church of england and the church of rome , in opposition to a late book , intituled , an agreement , &c. . a vindication of some protestant principles of church-unity and catholick-communion ; from the charge of agreement with the church of rome . by dr. sherlock . but what this author attempted in a more general manner , the publisher of discourses against us at oxford , more particularly endeavoured with reference to the holy eucharist ; in which , as he pretends , there is little or no difference between the true sons of the church of england , and those of the other communion : and which therefore shall be the next general head of controversies , to which i will now pass , viz. sect . iii. of the disputes which have passed these last years , concerning the holy eucharist . and here , i. concerning the real presence . this is the point in which mr. w. would fain piece up a kind of agreement betwixt us , though all the world sees nothing can be more different than the doctrine of the real presence as taught in the church of england , and that of transubstantiation , which is the real presence believed in the church of rome . but however it be , mr. w. doubts not to make it appear ; that our divines have asserted the very same presence of christ , in effect , in the eucharist , that the romanists maintain ; in a treatise , called , . two discourses concerning the adoration of our blessed saviour in the eucharist . and the former of which wholly pursues the pretended agreement i have now been speaking of . to this there came out first a london answer , in which his quotations were fully examined , his pretences considered , and the whole matter largely stated : and in return to his allegations of some of our church that believed their real presence , an account was given of several that have lived and died in their communion , that neither did nor could believe any such thing . the title of it is , . a discourse of the holy-eucharist in the two great points of the real presence , and the adoration of the host. not long after this , a person of great worth at oxford publish'd a second confutation of the same piece , but with this difference , that whereas the former discourse examined at large his quotations , this chiefly consider'd the principles on which he proceeded , and the arguments he brought to justifie his pretences . it is called , . a reply to two discourses lately printed at oxford , concerning the adoration of our blessed saviour in the holy eucharist . and here this controversie rested till the last term , when mr. w publishing another treatise upon the same subject , viz. . a compendious discourse on the eucharist : added to the end of it two appendixes , in answer to the two tracts that had been written against them . it appears by the heat and bitterness of these little satyrs , how much those books had troubled him , and how unable he is to command himself , even there where he pretends the most to do it . one would have thought after what the representer had done , we had seen the height of what a licentious pen could arise to in matters of such seriousness . but indeed this poor impotent old man has convinced us of our error , and shewn such an indecent passion in the menage of his answer , as is much more to be pitied than valued . but i shall leave it to those who are engaged with him , to take notice of these things : it is not to be doubted , but that in a little time their answers will be finish'd ; both the one and the other , being , as i am informed , already in good forwardness . ii. communion in both kinds . having thus given an account of what has pass'd as to the point of the real presence ; the next thing that naturally offer'd its self , was the doctrine of transubstantiation . but there has pass'd so much concerning this controversie , that i was willing before i came to that , to consider all the lesser debates that have risen relating to this holy sacrament . the occasion of this engagement was this : monsieur de meaux having some years since composed a famous book upon this argument , it was thought fit by those of the church of rome to translate that also , as well as the rest of his tracts , into our language . accordingly we find it to have been publish'd some time since , under the title of a treatise of communion under one kind . now however it might have been sufficient for us to have follow'd their example , in translating that most accurate answer of the late monsieur larrogue to it ; yet one of our divines was content to give it a new consideration , in an excellent book , called , a discourse of the communion in one kind . in answer to a treatise of the bishop of meaux , of communion , &c. and here this flourish ended : the translator ( whoever he was ) of the bishop's treatise , looking upon himself to be no more obliged to defend it against his english adversary , than the bishop thought himself to be to vindicate it against the attack of his french antagonists . but tho this controversie proceeded no farther , yet the subject has been lately again revived by a very learned hand , who having searched throughly into antiquity as to this point , has given us an accurate collection , called , a demonstration that the church of rome and her councils have erred ; by shewing that the councils of constance , basil , and trent , have in all their decrees touching communion in one kind , contradicted the received doctrine of the church of christ. iii. of transubstantiation . and now having cleared the way of all other debates touching this holy sacrament , we are at last arrived to the great point in dispute betwixt us , the doctrine of transubstantiation . but how to dispose of my self in so copious a subject , and upon which so many books have been written , is hard to resolve . i have already remarked what has passed on the occasion of the discourse of transubstantiation , the first that began this debate . the next that gave occasion to the revival of this controversie , was the author of the dublin letter , who being answered by the representer in his second part , cap. . a learned man of our communion made good his party in an excellent discourse , which he calls , transubstantiation no doctrine of the primitive fathers ; being a defence of the dublin letter , &c. and that no pretence to antiquity might remain unconsidered as to this matter , the same learned hand has since obliged us with a full view of all that can reasonably be desired from the primitive fathers as to this matter , viz. a full vew of the doctrines and practices of the ancient church relating to the eucharist , wholly different from those of the present roman church , and inconsistent with the belief of transubstantiation , &c. . a d sort of discourses there have pass'd on this argument in which our adversaries of the roman communion , have made it their business to prove the doctrine of the trinity to be as full of contradictions as that of transubstantiatiom : but whether this be more likely to make us papists or socinians , to believe the doctrine of transubstantiation , or to disbelieve that of the trinity , i shall not determine . however our divines have resolved to shew that there is no manner of reason for them to do either ; and the tracts that have been published on this occasion , are especially these . on the popish part. a dialogue between a new catholic convert and a protestant , concerning the doctrines of the trinity and transubstantiation . on our part. . an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholic convert , and a protestant , &c. . a second dialogue between a new catholic convert , and a protestant , shewing why he cannot believe the doctrine of transubstantiation , tho' he do firmly believe the doctrine of the trinity . . the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared as to scripture , reason , and tradition . in a new dialogue between a protestant and a papist . in . parts . . transubstantiation contrary to scripture ; or the protestant's answer to the seeker's request . . other discourses there have been in great numbers on both sides as to this point , and it shall suffice only to transcribe the names of them . popish tracts concerning transubstantiation . . a seeker's request to catholic priests and protestant ministers , for satisfying his conscience in the truth of what he ought to believe of the lords-supper . . the catholic answer to the seeker's request . . the catholic letter to the seeker . protestant treatises against transubstantiation . . a plain representation of transubstantiation , as it is received in the church of rome . . the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . . an historical treatise of transubstantiation . . a paraphrase with notes , and a preface upon the th chapter of st. john. . a brief discourse of the real presence . . the school of the eucharist . . six conferences concerning transubstantiation . . the protestant's answer to the seeker's request . . the protestant's answer to the catholic letter to the seeker : or , a vindication of the protestant's answer to the seeker's request . to which we may add two books , written indeed long since by two eminent bishops of this church , but thought fit to be reprinted again , since mr. w's attempts from oxford about the real presence . the first is , . a brief declarationn of the lord's supper , written by dr. nicholas ridley bishop of london , during his imprisonment . with some determinations and disputations concerning the same argument , by the same author . . diallacticon viri boni & literati , &c. i mention this book , ( tho a latin one ) because it is a very excellent discourse written by dr. john poynet , bishop of winchester , in edward v●'s days , and was very rarely to be met with till this reprinting of it . sect . vi. another subject which has open'd a large field to disputes between us , and has accordingly been frequently insisted upon , is the church ; with reference to the marks , and nature , and prerogatives of it . i. of the notes of the church . he must be very little acquainted with the late methods made use of by those of the church of rome , in propagating their religion among us , who knows not this to have been all along their great endeavour , to fly , as much as possible , all particular disputes , and keep themselves within the general notions of the church : that so applying whatever is , or is pretended to have been said of the church catholic , to their own particular communion , they might more easily deceive unwary and ignorant men. but in this too , as well as in all other points in debate , they have not fail'd to meet enough to encounter their pretences . and to the end it might be better seen how vain a pretence it is in them to call themselves catholics , and their church the catholic church , as if ( in the words of the prophet ) they were alone , and there were none besides them : one of the first controversies to be remark'd in this point is , that of the notes of the church ; and upon which they undertake to shew theirs , exclusive to all others , to be the catholic church of christ militant upon earth . the former part of the state of the controversie gave an account of the beginning of these ; how our divines engaged themselves to a weekly consideration of them , till they had past through the largest catalogue we have yet had of these notes , viz. that of cardinal bellarmin . they were then advanced to the third only , but now the whole is finished ; and those little exceptions which our adversaries thought fit to make to them , are fully answered , and they altogether compose a just volume ; and plainly shew , that were the church indeed endued with all those prerogatives they pretend it is , yet would it stand them in no stead , seeing , that according to their own notes , the church of rome cannot possibly be the catholic or universal church . the notes which on this occasion have been particularly examined , are these . . an examination of bellarmin's first note concerning , [ the name of catholick . ] . — his second note , [ antiquity , ] . — his third note , [ duration , ] . — his fourth note , [ amplitude or multitude and variety of believers . ] . — his fifth note , [ the succession of bishops . ] . his sixth note , [ agreement in doctrine with the primitive church . ] . — his seventh note , [ union of the members among themselves , and with the head. ] . — his eighth note , [ sanctity of doctrine . ] . — his ninth note , [ efficacy of the doctrine . ] . — his tenth note , [ holiness of life . ] . — his eleventh note , [ the glory of miracles . ] . — his twelfth note , [ the light of prophecy . ] . — his thirteenth note , [ confession of adversaries . ] . — his fourteenth note , [ the unhappy end of the church's enemies . ] . — his fifteenth note , [ temporal felicity . ] to which is prefixed , a brief discourse concerning the notes of the church ; with some reflections on cardinal bellarmin's notes . and annexed , a vindication of the brief discourse concerning the notes of the church ; in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled [ the use and great moment of the notes of the church , as delivered by cardinal bellarmin ( de notis ecclesiae ) justified . a defence of the confuter of bellarmin ' s second note of the church [ antiquity ] against the cavils of the adviser . ii. of the unity and authority of the church . this is another argument that has exercised the pen of a very great person amongst us : the occasion of his entring on the debate , was given by the publishing of some papers of his late majesty , and which are in every bodies hand , called , . the two papers written by the late king charles the second . to these an answer was published , intituled , . an answer to some papers lately printed concerning the authority of the catholick church in matters of faith , and the reformation of the church of england . it was not long before two of the other side appeared about the same time , in defence of the royal papers : the one very light , and in some places even ridiculous , and which shews , that the author's talent lies towards controversie no more in prose , than it appears by the hind and panther , that it do's in verse ; called , . a defence of the papers written by the late king of blessed memory . the other , much more solid and grave than the former , intituled , . a reply to the answer made upon the three royal papers . to both of which the learned author returned a most accurate and elaborate discourse , viz. . a vindication of the answer to some late papers , concerning the unity and authority of the catholic church , and the reformation of the church of england . and thus far this controversie proceeded : but there have been some other discourses besides these , published on this subject : in particular , the excellent discourse just published by the reverend dr. sherlock , with this title , a discourse concerning the nature , unity , and communion of the catholick church : wherein most of the controversies relating to the church , are briefly and plainly stated . part . by william sherlock , d. d. master of the temple . to these , for the affinity of the subject , i cannot do better than adjoyn , iii. such other treatises as have been publish'd , relating to the authority and infallibility of the church . where first i will beg leave to mention some short pieces which have passed betwixt a country parson , and a romish missioner . the occasion , as i am informed was this : the minister having observed some endeavours to seduce his flock , thought it his duty to give them some seasonable directions ; which he therefore published under this title : . the country parson's admonition to his parishioners , with directions how to behave themselves , when any one designs to seduce them from the church of england . in which tract , he advises his parishioners , as far as possible , to avoid all disputes about religion : but if the importunity of others shall force them to it , he then directs them how to bring the matter to a short issue , viz. by putting them to prove the pretended infallibility of the church of rome . and this he manageth under the title of , . the plain man's reply to the catholic missionaries . i ought not to conceal how acceptable those little pieces have been to the world , nor what good they have done among those for whose use they were chiefly designed . and this those of the other side have been so sensible of , that they have thought it worth their while to set out a pretended confutation of them both ; called , . the plain man's answer to his country parson's admonition : together with the missionaries answer to the plain man's reply . to which the worthy author of the two first treatises , has lately replied , under these titles , . a defence of the country parson's admonition . . a defence of the plain man's reply . and here i think this controversie has ended . if any answer has been published to these last papers , it is more than i have yet seen or heard of ; and i believe there is none . as for those separate discourses that have come forth , relating to this matter , the principal , if not all , are these that follow . on the part of the church of england . . the pillar and ground of truth ; a treatise shewing that the roman church falsly claims to be that church , and the pillar of that truth mentioned by s. paul , in tim iii. , . . a discourse concerning a judge of controversies in matters of religion . . a plain and familiar discourse by way of dialogue , betwixt a minister and his parishioner , concerning the catholic church . . reasons why a protestant should not turn papist , in a letter to a romish priest. . monsieur claude ' s conference with the bishop of meaux . . an historical examination of the authority of general councils . . of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. . a sermon on s. mark ' s day , by dr. patrick . . doubts concerning the roman infallibility . . a short discourse concerning the church's authority in matters of faith. on the church of rome ' s side . . a peaceable method for the re-uniting protestants and catholics in matters of faith. written in french by monsieur maimbourg . . seek and ye shall find : or a search into the grounds of religion , &c. . monsieur de meaux ' s conference with monsieur claude concerning the authority of the church . sect v. to these disputes concerning the church , i do not know any that i can so fitly subjoin , as those which regard the pretended priviledges and authority of st. peter and of the popes , as his successors . it is now some time since an eminent person of the other communion , dr. godden , began the contest as to this matter , in a sermon preach'd by him in the queen dowagers chappel , and called , a sermon of st. peter , preached before her majesty , the queen dowager , june . . in requital of this , a very learned man of our church , set out a sermon which he had occasionally preach'd in his own church , the very same day , upon the same text ; intituled , a sermon preach'd upon s. peter ' s day ; printed at the desire of some that heard it , with some enlargements , by a divine of the church of england . i will not say any thing more of these two discourses , than this , that whoso shall please to read them , will find what is to be urged from that famous text , thou art peter , &c. on either side ; and when they compare them together , may judg as they shall find the evidence of truth to incline them . but of this large subject much more has been set forth ; and it shall suffice to give a very brief account of it . . the catholick ballance ; or a discourse determining the controversies concerning , . the tradition of catholic doctrines . . the primacy of s. peter , and the bishop of rome . . the subjection and authority of the church in a christian state. . the antiquity of the protestant religion ; with an answer to mr. sclater ' s reasons , and the collections of nubes testium . . a modest enquiry , whether s. peter were ever at rome , and bishop of that church ? . sure and honest means for the conversion of all hereticks ; and wholesome advice and expedients for the reformation of the church . . dialogues between philerene and philalethe . these are , i think , the chief discourses that have been published by our divines relating to the prerogatives and authority that some pretend to , in behalf of st. peter , and the bishops of rome , his successors . as for those which have been sent abroad on this head by those of the other communion , these are the principal that have come to my knowledg . . st. peter ' s supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to holy scripture , and greek and latin fathers : by mr. clenche . . the popes supremacy asserted from the considerations of some protestants , and the practice of the primitive church , in a dialogue between a church-divine and a seeker . in vindication of nubes testium . concerning this last discourse , you must observe , that it does belong to the controversie about the nubes testium betwixt the representer and the divine of our church who answered that collection . the representer made a very faint defence of his nubes against that answer , but gave it a good title , calling it , the primitive fathers no protestants : to which mr. g. shortly after replied in his primitive fathers no papists ; after which that controversie rested , till the representer peept out again with this tract in defence of one point only of his nubes testium ; but whoever will take the pains to look into it , will find that the representer's stock is quite spent , and therefore he is forc'd to patch up these learned dialogues out of his own nubes testium , and the appendix , with the addition only of a few bold strokes ( which f. sabran would have call'd calumnies ) about dr. sherlock , &c. so that this book deserves no answer at all ; however a very learned person of our church having undertaken to answer mr. clenche's book , and dr. godden's sermon about the pope's supremacy , hath condescended to consider this tract also , and the world will very speedily be obliged with a compleat and learned answer to them all under this title . a discourse of the popes supremacy , in two parts : the first , in answer to a treatise entitul'd , saint peter's supremacy faithfully discuss'd according to holy scripture and greek and latin fathers . and to a sermon of st. peter preach'd before her majesty , the queen dowager on st. peter and st. paul ' s day , by tho. godden , d. d. the second , in answer to a discourse entitul'd , the pope's supremacy asserted from the considerations of some protestants , and the practice of the primitive church , in vindication of nubes testium . sect . vi. such have been the treatises that have pass'd on both sides concerning the popes authority . the next point which seems to follow the nearest upon these , and which indeed is chiefly founded on arguments drawn from the pretences before mention'd , is that of our unwarrantableness in separating from the church of rome , and chair of st. peter : and concerning which much has been done on both sides . as for our divines , the treatises they have publish'd in vindication of our reformation from the charge of schism and heresie , have been these that follow . . a vindication of the church of england from the foul aspersions of schism and heresie unjustly cast upon her by the church of rome . in two parts . . an answer to a late printed paper given about by some of the church of rome : in a letter to a gentleman . . an answer to the considerations which obliged dean manby to embrace what he calls the catholic religion . . notes upon lucilla and elizabeth . . an apologetical vindication of the church of england , in answer to those who reproach her with the english heresies and schisms , or suspect her not to be a catholic church , upon their account . . a few plain reasons why a protestant of the church of england , should not turn roman catholic . . an answer to the spirit of m. luther , and the original of the reformation , lately printed at oxford . . animadversions on mr. w's discourse of church-government . in two parts . . reflections on the relation of the english reformation , lately printed at oxford : and on the oxford theses , two parts . . an answer to a book intituled , reason and authority , or the motives of a late protestant's reconciliation to the catholic church . together with a brief account of augustine the monk , and the conversion of the english. . the state of the church of rome when the reformation began ; as it appears by the advices given to paul iii. and julius iii. by creatures of their own. . the queries offer'd by t. w. to the protestants concerning the english reformation , re-printed and answer'd . nor have those of the roman communion been sparing in this argument , but have made this a great subject of contention against us : as will appear by the following account . . lucilla and elizabeth , or the donatist and protestant schism parallel'd . . the sum of a conference had between two divines of the church of england , and two catholic lay-gentlemen , in . . the church of england truly represented according to dr. heylin ' s history of the reformation . . the considerations which obliged peter manby dean of london-derry to embrace the roman catholic religion . . schelstrate his dissertation against dr. stillingfleet , concerning patriarchal and metropolitical authority . as to this book , since mr. schelstrate's friends heve ventured to expose it in a translation here , the reverend and most worthy dean of paul's will not fail , if god continue him health and opportunity , to give an answer ; and i am sure the world will not be angry with me for raising their expectations of the dean's answer , since they are satisfied that he will make them sufficient amends for them . . a discourse concerning the spirit of martin luther , and the original of the reformation . . church-government part v. a relation of the english reformation , and the lawfulness thereof examined . . some queries to protestants concerning the english reformation : by t. w. . the schism of the church of england demonstrated in four arguments , formerly proposed to dr. gunning and dr. pearson the late bishops of ely and chester , by two catholic disputants , in a celebrated conference upon that point . this little paper with a large title was the other day reprinted at oxford by the converts there . the foul dealings and egregious disingenuity concerning that conference , as well as the weakness and falseness of its arguments , have been fully shewn in an answer we have received just now from cambridg , from a reverend person who was particularly related to one of those abused bishops . the title of his answer is , the reformation of the church of england justified , according to the canons of the council of nice , and other general councils , and the tradition of the catholic church , being an answer to a paper re-printed at oxford , &c. sect . vii . and these are the chief treatises that have been publish'd on these more general points . we come now to examine what has been done on the more particular controversies . and first we will begin with that which is the ground of all , the rule of faith . many have been the debates concerning this ; both with relation to what we suppose to be the only divine rule , viz. the holy scripture , and with reference to that other which those of the church of rome have added to it , viz. the tradition of the church . and , . as to the point of the holy scripture , these discourses have pass'd of late concerning it : on the part of the church of rome . . the protestant's plea for a socinian , justifying his doctrine from being opposite to scripture , &c. . protestancy destitute of scripture proofs . . a request to protestants to produce plain scriptures , directly authorizing xvi tenets held by them . . the th , th , th , th , and th chapters of the second part of the catholic representer . . an address to the ministers of the church of england . . a clear proof of the certainty and usefulness of the protestant rule of faith. . the catholic scripturist . . pax vobis . on the protestant part. . the difference betwixt the protestant and socinian methods , in answer to a book written by a romanist , and intituled , the protestant plea for a socinian . . an answer to the request to protestants to produce plain scriptures directly authorizing their tenets . . a summary of the principal controversies between the church of england and the church of rome , in answer to protestancy destitute of scripture proofs . . the lay-christians obligation to read the holy scripture . . the peoples right to read the holy scripture , asserted ; in answer to the th , th , th , th , and th chapters of the d part of the popish representer . . a treatise proving scripture to be the rule of faith ; writ by reginald peacock , bishop of chichester , before the reformation , about the year . . an answer to the address presented to the ministers of the church of england . . a vindication of the answer to the popish address , presented to the ministers of the church of england ; in reply to a pamphlet , abusively intituled , a clear proof of the certainty and usefulness of the protestant rule of faith. . some dialogues between mr. g. and others , with reflections on a book called pax vobis . to which i must add another and fuller answer preparing to that same little piece , not yet publish'd , viz. . the protestant and popish way of interpreting scripture impartially compared , in answer to pax vobis . . for what concerns the other point , tradition ; it has been the great endeavour of some of late to set up once more the infallibility of it . but none with more noise , by an accident , which i am now to recount , than mr. g. and the great master of controveesie , and patron of this new hypothesis , j. s. it happen'd about a year and half since , that the forwardness of mr. g. to engage in a dispute wherein he was sure to have the disadvantage both in the point , and in the person that was to manage it against him , led him into a conference with the reverend and learned the dean of pauls . i need not say what passed there , the whole having since been published : the subject of the debate , was the infallibility of oral tradition . the conference being over , mr. g. ( according to the perpetual custom of the vain and assuming spirit of that party ) began to make great boasts in the coffee-houses , what feats he had done , and how great a victory he had gained ; tho the gentleman , for whose sake the conference was held , declared himself much more confirmed in the communion of our church than he was before , and resolved to continue in it . this enforced the dean to publish a short expostulatory letter , called , . a letter to mr. g. giving a true account of a late conference at the d. of p. in return to this , mr. m. who was with mr. g. at the conference , returned a letter or two to dr. stillingfleet , concerning the conference ; and these produced a second from the dean of st. pauls , called , . a second letter to mr. g. in answer to two letters lately publish'd concerning the conference at the d. of p. one of the answers to the d. of p's first letter , was called , . a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of his first letter to mr. g. to this a person not yet concerned , put in a reply , intituled , . a letter to a friend ; reflecting on some passages in a letter to the d. of p. in answer to the arguing part of his first letter to mr. g. and here mr. j. s. was thought fit to be entrusted with carrying on this weighty controversie ; which he did in several letters , which he calls catholic letters ; in answer to the former letter , to the second of the dean's , and to a sermon , which in pursuance of this controversie , he preached at guildhall . to these dr. s. has since replied in a treatise , which he calls , . a discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the certainty of faith , in answer to j. s. his catholic letters . it was expected that this excellent discourse , which made such a discovery of the vanity and contradictions of that busy man , would have stopt his mouth for the future , especially since the blackloist heresy was now like to be brought on the stage again . but j. s. was long since past such modesty ; and since , if the worst that can come , he can eat his words now again , as well as he did before , when he was cited to rome , to be censured for those dangerous heretical opinions which he is now again broaching in england : he is for venturing on , and wrote a fifth catholic letter ( as he ridiculously calls it ) against the dean . but tho his letter has , i believe , met with as few readers as himself has admirers , and there is no danger in the world of its doing any mischief , since i do not believe it possible to hire any manof sense to read three pages in it ; yet in compassion , i suppose , to the poor head-strong man himself , there is a very learned person hath undertaken to answer not only that fifth letter , but the other discourses of the romanists about tradition , in an historical discourse concerning tradition . this we may expect to have published shortly . in the mean time the reverend dean himself did take another and more effectual course to disprove j. s's phantastical demonstrations of oral tradition , by shewing , that tho we should allow tradition to be as certain and infallible a rule as they desire , yet it would do them no service , who in all those points wherein they differ from us , have no catholic tradition to warrant them ; upon this , in a short time after the publishing his discourse , he set forth the first part of a work which we suppose may put a final end to this debate , viz. . the council of trent examined and disproved by catholic tradition ; in the main points in controversy between us and the church of rome : with an account of the times and occasions of introducing them . part i. we are promised a second part , if god continue the reverend author health and leisure ; we cannot but earnestly wish for it , since the first part was so very acceptable , and so very satisfactory . and thus far this controversy has been carried on on both sides . i had almost forgot to observe , that tho the dean of pauls himself undertook mr. j. s. his catholic letters ; yet the reflecter was not wanting to his own defence as far as he was particularly concern'd in them . but in a second discourse defended his letter against mr. j. s. his attack in his second catholic letter : the treatise is called , . the reflecters defence of his letter to a friend , against the furious assaults of mr. j. s. in his second catholic letter . in four dialogues . in this condition was this controversy when the continuation first appear'd abroad . but mr. j. s. has since carri'd it a little farther in a new piece , which he calls , . a letter to the continuator of the present state of our controversy . and in which , tho one would think his main design were what he adds in the rest of his title , to lay open the folly of my extravagant boastings , and the malice of my wilful forgeries : yet , after two leaves and a half , spent in railing at me , he insensibly falls to his old adversaries , and spends the rest of his pains upon them . and to their correction i shall leave him , who are chiefly concern'd to take notice of his insolence . as for my self , i heartily pity his vanity ; and shall neither trouble my self , the world , nor him , by taking the least notice of his recitings . besides this long encounter upon the score of tradition , other discourses have been published on both sides upon this point , whether the church of rome has indeed such an antiquity as it pretends , for the articles in dispute betwixt us ? and such was , first , the famous collection of one of their earliest converts , mr. sclater , minister of putney , in a book which he call'd , . consensus veterum : or the reasons of edward sclater minister of putney , for his conversion to the catholic faith and communion . and to which a reply was published , that has put an end to this undertaking , viz. . veteres vindicati : in an expostulatory letter to mr. sclater minister of putney , upon his consensus veterum . but the next collection was more general , and has run into a longer debate : it was called , . nubes testium : or , a collection of the primitive fathers , giving testimony to the faith once delivered to the saints . to this the same learned man who had before encountred mr. sclater's pretences , gave a short but exact answer ; and shew'd , that tho the representer ( for it seems his it was ) called it a collection of the primitive fathers , he might much better have entituled a collection of natalis alexander , out of whom he stole the far greatest part of it . the representer will , i hope , excuse this reflection , which i make only for the sake of truth , and to shew how unwilling i am in any thing to deserve being thought a misrepresenter ; which is now become as dangerous a name , as ever that of heretic or schismatic was heretofore . the answer is called , . an answer to the compiler of the nubes testium : wherein is shewn , that antiquity did not for the first five hundred years believe , teach , or practice , as the church of rome doth at present believe , teach , and practice . and here we are to meet a very strange accident , the great chastiser of misrepresenters , that honest , sincere man that cannot endure false dealing , but was dropt down from heaven to be the scourge and censor of a licentious age , himself become a misrepresenter : and by a strange kind of metamorphosis , from an angel of light transforming himself into a spirit of darkness . in short , he was it seems enraged to the last degree , to see not only his venerable authorities all ruined , but his treasury discovered , and the very places mark'd from whence he had stollen his book , without so much as once acknowledging to whom he was beholden for it . and yet what should he do ? reply to it fairly he could not ; for after all his shew of antiquity , the fathers were a sort of christians that he was utterly unacquainted with ; and had he been as well versed in them as he is in natalis alexander , yet could he not have fairly brought them to speak in behalf of his church . he therefore resolved under a new form to pickeer with the author , and see if he could prevent him by some cunning stratagem from being in a capacity of shewing him any such trick for the future . and therefore now no more the reverend father he was before , but as a zealous brother of the other extreme , tho yet a misrepresenter still , he lets fly at the principles of his adversary ; and undertakes out of his grand concern for the protestant interest , to shew our divines that this gentleman was one , who for all his pretences in their behalf , really endeavour'd to set up popery in masquerade . and to this end came out a formal piece called , . a letter from a dissenter to the divines of the church of england in order to a union . but to the great surprize of this gentleman , his adversary , who it seems was as well acquainted with henry hill's press , as natalis alexander's history , and by a sort of beauties so essential to the representer , that do what he can he is not able to disguise himself , presently found out what an ass was crept into the lyon's skin . and to let the whole world see what an honest fair dealer this representer is , he quickly gave an account of it in print , in his answer to the pamphlet , intituled , . a vindication of the principles of the author of the answer to the compiler of the nubes testium , from the charge of popery : in answer to a late pretended letter from a dissenter , to the divines of the church of england . to this i do not know that the representer has yet replied : but in defence of his nubes testium we have an answer that every way befits the character of its author : it is call'd , . the primitive fathers no protestants : or a vindication of nubes testium from the cavils of the answerer . and that has produced us another defence : viz. . the primitive fathers no papists : in answer to the vindication of the nubes testium . to which is added an historical discourse concerning invocation of saints , in answer to the challenge of father lewis sabran the jesuit . and here it was thought this controversy would have ended , till the other day the representer peept out with his defence of one chapter of his nubes testium , which i have already mentioned under this title , the popes supremacy asserted . to which an answer will be shortly in the press . and here this debate might have ended , had not a short postscript at the close of the first answer to the nubes testium , engaged our worthy author in a new quarrel with father sabran a jesuit ; and who is now grown more famous in the world from his new antagonist the protestant footman , who as we have before observed , undertook the defence of the reverend master of the temple from such pitiful cavils , as indeed were not worth the while of the learned man himself to take notice of ; and are abundantly answer'd by his new and more proper antagonist . in his sermon before the king at chester , this jesuit told his majesty and the auditory , that he follow'd the advice of st. austin when he recommended himself to the blessed virgins intercession , and advised them to do the same : and for this quotes his thirty-fifth sermon de sanctis . upon this there began a hot debate in letters betwixt f. sabran , and the answerer , concerning this authority of st. austin ; and at last from a particular passage , rose up to a general point , of the practice of the primitive church as to the invocation of saints . the pieces themselves may be consulted in this order . . a letter to a peer of the church of england , clearing a point in a sermon preach'd at chester , in answer to a postscript joyned unto the answer to nubes testium . . a letter to father lewis sabran jesuit , in answer to his letter to a peer of the church of england , &c. . a reply of lewis sabrand of the society of jesus , to the answer given to his letter written to a peer of the church of england , &c. . a second letter to father lewis sabran , jesuit , in answer to his reply . and here the controversy about st. austin's sermon was either ended or dropt , the jesuit being now ferretted by the second letter out of all his starting holes . but mr. g. in his primitive fathers no papists , taking into consideration a challenge , which the jesuit had made him in one of his letters about invocation , published an historical discourse to prove that invocation of saints was neither the doctrine nor the practice of the primitive fathers . upon this the jesuit begun again , after having taken a little breath , and in a whole sheet undertakes to answer that large historical account , with this title , . the challenge of father lewis sabran made out , against the historical discourse concerning invocation of saints . to which mr. g. very soon after replied in . a third letter to father lewis sabran , jesuit ; wherein the defence of his challenge concerning invocation of saints , is examin'd and confuted . in this letter mr. g. made such discoveries of the strange disingenuity , and confident ignorance of the jesuit , that he was resolved to rid his hands of such an adversary as had neither learning nor good-manners , and therefore told him in the conclusion of his letter that he would trouble himself no more with answering such an adversary . upon this the jesuit , whose only stock is confidence , being turn'd off by his learned adversary , was forc'd to address his next reply to a third person , and pitcht upon mr. needham , because he had licensed mr. g's third letter to him ; and directed a letter to him with this title , . a letter to dr. william needham ; in answer to the third letter by him licensed , written to father lewis sabran , of the society of jesus . to which mr. g. did finally reply in an address to the jesuit's superiors ; and this it 's supposed will end this controversy , it is call'd , . a letter to the superiors , ( whether bishops or priests ) which approve or license the popish books in england ; particularly to those of the jesuits order , concerning lewis sabran , a jesuit . and all these engagements the first answer to the nubes testium produced : but tho we now quit our author , yet we must not therefore leave the subject . for about the same time that the former answer appeared , another learned person of our church began to consider it by parts , in several letters to a person of quality : and the account of which i will now give , as far as the pieces are come to my knowledg . the first that appeared , was called , . the antiquity of the protestant religion : with an answer to mr. sclater ' s reasons , and the collections made by the author of the pamphlet intituled , nubes testium . in a letter to a person of quality . the first part. the next he entituled , . the antiquity of the protestant religion , concerning images : with an answer to the collections made by the author of the pamphlet , intituled , nubes testium . in a letter to a person of quality . the nd part. what notice has been taken of the former of these , i am not able to say ; but the latter has produced us an answer , entituled , . a discourse of the use of images , in relation to the church of england and the church of rome ; in vindication of nubes testium . to which our author has replied in . a third letter to a person of quality , being a vindication of the former ; in answer to a late pamphlet , intituled , a discourse of the use of images . and to that in pursuance of his first design , has lately added a fourth , which he calls , . a fourth letter to a person of quality ; being an historical account of the doctrine of the sacrament , from the primitive times to the council of trent , shewing the novelty of transubstantiation . to conclude this head , i shall only add one general discourse on this subject , which i have before mention'd , and can never name too often , viz. of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith . sect . viii . having hitherto pursu'd the business of the rule of faith , and the treatises that have been publish'd on the occasion of it ; we will now go on to the more special examinations that have been made by both these rules ; viz. scripture and tradition , of the particular points in debate betwixt us . and because i have just now mention'd some such examinations of the two great rocks of offence to us , the worship of images , and the invocation of saints ; it may not be amiss first of all to see what has been further done upon these arguments , and the other instances of what we esteem , the idolatry of the church of rome . there is perhaps nothing in all our disputes with those of the other communion , which they so unwillingly care to enter on , as this . they look upon the very name of it to be a kind of reproach to them , and would be thought as heartily , as we our selves can desire , to detest the guilt of it . but yet 't is too evident to be deny'd , that our charge is very justly brought against them ; and by consequence that it ought not to be doubted , but that our separation from them must have been most reasonable , if it can indeed be made appear , as we are perswaded we have plainly shewn , that we could not have continued in their communion , without joyning with them in the practice of one of the greatest of sins , viz. idolatry . but before we come to the particulars in which this charge is brought against them , it is fit we should first state the general notion of idolatry ; and this has been effectually done , but very lately . the reverend the bishop of oxon , having in a treatise which he published for the abrogating of the test and penal laws , given us just occasion to do so . this book is so well known , and the answer to it was so lately published , that i shall not need say any thing more of either , but only add their titles , which are these , viz. . reasons for abrogating the test. . a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry : in which a late author ' s true and only notion of idolatry is consider'd and confuted . i must not forget to observe also , that the bishop in his tract pretending to give a new and very strange account of the romish doctrine of transubstantiation , that part of his book received two particular considerations , the one in the preface to the reverend dean of paul's book , entituled , the council of trent examined and disproved by catholic tradition : the other in a learned discourse , under this title , . transubstantiation the peculiar doctrine of the church of rome . i am told we owe this book to a very ingenious nonconformist ; and as we cannot but thank him for the discourse he has given us , so he deserves to be thanked for his design of answering the other part of the bishop's book about the nature of idolatry ; in which he was prevented , as i am told , by the other discourse about the nature of idolatry coming out while that good design was under his hands . i cannot but wish that our brethren had begun sooner to assist us in such a large controversie as we have been obliged to manage , and that others amongst them would follow the example , which this learned author has so worthily set before them . another writer hath given us a very ingenious short answer to both parts of the bishop's book , and calls it , . a discourse concerning transubstantiation and idolatry , being an answer to the bishop of oxford's plea relating to those two points . as for the particular instances wherein we make good this charge of idolatry against them ; i have before mentioned that of the adoration of the host , and the discourses that have been published on that argument . the two points remaining , and of which something was said under the last head , are , the worship of images , and the invocation of saints . i. of the worship of images . upon which point , besides the two letters written in answer to the nubes testium , the following discourses have also been set forth , viz. . the fallibility of the roman church demonstrated from the manifest error of the second nicene and trent councils ; which assert , that the veneration and honorary worship of images is a tradition primitive and apostolical . . a discourse concerning the second council of nice , which first introduced and established image-worship in the christian church ; anno domini . for the other point , ii. the invocation of saints . many discourses have been published , and a full account given of this matter ; and if we may judge by the slender returns that have been made to them , little is to be said in vindication of this superstition . the treatises that i have seen , are these that follow . . speculum b. virginis : a discourse of the due praise and honour of the virgin mary . . a discourse concerning the worship of the blessed virgin , and the saints ; with an account of the beginning and rise of it among christians ; in answer to monsieur de meaux ' s appeal to the ivth age , in his exposition and pastoral letter . . wholesom advices from the b. virgin to her indiscreet worshippers . this piece was only a translation which an ingenious lay-man of our church put into english , and set a large preface before it : to this the catholic representer gave an attack in the th chapter of his second part ; and thereby obliged our author to make a smart reply upon him , called , a letter to the misrepresenter of papists . . an account of the life and death of the b. virgin , according to the romish writers , with the grounds of the worship paid to her . . the life of s. mary magdalene of pazzi , a carmelite nun ; with a preface of the nature , causes , concomitants , and consequences of extasie and rapture ; and a brief discourse added , about discerning and trying spirits , whether they be of god. . an abridgment of the prerogatives of s. ann , mother of the mother of god. . the enthusiasm of the church of rome demonstrated in some observations upon the life of ignatius loyola . . the virgin mary misrepresented by the roman church , &c. part i. wherein two of her feasts , her conception , and nativity , are considered . we are in hopes that the excellent author of this most ingenious and diverting discourse will e're long oblige the world with a second part , and teach the papists at length to grow ashamed of their intolerable superstitions towards the virgin mary . as for those of the other communion , it is but little they have published in particular on this subject , besides what i have already mentioned . but two pieces there are which i ought by no means no forget , viz. . contemplations on the life and glory of h. mary . . an apology for the contemplations , by dr. i. c. which apology was fully answered in the ingenious preface to the book called , an account of the life and death of the blessed virgin. sect . ix . i shall mention but one particular more , on which we have of late , as heretofore , been attack'd by those of the roman church , and effectually vindicated our selves , both against their calumnies , and their reasons ; and that is as to the validity of orders in the church of england . the occasion of reviving this matter , was given by a little scurrilous libel that went abroad , under the name of , the church of england truly represented . and in reply to whose calumnies , three discourses have been published , two of them new , the other only reprinted , viz. . a vindication of the ordinations of the church of england ; in answer to a paper written by one of the church of rome , to prove the nullity of our orders . . a defence of the ordinations and ministry of the church of england ; in answer to the scandals raised or revived against them , in several late pamphlets , and particularly in one intituled , the church of england truly represented , &c. . a short defence of the orders of the church of england , as by law establish'd ; against some scattered objections of mr. webster of linne . but this subject hath been most largely and learnedly handled by the learned mr. brown , of s. john's college in cambridge , in his sermon ad clerum ; and in another sermon preached before the university on commencement sunday ; translated into latin ; and both together printed at cambridge under this title . . concio ad clerum habita coram academia cantabrigiensi junii . an. . pro gradu baccal in s. theologia ; ubi vindicatur vera & valida cleri anglicani , ineunte reformatione , ordinatio . cui accessit concio habita julii . . de canonica cleri anglicani ordinatione latine reddita & aucta ; a th. brown , s. t. b. coll. d. joh. evang . soc. annexum est instrumentum consecrationis matth. parker , archiep. cant. ex ms. c. c. c. cantabr . i hear the worthy author hath been very earnestly requested to translate these latin sermons into english ; and i am told , that he delays it only upon the account of some answer that the papists have been talking they would give to them , being desirous to make his translation and vindication one trouble . i cannot therefore but in the behalf of those who are so desirous to have these sermons in english , request our adversaries , that if they have any thing to say to them , they would make a little more haste with it . and for the mighty master of controversie , who i hear hath resolved to answer a paragraph in one of them , i must needs tell him , that nine months is more by eight and an half , than an ordinary controvertist would have taken to answer such a piece in . but in this controversie we have not been merely upon the defensive part , but have attack'd their orders , as well as defended our own . this a learned man of our church hath done in a book under this title , . roman catholics uncertain whether there be any true priests or sacraments in the church of rome . sect . x. having thus reduced the principal treatises that have been set forth , to their particular heads , as far as in so great a confusion of matter i could well do it ; it remains only to add here such treatises on both sides , as i have before pass'd by , or could not be so readily brought to any special consideration . now those of this kind , which have been set forth by the church of rome , are these , . question of questions . . why are you a catholic ? . propery anatomized ; or the papists clear'd from the false imputation of idolatry and rebellion . . veritas evangelica ; or the gospel truth asserted in xvi useful questions . . pope pius profession of faith vindicated , &c. . dr. sherlock sifted from his bran and chaff . . the pharisee unmask'd . . assertio vii sacramentorum ; by king henry viiith , against luther . . a reformd catechism , by p. manby . . animadversions on the rishop of bath's sermon , &c. to these they have , because not at leisure to write new books , or for some other better reason , added an old book written by one f. huddleston , a benedictine ; it is called , . a short and plain way to the faith and church , &c. to this there is an answer almost finished by a very learned person , who will demonstrate to the world , how little that book had in it to convince . on our part have appear'd of this miscellany kind , these that follow . . remarks on popery misrepresented , with reference to the deposing doctrine . . pope pius's creed , with comments . . the additional articles in pope pius's creed , no articles of the christian faith. . a few plain reasons why a protestant of the church of england should not turn roman catholic . . thirty plain , but sound reasons why protestants differ from popery . . a discourse shewing that protestants are on the safer side , notwithstanding the uncharitable judgement of their adversaries ; and that their religion is the surest way to heaven . . a pacifick discourse of the causes and remedies of the differences about religion , which distract the peace of christendom . . the missionaries arts discover'd . . a request to roman catholics to answer certain queries on several of their tenets mention'd . . a brief account of the first rise of the name protestant , &c. . an historical relation of several great and learned romanists that have embraced the protestant religion . . a catechism truly representing the doctrines and practices of the church of rome ; with an answer to them . . the plausible arguments of a romish priest answer'd by an english protestant . . a discourse between two protestants , in answer to a popish catechism , call'd , a short catechism against all sectaries . . a plain defence of the protestant religion , fitted to the meanest capacity : being a full confutation of the net for the fishers of men. . some queries to protestants answer'd : and an explication of the roman catholic ' s belief in four great points consider'd ; . concerning their church . . their worship . . justification . . civil government . . the judgement of private discretion in matters of religion , defended in a sermon at s. paul ' s covent-garden , by mr. kidder . . the protestant resolved : or a discourse , shewing the unreasonableness of his turning roman catholic for salvation . . a discourse , wherein is held forth the opposition of the doctrine , worship , and practices of the roman church , to the nature , designs , and characters of the christian faith. . two short discourses against the romanists , by mr. dodwell , cambden professor in the university of oxford . . an answer to a discourse concerning the celibacy of the clergy , printed at oxford . . a letter to a lady : furnishing her with scripture testimonies , against the principal points and doctrines of popery . in return to the last of these discourses , father darrell the jesuit has been pleased to set out a single half sheet , which he calls , a letter to a lady : wherein he desires a conference with the gentleman who writ her that letter . this is indeed a new way of answering books , and becoming the busie , assuming spirit of that society . one would wonder , after so little success as they have hitherto met with in these encounters , what should move this reverend father to be so forward to come into the same list with goodwin , pulton , and a few others of the same character . for tho abundance of noise in a conference , and of misrepresentation after , may help out a weak cause , and an illiterate defender of it , when they are sure before-hand of the person for whose sake it is held ; yet methinks they should be more wary than to run upon such hazards , where , in all probability , they are not like either to gain their proselyte , or to have the opportunity of these kind of subterfuges to assist them . however , tho i have neither the honour to know the lady , or the author of that letter ; yet for this good father's satisfaction , i will venture for once to promise him , that if her ladyship does desire it , not only the author of that letter will be ready to meet him , but to shew how willing we are to encourage a hopeful design , let him chuse his gownman between blackwall and hide-park corner , and i dare say there is not one among them all that on this or any other occasion will decline to shew him how little reason he has for his forwardness . i am now hastning to an end of this undertaking ; and , i think i cannot better finish it , than with a short account of a controversie which made no small noise in the world , between the reverend dr. tenison , and father pulton the jesuit . about michaelmas last they met at a house in long-acre , on the acount of a boy whom mr. pulton had perverted from our religion . great things were presently talked , as usual on such occasions , concerning this conference ; and the papists fail'd not to boast of a mighty conquest made over the doctor . this forced him to resolve on a publication of what passed , tho otherwise as little fit , as designed to be communicated to the world . each party set forth his own account , and first mr. pulton his , in two books , called , . a true account of the conference , &c. . a true and full account of a conference held about religion , between dr. thomas tenison , and a. pulton one of the masters in the savoy . dr. tenison's was entituled , . a true account of a conference held about religion , at london , sept. . . between a. pulton jesuit , and thomas tenison , d. d. this was followed on the jesuit's part , with a new discourse , called , . remarks of a. pulton , upon dr. thomas tenison's late narrative , with a confutation of the doctor 's rule of faith ; and reply to a. cressener's pretended vindication . to which dr. tenison reply'd in a second treatise , viz. . mr. pulton consider'd , &c. and this produced another discourse from another hand , viz. mr. meredith , who was present at the conference , called , . some farther remarks on the late account given by dr. tenison of his conference with mr. pulton . as for what is added in mr. pulton's d. treatise in answer to a. cressener , the meaning of it is this : mr. cressener a schoolmaster , being present at the conference , mr. pulton in his account of it , gave him some occasion to complain of his relation , as to that part of it which concerned him ; and therefore , to justifie himself , he published a short treatise , to which mr. pulton there refers , viz. . the vindication of a. cressener , schoolmaster in long-acre , from the aspersions of a. pulton jesuit and schoolmaster in the savoy . and thus this controversie ended ; but yet i must not leave it , till i have taken notice of another that it begat , and that no less memorable than the foregoing . for upon the occasion of this conference , a paper was taken notice of much used by the puny controvertists of our days , called , . speculum ecclesiasticum : or an ecclesiastical prospective glass : written , as we are told , by a souldier of that party , t. ward ; and to which dr. tenison procured a young man , a friend of his , to write an answer ; which he did , entituled , . the speculum ecclesiasticum consider'd , in its false reasonings and quotations . but before this was published , the doctor obtained a copy of a defence which the soldier had prepared of his quotations , but was not yet come from the press ; and to finish all at once , an answer was set forth to that too at the same time ere it could appear abroad in the world . this the soldier resented , and expressed his sense of it in a letter to dr. tenison ; which , together with a reply to it , were published under the title of , . an answer to the letter of the catholic souldier , in a letter from c. d. to a. b. the examiner of his speculum . however , not long after , the defence was publish'd with a dreadful name , viz. . monomachia : or , a duel between dr. thomas tenison pastor of st. martins , and a roman catholic souldier . and so i think this worthy controversie ended . sect . xi . having now run through the several heads of controversy that have of late exercised the pens of our learned men in defence of our religion , it may not be amiss to stop here awhile , and by a brief recapitulation of the whole , see what more remains to a compleat vindication of our selves against all the tricks and artifices , as well as against the arguments of our adversaries . it is sufficiently evident from the foregoing collection , what slender returns those of the church of rome have made to the many excellent discourses , which themselves ( without any provocation of ours ) have extorted from us . and what prejudice they have hereby done to their religion , i am confident they themselves are not unsensible . i need not say what a number of disputes they have altogether let fall ; how many of our books , to this day , remain un-answered , and are ever likely to be so . in a word , what trifles many times they have set forth under the arrogant title of full answers to those they have thought fit to take notice of . and now at last , to compleat all , they seem to have utterly deserted the controversie ; and , too late , to see that truth and learning are not to be run down by those who are utterly destitute of the one , and , as far as we may be allowed to guess by their performances , have but very slender pretences to the other . the truth is , popery is a religion fit only for an inquisition to maintain , and dragoons to propagate . ignorance and barbarity brought it into the world ; interest and passion maintain and keep it up : no sooner did learning begin to revive , but popery began immediately to decay ; and ever since , the one has still decreased in proportion , as the other has flourish'd . and to think at this time a day seriously to dispute a nation so resolute and knowing as ours , again into the errors of it , plainly shews either that our adversaries have a very mean opinion of our understandings , or i am sure deserve that we should have no very great one of theirs . but whatever they once may have flatter'd themselves withal , i am confident they now begin to be satisfied , that popery is a religion that will not thrive in our northern climate . and tho they are pleased sometimes to divert themselves with our divisions , and , it may be , did from thence conceive some hopes of promoting their interest amongst us ; yet i doubt not but they now see , that we are not so much divided amongst our selves , as we are all of us heartily united against them . as for the divines of the church of england , how firmly they have adhered to the protestant interest , is not unknown to any . their preaching , their conversation , but , above all , their writings declare it to the world : and how fouly , by consequence , they were heretofore either mistaken , or misrepresented , when they were exposed by some ( who i believe wish'd them so ) as papists in masquerade , or at least as popishly affected . never perhaps was there a controversie more successfully managed than this has been in these late years . till now , these points were handled in such a manner , that if the learned applauded the performance , yet the vulgar were but little the better for it . but in these discourses , strength of argument , and plainness of discourse seem to vie with one another . the arguments so sound , as to convince all gain-sayers ; and yet the plainness so great , that the meanest persons may comprehend the force of them . and thus have they pursued not one or two points , but i may warrantably say , the whole controversy betwixt us . insomuch that from henceforth we may well excuse them any farther trouble , till either our adversaries shall think fit to answer their discourses , or to advance some other arguments than those which have already been obviated and confuted . but indeed there is no great likelihood of either of these ; and i dare venture to promise my reader , that let those of the church of rome attacque him where they please , let them in writing or discourse offer what they are able to him , he shall here in this collection , which i therefore on purpose make of several of these treatises under their proper heads , find more than enough to answer all their allegations . i. general discourses : or such as consider the most part of the points in debate betwixt us . . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented . . answer to the bishop of condom's exposition . . exposition of the doctrine of the church of england . . two defences of the exposition . . an answer to the compiler of the nubes testium . . the primitive fathers no papists . . pope pius's creed with comments . . the additional articles in pope pius's creed , no articles in the christian faith. ii. of religious worship . . a discourse concerning the object of religious worship . . a discourse concerning the devotions of the church of rome . iii. of prayer in an unknown tongue . . a discourse of prayer in an unknown tongue . . a treatise in confutation of the latin service , &c. iv. of the invocation of saints . . a discourse concerning the invocation of saints . . second defence of the exposition , artic. iii. . an answer to papists protesting against protestant popery . . mr. gee's third letter to father sabran . . the primitive fathers no papists . . a discourse in answer to monsieur de meaux's appeal to the ivth . age. paticularly of the b. virgin . see several discourses collected , pag. , . v. of images and reliques . . the antiquity of the protestant religion concerning images . . the vindication of it . — see above , pag. . . the fallibility of the church of rome demonstrated , from the manifest error of the second nicene and trent councils , in the point of images . . a discourse concerning the d . council of nice , which first introduced and established image worship in the christian church . . second defence of the exposition , part . art. iv. . answer to papists protesting against protestant popery . vi. of idolatry . a discourse concerning the nature of idolatry , in answer to the bishop of oxon. vii . of merits ; satisfactions ; purgatory ; and indulgences . . two discourses of purgatory , and prayers for the dead . . purgatory proved by miracles . . apology for the pulpits . appendix of indulgences . . the primitive fathers no papists . . summary of the controversies for purgatory . . a discourse concerning the merits of good works . viii . of the sacraments . an historical discourse of the ministers intentions , in administring the sacraments . ix . of confession and penance . a discourse of auricular confession , as prescribed by the council of trent . x. of extreme unction . . a discourse of extreme unction . xi . of orders . . a vindication of the ordinations of the church of england . . concio ad clerum , &c. see pag. , . . a defence of the ordinations and ministry of the church of england . . a short defence of the orders of the church of england . to these learned discourses we shall shortly have added another upon the same good subject from the reverend and learned dr. prideaux , prebendary of norwich , intituled , . the validity of the orders of the church of england made out against the objections of the papists in several letters to a gentleman of norwich that desired satisfaction therein . . roman catholics uncertain whether there be any true priests or sacraments in the church of rome . xii . of the real presence . . a discourse of the holy eucharist in the two great points , of the real presence , and the adoration of the host. . a reply to two discourses , printed at oxford , &c. xiii . of transubstantiation . . a discourse against transubstantiation . . transubstantiation no doctrine of the primitive fathers . . full view of the doctrines and practices of the ancient church , relating to the eucharist , &c. . transubstantiation contrary to scripture . . a paraphrase , with notes and a preface on the vith of st. john. . the absolute impossibility of transubstantiation demonstrated . see many other tracts above , from pag. . . veteres vindicati , in answer to mr. sclater . . a discourse of the holy eucharist , in answer to mr. w. . fourth letter to a person of quality . see above , p. . . transubstantiation the peculiar doctrine of the church of rome , see p. . xiv . of the sacrifice of the mass . . a discourse concerning the sacrifice of the mass xv. of the adoration of the host . . a discourse of the adoration of the host. xvi . of communion in both kinds . . a discourse of communion in one kind , in answer to the bishop of meaux . . a demonstration that the church of rome and her councils have erred , touching communion in one kind . xvii . of the rule &c. of faith . . a discourse concerning a guide in matters of faith. . the protestant resolution of faith. . of the authority of councils , and of the rule of faith. xviii . of the holy scripture . . an answer to the request to protestants . . a summary of the principal controversies betwixt the church of england , and the church of rome . . the lay-christian ' s obligation to read the scripture . . the peoples right to read the scripture . . the protestant and popish way of interpreting scripture , impartially compared ; in answer to pax vobis . see other discourses above , p. , . xix . of tradition . . discourse about tradition . . an historical discourse concerning tradition . . the council of trent examined and disproved by catholic tradition . see more discourses above , p. , , . to which i must add an excellent treatise omitted in its proper place , but which ought not by any means to be forgotten , called , . a treatise of traditions . in parts . xx. of the church . . a discourse of the unity of the catholic church maintained in the c. of e. . a discourse of the charge of novelty , brought against the ch. of e. . the notes of the church . see above , p. . . of the unity and authority of the church : see discourses above , p. . to which we must add a book since published , which ought by no means to be forgotten , being ( as we are assured ) the genuine issue of the great and admired bishop sanderson ; it is called , . a discourse concerning the church , in these following particulars , . concerning the visibility of the true church : . concerning the church of rome : . concerning protestant churches : . an answer to the question , where was your church before luther ? . of the authority and infallibility of the church . several discourses , p. , , . . two short discourses against the romanists , by mr. dodwell . xxi . of st. peter , and the pope . . a sermon preach'd upon s. peter ' s day . . the catholic balance . . a discourse of the pope's supremacy , in two parts . to which we may add a tract since printed , with this title , . pope gregory the great his opinion of the supremacy of the bishop of rome , taken from his own writings . see other discourses above , p. , , . xxii . of the reformation . . two discourses concerning the necessity of the reformation . . an answer to the spirit of martin luther , and the original of the reformation . . reflections on the relation of the english reformation , printed at oxford . see other discourses above , p. , . xxiii . of schism ; and heresie . . a vindication of the church of england , from the foul aspersions of schism and heresie , parts . . an apologetical vindication of the church of england , &c. see other discourses above , p. , . xxiv . of the celibacy of the clergy . . a discourse of the celibacy of the clergy . . an answer to a discourse concerning the celibacy of the clergy ; printed at oxford . sect . xii . and now after so full an account of these discourses , and of the several controversies that have been handled in them ; i have only remaining for the close of all , to give a short account of that excellent undertaking in which our divines are at this time engaged ; and which being finished , i do not see what more can be desired in order to our full satisfaction in this matter . i have before recounted how by a joint labour they run through the consideration of the pretended notes of the church , on which the romanists establish their usurped authority . no sooner were those ended , but they presently resolved upon another , and a more useful project , which was to search into our adversaries books ; and collect all those passages of scripture which are usually alledged by them to maintain their errors . and by giving the true explication of them , at once to secure their flock from their false glosses , and let them into a better understanding of those sacred books . in this undertaking they have already made a considerable advance , as will appear by the following catalogue : . popery not founded on scripture : or , the texts which papists cite out of the bible for the proof of the points of their religion , examined , and shewed to be alledged without ground . after which follow the texts themselves , which they bring for , . the obscurity of the holy scriptures . . the insufficiency of scripture , and the necessity of tradition . . the supremacy of st. peter , and of the pope , over the whole church , in two parts . . their doctrine of infallibility . . the worship of angels and saints departed . in two parts . . the worship of images and reliques . . the seven sacraments , and the efficacy of them . in two parts . . the sacrifice of the mass. two parts . . transubstantiation . . auricular confession . . satisfactions . two parts . may they go on with success to finish this good work ; whilst we ( for whose sake they take all these pains ) encourage their endeavours , by a firm adherence both to them and to their doctrine , and by our constant contending for the faith we have received from them , declare to all the world , that their labour has not been in vain in the lord. finis . a postscript of n. n. to mr. john sergeant , occasion'd by his letter to the continuator of the present state of the controversie . mr. sergeant , having perused your letter to the continuator of the present state of our controversie , i perceive , that you are mightily concern'd at the historical discourse concerning tradition , which he mentioned to be writing , and that you a a a would gladly find some way to save our friends this vast labour , and excuse them from this impossible task [ of answering you ] . i quickly apprehended your meaning , that you had a great desire not to be answered ; and therefore in pure complaisance to you , the first time i met with the author of the historical discourse , i desired him , in yours and my own name , that he would excuse himself the writing of that book , and told him , that i understood by your letter , that you would take it extreamly kindly at his hands , if he would not give himself the trouble of answering you . but this courtship would do no good upon him ; so that i was forc'd to alter my strain , and began to threaten him ; sir , said i , if you dare to answer mr. sergeant , he will be reveng'd of you , for he has a plaguy sharp pen , and will not spare you . all the answer i had to my threats , was to be laught at , he assuring me he would venture that . upon this , i told him , it was no jesting matter ; that if he did provoke you , you would turn the rough side of your tongue to him ; and ask'd him , whether he could digest the being call'd rogue , or lyar , or mad dog ? his answer was , that he could not very well : why then , said i , look you , sir , you shall have these , and ten times worse , if you dare to answer mr. sergeant ; and upon this i out with your letter , and shew'd him how smartly you could handle your pen. how will you like , sir , quoth i , to be call'd hot brain'd b b b calvinist in masquerade , par boyl'd by the scalding zeal against popery ; into a stanch protestant ? to be call'd c c c a wilful and bold calumniator ? to be told , you are a careless , d d d open , and confident liar ? to be nick-nam'd , a knight of the post , that writes without fear , shame , or wit ? to have your book call'd , e e e a little ridiculously malicious satyr , wholly made up of vapour , insolence , silly amplifications , ironies , invectives , and open falshoods ? to be nick nam'd , a thersites with a f f f steel'd impudence ? sir , said i , if mr. sergeant could bestow all these complements in so very few pages upon the continuator , for no reason in the world , what must you expect , if you should dare to provoke him by an answer ? be wise then , and learn so much wit as to sleep in a whole skin , and thank me for my good advice . now would you think it , mr. sergeant , that any man could have dar'd to have withstood all this ! and yet this strange man did , and bragg'd withal , that neither this , nor more than this , should fright him from answering you . i had but one other argument left to persuade him , and concluded , that it would do his business for him . well , sir , said i , to be short with you , why will you run your head against a wall ? mr. sergeant does assure me , that his fifth letter is g g g an elaborate discourse , and that it is ( in one word ) h h h unanswerable ; why then will you be medling with a book that cannot be disprov'd , that is unanswerable ? i always took you for a prudent man , shew it now , and let mr. sergeant alone : for he says , the best i i i wits of our nation have also declared in his favour , that his letters are unanswerable : ( k ) that he is inform'd his fifth letter , in particular , has sold so well , that there are not an hundred left of them . nay more , that f. w. had said , that these same letters ( which you will be daring to meddle with ) had laid dr. stilling fleet so flat , that he would never be able to rise again . and can you not be quiet , without bringing the best wits of the nation , and f. warner , a jesuit , upon your head ? they have declared already against you , and they will in honour stand up for john sergeant , and then what will become of you ? but all this was lost , mr. sergeant , upon him , and was so far from silencing him , that he seem'd to grow proud of having the honour of baffling john sergeant , and the best wits of our nation : and for f. warner , he had like to have call'd him f — for daring to take dr. stillingfleet's name into his mouth , who had so lately , and so thoroughly expos'd him in his appendix to the council of trent's examination . in short , as to the selling of your letter , he told me , that if he were not mis-inform'd , 't is no great wonder your bookseller should not have above an hundred remaining , seeing there were but . in all printed , and those at your own cost , and a considerable number of which you gave in presents to your friends , who therefore were obliged , in gratitude , to commend it . and now mr. sergeant , you see what pains i have taken in your behalf ; and tho the continuator neglects you , and this other author defies you , yet that your letter has not been without some effect upon me . what the issue of it will be , we shall see in a little time , as soon as this historical discourse concerning tradition comes out : in the mean while , all i can further do , is heartily to wish you , what i fear you will much more need than the continuator do's sincerity , a better cause , and a more civil pen ; and remain , sir , your very humble servant , n. n. notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e method . . advertisement pag. . * * * see the collection at the end of the preface . * * * see his advertisement . [ avis salutaires de la bien heureuse vierge à ses devots indiscrets . this tract was publish'd first at gand in latin , by monsieur widenselt a german , intendant of the affairs of the prince of suarzembergh ; afterwards translated into french. ] * * * see his book entituled la veritable devotion envers la st. vierge . o. † † † la preface p. , . pag. . &c. see the collection at the end of the preface . art. . p. . * * * so he was when he wrote to monsitur de meaux . † † † the whole of this is taken out of the factum which he printed of his case . see the advertisement . cardinal bona ' s letter : v. e. mi accenna che alcuni lo , accusano de qual che mancamento . and a little after , ne mi maraviglio che gli habbino trovato à dire , perche tutte le opere grande , e che sormontano l'ordinario sempre hanno contradittori — answer to cardinal buillon . ] see the answer of cardinal chigi to monsieur l'abbé de dangeau ; [ parlai al padre maestro di s. palazzo , & al secretaris della congregatione dell indice , e connobbi veramente che non vi era stato chi havesse à questi padri parlato in disfavore del medesimo . ] see advertisement , &c. † † † l' auteur — fit avec un tres profond respect ses tres humbles remercimens au pape par une lettre du . nov. . dont il recent reponse par un bres de sa sainteté du jan. . avertiss . and in the brief it self , devotionem interim atque observantiam quam erga sanctam hanc sedem nosque ipsos qui in eâ catholicae ecclesiae immerito praesidemus tuae ad nos literae luculenter declarant , mutuae charitatis affectu complectimur . ] * * * the bishop of strasburgh having accounted to his holiness his design of translating the exposition into the german language , sa sainteté lu● fit dire qu'il connoissoit ce livre , & qu'on luy raportoit de tous costez qu'il faisoit beaucoup de conversions . avertissement . card. bona's letter . notes for div a -e * * * [ intituled , prosecutio probationis locum mat. . non recte refundi in apostolorum principis successores . ] nihil praeterea , ad sanam catholicam , & orthodoxam fidem deposcit aurea illa expositio catholicae fidei jacobi episcopi condomensis , praeter illustrissima clarissimo●um virorum elogia , ipsius s. patris innocent . xi . peramantissimis literis comprebata . notes for div a -e * * * and that it is the most he does ; see de cult . lat. l. . c. . artic. xxii . this passage is often deny'd : see cassander consult . in art. . artic. xxii . art. xxii . king. . ezek. . . de justif. l. . c. . vasqu●z in d. th. , ae 〈◊〉 . d. ● . c. . . c. . . c. . disp. . c. . n. , . see aboue p. . concil . trid. sess. . c. . l. . de purg . c. . hebr. c. . v. . catech , conc . trid. hebr. . . see our d artic. notes for div a -e artic. . of the ch. of en. ‖ ‖ ‖ so our chu . catechism . * * * de cerm. ec. &c. l. . c. . ‖ ‖ ‖ lib. . sent. dist. . † † † ann. . in conc. flor. see our office of pub. bapt ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ep. . if it be indeed his . ‖ ‖ ‖ by monsieur de meaux , see before . cor. . ‖ ‖ ‖ see cassan. consult . art. . & de bapt. infant . where he cites many others of the c. of r. of the same opinion . consult . art. . † † † gerson . gabriel biel , cajetan , and others . † † † mat. . . john . . james . , . . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ 〈◊〉 vid. sacram. grge. p. et rursus . & serqq . menard . annot . mss. 〈◊〉 alia ejusd . opin . cajet . annot. in loc . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ lomb. of our side . see cassand . con. ‖ ‖ ‖ gratian de consecrat . d. . c. . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ l. . de euch. c. . ss . primum . † † † id. ib. l. . c. . luk. ● . . exod . cor. . cor. . . gen. . , &c. cor. . . see our . article . see t he same article . the same article . cor. . the same article . ‖ ‖ ‖ lomb. . sent . dist . . * * * scotus . dist . . q. . * * * bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . ss . secundo dicit . where he cites many others of the same opinion . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ in . d. th. q. . art . . ‖ ‖ ‖ see scotus cited by bellar. l. . de euch. c. . ss unum tamen . so also gabriel cited by suarez , t. . disp . . sect . . so lombard . l. . sent . dist . 〈◊〉 . lit . a. * * * cor. . . &c. — . . † † † acts . . &c. see her rubrick at the end of the communion office. cor. . , &c. concil . trident. sess. . see article . in. . d. th. disp . . c. . l. . de miss . c. . ibid. see sess. . cap. . heb. . , . heb. . . heb. . . ibid. v. . ibid. v. . hebr. . . ibid. v. ● . exod. . . lev. . joh. . . see our th article . notes for div a -e acts . . acts . . gal. . , . de unitate eclesiae , c. . see article . article . article . col. . v. . rev. . . — . . article . article . article . article . article . article . article . article . philip. . , . notes for div a -e la perpetuité de la foy de l'eglise catholique , touchant l'eucharistie . ann. . albertinus de eucharistiae sacramento . fol. prejugez legitimes contre ▪ ●es calvinists . an. . examen du livre qui porte pour titre , prejugez legitimes , &c. an. . * * * * * * monsieur jurieu prejugez legitimes contr● le papisme an. . les pretendus reformez convaineûs de schisme . . advertisment pag. , . exposit. pag. . vindicat. pag. , . vindicat. pag. , . collect. n. 〈◊〉 ibid. n. . vindicat. pag. . vindicat. pag. . m. de m's advert . p. . vindicat. pag. . seconde reponse . p. , &c. for all this , see the appendix . num . . vindicat. pag. . see appendix num . . where i have shew'd cardinal bona another of his approvers , to be nevertheless in his own writings contrary to monsieur de m's exposition . vindicat. p. , . for what concerns mr. imbert , see his own letter to monsieur de meaux , appendix , num . . for monsieur de witte 's case it has been already printed , and i have nothing new to add to it . vindicat. p. . see de la b's . answer to the advertisement . p. . vindicat. pag. . ephes. . . rom. . . vindicat. pag. . expos. of the c. e. pag. . * * * * * * of which see more in the appendix . n. . p. . vindicat. pag. . vindicat. pag. . † † † † † † to satisfie the vindicator what the cardinal's words are , i will give them at length . ex his constat & in concilio nicaeno secundo , & in tridentino , aliisque , latriam duntaxat idololatricam sacris imaginibus denegari , qualem gentiles imaginibus exhibent , ac proinde latriam illam interdici quae imaginibus in seipsis & propter ipsas exhibeatur , quoque imagines seu numina aut divinitatem continentia more gentilium colantur ; de hujusmodi enim latriâ controversia erat cum judaeis & haereticis , qui h●c ratione nos imagines colere asserebant . caeterum de latriâ illâ quae imaginibus s. trinitatis , christi d. aut sacratissimae crucis exhibetur , ratione rei per eas repraesentatae , & quatenus eum re repraesentatâ unum sunt in esse repraesentativo , nullamque divinitatem imaginibus tribuit aut supponit , nulla unquam fuit aut esse potuit controversia . art. . p. . monsieur de meaux ' s expos . pag. . vindicat. pag. . virdicat . p. , , . vindicat. pag. . collect. n. . ibid. n . ibid. n. . vindicat. pag. . . m. de m's advert . p. . vindicat. pag. , . vindicat. pag. . ibid. vindicat. pag. . notes for div a -e vindicat. pag. . vindicat. pag. . vindicat. pag. . expos. p. . vindicat. pag. . ibid. p. . ibid. p. . see his expos . §. . p. . vindicat. pag. . vindicat. pag. . † † † † † † discourse concerning the worship of the b. virgin and the saints , in answer to monsieur de meaux's appeal to the fourth age. vindicat. pag. . * * * * * * expos. monsieur de meaux , pag. . §. . it will not be unuseful to take notice how those of the p. reformation begin to acknowledge , that the custom of praying to saints was established even in the fourth age of the church . monsieur daillé grants thus much in that book he publish'd against the tradition of the latin church , about the object of religious worship . † † † † † † monsieur daillé's words are these : neque eum à vero longè aberraturum puto , qui dixerit hunc fuisse apud christianos primum ad sanctos invocandos gradum , cum calefacti atque inardescentes rerum praeclarè ab iis gestarum meditatione , praedicatione , atque exaggeratione animi , ad eos denique invocandos prorumperent . certè quae de o seculo prima hujus invocationis afferuntur exempla , ea ferè sunt hujus generis . ex encomiasticis quorundam disertissimorum & eruditione seculari florentissimorum hominum in sanctos orationibus desumpta , gregorii nazianzeni in cyprianum ; in athanasium , in basilium ; gregorii nysseni in theodorum , qui ambo o sed jam praecipiti seculo celebres habebantur , &c. adv. lat. tradit . de cultûs relig . objecto , l. . c. . pag. . * * * * * * the examples i gave were from greg. naz. and they are these : . invectiv . in julian . pag. . he thus bespeaks constantius . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . upon which the greek scholiast observes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dly . orat. . in gorgon . p. . l d. he thus addresses to his sister . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * * * * * * the opinion that the souls of just men do not go staright to heaven , seems to owe its rise to the verses of the sibylls ; which being very ancient ( within years after christ ) and by the most primitive fathers taken for a●thentick , drew the whole stream of the writers of those times into the same mistake . blondel in his book of the sibylline oracles affirms l. . c. . p. . that all the authors we have left us of the second , and as far as the middle of the third age , were of that opinion : and adds that even in the following ages many of those very men monsieur de meaux has alledged for the invocation of saints , were involved very far in the same error ; viz. s. basil , ambrose , chrysostom and s. augustine . this is yet more fully shewn by monsieur daillè in his book de cult . rel . obj. l. . c. . p. . & seq . and in another of his rooks de poenis & satisfact . where to the fathers last mentioned he adds s. jerom l. . cap. , , . all which sixtus senensis himself confirms , bibl. l. . annot . . p. . and particularly as to the fathers in question , s. ambrose , s. chrysostom , s. augustine . p. , . † † † † † † bellarm. de sanct. beat . l. . c. . p. . l. d. not. est ; quia ante christi adventum sancti qui moriebantur non intrabant in coelum , nec deum videbant , nec cognoscere poterant ordinarie preces supplicantium , ideo non fuisse consuetum in t. v. ut diceretur s. abraham ora pro me . see again c. . p. . l. b. sect. atque ex his duabus , collat . cum pag. . l. d. sect. alii dicunt . the same is suarez's opinion t. . in . d. th. disp . . sect. . p. . col . . l. e. quod autem aliquis directè oraverit sanctos defunctos ut se adjuvarent , vel pro se orarent , nusquam legimus . hic enim modus orandi est proprius legis gratiae , in quosancti videntes deum passunt etiam in eo videre orationes que ad ipsos funduntur . and this the common doctrine of their writers . † † † † † † this i before challeng'd the answerer to do , and he has not attempted it . bellarmin has but two within the first years . one of irenaeus mis-interpreted , and one of hilary , as little to the purpose . de sanct. beat . l. . c. . p. , . * * * * * * so cardinal perron himself repl. à la rep . du roy de la grande bretagne , liv . . cap. , . where he is forced to monsieur de meaux's shift of concluding from the following ages what he could not prove from the preceding ; and at last to confess freely , p. . quant aux autheurs plus proches du siecle apostolique , des quels la persecution nous a ravis la pluspart des ecrits , encore qu' il ne s'y trouve pas des vestiges de cette coutûme — ill suffit — qu'it ne se trouve rien en leurs ecrits de repugnant à l'eglise de . premiers conciles , pour ce regard . which is no more than monsieur de meaux himself insinuates , where to this very assertion of monsieur daillé's i have made use of , he has only this to say , that 't is not likely that monsieur daillé should at this distance understand the sentiments of the fathers of the first three centuries better than those of the next age did , expos. sect. . p. . all which he allow'd in express terms in his suppressed edition . see my collect. n. . p. xxiii . † † † † † † i shall mention but two ; st , that they constantly defined prayer , as due to god only : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , says basil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , greg. nyssen . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , chrysostom . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , damascen &c. and , dly , that it was the great argument used by s. athanasius , and the other fathers of these times , to prove our saviour to be god , that he was prayed to . vindicat. p. . vindicat. p. . sub tuum praesidium consugimus s. dei genetrix ; nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus , sed à periculis cunctis libera nos semper virgo gloriosa & benedicta . dignare me laudare te virgo sacrata ; da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos . nos cum prole pia , benedicat virgo maria. alma redemptoris mater , quae pervia coeli porta manes , & stella maris , succurre cadenti surgere qui curat populo ; tu quae genuisti naturâ miran●…e tuum sanctum genitorem , virgo prius ac posterius , gabrielis ab ore sumens illud ave , peccatorum miserere . offic. b. v p. . maria mater gratiae , mater miserecordiae , tu nos ab hoste protege , & horâ mortis suscipe . ib. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ bellarm. l. . de sanct. beat . c. . p. . l. a. reflects upon calvin in these words . quintò ibidem dicit , nos rogare virginem ut filium jubeat facere quod petimus . at quis nostrum hoc dicit ? cur non probat ullo exemplo ? i before observed that cassander owns the prayer , consult . art. . and monsieur daillé assures us , that in the missal printed at paris but in the year . in libr. extrem . p. . it is still extant in these words ; o'foelix puerpera , nostra pians scelera , jure matris impera redemptori . da fidei foedera , da salutis opera , da in vitae vesperâ benè mori . and indeed however scrupulous bellarmine is of this matter , yet others among them make no doubt to say , that she does not only intreat her son as a suppliant , but command him as a mother . so peter damien , serm. . de nat. mariae , speaking to the virgin , tells her , accedis ante aureum illud humanae reconciliationis altare , non solùm rogans sed imperans . for so father crasset , who both cites and approves it , translates the passage ; thou comest before the golden altar of our reconciliation , not only as a servant that prays , but as a mother that commands . and albertus magnus , serm. . de laud. virg. pro salute famulantium sibi , non solùm potest filio supplicare , sed etiam potest authoritate maternâ eidem imperare . that for the salvation of those that serve her , the virgin cannot only intreat her son , but by the authority of a mother can command him. this father crasset proves from more of the like stuff , in his . part. trait . . qu. . p. , . concluding the whole with this admirable sentence ; eadem potestas est matris & filii , quae ab omni potente filio omnipotens facta est : the power of the mother and the son is the same , who by her omnipotent son , is made her self omnipotent . this is the last french divinity , approved by the society of the jesuits , published with the king's permission ; and espoused at a venture by monsieur de meaux in his epistle . ut queant laxis resonare fibris , mira gestorum famuli tuorum , solve polluti labii reatum , sancte johannes . vos saecli justi judices & vera mundi lumina , votis precamur cordium , audite preces supplicum . qui coelum verbo clauditis , serasque ejus solvitis , nos à peccatis omnibus solvite jussu quaesumus . quorum praecepto subditur salus & languor omnium , sanate aegros moribus , nos reddentes virtutibus . ut cum judex adveneric christus in fine saeculi , nos sempiterni gaudii , faciat esse compotes . ibid. p. . deus qui b. nicolaum pontificem innumeris decorasti miraculis , tribue quaesumus ut ejus meritis & precibus à gehennae incendiis liberemur . sacrificium nostrum tibi domine quaesumus b. andraei apostoli precatio sancta conciliet , ut in cujus honore solemniter exhibetur ejus meritis efficiatur acceptum . per. missale rom. fest. nov. p. . ut haec munera tibi domine accepta sint s. bathildis obtineant merita ; quae seipsam tibi hostiam vivam , sanctam & beneplacentem exhibuit . praestent nobis quaesumus sumpta sacrament a praesidium salutare , & intervenientibus b. martini confessoris tui atque pontificis meritis ab omnibus nos absolvant peccatis . see missale in usum sarum fol. . & . in fest. nov. vindicat. p. . ibid. p. . vindicat. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ pontific . ord. ad recip . processionaliter imperat . p. . col . si verò legatus apostolicus imperatorem reciperet , aut cum eo urbem intraret , vel alias secum iret vel equitaret , ille qui gladium imperatori praefert , & alius crucem legati portans simul ire debent . cr●● legati , quia debetur ●i latria , erit à dextris , & gladius imperatoris à ●inistria . † † † † † † thomas . p. q. . art . . utrum crux christi sit adoranda adoratione latriae ? conclus . crux christi in quâ christus crucifixus est , tum propter repraesentationem , tum propter membrorum christi contactum , latria adoranda est : crucis verò effigies in aliâ quâvis materiâ , priori tantùm ratione latria adoranda est. and in the body , unde utroque modo adoratur eâdem adoratione cum christo , scil . adoratione latria . vindicat. p. . page . pontificale de benedictione novae crucis . pag. . col . . † † † † † † rogamus te domine pater omnipotens sempiterne deus , ut digneris benedicere hoc lignum crucis tuae , ut sit remedium salutare generi humane ; sit soliditas fidei , bonorum operum profectus , & redemptio animarum ; sit solamen & protectio , & tutela contra saeva jacula inimicorum . per. * * * * * * ibid. p. . col . . sancti † ficetur istud lignum in nomine pa † tris , & fi † lii , & spiritus † sancti : et benedictio illius ligni in quo sancta membra salvatoris suspensa sunt , sit in isto ligno , ut orantes inclinantesque se [ propter deum ] ante istam crucem , inveniant corporis & animae fanitatem : per. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ tum pontifex flexis ante crucem , genibus ipsam devotè adorat & osculatur . * * * * * * ut sancti † fices tibi hoc signum crucis atque conse † cres : — illis ergo manibus hanc crucem accipe , quibus illam amplexus es ; & de sanctitate illius , hanc sancti † fica : & sicuti per illam mundus expiatus est à reatu , ita offerentium famulorum tuorum animae devotissimae , hujus crucis merito , omni careant perpetrato peccato . p. . * * * * * * tum pontifex flexis ante crucem genibus eam devotè adorat , & osculatur : idem faciunt quicunque alii voluerint . vindicat. p. . vindicat. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ note first , that in the office of the holy week , printed in latin & english at paris , , the title of this ceremony is , the adoration of the cross . pag. . * * * * * * missale rom. feria vi. in parasceve . p. . completis orationibus sacerdos depositâ casulâ accedit ad cornu epistolae , & ibi in posteriori parte anguli altaris , accipit à diacono crucem jam in altari praeparatam ; quam versâ facie ad populum à summitate parùm disco-operit , incipiens solus antiphonam , ecce lignum crucis , ac deinceps in reliquis juvatur in cantu à ministris usque ad venite adoremus . choro autem cantante , venite adoremus , omnes se prosternunt excepto celebrante . deinde procedit ad anteriorem partem anguli ejusdem cornu epistolae , & disco-operiens brachium dextrum crucis , elevansque eam paulisper , altiùs quàm primò incipit , ecce lignum crucis ; aliis cantantibus & adorantibus , ut supra . deinde sacerdos procedit ad medium altaris , & disco-operiens crucem totaliter , ac elevans eam , tertiò altiùs incipit , ecce lignum crucis , in quo salus mundi pependit , venite adoremus : aliis cantantibus & adorantibus ut supra . postea sacerdos folus portat crucem ad locum ante altare praeparatum , & genu flexus ibidem eam locat : mox depositis calceamentis accedit ad adorandam crucem ; ter genua flectens antequam eam deosculetur . hoc facto revertitur , & accipit calceamenta & casulam . postmodum ministri altaris , deinde alii clerici & laici , bini & bini , ter genibus flexis , ut dictum est , crucem adorant . interim dum fit adoratio crucis cantantur , &c. — deinde cantatur communiter annā : crucem tuam adoramus domine . p. . vindicat. p. . * * * * * * . p. q. . art . . p. . thus argues : illi exhibemus latriae cultum , in quo ponimus spem salutis , sed in cruce christi ponimus spem salutis , cantat enim ecclesia , o crux ave , &c. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ vexilla regis prodeunt , fulget crucis mysterium , quo carne carnis condito● suspensus est patibulo . arbor decora & fulgida , ornata regis purpurâ , electa digno stipite , tam sancta membra tangere . beata cujus brachiis soecli pependit pretium . statera facta corporis , praedamque tulit tartari . o crux ave spes unica ! hoc passionis tempore , auge piis justitiam , reisque dona veniam . vid. breviar . rom. dom. passionis . p. , . the english translation in the office of the holy week , is this : o lovely and refulgent tree , adorned with purpled majestie ; cull'd from a worthy stock , to bear those limbs which sanctified were . blest tree , whose happy branches bore the wealth that did the world restore : hail cross of hopes the most sublime , now in this mourning passion time , improve religious souls in grace , the sins of criminals efface . pag. , . of reliques . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ con. tr. sess. . affirmantes sanctorum reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi , damnandos esse . thom. . p. q. . art . . pag. . utrum reliquiae sanctorum sint adorandae ? conclus : cum sanctos dei veneremur , eorum quoque corpora & reliquias venerari oportet . sec. obj. stultum videtur rem insensibilem venerari . resp. ad secund . dicend . quod corpus illud insensibile non adoramus propter seipsum ; sed , &c. vasquez in . p. d. th. disp . . p. . proposes this question : an corpora & aliae sanctorum reliquiae venerandae sint ? to this he answers , c. . p. . apud catholicos veritas indubitata est , reliquias sanctorum , sive fuerint partes ipsorum , ut ossa , carnes , & cineres ; sive res aliae , quae ipsos tetigerunt , vel ad ipsos pertineant , adorandas & in honore sacra habendas esse . and again , disp. . c. . p. . cum ergo jam contra haereticos constitutum sit , reliquias esse adorandas , superest explicare quo genere cultûs & honoris eas venerari debeamus . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ response à un ecrit publié sur les miracles de la sainte espine . pag. , , — , &c. cited by monsieur daillé . vindicat. p. . * * * * * * ita ut affirmantes sanctorum reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi , vel eas aliáque sacra monumenta inutiliter honorari , atque eorum opis impetrandae causâ memorias sanctorum frustra frequentari , omnino damnandos esse . vindicat. p. . vindicat. p. . * * * * * * pag. . the very beginning of the homily : because all men be sinners and offenders against god , &c. no man can by his own acts , &c. be justified or made righteous before god : but every man is constrain'd to seek for another righteousness or justification to be received at god's hands , i. e. the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended . edit . oxon. . † † † † † † justificatio , non est sola peccatorum remissio , sed & sanctificatio & renovatio interioris hominis . c. tr. sess. vi . c. . p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ siquis dixerit , homines justificari vel solâ imputatione justitiae christi , vel solâ peccatorum remissione exclusâ gratiâ & charitate quae in cordibus eorum per spiritum s. diffundatur , atque illis inhaereat ; aut etiam gratiam quâ justificamur esse tantùm favorem dei , anathema sit . can. . sess. vi . * * * * * * siquis dixerit hominis justificati bona opera ita esse dona dei , ut non sint etiam bona ipsius justificati merita ; aut ipsum justificatum bonis operibus quae ab eo per dei gratiam , & jesu christi meritum , cujus vivum membrum est , fuerit , non verè mereri augmentum gratiae , vitam aeternam , & ipsius vitae aeternae , si tamen in gratiâ decesserit , consecutionem , atque etiam gloriae augmentum , anathema sit . vindicat. p. . concil . trid. sess. vi . can. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ maldon . in ezek. . . p. . ex hoc loco perspicuum est aliquam esse nostram , ut vocant , inherentem propriámque justitiam , quamvis ex dei gratiâ , & largitate profectam : & nos tam proprie & verè , cum gratiâ dei benè agentes praemia mereri , quàm sine illâ malè agentes supplicia mereamur . † † † † † † de justis . l. . c. . opera bona justorum meritoria esse ex condigno , non solùm ratione pacti , sed etiam ratione operum . * * * * * * meritum ex condigno tribus modis variari potest . nam si fortè opus aliquod sit multò inferius mercede ex conventione promissâ , ut si dominus vineae conduceret operarios , & non denarium diurnum , sed centum aureos promercede promitteret , esset ejusmodi meritum ex condigne ratione pacti , non operis . p. . l. b. x x x x x x opera justorum esse bonae verè & propriè , sed non tan excellentia ut proportionem habeant cum vitâ aeternâ . et ideò acceptari quidem à deo ad justam & dignam mercedē vitae aeternae , sed ex pacto & promissione non ex operis dignitate . p. . l. a ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ si opus sit revera aequale mercedi , vel etiam majus , sed conventio nulla intervenerit . * * * * * * opera bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex condigno ratione operis , etiamsi nulla extaret divina conventio . p. . d. † † † † † † si & pactum intercedat , & opus sit verè par mercedi ; ut cum operarii ad vineam conducuntur pro denario diurno , id meritum erit ex condigno ratione operis & ratione pacti : and he explains it thus , p. . l. b. non quidem quòd sine pacto , vel acceptatione non habeat opus bonum proportionem ad vitam aeternam ; sed quia non tenetur deus acceptare ad illam mercedem opus bonum , quamvis par & aequale mercedi nisi conventio interveniat . quam sententiam conformem esse non dubitamus concilio tridentino , &c. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ vasquez in , dae . q. . d. . c. . p. . jam verò hâc nostrâ aetate non pauci theologiae professores mediam quandam viam elegerunt , inter scoti opinionem quam primo cap. memoravimus , & aliorum sententiam quam nos ut veram inferius probabimus . dicunt ergo rationem meriti perfecti & condigni , quod simpliciter meritum dicitur , duobus compleri , nempe & dignitate operis , & promissione mercedis : which was bellarmine's opinion . * * * * * * pag. . the first is that of c. . p. . bona opera justorum , absque ull● acceptatione & pacto , ex se habere dignitatem vitae aeternae . this is against scotus and the hereticks , whose doctrine he thus represents : opera bona necessaria esse ad vitam aeternam ; ita tamen ut ipsa justorum opera non sint digna remuneratione vitae aeternae , nisi deus benignitute suâ dignaretur illa remunerare . scotus's opinion he puts down thus , c. . p. . opera justorum ex se spectata , quatenus procedunt ex auxilio gratiae dei , & positâ sanctitate animae , per quam spiritus s. in justis habitat ; non habere condignitatem & rationem meriti vitae aeternae , sed totam dignitatem , & totam rationem meriti habere petitam ex promissione & pacto dei. the second conclusion , c. . p. . is this : operibus justorum nullum dignitatis accrementum provenire ex meritis aut personâ christi , quod alias eadem non haberent , si fierent ex eâdem gratiâ à sobo deo liberaliter sine christo collata . the third ; which the vindicator pretends he could not find , tho the title and subject of the very next , c. . p. . is ; operibus justorum aocessisse quidem divinam promissionem , eam tamen nullo modo pertinere ad rationem meriti , sed potiùs advenire operibus , non tantum jam dignis , sed etiam jam meritoriis . as for the conclusion , wherein the vindicator endeavours to excuse him , it is this : first he supposes the merits of christ to have obtain'd grace for us , whereby we may be enabled to work out our salvation ; and then this supposed , he affirms , that we have no more need of christ's merits to supply our defects , but that our own good works are of themselves sufficient , without any more imputation of his righteousness . see this at large , q. . art . . d. . c. . n. , . p. . † † † † † † see disp . . c. , . p. , &c. † † † † † † conc. trid. sess. . cap. . can. . vindicat. pag. , . * * * * * * lib. . de purg . c. . to this objection , si applicatur nobis per nostra opera christi satisfactio , vel sunt duae satisfactiones simul junctae , una christi , altera nostra , vel una tantùm . resp. p. . after two other manners of explication , he adds ; tertius tamen modus videtur probabilior , quòd una tantùm sit actualis satisfactio , eáque nostra . neque hinc excluditur christus , vel satisfactio ejus ; nam per ejus satisfactionem habemus gratiam unde satisfaciamus ; & hoc modo dicitur applicari nobis christi satisfactio ; non quòd immediatè ipsa ejus satisfactio tollat poenam temporalem nobis debitam , sed quòd mediatè eam tollat , quatenus , viz. ab eâ gratiam habemus sine quâ nihil valeret nostra satisfactio . * * * * * * as to the point of satisfaction , belarmine distinguishes between a satisfaction to justice , and a satisfaction to friendship : and then concludes ; cum homines peccant in deum , amicitiam simul & justitiam violant . as to the former , non potest homo deo satisfacere , &c. p. . the question is , de satisfactione quâ justitiae restauretur aequalitas . and because he supposes that the guilt being remitted , and we received into friendship with god , the eternity is thereby taken from the pain , the question amounts to thus much ; an satisfacere possint homines pro expiando reatu illius poenae qui interdum remanet post remissionem culpae ? and whether those works by which it is done ; sint dicenda propriè satisfactoria ita ut nos dicamur verè ac propriè domino satisfacere . now both these he affirms , and explicates the latter from the council thus , c. . de poenit . lib. . p. . l. c. per opera illa poenalia de quibus hàctenus locuti sumus verè ac propriè domino satisfieri pro reatu poenae , qui post culpam dimissam remanet expiandus . † † † † † † i shall instance only in vasquez , in p. d. . c. . p. . first he lays down the opinion of several of the schoolmen , alex. d' ales , ricardus , ruardus tapperus , &c. who held , that a meer man might condignly satisfy for his own sins . this he rejects , because he supposes it cannot be done without god's assisting grace , to which we forfeited all right by sin : and so it will follow ; nostram satisfactionem pro peccato proprio perfectam non esse , ex eo quòd fiat non ex propriis sed ex acceptis , p. . c. . n. . but now , secondly , god's grace being supposed , he concludes as to mortal sins , c. . p. . n. . nos reipsa nunc satisfacere deo pro nostro peccato & offensâ . he tells us , that some indeed allow that our contrition may be called a satisfaction , tho not a sufficient one , n. . nam qui pro compensatione exhibet id quod potest ; licet minus sufficiens illud sit , dicitur aliquo modo satisfacere . this reason vasqutz dislikes ; he is content this satisfaction should be called minus sufficiens ; but then only upon the account before mentioned , of its proceeding from the grace of god : so that , si contritio praecederet infusionem gratiae habitualis ex parte efficientis , non solùm satisfaceret pro maculâ peccati condignè , sed etiam condignè mereretur gratiae habitualis infusionem . and this he expounds as the doctrine of the council of trent , n. , , p. . as for venial sins , disp. . c. . p. . ita concedimus ( says he ) homini justo pro suo peccato veniali condignam & perfectam satisfactionem , ut ea non indigeat favore dei condonantis peccatum , vel aliquid illius , aut acceptantis satisfactionem , sed talis sit ut ex naturâ suâ deleat maculam & poenam peccati venialis . vindicat. p. . vindicat. p. . † † † † † † this bull is dated august . . and it runs thus : we give and grant , by virtue of the presents , a plenary indulgence , and intire remission of all sins . and that the confessors absolve them in the court of conscience of all sins , excesses , crimes and faults , how grievous or enormous soever they have been , and in what fashion soever they were reserved . and for all this , the condition proposed is , to visit some one of the churches appointed by the ordinary , to fast the wednesday , friday , and saturday ; to confess their sins , and receive the sacrament , and give somewhat to the poor . and this the a. b. of paris promises the people , in his instructions for the jubilee , shall restore them to the same state they were first put into by baptism . instructions pour gagner le jubilé , pag. . paris , . par ordre de monseigneur l' archeveque . vindicat. p. . notes for div a -e vindicat. p. . vindicat. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ pag. , &c. a. bp bramhall ' s works , tom. . disc. . p. . m. de meaux ' s exp. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ first we have cassander , libr. de baptismo infant . p. . and he there cites of his side jo. gerson , serm. in nat. b. mariae , par . . preached before the council of constance , and all the fathers there assembled , p. . gabriel biel in . dist . . q. . cajetan in . p. d. th. q. . art . , , . tilmannus segebergensis de sacram. c. . art . . * * * * * * grot. via ad pacem , p. . in art . . consult . cassandr . adds to these , inter veteres , scriptorem quaestionum ad antiochum quae athanasio tribuuntur ; nazianzenum de s. baptismate , duobus locis ; & scholiastem ejus nicetam : * * * * * * sed & ipsum augustinum antequam in certamine cum pelagio incalesceret , l. . de lib. arb . c. . locum joan. . intelligendum de iis qui possunt & contemnunt baptizari , asserit lombard . l. . dist . . vindicat. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ so estius in . sent. dist . . §. . p. . * * * * * * so the same estius proves from the council of florence ; in quo , says he , legitur quòd loco illius manùs impositionis per quam apostoli dabant spiritum s. in ecclesiâ datur confirmatio , cujus materia est chrisma . ex quibus verbis utrumque colligitur , & initio necessariam fuisse manuum impositionem sacramenti necessitate , & eandem ejus necessitatem , signaculo chrismatis introducto , cessâsse . vindicat. p. . ibid. p. . ibid. p. . vindicat. p. . * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to the hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies all sorts of infirmities : and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is no unheard of phrase for being lame . mark . . vindicat. p. . tim. . . tim. . . vindicat. p. , — . nec ex verbis , nec ex effectu , verba haec loquuntur de sacramentali unctione extremae unctionis : sed magis de unctione quam instituit dominus jesus , à discipulis exercendam in aegrotis . cajet . annot. in loc. the same is in effect the prayer of the greek church : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euch. p. . nor is it much different in that publish'd by thomasius , as p. gelasius's ritual , before p. gregories , upon the same day , p. . only that he generally joins mentis & corporis . s. james . , . instead of this , arcudius gives us this form out of a very ancient manuscript in the greek church : 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. and in another office ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . arcudius de sac. ext. unct. p. . and the prayers in the office of the euchelaion are all exactly conformable , to what i have here observed . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ see the hymn , cassandr oper. p. . * * * * * * arcud . de sacram . extr. unct. l. . c. . de formâ hujus sacramenti . † † † † † † cassander . oper. p. . where he also cites cusanus for the same remark . vindicat. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ cassand . consult . art. . de num . sacram . in fine . de matrimonio verò non modò p. lombardus negavit in eo gratiam conferri , sed longè post eum durandus disertè inquit , non esse matrimonium univocè sacramentum sicut alia sacramenta novae legis , nam nec conferre gratiam non habenti , nec augere habenti ; non esse itaque sacramentum propriè ac strictè dictum . † † † † † † lib. . d. . l. c. p. . fuit tamen conjugium ante peccatum institutum , non utique propter remedium , sed ad sacramentum . et d. . l. a. cum alia sacramenta post peccatum & propter peccatum exordium sumpserint , matrimonii sacramentum etiam ante peccatum legitur institutum à domino . * * * * * * sent. d. . q. . † † † † † † for his torrent of fathers , bellarmine has been able to collect but six or seven , of which not one to the purpose , nor any very ancient : and for the scriptures , estius one of the wisest of their own party , is forced to confess ; cum igitur hujus doctrinae non poffit ex scripturis haberi probatio , saltem aperta & evidens ; consequens est articulum hunc , matrimonii sacramento gratiam conferri , unum esse ex traditionibus ecclesiae non scriptis , & ad verbum dei non scriptum sed traditum pertinere . sent. d. . §. . p. . vindicat. p. . vindicat. p. . ibid. pag. , . expos. ch. of eng. p. . vindicat. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ this is the pretence of mr. arnauld , and at large refuted by mr. claude in his answer to him ; whose works being in english , i shall refer the reader , who desires to see the vanity of this argument exposed , to what he has there said . * * * * * * de euch. l. . c. . p. . l. d. speaking of carolstrad's opinion of the eucharist ; scripsit , says he , verba evangelistae , hoc est corpus meum , hunc facere sensum , hic panis est corpus meum , quae sententia aut accipi debet tropicè , ut panis sit corpus christi significativè , aut est planè absurda & impossibilis , nec enim fieri potest , ut panis sit corpus christi . et l. . c. . p. . non potest fieri ut vera sit propositio in qui subjectum supponit pro pane , praedicatum autem pro corpore christi , &c. † † † † † † hoc est impossibile quòd panis sit corpus christi : de consecrat . d. . c. . p. . in gloss. * * * * * * in the aethiopian church they give the holy eucharist with this explication , hic panis est corpus meum . ludolphi hist. l. . c. . n. . † † † † † † bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . p. . lit. d. dominus accepit in manibus panem , eumque benedixit , & dedit discipulis & de eo ait , hoc est corpus meum . itaque panem accepit , panem benedixit , panem dedit , & de pane dixit , hoc est corpus meum . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ id. l. . c. . p. . lit. b. siquis digito aliquid ostendat , dum pronomen effert , valdè absurdum videtur dicere pronomine illo non demonstrari rem praesentem . atqui dominus accepit panem , & illum porrigens ait , hoc est corpus meum ; videtur igitur demonstravisse panem . neque obstat quòd propositio non significat nisi in fine totius prolationis . nam etsi ita est de propositione quae est oratio quaedam , tamen demonstrativa pronomina mox indicant certum aliquid , etiam antequam sequantur caeterae voces . et sanè in illis verbis , bibite ex hoc omnes , valdè durum est non demonstrari , i d. quod erat , sed i d. tantùm quod futurum erat . vind. p. . vindicat. p. , , , . see the church catechism . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ article . * * * * * * article . * * * * * * see the appendix . n. v. in which st. chrysostom gives the very same account of it . † † † † † † rubrick at the end of the communion office. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ vindicat. p. , . that this exposition is agreeable to the doctrine of the ch. of england , the authorities already cited , shew . see also the homily concerning the sacrament , part . p. . &c. and the same is the explication , which all the other protestant confessions have given of it ; as is evident by the collation of them made by bishop cosins , in his history of transubstantiation , cap. . where he has set down their words at large , p. . &c. † † † † † † vindic. p. . * * * * * * ibid. p. . vind. p. , . ibid. p. . sess. . can. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ can. . vindic. p. . see suarez cited below . vindic. p. . † † † † † † vind. p. . lombard . l. . d. . lit . a. p. . de modis conversionis . si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa conversio , an formalis , an substantialis , vel alterius generis , definire non sustineo : quibusdam esse videtur substantialis , &c. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ dicendum , says scotus , quod ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei . si quaeras , quare voluit ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli , cum verba scripturae possint salvari secundum intellectum facilem , & veriorem secundum apparentiam ; dico quod eo spiritu expositae sunt scripturae , quo conditae . see . sent. d. . q. . p. . * * * * * * and before , in sect. quantum ergo , he profess'd , principaliter autem videtur me movere quod sic tenet romana ecclesia . in a word , bellarmine himself cites scotus for this opinion : non extare locum ullum scripturae , tam expressum , ut sine ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat transubstantiationem admittere , bell. de euch. l. . c. . p. . l. d. † † † † † † and again , p. . l. a. unum tamen addit scotus , quod minime probandum est , ante lateranense concilium non fuisse dogma fidei transubstantiationem . vind. p. . * * * * * * suarez in part . d. th. vol. . disp . . § . p. . sacramentum eucharistiae conficitur per veram conversionem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem christi . haec assertio est de fide : nam licet sub his verbis non habeatur in scriptura , ea tamen docet ecclesia ab apostolis edocta ; docens simul ita esse intelligenda verba formae , & in vero sensu eorum hanc veritatem contineri . and then p. . col . . adds , . . ex hac fidei doctrina , colligitur corrigendos esse scholasticos qui hanc doctrinam de conversione hac , seu de transubstantiatione , non admodum antiquam esse dixerunt , inter quos sunt scotus & gabriel biel , lect . . in can. &c. and then , do infero , siquis confiteatur praesentiam corporis christi , & absentiam panis , neget tamen veram conversionem unius in aliud , in haeresin labi , quia ecclesia catholica , non solum duo priora , sed etiam hoc tertium definit ac docet . vind. p. . cajetan in . d. th. q. . art . . p. . col. . in comment . circa praesentis & sequentium articulorum doctrinam , pro claritate & ampliori intellectu difficultatum , sciendum est ex autoritate s. scripturae de existentia corporis christi in sacramento eucharistiae , nihil aliud haberi expresse , nisi verbum salvatoris dicentis , hoc est corpus meum : oportet enim verba haec vera esse . et quoniam verba sacrae scripturae , exponuntur dupliciter , vel proprie vel metaphorice ; primus error circa hoc fuit interpretantium haec domini verba metaphorice ; quem magister sent. l. . d. . tractat. qui & hoc articulo reprobatur . et consistit vis reprobationis in hoc , quod verba domini intellecta sunt ab ecclesia proprie , & propterea oportet illa verificari proprie habemus igitur ex veritate verborum domini in sensu proprio , &c. cited by the vindicator . vind. p. . vindic. p. . see p. . vind. p. , . vindic. p. . * * * * * * canon . . siquis dixerit in missa non offerri deo verum & proprium sacrificium , aut quod offerri non sit aliud , quam nobis christum ad manducandum dari , anathema sit . * * * * * * canon . . siquis dixerit missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis & gratiarum actionis , aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti , non autem propitiatorium , vel soliprodesse sumenti , neque pro vivis & defunctis , pro peccatis , poenis , satisfactionibus , & aliis necessitatibus offerri debere , anathema sit . concil . trid. sess. . p. . de missa . † † † † † † ibid. cap. . p. . una eademque est hostia , idem nunc offerens sacerdotum ministerio qui seipsum tunc in cruce obtulit , sola offerendi ratione diversa . vindicat. ib. † † † † † † in the ordering of priests , when the bishop imposes his hands , be bids him be a faithful dispenser of the word of god , and of his holy sacraments : and again , when he delivers him the bible , take thou authority to preach the word of god , and to minister the holy sacraments , &c. sparrow collect. p. . vindic. p. . vindicat. p. , . mr. de m's expos . p. . vind. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ sacrificium verum & reale , veram & realem occisionem exigit , quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificii . bellarm. de miss . l. . cap. . p. . a. vindicat. p. . rubrick about kneeling at the end of the communion . vindicat. p. . see art. . sparrow ' s collect . pag. , and . see sparrow ' s collect. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ note , that this order of communion was the first thing of this kind that was done after the reformation ; the mass was yet left remaining ; and edward the th afterwards published two other books , in which were considerable alterations , and where there is no mention of any thing of this kind . sparrow ' s collect . p. . concil . trid. sess. . can. , . notes for div a -e vindic. p. . vind. ibid. vind. p. : vind. p. . vind. p. matt. . . vind. p. . ibid. p. . see article . sozomen eccl. hist. lib. . cap. . vindic. p. . vindic. p. . vindic. p. . vind. p. . amicable accommodation . vindicat. p. , . see the words of his majesty's brief . see that and a vindication of it by the secular priests an. . published with some other pieces in a collection called , the jesuits loyalty . to . vindicat. p. . * * * * * * impius & imperitus lutheranorum & calvinistarum error est , nullum nisi deo religionis honorem tribuentium . maldonat in matt. . . pag. . b. index expurgat . in athanas . adorari solius dei est ; creatura nulla adoranda est . dele . pag. . vind. p. , . * * * * * * speaking of s. bernard , he concludes , c'est de cettegrande verité qu'il conclut que nous sommes obligez indispensablement de l'honorer & de la prier ; quia sic est voluntas dei , qui totum nos habere voluit per mariam . il veut que nous ayons par marie la grace & la gloire : and p. . il veut que tous les hommes soient sauvéz par les merites du fils & par l' intercession de la mere ; d' autant que dieu a resolu de ne nous faire aucune grace qui ne passe par les maines de marie . comme on ne peut estre sauvé sans grace , il faut dire qu'on ne le peut estre que par marie , qui est le canal de toutes les graces qui descendent du ciel en terre . * crasset . p. , . † † † † † † mandat s. synodus omnibus episcopis , & caeteris docendi munus curamque sustinentibus , ut — de sanctorum — invocatione fideles diligenter instruant ; docentes eos , sanctos una cum christo regnantes orationes suas pro hominibus deo offerre : bonum atque utile esse suppliciter eos invocare ; & ob beneficia impetranda a deo per fi●ium ejus jesum christum , ad eorum orationes , opem , auxiliumque confugere . p. , . concil . trid. self . . c. de invocatione , &c. ss . * * * * * * ord. commend . animae . p. . monsieur de meaux , p. . vind. ib. vindicat. p. . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ imagines christi & sanctorum venerandae sunt non solùm per accidens vel improprie , sed etiam per se & proprie ; ita ut ipsae terminent venerationem ut in se considerantur , & non solum ut vicem gerunt exemplaris . bellarm. de imag. l. . p. . * * * * * * pont. rom. p. . see above , p. , , . pontific . see above , art . p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ missal . rom. feria vi. in parascev . p. . see article . above , ib. * * * * * * pontificale de benedictione novae crucis , p. . see above in the consecration of a new cross. art. . p. , . vindicat. p. . expos. m. de m. p. . id. p. . vind. p. . vindicat. ib. p. . mons. de meaux expos. p. , . † † † † † † thom. . par . qu. . art. . p. . see above p. , . thomas . vasquez in part . d. tho. disp . . p. . vasques , see above , art. . p. . vind. p. . p. . vind. ib. p. . vind. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ita ut affirmantes sanctorum reliquiis venerationem atque honorem non deberi , vel eas aliaque sacra monumenta à fidelibus inutiliter honorari , atque eorum opis impetrandae causa , sanctorum memorias frustra frequentari , omnino damnandi sunt , p. , . concil . trid. sess. . c. de invocat . &c. * * * * * * conc. trid. sess. . cap. . p. . concil . trid. concil . trid. ib. see above , art. . p. . * * * * * * see above , art. . p. . conc. trid. sess. . c. . vind. p. . maldonat . in ezek. , . p. . bellarmin . de justificatione lib. . cap. . bellarmin . see art . . above . vasquez in d. th. ae . q. . disp . . p. . art. . p. , . vasquez ibid. p. . &c. vasquez , see above l. c. expos. m. de m. p. . ib. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ bellarm. de poenit. lib. . cap. . see above , art. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ bellarm. lib. . de purgat . cap. . id. ib. art. . vasquez in part disp . . see above , art. . vasquez above , l. c. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ quidam asserunt , nos proprie non satisfacere , sed solum facere aliquid cujus intuitu deus applicat nobis christi satisfactionem : quae sententia erronea mihi videtur . bellarm. de purg. l. . c. . p. . a. b. vindicat. p. , . m. de m. expos. p. . bellarm. de indulgentiis lib. . cap. . p. . ibid. cap. . ibid. c. . p. , . ibid. c. . p. . papist represent , n. viii . p. . m. de m. expos. § . p. . * * * * * * concil . trid. sess. . can. . &c. p. . & ibid. c. . p. . conc. trent . art. . † † † † † † verum & reale sacrificium , veram & realem mortem aut destructionem rei immolatae desiderat . bell. de missa l. . c. . p. . c. vel in missa fit vera & realis christi mactatio , & occisio , vel non fit : si non fit , non est verum & reale sacrificium missa : sacrificium enim verum & reale , veram & realem occisionem exigit , quando in occisione ponitur essentia sacrificii . . a. and again , per consecrationem res quae offertur , ad veram , realem , & externam mutationem & destructionem ordinatur , quod erat necessarium ad rationem sacrificii . ib. i. d. sect. tertio . bellarmin . bellarmin . vindicat. pag. . vindicat. ibid. p. . concil . trid. jur. pii ti p. xliv . in fine . si dominus temporatis requisitus & monitus ab ecclesia , terram suam purgare neglexerit , ab haeretica foeditate . excommunicationis vinculo innodetur . et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum , significetur hoc summo pontifici , ut ex tunc , ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denuntiet absolutos , & terram exponat catholicis occupandam . — salvo jure domini principalis , dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum , nec aliquod impedimentum opponat : eadem nihil ominus lege servata circa eos qui non habent dominos principales . concil . later . . can. . de haeret. p. . expos. monsieur de meaux . p. . vindic. p. , &c. cor. . . matt. . . notes for div a -e page . p● . trait . . q. . page . page , . page . page . ibid. page , . page . page . page . page . ib. . ib. . ib. . page . page . page . page . part. pag. . pag. . pag. . pag. . pag. . ibid. pag. . pag. . pag. . pag. . pag. . * * * * * * in his letter below n. . † † † † † † reflexions sur le preservatif , &c. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ le janseniste convaincu de vairie sophistiquerie . article . pag. . &c. notes for div a -e avertissement de l' edit . françoise , mo . paris . pag. . see card. bona's answer to card. buillon . oper. tom. . tom. . pag. . see especially c. . p. . &c. see his will in the beginning of the . tome . * * * * * * see the procéz verbal de 〈◊〉 assembleé extraordinaire des messeigneurs l' archevêques & evêques en mars & may . mr. de meaux himself was one of this assembly , and signed with the rest the report of the a. b. of reims , in which there is abundantly sufficient to shew how repugnant his holiness's proceedings were to the doctrine of the exposition , approved by him at the very same time that he was engaged in these attempts so contrary to it . i know not whether it be worth the observing , that the very same day the pope sent his complementing brief to monsieur de meaux , in approbation of his exposition ; he sent another to the bishop of pamiéz , to approve his defending the rights of his church , against the king : which was judg'd in the assembly , of which mr. de meaux was one , to be an interposing in an affair , which neither the holy councils nor fathers had given him any authority to meddle with . notes for div a -e * * * * * * an answer to monsieur de maux's exposition , intituled , preservatif contre le changement de religion . pages in to . vindicat. p. . cet imbert est un homme sans sçavoir , qui crût justifier ses extravagances - en nommant mon exposition , &c. notes for div a -e * * * * * * see mr bigot's preface below . godefry vie de s. athanase , livre ii. cap. . ex basil. ep. . socrat. eccles. hist. lib. . cap . calvisii chronol . pag. . an . . sozomen . eccl. hist. lib. . c. . see epiphan . haer. . theophilus l. . paschal . vincen. lirin . lib. adv . prof . novationes . quid illo praestantius acumine , exercitatione , doctrinâ ? quam multas ille haereses multis voluminibus oppresserit , quot inimicos fidei confutaverit errores , indicio est opus illud non minus librorum , nobilissimum & maximum , quo insanas porphyrii calumnias , magnâ probationum mole confudit . longum est universa ipsius opera commemorare , quibus profectò summis aedificatoribus . ecclesiae par esse potuisset , nisi profanâ illâ haereticae curiositatis libidine , novum nescio quod adinvenisset , quo & cunctos labores suos , velut cujusdam leprae admixtione , foedaret , & committeret , ut doctrina ejus non tam aedificatio , quam tentatio potiùs ecclesiastica diceretur . * * * * * * ruffin . lib. . cap. . † † † † † † sozomen lib. . c. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ petavius saies it was for keeping too much company with the heathen epiphanius . see dogm . theol. t. . l. . p . c. . * * * * * * theodoret : eccles. hist. l. c. . epiphan . haer. . * * * * * * godefry places it an. . see bals. zon. com . in can . concil . oec . secundi . see this letter in epiphan . haeres . . see this council in labbe's collection , t. . p. . vid. binnii not . loc . cit . photii bibl . in eulogio p. . comment . in conc. . oecumen . can . . theodoret. haeres . fabul . l . c. . theodoret. haeres . fab. l. . c. . & epist. . de arrio , & eu●… . socrates hist. eccl. l. . c. . vincent . lirinens . adv . haeres . c. . epiphan . haeres . . theodoret. eccles . hist. l. . cap. . greg. naz. orat . . p. . &c. theodoret. haeretic . fab. l. . c. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , eutyches , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . naz. orat . . supr . dict . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , apollinarius , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . pag. . see petav. dogm . theolog. tom. . l. . c. . pag. . §. . † † † † † † apollinarius by st. chrysostom , eutyches by others . see below . ☜ * * * * * * see most of these cited by albertinus , de eucharist . l. . pag. . in chrysostomo , c. . † † † † † † nouet de la presence de jesus christ dans les tres saint sacrement , liv . . c. . art . p. . see this argument managed by monsieur claude , rep. à pere nouet . partie . c. . p. . ann. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ lovanii confutatio cavillationum , &c. ad obj. . † † † † † † libr. . de euchar. cap. . vasquez dis . . c. . n. . valentia de transub . cap. . §. similiter . excusari posse , quòd nec transubstantiatio ejus temporibus ita perspicuè tradita & explicata fuerat , sicut hodiè . see albertinus de euch. p. . l. . supr . cit . * * * * * * perron de 〈◊〉 eucharistie . p. , , . expostulatio . pag. iii. s. anastasii in hexaëmeron lib. . cui praemissia est expostulatio &c. lond. . . tom. . praefat. lit i , ij . pag. prior . inter lin . , & . * * * * * * lit. i , ij . pag. altera . * * * * * * lit. i. iij. * * * * * * lit. i. iij. pag. altera . * * * * * * praeter authores à bigotio laudatos , unde fragmenta graeca hujus epistolae collegit vir eruditissimus ; extat alius nicephori liber ms. in biblioth . colbert . continens quinque diversos tractatus . ex secundo eorum contra mamonas quaedam collegit , & mecum communicavit reverendus d. p. alix . titulus autem in illo ms. ita se habet , pag. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . paulò aliter legitur hic titulus in antiquo codice bibliothecae arundelianae à r. d. d. cave in chartoph . eccles. nuper edito , p. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. uti in ms. colbert . pag. . lit . gg. part . alt . folii ed. paris . anastas . in ms. colleg. clarom . nicephor . c. p. in antirrhet . ms. bibl. colbert . * * * * * * alludit ad hunc locum vetus author contra severianos & acephalos , à turriano editus , bibl. patr. edit . . tom. . ad fin . ubi post laudarum quendam ambrosii locum , subdit , chrysostomus ad caesarium monachum . haec est haeresis ipsissima introduceritium mixtionem & compositionem . vid. expostulationem p. x. var. lect . ms. m. † † † † † † locus hic corruptus videtur : quid si legamus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ut sensus sit , istud admiraberis , vel potius , istud admirari debuisses insani apollinaris absurdum ; haec quippe est haeresis ipsissima , &c. pag. . edit . paris . gg. iij. ms. m. anastas . in ms. clarom . nicephor . anastas . joan. damascen . to. iv. var. lect . canisii . p. . * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 theorianus in legatione ad armenios . p. . ms. m. ms. m. t t t t t t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . anast. nicephorus . * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deest in ms. a. † † † † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ms. c. ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ms. a. ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ib. deest . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deest in a. † † † † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ib. * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ib. ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ib. in ms collect . biblioth . reg . gall. n. . p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. edit . paris . p. . b b b b b b n. a a a a a a pter . c c c c c c lachrymas : lachrymabimur . b b b b b b n. c c c c c c lachrymas : lachrymabimur . d d d d d d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . e e e e e e haeredicorum . f f f f f f ammirabilem . g g g g g g proculerit . h h h h h h optime . i i i i i i concursum essentialem sacrum facta ex divinitate & carnis unam autem ex hoc perfici naturam . a a a a a a contemplationem . b b b b b b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . c c c c c c intentioque . d d d d d d et deest . d d d d d d et deest . e e e e e e emaginatur . f f f f f f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . g g g g g g opinionem & qua apollinaris & eorum qui synusiaste dicuntur ipsa cogitatio assiduae puris , &c. a a a a a a ms. m. doctoris . b b b b b b dico , abest . c c c c c c et si . d d d d d d misterium . e e e e e e male. f f f f f f ereticum . * * * * * * edit . paris . pag. . g g g g g g dominum . a a a a a a nature . b b b b b b in firmum . c c c c c c meum . d d d d d d ē xūm dn ] e e e e e e im-passibilis , deficit i● , spatio tamen relicto ubi olim fuerit . f f f f f f xpo. & inū . & dnō . g g g g g g susceptibili avarum ] ms. m. a a a a a a xp● unos autem . ] b b b b b b uti oportet , deest . c c c c c c dm . d d d d d d cogitationem . * * * * * * edit . paris . pag. . e e e e e e et immane sed . ] * * * * * * sic videtur legendum ; & in manetis , & in aliorum haeresum declinâsti impietatem . si iterum , &c. f f f f f f haeresum . † † † † † † forte melius carnis . ms. d. le moyne . g g g g g g dns. joan. . . h h h h h h dō . ms. m. a a a a a a neque enim ex inhabitanti defraudabatur deitare ] b b b b b b ds . c c c c c c est christus , martyrl . c. in tract . de euchar. oxon. ms. m. b b b b b b ds . d d d d d d dns . e e e e e e etiam si . f f f f f f consubstantialiter martyr . g g g g g g ms m. et unaquaeque in quo mixtam proprietatis conservat agnitionem propter hoc quod inconfusa sunt duo . ] h h h h h h incommixta . martyr . ib. i i i i i i inconfusa sint duo . id. ☞ k k k k k k ms. m. scificetur . * * * * * * edit . paris . pag. . l l l l l l scificante grā . id. m m m m m m ab appellatiōne . ibid. ms m xps . a a a a a a dominicae . b b b b b b unus , c c c c c c praedicamus . * * * * * * hic martyr loc . cit . haec . totum hunc locum post turrianum in edit . damasceni , sic citat albertinus de euch. l. . p. . sic & hic divinâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insidente corpori natura , &c. d d d d d d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . e e e e e e sibimet ipsi unirique . ] a a a a a a xpo. * * * * * * quae sequuntur extant apud jo. damascenum . b b b b b b nam . c c c c c c dicunt que . d d d d d d omni modo . * * * * * * edit . paris . pag. . lit . hh. e e e e e e ds. f f f f f f volunt xpi . a a a a a a vituperari . b b b b b b xps . c c c c c c ds. d d d d d d unitatem . e e e e e e prenientes . joan. . . f f f f f f speculaneorum . g g g g g g qui. cor. . . h h h h h h dnm. i i i i i i significat . * * * * * * edit . paris . pag. . k k k k k k di. ms. d. le moyne . a a a a a a piae . b b b b b b ea deest . c c c c c c unum corpus . d d d d d d eti . e e e e e e invenientes . f f f f f f pmissis . g g g g g g contremescent . h h h h h h dni . i i i i i i inmutor . k k k k k k sps. malac. . . mat. xxvi . . ms. m. * * * * * * ibid. . † † † † † † — ibid. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ luk. . . a a a a a a sps. * * * * * * edit . paris . pag. . lit. hh. ij . mat. . . b b b b b b xpo. d d d d d d charissimae . e e e e e e xpm. xps . e e e e e e dnm. f f f f f f ihm. g g g g g g dm . h h h h h h apollinarius . i i i i i i nam etsi enim . k k k k k k subsistantia . ms. m. a a a a a a epistula . notes for div a -e vindicat. p. . * * * * * * pag. , , , , , , . † † † † † † such are among others . m. la b. answer to his advertisement p. . reflexions generales sur l'exposition de m. de meaux , p , . m. arnaud reponse au preservatif . m. jurieu's vindication : le janseniste convaincu de vaine sophistiquerie , p , &c. l'esprit de m. arnauld , vol. . p. . politique du clergé de france , p. . * * * * * * pastoral letter , p. , . notes for div a -e vindication p. . the reply , p. . reply at the end of the preface . vindic. p. . vindic. p. . reply p. . cor ix . . reply p. . ib. p. . ib. p. ▪ ibid. reply p. . . &c. vindic. p . reply p. . reply at the end of the preface . reply , p. . reply , p. . reply , p. . notes for div a -e * * * * * * arnob. adv . gent. lib. vi . p. . utinam liceret introspicere sensus vestros , recessusque ipsos mentis , quibus varias volvitis atque initis obscurissimas cogitationes ! reperiremus & vos ipsos eadem sentire , quae nos — sed studiis facere quid pervicacibus possumus ? quid intentantibus gladios , novasque excogitantibus ●poenas ? [ animantis . ] ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ a●●eritis malam scientissimi causam , & quod semel sine ratione fecistis , ne videamini aliquando nescisse , defenditis ; meliusque putatis non vinci , quàm confessae cedere atque annuere veritati — lugd. batav . . * * * * * * bp. meaux's expos. p. . § iv. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ vind. p. . rep. p. . * * * * * * vind. p. . repl. p. , . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ vind. p. , . reply , p. . , &c. reply , p. , . reply , p. . * * * * * * examen des raisons qui ont donnè lieu à la separation des protestants . a la haye , . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ aussi je ne dis rien dans cet examen qu'il ( monsieur l'evêque de meaux ) ne m'ait inspirè : je ne fais presque que copier ses sentimens , & redire au public ce qu'il m'a dit en particulier , ou ce que ces ouvrages m'oat persuadè . avertissement . la raison , la charitè , la gloire de dieu , la paix de l'eglise , le bien de l'etat , & l'interest de leur salut demandent qu'ils reviennent aujourd'huy de cette separation odieuse , en remettant les choses en l'estat ou elles estoient auparavant . je dis aujourd'huy : car on doit avoûer sincerement qu'on n'avoit jamais si nettement exposè les dogmes & les cultes de l'eglise catholique qu'on l'a fait de nos jours . et je ne sçaurois m'empescher de croire que si nos peres avoient crû les choses telles qu'elles sont en eff●t , & qu'on nous les propose aujourd'huy , ils ne se seroient jamais separez de sa communion . ibid. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ first answer to the papist misrepres . answer to the conclus . but especially in the answer to the papists protesting against protectant popery . expos. of the c. e. pref. pag. vi , vii . * * * * * * preservatif . p. , &c. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ reflexions sur le preservatif . a anvers . . * * * * * * p. . v. reflex . le livre d'un pitoiable jesuite , nommè le pere crasset . reply , p. . * * * * * * dial. entre photin & ireneè . a mayence . . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ part. . dial. iii. pag. . ibid. part . . page . nous reconnoissons , que les abus qu'on impute à l'eglise , ne sufisoient pas pour obliger nos peres à s'en separer : c'est pourquoi nous nous re●…nissons à l'eglise ; sans prejudice de remonstrances qu'il nous sera permis de faire au clergé pour repurger l'eglise . romaine de beaucoup d'abus . * * * * * * reply , p. , , . see in the margin . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ defence of the expos. of the c. e. pag. , . append . see the advices of the b. virgin. adv. i. advice v. advice vii . advice viii . advice ix . advice x. advice xi . advice xii . advice xiv . advice xvii . * * * * * * see father crasset's devotion , envers la s●inte vierge . pref. paris . reply . p. . . reply , p , . see his preface . * * * * * * sess. xxv . — ad eorum orationes , opem , auxiliumque confugere . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ advertisement , pag. . * * * * * * reply , p. . * * * * * * papist repres . &c. part. i. ch . iv. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ reply , p. . ibid. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ conc. trent . sess. . * * * * * * capisucchi controv. theol. p. . reply , p. . bishop of meaux's expos . §. v. p. . vindic. p. . * * * * * * see before . and reply . preface . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ib. p. . see the defence of my expos. app. ad art. . reply , p. . lettre a monsieur l. a. d. c. touchant les cometes . pag. . & seqq . de l'edition de rotterdam . . and in the considerations sur le livre de monfieur brueys . pag. . &c. rotterdam . . histoire de lutheranisme , liv . iii. pag. . ●…eply , p. . ●…ariò 〈◊〉 agno●…a per 〈◊〉 tertull. de praescrip . haer. cap. xvii . pag. . ed. paris . . notes for div a -e mr. chill . pref. reply , p. . reply , pref. defence , p. , . reply , pref. expos. c. e. ii. reply , pref . expos. c. e. ib. † † † † † † tertul adv. valent. c. ii. p. . n● discipulis quidem propriis ante committunt , quàm suos fecerint . habent artificium quo prius persuadent quàm ●…ant . veritas autem docendo persuedet , non suadendo docet . c. reply p. . expos. c. e. p. iii. * * * * * * defence of the expos. p. xi . expos. c. e. p. iii , iv. vindic. p. . , . def. p. viii . vindis . p. . def. p. x , xi . reply , p. . ibid. reply , p. . mais quand l'aurois adjousté des cartons à unè impression deja faite ? p. . translated , p. . but what if i had made some additions to a printed impressions ? reply , pref. ibid. reply , pref. expos. c. e. p. 〈◊〉 . * * * * * * ceux qui de bitent avec tant de soin des choses si vaines , cherchent des chicanes & non pas la verite . reply , p. . reply , p. . * * * * * * dans les editions . reply , p. . defence , p. ix , x. reply , ibid. rep. de monsieur de la b — avertissement , p. . reply , p. . expos. c. e. p. xxii . ibid , p. xxiii reply , p. . advertisement to your expos. p. , . † † † † † † reply , p. . reply , p. . † † † † † † see this epistle reprinted by monsieur bas●age , rotterdam , . p. . reply , p. . † † † † † † monsieur de meaux's expression is , entesté de la religion : hot-headed of his religion : reply , p. . . reply , p. . expos. c. e. p. vi , vii . vindicat. p. . def. p. xiii . & . * * * * * * reply , . * * * * * * j'ay bien sçeu , à la verite , que mr. jurieux 〈◊〉 opposoit . reply , p. . reply , p. . ibid. ibid. * * * * * * le pere crasset touchè de ce , &c. father crasset touch'd or troubled , &c. reply , p. . * * * * * * reflections sur le preservatif : le livre d'an pitiable jesuit nommé le pere crasset . v. reflex . p. . le miserable livre d'un pere crasset , p. . pourquoy veut il que nous sassions de difficulté de dire q'un pere crasset ●'est trompé p. . past. letter , p. , . reply , , . † † † † † † dont les eveques , mes confreres & mes amis , m'avoient fait le recit , p. . see all this in the collection made by the kings authority , and dedicated to him by monsieur le fevre dr. of sorbon ; called nouveau re●…il de tout ce qui ●'est fait pour & contre les protestants ea france . à paris , . ibid. extract of a letter concerning the state of the protestants in the diocess off meaux . reponse à la lettre pastorale de monsi●ur de meaux : à amsterdam , chez pierre savoret . . pag. , &c. pastor . letter . ibid. la seduction eludeé : ou lettres de monsieur 〈◊〉 eveque de meaux à un de ses diocésains , qui 〈◊〉 est sauvé de la persecution . vous me trouverez toujours les bras ouverts : — je ne ce●seray de vous rapeller par mes voeux & par mes prieres ; etant cordialement , & av●c 〈◊〉 esprit d' un veritable pasteur , votre , &c. p. . songez qu'il ne ●aut point se complaire quand on souffre persecution , si 〈◊〉 on n'est bien asseuré que ce soit pour la. justice . p. . * * * * * * ibid. p. , . ibid. pag. , , . dites moi en quel endroit de l' ecriture les here iques & les schismatiq●es sont exceptez du nombre de ces malsaiteurs contre lesquels st. paul a dit que dieu m●… a armé les princes . p. . † † † † † † lettre pastorale march . lettre à monsieur de u. april . reply , p. . expos. c. e. viii , ix . vindic. p. . defence , p. xiv . reply , p. . exposition , sect. v. p. , . advertisement , p. . reply : preface , p. , . p. . ibid. * * * * * * card. capisucchi controversiae theologicae selectae , ●ol . romae , . controver . xxvi . quest. . paragraph , . p. . † † † † † † pag. . . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ paragr . . . see above . ibid. quest. ii. pag. . paragr . i. pag. . ibid. paragr . ii. pag. . ibid. p. . ibid. p. . ibid. p. . paragr . vii . p. . ibid. . ibid. . reply , p. . expos. c. e. p. ix , x. vindic. p. . def. p. , . * * * * * * une teste malfaite , reply , p. . † † † † † † ou d'abord je n'avois cru que de la foi●lesse & de l' ignoraace . reply , p. . in whom i had found nothing but weakness mixed with ignorance . p. . expos. c. e. ] p. x. vindic. p. ● . † † † † † † maintained . capisucchi , libr. cit . pag. ● . reply , p. . † † † † † † tant rebat●●e reply , p. . ibid. expos. c. e. p. xxxiv . reply . ibid. ad dem●●rianum , p. , . ed. oxon . st. jude . see st. cypr. before . reply , p. . defence , p. xvi . reply , p. . provincial letter , xv. provincial letters , l. xv. * * * * * * reply , p. . expos. sect. viii . p. . reply , p. . pag. . art. xxi . reply , p. . reply , pref. p. . expos. c. e. p. . art. xiii . vindic. p. . reply , p. . reply , preface . reply . reply , p. . the misrepresenter . see below . close . reply , p 〈◊〉 . reply , pref. reply , p. . act. . , . reply , p. . reply , p. ● . ib. . missale rom. reply , p. . * * * * * * reply , p. . pontific . ord. reconc . haeret. vel schismat . p. . ed. venet. ann. . reply , pref. mat. xxii . . reply , p. . pag. . pag. . king's indulgence . † † † † † † reply , p. , . * * * * * * new test of the c. of e. loyalty , p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ answer to the conferences about the eucharist . see before . reply , p. . ibid. . pag. . reply , pref. i. reply , pref. brev. rom. in fest. vii . martii . aquinas sum . . part . q. xxv . art. . * * * * * * reply , pref . p. xviii . crasset veritable devotion p. . crasset . p. . ibid. . ibid. . ibid. . ibid. ibid. . crasser , p. . ibid. p. . ibid. . ibid. . crasset , p. , . crasset , ib. crasset . . lond. . * * * * * * reply pref . a a a a a a the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented . never answer'd . see the view of the whole controversy , which has plainly shewn that the business of the reflections was to decline an answer . reply , art. ii . p. . b b b b b b a discourse concerning the object of religious worship . unanswer'd . answer to papists protesting against protestant popery , &c. unanswer'd . see for this , also the view of the whole controversy , which the representer ha● now shewn , is never like to be fairly answer'd . reply art. iii. p. . c c c c c c speculum b. virginis . unanswer'd . a discourse concerning the worship of the b. virgin , and the saints , in answer to mons. de meaux's appeal to the th age. unanswer'd . a discourse concerning invocation of saints . unanswer'd . d d d d d d catholick representer , st and d , th and th sheets . e e e e e e answer to these sheets ; the last yet unanswer'd . three letters to a person of quality , about images ; the last unanswer'd . the fallibility of the roman church , out of the second nicene and trent councils about images . unanswer'd . reply , art. vii . p. . f f f f f f two discourses of purgatory and prayers for the dead . unanswer'd . an answer is lately publish'd to the whole book ; and we fear will remain like the rest , unanswer'd . g g g g g g a discourse concerning the pretended sacrament of extreme unction . unanswer'd . h h h h h h an historical treatise of transubstantiation , by one of the c. r. defence of the dublin letter . veteres vindicati , in answer to mr. sclater . plain representation of transubstantiation . dialogues concerning the trinity and transubstantiation . answer to the oxford discourses . paraphrase upon the vi. of st. john. six conferences publisht by dr. tenison . all unanswered . * * * * * * pag. . reply . i i i i i i a reply to two discourses concerning , &c. from oxford . unanswered . a discourse concerning the holy eucharist in the two great points of the real presence , and the adoration of the host. unanswered . k k k k k k a discourse concerning the adoration of the host , &c. unanswered . l l l l l l a discourse concerning the sacrifice of the mass. unanswered . m m m m m m a discourse of communion in one kind , in answer to the bishop of meaux . unanswered . n n n n n n a discourse about tradition . the catholick balance . unanswered . o o o o o o of a guide in matters of faith. the protestant resolution of faith. answer to reason and authority , &c. a discourse concerning a judg in controversies . a plain discourse concerning the catholick church . of the authority of councils , and the rule of faith. two discourses of schism and heresie . the difference betwixt the protestant and socinian methods . the pillar and ground of the truth . vindication of the answer to certain papers . all unanswered . p p p p p p sermon upon st. peter's day . sure and honest means for the conversion of all hereticks . the catholick balance . summary of the controversies between the c. of e. and the r. c. dr. barrow of the popes supremacy . the necessity of reformation , par . . all unanswered p p p p p p a discourse concerning auricular confession . the doctrines and practices of the church of rome truly represented . unanswered . notes for div a -e pref. p. , &c. ib. p. . ib. p. . pag. . pref. p. . notes for div a -e cor. xi . . * * * * * * durandus . l. . sent. d. . q. . de s. gregorio ; nescio cur non possit dici quòd gregorius cum fuerit homo , non deus , potuerit errare . john . . thess. . . pet. . . luke . . concil . trid. sess. . can. . de consecr . dist. . sess. . conc. trid. sess. . can. . prov. . . reason and authority . eede lib. . c. . gal. 〈◊〉 . . bede . loc. cit . baron . annal. tom. . an. . protestants apology , p. , &c. d edit . prot. appeal , lib. . cap. . vind. of the answ. of some late pape●s , p. , &c. lib. . cap. . lib. . hist. h. de knyghton de event . anglice l. . p. , . hoveden . annal . ad ann. . simeon dunelm . hist. p. . mat. west . ad an. . spelm. conc. tom. . p. . see ●h●anus . see your hist. coll. p. . hosp. hist. sacram . par . . p. . lampadius par . . p. . scultetus annal. ad . an. . * * * * * * see dr. burnet's cont. of his refl . ●n varillas p. , . * * * * * * see foxes & firebrands , part , & . † see camden's eliz. ad annum . foxes and firebrands , part . p. . ed. . see a. b. bramhall's letter to a. b. usher . p. . foxes and firebrands , part , p. . answer to reason & authority pag. , &c. see masox de minist . angl. l. . cap. . bede . l. . c. . ibid. l. . c. . ibid. l. . c. . baron . ad ann. . bede . l. . c. . see the king 's large declar ▪ about the scotch troubles , p. , . see his majesty's declarat . after the battel at edg-hill . kings works , part . pag. . vol. . p. , &c. see in the life of a. b. usher , append . p. . letter . see bp usher's life , . letter , p. . * * * * * * salmonet hist. des troubles d'angleterre , liv . . p. . † † † † † † answer to philanax anglicus . pag. . notes for div a -e † † † † † † see the reply , pres. p. vi . * * * * * * the original whereof was first published in spanish , anno . st. austin . de civit. dei. lib. . c. . reply p. . * * * * * * vindic. p. . † † † † † † reply p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ t. g's first answ. pref. pag. . reply p. . * * * * * * t. g's first answ. pre● . pag. . † † † † † † t. g' s secon● answ. p. ● . dr. jackson , see his works , vol. fol. lond. an. . * * * * * * tom. . * * * * * * pag. . † † † † † † ibid. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ibid. p. . breviarium roman . de ord. commendationis animae deo. * * * * * * see more in express words , cap. . § . p. . cap. . § . p. . tom. . † † † † † † which he also in express words charges your adoration of the cross with , cap. . §. . p. . oper . tom. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ dr. f●ild . a. b. laud . dr. heylin . * * * * * * see in the preface to his first book concerning the idolatry of the c. r. and his general pref. to the several late treatises , &c. lond. . † † † † † † mr. thorndike . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ mr. pulton considered . lond. . * * * * * * dr. sti●ling . conferences against t. g. lond. . pag. . † † † † † † just weights and measures , p. . edit . lond. . cap. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ de imag. lib. . cap. . pag. . * * * * * * dr. hammond pract. disc. lond. . § . p. . sect. . p. , . sect. . p. . sect. . p. . sect. . p. . answer to several late treatises ; by dr. still . lond. . the general preface . * * * * * * t. g' s first answer to dr. still . pref. pag. , . † † † † † † dr. still . ibid. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ see dr. still . conferences against t. g. p. , &c. t. g's dialogues against dr. still . p. . t. g. dial. against dr. still . p. , . † † † † † † first part preface . repl. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ vindic. art. . p. . * * * * * * reply , art. . pag. . † † † † † † reply ; see before . vindic. p. . reply p. . expos. c. e. p. . defen . of the expos. p. . * * * * * * expos. c. e. p. . def. p. . † † † † † † reply p. . vindicat. p. . * * * * * * answer to the amicable accommodation — the view of the whole controversy , &c. * * * * * * mat. iv . . † † † † † † monsieur de m. expos. art. . vindic. art. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ reply , art. . * * * * * * answer to papists protesting , p. , &c. sect. iii. * * * * * * mat. . . reply , p. . ibid. p. . * * * * * * bp of meaux's expos. sect. iii. p. . † † † † † † see this prosecuted at large in dr. still . first answer to t. g. p. , to . reply , p. . † † † † † † p. . vind. p. , . reply , p. . ibid. reply , p. . ibid. vindic. p. . reply , p. . exposit. sect. iv. p. . see vidicat . p. . ibid. p. , . vindic. p. . expos. artic. iv. kings viii . . expos. sect. iv. de cultu 〈◊〉 . lib. iii. c. . expos. §. iv. p. . part . §. ii . p. . conc. trid. sess. ult . reply , p. . expos. p. . missal . r. in ord . miss . rituale r. ord. comm. an. ritual . fr. de s●les . p. . in sin . offic. b. v. pag. . pontific . r. ord. excom . & absolv . p. , . in ord. missae . fol. . ord. miss . p. . paris . . rituale fr. de sales . par . post . p. . lyon. . missale in usum sarum . fest. januarii . fol. x. ibid. fol. xiii . numb . xxx . deutr. xxiii . aquinas ae . qu. . a. . vid. annot. cajet . in d. th. qu. . ar. . p. . lugd. . ibid. bellarm. de cult . ss . lib. iii. c. . p. . d. reply , art. iii. §. . p. . reply , art. iii. sect . . p. . * * * * * * answer to dr. st. p. , , . full answer , p. . ibid. p. . catechism . conc. trid. part. iv. p. . tit. quis orandus sit ? catechism . ibid. ibid. pars iii. de cultu & invocatione ss . n. , . p. . concil . trid. sess. xxv . de invocat . &c. p. . bellarm. de ss . beat . l. i. c. , . bishop of meaux's expos . sect. iv. de aeternâ felicitate ss . lib. . cap. . see before . lib. . cap. . p. . colon. . ibid. pag. . lib. iii. cap. . expos. mr. de meaux , sect . iv. reply , p. . in elencho abusuum . lud. vives comm. in s. august . de civ . dei . lib. viii . cap. . crasset devotion veritable , pref . p. . officium b. virg. p. . antw. . ibid. p. . * * * * * * ibid. p. . officium b. virg. pag. . contemplat . pag. . see below . rit . rom. ord. comm. anim. missale r. in ord. miss . rituale rom. desacr . poenir . rituale fr. de sales . p. . pontific . rom. ord. excom . & absol . ibid. ibid. de consecrat . ecclesiae . p. . ibid. p. . psalterium s. bonavent . psalm . psal. iv . psal. vii . — cvii. speculum b. virginis , &c. permiss . jo. chapeaville . leodii . nov. . vid. in psal. s. bonav . leodii , . p. . defence , append . . def. part . p. . greg. vii . baron . ann. ad an . . t. xi . p. . see platina in his life . judges iii. . acts vii . . galat. iii. . tim. iv . . revel . i. . gloss. ord. in loc . rhemists test. p. . doway bible in loc . p. . reply , sect . xviii . p. , . reply , p. . breviarium in usum sarum in servit . b. virg. par . . * * * * * * missal . rom. p. . mornay de la messe , p. . saumur , . catech. trid. par . iij. p . de invoc ss . n. . tit . sa●cti suis meritis nos adjuvant . aquin. dae . q. . art . . bellarm. de bear. ss . l. . c. . dr. jackson , tom. . p. . idem . ib. reply , p. . reply , ib. reply , ib. see defence of the expos. p. . in annot . defence ibid. defence of the expos. art. . p. . reply . p. . §. . replique au roy de la grande bretagne liv . v. c. . p. . reply p. . n. . reply p. . see baron mart. ad . sept. p. . edit . paris . et annal . ad ann . . n. . † † † † † † baronius calls it explodenda fabula . ad ann . . n. . billius caecutiisse hic gregorium in orat. annot . vid in martyr . ubi supr . vid in brev. eccles. sarisb . ad . sept. ibid. reply ibid. pag. . crasset par . . trait . . qu. . p. . horace de art. poet . bibliotheque . t. . pag. . methodius gl. edit . combefis . paris cum s. amphilochio . . apud euseb. eccles. hist. lib. iv . c. . p. . b. ed. . vales. paris . . edit . usser . irenaeus lib. ii . c. . p. . ed. paris . . * * * * * * in rom. l. viii . c. . tertull. de orat. cap. . cypr. de orat . dom. † † † † † † orig. contr . cels. lib. viii . pag. . ed. cantabr anno . . * * * * * * ibid. . a a a a a a ibid. pag. . novatian de trinitate . c. xiii . p. . a. ibid. c. d. ad fin . tertull. paris . reply p. . §. . reply p. . §. . reply , p. . reply , p. . sect . . ibid. labbé conc. tom. iv . act. xi . p. . b. can. . vid. epist. ad januar. ep. . epiphan . haeres . pag. . c. d. joh. . ib. . c. ib. . d. ib. . b. ib. . d. reply , pag. . see def. of the expos. p. . &c. reply . p. . discourse of worship of saints in answer to mr. de meaux's appeal to the iv. age. ushers answer to a challenge . p. . p. . p. ibid. &c. p. . p. . p. : . discourse in answer to mr. de meaux's appeal to the ivth . age. p. . &c. baron ad ann. . n. . spondane . ibid. n. . binnius in syn. const. p. . t. vi. concil . labbe . † † † † † † action . vi. ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ defin. xv. xvii . † † † † † † annot. epi-phan . in def . xvii . ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ binnius annot . in concil . const. t. vi. p. . baron . l. c. act. concil . franc. in lib. cant. praef . in l. . vindic. p. . def. pag. . reply p. . §. . vind. p. . repl. p. . expos. sect. iv. p. . papist repl. n. . p. . concil . trid. sess. . concil . trid. ibid. caranza summ. sess. xxv . conc. trid. p. . lovami . acts x. . rev. xix . . xxii . . colos. ii. ● . theoderet in loc . rom. x. . reply . p. . rom. xiv . . s. basil. reg. miral . . cap. . tim. ii. . . discourse of purgatory and prayers for the dead . sacrament . greg. p. . missale rom. pag. . decret lib. . tit . . p. , . de beatit . ss . lib. . c. . reply . p. . in his suppress'd edition . expos. of mr. de meaux . sect. iv. p. . lombard sent . lib. iv. dist . . scotus ibid. qu. . gabr. biel. in can. miss . l. . * * * * * * bellarm. de eccles. triumph . l. . cap. . bellarm. l. . de . beat. ss . c. . . vasquez . l . de ador. disp . v. c. . cajetane . libr. de indulg . c. . canus loc . theol. lib. : c. . gerson de : dom . cons. . &c. de exam. doctr . cons. . see bishop taylours polem . disc . pag. . de ss . beat . l. . c. . sect. secundo . vid bellar. de beat . ss . l. . cap. . calendarium benedictinum ad . dec. † † † † † † dr. jackson t. . p. . vossius thes. theol. p. . catherinus annot. in cajet . dogm . de canoniz . pag. . baron in martyr . r. apr. . * * * * * * ribadeneira . ad . april . baron . ann. ad ann. . §. . baron . not. in mart. xv. march. not. ad martyrol . jul. . ressendii epist. ad barthol . kebedium . pag. . cassander consult . p. . john ii. . jo. xiv . . ib. vi. . heb. iv. , . durand . in sent . iv. d. . q. . de verâ religione . p . lugd. . isaia xxiv . . calendar . benediction . to. . jul. . pope urban . ibid. jul. . ibid. sept. : cal. ben. to. . sept. . ibid. ad iv. maii , p. ● . to. . cal. ben. to. . jan. . ibid. mart. . ib. mart. . tom. iv. p. . dec. xi . see the account publish'd by that society : la s te vierge patrone honoree & bienfaisante dans la france & dans le luxembourg . reply , p. . reply , ibid. reply , pref. reply , pref. reply , p. . tusc. qu. l. . sect. . reply , p. , . † † † † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maimon . see dr. hamm. of idolatry , sect. . * * * * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id. ibid. rev. xii . . deut. iv. . isa. xi . . act. xvii . . capisucchi , pag. . gerson . rom. i. , . acts xvii . tom. . jan. . de idololatria card. capis . controv. p. , . ibid. . card. capis . ibid. par . ii . p. . id. par . iv . p. , . capis . par. v. pag. . ibid. par. vi. pag. . card. capis . contr . par . vii p. . vid. p. . reply , p. , , . reply , p. . capis . contr . p. . capisucchi , lb. pag. . reply , pre● . p. , . reply , pref. relation del ' inquisition de goa , pag. , . cap. , . cap. . ibid. cap. . pag. , . edit . leyd . . reply , p. . reply , p. . reply p. , . sacrar . cerem . lib. i. 〈◊〉 . de consecr . agn. dei. reply p. . lib. viii . cap. . see domenico magri notizia de vocaboli ecclesiastici in aqua benedicta . marsilius columna hydragiolog . sect. . c. . * * * * * * de cultu ss . l. . c. . p. . b. pontifical . rom de benedict . nov. cruc . exod. xx. , . king. xviii . . bellarm. de ss . beatit . l. . p. . c. . d. vasquez . in . vol. . q. . disp. . art. . c. . p. . vie des sts. calend. ben. ad sept. . bellarm. de imag. ss . l. . c. . p. . reply p. . lud. de par. de orig. s. inquis . l. . tit . . c. . n. . reply p. , . reply p. . card. capis . ib. ub supr . & par . xvi . pag. . reply p. . reply p. . * * * * * * de la conformitè des merveilles anciens avec les moderns , par. . ch. . p. bell. de scrip. eccles. p. . reply , p. . ib. p. ▪ lib. . de cruce , c. . soto de just. & jure . l. . q. . art. . cathar . de cult & ador. imag. p. . breviar . rom. may . p. . paris . reasons for abrogating the test , p. , . reply , p. . reply , p. . ibid. p. . reasons for abrogating the test , p. , &c. reasons for abrog the test , p. . exod. xxxii . ibid. ver . . exod. xx. ibid . ver. . reasons for abr. the test , p. , &c. kings xii . . chron xiii . . king. x. . ibid. . king. xvi . . bellarm. lib. . de imag. c. . p. , . defence of the disc. of idolatry , par . athanas contr . arrian . orat. . p. . ib. . dae q. . ar. . resp . ad . cajet . pag. lib. . de idol . vasquez in . t. . p. . bellarm. de imag . ss. l. . c. . p. . c. in . t. . p. . comm. jude . vers. . acts . . acts . . rev. . . colos. . . ephes. . . bellarm. l. c. §. . supr . vatabl. in l●c. tom. . p. . c. jeronim . epist. ad ripar . t. . erasm. fol. . reply , pref. pag. . card. capis . de cult . im. qu. ii . par . . pag. . ibid. par . . p. . ibid. . aqu. . p. qu. . ar . . in corp. reply , p. , &c. reply , ibid. reply , p. . reply , p. . annal. ad . ann. . §. . aquin. . par. qu. . art. . cajet . in th. ibid. aquin. loc . cit . paragr . appendix . p. . reply , p. . vid. card. capisuch . l. c. in . praec . decal . p. . pontific . roman . de benedictione ecclesiae , p. , &c. full answ. pag. . * * * * * * full answ. ibid. † † † † † † see expos. p. . defence , pag. . reponse à un ecrit publié sur les miracles de la ste espine . p. . pag. , . pontific . ro● pag. , . see above 〈◊〉 . . drelincourt response à m. le landgrave ernest. p. . §. lx . notes for div a -e discourse against transubstantiation , pag. . ibid. consensus veterum p. , &c. ibid. p. . * * * traitté a●un autheur de la communion romaine touchant la transubstantiation . lond. . about or . see blondel de l'eucharistie . c. . p. . a a a . concil . nic. b b b blondel . l. ● . cap. . pag. . c c c paschasius radbertus . d d d see the treatise of transubstantiation ; hist. of the th age. e e e innocent . iii. super omnes mortales ambitiosus & superbus , pecuniaeque sititor insatiabilis , & ad omnia scelera pro praemiis datis vel promissis cereus & proclivis . matt. paris . f f f concil . la●●an . iv. can. . de haereticis . † † † his omnibus congregatis i● suo loco presato , & juxta morem conciliorum generalium in suis ordinibus singulis collocatis , facto . capitula lxx see this conprius ab ipso papâ exhortationis sermone , recitata sunt in plen● concilio quae aliis placibilia , aliis videbantur onerosa . matt. paris . ad ann. . firmed by mons●eur du pin. dissert . vii . paris . o . pag. , . a a a see . q. . art. . utrum factâ consecratione remaneat in hoc sacramento formá substantialis panis ? b b b in. . d. . q. . quid ergo dicendum de conversione substantiae panis in corpus christi ? salvo meliori judicio , potest aestimari , quod si in isto sacramento fiat conversio substantiae panis in corpus christi , quod ipsa fit per hoc quod corruptâ formâ panis materia ejus sit sub formâ corporis christi c c c id. in . dist . . q. . art. . d d d scotus in . dist . . q. . e e e id. . sent . q. . q. . f f f ockam in . q. . * * * alliaco in . q. . art . . g g g contr. capt . babyl . cap. . a a a ferus in matt. . cum certum sit ibi esse corpus christi , quid opus est disputare num panis substantia maneat , vel non ? b b b lib. . de eucharistiâ : see the treatise of transubstantiation , . part . c c c vid. bellarm . de euch. l. . c. . p. , . suarez in . part . d. th. vol. . disp . . p. , . cajetan . in . d. th. q. . art . . scotus , l. c. . sent. d. . q. . uid . etiam ockam , alliac . locsupr . cit . * * * consensus veterum pag. . k. john. † † † petri picherelli expositio verborum institutionis coenae domini . lugd. batav . . o. * * * hoc est corpus meum , i. e. hic panis fractus est corpus meum . pag. . hoc est corpus meum , i. e. panis quem frangimus est communio cum corpore christi . pag. . — and pag. . expounding gratian. dist . . can. non hoc corpus , ipsum corpus invisibiliter , de vero & germano corpore in coelis agente intelligitur : non ipsum visibiliter de corpore & sanguine sacramentalibus , pane & vino ; corporis christi & sanguinis symbolis : quae rei quam significant nomen per supradictam metonymiam mutuantur . * * * reponse à la lettre de monsig . le prince ernest aus cinq ministres de paris , &c. geneve . † † † votre altesse me croira s'il luy plait . mals je luy puis dire avectoute sincerité & verité , que si le desunt cardinal du perron luy a persuadé la transubstantiation , il luy a persuadé ce qu'il n'a pû se persuader à soymème , & qu'il ●'a nullement cru . car je scay par des gens d' honneur & dignes de foy , qui l'avoient apris de temoins oculaires , que des amis de cet illustre & scavant cardinal , qui l'estoient allé visiter lors qu'il estoit languissant en son lit , & malade de la maladie dont il est mort , le prierent de leur dire franchement ce qu'il croyoit de la transubstantiation , & qu'il repondit , qu'il la tenoit pour un monstre . et comme ils luy demanderent , comment donc il en avoit écrit si amplement & si doctement ; il repliqua , qu'il avoit deployé toutes les adresses de son esprit pour colourer cet abus , & pour le rendre plausibile ; & qu'il avoit fait comme ceux qui font tous leurs efforts pour defendre une mauvaise cause . catholico-romano-pacificus oxon. . pag. . assertio transubstantiationis se● mutationis substantialis panis , licet sit opinio communior , non tamen est fides ecclesiae . et scripturae & patres docentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , sufficienter exponi poss●nt de admirand● & supernaturali mutatione panis per praesentiam corporis christi ei accedentem , fine substantialis panis desitione . et. p. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illam in augustissimo sacramento factam , plerique graves & antiqui scriptoresita explicant , ut non fiat per desitionem substantiae panis , ●d per receptionem supernaturalem substantiae corporis christi in substantiam panis . v. pl. illustriss . atque reverend . p. de marca parisiens . archiep. dissertationes pos●humae . de sanctissimo eucharistiae sacramento dissertatio , in fine . † † † species panis est essentiâ & naturâ distincta á corpore christi sibi adjuncto , licet ratio eucharistiae id exigat , ut substantia panis interior conversa suerit in illud corpus modo quodam qui omnem cogitationem exsuperat . caeterum mutatio illa non officit quin panis , qui videtur , [ id est , accidentia ] suam naturam , extantiam & essentiam [ sive substantiam ] retineat , & naturae verae proprietates , inter quas est alendi corporis humani facultas — . unde consequitur rectè observatum à gelasio sacramenta corporis & sanguinis christi divinam rem esse , quia panis & vinum in divinam transeunt su●stantiam , s. spiritu perficiente , nempe in corpus christi spiritale : sed ex alia parte non definere substantiam & naturam panis & vini , sed ea permanere , in suae proprietate naturae . quoniam scil . postquam panis in divinam substantiam transivit , [ non interiit integra panis natura quam substantiam quoque vocat , nec desivit : sed ] in suae proprietate naturae permansit ad alendum corpus idonea , quod est praecipuum con●ecti panis munus . note , that in the paris edition ; they have put in those words printed in the black letter ( id est , accidentia ) and omitted those that i have caused to be set in capitals : but in the original leaf , which i have left in s. martin's library to be seen by any that pleases , and which was cut out for the sake of this passage , it stands as i have said : and as it is truly represented in the holland edition . * * * baluze lettre à monsieur le presid . marca . s'il est vray , ce qu● j'ay de la peine à croire , que seu monsigneur ait composé les traittez que m. faget a fait imprimer sous son nom , dont il se vante dans la preface & dans la vie d'avoir les originaux escrits de la main de l'auteur , nous ne scaurions empescher que seu monsigneur ne passe dans l'esprit de beaucoup de gens pour heretique , a● sujet de l'eucharistie . * * * defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of engl. appendix , p. . n. v. † † † see the preface to the reader before the edition of the same treatises o anno . and monsieur baluze's letter to the bishop of t●●●e o● this occasion . p. . * * * the original leaves cut out by them having fallen into my hands , may be seen by those that desire it in s. martin's library . † † † see monsieur bdluze . lettre pag. . a a a mais enfin le refus que mrs. de sorbonne luy ●nt fait de luy domer leur approbation — ▪ luy ont fait ouvrir les yeux , s'estant laissé entendre , quoyqu ' un peu tard , qu'il a fait une sottise . ibid. b b b et p. . je dis , un peu tard ; parce qu'il avoit de jafait des presentes de son livre , & que le libraire en avoit aussi debité quelques uns . c c c baluze lettre à monsieur l'evesque de tulle , p. . sirmond . vit. pasch. radbert . * * * eclaircisseme●… de l'euch . c. . p. , &c. ingenia praeclara in rebus difficilibus aliquid semper de suo comminis●…ntur . nam praeclara ingenia multa novant circa scientias . theoph. raynaudi s. j. erotemata de malis ac bonis libris : lugduni . p. . * * * the abbot means , that now at his death he hoped he might speak freely what he durst not in his life-time do . * * * li. . † † † il nous suff●t qu● 〈◊〉 . c. qui est la verit è meme nous ait assuré que ce sacra●ent est verit abl●…nt son corps , & qu'il ait ordonne de manger sa chair & boire son sang : car il faut absolument qu'il y soit , puis q'il il nous ordonne de l'y manger , sans s'embarasser l'esprit de quelle maniere & comment cela se fait . part , p. . * * * advertissement n. . p. . mr. b. speaking of that edition , il n'y avoit en aucun lieu de l'article , ni le terme de transubstantiation , ni cette proposition , que le pain & le vin sont changez au corps & au sarg de j. c. dans la derniere [ edition ] apres ces mots , le propre corps & le propre sung de j. c. il ajoure ausquelles le pain & le vin sont changez ; cest ce qu'on appelle transubstantiation a † † † monsieur de meaux letter of his alterations ; vind. p. . & . pour l'ordre , & pour une plus grande netteté du discours & du style . * * * vindication of the bishop of condom's expos. pag. . the same is affirmed by monsieur du mo●lin of several priests in france : disp. sedannens . de sacr. euch. par . . p. . nec abs re de ●…tentione presbyteri dubitatur , cum plurimi sacerdotes canant missam re●ictante conscient●● , quales multos vidimus qui ejurato papismo satebantur se diu cecinisse missam 〈◊〉 missa alie●issimo . a a a les veritez de la religion prouvees & defendnes contre les anciennes heresies , par la virité de l'eucharistis . . b b b que du pain divienne le corps ●u fils de dieu , & du vin son sang . preface p. . c c c quoiqu'il n'y ait point , presentement de verites plus incontestables que les trois grands articles de nostre foi , qui sont contenus dans le symbole , c'est à dire , la divinite de j. c. la divinite du s. esprit , & la resurrection : cependant l' ose dire que la presence réelle de j. c. au saint sacrament etoit une verité encore plus indubitable dans les premie●s siecles de l'eglise . pres. p. . d d d traitté pour confirmer les noveaux con●ertis dans la soi de l'eglise catholique . e e e concil . trid. sess. vii . can. . siquis dixerit in ministris dum sacramenta conficiunt , non requiri intenlionem , saltem saciendi quod facit ecclesia , anathema sit . f f f vid. de defectibus circa missam , c. de defectu intentionis . in missali . r. a discourse concerning the adoration of the host. lond. . a a a vid. catharin . in cajet . pag. . ed. paris . . where he quotes s. thomas and paludanus for the same opinion : this book of his was seen and approved by the pope's order by the divines at paris : as himself tells us in the review of it . lugdun . . de defectibus circa missam : de defictu panis . si panis non sit triticeus , vel si triticeus , sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tantâ quantitate , ut non maneat panis triticeus , vel sit alioqui corruptus : non conficitur sacramentum . si sit consectus de aquâ rosaceâ vel alterius distillationis , dabium est an conficiatur ? et de defect . vini . si vinum sit factum penitus acetum , vel penitus putridum , vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expressum , vel admixtum tantum aquae ut vinum sit corruptum , non conficitur sacramentum . * * * da moulin , in the place above cited , mentions one that in his time was burnt at loudun for consecrating a host in the name of the devil . thes. sedann . th. . n. . p. . vol. . * * * eugenii iv. decret . in act. concil . florent . ann. . concil labb . tom. . p. . concil . trident. sess. vii . can. . † † † ibid. pag. . catech. concil . trid. de sacr. ord. n. xxii . p. . item , n. l. p. . * * * all this is lately granted by the catholick representer . cap. vi. notes for div a -e * * * matt. xxvi . ‖ ‖ ‖ see dr. hammond on mat. xxvi . lit . e. casaubon in mat. xxvi . . &c. * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid. buxtorf . vindic. contr . capel . p. . hammond in mat. xxvi . l. e. &c. † † † allix preparat . a la sainte cene. cap. . pag. . * * * dr. lightfoots heb & talmud . observat●on mat. xxvi . ver . , . t. . p. , . * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ‖ ‖ ‖ see dr hammonds practical catechism lib. . pag. . oper. fol. lond. . * * * vid. fagium . in annotat . in exod. xii . . where he renders their words thus , et in eadem die viz. xv . mensis nisan , sc. martii , redimendus . est israel in disbus messia . vid. vol. . critic . m. p . notes for div a -e * * * concil . trid. sess. . cap . & can. . † † † catechismus ad parochos . par. ii. cap. de euch. sacr. n. . , . * * * catech. ibid. n. xxv . sect. primum . ‖ ‖ ‖ ibid. n. xxxi . sect. totus christus ut deus & homo in eucharistia continetur . * * * ibid. n. xxxiii . sect. per concomitantiam in euch. quae sint . † † † ibid. n. xxxix . sect. conversio quae sit in euchar. &c. ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ ibid. n. xxxv . sect. christus totus in qualibet particula , & n. xlii . &c. * * * ibid. n. xxv . sect. secundum . † † † ibid. n. xxv . sect. tertium & n. xliv . sect. accid . sine subjecto const . in euch. ‖ ‖ ‖ ibid n xxxvii . sect. primo ●atione . * * * ibid. n. xxxix . sect. conversio quae sit in euch. &c. † † † ibid. n. xliii . quonam modo christus existat in euchar. * * * ) ibid. n. xli . sect. de transubstant . curiosius non inquirendum . * * * vid. cameron . annot. in matt. xxvi . . in illa verba , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , inter critic . pag. . i. . * * * allix serm. pag. . † † † hammond pract. catechism . lib. vi . pag. ed. fol. * * * see exod. xxiv . . heb. ix ● . and this allusion is applied by s. peter , ep. i. . vid. hammond . annot. in loc . lit . a. * * * vid. apud author . fortalitii fidei , lib . consid. . impos . . those who have not this book , may find the quotation at large in the late edition of joan. parisiensis , in praefat. pag. , . † † † epistol . xxiii . ad bonifac . vol. . pag. . oper. ed. lugd. . * * * expressions of this kind are very frequent in holy scripture . the seed is the word of god , luke viii . . the field is the world ; the good seed are the children of the kingdom : the tares are the children of the wicked one , matt. xiii . . the seven angels are the angels of the seven churches ; and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches , rev. i. . with infinite more of the like kind . † † † see the preface . * * * see their opinions collected by monsieur aubertine de eucharistiâ , lib. . cap. . , , , . * * * tract . de verbis quibus conficitur . † † † see their testimonies cited in the late historical treatise of transubstantiation ; in the defence of the exposition of the church of england , p. , , . in the preface above , &c. ‖ ‖ ‖ see bellarmin's words in the defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the church of england , pag. , . to which may be added , salmer . tom. . tr. . suarez . disp. . sect. . vasquez . disp. . c. . &c. † † † concil . trid. sess. xiii . * * * see them thus ranged by albertinus de euch. lib . cap. . pag. . two popes ; innocent iii. pius ii. four cardinals , bonaventure , d' alliaco , cusan . cajetane . two archbishops , richardus armachannus , & guererius granatensis . five bishops , stephanus eduensis , durandus mimatensis , gulielmus alti●iodorensis , lindanus ruremondensis , & jansenius gandavensis . doctors and professors of divinity in great abundance ; alexander alensis , richardus de media villa , jo. gerson , jo. de ragusio , gabriel biel , thomas waldensis , author . tract . contr . perfidiam quorundam bohemorum , jo. maria verratus , tilmannus segebergensis , astesanus , conradus , jo. ferus , conradus sasgerus , jo. hesselius , ruardus tapperus , palatios , & rigaltius . here are . of the roman church , who reject this application of this chapter . for the fathers , see the learned paraphrase lately set forth of this chapter , in the preface : all which shews how little strength any argument from this chapter can have to establish transubstantiation . † † † a paraphrase with notes , and a preface upon the sixth chapter of saint john , lond. . * * * de doctrin . christian. lib. . cap. . * * * a treatise of transubstantiation , by one of the church of rome , &c. printed for rich. chiswell . . such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and note , there is hardly any of these words , which they have applied to the bread and wine in the eucharist , but they have attributed the same to the water in baptism . * * * see treatise first , of the adoration , &c printed lately at oxford ; which would make the world believe that we hold , i know not what imaginary real presence on this account ; just as truly , as the fathers did transubstantiation . * * * it is not necessary to transcribe the particulars here that have been so often and fully alledged . most of these expressions may be found in the treatise of transubstantiation lately published . the rest may be seen in blondel , eclaircissements familiens de la controverse de l ▪ eucharistie , cap. iv , vii , viii . claude rep. au . traittè de la perpetuitè , i. part. cap. iv , v. forbesius instructiones historico-theolog . lib. xi . cap. ix , x , xi , xii , xiii , xv . larrogue histoire de l' eucharistie , liv . . cap. ii . this arcudius himself is forced to confess of some of the latter greeks , viz. that they take these words only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , historically . see his book de concord . lib. . cap. . and indeed all the ancient liturgies of that church plainly speak it ; however both he and goar endeavour to shift it off ; in which the prayer of consecration is after the words of institution , and distinct from it . so in liturg. s. chrysostom . edition . goar . pag. . n. . . are pronounced the words of institution . then pag. . numb . . the deacon bids the priest , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . who thereupon thus consecrates it ; he first signs it three times with the sign of the cross , and then thus prays 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and so the cup afterwards . * * * the same seems to have been the custom of the african church , whose prayers now used , see in ludolph . histor. l. . cap. . where is also the expression mentioned , n. . hic panis est corpus meum , &c. see this whole matter deduced through the first ages to st. augustine , whom consentius consulted about this very matter , in a particular treatise written by monsieur allix de sanguine christi , vo . paris . so justin martyr . apol. . tertul. apolog. cap. . arnobius , lib. . minutius felix . p. . octav. julius firmicus , pag. . edit . lugdunens . to , . hieron . lib. . in esai . st. augustinus in psal. . & in psal. . lactantius instit. lib. . cap. . chrysostom . homil . . in genes . &c. * * * and yet that none did , the learned rigaltius confesses . not. ad tertul. l. . ad uxor . c. . † † † see tertul. apol. c. . et de carne christi , c. . . justin martyr , apol. . arnob . l. . orig. contr . cels. l. . ‖ ‖ ‖ see du perron de l'euchar . l. . c. . p. . see this fully handled in a late treatise called , the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared &c. . this argument is managed by st. chrysostome epist. ad caesarium monachum . by theodoret dial. . pag. ed. g. l. paris , . tom. . gelasius in opere contra eutychen & nestorium . he thus states the eutychian heresie , dicunt unam esse naturam , i. e. divinam . against this he thus disputes , certe sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis christs divina res est . — et tamen non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini . — satis ergo nobis evidentur ostenditur , hoc nobis de ipso christo domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur . — ut sicut in hanc sc. in divinam transeant s. spiritu perficiente substantiam , permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae , sic , &c. * * * see the contrary proved , that the fathers did not believe this , by blondel , de l'euch . c. . claude rep. an . . traitte de la perpetuite , part . . c. . † † † under greg. ix . ann. . vid. nauclerum ad ann. cit . ‖ ‖ ‖ instituted by urban iv . ann. . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ indeed , in all probability , a hundred years later . ‖ ‖ ‖ so in that of jerusalem . see hasych . in levitic . l. . c. . * * * so in that of constantinople . evag. hist. l. . c. . † † † vid. apud . autor . vit. basilii , c. . in vit. pat. l. . this custom was condemned in a council at carthage , anno . vid. codic . eccl. afric . justel . c. . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ vid. st. august . oper. imp . contr . julian . lib. . c. . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ see an instance of this in baronius , ann. . sect. . the th general council did the same . in act. syn. this is the foundation of the authors of the treatises , de la perpetuite : answered by mons. claude . see mr. chillingworth against knot , c. iv . n. . * * * see examples of every one of these collected by blondel , eclaircissements familiers de la controverse de l'eucharistie , cap. . p. . † † † monsieur claude rep. au . . traitte de la perpetuite , part . . c. . n. . p. . ed. to . paris . * * * john xx . , . see the church catechism , and article twenty eighth . the communion-office , &c. * * * andr. sallii votum pro pace , c. . p. . ed. oxon. . vid. ibid. pag. . cap. xxiv . n. . two discourses concerning the adoration of our b. saviour in the eucharist . oxford . . tract . i. pag. , . * * * tract . i. §. . † † † ibid. §. . . tract . p. . §. . answer to t. g's dialogues . lond. , pag. . tract . i. . pag. . tract . i. §. . * * * calvinistae negant corpus & sanguinem christi , verè , realiter , & substantialiter praesentem esse in eucharistiâ . becani manuale . l. . c. . p. . ed. luxembergi . . calvin . dicimus verè & efficaciter exhiberi non autem naturaliter . quo scil . significamus non substantiam ipsam corporis , seu verum & naturale christi corpus illic dari , sed omnia quae in suo corpore nobis beneficia christus praestitit . ea est corporis praesentia quam sacramenti ratio postulat ; edit . basil. o. . * * * dilucida explicatio &c. contra westphalum . edit . anno . † † † christi corpus non modò semel fuisse datum in salutem nostram , dum ad expianda peccata immolatum in cruce fuit , sed quotidiè nobis in alimentum porrigi , ut dum ipse habitat in nobis , bonorum eriam ejus omnium s●cietate fruamur . — apud hospin . hist. sacram. part da ann. . p. . † † † rursum alimentum à nobis vocatur hoc sensu , quia incomprehensibili spiritûs virtute nobis vitam suam inspirat ut sit nobis communis , non secus atque à radice arboris vitalis succus in ramos se diffundit , vel à capite in singula membra manat vigor . ibid. — imprimis obstaculum de corporis immensitate submovere necesse est . nisi enim constet finitum esse caelóque comprehendi nulla erit dissidii conciliandi ratio — p. . christus sicuti in gloriam coelestem semel est receptus , ita l●corum intervallo quoad carnem , est à nobis dissitus ; divinâ autem essentiâ & virtute , gratiâ etiam spirituali caelum & terram implere . — idem ergo corpus quod semel filius dei patri in sacrificium obtulit , quotidie nobis in coena offert , ut sit in spirituale alimentum . tantùm de modo tenendum est , non opus esse descendere carnis essentiam è coelo ut eâ pascamur , sed ad penetranda impedimenta & superandam locorum distantiam sufficere spiritûs virtutem . — commenta procul facessant ; qualia sunt de corporis ubiquitate , vel de occultâ sub panis symbolo inclusione , vel de substantiali ejus in terris prasentiâ . hospin . p. . haec omnia refert ex illo calvini loco . beza . * * * see hospin . hist. sacram. part. . ad ann. . p. . edit . genev. . comment . de statu relig. & reipub . in galliâ ad ann. . p. . et postea pag. . ita se exprimit in eundem planè sensum affirmamus j. c. adesse in usu coenae , in quâ nobis offert , dat & verè exhibet corpus suum & sanguinem suum operatione spiritus sti. nos verò recipimus , edimus & bibimus spiritualiter & per fidem illud ipsum corpus quod pro nobis mortuum est , eùmque illum sanguinem pro nobis effusum . edit . ann. . o. beze . hist. eccles. pag. ▪ . for all this see beza's own history ad ann. . p. . and when in the conference d'espense pressed them with departing from calvin ; beza declared , that they were not at all contrary to him : that for the word substance , which he sometimes used in expressing christs real presence , it was only to signifie , that they did not feign any imaginary body of christ , or fantastick reception or communion of his body in this holy supper ; but that for the rest , they all believed , that no one could participate of him otherwise than spiritually and by faith , not in taking him into the mouth , or eating him with the teeth . see pag. . ibid. peter martyr . † † † respondeo pro meâ parte , corpus christi non esse verè et substantialiter alibi quàm in caelo . non tamen inficior christi corpus verum , & sanguinem illius verum quae pro salute humana tradita sunt in cruce , fide spiritualiter percipi in sacrâ coenâ . histoire eccles. de beze . liv . . p. . anno . * * * vid. hist. de beze ib. p. . comment . de stat . rel . p. . ad ann . hospin . pag. . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ see hospin . of this whole matter pag. . affirmamus nullam locorum distantam impedire posse communicationem quam ha●emus cum christi corpore & sanguine , quoniam coena domini est res coelestis ; et quamvis in terrâ recipiamus ore panem & vinum , vera scil corporis & sanguinis signa ; tamen fide & spiritûs sancti operatione mentes nostrae ( quarum hic est praecipuè cibus ) in caelum elatae perfruuntur corpore & sanguine praesente . et hee respectu dicimus , corpus verè se pani conjungere , & sanguinem vino ; non aliter tamen quam sacramentali ratione , neque locali neque naturali modo , sed quoniam efficaciter significant deum illa dare fideliter communicantibus , illósque fide verè & certo p●r●ipere . hospin . l c. comm. ibid. p. . ubi subjicitur haec est perspicua de corporis & sanguinis j. c. praesentia in sacramento caenae ecclesiarum reformatarum sententia — beze hist. eccles. pag. . where he adds , that they reject not only tra●substantiatim and consubstantiation , but also toute maniere de presence par laquelle ●e corps de christ ●'●st colloquè maintenant reellement ailleurs qu'au ci●l . and then adds , why they thus use the word substance in this matter , and what they mean by it . see pag. . ad ann . treatise §. xxvi . pag . a. b. cranmer . answer to gardiner , bishop of winchester . fol. london , . pag. . pag. . assertio verae & catholicae doctrinae de sacramento corporis & sanguinis , j. christi servatoris nostri . lich● , vo . . bp. ridley ridlei de caenâ dominicâ assertio ; geneve apud jo. crispinum . . . tract . §. iv. pag. . . treatise . pag. . §. i. and again , p. . §. xxxi . dr. burnet's hist. of the refomation , vol. . pag. . ann. . edit . . . mss. c. cor ▪ christ. cant. an explanation of christ's presence in the sacrament . bp. jewel . v th article of the real presence against harding , pag. . lond. . see also his defence of the apology of the church of england , pag. , &c. mr. hooker . tr. i. cap. . §. . pag. . difference between the protestant and socinian methods , in answer to the protestants plea for a socinian , pag. . bishop andrews . tract . pag. . §. xi . n. . † † † habemus christum praesentem ad baptismatis sacramentum , habemus eum praesentem ad altaris cibum & potum . augustin . stola , quae est ecclesia christi , lavatur in ipsius sanguine vivo i. e. in lava●ro regenerationis . origen . statim baptizatus in sanguine agni vir meruit appellari . hieron . christi sanguine lavaris , quando in ejus mortem baptizaris . leo. p. &c. see sermon vii . on the resurect . pag. . serm. l●nd . . kasavbon , ●ing james , a. bishop of spalato . * * * vol. . de rep. eccles. lib. . cap. . pag. , . see the . tra. §. xi . note . pag. 〈◊〉 . coloss. ii . , . see ham●…d in coloss . annot. d. arch-bishop lawd . tract . §. xiv . pag. . * * * montagve origenes eccles. tom. prior . par . poster . p. . . . &c. panis in synaxi fit corpus christi ; — sed et corpus christi creden●es 〈◊〉 . ad eundem utrumque modum & mensuram ; sed non naturaliter ; — ●…que nec panis ita est corpus christi ; mystice tantum , non physice . vid. plur . † † † bishop hall . montague bilson . bishop forbes . author of the life of bishop bedel ; in the preface . bishop taylor . polemical discourses . p. . london . . treatise st . p. th . pag. . pag . see pole●ic . disc. append. pag. . . treat . st . pag. . mr. thorndyke . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ t. g. dialogue st . pag. . * * * answer to 〈◊〉 . g's . dial. pag. . † † † thorndyke laws of the church . ch. . pag. . see his just weights and measures , ●● . lond. . — pag. . * * * reformatio legum eccles. ex authorit . henr. . & edw. . lond. . tit. de sacram. cap. . pag. . — morton de euch. part . . class . . cap. . §. . pag. . lat. . ●● . — fr. white against fisher , pag. . lond. . fol. — a b. u●…er's answer to a challenge , c of the real presence , p. , . lond. . — id. serm before the house of commons , pag. , , &c — dr. hammond pract. catech. part . ult . answer to this question ; the importance of these words , t●at the body and blood of christ are verily and indeed taken and received ; p. . edit . lond fol. . — dr. jackson's works , tom. . pag. , . lond. dr. jo●…'s way to the true church . lond. . §. . n. pag. . cosens hist. transubst . p. , , , &c. edit . london , . vo . treatise st . §. xx . n. . pag. . bishop taylours polem . disco . of the real presence . sect. ii . pag. . ibid. treatise st . §. . pag. . treatise st . § xx . n. . pag. . treatise st . §. xxii . p. . tract . . §. xxviii . p. . * * * this is evident in b. taylor , who thought that god could not do this , because it implied a contradiction : real presence , §. xi . n. . p. . and ibid. n. . he saith 't is utterly impossible . so also dr. white professes , that according to the order which god has fixed by his word and will , this cannot be done : confer . pag. , . and before , pag. . to this objection , that tho in nature it be impossible , for one and the same body to be in many places at once , yet because god is omnipotent , he is able to effect it : we answer , says he , it implieth a contradiction , that god should destroy the nature of a thing , the nature of the same thing remaining safe : see more , p. , . white ' s works , lond. . ‖ ‖ ‖ see . treatise , pag. . §. xxxii . p. . §. xxxii . p. . §. xxxvi , xxxvii , &c. * * * smalcius de coen . dom. p. . id disp. . de hypocr . p. . volkelius lib. iv . cap. . p. , , &c. socinus in paraenesi , c. iv . sclichtingius disp . de coen . dom. p. . † † † zuingl . see de provid . dei , cap. , &c. * * * and this our author seems to insinuate : see the places above cited : and indeed others have alledged this as the true opinion of zuinglius : see calvin . tract de coen . dom. defens . sacram. admonit . ad westphal . & passim . alibi . vid. insuper libr. de orthod . consens . c. . and especially hospin . p. , , , &c. hist. sacr. part : vid. cosens hist. transubstantionis , cap. 〈◊〉 . §. . p. . notes for div a -e rubr. at the end of the communion . treatise . ch. . §. . p. . ib. §. x● . treatise . p. . §. xli . ibid. treatise . §. xlii . p. . see above . treatise . §. xliii . p. . see polemical discourses . letter , at the end , p. treatise . p. . §. vi . n. . * * * the story was publish'd in the memoirs of monsieur d'eageant , printed with permission at grenoble , . pag. i will set it down in his own words . il'y avoit deja quelque tems que d'eageant avoit gagné l' un des ministres de la province de languedoc , qui etoit des plus employez aux affaires & meneés de ceux de la r. p. r. & en l' estime particuliere de monsieur de lesdiguiers . il avoit meme secrettement moyenne sa conversion ; & obtenu un bref de rome , portant qu' en core qu' il eut etc receu au giron de l'eglise , il luy etoit permis de continuer son ministere durant ans , pourveu qu'en ses preches il ne dit rien de contraire à la creance de la vraye eglise , & qu' il ne celebrât ponit la cene . le bref fût obtenu , afinque le ministre pût estre continué dans les emplois qu'il avoit , & decouvrir les meneés qui se faisoient dans le royaume . concil . trid. sess. xiii . cap. . p. . nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur , quin omnes christi fideles pro more in catholicâ ecclesiâ semper recepto latriae cultum , qui vero deo debetur , huic sanctissimo sacramento in veneratione exhibeant . neque enim ideò minùs est adorandum quòd fuerit à christo d. ut sumatur institutum : nam illum eundem deum praesentem ineo adesse credimus , quem pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum , dicit ; et adorent eum omnes angeli dei. hebr. i. card. pallavicino istoria del concilio di trento : parte seconda , l. . c. . pag. . ora è notissimo , che , accióche un tutto s'adori con adorazione di latria , basta che una parte di quel tutto meriti questo culto . — come dunque non douremo parimente adorare questo sacramento , il quale è un tutto che contiene come parte principale il corpo di christo. answer to his second discourse . i. part , protestant concessions . * * * §. i. pag. . ibid. §. ii. ‖ ‖ ‖ ibid. §. iii. * * * §. v. n. . p. . † † † see treatise . p. . §. . ‖ ‖ ‖ disc. . p. . §. vi . n. . * * * §. vii . p. . * * * see below , disc. . p. . † † † conrad . schlusselburgius , catal. haeret . l. . arg . . p. . item arg. . p. . it. arg . . p. . francof . . and hospinian quotes it of luther himself , that it was his opinion , concord . discor . p. . n. . genev. . §. vi . p. , . ibid. pag. . . part. catholick assertions . pag. . §. ix . pag. . §. x. pag. . §. xi . catech. ad parach . part . de sacram. n. iii. & v. p. . * * * catec . conc. tr●d● part . de euch. §. viii . nota p. . † † † pag. . §. xi . * * * see above , pag. , . pag. . §. xiii . p. . §. xvii . p. . §. xviii . p. . §. xix . ibid p. . p. . §. xix . p. . §. xxi . p. . §. xxii . pag. . §. xxiii . see ibid. pag. , . pag. . pag. . §. xxiv . ibid. * * * pag. , . * * * see treatise . p. . p. . treat . . p. . §. xxv . * * * these are his synods ; at rome , vercelles , tours ; rome again , an. . and again , an. . * * * disc. . p. . §. lvii . * * * in the first formulary prescribed him by p. nicholas . in the siynod of rome , . he thus declares , panem & vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum sacramentum sed etiam verum corpus & sanguinem , d. n. j. christi esse ; & sensualiter non solùm sacramento , sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum , tractari , frangi , & fidelium dentibus atteri . the former part of which confession is lutheran ; the latter utterly deny'd by the c. of r. at this day . in the second formulary prescribed him by gregory viith , . confiteor panem & vinum — converti in veram ac propriam carnem & sanguinem j. c. d. n. et post consecrationem esse verum corpus christi — non tantùm per signum & virtutem sacramenti , sed in proprietate naturae , & veritate substantiae . this speakes of a conversion , but of what kind it says not ; and lombard and the other schoolmen , to the very time of the council of lateran , were not agreed about it : and p. gregory himself in his ms. work upon st. mat. knew not what to think of it . † † † jo. semeca ad can. ego berengar . not . ad jus canon . nisi sanè intelligas verba berengarii in majorem incides haeresim quam ipse habuit ; & ideò omnia referas ad species ipsas ; nam de christi corpore partes non facimus . so hervaeus in . dist . qu. . art . . says , that to speake the more expressly against the hereticks , be declined a little too much to the opposite side . so ricardus de media villa in . dist . princip . . qu. . berengarius fuerat infamatus quòd non credebat corpus christi realiter contineri sub pane , ideò ad sui purgationem , per verba excessiva contrarium asseruit . pag. . ‖ ‖ ‖ lond. . pag. , &c. * * * mr. dodwel consid. of present concernment , §. . † † † monsieur du pin utterly denies these canons to have been the decrees of the council . dissert . vii . c. iii. §. . pag. , . §. xxv . * * * particularly blondel , to whom this author refers us , eclairciss . de l'euch . c. , &c. albertinus de euch. lib. . p. . p. . §. xxvi . treatise of transubstantiation , by an author of the c. of r. ‖ ‖ ‖ s. ambrose de sacramentis . euseb. emyssen . de paschate . † † † cyril hierosol . in the relat. of the conference at my lady t. . in the paper sent my lady t. p. , , . and for s. ambrose de sacr. allowing the book , yet see the explication of what is there said , given by himself , l. . c. . see a late treatise of the doct. of the trinity and transubst . compared , part . p. , . * * * transubstantiation no doctrine of the primitive fathers . cyrill's authority examined , p. , . ambrose's , p. , . chrysostom's , p. . greg. nyssen's , p. . hist ethiop . l. . c. . n. . ibid. * * * de eccles. graec. stat. hodiern . d. smith , p. . lond. . claude reponse au . traitte ; liv . . c. . p. , &c. charenton . . id. ult . resp . à quevilly . lib. . c. , , , , , . histoire critique de la creance & des coutumes , des nations , du levant . — voyage du mont liban . remarques , p. , , &c. larrogue hist. de l'eucharistie , liv . . c. . pag. . edit . amst. o. albertinus de eucharistiâ , p. , . fol. daventriae . p. . §. xxviii . ibid. pag. . p. . §. xxx . p. . §. xxii . * * * see above , ch. . of transubstantiation . pag. , . see all this in the beginning of the missal , de defectibus circa missam . see above in the preface . see bellarm. de justif. c. . pag. . adr. vi. quodlibet . sect. . suppos . . see gerson , tract . de exam . doctr . consid . . pag. . §. xxxiii . real presence , §. xii . n. . pag. . notes for div a -e bellarm. de purgat . lib. . cap. . p . colon. . praeparat . evangel . lib. . cap. . pag. . ed gl . paris , . † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * * * in odyss l. . ‖ ‖ ‖ in aeneid . l. . † † † vid. ib. odis . virg. aeneid . l. . bellarmin l. . de purgat . c. . p. . de civitat dei l. . c. . p. . to . lugd , . * * * see for all those , s. austin de civit. dei , l. . c. , , , , . * * * see below sect. † † † august . ench●… . ad laurent . c. . p. . to. . v●rgil aeneid . l. * * * bellarmin de sanct . beat . l. 〈◊〉 c. . p. . owns it to have been the opinion of tertullian . lactantius and victorinus martyr : but sixtus sinensis more fairly confesses it of many others . bibl. lib. . annot . . p. . edit . . colon ●● . irenaeus , justin martyr , clemens , origen , prudentius , ambrose , s. chrysostome , s. augustine , theodoret , &c. * * * see eusebius h●st . eccles. l. . c. . edit . valerii . ‖ ‖ ‖ justin martyr , contr . tryph. pag. . c edit . henr. steph. gr. — irenaeus vid. apud euseb. hist. eccles. lib. . cap. — tertullian passim , &c. this is asserted by almost all the fathers of the primitive church . * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * * * st opinion . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ d opinion . * * * vid. august . loc . supr . citat . enchirid. cap. . ad dulcit . quaest . , &c. * * * lib. . chron. cap. . esse apud inferos locum purgatorum , in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur vel expiationis igne decoquantur quidam asserunt . bellar. de purg. l. . cap. . p. , . † † † session . ta . conc. labb . tom. . pag. . & p. . * * * vid. apud sixt. senens . bibl. l. . annot . . pag. . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ june . . ‖ ‖ ‖ histoire critique , pag. . . edit . franck fort , . for the greeks , id. pag. . cites gabriel sionita affirming the same of the melchites , purgatorium nullum existere pessime crediderunt . id. pag. . that the georgians believe a purgatory , but not such as the c. r. see concerning the armenians , p. . job ludolph . hist. aethiop . lat. shews the same of the ethiopians , that they deny a purgatory , l. . c. . n , . see bellarm l. . de purg. cap. . pag. . acts xix . . &c. c. richlieu . see it at the end of the council of trent , p. . edit . labbe paris . fol. sessio . . pag. . session . can. . pag. . session . can. iii. pag. . expos. b sh. condom , s●ct . viii pag. . papist misrepr sect. xxiii . pag. . in dissert . saec. iv . dissert . xli . pag. . catechism . ad paroch . part . . artic. v. sect. v. pag. . colon. . in . sent. dist . . qu. . art . . bellarm. de purg. lib. . cap. . pag. . de purgat . l. . c. . p. . a. ibid. cap . arg . ult . sect. utuntur nostri , p. . d. † † † cor. iii. . ⸪ ⸪ ⸪ pet. iii. . ‖ ‖ ‖ bellarm. de purg. l. . c. v. p. . a. natalis alex. dissert . xli . saec. iv . p . * * * vid. in loc . cor. . . pag. , . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ bellarm. de christi anima , lib. . cap. . pag. . per tot . natal . alex. in loc . pag. . ⸪ ⸪ ⸪ misrepres . n. . p. . bellarm. de purg. l. . c. . misr . sect. xxiii . pag. . natalis ub . supr . p. . see mons. du pin. biblioth . dissert . prel . p. , &c. * * * bellarm de purg. l. . cap. . p. . natalis alex. saec . iv . par . . dissert . . p. . ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ bellar. ibid. p. . a. b. ‖ ‖ ‖ canus l. . c. . ad . . maccab. xii . , v. &c. joshua vii . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * * * 〈◊〉 mark iii. . luke xii . * * * bellarm. de purg. l. . c. . p. . d dico , post novissimum judicium non fore purgatorium . mat. v. . see dr. lightfoot upon the place . origen . lib. . de purg. c. ii p. . c. origen . homil. . in exod. qui salvus fit per ignem salvus fit , ut siquid forte de specie plumbi habuerit admixtum , id ignis decoquat & resolvat , ut efficiantur omnes aurum purum , bellar. de purg. l. . c. . p. . b. gr. nyssen . codex . p. . ed. g. l. * * * greg. nyss. de mortuis orat. pag. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . . a. to. . ed. gl . paris . ibid. p. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . b. which bellarmine from p. francisc. zinus , faultily renders , aliis autem post hanc vitam purgatorio igne materiae labes abstergentibus . de purg. l. . c. . p. . s. hierome . ‖ ‖ ‖ see bellarm. de purg. l. . c. . p. . a. † † † ibid. . c. sicut diaboli & omnium negatorum atque impiorum , qui dixerunt in corde suo non est deus , credimus aeterna tormenta ; sic peccatorum & impiorum , & tamen christianorum , quorum opera in igne probanda sunt atque purganda , moderatam arbitramur , & mixtam clementiae sententiam judicis . comm. in is. in ●in . bellarm. l. . c. . p. . a. bellarm. ib. p. . d. hieron . lib. . contr . pelag. ultr . med . si autem origines omnes rationabiles creaturas dicit non esse perdendas , & diabolo tribuit paenitentiam ; quid ad nos , qui diabolum & satellites ejus , omnesque impios & praevaricatores dicimus perire perpetuo ; & christianos , si in peccato praeventi fuerint , salvandos esse post poenas ? bellarm. de purg. l. . c. . p. . &c. nobis est ille indefessus ignis obeundus , in quo subeunda sunt gravia illa expiandae a peccatis animae supplicia . bell. p. . hilar. in psal. . gimel : pag. . f. . a. edit . paris , . an cum ex omni ocioso verbo rationem simus praestituri , diem judicis concupiscimus , in quo nobis est ille indefessus ignis obeundus , in quo subeunda sunt gravia illa expiandae a peccatis animae supplicia ? b. mariae animam gladius pertransibit , ut revelentur multorum cordium cogitationes ; si in judicis severitatem , capax illa dei virgo ventura est , desiderare quis audebit a deo judicari ? cyprian . bellarm. de purg l. . c. p. ● d. cyprian . epist. . antoniano . pag. , . edit . oxon. aliud est ad veniam stare , aliud ad gloriam perveni●e ; aliud missum in carcerem non exire inde , donec solvat novissimum quadrantem , aliud statim fidei & virtutis accipere mercedem : aliud pro peccatis longo dolore cruciatum emundari , & purgari diu igne , ( f. diutine ) aliud peccata omnia passione purgasse ; aliud denique pendere in die judicii ad sententiam domini● ; aliud statim a domino coronari . see his annot. in loc . p. , . * * * tom. . op. g. l. p. . c. paris . gregory . nazianz . greg. naz. homil. . t. . p. . st. basil . bell. p. . c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . basil. in . is. tom. . p. . ed g. l. paris , . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. to. . cap. . p. . b. vid. ibid. pag. . e. theodor . bellarm. pag. . c. d. * * * see bellarm. l. . de purg. c. . p. . b. ⸪ ⸪ ⸪ nilus de purgatorio , p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ theodoret. in cor. . , . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . to. . p. . a. and below lit. b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . et lit. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . edit . paris g. l. . tertul . et judex te tradat angelo executionis , & ille te in carcerem mandet infernum , unde non dimittaris nisi modico quoque delicto mora resurrectionis expenso , pag. . edit . paris . st. austin . † † † see his enchiridion . cap. , , . et in quaest. ad dulcit . qu. . see above , introduction . bellarm. de purg. l. . 〈◊〉 . . p. . c. bellarm : ibid. p. . c. bellarm. de purg. lib. . c. . p. . d. rom. viii . . cor. iv . . rev. xiv . . phil. i. . cor. v. . vers. . see his book de mortalitat . p. . hieron . in os. com . . augustin . epist. . ad hier. to. . p. . a. et tract . . in joan. to. . p. . a. auctor . quaest. sub justini nomin . quaest. . p. . d. e. paris , . chrysost. hom. de s s. bernice & prosdoce . t. . frontod . pag. . paris , g. l. . legat. pro christianis . cyprian libr. de mortal . p. . vid. supr . orig. contr . c●ls . l. , . greg. naz. or. . to. . p. . chrysost. vid. supr . cyril . alex. in joan . . ●b . . to . ●ed g. l. paris , . p. . b c. hier. epist. . fol. c to. . edit . erasm. notes for div a -e * * * epiph. heres . . l. . n. . p. . a. edit . an. . ibid. n. . p. . c. tertullian . lib . contr . mare c. . p. . intra quam aetatem ( sc. , annorum ) concluditur sanctorum resurrectio , pro meritis maturius vel tardius resurgentium . * * * tertull. de monogam . c. . p. . a. ambros. de obit . valent. t. . te quaeso , summe deus , ut charissimos juvenes matura resurrectione suscites , &c. † † † epiphan . ib. sect. . p. . see epiph. tom. . l. . p. . vol. . n. . * * * ibid. n. . p. . see sess. . conc. trid. de purg. symb. pii iv. &c. † † † de ecclesiast . hierarch . cap. . pag : . . . a. b. c. . c. * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. pag. . a. see all these collected by a. b. usher ; answer to a challenge ; ch. of prayers for the dead ; p. . &c. edit . . constitut apost . lib. . cap. . liturg. aegyptiac . ex arabic . convers . usher . ib. p. . chrysost. liturg . edit . goar . in euchol p. . paris . . * * * cypri . epist. xxxix . pag. . ed. oxon. † † † de obitu valentin . imper . ‖ ‖ ‖ id. de obit . theodos. imper . * * * id. de obit . fratris greg. naz. in funer . caesarii or. . nubes testium : of aerius , pag. . ibid nubes testium , p. . bell. de purg. l. . c. . d p petavius in epiphan . pag. . n. . natal . alex. disp . . saec. iv . pag. . part . . * * * page . natalis alex. hist. iv . sec. par . . p. . paris . epiphan . her. . pag. . b. dionys. eccles. hierarch . cap. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . page . epiphan . ibid. n. vii . p. . † † † contr. gent. lib. . c. . ‖ ‖ ‖ controvers . theol. qu. . schol. sect. . * * * azorius instit . moral . tom. . l. . c. . see these cited by a. b. usher . answer to a chall . pag. , . epiphan . her. . pag. . d. . a. b. c. nubes test . p. . natalis alex. saec . iv . to. . p. . dionys. hierarch . eccl. p. . a. dionys. ib. p. . c. ibid . c. dionys. ibid. p. , . dionys. eccl. hierarch . p. . d. ibid. p. . † † † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . litur . jacob. bibl. patr. * * * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . lit. marc. ‖ ‖ ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . lit. basil. & chrys. ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ da illis requiem , cyril . heros . liturg. * * * natalis alex. diss . . ●ii saec. p. . nubes test. p. . ‖ ‖ ‖ ob ●tiones pro defunctis , pro ●natalitiis a●… die facimus . de corona c. . pag. . a. le prieur . annot. in loc . p. . † † † natalis alex. p. . nub. test. . cur immaniter conventicula dirui ( meruerunt ) in quibus summus oratur deus , pax cunctis & venia postulatur , magistratibus , exercitibus , regibus , familiaribus , inimicis , huc vitam degentibus , & resolutis corporum vinctione , lib. iv . natalis alex. ib. pag. nub. test. . * * * natal . alex. pag. . nub. test. . natalis alex. p. . nub. test. . haec ad tempus quidem erepta nobis meliorem illic vitam exigit . epist. . natalis alex. p. . nub. test. . vid. arg eras. p. . tom. . fol. . edit . eras. tom. . natalis alex. p. . nubes test. . et credo jam feceris quod te rogo , sed voluntaria oris mei approba domine . st. august . confession . l. ix . c. . tom. . p. . b. nub. test. vid. supr . lib. de an. c. . id. lib. iv. contr . marc. c. . lib. . de purg. cap. v. p. . c. lib. . de purg. cap. v. ib. absolutus igitur dubio certamine , fruitur nunc augustae memoriae theodosius luce perpetua , tranquillitate diuturna , & pro iis quae in hoc gessit corpore , munerationis divinae fructibus gloriatur . ergo quia dilexit augustae memoriae theodosius dominum deum suum , meruit sanctorum consortio . regnum non deposuit sed mutavit ; in tabernacula christi jure pietatis asci●u● , in illam hierusalem supernam . * * * manet ergo in lumine theodosius , & sanctorum caetibus gloriatur . nub. test. p. , , &c. ⸫ ⸫ ⸫ hom. . in act. tom. . in n. t. p. , . hom. . in ep. phil. to. . in n. t. p. , . see above . third part of serm. concern . prayer , p. . ed. ox. . john i. hebr. ix . hebr. x. john ii . notes for div a -e pag. . pag. . . . minut. felix . oct. p. . pag. . vasquez in part . d. th. q. . disp . . recit veritable de ce qui s'est fait & passé ans exorcismes de pi●●ieurs r●ligienses de la ville de louciers en presente de monsieur le penitencier d' evreus & de monsieur le gauffré . pag. , . this book was printed at paris , anno . with permission . jude , v. . pet. . . joh. . . mat. . . notes for div a -e page , &c. page . page , , . page . page . page , . page . page , . page . numb . . , &c. mat. . , &c. page . verse . tertul. apol. page . . pag. . notes for div a -e pag. , . pag. , . pag. , . notes for div a -e p. . p. . p. , . p. . ibid. p. . p. . ibid. p. . see vossius de idol . l. . c. . plutarch de iside & osiride . p. . jul. firm. p. , . ruffin . l. . hist. eccles. c. . suidas in voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . cl. alex. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . . page . page . page . ibid. page , . page . page . gen. . hierom in l. . in ezek. p. . vossius de idol . lib. . selden de diis syris syntag. . c. . dr. pocock on hosea xiii . . p. . id. on hosea iii. . page . pag. , . de legib. heb. l. . c. . sect. . spencer ib. l. . c. . sect. . dr. spencer ib. p. . de conve●● , indor . l. . c. . hist. dynast . d. . p. . spencer ib. p. , . not. in spec . hist. arab. p. . ibid. p. . jamblic . de myster . sect. . id. sect. . c. . syrian . in metaphys . l. . jambl. de myster . sect. c. . cap. . gol. not . in alferg . p. , . pliny l. . c. . eustath . in homer , odyss . t. p. . in iliad . 〈◊〉 p. . p. . mor. nevoch , l. . c. . hornbeck de convers. ind. l. . c. . pocock not. in spec. hist. ar. p. . euseb. praep. evan. l. . c. . p. . cyril . contr . jul. l. . p. . c , herodot . l. . strabo l. . trogus apud justinum l. . vid. voss. de joel . l. . c. . apud voss. loc . cit . vid. hornb . de con. ind. p. . elmenhorst . in arnob . p. , &c. p. . de iside & osiride . photius cod. . jac. golius not. in alferg . p. . porphyr . de antro nympharum . herod . clio n. . p. . strabo l. . p. . see dr. cudworth . l. . c. . see dr. still . answ. to t. g. p. . see before . euseb. pr. ev. lib. . porphyr . de abst. l. . sect. . not. in specim . hist. arab . p. . ibid. p. . p. . macrob. saturnal . plutarch de iside & osiride . p. , . p. . cyrillus alex. contra julian , l. . p. . c. d. page . diodorus siculus ed. hanov . g. l. an. . page . ibid. p. . p. . diod. siculus p. , . page , . herodotus , l. . c. . p. . strabo l. . p. . lucan l. . v. . arrian de exped . alep . l. . p. . vossius de idol . l. . c. . caes. com. l. . hist. l. . cap. . cap. . vos . de idol . l. . p. . de moribus germ. c. . page . euseb. praep . evan. l. c. . lib. . c. . lib. . c. . p. . pag. , , , . p. . p. . notes for div a -e page . pag. . — vers. . collat. cum jos. . . pag. . ●…ngs . . — . . exod. . . kings ● . , . ver . . ver . . . kings . . kings . . chr. . . pag. . pag. , . notes for div a -e pag. . ibid. pag. . pag. , . page . pag. . pag. . pag. , , &c. pag. . ibid. pag. . pag. . notes for div a -e pag. . . aquinas . q. . art. . ad . pag. . notes for div a -e the cases against popery . † † † present state , pag. , , , . present state , p. . the representing controversie . papist misr . part . . pref. dr. claget . the expounding controversie . * * * pag. , . ‖ ‖ ‖ o. w's appendix in answer to the discourse of the real presence , and adoration of the host. ‖ ‖ ‖ pag. . sec. defence , answer to the bishops letter . good advice to the pulpits . agreement between the c. of e. and the c. of r. 〈◊〉 . sherlock . of the real presence . of communion in both kinds . of transubstantiation . of the notes of the church . isa. xlv . . of the unity and authority of the church . of the authority and infallibility of the church . of the infallibility of the church . of the authority of the church . of s. peter and the pope of st. peter and the popes supremacy . of the charge of schism and heresie . of the rule of faith. of the nature of idolatry . see above , page . . of the worship of images . of the invocation of saints . of the validity of orders in the c. of e. miscellany treatises . notes for div a -e a a a letter to the continuator , &c. p. . b b b letter to the continuator , &c. p. . c c c p. . d d d p. . e e e p. . f f f p. . g g g p. . h h h p. . i i i p. . p. . a brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the celebration of the holy eucharist wherein the witty artifices of the bishop of meaux and of monsieur maimbourg are obviated, whereby they would draw in the protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation. more, henry, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing m estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) a brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the celebration of the holy eucharist wherein the witty artifices of the bishop of meaux and of monsieur maimbourg are obviated, whereby they would draw in the protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation. more, henry, - . wake, william, - . p. printed for walter kettilby, london : . attributed to henry more, and also to william wake--nuc pre- imprints. reproduction of original in the huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bossuet, jacques bénigne, - . maimbourg, louis, - . transubstantiation. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - rina kor sampled and proofread - rina kor text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion imprimatur . guil. needham r mo in christo patri ac d. d. wilhelmo archiep. cantuar. à sacr . domest . ex aedib . lambeth . iul. . . a brief discourse of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the celebration of the holy eucharist : wherein the witty artifices of the bishop of meaux and of monsieur maimbourg are obviated , whereby they would draw in the protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation . john . v. , . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . calvin instit. lib. . cap. . in sacra sua coena jubet me christus sub symbolis panis ac vini corpus ac sanguinem suum sumere , manducare ac bibere . nihil dubito quin & ipse verè porrigat & ego recipiam . tantum absurda rejicio quae aut coelesti illius majestate indigna , aut ab humanae ejus naturae veritate aliena esse , apparet . london , printed for walter kettilby at the bishop's head in s t paul's church-yard , . a brief discourse of the real presence . chap. i. . the occasion of writing this treatise . . the sence of the church of england touching transubstantiation . . three passages in her articles , liturgie and homilies that seem to imply a real presence . . a yielding at least for the present that the church of england is for a real presence , but of that flesh and blood of christ which he discourses of in the sixth chapter of st. john's gospel , though she be for a real absence of that which hung on the cross. . that our saviour himself distinguishes betwixt that flesh and blood he bore about with him , and that he there so earnestly discourses of . . that this divine food there discoursed of , the flesh and blood of christ , is most copiously to be fed upon in the holy eucharist , and that our communion-service alludes to the same , nor does by such a real presence imply any transubstantiation . . the occasion of writing this short treatise was this . i observing the papers here in england , published in behalf of the church of rome , and for the drawing off people from the orthodox faith of the church of england , which holds with the ancient pure apostolick church in the primitive times , before that general degeneracy of the church came in , to drive at nothing more earnestly , than the maintaining their grand error touching the eucharist , viz. their doctrine of transubstantiation : into which they would bring back the reformed churches , by taking hold of some intimations , or more open professions of theirs , of a real presence ( though they absolutely deny the roman doctrine of transubstantiation ) and thus entangling and ensnaring them in those free professions touching that mystery of the eucharist , would by hard pulling hale them into that rightfully relinquish'd errour , for which and several others , they justly left the communion of the church of rome : i thought it my duty so far as my age , and infirmness of my body will permit , to endeavour to extricate the reformation , and especially our church of england from these entanglements with which these witty and cunning writers would entangle her , in her concessions touching that mysterious theory , and to shew there is no clashing betwixt her declaring against transubstantiation and those passages which seem to imply a real presence of the body and bloud of christ at the celebration of the holy eucharist . . concerning which , that we may the more clearly judge , we will bring into view what she says touching them both . and as touching the former ( article . ) her words are these : transubstantiation ( or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the supper of the lord ) cannot be proved by holy writ , but it is repugnant to the plain words of scripture , overthroweth the nature of a sacrament , and hath given occasion to many superstitions . and in the latter part of the rubrick at the end of the communion-service , she says , that the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored ( for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians ) and the natural body and bloud of our saviour christ are in heaven and not here , it being against the truth of christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one . this is sufficiently express against transubstantiation . . now those passages that seem to imply a real presence in the eucharist are these . in the above-named article . the body of christ , saith our church , is given , taken , and eaten in the supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner . and the mean whereby the body of christ is received and eaten in the supper , is faith. against which our adversaries suggest ; that no faith can make us actually receive and eat that , which is god knows how far distant from us , and that therefore we imply that the body of christ is really present in the eucharist . another passage occurs in our catechism ; where it is told us , that the inward part of the sacrament , or thing signified , is the body and bloud of christ , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper . where [ verily ] and [ indeed ] seems to imply a real presence and participation of the body and bloud of christ. the last place shall be that in the homily , of worthy receiving and reverend esteeming of the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ. the words are these . but thus much we must be sure to hold , that in the supper of the lord there is no vain ceremony , no bare sign , no untrue figure of a thing absent . but as the scripture saith , the table of the lord , the bread and cup of the lord , the memory of christ , the annunciation of his death , yea the communion of the body and blood of the lord , in a marvellous incorporation , which by the operation of the holy ghost ( the very bond of our conjunction with christ ) is through faith wrought in the souls of the faithful . whereby not only their souls live to eternal life , but they surely trust to win their bodies a resurrection to immortality . and immediately there is added , the true understanding of this fruition and union which is betwixt the body and the head , betwixt the true believers and christ , the ancient catholick fathers both perceiving themselves , and commending to their people , were not afraid to call this supper , some of them , the salve of immortality , and sovereign preservative against death ; others the deifick communion , others the sweet dainties of our saviour , the pledge of eternal health , the defence of faith , the hope of the resurrection ; others the food of immortality , the healthful grace and the conservatory to everlasting life . there are so many high expressions in these passages , that our adversaries who would by this hook pluck us back again into the errour of transubstantiation , will unavoidably imagine and alledge from hence that if we will stand to the assertions of our own church , we must acknowledge the real presence of the body and bloud of our saviour in the sacrament . . and let us be so civil to them as at least for the present to yield , that understanding it in a due sense , we do acknowledge the real presence . but it does not at all follow from thence that we must hold that that very body of christ that hung upon the cross , and whose bloud was there shed , is really present in the sacrament , but that our church speaking conformably to christ's discourse on this matter in the sixth of iohn , and to the ancient primitive fathers , whose expressions do plainly allude to that discourse of our saviour's in the sixth of s. iohn , doth assert both a real presence of the body and bloud of christ to be received by the faithful in the eucharist , and also a real absence of that body and bloud that was crucified and shed on the cross. and this seems to be the express doctrine of our saviour in the above mentioned chapter of s. iohn , where the eternal word incarnate speaks thus — john . v. . i am the living bread which came down from heaven , ( viz. the manna which the psalmist calls the food of angels also ) if any eat of this bread he shall live for ever ( viz. of this true manna , of which the manna in the wilderness was but a type ) and the bread that i will give is my flesh ( which therefore still is that immortalizing manna , the true bread from heaven ) which i will give for the life of the world , that the whole intellectual creation may live thereby , it being their vivifick food . for as you may gather by vers . , . he does not understand his flesh that hung on the cross. and it was the ignorance of the iews that they thought he did : and therefore they cryed out on him , saying , v. . how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? and that is because they took him to be a mere man , or an ordinary man , not the incarnate logos . which logos clemens alexandrinus calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the impassible man ; and trismegistus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that one man the son of god born of him , which he says is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the author of regeneration , as having the life in him , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , iohn . v. . and this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or life the divine or spiritual body , one necessary element of regeneration , which mystery we cannot here insist upon . but in the mean time let us observe our saviour's answer to this scruple of the iews , he is so far from receding from what he said , that he with all earnestness and vehemency asserts the same again . then iesus said unto them , verily , verily , i say unto you , except you eat the flesh of the son of man ( that is of the messias , or the word incarnate ) and drink his bloud , you have no life in you . whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life , and i will raise him up at the last day . for my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed . he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and i in him . as the living father hath sent me and i live by the father , so he that eateth me ( viz. that eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud ) even he shall live by me . this is that bread that came down from heaven , not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead ; he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever . . this is that earnest , lofty and sublime discourse of our saviour touching his real flesh and blood , that the scandal given to the jews could not drive him off from , and persisting in it he gave also offence to his disciples , that muttered and said , this is an hard saying , who can hear it ? wherefore i must confess ingenuously , that it seems to me incredible , that under so lofty mysterious a style , and earnest asseveration of what he affirms , though to the scandal of both the iews and his own disciples , there should not be couched some most weighty and profound truth concerning some real flesh and blood of his , touching which this vehement and sublime discourse is framed , which is a piece of that part of the christian philosophy ( as some of the antients call christianity ) which origen terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . the object of this eating and drinking is the flesh and blood of christ : but to rectifie the errour of his disciples , he plainly affirms , that he doth not mean what he said of the flesh and blood he then bore about with him . in v. , , . does this offend you ( saith he to them ) what and if you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before ( then my particular natural body will be far enough removed from you , and your selves then from so gross a conceit as to think i understand this of my natural , particular body or flesh ) . no says he , the flesh profiteth nothing , it is the spirit that quickens ; the words that i speak unto you , they are spirit and they are life , that is to say , they are concerning that spiritual body and life or spirit that accompanies it ( that which is born of the flesh is flesh , and that which is born of the spirit is spirit ) the both seed and nourishment of those that are regenerate ; the principles of their regeneration , and the divine food for their nutrition , whereby they grow up to their due stature in christ. . and where , or where so fully is this divine food to be had , as in that most solemn and most devotional approaching god in the celebration of the communion of the body and blood of christ , where we both testifie and advance thereby our spiritual union with him , according as he has declared in iohn ch . . he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me , and i in him . upon which our communion-service thus glosses : that if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this holy sacrament , we then spiritually eat the flesh of christ and drink his blood , we dwell in christ and christ in us , we are one with christ and christ with us . and whereas the adversaries of our church object , we cannot eat the flesh of christ and drink his blood , in the celebration of the lords supper , unless his flesh and blood be really present ; we do acknowledge that that flesh and blood which our saviour discourses of in s t iohn , and which our liturgie alludes to , as also those notable sayings of the fathers above-cited out of the homily , touching the worthy receiving the lord's supper , is really present in the eucharist . and that there is that which christ calls his flesh and blood distinct from that which he then bore about with him , and was crucified on the cross , he does most manifestly declare in that discourse in s t iohn , as i have already proved . so manifest is it that the real presence does not imply any transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ. chap. ii. . the bishop of meaux his establishing transubstantiation upon the literal sense of [ this is my body ] . . that according to the literal sense , the bread that christ blessed was both bread and the body of christ at once , and that the avoiding that absurdity cast them upon transubstantiation . . that transubstantiation exceeds that avoided absurdity as contradicting the senses as well as reason , and labouring under the same absurdity it self . . further reasons why the road of the literal sense is to be left , and that we are to strike into the figurative , the former contradicting the principles of physicks . . of metaphysicks . . of mathematicks . . and of logick . . that transubstantiation implies the same thing is and is not at the same time . . a number of absurdities plainly resulting from transubstantiation . . and therefore to prop up this great mistake of transubstantiation , they are fain to recur and stick to a literal sense of those words of our saviour [ this is my body ] which i finding no where more handsomely done than by the right reverend bishop of meaux , i shall produce the passage in his own words ( that is the translation of them ) in his exposition of the doctrine of the catholick church , sect. . the real presence , says he , of the body and blood of our saviour is solidly established by the words of the institution ( this is my body ) which we understand literally ; and there is no more reason to ask us why we fix our selves to the proper and literal sense , than there is to ask a traveller why he follows the high road. it is their parts who have recourse to the figurative sense and who take by-paths , to give a reason for what they do . as for us , since we find nothing in the words which jesus christ makes use of for the institution of this mystery obliging us to take them in a figurative sense , we think that to be a sufficient reason to determine us to the literal . . in answer to this , i shall , if it be not too great a presumption , first accompany this venerable person in this high road of the literal sence of the words of institution ( this is my body ) and then shew how this road , as fairly as it looks , is here a mere angiportus that hath no exitus or passage , so that we must be forced to divert out of it , or go abck again . first then , let us take this supposed high road , and say the words ( this is my body ) are to be understood literally . wherefore let us produce the whole text and follow this kind of gloss , luke . . and he took bread , and gave thanks , and brake it , and gave unto them , saying , this is my body , which is given for you , this do in remembrance of me . likewise also the cup after supper , saying , this cup is the new testament in my blood , which is shed for you . now if we keep to the mere literal sense , this cup ( as well as this bread is the body of christ ) must be really the new testament in christ's bloud , which is a thing unavoidable if we tye our selves to the literal sense of the words . but why is not the cup the bloud or covenant in christ's bloud ? but that a cup and bloud are disparata , or in general , opposita , which to affirm one of another is a contradiction ; as if one should say a bear is a horse , and therefore we are constrained to leave the literal sense , and to recur to a figurative . but precisely to keep to the institution of that part of the sacrament that respects christ's body ; it is plain that what he took he gave thanks for , what he gave thanks for he brake , what he brake he gave to his disciples , saying , this ( which he took , gave thanks for , brake , and gave to his disciples , viz. the above-mentioned bread ) is my body . wherefore the literal sense must necessarily be , this bread ( as before it was this cup ) is my body . insomuch that according to this literal sense it is both really bread still , and really the body of christ at once . which , i believe , there is no romanist but will be ashamed to admit . but why cannot he admit this but that bread and the body of christ are opposita , and therefore the one cannot be said to be the other without a perfect repugnancy or contradiction to humane reason ; as absurd as if one should say a bear is a horse , or a rose a black-bird , whence , by the bye , we may note the necessary use of reason in matters of religion , and that what is a plain contradiction to humane reason , such as a triangle is a circle , or a cow an horse , are not to be admitted for articles of the christian faith. and for this reason , i suppose the church of rome fell into the opinion of transubstantiation , ( from this literal way of expounding these words [ this is my body ] ) rather than according to the genuine leading of that way , they would admit that what christ gave his disciples , was both real bread and the real body of christ at once . . but see the infelicity of this doctrine of transubstantiation , which does not only contradict the inviolable principles of reason in humane souls , but also all the outward senses , upon which account it is more intolerable than that opinion which they seem so much to abhor , as to prefer transubstantiation before it , though it contradict only reason , not the outward senses , which rightly circumstantiated are fit judges touching sensible objects , whether they be this or that , fish or fowl , bread or flesh. nay i may add that these transubstantiators have fallen over and above that contradiction to the rightly circumstantiated senses , into that very absurdity , that they seemed so much to abhor from , that is the confounding two opposite species into one individual substance , viz. that one and the same individual substance should be really both bread and christ's body at once . but by their transubstantiating the individual substance of the bread into the individual substance of christ's body , they run into this very repugnancy which they seemed before so cautiously to avoid ; two individual substances ( as species infimae ) being opposita , and therefore uncapable of being said to be the same , or to be pronounced one of the other without a contradiction . it is impossible that the soul of socrates , for example , should be so transubstantiated into the soul of plato , that it should become his soul , insomuch that it may be said of socrates his soul , that it is the soul of plato ; and there is the same reason of transubstantiating the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of christ. so that the substance of the bread may be said to be the body of christ , or the substance of his body , which it must either be , or be annihilated , and then it is not the transubstantiation of the substance of the bread , but the annihilation of it , into the body of christ. . and having rid in this fair promising road of the literal sense , but thus far , i conceive , i have made it manifest , that it is not passable , but that we have discovered such difficulties as may very well move me to strike out of it , or return back . and further , to shew i do it not rashly , i shall add several other reasons , as this venerable person ( that thinks fittest to keep in it still ) doth but rightfully require ; as declaring , it is their parts who have recourse to the figurative sense , and who take by-paths to give a reason why they do so . wherefore besides what i have produced already , i add these transcribed out of a treatise of mine writ many years ago . besides then the repugnancy of this doctrine of transubstantiation to the common sense of all men , according to which it cannot but be judged to be bread still , i shall now shew how it contradicts the principles of all arts and sciences ( which if we may not make use of in theology , to what great purpose are all the universities in christendom ? ) the principles , i say , of physicks , of metaphysicks , of mathematicks , and of logick . it is a principle in physicks , that that internal space or place that a body occupies , is equal to the body that occupies it . now let us suppose that one and the same body occupies two such internal places or spaces at once . this body therefore is equal to two spaces which are double to one single space ; wherefore the body is double to that body in one single space , and therefore one and the same body double to it self , which is an enormous contradiction . . again in metaphysicks , the body of christ is acknowledged one , and that as much as any one body else in the world. now the metaphysical notion of [ one ] is to be indivisum à se ( both quoad partes and quoad totum ) as well as divisum à quolibet alio ; but the body of christ being both in heaven , and without any continuance of that body here upon earth also , the whole body is divided from the whole body , and therefore is entirely both unum and multa , which is a perfect contradiction . . thirdly , in the mathematicks ( concil . trident. sess. . ) the council of trent saying , that in the separation of the parts of the species ( that which bears the outward show of bread and wine ) that from this division there is a parting of the whole , divided into so many entire bodies of christ , the body of christ being always at the same time equal to it self . it follows , that a part of the division is equal to the whole that is divided , against that common notion in euclid , that the whole is bigger than the part . . and lastly , in logick , it is a maxim , that the parts agree indeed with the whole , but disagree one with another ; but in the above said division of the host or sacrament , the parts do so well agree , that they are intirely the same individual thing . and whereas any division , whether logical or physical , is the division of some one into many , this is but the division of one into one and it self , which is a perfect contradiction . . to all which you may add , that the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ implys , that the same thing both is and is not at the same time ( which is against that fundamental principle in logick and metaphysicks , that both parts of a contradiction cannot be true ) which i prove thus . for that individual thing that can be made , or is to be made of any thing , is not ; the progress in this case being à privatione ad habitum , as the schools speak , and the terms of generation or of being made , viz. à quo and ad quem being non esse and esse , or non-existent and existent , so that that passing , is from non-existent to existent . now the individual body of christ is to be made of the wafer consecrated , for it is turned into his individual body . but his individual body was before this consecration ; wherefore it both was and was not at the same time . for in the making thereof there was a passing from the terminus à quo , which is the non-existency of the thing to be made , to the terminus ad quem , to the existency of it , which yet was in being before . . these difficulties are sufficient to show that this high road of the literal sense taken to establish transubstantiation is not passable , so that there is a necessity of diverting or going back . nor will it be much needful to hint briefly these or other like absurdities more intelligible to the vulgar capacity , such as , that the same body at the same time is greater and lesser than it self ; is but a foot distant from me or less , and yet many thousand miles distant from me : that one and the same person may be intirely present with himself , and some hundred thousand miles absent from himself at once : that he may sit still on the grass , and yet journey and walk at the same time : that an organized body that hath head , feet , hands , &c. is intirely in every part of it self , the comely parts in the more uncomely : that the same body now in heaven may really present it self on earth without passing any space either directly or circuitously : that our saviour christ communicating with his disciples in the last supper , swallowed down his whole intire body , limbs , back , belly , head and mouth and all into his stomach , which might amuze and puzzle one to conceive how it was possible for his disciples not to miss the sight of his hands and head , though his cloaths were still visible as not being swallowed down into his stomach . or , whether our saviour swallowed down his own body into his stomach or no , this puzzle will still remain , how his disciples could swallow him down without his cloaths , he being still in his cloaths ; or how they could swallow him down in his cloaths , the bread being not transubstantiated into his cloaths , but into his body only . these and several such absurdities it were easie to enumerate . but i hope i have produced so much already that i may , and any one else , be thought to have very good cause to leave this high road of the literal sense , and betake our selves to that more safe path of the figurative , whereby transubstantiation with all its absurdities is avoided . chap. iii. . an evasion of the incredibility of transubstantiation drawn from the omnipotency of god. . ans. that it is no derogation to god's omnipotency not to be able to do what it implies a contradiction to be done . . if this transubstantiation had been fecible , yet it had been repugnant to the goodness and wisdom of christ to have effected it . . a marvelous witty device of taking away all the absurdities of transubstantiation , by giving to christ's body a supernatural manner of existence . . that the neat artifice of this sophistry lies in putting the smooth term of supernatural for counter-essential or asystatal . . that it is an asystatal manner of existence , proved from the author's description thereof in several particulars . arguments from the multiplication of christ's body , and difference of time of its production . . from non-extension of parts . . from independency of place . . to make a body independent of place as unconceivable as to make it independent of time. . the argument from being whole in every part of the symbols . . out of which absurdities the most witty evasion offered to our consideration that i have met with , is in that ingenious and artfully composed treatise , entitled , a papist mis-represented and represented . in his chapter of the eucharist toward the end , it is well worth the transcribing that i may offer some brief answers to the things there comprized . the papist represented , saith he ( pag. . lin . . ) not at all hearkning to his senses in a matter where god speaks ; he unfeignedly confesses , that he that made the world of nothing by his sole word , that cured diseases by his word , that raised the dead by his word , that expelled devils , that commanded the winds and seas , that multiplied bread , that changed water into wine by his word , and sinners into just men , cannot want power to change bread and wine into his own body and bloud by his sole word . . it is an invidious thing to dispute the power of the eternal logos or word incarnate , who is god of god , very god of very god , and therefore omnipotent , and can do all things that imply no contradiction to be done , as most certainly none of these things there specifi'd do imply it . but things repugnant to be done we may , and that with due reverence , declare god cannot do . as the apostle does not stick to say , god cannot lye , hebr. . . and why is it impossible for god to lye , but that it is repugnant to the perfection of his nature , and particularly that attribute of his veracity . nor will any adventure to affirm that he can make a globe or cylinder which shall be equidistant from , or touch a plane though but in half of their spherical or cylindrical superficies : or a circle from whose center the lines drawn shall be unequal , or a rectangle triangle , the power of whose hypotenusa shall not be equal to both the powers of the basis and cathetus . and in fine , there are sixt and immutable ideas of things , and such necessary and inseparable respects and properties of them , that to imagine them mutable , or that god can change them , is to disorder and change the eternal and immutable intellect of god himself . of which those indeleble and necessary notions , which the minds of all mankind are conscious to themselves of , if they be but awakned into free attention thereto , is but a compendious transcript . and therefore god his being not able to do any thing that is a contradiction to those eternal ideas and habitudes of them in his own mind , is no lessening of his omnipotency , but to imagine otherwise , is to dissolve the eternal frame of the divine intellect , and under a pretence of amplifying his omnipotency , to enable god to destroy himself , or to make him so weak or impotent as to be capable of being destroyed by himself , which is a thing impossible . . but suppose the eternal word incarnate could have turned the bread and wine into his own individual body and bloud , and the thing it self were fecible , though it seems so palpably contradictious to us : yet there would be this difficulty still remaining , that it is repugnant to his wisdom and goodness so to do ( as the apostle says , it is impossible for god to lye ) in that manner he is supposed to have done it , that is , in declaring , a thing is done that is repugnant so apparently to our intellectual faculties , and leaves so palpable an assurance to all our senses , though never so rightly circumstantiated , that it is not done , but that it is still bread ; and yet that these species of bread and wine should be supported by a miracle , to obfirm or harden us in our unbelief of this mystery of transubstantiation . how does this sute with either the wisdom of god , if he would in good earnest have us to believe this mystery , or with his goodness , to give this scandal to the world , for whom christ died , and to occasion so bloudy persecutions of innumerable innocent souls , that could not believe a thing so contrary to all sense and reason , and indeed to passages of scripture it self , whose penmen he did inspire ? wherefore this is a plain evincement that our saviour meant figuratively when he said [ this is my body ] and that his disciples understood him so ( there being nothing more usual in the jewish language than to call the sign by the name of the thing signified ) and that this literal gloss has been introduced by after-ages without any fault of our saviour . but in defence of the literal sense which he would have to infer transubstantiation , our author holds on thus , viz. . that this may be done without danger of multiplying his body , and making as many christs as altars , or leaving the right hand of his father , but only by giving to his body a supernatural manner of existence , by which being left without extension of parts , and rendred independent of place , it may be one and the same in many places at once , and whole in every part of the symbols , and not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies . and this kind of existence is no more than what in a manner he bestows upon every glorified body , than what his own body had when born without the least violation of his mother's virginal integrity , when he rose from the dead out of the sepulcher without removing the stone ; when he entered amongst his disciples , the doors being shut . . this is , as i said , a witty contrived evasion to elude the above-mentioned repugnancies i have noted , and exquisitely well fitted for the amusing and confounding of more vulgar and weak minds , or such as have not leisure to consider things to the bottom , and for the captivating them into a profession of what they have no determinate or distinct apprehension of , by distinctions and exemplifications that give no real support to the cause they are brought in for to maintain . for first , to pretend that by a supernatural manner of existence a body may be in more places than one at once , at the right hand of god the father in heaven , and on the altar at the same time , &c. the artifice of the sophistry lies in this , that he has put a more tolerable and soft expression in lieu of one that ( according to his explication of the matter ) would sound more harsh , but is more true and proper in this case . for this manner of existence of a body which he describes is not simply supernatural , which implies it is a body still , as a mill-stone by a supernatural power held up in the air is a mill-stone still , though it be in that supernatural condition . but the condition he describes is such as is not only supernatural but counter-essential or asystatal , that is , repugnant to the very being of a body , or of any finite substance in the universe . it is as if the mill-stone were not only supernaturally supported in the air , but were as transparent , as soft and fluid , and of as undetermined a shape as the air it self , or as if a right-angled triangle were declared to be so still , though the hypotenusa were not of equal power with the basis and cathetus , which is a thing impossible ; but if instead of a supernatural manner of existence , it had been said an asystatal manner of existence , that is , an existence repugnant to the very being of a body or any finite substance else , it would have been discovered to be a contradiction at the very first sight , and therefore such as ought to be rejected , as well as the affirming that what christ gave was really bread and really his body at once . . and now , notwithstanding this soft and smooth term of [ supernatural ] that it is an asystatal manner of existence , that is here given to the body of christ , may appear from our author's description thereof . for in vertue , he saith , of this supernatural manner of existence , there may be a transubstantiation without danger of multiplying christ's body , and making as many christs as altars . but it is impossible this absurdity should be avoided , supposing transubstantiation . for there is not a more certain and infallible sign of two bodily persons being two bodily persons , and not the same person , that distance of place , wherein they are separate one from another , and consequently two not one body , and this is the very case in transubstantiation , which manifestly implies , that the body of christ is in many thousand distant places at once . which imagined condition in it is not supernatural but asystatal , and contradictious to the very being of any finite substance whatever , as has been intimated and firmly proved before , chap. . and as distance of place necessarily infers difference of bodies or persons , so does also difference of time of their production . that which was produced , suppose sixteen hundred years ago and remains so produced cannot be produced suppose but yesterday , or at this present moment , and so be sixteen hundred years older or younger than it self . this is not only supernatural but asystatal , and implies a perfect contradiction ; but yet this is the very case in transubstantiation . the body of christ born suppose sixteen hundred years ago , is yet produced out of the transubstantiated bread but now or yesterday , and so the same body is sixteen hundred years older or younger than it self , which is a perfect contradiction . . secondly , the papist represented declares , that the body of christ by vertue of this supernatural manner of existence , is left without extension of parts , which is a perfect contradiction to the very nature and essence of a body , whose universally acknowledged definition is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , implying a trinal inpenetrable dimension or extension . besides , did christ's body at his last supper so soon as he had transubstantiated the bread into it , lose all extension of parts ? what then filled out his cloaths as he sat with his disciples at table ? or how could the jews lay hold on christ's body to crucifie it , if he had no extension of parts to be laid hold on ? how could there be hands and feet and organization of parts , either at the table or on the cross , if there were no extension of parts to be organized ? and lastly , being the transubstantiated bread is the very individual body of christ , if they would have this being left without extension of parts , to be understood of it , how can the very same individual body of christ have extension of parts and have no extension of parts , have organization of parts and have no organization of parts at once : so that the condition of christ's body here supposed is plainly asystatal , not as is smoothly expressed only supernatural . . thirdly , whereas the papist represented declares , that this supernatural manner of existence of christ's body renders it independent of place , what can the meaning of that be , but that by vertue of this priviledge it might exist without any place or ubi , which bodies in their natural condition cannot ? but this clashes with the very story of our saviour christ , who was certainly in the room in which he ate the passover with his disciples , after he had transubstantiated the bread into his individual body , and therefore it did not exist independently of place , in virtue of any such supernatural manner of existence as is imagined . and as this does not agree with matter of fact , so it is a perfect contradiction to the essence of any body or finite substance to be exempted from all connexion with place or ubi , but a finite substance must be in a definite ubi , and while it is in such a definite ubi , it is impossible to conceive that it is in another place or ubi , whether intra or extra moenia mundi . he that closely and precisely considers the point , he will not fail , i think , to discern the thing to be impossible . and what contradiction it implies i have demonstrated above . so that we see there can be no such supernatural manner of existence conferred on a body in making it independent of place or ubiety , as to capacitate it to be one and the same body in diverse places at once , but that this supposed supernatural manner is truly an asystatal manner , and such as is repugnant to the very being of a body , or any finite substance whatsoever . . to make a body in this sense independent of place or ubiety , is as unconceivable as to make it independent of time , which yet would so compleat this impossible hypothesis , that under this pretence when a thing has such a supernatural existence as exempts it from all connexion with or relation to time , but supposes it utterly independent thereof , as was explained before touching place , we may suppose what we will of a body , that it may be bread and not bread at the same time , that it may be at thebes and at athens at the same time , as we ordinary mortals would phrase it , sith it is lifted up above all relation and connexion with time , nor hath any thing to do with any time. but yet this assuredly is not a mere supernatural manner of existence , but plainly asystatal , and such as if god could cause , there would be no eternal and immutable truths , but under a pretext of exalting the omnipotence of god , they would imply him able to destroy his own nature , which would argue an impotency in him , and to extinguish and confound the inviolable ideas of the divine intellect , as i intimated above . . and fourthly and lastly , that in vertue of this supernatural manner of existence , the body of christ should be whole in every part of the symbols , and thereby become not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies ; ( which is said , i suppose , to avoid the absurdity of grinding a pieces the body of christ with our teeth when we chew the supposed species ) thus to exist whole in every part , is not a mere supernatural manner of existing , but asystatal , and implies either that the least part of christ's body is as big as the whole , or that the whole body is god knows how many thousand times bigger than it self . for certainly the whole body comprized under the whole bread or species of bread , is many thousand times bigger than one particle thereof no bigger than a pins point . besides that this making the body of christ whole in every part , takes away all possibility of distinct organization of his body , unless you will have every pins point of it to have head , feet , hands , arms , and the rest of the parts of an humane body , or have the same individual body organized and unorganized at the same time , which are as palpable contradictions as any can occur to the understanding of a man. and thus much i thought fit to intimate touching this witty distinction of a natural and supernatural manner of existence of a body , and to shew that this pretended supernatural manner of the existence of christ's body , arising from the bread transubstantiated , as the papist represented describes it , is indeed an asystatal manner of existence , and inconsistent with the being of any body , or finite substance whatsoever . chap. iv. . the supernatural manner of the existence of a body consisting in non-extension of parts , independency of place , and being whole in every part. . the first exemplification of such a manner of existence in glorified bodies , not to reach the case . . nor the second , in christ's body born without the least violation of his mothers virginal integrity . . nor the third in christ's rising out of the sepuloher without the removing of the stone . . nor the fourth , in christ's entring amongst his disciples the doors being shut . . transubstantiation implying a number of contradictions as harsh as that of the same body being both christ ' s body and bread at once , and there being no salvo for them but this device of a supernatural manner of existence , and this so plainly failing , it is impossible that transubstantiation should be the true mode of the real presence . . it remains now that we only touch upon lightly the exemplifications of this supernatural manner of existence of a body , consisting in these peculiarities , non-extension of parts , independency of place , and being whole in every part , and to note how none of these instances reach the present case . . as first that of a glorified body . what scripture , reason or authority ever suggested to us that the glorified body of christ himself , much less every glorified body , is without extension of parts , has no relation to or connexion with place , or is whole in every part . for without extension of parts it cannot be so much as a body . and were not moses and elias together with christ at his transfiguration on mount tabor , at least lively figures of the state of a glorified body , but it is evident by the description that they had extension of parts , else what should shining garments do upon what is unextended , and what glory can issue from a single mathematical point as i may so call it ? and in that they were on mount tabor together , it is manifest they had a connexion with or dependency on place , nor did exist without being in some ubi . and that the glorified body of christ is in heaven not on earth , is plain from act. . . and touching his body he rose in , and therefore was his resurrection-body , matt. . . the angel says , he is not here , for he is risen ; which had been a mere non sequitur , if his body could have been in more places than one at once , which property the papist represented gives it upon account of transubstantiation . and for as much as the transubstantiated bread and the body of christ is one and the same individual body , and that this that is once christ's body never perishes , it is evident , that the body he rose in , being one and the same body with the transubstantiated bread , must have the capacity by this supernatural manner of existence above described , to be in more places than one at once , which is a perfect contradiction to the angels reasoning : he is not here , for he is risen , and gone hence . for according to this supernatural manner of existence , which they suppose in christ's body upon the account of transubstantiation , he might be both there and gone thence at once . . the second instance of this supernatural manner of existence of a body , is christ's body born without the least violation of his mothers virginal integrity , which is such a secret as the scripture has not revealed , nor any sufficient authority assured us of : the mother of christ still continuing a virgin , because she had nothing to do with any man , though that which was conceived in her by the overshadowing of the holy ghost came out of her womb in the same circumstances there , that other humane births do . but suppose the body of christ pass'd the wicket of the womb without opening it , as the sun-beams pass through a crystal or glass , does this import that his body is either independent of place , or is devoid of extension , or whole in every part ? surely no , no more than that light that passes through the pores of the crystal : so that there is nothing repugnant to the nature of a body in all this . no non-extension , no independency of place , no penetration of corporeal dimensions , nor any being whole in every part . . the third instance is christ's rising out of the sepulcher without removing the stone . but this instance may very justly be rejected , it disagreeing with the very history of the resurrection , which tells us the stone was removed , matt. . . and behold there was a great earthquake , for the angel descended from heaven , and rolled back the stone from the door , and sate upon it . wherefore we see the stone was removed . nor can i imagine why this should make a third instance , viz. christ's body passing out of the sepulcher , the stone unremoved from the door thereof , unless from an heedless reflection on the fore-going verse ( where mary magdalen and the other mary are said to go to see the sepulcher ) and connecting it to an ill grounded sense with what follows in the second verse , and behold there was a great earthquake ; as if it were implyed that the earthquake and the rolling away the stone were at that very time that these two women went to see the sepulcher , and christ having risen before , that it would follow that he rose before the stone of the sepulcher was removed ; but this is a mistake . for agreeably to vatablus his gloss ( who for erat [ & ecce erat terrae motus magnus ] puts fuerat , and for descendit , descenderat , and for devolvit lapidem , devolverat ) which implies the thing done before these women came to the sepulcher ; it is manifest out of the other evangelists that the matter was altogether so ; for mark . . it is said of the two above said parties , that very early in the morning , the first day of the week they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun , and they said among themselves , who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher , and when they looked they saw the stone was rolled away , &c. and it is expresly said in luke , that they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher . and the like is recorded in st. john , ch . . so that it is a plain case the stone was rolled away before their going to the sepulcher . what time therefore can we imagine more likely of this rolling away the stone and terrible earthquake , than at the very resurrection of christ , who rose in this awful terrour to the keepers , the earth quaking , and the too glorious angels officiously opening the stony door of the sepulcher , that the king of glory might pass out , without any further needless or useless miracle , such as he ever declined in his life time , before his death and resurrection ? wherefore this third instance , it is plain , cannot with any shew be accommodated to the present case , it being raised out of a mere mistake of the story . . the fourth and last instance is , christ's entring amongst his disciples , the doors being shut , recorded john . , and . there the disciples are said to be gathered together privately or secretly for fear of the jews , for which cause they lockt or bolted the doors with-inside , that no man might suddenly come upon them . but while they were in this privacy or closeness , christ , notwithstanding , suddenly presented himself in the midst of them , for all this closeness or secrecy , and not without a miracle , supposing himself or some ministring angel to unlock or unbolt the door suddenly , and softly , sine strepitu , which upon this account would be more likely , in that if he had come in , the doors being still shut , that might have seemed as great an argument to thomas that he was a spirit , as the feeling his hands and side that he was no spirit . wherefore , i conceive , it is no sufficiently firm hypothesis , that christ entred among his disciples , the doors in the mean time , at his very entrance , remaining shut . but suppose they were so , this will not prove his body devoid of extension , to be independent of place , and whole in every part , more than his passing the wicket of the womb , like light through crystal , did argue the same in the second instance but the truth of the business will then be this , that he being then in his resurrection-body ( even that wherewith he was to ascend into heaven , which yet he kept in its terrestrial modification , and organization , for those services it was to do amongst his disciples while he conversed with them after his resurrection upon earth ; as he made use of it in a particular manner to s t thomas ) he had a power to modifie it into what consistencies he pleased , aerial , aetherial , or coelestial , it remaining still that individual body , that was crucified . this therefore might easily pass through the very pores of the door , and much more easily betwixt the door and the side-posts there , without any inconvenience more than to other spiritual bodies . for the resurrection-body is an heavenly and spiritual body , as s t paul himself expresly declares . but yet as truly a body as any body else ; that is , it hath impenetrable trinal dimension , is not without place or ubiety , nor whole in every part . this very story demonstrates all this , that his body is not without place . for it stood in the midst of the room amongst his disciples . nor the whole in every part ; for here is distinct mention of christ's hand and his side , as elsewhere of his flesh and bones , luke . . which would be all confounded , if every part were in every part . and if there be these distinct parts , then certainly his body hath extension , and this ingeniously excogitated distinction of the natural and supernatural manner of existence of a body , can by no means cover the gross repugnancies , which are necessarily imply'd in the doctrine of transubstantiation . . a doctrine raised from the literal sense of those words [ this is my body ] which literal sense if we were tyed to , it would also follow that that which christ gave to his disciples was as well real bread as his real body : [ this ] plainly referring to what he took , what he blessed , and what he gave , which was bread , and of this he says , this is my body . wherefore adhering to the literal sense , it would be both real bread and the real body of christ at once . but this , as being a repugnancy , as was noted above , and contradiction to the known inviolable and immutable laws of logick and humane reason , is justly rejected by the church of rome , for this very reason , that it implies a contradiction , that one and the same body should be bread and the real body of christ at once . wherefore transubstantiation containing , as has been proved , so many of such contradictions , every jot as repugnant to the inviolable and immutable laws of logick , or humane reason ( that unextinguishable lamp of the lord in the soul of man ) as this of the same body being real bread and the real body of christ at once : and there being no salvo for these harsh contradictions , but the pretence of a supernatural manner of existence of a body , which god is supposed to give to the bread transubstantiated into the body of christ , that is , into the very individual body of christ , they being supposed by transubstantiation to become one and the same body . i say this neat distinction of a supernatural manner of existing being plainly demonstrated ( so as it is by the papist represented , explained ) not to be a mere supernatural manner of existence , with which the being of a body would yet consist , but a counter-essential , asystatal , and repugnant manner of existence , inconsistent with the being of a body ; and none of the instances that are produced as pledges of the truth of the notion or assertion at all reaching the present case , it is manifest that though there be a real presence of christ's body and bloud in the celebration of the holy eucharist , acknowledged as well by the reformed as the pontifician party , that it is impossible that transubstantiation , which the papist represented here declares , should be the true mode thereof . chap. v. . the author's excuse for his civility to the papist represented , that he shews him that the road he is in is not the way of truth touching the mode of the real presence . . that the bishop of meaux makes the real presence the common doctrine of all the churches as well reformed as un-reformed , and that it is acknowledged to be the doctrine of the church of england , though she is so wise and so modest as not to define the mode thereof . . the sincere piety of our predecessors in believing the real presence , and their unfortunateness afterwards in determining the mode by transubstantiation or consubstantiation . . and therefore the papist represented , being in so palpable a mistake , and by keeping to the literal sense having so apparently wandred from the path of truth , i hope my thus industriously and carefully advertizing him thereof for his own good , will be no otherwise interpreted than an act of humanity or common civility , if not of indispensable christianity , thus of my own accord , though not roganti , yet erranti comiter monstrare viam , or at least to assure him that this of transubstantiation is not the right road to the due understanding of the manner or mode of the real presence of the body and blood of christ in the celebration of the holy eucharist . . which opinion of the real presence the bishop of meaux declares to be the doctrine of all the churches as well reformed as un-reformed ; as i must confess i have been of that perswasion ( ever since i writ my mystery of godliness ) that it is the doctrine of the church of england , and that the doctrine is true . and this i remember i heard from a near relation of mine when i was a youth , a reverend dignitary of the church of england , and that often , viz. that our church was for the real presence , but for the manner thereof , if asked , he would answer , rem scimus , modum nescimus , we know the thing , but the mode or manner thereof we know not . and the assurance we have of the thing is from the common suffrage of the ancient fathers , such as the above-cited place of our homilies glances at , and from the scripture it self , which impressed that notion on the minds of our pious predecessors in the church of god. . for i do verily believe that out of mere devotion and sincere piety , and out of a reverend esteem they had of the solemnity of the eucharist , they embraced this doctrine as well as broached it at the first . and if they had kept to the profession of it in general , without running into transubstantiation or consubstantiation , and had defined no further than the plain scriptural text in the sixth of st. iohn and the suffrages of the primitive fathers had warranted them , viz. that there was a twofold body and blood of christ , the one natural , the other spiritual or divine , which we do really receive in the holy communion ( within which limits i shall confine my self here without venturing into any farther curiosities ) it had been more for the peace and honour of the christian church , and it might have prevented much scandal to them without , and much cruelty and persecution amongst our selves : the history of which is very horrid even to think of . but though there have been these mistakes in declaring the mode , yet the thing it self is not therefore to be abandoned , it being so great a motive for a reverend approaching the lord's table , and duly celebrating the solemnity of the holy eucharist . nor can we , as i humbly conceive , relinquish this doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of christ , without the declining the most easie and natural sense of the holy scripture , as it stands written in the sixth chapter of st. iohn . chap. vi. . gratian his distinction of the flesh and blood of christ into spiritual or divine , and into that flesh that hung on the cross , and that bloud let out by the lance of the souldier . . the same confirmed out of s. austin , who makes the body and bloud of christ to be partaken of in baptism , and also from s. paul and philo. . other citations out of philo touching the divine logos agreeable with what christ says of himself in his discourse john . and out of which it further appears that the antient fathers ate the same food that we , the divine body of christ , but not that which hung on the cross. . a strong confirmation out of what has been produced , that gratian his distinction is true . . the first argument from our saviour's discourse , that he meant not his flesh that hung on the cross , because he says , that he that eats it has eternal life in him . . the second , because his flesh and bloud is the object of his discourse , not the manner of eating and drinking them . . the third , because of his answer to his murmuring disciples , which removes his natural body far from them , and plainly tells them , the flesh profiteth nothing . . gratian's distinction no novel doctrine . . out of which sixth chapter of s. iohn , that is manifest which a member of the roman church her self , has declared , an eminent canonist of theirs , gratian , in [ canon dupliciter ] as it is cited by philippus mornaeus , lib. . de eucharistiâ , cap. . dupliciter intelligitur caro christi & sanguis : vel spiritualis illa atque divina de quâ ipse dicit , caro mea verè est cibus , & sanguis meus verè est potus , & nisi manducaveritis carnem meam , & biberitis sanguinem meum , non habebitis vitam aeternam ; vel caro quae crucifixa est , & sanguis qui militis effusus est lanceâ . i the rather take notice of this passage , because he makes use of the very phrases which i used without consulting him in my philosophical hypothesis of the great mystery of regeneration , calling that body or flesh which christ so copiously discourses of , iohn . spiritual or divine , which he plainly distinguishes , as christ himself there does , from that body that hung on the cross , and that blood that was let out by the lance of the souldier . . for we cannot be regenerate out of these in baptism , and yet in the same place s. augustine says , we are partakers of the body and blood of christ in baptism ; and therefore as terrestrial animals are not fed ( as they say the chamaeleon is ) of the air , but by food of a terrestrial consistency , so our regeneration being out of spiritual principles , our inward man is also nourished by that food that is spiritual or divine . and that is a marvellous passage of st. paul , cor. . where he says , the fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat , and did all drink the same spiritual drink , for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them , and that rock was christ , where st. austin , anselm , thomas aquinas , and others , as you may see in iacobus capellus , avouch , that the ancient patriarchs ate the same spiritual food that we , which therefore must be the flesh and blood of christ , in that sense christ understands it in , iohn . and that passage of philo ( that grotius notes on the same place ) is worth our taking notice of , and that in two several treatises of his he interprets the manna of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the divine logos , which agrees hugely well with our supposing that the flesh and blood of which our saviour saith , it is meat indeed and drink indeed , he speaks this as he is the eternal logos , to whom appertains the universal divine body , as being the body of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , life or spirit , as i have noted in my analytical account of the fore-part of the first chapter of st. iohn's gospel . see my scholia at the end of my enchiridium ethicum . . and it is marvellously applicable to our purpose what philo says on that passage of deuteronomy , chap. . v. . he made him to suck honey out of the rock , and oyl out of the flinty rock ( in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) where he says the rock signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . the solid , steady and infrangible wisdom of god ; implying the immutableness and unalterableness of the natures , properties , and respects of the ideas of things in the divine intellect , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , not to be changed or violated for any superstitious purposes whatsoever , as i have intimated before . wherefore as s t paul calls christ , who is the eternal logos , a rock , so does philo , by saying , that rock moses mentions in his song is the steady , solid and infrangible wisdom of god. which therefore is that essential wisdom , the same that the divine logos , or second hypostasis of the trinity . and not many lines after in the same treatise , the lawgiver , says he , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , calls this rock manna the divine logos that was before all beings , and without whom nothing was made that was made , as s t iohn testifies . and in his [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] speaking of israel , which he would have signifie one that sees god : he , says he , lifting up his eyes to heaven sees , and thence receives , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) the manna , the divine logos , the heavenly incorruptible food of the soul devoted to holy speculation . which passages i could not forbear to produce , they having so great an affinity with that which our saviour professes of himself , that he is this bread from heaven , the true manna , and incorruptible food of the soul , whereby she is nourished to eternal life , iohn . out of all which may be more easily understood how the fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat , and drink the same spiritual drink , which cannot well be conceived but of such a divine body and bloud of christ , as is universal , not restrained to his particular humane nature , but belonging to him as he is the eternal logos , in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life or spirit , which goeth along with the divine body of this life or spirit of christ , and consequently is rightly called his body . which being the necessary principles of regeneration ( for ex eisdem nutrimur ex quibus constamus ) and there being no salvation without regeneration , and no regeneration continued and advanced without congenerous food ; we must necessarily conclude with s t paul , that , the fathers all ate the same spiritual meat , and drank all the same spiritual drink , water , honey , oyl out of the same rock , christ , the eternal word or logos . and certainly that body and blood of christ out of which the fathers were regenerate , and by which they were fed , cannot be the very body and bloud of christ which hung on the cross , and whose bloud was there let out by the lance of the souldier that pierced his side : and therefore there was a body and bloud of christ before he was incarnate , for the regenerate souls of the antient people of the iews to feed upon , belonging to him as he is the eternal logos ; in whom is the life and that spirit of which it is said , that which is born of the flesh is flesh , and that which is born of the spirit is spirit . which things are more fully treated of in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or a philosophical hypothesis touching the great mystery of regeneration . . wherefore there is all the reason in the world , if not plain necessity to admit , what we cited out of gratian that famous canonist of the church of rome . that we are to understand that there is a two-fold flesh and bloud of christ , either that spiritual and divine flesh , of which he himself says , my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed , and , unless you eat my flesh and drink my bloud , ye shall not have everlasting life . or that flesh which was crucified , and that bloud that was let out of his side by the lance of the souldier , which we shall now endeavour briefly to demonstrate out of that discourse of our saviour in the sixth of s t iohn . . first then , that the flesh of christ that hung once on the cross , and into which the bread of the romanists is supposed to be transubstantiated in the sacrament of our lord's supper , is not the flesh here meant is plain from what is said thereof in this sixth chapter of s t iohn v. . whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life . but every one that eateth the bread transubstantiated into the body of christ , that once hung upon the cross , in the roman communion , has not eternal life in him . nay if that souldier that pierced our saviour's side and let out his bloud with his lance had drunk also thereof , and cut some piece of his flesh from his body and eaten it , is any one so fond as to think , that he thereby would have been made partaker of eternal life ? but if christ meant that body or flesh of his and not some other that is rightly also called his flesh or body , it would follow that that souldier by doing that savage and inhumane act , would have obtained everlasting life . wherefore it is plain from hence , that there is another body or flesh of christ and another blood , distinct from that blood that was shed on the cross , and from that body that hung there , which our saviour aims at in his discourse . . secondly , it is plain that our saviour's discourse in that chapter ( he passing from that temporal food which he had lately procured for the multitude , to a spiritual and eternal ) has for its object or subject not the manner or way of receiving his body and blood , as if it were meant of that very flesh and blood on the cross , but that it was to be received in a spiritual manner , which interpreters , several of them , drive at ; but the object of his discourse is his very flesh and blood it self , to be taken ( as the fish and loaves were wherewith he lately fed them ) or it is himself in reference to this flesh and blood which belongs to him as he is the eternal word , and in this sense he says , he is the bread of god that cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world , v. . and v. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i am the bread of life , and speaking of the manna he presently adds , your fathers ate manna , and yet died , viz. the natural death , the natural manna being no preservative against the natural death . and v. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as before he called himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . for in him is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( iohn . ) or life and spirit , and this spirit or life in the divine body . i am the living bread coming down from heaven ( as the manna is said to do , and to which philo compares the divine logos ) if any one eat of this bread he shall live for ever . he speaks not of the manner of eating of it , but of the bread it self to be eaten , and yet immediately thereupon he calls this bread his flesh , which he says , he will give for the life of the world , that is to the end that they may be enlivened thereby , he thus communicating to them his divine body and spirit together . and then presently upon the iews striving amongst themselves and saying , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? ( the reason whereof was because they took him to be a meer man , and thought that christ himself understood it of his humane flesh ) he affirms with greater earnestness and vehemency , verily , verily , i say unto you , unless ye eat the flesh of the son of man ( viz. of the messias , who is the logos incarnate ) and drink his bloud , ye have no life in you . whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my bloud hath eternal life , and i will raise him up at the last day . for my flesh is meat indeed , and my bloud is drink indeed . and so all along to the very end of his discourse , he speaks of a really eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , not of the manner of eating , as if it never came nigh them , but only they thought of flesh and blood god knows how far distant from them , and so ate the humane flesh of christ by meer thinking of it , and drank his bloud after the same imaginary manner , which would , i think , be a very dilute and frigid sense of such high and fervid asseverations of our saviour , if the mystery reached no farther than so . . but thirdly and lastly , that it does reach further than so , is exceeding evident from what our saviour utters upon his disciples being scandalized at this strange discourse of his , v. . when iesus knew in himself , that his disciples murmured at it , he said unto them , does this offend you ? what if you shall see the son of man ascending where he was before , which he must needs understand of his particular visible body which he bore about with him , and which his humane soul did actuate , and which was appropriated to his humane nature , which is finite and circumscribed . it is an elliptical speech of his , but thus naturally to be supplyed as i have also noted above , as if he suppressed by an aposiopesis this objurgatory sense insinuated thereby . will you then imagine so grosly as if i understood it of this very flesh i bear about with me , when as this particular body of mine after my ascension into heaven will be removed at a vast distance from you . i tell you this flesh of mine , as to this purpose i have all this time driven at , profiteth nothing , you cannot feed of it at such a distance if it were to be fed on . the text runs thus , v. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , it is that quickening spirit i aim at in my discourse , that divine or spiritual body of mine . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that flesh , which you understand and are so scandalized at the eating thereof , profiteth nothing as to this purpose , nor the blood taken in your sense has any thing to do here . the words that i speak unto you they are spirit and they are life . the object of those words spoken is my spiritual body and blood , not as i am a man , but the eternal word , the divine logos , which contains in it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or spirit , and my divine body universal , that belongs to that my life or spirit . this is the true mystery of the matter , for by these two things asserted by our saviour , . that we are to eat his flesh and drink his blood as we hope ever to have eternal life . . and his declaring his flesh profiteth nothing , it is manifest that that distinction of gratian is true , which he seems to have taken out of st. hierom , or some other ancient father , who tells us the flesh and blood of christ is twofold , the one natural and which he bore about with him and hung once on the cross , the other spiritual and divine , which we may really eat and drink , that is really receive and draw in at the celebrating the holy eucharist by a sincere , fervid and devotional faith. and consequently there is a real presence of the body and blood of christ in partaking of the lord's supper , whereby our souls are nourished to eternal , life . and in that , he says , his natural flesh profiteth nothing to this purpose ( for it cannot be said that it profiteth nothing at all , since in vertue of the crucifixion of that flesh , and effusion of that blood on the cross , we have the remission of our sins ) christ plainly infers that he has ( which cannot be well understood but as he is the eternal logos ) another flesh , viz. that spiritual and divine flesh , which is mainly profitable for this purpose , for the maintaining , perfecting and renewing the inward man , that he may attain to his due growth in christ. and lastly , how can christ say his flesh that was crucified on the cross profiteth nothing , when by being meditated upon at the solemnity of the holy eucharist , and also at other times , it may serve to kindle and inflame our love and devotion towards him , and so urge us to greater degrees of repentance and mortification , and serious holiness ; it therefore being useful and profitable for all this , i say , why does he then affirm it profiteth nothing , but that he does on purpose advertise us that it profiteth nothing as to the present case he has spoke to all this while , viz. to be the real meat and food of the inward man , and to be really received into him , to maintain and increase those divine principles in him out of which he is regenerated . this his particular flesh and blood , that hung on the cross , cannot be profitable for , nor can be come at , at such a distance , to be taken in and received ; which therefore plainly implies those other , which were mentioned above out of gratian ( the divine or spiritual flesh and blood of christ only ) to be properly useful to this purpose . . and for this divine and spiritual flesh and blood of our saviour distinguished from his natural ; besides st. hierome you have also the suffrage of clemens alexandrinus , in his paedagogus , lib. . cap. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . the blood of our lord is twofold , the one carnal , by which we are redeemed from corruption ; the other spiritual , wherewith we are anointed , and by vertue of drinking thereof we attain to incorruption . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and as he makes the blood of our lord twofold , so we may be sure he makes his body or flesh , because his mystical body and blood go together . according to that which m r pelling in his pious and learned discourse of the sacrament , quotes out of s t ambrose , who , says he , speaking of that body which is received in the eucharist , calls it the spiritual body of christ , the body of a divine spirit ; and he does confidently affirm of all the antients who have either purposely interpreted , or occasionally quoted the words of christ , in the sixth of s t iohn , touching the eating his flesh and drinking his blood , that they all understand him to speak of a spiritual flesh and blood , distinct not only from the substance of the holy elements , but also from that natural body of christ which he took of the substance of the holy virgin , pag. . so little novelty is there in this distinction of the body and blood of christ into natural , and spiritual or divine . chap. vii . . an apology for being thus operose and copious in inculcating the present point from the usefulness thereof . . the first usefulness in that it defeats monsieur de meaux his stratagem to reduce us to transubstantiation , as if no real presence without it . . the second usefulness , for the rectifying the notion of consubstantiation . . the third for more fully understanding the mystery of the eucharist , with applications of it to several passages in our communion-service . . the fourth for a very easie and natural interpretation of certain passages in our church-catechism . . the priviledge of the faithful receiver , and of what great noment the celebration of the eucharist is . . the last usefulness in solidly reconciling the rubrick at the end of the communion-service , with that noted passage in our church-catechism . . the reader may haply think i have been over operose and copious in inculcating this distinction of gratian's , touching the body and blood of christ in the holy eucharist . but the great usefulness thereof , i hope , may apologize for this my extraordinary diligence and industry . for the notion being both true and unexceptionable , and not at all clashing , so far as i can discern , with either the holy scripture , or right reason and solid philosophy , to say nothing of the suffrage of the primitive fathers , but rather very agreeable and consentaneous to them all ; and also having , as i said , its weighty usefulness , it was a point , i thought , that was worth my so seriously insisting upon ; and as i have hitherto endeavoured faithfully to set out the truth thereof , i shall now , though more briefly , intimate its usefulness . . and the first usefulness is this , whereas that reverend prelate the bishop of meaux tugs so hard to pull back again the reformed churches to the communion of the church of rome , by this concession , or rather profession of theirs , that there is a real presence of the body and blood of christ at the celebration of the eucharist , to be received by the faithful , and that therefore they must return to the doctrine of transubstantiation , as if there were no other mode of a real presence to be conceived but it : the force of this inference is plainly taken away , by this distinction that gratian , one of their own church , hath luckily hit upon , or rather taken out of some antient father , and is more fully made out in this discourse , that there is a spiritual and divine body of christ , distinct from that particular body of his that hung on the cross , which the faithful partake of in the lord's supper . whence it is plain there is no need of transubstantiation , which is incumbred with such abundance of impossibilities and contradictions . . secondly , this notion of ours is hugely serviceable for the rectifying of the doctrine of consubstantiation in the lutheran church , who are for an ubiquity of the particular body of christ that hung on the cross , which assuredly is a grand mistake . but i believe in the authors thereof there was a kind of parturiency , and more confused divination of that truth , which we have so much insisted upon , and their mistake consists only in this , that they attributed to the particular body of christ , which belongs to his restrained and circumscribed humane nature , that which truly and only belongs to his divine body , as he is the eternal logos , in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the life or spirit of the logos , to which spirit of his this body belongs , and therefore is rightly called his body , as appertaining to his spirit . for this body , this divine and spiritual flesh , as gratian calls it , is every where present , though not to be received as the food of the inward man , but only by the faithful and regenerate , so that according to this notion there may be a consubstantiation rightly interpreted , that is a compresentiation , or rather compresentiality of both the real bread and wine , and the real body and blood of christ at once ; so that they both may be really and indeed received by all true believers . and lutheranism in this point thus candidly interpreted , will prove a sound and unexceptionable doctrine . and i charitably believe the first authors of it , if they had fully understood their own meaning , meant no more than so . and i wish i had as much reason to believe that the pontificians meant no more by their transubstantiation , but a firm and fast hold of the real presence . i hope the most ingenuous of them at this time of the day mean no more than so , viz. that they are as well assured of the real presence of the body and blood of christ to be received in the celebration of the eucharist ; as if the very bread was turned into his body , and the wine into his blood by a miraculous transubstantiation . . thirdly , it is from this notion or distinction of the antient fathers , as i hinted above , of the body and blood of christ into natural and spiritual or divine , that we have ever been well appointed to give a more full and distinct account of the nature of the solemnity of the eucharist as it is celebrated in our church , it plainly comprizing these two things . the first the commemoration of the death of christ , of the breaking his body or flesh , viz. the wounding thereof with nails and spears . the other , the partaking of the divine body and blood of christ , by which our inward man is nourished to eternal life : which our eating the bread and drinking the wine are symbols of . both which in our communion-service are plainly pointed at . the first fully , in the exhortation to communicants , where it is said , and above all things you must give most humble and hearty thanks to god the father , the son , and the holy ghost , for the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our saviour christ , both god and man , who did humble himself even to the death upon the cross for us miseable sinners — and to the end we should always remember the exceeding great love of our master and only saviour jesus christ thus dying for us , and the innumerable benefits , which by his precious blood-shedding , he hath obtained to us , he has instituted and ordained holy mysteries as pledges of his love , and for a continual remembrance of his death . and in the prayer of consecration , the celebration of the eucharist is again said to be a continued or perpetuated commemoration of christ's precious death till his coming again . but now for our receiving the spiritual and divine body and blood of christ , such passages as these seem to intimate it . in the exhortation to the communicants , it is there said , if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive this holy sacrament , then we spiritually eat the flesh of christ and drink his blood , then we dwell in christ and christ in us , we are one with christ and christ with us . this passage plainly points to our saviour's discourse , iohn . v. . where he says , he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me and i in him . and he thus dwelling in us , he enlivens us , we becoming one with christ in a manner as the soul and body makes one , as it followeth in the next verse , as the living father has sent me , and i live by the father , so he that eateth me shall live by me , and so we become one with christ and christ with us , we living by christ as he by his father ; that is to say , as christ ▪ lives by his father , so we live by the spirit of christ dwelling in us , rom. . . which spirit or life of christ always implies the divine body . as he that is joined unto the lord in this body is one spirit , cor. . . now this exhortation so plainly alluding to this passage of our saviour's discourse , which speaks not of his particular natural flesh , but of that which is his spiritual or divine flesh , it is plain that the genuine sense of the exhortation in this place is , that we really though spiritually ( that is by a fervent and devotional faith ) eat or receive the real body and blood of christ , viz. that divine and spiritual body and blood of his above-mentioned . and this passage of our saviour's discourse is again alluded to in the prayer immediately before the prayer of consecration in these words , grant us therefore , gracious lord , so to eat the flesh of thy dear son jesus christ , and to drink his blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body , and our souls washed through his most precious blood , and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us , john . . and these two places so plainly alluding to our saviour's discourse in the sixth of s t iohn , it is very easie and natural to conceive that what occurs in the thanksgiving after our receiving the sacrament does sound to the same purpose . almighty and everlasting god , we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries , with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of thy son and our saviour jesus christ — the words even of themselves do very naturally point at a real though spiritual partaking or receiving into us the body and blood of christ , namely , of that flesh and blood which our saviour discourses of , iohn . and therefore we may be much more assured that they do so , if we take notice , the sense is so back'd and strengthned by the other two passages which do plainly relate to the body , or flesh and blood christ discourses of , in the sixth of s t iohn's gospel . i will only add one consideration more , and that is from the title of our communion-service . can there be any more likely reason why the lord's supper is called the holy communion , than that it refers to that of s t paul , cor. . . the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? because there is one bread , we being many are one body . for we are all partakers of that one bread. which is that bread from heaven , which our saviour discourses of in the sixth of s t iohn . but the words i have chiefly my eye upon are those : the cup being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the communion of the blood , and the bread , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the communion of the body of christ ; and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in all likely hood , having the same sense that it had , pet. . . in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , where we are said to be called to the participation of the divine nature , communion here in s t paul's epistle to the corinthians must naturally imply our real receiving or partaking of the body and blood of christ in the celebrating of this holy communion , and that by thus partaking of that one divine body and blood of his , signified by the eating and drinking the bread and wine , we , though many , become one body : not in a political sense only , but , if i may so speak , divinely natural , we being made all members of that one universal divine body of christ , as he is the eternal logos , and so becoming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , pet. . . wherefore , that passage in s t paul's epistle to the corinthians , does marvelous-fully set out the nature of that part of the lord's supper , that is distinguished from the commemoration of his death ; and gives the most genuine reason of its being called the holy communion , it implying the real communication of that one divine body of christ to the faithful , and their real union thereby with christ and with one another , which is a full and perfect holy communion indeed . . fourthly , this notion of the fathers touching the spiritual or divine body and blood of christ , affords us a very easie and natural interpretation of that passage in our church-catechism , touching the sacrament of the lord's supper , where to the question , what is the inward part , or thing signified ? it is answered , the body and blood of christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper . in the answer to a former question , why was the sacrament of the lord's supper ordained ? it is answered , for a continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of christ , and the benefits received thereby . one eminent benefit whereof is the remission of our sins through the bloud of christ shed on the cross , for without blood there is no remission ; the other is the feeding of the regenerate soul , or inward man , by the real , but spiritual or divine body and blood of christ , which contains in it our through sanctification , which is also a fruit or benefit of the sacrifice of the death of christ , forasmuch as we had not been capable of regeneration and of growth and degrees of sanctification by the feeding on and really receiving the spiritual and divine body of christ , without our reconciliation by his blood shed on the cross , which our church here calls the sacrifice of the death of christ. now as in this answer there is contained that great benefit of the remission of our sins in the blood of christ , and thereby of our reconciliation to god ; so in the answer mentioned before is contained that singular benefit of perfecting our sanctification by the nourishing and corroborating our inward man by eating or partaking of the spiritual or divine body and blood of our saviour , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper . [ verily ] that is to say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , truly , in counterdistinction to typically , or symbolically , the bread and wine being but types or symbols of this . touching which in the answer to the question , what are the benefits whereof we are made partakers thereby ? it is said , the strengthening and refreshing our souls by the body and blood of christ , as our bodies are by the bread and wine , viz. which are but types of the true , spiritual or divine body and blood of christ , but they have a very handsome analogy the one to the other . but we proceed to the following words , [ and indeed ] that is to say , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , reverâ , or really , not as one scoptically would make us to profess , that this real participation of the body and blood of christ , has no reality any where but in our phancy , which we call faith. to which sense the translator of the peaceable method for the re-uniting protestants and catholicks , speaks in his preface to his translation . to which exception , this notion of the primitive fathers , according to which our communion-service is framed , and our homilies allude to , and we so much insist upon , is not lyable . [ by the faithful ] and that only by them , which body and blood the faithful do not receive by champing it with their teeth , and swallowing it down their throat . but by a fervid and living devotional faith more than ordinarily kindled at the celebrating the holy eucharist , they draw this divine and celestial food ( the true manna from heaven ) into their hearts , whereby their inward man is fed and strengthened , and nourished up to eternal life , and so the new birth getting growth daily , arrives at last to the due measure of the stature of christ. . this is the priviledge of the faithful receiver . but for those that are devoid of this true and living faith , though the divine body and blood of christ is every where present to the faithful , yet they who are unregenerate , and consequently devoid of the divine life , are capable of no union therewith , nor of any growth or strength therefrom . but it is like the light shining into a dead man's eye , of which there is no vital effect . but for those who are regenerate , and consequently have a real hunger and thirst after the righteousness of god , though the great feast upon this heavenly food is more especially and copiosely injoyed in the celebration of the holy eucharist , yet they may in some good measure draw it in day by day by faith and devotion , as without the presence of the bread and wine we may at any time devotionally think of the sacrifice of the death of our saviour . but certainly this solemn institution of celebrating his last supper , being particularly and earnestly injoyn'd us by christ , if we conscientiously observe the same , it will have a more than ordinary efficacy in us for the ends it was appointed . . sixthly and lastly , as those words of the catechism [ the body and blood of christ which are verily and indeed taken and received , &c. ] have , considered in themselves , a very easie and natural sense so explained , as we have according to the analogy of the doctrine of the primitive fathers and our church's homilies that allude to them , explained them ; so do they not at all clash with those words of the rubrick affixed at the end of the communion-service , where it is affirmed , that the sacramental bread and wine remains still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored ( for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful christians ) and the natural body and blood of our saviour christ are in heaven , and not here , it being against the truth of christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one . there is i say , in this , no contradiction to what occcurs in the catechism , which affirms that there is a real presence of the body and blood of christ , which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the lord's supper , though here a real presence is denyed of the natural body of christ. but it is to be considered that this affirmation and negation is not of the same body of christ , and therefore can be no contradiction , and further to be observed , how the very rubrick suggests to us this distinction of the natural body of christ ( which is appropriated to his particular soul , and which hung on the cross and was crucified ) and his divine or spiritual body , the body of the essential life or spirit of the eternal logos , and therefore rightly termed the body of the logos incarnate , or of christ. and therefore when passages of the ancient fathers in the primitive times before the degeneracy of the church came in , may some of them favour a real absence , other a real presence of the body and blood of christ according as different places of the scripture might occur to their minds touching this matter , the controversy might well be composed by distinguishing betwixt the natural body of christ and his divine or spiritual body . according to the former whereof is the real absence , according to the latter the real presence of christ's body and blood , to be received by the faithful in the celebration of the holy eucharist . chap. viii . . monsieur maimbourg so cunning and cautious as not to attempt to bring the protestants to transubstantiation by their common consent in the real presence , but by a more general maxime , which , he says , we are all agreed in . . the aforesaid maxime with the explication thereof . . six supposals surmiz'd for the strengthening this engine for the pulling the protestants into the belief of transubstantiation . . a counter-engine consisting of sixteen common notions , in which , not only the romanists and we , but all mankind are agreed in . . an examination of the strength of monsieur maimbourg's engine , by recurring upon occasion to these common notions ; the first prop examined , viz. the churches infallibility by assistance of the spirit , and discovered to be weak from the dissention of churches in matters of faith in his sense . . from the promise of the spirit being conditional . . and from the predictions in the prophetical writings of a general degeneracy of the church . . the examination of the second prop , that would have transubstantiation believed upon the synodical decision of a fallible church . . the examination of the third prop , that would have the synodical decision pass into an article of faith. . the fourth prop examined by defining truly what heresy and schism is . . the fifth prop further explained by mounsieur maimbourg , in two propositions . . an answer to the two propositions . . i have , i hope by this time , sufficiently proposed and confirmed both the truth and usefulness of the distinction of the body and blood of christ ( which occurs in the primitive fathers ) into natural , and spiritual or divine . from whence it may plainly appear to any pious and uprejudiced reader , that the inference of a transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the real body and blood of christ , from a real presence of them in the lord's supper , is very weak and invalid . which monsieur maimbourg ( as well as the bishop of meaux , formerly bishop of condom ) though he take special notice of in his peaceable method , viz. that this real presence of the body and blood of christ in the lord's supper , is generally acknowledged by the protestants , chap. . whom he will have to hold , that the sacrament is not a figure or empty sign without efficacy , but they do maintain , saith he , that it does communicate unto us in a most real and effectual manner , the body of jesus christ to be the food of our souls ; and he will have monsieur claud himself acknowledge , that before this novelty of transubstantiation was introduced , every one believed that iesus christ is present in the sacrament , that his body and blood are there truly received by the faithful ; yet he is so wise and cautious as not to trust to the strength of this engine for the pulling us back into a belief and profession of that incredible hypothesis , but according to the fineness of his wit , has spread a more large net to catch us in and carry us captive , not only into this gross errour of transubstantiation , but into all other errours which the church of rome has broached , or may hereafter broach and propose as articles of faith. and therefore it is a point worth our closest consideration . . his general maxim is this , that that church in which are found two parties concerned , has ever had the power to determine all differences , and to declare that as matter of faith , which before there was no obligation to believe , and that we are bound to acquiesce in her decisions , under penalty of being schismaticks . by the church her declaring as matter of faith ( which seems to sound so harshly ) he does not mean , that the church has authority to frame new articles of faith , ( pag. . ) but that she is to act according to a rule , which is holy scripture , and tradition truly and purely apostolical , from which we have also received the holy scripture it self . and ( page . ) the church never did make , and undoubtedly never will make any new articles of faith , since it is not in her power to define any thing but according to the word of god , which she is always to consult with , as with her oracle , and the rule she is bound to follow . his meaning therefore must be this , that besides those plain and universally known articles of the christian faith , and acknowledged from the very beginning of christianity , such as are comprised in the apostles creed , there have been , and may be other articles of faith more obscurely and uncertainly delivered in scripture , which , until the church in a lawful synod or council has determined the sense of those places of scripture that appertain to the controversie , men have no obligation to believe , but go for the present , for but uncertain and indifferent opinions . but when once the true church , in which the parties differing in opinion are , and her lawful representative assisted by the holy ghost , ( as is affirmed chap. . pag. . ) a canonical assembly , which alone has full power and sovereign authority to say juridically ( chap. . pag. . ) it seemed good to the holy ghost and to us , has given definitive sentence touching the controversie , that which before was but an indifferent opinion , becomes now matter of faith , and is to be received as an article of faith by the dissenting party , upon penalty of being schismaticks and hereticks . this i conceive to be his precise meaning . but the great artifice of all is , that he will have this meaning of his to be the general opinion also of the protestant churches . who can , says he , ( page . ) question , but the protestant churches of england , france , germany , and switzerland and the low countries do hold as a fundamental maxim , that in such controversies as do arise concerning doctrine in matters of religion , the true church of which the dissenting parties are members , has full and sovereign power to declare according to the word of god , what is of faith , and that there is an obligation of standing to her decrees , under pain of being schismaticks . and ( page . ) i demand , saith he , nothing more for the present : i will content my self with what themselves do grant ; that that church of which the parties contesting are members , ( be she fallible or infallible ) has full power to decide differences , and her decrees do oblige under the penalty of being schismaticks . . now from this general maxim granted , as he conceives , on both sides , and which he does chiefly endeavour to prove from the carriage of the synod of dort , toward the arminians ( all which things to repeat here would be too moliminous and inconsistent with the brevity i intend , a full answer to monsieur maimbourg's method requiring some more able pen ) he declining , i say , all dispute touching the merit of the cause , the point of transubstantiation , he would hence draw us in , to the imbracing that doctrine merely because we were once of that church that has synodically determined for it , and consequently reconcile us to all the rest of the errours of the church of rome . but that we may not so easily be taken in this net , or pulled in by this engine , we will first examine the supposals that support the strength of it , or of which it does consist . the first and chiefest whereof is , that such synods to whose definitive sentence he would have us stand , are assisted by the holy ghost . the second , that whether they be or be not , we are to stand to their determination . the third , whatever matters of opinion ( as they are for the present but such ) are decided by such a synod , pass into articles of faith the fourth , that those that will not close with these decisions be they what they will , they are guilty of schism , as being bound to assent . the fifth , that these decisive synods or assemblies , are to decide according to the rule of the word of god. the sixth and last , that both the protestants and papists are agreed in all these . . now before i examine these particulars , these supposals , parts or props of his general maxim , by which he would draw the protestants again into the church of rome , and make them embrace transubstantiation , and all other superstitions and errours which they have synodically decided for matters of faith : i will , following the very method of this shrewd writer , propose not only one maxime , but several maximes , wherein both the romanists and we , and indeed all mankind are agreed in , and which therefore i will instead of maximes call common notions , in allusion to those of euclid . and the first shall be this , i. that which in it self is false , no declaring or saying it is true can make it true . ii. whatever is plainly repugnant to what is true is certainly false . iii. whatever is false can be no due article of a true faith or religion . iv. the senses rightly circumstantiated are true judges of their object , whether such an object be earth , air , fire , or water , body or spirit , and the like . besides that this is a common notion with all mankind , the incarnate wisdom himself has given his suffrage for it , in his arguing with s t thomas , iohn . v. . then saith he to thomas , reach hither thy finger , and behold my hands , and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side , and be not faithless but believing . what is this but the appealing to the truth of sense by our saviour himself ? and luke . v. . behold my hands and my feet that it is i my self , handle me and see , for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see i have . here is an appeal both to sense and reason at once , and that about the very body of christ , touching which the great controversie is raised . v. an essence or being that is one , so long as it remains so , as it is distinct from others , so it is undividable or inseparable from it self . vi. the whole is bigger than the part , and the part less than the whole . vii . in every division , though the parts agree with the whole , yet they disagree amongst themselves . so that the part a. is not the very part b. nor the part b. the very part c. nor can each part be truly and adequately the whole by the foregoing common notion . viii . the same body cannot be actually a cube and a globe at once , and there is the same reason of any other different figures of a body . ix . no revelation , the revealing whereof , or the manner of the revealing whereof is repugnant to the divine attributes , can be from god. x. no tradition of any such revelation can be true , for as much as the revelation it self is impossible . xi . no interpretation of any divine revelation that is repugnant to rightly circumstantiated sense and pure and unprejudiced reason , whether it be from a private or publick hand , can be any inspiration from god. xii . no body can be bigger and less than it self at once . xiii . that individual body that is already , nor ceaseth to be , cannot be made while it is already existing . xiv . one and the same body cannot be both present with it self and many thousand miles absent from it self at once . xv. one and the same body cannot be shut up in a box , and free to walk and run in the fields , and to ascend into the very heavens at the same time . xvi . and lastly ( to omit many other such self-evident truths or common notions ) it is impossible , that a man should swallow his whole body , head , feet , back , belly , arms , and thighs , and stomach it self , through his mouth , down his throat into his stomach , that is , every whit of himself into one knows not what of himself , less than a mathematical point or nothing . for if all be swallowed , what is there left of the man for it to be swallowed into , but a mere point or rather nothing ? . certainly all the world as well papists as protestants , as soon as they do but conceive the meaning of the terms , will assent to the truth of these propositions at the very first sight ; which therefore has made me call them common notions . let us now apply our selves to the use of them in the examining the strength of monsieur maimbourg's general maxime , wherein he will have the papists and protestants agreed . the first prop thereof is , that the true church is infallible by the promise made to her of being assisted by the holy ghost . but here i demand whether this promise be made to the universal church or any particular church or churches throughout all ages . that it is not made to the universal church throughout all ages , is plain , in that the parts thereof have been and are still divided in several matters of faith. that no such promise is made to any particular church or churches , is plain from hence , that these churches are not named in any part of the scripture ; which omission is incredible if there had been any such entailment of infallibility upon any particular church or churches . but of all churches , i humbly conceive , it is impossible it should be the church of rome , unless it be possible that all those common notions which i have set down , and in which all the world , even the church of rome her self , if they will speak their consciences , are agreed in , be false , which they must be if transubstantiation be true . and therefore let any man judge whether is themore likely , viz. that transubstantiation should be false or those common notions not true . . again , how does it appear that this promise of the assistance of the holy ghost is not conditional ? indeed christ says , iohn . . when the spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth , viz. the same spirit that is promised , chap. . v. , , . but the words of this pretended charter of infallibility are there set down more fully : if you love me keep my commandments ; and i will pray the father and he shall give you another comforter that he may abide with you for ever , even the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive — the promise of the assistance of the holy ghost for the infallibly concluding what is true , even from the words of this pretended charter of infallibility , is conditional , that is to say , if they so love christ as to keep his commandments , and become not worldly and carnal ( for the world cannot receive this spirit of truth ) then this spirit which leadeth into all truth shall assist them . wherefore as many as christ sends this infallible spirit to , he first fits them for it by mortifying the spirit of the world in them , and making them members of his truly holy church ; for the calling themselves holy church , makes them never a jot the more holy , if they really be not so , by the first common notion . and besides , if the words of this charter of infallibility had not been so express , yet in common sense and reason this condition would necessarily have been understood . forasmuch as nothing can be more absurd than to imagine the assistance of the holy ghost to be so cheap and trivial a thing , as to be procured for the concluding controversies arising or set on foot in the church , which are needless and frivolous , or more for satisfying curiosity than edification , and which tend to division , and tearing the church violently into parts , which was one before and in a salvable condition without this decision , as monsieur maimbourg confesses himself : or that the holy ghost will assist such assemblies as are worldly and carnally minded , and are called to conclude for the worldly advantage and interest of a worldly polity , who for the upholding and increasing their temporal empire ( whereby they lord it over the world , and ride on the necks of kings and princes ) call themselves spiritual . certainly when all christian truth tends to real and indispensable holiness , if mankind were not left to the liberty of their own will , but christ would have them so infallibly wise , he would all along have prepared them for it , by making them unexceptionably holy , that they might become wise in his own way and method . and lastly , there being predictions in daniel and the apocalpyse of an antichristian state in the church to come ( in which there will be such a general apostasie from the apostolick purity ) even according to their own interpreters , i demand what assurance we have that these times came not ( in a very great measure ) upon the church , some hundreds of years before transubstantiation was concluded on by the roman church , which therefore must much invalidate the pretence of the infallibility of any such councils . and our church of england , as all know , in her homilies , whether by inspiration or by mere solid reason and judgement refers the vision of the seventeenth chapter of the apocalypse , to the church of rome . and , i hope , to any unprejudiced reader , that has leisure to examine things , i have even demonstratively made out that truth in my exposition of the apocalypse , and most punctually and distinctly of all in my ioint-exposition of the thirteenth and seventeenth chapters thereof , synops. prophet . book . chap. , , , &c. with the preparatory chapters thereto . let any one read them that please , and in the due fear of god consider them . wherefore , to conclude , touching this first prop of his general maxim , whereby he would insinuate that synods , to whose definitive sentence he would have us to stand , are assisted by the holy ghost , it does not only not underprop , but undermine his grand maxim. forasmuch as we have no assurance that those roman councils which have concluded for transubstantiation were assisted by the holy ghost , but rather quite contrary . . the second prop is , that whether a synod be or be not assisted by the holy ghost , we are to stand to their determination . if the synod be not assisted by the holy ghost then they are fallible , and may be in the wrong : so that the sense is , whether the synod determine right or wrong , yet we are to stand to their determination . which as odly as it sounds , yet in some sober sense , i must confess ingenuously , for ought i know , may be true , that is , in such things as are really disputable , and which for no sinister base design , but merely for the peace of the church and her edification , it has been thought fit to make a synodical decision of the controversie . but is this colour enough for the church of rome's determination to be stood to ? of making the bread in the sacrament to be transubstantiated into the very body of christ that hung on the cross at ierusalem ( and has ever since his ascension been in heaven ) by the priest's saying over it , this is my body , the bread still remaining bread to all outward appearance , as before , so that christ is fain to be at the expence of a perpetual miracle to make the transubstantiated bread look like bread still , though it be really the body of christ that hung on the cross at ierusalem . which , as i have noted above , is against his wisdom and goodness , in that , if transubstantiation be a true article of the christian faith , this is the most effectual way imaginable to make men , if left to their own free thought , to mis-believe it , however force and cruelty might constrain them to profess it : and so it is against his goodness , to expose so great a part of his church to such bloody persecutions as this article has occasioned in the christian world. that christ should do a perpetual miracle not that will confirm mens faith , but subvert it , not to edifie his church but distract it , and lay all in confusion and blood ! let any one consider how likely this is to be . this therefore could never be a point , bonâ fide , disputable , but to such as were horribly hoodwinkt with prejudice , and blinded with a desire of having a thing concluded by the church which was of such unspeakable advantage , as they then thought , for the magnifying the priest-hood , though i believe nothing will turn more to their disrepute and shame in the conclusion . now i dare appeal to monsieur maimbourg himself , whether we are to stand to the determination of a fallible synod in a point , that , besides what i have already hinted , contradicts all those common notions , which i have above recited , and in which all mankind are agreed . and such is this point of transubstantiation . . now for the third prop , that whatever matters of opinion ( as they are for the present but such ) are decided by such a synod , pass into articles of faith ; this prop is also really a puller down of this general maxim. for by an article of faith , must be meant such an article as after the synodical decision , is necessary to be believed by all parties upon pain of damnation but to this i answer , first , no falshood can be an article of faith , nor can what is in it self false , by all the declaring in the world that it is true , become true , by the first common notion . and secondly , since the whole church before , in which arose the controversie , were in a salvable condition , how unchristian an act must this be , to put so many thousand souls in the state of damnation , by so unnecessary , nay mischievous a synodical decision ! and therefore what pretence can there be to the assistance of the holy ghost , which christ has promised his church , when they machinate that , which so manifestly tends , according as the synod acknowledges , to the damnation of such a multitude of souls , which before the decision were in a salvable condition , and also to most barbarous persecutions of their persons , as it is notoriously known in history , touching transubstantiation . . the fourth prop charges those with the guilt of schism and heresie that will not close with the above-said synodical decisions , be they what they will. in which matter we cannot judge whether the charge be right , unless we first understand what is truly and properly heresie and schism . the former whereof i demand what it can be , but a dissent from the catholick church even in those things in it , that are apostolical . for whatever national church is found to have all and nothing else in it but what is apostolical , or not inconsistent with the apostolical doctrine and practice , is most assuredly one part of that one catholick and apostolick church , which we profess our belief of in our creed . and for the latter it can be nothing else but a separation from the catholick church , or from any church that is part thereof , even then , when she approves her self to be catholick , that is to say even then , when she is apostolick , or , though she be apostolick , and offers no opinions or usages but such as are conformable to the usages and doctrines of christ and his apostles , or have no repugnancy thereto . to separate from the church in such circumstances as these , certainly is that great crime of schism ; but to separate from that part of the church which imposes opinions and practices plainly repugnant to the precepts of christ and his apostles , this is no schism but union with the truly antient catholick and apostolick church . and the declaring it schism does not , nor can make it so , by common notion the first .. and if it were schism to separate from such a church as propounds things repugnant to the precepts of christ and his apostles , the guilt of this schism is not upon them that thus separate , but upon those that impose such anti-apostolical matters . . the fifth prop , that these decisive synods or assemblies are to decide according to the rule of the word of god , the strength of this prop he endeavours more fully to display pag. . and he calls upon the brethren of the reformed churches to reflect seriously upon these two propositions he sets down . the first is , that as the word of god is infallible in it self , so certainly the judgment of him who truly judges according to this rule is also infallible : and consequently they are obliged to believe , that the church when she judges according to this rule or the word of god , does not only not err , but that she also cannot err . the second , that they [ the reformed ] are bound [ as well as we the romanists ] to believe that the church of god deciding controversies of faith , does judge according to the true sense of the word of god : because upon the matter it is concerning this very sense that she gives judgment betwixt the parties , who give it a different sense , and who are obliged in conscience to submit to her judgment , under pain of being schismaticks and hereticks , as their synod of dort has positively declared . . the first of these propositions may pass for firm and sound , provided that the meaning of her judging according to this rule is the giving the right and genuine sense thereof : of which she can neither assure her self nor any one else , but by being assured of that holiness , integrity , and singleness of heart , in those of the synod , that makes them capable of the assistance of the holy ghost ; and also that their decision clashes not with those indeleble notions in the humane soul , that are previous requisites for the understanding the meaning of not only the holy scriptures , but of any writing whatever . and unto which if they find any thing in the letter of the sacred writ repugnant , they may be sure it is a symbolical or figurative speech , but in other writings , that it is either a figurative speech or nonsense . he that has not this previous furniture , or makes no use of it , it is impossible he should prove a safe judgeof the sense of scripture . and if he runs counter to what is certainly true , it is evident his interpretation is false by the second common notion , and that he is not inspired by common notion the eleventh . touching the second proposition , i demand how any can be bound to stand to the judgment of any synod , if they decline the previous requisites , without which it is impossible to understand the right meaning of any writing whatsoever ; and whether their pretending to judge according to a rule , does not imply , that there are some common principles , in which all parties are agreed in , according to which , though they cannot discern that the synod has certainly defined right , yet if the synod run counter to them , they may be sure they have defined wrong , touching the very sense controverted between the parties . their professing they judge according to the rule , implies the rule is in some measure known to all that are concerned . nor does it at all follow , because the object of their decision is the very sense controverted between the parties , that the synod may give what judgment she will , break all laws of grammar and syntax in the expounding the text , much less contradict those rules which are infinitely more sacred , and inviolable , the common notions which god has imprinted essentially on the humane understanding . if such a violence be used by any interpreters of scripture , neither the synod of dort , nor any reformed church , has or will declare , that under pain of being schismaticks and hereticks , they are obliged in conscience to submit to their determination . chap. ix . . the examination of the sixth prop , by demanding whether the maxime monsieur maimbourg proproses is to be understood in the full sense , without any appeal to any common agreed on principles of grammar , rhetorick , logick and morality . . instances of enormous results from thence , with a demand whether the protestant churches would allow of such absurd synodical decisions . . that the citations of history , touching the synod of dort , prove not , that all synodical decisions pass into proper articles of faith , with the authors free judgment touching the carriage of that synod , and of the parties condemned thereby . . his judgment countenanced from what is observed by historians to be the sentiments of king james in the conference at hampton court. . and yet the sixth and last prop of the general maxime implies as much , which affirms , that both the protestants and papists are agreed in all the five foregoing supposals , or to speak more compendiously in that his general maxime . that that church in which are found the two parties concerned , has ever had the power to determine all differences , and to declare that as matter of faith , which before there was no obligation to believe , and that we are bound to aquiesce in their decisions under the penalty of being schismaticks . but i demand here of monsieur maimbourg , whether he will have his maxime understood in a full latitude of sense , and that immediately without recourse to any principles in which the synod and the parties are agreed , and counter to which , if any determination be made it is null , such as grammatical syntax and lexicographical sense of words ; and ( which are laws infinitely more sacred and inviolable ) the common notions ( as i said before ) essentially imprinted on the soul of man , either of truth or morality , whether without being bounded by these , the protestant churches as well as the pontifician are agreed , that we are to stand to the determination of a synod , under the penalty of being schismaticks . . as for example , if a synod should interpret , drink ye all of this , of the clergy only , and declare it does not reach the laity , though the apostles and primitive church understood it did : if notwithstanding s t paul's long exhortation against religibus exercise in an unknown tongue , cor. . they should by some distinction or evasion conclude it lawful . if when as it is said , thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image to worship and fall down before it , they should distinguish and restrain it only to the graven images of the heathen gods. if when as it is said , thou shalt have no other gods but me , they should distinguish gods into supream and subordinate , and declare , we may have many subordinate gods , but only one supream . if when as it said , honour thy father and thy mother , they should restrain it to a father or mother of the same religion with our selves , whether political father or natural , otherwise we are free from this command , and may despise both our natural parents and our prince , if they be not of the same perswasion with our selves . and whereas it is said , thou shalt not commit adultery , if they should understand it only of such an adultery as is committed for the mere pleasure of the flesh , not for the health of the body , or assisting the conjugal impotency of his neighbour . if the commandment against murther , or killing an innocent person , they should restrain to murther that is accompanied with delight in cruelty , not that which is committed to raise a livelyhood , or secure an interest the murtherer has espoused . if the commandment against stealing , they should restrain to such theft as is against men of our religion and perswasion , but that we may rob and steal from others without sin . and according to the same tenour they should interpret , thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour , &c. i demand , i say , whether monsieur maimbourg does conceive , that the protestants , nay , or his own party , are agreed that all such determinations are to be submitted to upon penalty of being schismaticks . let him ask the reformed churches if they be thus agreed , or rather let him ask his own conscience , if he think they are . wherefore it is plain , that what he produces out of the history of the synod of dort , reaches not the point that he drives at , that is to say , that it is acknowledged by them , that after a synod has decided the controversie , or given the sense of places of scripture controverted , be it what it will be , the decision is to be stood to , under penalty of being schismaticks , and that there are not some commonly known truths , common notions of reason and morality , with which if the determination of a synod does clash , it is ipso facto null , and a demonstration that the spirit of god did not assist . . i observe farther , that all the citations that are produced either by monsieur maimbourg himself , or his translator , in his preface and appendix , will not amount to the protestants professing that every controversie or controverted opinion , after the decision of the synod , passes into an article of faith , which properly signifies such a doctrine , as without the belief of which , when it is proposed , he that mis-believes it forfeits his salvation ; for hereby the synod of dort had damned all the lutheran churches . for my own part i must confess , that in points that are so obscure , intricate , and abstruse , and which , as touching the main part of them , have exercised and much baffled humane understanding through all ages , it had been a great piece of christian prudence for that synod to have made decrees against all bitterness of speech of the disagreeing parties one against another , and to have admonished them that they were bound , notwithstanding their difference of opinion , to live in mutual love one to another , which is the true badge of christ's genuine disciples , rather than to have exasperated one party against another , by making that doctrine authentick , which is really in it self from places of scripture , and reason so intricate and disputable . but it seems to have been the sleight of satan for the weakning the reformed churches that drove them to it . but i must say , on the other side , that when the synod had determined , they who were determined against , ought to have submitted to her determination in a thing so really disputable , and by this christian policy to have conserved the peace of the church , and out-witted the devil . for if they had had any modesty in them , they might very well in such abstruse , dark and disputable points have compromised with the synod , and preferred the peace and safety of the reformed churches , before the satisfaction of their own opinionativeness . . and that wise prince , king iames the first of blessed memory , seems to come near to what i have said , in the words delivered by his embassadour at the synod of dort , as they are cited by monsieur maimbourg himself in his peaceable method , pag. . that for the allaying those troubles , there was but that one only means which the church had ever made use of , a national synod , which was to be judge in the case , and to decide which of the two opinions was more conformable to the word of god : or at least how and in what manner the one or the other might be tolerated in the church of god. which latter part is cunningly left out by the translator , in his preface , pag. . but in those latter words , king iames plainly intimates his moderate sentiments touching the controversy , and that he would not have the decision made too rigidly and pinchingly on either side . and sutably to this excellent judgment of his , in the conference at hampton-court , when the puritans would have had the nine lambeth articles , which are more full and express against the points of arminianism , to be embodyed into the articles of our church , concluded on in the convocation holden at london , in the year . the king earnestly refused it . and in his instructions to his divines he sent over to the synod of dort , this remarkable one was amongst the rest , that they would advise the churches that the ministers do not deliver in pulpit to the people those things for ordinary doctrines , which are the highest points of the schools , and not fit for vulgar capacities , but disputable on both sides . and we may be sure when he was so careful in this for the foreign churches , he would not neglect to infuse the same good principles into his own . and that he could not easily believe that upon the decision of the synod of dort , that passed into an article of faith , without which there is no salvation , which yet he would have hid from the knowledge of the people . chap. x. . what synodical decisions are capable of passing into proper articles of faith , and what not . . the necessity of distinguishing the doctrinal decisions of synods into articles of faith , properly so called , and articles of communion . . the meaning of the king's answer to mr. knewstub , in the conference at hampton-court : and that synods have unlimited power to put what sense they please on places of scripture , and make them pass into articles of faith , not proved to be the opinion of the protestant churches . . that our english church is against it , largely proved out of her articles . . no article of faith pre-existent in scripture that cannot be fetched thence but by interpreting against the proleptick principles of rightly circumstantiated sense and common notions ingrafted essentially in the humane understanding . . of decision of points necessary to salvation , and to the justifying the christian worship , and those that are less necessary , and less clear , and lastly , those that have an insuperable difficulty on both sides . . monsieur maimbourg's general maxime , that it is not agreed in by the protestant churches , abundantly demonstrated , with a note of the subtilty of the romanists in declining the dispute of the particular merits of their cause , and making it their business to perswade , first , that their church is infallible . . a meeting with monsieur maimbourg once more in his own method , and thereby demonstrating that transubstantiation is grosly false , and consequently the church of rome fallible , with an hint of a true peaceable method of reconciling papists and protestants . . wherefore it seems needful to take notice of this distinction of the doctrinal decisions of synods , that some pass into , or rather are of the nature of the articles of faith , the knowledge of them being necessary to keep us from sin and damnation . and such were the doctrinal decisions of those ancient primitive councils , who out of scripture plainly declared , the truth of the divinity of christ and triunity of the god-head , without which the church would be involved in gross idolatry . and therefore the decisions of the controversies did naturally pass into professed articles of the christian faith , and such as our salvation depended on . but to imagine that every doctrinal decision of a synod passes into a proper article of faith , without which there is no salvation , and that a synod has power to make that an article of faith , before which men were safe and sinless as to that point , is to put it into the power of a synod to damn god knows how many myriads of men which christ dyed for , and had it not been for these curious , or rather mischievous decisions , might have been saved ; than which what can be more prodigious ? . whence we see plainly it is most necessary to make this distinction in doctrinal decisions of synods , that some may be articles of faith , others only articles of communion , that if any oppose or disparage the said articles , whether they be of the clergy or laity , they make themselves obnoxious to excommunication ; and if a clergy-man does not subscribe to them , he makes himself uncapable of ecclesiastical imployment . this is all that monsieur maimbourg can squeeze out of all his citations out of the story of the synod of dort , so far as i can perceive , or his translator in his preface and appendix , out of those he produces touching the church of england . . and that which his translator in his preface would make such a great business of , viz , this wise kings answer to m r knewstubs , at the conference at hampton court , when he was asked , how far an ordinance of the church was to bind men without impeachment of their christian liberty : to which he said , he would not argue that point with him , but answer therein as kings are wont to speak in parliament , le roy s'avisera . and therefore i charge you never speak more to that point how far you are bound to obey when the church has once ordained it . i say nothing more can be collected out of this answer , but that he modestly intimated his opinion , that he meant not that all synodical decisions passed into articles of faith , but may be only articles of communion in the sense i have already explained . and what i have already said , if seriously and considerately applyed to what he produces in his appendix , will easily discover that they prove nothing more touching the church of england , than what we have already allowed to be her doctrine touching the authority of synods . but that a synod without any limitation or appeal to certain principles in which both the synod and parties contesting are all agreed in , may by her bare immediate authority , give what sense she pleases on places of scripture , alledged in the controversy , and that her decision passes into an artiticle of faith , which the parties cast are bound to assent to , under the pain of becoming hereticks and schismaticks . nothing can be more contrary than this to the declarations of the church of england . so far is it from truth , that all the protestant churches are agreed in his grand maxime above mentioned . . let the church of england speak for her self , artic. . as the church of jerusalem , alexandria , and antioch , so also the church of rome has erred , not only in their living and ceremonies , but also in matters of faith. and article . general councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes . and when they be gathered together ( forasmuch as they be an assembly of men , whereof all be not governed with the spirit and word of god ) they may err , and sometimes have erred even in things appertaining to god , wherefore things ordained by them , as necessary to salvation , have neither strength nor authority , unless it may be declared that they be taken out of the holy scriptures . here our church plainly declares , that forasmuch as a council or synod consists of fallible persons , they can determine nothing necessary to salvation , but what they can make out that it is clearly , to any unprejudiced eye , contained in the scripture , not fetched out by weak and precarious consequences , or phanciful surmises , much less by a distorted interpretation , and repugnant to common sense and reason , which are necessarily supposed in the understanding of any scripture or writing whatsoever , as i have intimated above . and even that article ( . ) which the translator produces in his preface , in the behalf of monsieur maimbourg's grand maxime , do but produce the whole article and it is plainly against it . for the words are these : the church has power to decree rites and ceremonies and autority in controversies of faith ; and yet it is not lawful for the church to ordain any thing that is contrary to god's word written , neither may it so expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another . wherefore although the church be a witness and keeper of holy writ , yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same , so beside the same , ought it not to inforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation . it is true , the church is here said to have authority in controversies of faith. as certainly if any should raise new stirs in any national church , touching such points as the antient primitive synods have concluded for , in the behalf of the divinity of christ , and triunity of the god-head , pretending they have clearer demonstrations than ever yet were proposed against those decisions or any of like nature , which may concern the iustifiableness of our christian worship , and indispensable way of salvation , the church has authority as she ever had , in such controversies , to ratifie such articles of faith , but she is not said to have authority to make every synodical decision an article of faith , whether the nature thereof will bear it or no. nay her authority is excluded from inforcing any thing besides what is clearly enough contained in the scripture ( as assuredly those points are above mentioned , though with weak or cavilling men they have been made questionable ) to be believed for necessity of salvation . which is the proper character of an article of faith , according as the preface to the athanasian creed intimates . and monsieur maimbourg himself is so sensible of this main truth , that in the explication of his general maxime , he acknowledges that the church has no autority to coin any new articles of faith , but only to declare she has discovered them existent before in the scriptures , but not so clearly espi'd or discerned as by an assembled synod . . but certainly no article of faith , that is to say , no truth necessary to salvation can be said to be pre existent in the scriptures , and having lain hid to be discovered afterwards , that is not discovered but by such forced interpretations of the text , that are repugnant to common sense and reason . is not this a reproach to the wisdom of god , that he should inspire the holy penmen to set down truth necessary to salvation so obscurely , that the meaning cannot be reached without doing violence to common sense and reason , and running counter to those previous principles , without which it is impossible to make sense of any writing whatever ? or without interpreting one place of scripture repugnantly to the plain sense of another . which this article expresly forbids as unlawful . so plain is it that our church limits the authority of a synod to certain rules agreed of on all hands , against which they have no authority to define any thing : and plain places of scripture is one rule , contrary to which it is not lawful to interpret any either pretendedly or really obscure place . nor can any place at all be plain without the admittance of those proleptick principles of rightly circumstantiated sense and common undeniable notions essentially ingrafted in the mind of man , whether they relate to reason or morality . these , both synod and contesters , are supposed to be agreed on , and therefore no synodical decision repugnant to these according to our church in interpreting of scripture ( if i rightly understand her ) ought to have autority with it . . but as for doctrinal decisions , such as concern the justifiableness of the christian worship , and are of necessity to salvation , and such as , although either weak or willful cavilling men may make questionable , yet are clearly enough delivered in scripture , these , questionless , a synod has autority to determine as articles of faith. and such as have not the like clearness nor necessity , as also innocent and indifferent rites and ceremonies , when the one and the other seem advantagious to the church , such synodical decisions may pass into articles of communion , in that sense i have above explained . and lastly , as in that case of the synod of dort , when the points controverted have on both sides that invincible obscurity and intricacy , and there seems to be forcible arguments for either conclusion . what , i humbly conceive , is to be done in that case , i have fully enough expressed already , and therefore think it needless again to repeat . . in the mean time , i hope , i have made it manifoldly apparent that monsieur maimbourg's general maxime , viz. that the church , in which are found the two parties concerned , has ever had the power to determine all differences , and to declare that as matter of faith , which before there was no obligation to believe ; and that we are bound to acquiesce in her decisions under the penalty of being schismaticks , is not , ( especially as he would have his maxime understood ) agreed on by all churches , as well protestant as pontifician . and that therefore this snare or net , wherewith he would catch and carry captive the protestants into a profession of the infallibility of the church in synodical decisions ; so that the church must be first allow'd infallible , that we may glibly swallow down whatsoever she decides , even transubstantiation it self , with all other errours of the church of rome ; this net or snare , i hope , i have sufficiently broken . and i will only note by the bye , how the subtilest romanists declining the merits of the cause , labour tooth and nail to establish the absolute infallibility of their church . but our saviour tells us , by the fruit you shall know them . wherefore any man or company of men that profess themselves infallible , their infallibility must be examined by their doctrines , which if they be plainly any one of them false , their boast of infallibility most certainly is not true . . but forasmuch as an appeal to a maxime pretended to be agreed upon by both sides , both papists and protestants , is made use of with so much wit and artifice , to ingage the protestants to imbrace transubstantiation and the rest of the romish errours : i hope monsieur maimbourg will not take it amiss , if i civilly meet him again in his own way , and show him by an appeal , not only to one maxime but above a dozen at least of common notions , which i did above recite , and in which both papists and protestants , and all mankind are agreed , that it may demonstratively be made evident that the doctrine of transubstantiation is grosly false . for that which in it self is false , no declaring or saying it is true , though by the vote of an entire synod , can make it true , by the first of the common notions above-mentioned , chap. . sect. . secondly , whatever is plainly repugnant to what is true , is certainly false , and consequently can be no due article of a true faith or religion , by the second and third common notions . and therefore transubstantiation cannot pass into an article of faith by the authority of any synod whatever . thirdly , now that the doctrine of transubstantiation is false , is manifest from the assurance of our senses rightly circumstantiated . to which our saviour christ appeals , who is wiser than all the synods that ever were or will be , as was observed in common notion the fourth . but our senses assure us it is bread still , not the body of christ. fourthly , if transubstantiation be true , an essence or being that is one remaining still one , may be divided or separated from it self , which is repugnant to the fifth common notion . fifthly , if transubstantiation be true , the whole is not bigger than the part , nor the part less than the whole , which contradicts the sixth common notion . sixthly , if transubstantiation be true , the parts in a division do not only agree with the whole , but agree one with another , and are indeed absolutely the same ; for divide a consecrated wafer into two , viz. a. and b. this a. and b. are the same intire individual body of christ according to this doctrine , which contradicts the seventh common notion . seventhly , if the said doctrine be true , one and the same body may be a cube and a globe at once , have the figure of an humane body and of a pyramid and cylinder at the same time , according as they shall mould the consecrated bread , which is repugnant to the eighth common notion . eighthly , transubstantiation , if it be any truth at all , it is a revealed truth ; but no revelation the revealing whereof , or the manner of revealing is repugnant to the divine attributes , can be from god , by common notion the ninth : but if this doctrine of transubstantiation were a truth , it seems not to sute with the wisdom of god to reveal a truth that seems so palpably to overthrow and thwart all the innate principles of humane understanding , and the assurance of the rightly circumstantiated senses , to both which christ himself appeals , and without which we have no certainty of the miracles of christ and his apostles . and he hence exposes his church to be befool'd by all the lucriferous fictions of a fallacious priesthood . and besides this , the circumstances or manner of its first revelation at the lord's supper as they would have it , shows it cannot be ; for the consecrated bread retaining still the shape and all other sensible qualities of bread without any change , and that by a miraculous supporting them , now not inherent in their proper subject bread , which is transubstantiated into that very body that holds it in his hands , or seems so to do . i say , as i have also intimated before , to be thus at the expence of so vast a miracle here at his last supper , and to repeat the same miracle upon all the consecrations of the bread by the priest , which is the most effectual means to make all men infidels , as to the belief of transubstantiation , and to occasion thence such cruel and bloody persecutions , is apparently contrary to the divine wisdom and goodness ; and therefore neither pretended tradition nor fresh interpretation of the inspired text , can make so gross a falshood true , by the tenth and eleventh common notions . ninthly , if transubstantiation be true , one and the same body may be many thousand times bigger or less than it self at the same time , forasmuch as the least atom or particle of his body or transubstantiated bread is his whole body as well as the bigger lump according to this doctrine , which contradicts the twelfth common notion . tenthly , if this doctrine be true , the same individual body still existing and having existed many years , may notwithstanding be made whiles it already exists , which contradicts the thirteenth common notion . eleventhly , if transubstantiation be true , one and the same body may be present with it self and many thousands of miles absent from it self at once , be shut up in a box and free to walk in the field , and to ascend into heaven at the same time , contrary to the fourteenth and fifteenth common notions . and lastly , if this doctrine be true , a man may swallow his own body whole , head , feet , back , belly , arms , and thighs , and stomach it self through his mouth , down his throat into his stomach , that is to say , every whit of himself into one knows not what of himself , less than a mathematical point or nothing . this christ might have done , and actually did if he did eat the consecrated bread with his disciples , which contradicts the sixteenth common notion . wherefore since in vertue of one single maxim , monsieur maimbourg supposing the protestants as well as the paepists agreeing therein ( though in that , as i have show'd , he is mistaken ) would draw in the protestants to imbrace the doctrine of transubstantiation , and other ertors of the roman church , i appeal to him how much more reasonable it is , that he and as many as are of his perswasion should relinquish that doctrine , it contradicting so many common notions , which not only all papists and protestants , but indeed all the whole world are agreed in . and hence clearly discerning the infallibility of the roman church , upon which this and other erroneous doctrines are built ( such as invocation of saints , worshiping of images , and the like ) plainly to fail , that they should bethink themselves what need there is to reform their church from such gross errours , and to pray to god to put it into the mind of their governours so to do ; which would be a peaceable method indeed for the reuniting protestants and catholicks in matters of faith , and principally in the subject of the holy eucharist , as the title of his method has it . but to require an union , things standing as they are , is to expect of us that we cease to be men to become christians of a novel mode unknown to the primitive church , and under pretence of faith to abjure the indeleble principles of sound reason , those immutable common notions which the eternal logos has essentially ingrafted in our souls , and without which neither certainty of faith can consist , nor any assured sense of either the holy scriptures or any writing else be found out or understood . soli deo gloria . an answer to a discourse against transubstantiation gother, john, d. . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing g estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) an answer to a discourse against transubstantiation gother, john, d. . p. printed by henry hills ..., london : . reproduction of original in the harvard university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng tillotson, john, - . -- discourse against transubstantiation. transubstantiation. lord's supper. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - judith siefring sampled and proofread - judith siefring text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an answer to a discourse against transubstantiation hic est filius meus dilectus — ipsum audite . this is my beloved son — hear ye him , matth. . . permissu superiorum . london , printed by henry hills , printer to the king 's most excellent majesty , for his houshold and chapel . . introduction . if public applause , and popular acclamations of your own party , are to be believed , your discourse against transubstantiation has sufficiently shewed , that the scriptures cannot clearly demonstrate this miraculous change ; nor the perpetual belief thereof in the christian church , illustrate it ; and that there are all the reasons in the world against it . yet if a serious consideration , and weighing of your arguments in the scale of justice , be the deciders of the present debate , we shall find neither scripture , nor belief of the primitive church , nor any reason in the world , against transubstantiation . and therefore in christian duty , i think my self obliged , to endeavor , after my poor manner , a discovery of your winning artifices , and a removal of your plausible appearances ; dividing this following answer into two parts . in my first , i 'll examin , whether there be any tolerable ground for transubstantiation . and my second , is designed to counterpoise ( as you think ) your invincible objections . part i. i sub-divide my first part into five sections , comprehending the five pretended grounds , one or more of which , you suppose the church of rome builds this doctrin on . first , the authority of scripture . or secondly , the perpetual belief of this doctrin in the christian church . or thirdly , the authority of the church to make , or declare an article of faith. or fourthly , the absolute necessity of such a change , for the benefit of those who receive this sacrament . or fifthly , to magnify the power of the priest . sect . i. whether scripture authorise transubstantiation . before i begin to discuss whether scripture authorise transubstantiation : i think it convenient to premise two reflections , upon two considerable circumstances , delivered in your introduction . first reflection upon the word transubstantiation . in the very first entrance of your discourse , you complain it is a hard word ; and afterwards increase your complaint with this unparallel'd exaggeration . it was almost years before this mishapen monster of transubstantiation could be lick'd into that form in which it is now setled and established in the church of rome . bold assertions ought to be supported with great proofs : and monstrous vilifications of the divine goodness expiated with more than ordinary repentance . heaven forbid , that our blessed saviour should ever prove a mishapen monster , even to those who most oppose revealed truth expressed in transubstantiation . a hard word , and who can endure it ; a new word , and who will admit it ? st. hilary answers you in this reply to the arian heretics , importuning the primitive church of christ with the like expressions , say rather , if you speak wisely , will you not wage new wars against new enemies ; or take fresh counsels against new treasons ; or drink counterpoison against venomous infections ? nor was st. athanasius's interrogation of less force : are you offended at the newness of the name ? or affraid of the verity of the mystery ? the sentiment of these two great ornaments of the church , is the common practice of whole sacred antiquity ; according to the golden sentence of vincentius lyrinensis , the church ordinarily appropriates some new term to signifie more pathetically the true sense of faith. thus did the first oecumenical council write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consubstantial , and the arians could not digest the hardness of the word . thus did the ephesian prelates stile the b. virgin , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mother of god , which was no softer to the nestorians . and thus did the lateran bishops subcribe to transubstantiation , and the berengarians and modern opposers of the roman truth , expostulate with us for this word , and modestly term it a mishapen monster . second reflection upon the evidence of sense . here you bring in aristotle , who long since hath pronounced , there ought to be no dispute of the matter of sense . i beg pardon if i am not at leisure , to digress with you towards paganism . neither can i think you serious , when you quote the philosopher's determination , for the mystery of the lords supper , who never professed a revealed religion , and died many hundred years before christianity was promulgated and established . nor do i apprehend the least danger to be overburden'd , with the heavy matter of sense , when my way leads to the sublime matter of revelation . you cannot deny , sense , reason , and faith , are three various perfections ; so likewise are their objects distinguished . the * stagyrite never pretended sense should reach farther than to the accidents and appearance of things . and reasons employ was the contemplation of essence , nature , and substance . how could aristotle pronounce , the matter of sense was never to be disputed , when 't was always to be pry'd into , and regulated by reason ? yet we do not dispute with you , the prerogative of sense in the mystery of the sacrament . for we see the outward shape and appearance of bread and wine ; nor is tast wanting . all this is granted . unless then you perplex and embroil the question , sense reposes , without violation , quiet and contented in its own objects . nor ought you to believe , that reason can securely , without error , always determin in natural sciences , according to the received impression , from the visible sign , or object of sense . this maxim is given to novices entring the list of dialecticks , and admitted by the sect of peripateticks . so reason enlarges the greatness of the sun , and assures us , it far exceeds in bigness the terrestrial orb , tho' sense inclose it in the small circumference of a ball. sense indeed and reason combining together , and following the prescript of logick , are the proper deciders of philosophical contestations . sense pleads for no more , and if the reason of aristotle surviv'd , it would be abundantly satisfi'd with this voluntary concession . if for all this you resolve to seat reason in the chair of judicature , even where revelation intervenes , divine authority will easily rescue christian religion from the information of sense . reason following the dictamen of outward existence , told abraham , what appeared were men ; revelation corrected the mistake , and assured him they were angels . reason affirmed what descended in the shape of a dove , was that innocent creature : revelation reformed the judgment , and intimated it was the holy ghost . reason regards the species of bread as inherent to the proper substance : revelation changes that substance into the body of christ . abraham saw the figure and shape of men , and yet the substance of man was wanting . the feathers in appearance exhibited a dove ; the real substance was supply'd with the presence of the holy ghost . again , it was a maxim of philosophy , what is , was from something . and this evidence vanishes at the sight of revelation , which teaches the whole universe was created of nothing . 't was a principle , there 's no return from privation , to the habit , from death to life ; and this perswasion ceases , acknowledging our saviours resurrection . reasons reluctancy proceeding from senses information , must yield to the power of revelation , or we must cease to be christians . thus julian apostatised , and derided christians that they were so stupid , to blindfold reason with the bare word of a crede , you must believe . this in st. gregory nazianzen is recorded . st. clement in the second centurie relates the same of the greek philosophers , and confutes them by this definition of supernatural faith : faith which the greeks look upon as vain and unreasonable , is a voluntary anticipation , a pious yielding , the substance of things which are hop'd for , and an evidence of what is not seen , according to the divine apostle . faith is first according to this ancient father , a voluntary anticipation of reason ; and you wilfully anticipate faith by reason . secondly , faith is a pious assent to divine testimony ; and you boldly contradict our saviours own words . thirdly , it is the substance of things hop'd for ; and you reply there 's nothing to be hoped for of substance in the sacrament . lastly , faith is an evidence of things not seen ; and you contend reason evidences the contrary . reason rather with st. ambrose , who declares , we believe fisher-men ; we do not believe philosophers . st. cyril of alexandria , conceived it impossible to believe where reason intermixes inquiries . st. chrysostom avow'd the very letting of an , how can it be , is a beginning of incredulity . st. augustin avers , that if we first demonstrate and afterwards believe , we become both ignorant and incredulous . and our b. saviour adds the heavy burden of condemnation , as we read in st. mark , who will not believe , shall be condemned . this is sufficient to shew , that reason in matters of religion ought to take her information , not from sense , but from the proposal of god and divine scriptures . now i examin ; whether scripture authorise transubstantiation ? you say we pretend for this doctrin the authority of scripture in those words of our saviour , this is my body . so likewise do we pretend for the same doctrin , the authority of scripture from the chapter of st. john , which you passing over in silence as inconsiderable , i shall endeavor to manifest , as of great importance . let us not mix confusedly the thing which our saviour promises to give , and the manner of receiving the gift . a worthy receiving the gift ▪ is spiritually by faith. this is not contested . the question is , what is the thing promised to be given , whether the true body of christ or not ? our saviour gives two promises , both of the same thing , his own substance ; both contained in the verse of st. john , the bread that i will give , is my flesh ; behold the promise of himself , in the sacrament : and , which i will give for the life of the world , intimates the promise of himself to the cross . the promises are distinguished ; the substance is the same ; because the same spirit of truth which delivers two promises , assures one substance . what is then this bread which christ promised to give in the sacrament ? christ answers it is my flesh , and that flesh which he will give for the life of the world. was this a piece of bread , or the true substantial body of christ ? this is peculiarly seconded from our saviours appeasing the murmur of the capharnait's , and raising their incredulity to the mystery of his flesh , by presaging the resuscitation of his own dead body , what if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before ? if i should now return your sense of the sacrament for a reply to our b. saviour , and say , we understand the promise given of your flesh , to be eaten in figure only , not in substance ; would not the reader straight subsume , then only the figure of his body ascended into heaven , and so void our b. saviours argument , and destroy the miraculous ascension ? another discontent succeeding among the jews , caused our saviour to instance once more the power of his divinity . it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing . this spirit they were promised to receive in the sacrament , and this spirit is truly christ , god and man. the flesh profiteth nothing , if we believe st. austin ; as science , according to st. paul , puffeth up : science all alone , barren of charity ; for so properly , science puffeth up . add charity to science with the divine apostle , and then science flourishes and is fruitful . the body of christ as a mortal and fading creature profiteth nothing . joyn god to man , and the flesh of christ profiteth exceedingly . thus it profited on the cross , and profiteth in the sacrament . st. cyril of alexandria giving the same literal exposition , says , when christ called himself spirit , he did not by this deny , that he was flesh ; and so concludes , that this spirit was christ himself . if this spirit then be christ , who promised to give in the sacrament , what he promised to give for the life of the world , on the cross ; who will question that he did not perform what he promised ? or would promise what he could not effect ? 't is dangerous to limit the power of the deity ; 't is impious to question the promise of god. and yet alas ! some men are so enamoured with what they can feel to have some substance in it , that idolizing with sense , they are not sensible how christ promised to give himself in the sacrament ; they question the very gift it self , and endeavor to make good these two things , st . that there 's no necessity of understanding these words of our saviour , this is my body , in the sense of transubstantiation . ly . that there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . these two general arguments deserve to be the subject of two chapters . chap. i. of the necessity of understanding our saviours words in the sense of transubstantiation . if there be any such necessity ; you pretend it must be , either st . because there are no figurative expressions in scripture , or else because a sacrament admits of no figure . ly . you are willing to stand to the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome in this controversie . these two main proofs shall be considered in the following articles . article . examen of your first proof . i know not upon what account you say , that if our saviours words , can be taken in the sense of the roman catholic assertion , this must be ; either because , there are no figures in scripture ; or because , a sacrament admits of no figure . had any of our authors made use of such reasons , or inclined the least this way , you would not have omitted such authority . but if you write what you have not read , for the pretended ground of transubstantiation ; i 'm sure you have not writ what you have read , for the real understanding thereof . i shall remind you of some few motives , which induce roman catholics to believe our saviours words can import no less than the verity of transubstantiation . first motive . the written law shadowed future truth , and this truth was christ . so we read moses sprinkled with blood , the book , and people , saying , this is the blood of the testament which god hath enjoyned unto you . the blood of the ancient covenant was the figure of the blood of jesus christ in the sacrament . this appears from the words of our saviour in the institution ; this is my blood of the new testament , which is shed for many . this miraculous concord of the old and new covenant : this repetition of the very same phrase , is an evidence beyond denyal , that the former was a symbol of the latter . and since you cannot understand the latter of christs blood spilt on the cross ; because you pretend st. luke says , his blood was then shed , which is shed for many , which preceded the crucifiction : it follows necessarily to be understood , of the true blood of christ in the sacrament . because a figure is not without the reality , nor a shadow without a true body . second motive . as it is true that jesus took bread , so are we taught , that he blessed it . and what he brake , and what he gave to his disciples , was without doubt , what he had blessed or consecrated . the question is , what this was ? none of the evangelists say , that he gave bread ; they say jesus took bread , and jesus assures , what was blessed , broken , and given , was his body , saying , this is my body . if it was then bread , as the evangelists note , jesus took bread ; and after the divine benediction or consecration became his body , as jesus affirms , this is my body : then without extorting or racking of scripture , without adding figurative glosses , ( and wicked is the man who superads to scripture ) the facile sense of scripture readily leads to the plain article of transubstantiation . third motive . the circumstances of our saviour urge for the literal acceptation of this is my body . for jesus spoke to his apostles ; to his dearest friends ; preparing to bid his last adieu ; and then , if ever , sincerity discloses it self , without difficulty , and after a facile and intelligible method . he 's wisdom it self , and knew how to phrase his thought . he 's omnipotent , and so can surmount what human frailty might conceive as impossible . he 's goodness it self , and cannot deceive us . and therefore said what it was , and what he said was true . fourth motive is the conformity of scriptures . for if christ had ever design'd to signifie , that the eucharistical bread was only the figure of his body , it would surprize us what inclin'd him to make use of this speech , this is my body ; and after such a choice , to leave it barely without explanation , when he so carefully taught his disciples the true meaning of many easier parables : 't would astonish us , finding the three evangelists with st. paul ( who testifies he received the same doctrin from revelation ) not constrain'd , nor combining to joyn in expression , yet to repeat all the same words , without the least alteration . and we read in latin , greek , syriac , arabic , all versions and languages , nothing but the same expression , and equal confirmation . fifth motive . the very same interpretation of other scriptural passages , wherein are grounded the chief articles of christian belief , enforces the sequel of transubstantiation . for , i believe , adhering to scripture as the rule of faith , that this passage , the word was made flesh , imports a substantial union . i believe the consubstantiality of the son with the father , included in these words , i and my father are one . i believe one divine essence of three distinct persons revealed , in these three are one . upon these testimonies of holy writ substantially understood , i quietly repose my belief of the incarnation of our saviour ; the son's divinity ; and of the sole and undivided nature of the blessed trinity . this method is further secur'd by the consent of all those who are , and pretend to be true members of christ's religion . now if i follow this determination , so authorized , and so certain ; if i follow this motive of my own conviction in other like articles , extending the same uncontrol'd interpretation , to this is my body , i must necessarily grant this inference , this is my substantial body . thus my faith seeks to be one ; as scripture is one , and god one truth . as this literal reflection is sincere and pious ; the figurative explanation of our saviour's words wants no fallacy nor impiety . for , if i may presume to give this sense to our saviour's words , this is not my substantial body , this presumption ought to be strongly grounded , as allowable , just , and in equity to be follow'd . and if so , then i may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alledg'd articles . for the scripture urges not more out of this passage , the word was made flesh , the substantial connexion of the second person with human nature ; or out of these words , i and my father are one , the identity of the son with the father ; or out of , these three are one , the unity of nature in three divine persons ; than out of this is my body , the substantial body of christ . if therefore i might lawfully understand our saviour's words in an empty figurative exposition , saying , this is not my substantial body , i might rightly deduce ( following the same interpretation ) then the word was not substantially made flesh , and so deny the mystery of the incarnation ; i and my father are not substantially one , and so prosess arianism ; these three are not substantially one ; and so dividing the divine nature , constitute many gods. can such a figurative explanation be thought a sincere part of the true religion , which undermines , and utterly destroys the whole fabrick of christianity ? and ought not my own motive in the most considerable mysteries of christianity , contained in scripture , be to me the same in the determination of the true sense of this is my body ? sixth motive . the true sense of our saviour's words may be gathered from the doctrin which the learned and ancient fathers maintain'd against incroaching heresie . what if i should now advance , that the successors of the apostles upbraided heretics for denying the eucharist to be the flesh of christ , that flesh which suffered for us upon the cross ; would you not look upon it as an invincible undertaking ? and yet the glorious martyr st. ignatius , elected bishop of antiochia thirty eight years after our saviour's passion , plainly delivers . they ( certain heretics , whose names he thought convenient not to mention ) do not receive eucharists , or sacrifices , because they do not confess that the eucharist is the flesh of our saviour jesus christ , which flesh suffered for our sins , and which the father raised again by his benignity . nor is it enough to say , these heretics could not admit the eucharist to be a figure , because they deny'd that christ had true flesh . this perchance is true . but it is not here the sense of the martyr , who says expresly , that they reject eucharists , because they do not confess , that the eucharist is that flesh which suffered for our sins . the flesh which suffered for us , and rose again , was it a figure , or was it true flesh ? if i should affirm that the language of the second century , spoke after the same manner , and told us that they were taught the eucharist was not common bread , but was the flesh of our saviour made man , and jesus incarnate ; would you not reply it was a roman invention ? and yet st. justin the martyr leaves this convincing testimony . we do not receive these things as common bread , or common drink : but as by the word of god jesus christ our saviour being incarnate , had both flesh and blood for our salvation : so are we taught that this food , by which ( chang'd by digestion in our bodies , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) our flesh and blood are nourish'd , eucharistated [ or transformed ] by the prayer of this divine word , is the flesh and blood of that incarnate jesus . if for all this you should reply , that the eucharistic food is onely figuratively the flesh and blood of christ ; then might the reader likewise aver , christ being incarnate had onely figuratively both flesh and blood. for 't is more to say , the blessed bread is the flesh and blood of incarnate jesus , because this speech implies a substantial change , than to say , jesus being incarnate had both flesh and blood , because this speech can signifie no more than a substantial union . and to say less in either , is to diminish and change the martyr's sense . if i should instance the third age was a faithful imitator of the precedent ; so dividing between the divine mystery , and the grace of the mystery , that the body of man received the body and blood of christ , and the soul was replenished with the grace of faith , or effect of the sacrament ; would you not be surprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in communion ? and yet tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this truth ; saying , our flesh is sed with the body and blood of christ , that our soul may be filled with god. again , these words , our flesh is fed with the body and blood of christ , cannot be deluded in an eating by faith , because the body of man is incapable of an act of faith. if i should continue the fathers of the fourth century , when the church was beautified , and enriched with an innumerable offspring of pious and learned children ; if i should alledge how these worthy champions of christian purity forbid posterity to judge of the sacrament by tast , and taught them the body was given them under the species of bread ; and as christ changed water into wine , so did he wine into his own blood ; would you not swear this language was unknown in those times ? and yet both the greek and latin church conspire in this doctrin . hearken to that grecian prelate st. cyril of jerusalem , and acknowledge the plain truth of these words . do not judge the thing by tast , but by faith. under the species of bread is given to thee the body ; and under the species of wine is given to thee the blood. christ formerly changed water into wine ; and is he not to be believed , changing wine into his blood ? nor are these words of the learned latin bishop gaudentius of less force . jesus giving to his disciples bread and wine , said , this is my body : let us believe , it is what he said . truth is incapable of error . the creator of all nature , and lord , who produces bread from the earth , made again of this bread ( because he can , and promised ) his proper body ; and because he did make wine of water , of wine he makes his blood. i know there are several expressions and comparisons in the fathers , which only declare a spiritual change effected in the worthy receiver . but do not the foregoing authorities prove something more , a change not in the receiver , but in the thing received ? and this can be no less than a substantial one . for when catholics argue , that as christ changed water into wine , so does he bread into his body : protestants readily deny the sequel , because this would be to profess transubstantiation . if this reasoning of catholics include a substantial change of the bread into christ's body , as you grant ; how comes it to pass , that the very same words , and very same reason in the father's writings , must have quite another interpretation ? if the fathers had design'd to have writ for transubstantiation , they could but have said what they do , and you might still explicate them in a spiritual sense , or wrested interpretation . if i should urge on , that i rightly profess the consecrated bread transfigur'd and transelemented into the body of christ ; would you not exclaim , these are as hard and mishapen words as that of transubstantiation ? and yet many fathers of this fourth age after christ , use the same expressions . witness this language of st. ambrose , as often as we receive the sacraments , which by the mystery of prayer are transfigurated into flesh and blood ; witness this speech of st. gregory nyssene . i properly believe the bread sanctified , by the word of god , to be changed into the body of god the word . and this is effected , the nature of what appears being transelemented , by vertue of benediction , into the body of the word christ . i close up this motive with the decision of the synod in egypt , celebrated before the second oecumenical council , to both which presided st. cyril of alexandria . these fathers composing a creed , inserted these words in the end of their introduction , this is the faith of the catholic and apostolic church , in which the east and west agree . then immmediatly follows their creed , divided into many articles . what if their seventh article should decree the flesh received in the sacrament to be the very flesh of christ , which made one person and two natures in one son ; and not two sons , one of god , divine ; and another of the blessed virgin , human , as nestorius heretically taught ; you could require nothing more for transubstantiation . and yet these are their words , we do not receive in the sacrament our saviour's flesh , as common flesh : god forbid . nor again , as the flesh of a sanctified man , or associated to the word by unity of dignity , but as the true vivificative , and proper flesh of the word himself ; truly the flesh of him , who for our sake was made , and called the son of man. the council admitting with nestorius what was received to be true flesh , defines against the heretic ( who pretended our saviour , as he was the son of the virgin mary , had not only a nature , but likewise a human person , and so constituted two persons in christ ) that we do not receive this as common flesh , or the flesh of an ordinary person . secondly , the council adds , nor as the flesh of a sanctified man , or associated to the word by the unity of dignity , which excluded that accidental union , by which the nestorians joyned together two persons , that of the son of god , and that of the son of man , in one christ . thirdly , the council declares , they receive it as the all-vivificating , and proper flesh of the word , that word who was made and called man , professing one person in christ , to whom this human nature properly belonged . now if all this were to be expounded of a figure , what wresting would there be of this article ? and how could the council conclude the proper flesh of christ was that of the divine word , one person and two natures , and speak of neither , but of a pure figure ? the sacrament might have been a figure of the passion , and yet two distinct persons admitted in christ . seventh motive . the council of trent declares , that because jesus christ our redeemer , truly said , that 't was his own body , which under the appearance of bread he offered and gave to his disciples , the church of god was alwaies perswaded , that this wonderful change was operated by the conversion of the substance of bread into the substance of christ's precious body , and therefore renews the canon of transubstantiation . and you know , that as our saviour commanded his apostles to preach the gospel , so did he oblige the people to receive the promulgated word , and be obedient to their pastors . the obligation of this obedience , will last to the end of the world : and consequently in the mean time will be still due , to the true successors of the apostles , with whom christ had promised to remain till the consummation of the world. you cannot deny but the romish church has true succession from christ and his apostles , and we are sure you have left this society of true successors . obedience therefore to the true successors of the apostles , who have defined this catholic verity , obliges me , in the last instance to believe , this is my body , can import no less than the sense of transubstantiation . i think a slight consideration of the foregoing motives , easily shews catholics pretend not , as you would have them , that if transubstantiation can be , it must be , either because there are no figures in scripture , or because a sacrament admits of no figures . you seem to be perswaded of this , your self , turning these imaginarie reasons against the roman catholic assertion . but alass ! they are no more against , than they were for transubstantiation . for our saviour's words may be literally true , and yet many figures admitted in scripture . there may be given many spiritual interpretations of the sacred text , and yet this passage , the word was made flest , litterally signifie that the second person of the blessed trinity was substantially man. there are questionless in the old and new testament many figures , and neither lookt upon as a meer figure . there may be then many figures in holy writ , and this is my body , not at all be concerned in these figurative interpretations . nor is your second reason more efficacious than the former . for these words , this is my body , literally received , are not at all prejudiced , by an outward sign or figure of a sacrament . the very notion of a sacrament in st. austin's opinion , shews part , and hides the remainder . what appears in the sacrament of the altar , is a sign , an accidental shape , or resemblance , and this is the object of sense . what is understood and believed , can be no less than what our blessed saviour warrants us of , his own body . how then is the substance of the elements not changed , because the eucharist is a sacrament , and a sacrament is a sign ? a man is an image of god , yet a substance . the divine son is a figure of his father's substance : and who can wrest from him the same substance with his eternal father ? 't is true , it was an arian error , the son 's an image ; therefore not god. is your illation stronger , the eucharist is a sacrament or sign , therefore it is not the substance ? this error ought to correct yours . now this is my body may be taken , i think , in the sense of transubstantiation , and the eucharist remain a sacramental sign , or resemblance . had you foreseen this answer , i presume you woul have smothered this instance , viz. when he gave the cup , he said , this cup is the new testament in my blood , where first the cup is put for the wine , and if any thing be changed , it must be the cup. the speedy quitting of the contested proposition , this is my body , is a ready confession that you were unable to discover therein couch'd any figurative exposition , and so hasten to busie your reader with a metonymy contain'd in the word cup , put for wine . had this been so , how easily could sense and reason have unfolded , what appeared difficult ? but why do i say , difficult ? it is our common language , to ask for a cup or glass , when we mean drink . nor was the phrase amongst the jews otherwise . this is cleared from the triple repetition of the same phrase in s. paul to the corinthians , drink this cup. if this then was the proper speech , and our saviour did not speak improperly , who could be so remote from sense , to guess , the cup or chalice was to be drunk ? would you not think that person extravagant , who hearing you ask ( in a place where people were drinking wine ) for a glass , should apprehend you would swallow down the glass , and so the vessel be turn'd into your substance ? which must be true , if it be false , that sense and reason without the support of some father assistance , could be deceived in so facile and usual an expression , of a cup or glass , put for wine . if then the holy ghost had used in scripture the cup for wine ; i know not who could have refused such a figure . and because i find no metonymy , no figure couch'd in this is my body , i exclude all figurative insinuations . i said if the holy ghost had put the cup for wine . wine you say , the divine spirit writes blood , and so the cup is metonymically put for the contained drink , in the chalice , or blood. for what we read in st. luke , this cup the new testament in my blood , is equivalent to , this blood , and so the cup is blood. if you suspect the supposal , harken how st. matthew phrases it , this is my blood of the new testament ; which is repeated by st. mark , and who dare contradict two divine testimonies ? if the spirit of god was careful to plain so small a nicety , in so familiar a phrase , is it credible that he would have omitted , the most important in the world ? which he has done , if this is my body be but a figure of his body , since the scripture discovers nothing to diminish the reality of christ's true body . what you add , if any thing be chang'd , it is the cup into the covenant , is very strange . till you make this good by reason , or evince it from scripture , give me leave not to credit your authority . and if you think the word testament , in this passage this cup or blood is the new testament , excludes real blood , st. paul proves quite the contrary , demonstrating , if there be a testament , there must be true blood , and so concludes , whereupon neither the first testament , was dedicated without blood , and without sheding of blood is no remission . lastly , you urge , besides his blood which is said to be shed , which was not till his passion , which followed the institution and first celebration of this sacrament . we do not dispute with you the actual effusion of christ's natural blood , which was a sanguinary sacrifice . but can you deny that in those words you alledge from st. luke , where christ's blood is said to be shed , is contained a mystical sacrifice ? st. austin calls this , the oblation of christ's body on the altar : st. cyprian four times in the same epistle , the dominical sacrifice : st. gregorie nazianzen , the unbloody sacrifice . two sacrifices we acknowledge with the holy fathers , different in manner , not distinct in substance . the same blood spilt naturally once upon the cross , and mystically offered daily on the altar . because the same caracteristical mark of true blood is attributed to both the sacrifices . ( viz. ) the remission of sins by effusion of blood. hence st. matthew speaking of christ's blood in the sacrament , says , that it is shed for many for remission of sins . and st. paul in the foregoing lines , without sheding of blood is no remission . article ii. examen of your second proof . you are willing to stand in the second instance , to the plain concession of many learned roman catholic writers , concerning the necessity of understanding our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation . and because you begin with the concession of the acute schoolman , let us examin what was the opinion of scotus . scotus distinguishing two sorts or classes of people , the worthy and unworthy receivers , thus delivers himself . it is undoubtedly to be held , the good not only sacramentally , but also spiritually receive ; the bad , only sacramentally ; that is , subjoyns scotus , under the visible species , the flesh of christ , that flesh which was born of the virgin mary ; they do not mystically receive the benefit of the sacrament . this he proves from st. gregorie the great 's determination , the true flesh and true body of christ is received by sinners and unworthy communicants , in essence not in benefit . then scotus quotes st. austin for the same evidence , and concludes with the testimony of st. paul , to the same purpose . this acute schoolman asking afterwards ( q. . ) whether the bread be changed into the body of christ : answers , ( num . . ) that it is changed into the body of christ . 't is true , he brings in one objecting ( n. . & n. . ) that our saviour's words may receive a more facile sense than that of transubstantiation . and scotus replies , the more difficile sense is not to be admitted , if it be not true ; but if it be true , and can be proved evidently to be so , then the more difficile ought to be chosen ; and this is the case of the present article . he pushes on the resumpt . but why did the church prefer the more difficile sense , when she might have chosen a more facile in appearance ? i answer , says scotus , the scriptures are expounded by the same spirit , by which they were dictated ; and 't is to be supposed , the catholic church expounded them by the same spirit , by which truth is delivered , taught by the spirit of truth , for it was not in the power of the church to make that true , but in the power of god the institutor . now what is this to your purpose ? for if you take the concession of scotus , you must profess both the real presence and transubstantiation . and this necessarily deduc'd from scripture . because the scripture efficaciously moved the church to declare for the same doctrin , according to scotus's words ; it was not in the power of the church , to make that true or not true . the church then necessarily followed scriptural evidence . and what was necessarily compulsive to the church , was not otherwise to scotus , who tacitly intimated the cogent necessity of scriptures authority , for the real change of the substance of bread into the body of christ , instancing it was determined by the church for transubstantiation . bellarmin was of opinion , that according to the two literal senses of this is my body read in the acute school-man , the sole evidence of scripture , could not in scotus's mind , abstracting from the declaration and universal practice of the church , evidently compel the admittance of transubstantiation . bellarmin was severe enough upon scotus . yet he diminished much this severity , saying , the acute schoolman added , ( because the catholic church has declared in a general council , the true meaning of scripture ) transubstantiation may manifestly be proved from scripture so declared . but of what mind scotus was , the foregoing page will sufficiently remind the unprejudic'd reader . nor can you conclude bellarmin himself , granted evidence of scripture was wanting for the roman cause , because he said scotus's assertion was not altogether improbable . in like manner you may argue , against the strongest demonstration in nature . you may frankly concede an acute objection , not altogether improbable , and notwithstanding this concession , stick fast to the former evidence of your demonstration . this is bellarmin's case , as the following words out of the same place testifie . for although , adds bellarmin , scripture , which we have heretofore alledged , may seem so clear to us that it can compel a moderate man , ther 's evidence of scripture for transubstantiation , and bellarmin's opinion ; yet the acuteness of bright understandings leaves some doubt : this is what is not altogether improbable . but we ought to reflect , these words of bellarmin , not altogether improbable , are grounded upon a meer supposal of two literal senses , which touches not our controversie . for bellarmin plainly denies , a figurative exposition probable of our saviours words , speaking of things as they are instituted . for thus he argues , these words , this is my body , necessarily infer , either the true change of bread as catholics believe ; or a metaphorical mutation , as calvinists contend . this calvinistical sense he had already , declared as improbable , saying , we will generally demonstrate that 't is not probable our saviour would figuratively speak . and for the lutherans error holding both substance of bread and the body together in the sacrament , he says it shares not in the sense of our saviour's words . thus the true change of bread into the body of christ naturally follows according to bellarmin , from the plain and evident text of scripture . durandus divides the substance of bread into matter and form. then adds , the bread is converted by conseration into the body of our lord ; and the form perishing , the matter is animated with the soul of christ . a strange manner of explication . but what doth this avail your cause ? for if the form of bread perishes in durandus's explication , and the matter be animated with the soul of christ , the remaining accidents can neither claim matter nor form of bread , and so the whole substance of bread is wanting . but durandus calls your sentiment , holding bread remains after consecration , the doctrin of profane novelty . suarez and vasquez , treat durandus , as one divine doth anothers opinion . but you might have well omitted their names , for one that is moderately learn'd in divinity , knows how copiously they both shew from scripture and fathers , the roman catholic doctrin . occham . you have not faithfully delivered this divine's authority , who thus answers to the second query . i say that in the sacrament is true transubstantiation . then he delivers four manners of understanding this transubstantiation . . that the bread may remain with the body . . that the substance of the bread may suddenly be removed away . . that it may return to matter the common subject of all , or receive some other form. . that it may be reduced to nothing . he admits all four as possible . the first manner he prefers in these words , which are your objection , the first manner may be held , because it is neither repugnant to reason , nor to scripture , and is more reasonable , and easier than the other ( three ) manners . these are scholastic opinions . and therefore this divine leaving them , adheres to the true sense of transubstantiation in these following words ; yet because we find extant the churches determination contrary to this exposition , and all doctors universally hold that the substance of bread remains not there , ( in the sacrament ; ) therefore i also hold , that the substance of bread remains not , but the species of bread , and with this outward shape of bread coexistent the body of christ . will you acknowledge what this divine holds and professes ? gabriel biel. you have corrupted biel. these are his words ; although it be expresly delivered in scripture that the body of christ is truly contain'd under the species of bread , yet we find not express in the canon of the scripture , how the body of christ is there , whether by conversion of some thing into himself , or whether without conversion , the body begins to be with the bread , the substance and accidents of bread remaining . this author is so far from speaking , what you force him to say , as to any thing expressed in scripture , a man may believe that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration ; that he proves we ought to believe the contrary sense contained in scripture . and this upon two accounts . . although the manner of christ's existence in the sacrament , be not in this divine's opinion , evidently couch'd , yet it is sufficiently particularized , in the canon of the scripture . for if this which was bread , is christ's body , according to our saviour's words this is my body , and christ's true body be there expresly delivered in scripture , as biel affirms , it necessarily folows , that the substance of bread is changed . for how can this ( which was bread ) be christ's true body , and not lose its own substance ? . he expounds the scripture after this same manner from the lateran council , st. austin , st. ambrose , and then concludes , from these and many other authorities of saints , 't is held that the body of christ is in the sacrament by transubstantiation of the substance of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ . does this favour the protestants ? you named , but expressed not melchior canus's authority , who says , the body and blood of christ was offered in the sacrifice , and his proof is the evident testimony of st. luke . this i think prejudices us not in the least . petrus ab alliaco . you have misrepresented ab alliaco , who disputing upon meer possibilities , proposes ( among others ) two questions . first , whether it is not possible that the body of christ may remain united to the substance of bread in the sacrament . secondly , whether the substance of bread may not be suddenly removed away by divine power , the accidents only remaining with christ's body . this divine thinks neither impossible , and prefers the first as more rational and conformable to scriptures . these are his words . 't is possible the body of christ may assume the substance of bread , and this manner is not repugnant to reason , or to the authority of scripture ; it is more easie and more rational than that manner , which pretends the substance of bread leaves the accidents . now for the second . it is not impossible to god , that the substance of bread may be suddenly elsewhere convey'd , the species remaining in the place coexistent to the body of christ ; this manner would not be so rational as the first . all this is upon possibilities . but not to enlarge in scholastic opinions , when matters of faith are debated , cannot i dispute of what is possible , but you will necessarily deduce i deny the being of what is actually present ? if i should say , 't is possible god may create another world , and people it with another generation of creatures ; can you deduce from this , that there is no necessity of admitting any men alive at this present in the whole universe ? cajetan , 't is true writ , the scripture did not evidently enforce the roman catholic tenet . great wits speak sometimes without consideration . yet the good cardinal retracted afterwards his error in these words . we can prove christ's real presence from the words of the gospel . and thus in some manner amended , as soto remarks , what was before amiss . you instance the words you object out of cajetan , in the roman edition , are expunged by order of pope pius v. i answer , a worthy remark to demonstrate the vigilancy of the roman see was not wanting to blot out innovation in its very first rise and appearance . bishop fisher , that glorious martyr of the church of rome , confesseth , we cannot prove from the bare words of scripture , that priests consecrate the true body and blood of christ . i shall not dispute whether this concern our present controversie or not ; but i 'le beg you 'll take the following explication of the pious bishop ; that is , continues the holy martyr in the same place , not because this thing is now doubtful , but because the certainty of this doctrin cannot be gathered so strongly from the bare words of the gospel , as from the father's interpretation , together with the continued practice of so long a time surviving in succeeding posterity . the blessed bishop gives us this reason , why he provoked to the fathers , lest any one should ( says he ) pertinaciously adhere to the pure words of scripture , despising fathers authorities , as luther did . if this will not suffice , i 'le translate , when you require it , the fourth chapter of this same book , wherein bishop fisher proves the bread changed into christ's body from the three evangelists . and i 'le rank your objections collected from luther's instances , and oecolampadius's objections on one page , and on the opposite place bishop fisher's solutions to them both in vindication of the roman catholic assertion . i finish this scholastic disceptation with this querie , whether you would not think it weakness in me disputing for transubstantiation , to use in my own defence these words of yours , which somewhat favour my undertaking . i readily acknowledge the fathers do , and that with great reason , very much magnify , and frequently speak of a great sacramental change made by the divine benediction . if from hence i should vigorously assert , you granted the fathers were for the substantial change , because since you admit a wonderful change made by the divine benediction , and that the species remain unaltered , the change must be acknowledged in the substance of bread and wine ; would you not condemn this weakness , and appeal to the other parts of your treatise to manifest this impossibility ? and yet all these schoolmen actually write ( in those very places you mention ) against the sectarists , or roman opposers . and almost every one of them , produce from scripture and fathers , more reasons for , than you have done objections against transubstantiation . i appeal to your own judgment conscious of this truth . and you know , that if you do follow their writings , and imitate the religion , they professed and died in , you must declare yo●●self a member of the roman catholic church . chap. ii. whether there be any reason to understand our saviour's words contrary to the sense of transubstantiation . you are sure there are a great many reasons ; and are not scant of them . these may be reduced to five heads , parables , similitudes , the context of st. matthew , st. paul to the corinthians , and the silence of the apostles at the institution . i follow this order , and examin in so many articles , these considerable reasons against transubstantiation . article i. whether parables exclude the sense of transubstantiation . 't is a maxim among divines , no efficacious argument can be drawn from parables . this calvin acknowledges . and st. austin goes farther , admonishing the donatists , n'er to endeavour an establishment of dogm's from scriptural passages , which are obscure , or ambiguous , or figurative : which if true , the sense of transubstantiation , will not in the least be prejudic'd , by your objections from parables . you first object this parable of christ . i am the door . i answer the th verse explicates . i am the door of the sheep . and he th verse , this parable spake jesus unto them . what more pressing a figurative understanding of this passage , i am the door ? but when we read , this is my body , we cannot over-see , which shall be given for you , which maintains the reality . you instance , christ said , i am the true vine : i answer , the cyriac interprets , i am the vine of truth . descend to the th verse , and christ says , i am the vine , as , you are the branches : both a full attestation of a parable . but where jesus tells me , the bread which i will give is my flesh , and that flesh which i will give for the life of the world , what more conclusive for the catholic interpretation ? you urge , st. paul says , ye are the body of christ . i answer ; the apostle declares , verse . we are spiritually ; for by one spirit we are baptized into one body . but where christ said , my flesh is meat indeed , i find added many repetitions which increase a confirmation of the true substance . you finish , they drank of the rock which followed them , and that rock was christ . i answer , you are afraid to be just , excluding the word spiritual . for we read , v. . our fore-fathers all eat the same spiritual meat , v. . and did drink all the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that spiritual rock , and that rock was christ . what if for a threefold word , spiritual , in the precedent , i find a triple evidence of the true substance of christ in the sacrament , which necessarily requires the strictly literal and divine sense of our blessed saviour's words ? st. luke confirms , which is shed for you . st. mark , shed for many . st. matthew , for the remission of sins . article ii. whether similitudes exclude the sense of transubstantiation . if it be well known , as you write , that in the hebrew language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie ; it is not less evident , that the four similitudes you heap together , are not prejudicial to the catholic exposition of our saviour's words . these similitudes shall be delivered in single paragraphs . paragraph i. similitude of pharao 's dream . you object , joseph , expounding pharao's dream to him , says , the seven good kine are seven years . i answer : we consider some things as signs , and others as substances . the sign is reasonably called the thing , and yet it is not , what it represents ; so the portrait of a king , is said to be the king , that is , only represents his majesty . but if we consider a thing as a substance , we cannot in common language affirm , it to be , what it is not . so prudence will not give us leave to say , a pen is paper , because a pen is not reckon'd among representative signs . josepth reasonably affirm'd the seven kine are seven years , and so pharao understood him that they were seven in representation , because they both knew the discourse was of signs , as the scripture testifies , ver . . and pharaoh said unto joseph , in my dream , behold i stood upon the bank of the river , and behold there came up out of the river seven kine . our saviour's expression , this is my body , is as far distant from this example , as the real institution of the sacrament , from the narrative of a dream ; and therefore ought not to be understood as the like expression . but what connexion between pharao's dream , and the change of bread in the sacrament ? as much as betwixt the same dream and our saviour's being substantially man. if i should then argue thus , as you do , joseph called the seven kine , seven years ( which language is usual among the hebrews ) that is , signified seven years , and so would any man of sense understand the like expression : therefore when st. john says the word was made flesh , that is , was a figure os a man or phantasm , is such a deduction , that no language but hebrew can be able to make it out . paragraph ii. of one who never heard of transubstantiation . this similitude is very pleasant , as if we should go to pagans , to know what is our own religion . however you believe , that he that never heard of transubstantiation , would never imagine any such thing to be meant by our saviour's words . and i believe a great number of these who saw our saviour himself , deny'd he was god. you believe the bread only signifies christ's body , because you will bilieve so ; i distinguish what christ distinguished ; and because he said , this is my body , i believe it was his body ; and because he commanded us to do this hereafter , for a memorial of his death and passion , we obey him . is not this to follow scripture ? you are sure it would never have entred into any man's mind , to have thought , that our saviour did literally hold himself in his hands , and give away himself from himself with his own hand . and i am sure , what cannot enter into man's thought , the divine power and omnipotency can , and has operated . it entred into st. austin's mind , explicating this scriptural passage , as he thought , in the septuagint , — he was carried in his hands . thus to propose your objection . how could this be understood of man ? for who is carried in his own hands ? a man may be supported in others hands , none is the burthen of his own hands . the saint answers : we find not the literal sense fulfilled in david , in christ we acknowledge it , for christ was carried in his hands , when recommending his own very body , he said , this is my body , for he carried that body in his hands . it entred into the thought of our blessed redeemer to make use of the like argument , before he gave us the promise , of giving himself entirely in the sacrament . for did he not in that miraculous multiplication of five loaves , in the sixth chapter of st. john , feeding five thousand persons , give the five loaves in some manner from the loaves themselves ? the fragments , says st. hilarie , succeeded to fragments , and always broken , always deceived the breaker's hand . for the quantity of five loaves was given , and the like quantity still remained . which rabanus thus elegantly expressed , they were multiplied by being diminished . this argument of our blessed saviour ; if it did not convince the obstinate jews , it ought to prevail with christians , or at least silence them from saying , how can he give himself from himself . paragraph iii. similitude of the passover . you compare with our saviour's words , the ancient form of the passover , used by the jews from ezra's time , as st. justin martyr , tells us , this passover is our saviour and our refuge ; not that , say you , they believed the pascal lamb , to be substantially changed into god , who delivered them , out of the land of egypt , or into the messias , whom they expected . strange method ! and dangerous way of allegation ! tending to the depression of christianity . our blessed saviour and the divine apostles verify the sincere and literal truth of the new testament , as figurated , and symbolized in the law , prophets and psalms : and you scrupling this order , judaize with the hebrews , and will have the law of grace figurative , because the written law is full of similitudes and representations . and stranger remark of yours , that the jews did not believe the paschal lamb changed into god or the messias . how could they imagine the lamb changed into god , when they knew , god could not receive the least alteration , i am the lord , and not chang'd ? or into the messias , when change of one thing into another supposes both their existences , and the messias was not yet born ? the israelites only then could believe the passover a bare representation , to put them in mind of that salvation , which god wrought for their fathers in egypt . but if st. justin say , the passover is our saviour , would you desire a more plain exposition , than the very following words , that is , our refuge ? and if this speech of st. justin , were in it self somewhat obscure , this passover is our saviour ; the same ceremonie delivered in exodus by moses varying the phrase of the passover , is a sure rule for understanding any such like expression upon this account . for there we read , it is the lord 's passover . the septuagint translate , it is the passover to the lord. nor was this expression unknown to the hebrews , the passover to the lord. paragraph iv. similitude of a deed. you tell us that a deed or writing under hand and seal , is the conveyance of a real estate , and truly and really to all effects and purposes of law , as if the very material house and lands themselves , could be , and were actually delivered into your hands . if our cause were pleaded at the bar , the law , it seems , you think , would make us the losers . but if scriptures be the sentence , i know not why we should refuse to acknowledge what god is pleased to bestow on us . he tells us what he gives , is his own body ; why will you not believe him ? and to come close to your objection , do you not by the passing of the deed really and truly receive the possession of the substantial house , lands , and revenues in specie ? you would little value the writing , if you did not . so likewise the sacrament conveys to the receivers , the possession of the substantial body and blood of our saviour . article iii. upon the context of st. matthew . you pretend that it was true wine which our saviour drank of , and communicated . i answer , not after consecration . you urge our saviour said ; i will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine , this was true wine . i answer , that although we cannot collect from st. matthew clearly , whether these last words of our saviour belonged to the consecrated or not consecrated wine , yet that clearness which st. matthew's shortness feems to want , st. luke abundantly supplies , describing the order of the passover , and delivering the institution of the sacrament . so where we read in st. matthew ? i will not drink of the fruit of the vine : st. luke interprets , and his interpretation is true , the fruit of the vine before consecration , at the supper of the passover . with desire , says our saviour , i have desired to eat this passover with you before i suffer . for i say unto you , i will not any more eat thereof , until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of god. and he took the cup , and gave thanks , and said , take this and divide among your selves , for i say unto you , i will not drink of the fruit of the vine , untill the kingdom of god shall come . is not this a plain repetition of st. matthew's words ? and here ended the passover or paschal supper . the institution of the sacrament immediately followed while they sate at table , and therefore st. luke continues ; and he took bread — likewise also the cup after supper , saying , this cup is the new testament , in my blood , which is shed for you . here is the eucharistic cup , which had nothing to do with the fruit of the vine that was used before consecration at the paschal supper . article iv. the sense of st. paul to the corinthians . thus st. paul speaks of this sacrament . the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? these words , the bread which we break , signifie the sacrament . for instead of them , we read in the acts of the apostles , according to the syriac version , the eucharist . now for the meaning of the word communion . some will have it to be taken for distribution . thus the word communion , is equivalent to doth communicate , and makes this sense ; the distribution of the sacrament , doth it not communicate to us the ( true ) body of christ ? thus if i stould say , that the distribution of bread in usual eating , is the communion of bread , would not any man of sense understand this to be meant of true bread ? others , notwithstanding this natural exposition , in the behalf of the roman catholic assertion , will have the word communion , to signifie the substance of bread. if it must signifie substance , let us deal fairly , and in the place of communion , substitute the word substance ; and so we shall easily see to what this substance belongs . the bread which we break , is it not the * substance of the body of christ ? neither can the church of rome as well argue from the following verse . for we being many are one bread , and one body ; that all christians are substantially chang'd , first into bread , and then into the natural body of christ , as you will have it ; because we see no reason in the world for this . and the divine apostle instructs us otherwise , declaring the precise and only reason of this unity ; for we are all partakers of the same body . 't is participation , not any substantial change in our selves makes us one in christ . nor is a pressing example wanting in the apostle , to the same purpose ; are not they ( the pagans ) which eat of the sacrifices , partakers of the altar ? you instance , the same apostle speaking of the consecration of the elements , still calls them the bread , and the cup , in three verses together . this is acute and subtile . but each witty contrivance is not true . it is not true , st. paul calls the consecrated elements , the bread and the wine . we read indeed in three verses together , the bare word of bread attributed to the eucharist , as often as you eat this bread ; and this is all we read ; which may be said without any prejudice to the substantial change. and this for two reasons , both dictated by the holy ghost . first , by reason of the outward appearance of bread. secondly , because it formerly was bread. the first reason st. luke authorises in the acts. behold two men stood by them in white apparel . here the bare name of man is attributed to angels , and angels are only men in appearance . the second reason is deduced from two substantial conversions . we read in exodus , they cast down every man his rod , and they became serpents , but aaron's rod swallowed up the rods of the magicians . and in st. john , when the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was wine . he tasted water , and the water was wine ; the serpent is called a rod , and was a serpent : because the serpent , and the wine , were formerly a rod and water . it is then true , that the bare name of bread may be attributed to the eucharist without any prejudice of the substantial change of bread into the true body of christ . and if it be not true that st. paul says , the consecrated elements are bread and wine ; it is true that st. paul calls the consecrated bread christ's body . jesus took bread , and when he had given thanks , brake it , and said , take , eat , this is my body , which is broken for you . so does st. chrysostom ; what is the bread ? the body of christ . so does st. ambrose ; this bread is flesh . you resume , this is my body which is broken , cannot be literally understood of his natural body broken , because his body was then whole and unbroken . i answer , how can you contradict our saviour , who says , this is my body which is broken ? and if it be christ's body , 't is his real body : for he had no phantasm or imaginary body . nor did i ever hear that christ had two real bodies . but the same body may have two different existences , a natural , and supernatural existence . for if god can give a natural existence to what is not , can what is , hinder god from adding a supernatural existence ? now these words , which is broken , cannot be understood of the natural existence of our saviour's body hanging on the cross , for there his body was unbroken ; whence that of st. chrysistom , we may see this in the eucharist , and the contrary on the cross , his bones shall not be broken . nor is it hard to conceive , how the body of christ may be said to be broken in the sacrament . for as a substance is said to be visible , by reason of the visible accidents which environ it ; thus we commonly say , i saw a man , and yet nor soul , nor substance of the body , but only the shape and outward appearance of the substance , was the object of the eye . so likewise christ's body in the sacrament , takes the denomination of broken from the species of bread , which is truly divided . article v. the silence of the apostles at the institution . you ought not to be surprised if the disciples ( frequently full of questions and objections ) should make no difficulty of this matter , when our saviour instituted the sacrament : not so much as ask our saviour , how can these things be ? or tell him , we see this to be bread and wine , and thy body distinct from both . my reason is , because when the jews and the disciples were blamed for these inquiries , at the promise of our saviour ; the apostles ( assisted with divine grace ) gave credit to our saviour's words . and if they believed the promise , why should they be disquieted at the institution ? we read after these words in st. john , ( where the promise of christ in the sacrament is given , the bread which i will give is my flesh : ) this passage , the jews therefore strove amongst themselves , saying , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? this jewish opposition was seconded with the murmur of christ's disciples , many therefore of his disciples when they had heard this , said , this is an hard saying , who can hear it ? this murmur after all our saviour's arguments to settle the jews in the belief of what was promised , ended in a plain desertion or leaving of jesus , from that time many of his disciples went and walked no more with him . here is the reluctancy you sought for , and the objections you demanded in the apostles . but do you think this resistance was laudable in the jews ? do you believe this opposition was commendable in the disciples ? or rather , to be disturbed at our saviour's ordination and assertion , is it not the beginning of incredulity ? and yet for all this , you raise sense , and erect it as an idol to the peoples devotions . bewitching sense ! whose allurements intice the greatest integrity of noblest souls , and would win too their thoughts , if less than a god interposed . hence this speech of st. hilary , that great persecutor of arianism . there is folly in declaring for jesus christ , had we not received from him , this lesson of truth . jesus says the bread is truly flesh , and the wine is truly blood ; after this declaration ther 's left no place to doubt of the verity of his flesh and blood. st. ambrose opposes to the restless importunity of sense , the prerogative of the deity ; lest asking of god what we expect from man , reason of things , we should entrench upon divine prerogatives . and what more unworthy than to believe men in testimonies they give one of another , and to despise god in those he speaks of himself ? st. chrysostom adds , we speak of god , and you ask how this can be ? do you not tremble at the excess of your temerity ? our blessed saviour himself reprehended his disciples , following what sense suggested at the proposal of the sacrament , in these words , doth this offend you ? finally , the pious christian guides his unruly sense in the journey towards heaven , by the steady reyns of true faith. thus the apostles overcoming their own stubborness , became supple and obedient to god's promise and power , infinitely active beyond human imagination , and they all joyned in st. peter's confession , and we believe , and are sure thou art christ the son of the living god. thus divine faith another time prevailed with st. peter ( when sense , reason , and the fury of the sea , contradicted ) to press the waves with his feet ; and hardned the watry element , into a solid passage . the way to heaven is still by faith. from all which it must needs be very evident to any man , who will piously search into truth , how little reason there is to understand our saviour's words otherwise than in the sense of transubstantiation . sect . ii. of the perpetual belief of this doctrin in the christian church . i have already manifested how the roman catholic church , rightly pretends as an evidence , that the fathers of the primitive ages interpreted our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation . but what authors have been so fortunate in their writings , that the contrived endeavours of others , have not cull'd out some places , not so dark in themselves , as they are shaded with smothered representations ? these your industry , with no small increase , has compacted together . after this great task , you are pleased to shew , when the doctrin of transubstantiation first came in . and finally , you undertake to give a solution to the pretended demonstration of mr. arnauld a learned man in france . these three subjects shall be the mattter of so many chapters . chap. i. whether any of the fathers are against transubstantiation . reflection is the cause of knowledge : division leads to reflection . i 'll therefore divide your selected testimonies , that they may be the consideration of so many distinct articles . article i. upon st. justin martyr . you begin unfortunately with st. justin , whom you make expresly to say , that our blood and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food , which we receive in the sacrament . i find no such thing in the holy martyr . 't is true , i read these words , by which food ( chang'd in our bodies , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) our blood and flesh are nourished . what then ? bread and wine taken out of the sacrament , nourish , according to this passage , flesh and blood , which all the world will allow of . and i shall believe st. justin says no more , till you can prove it from the saint's own testimonie . but why do i say testimonie , when the passage you cite , is nothing but a bare parenthesis ? i could heap up a great many such weaknesses , collected out of your discourse , if the world were not already too much troubled with such trivial reflections . i 'll take liberty to add one more considerable , viz. if natural digestion can change bread and wine into the proper substance of our bodies , how easy will it be to nature's author , to change one thing into another , bread into the body of christ ? nor can any moderate man imagin any thing less , when the devil himself tempted christ to change one substance into another , stones into bread , as a strategem to find out , whether he was god. look likewise into the book of genesis , and you 'll find that the sole word of god , gave , in the beginning of creation , a being to all nature : and how much more difficult is it , to make all things of nothing , than to change one thing into another ? does not this evidence the possibility of transubstantiation ? i thank you for this objection . article ii. upon st. irenaeus . nor are you more fortunate in st. irenaeus , who speaking of the sacrament , says . the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation , is now no longer common bread , but the eucharist , consisting of two things , the one earthly , the other heavenly . for , what is earthly , may not unfitly be called the species of bread ; and what is heavenly , christ himself . or what if i should attribute this earthly thing to christ's humanity , and the heavenly thing to christ's divinity , the sacrament would be rightly said , consisting of two things , the one earthly , the other heavenly ? i am sure the proper substance of bread , is nothing but common bread ; and yet st. irenaeus affirms , this ceases after consecration ; receiving the divine invocation , 't is no longer common bread , it is not what it was before . you instance , and elsewhere he hath this passage ; when therefore the cup that is mixt , and the bread that is broken , receives the word of god , it becomes the eucharist of the body and blood of christ , of which the substance of our flesh is increased , and subsists . st. irenaeus discourses not here of a natural , but of some spiritual increase of flesh and blood. for he says , our flest is increased with the bread , as it becomes the body and blood of christ , in which sense precisely , 't is only supernatural food . bread , as it is supernatural food , or the true body of christ in the sacrament , increases the soul with grace ; and flesh and blood with a legitimacy of immortality . these two great benefits are neatly delivered , as the proper effects of christ's substantial presence in the sacrament , in these words of the nyssene doctor ; as the dire consequence of poyson is by counterpoyson prevented ; so the wholsome remedy , which operates our salvation , entring the bowels of man , thence every-where diffuses its force and vivification . what is this ( wholsome ) remedy ? that body which jesus exhibited stronger than death , and which was the beginning of life . what can more evince christ's substantial presence , to be the productive cause of sacramental grace , than to testifie , this adorable body , which died for us , is in ours , as a wholsome remedy , there communicating virtue , and dispensing heavenly treasures ? so is the same true body of christ present in the sacrament , the cause effective of our future incorruption in glory ; and increases in this sense the substance of flesh and blood , with a beginning of immortality ; as appears from the following lines of the same father . jesus , according to the dispensation of grace , enters by flesh into those who believe , mixing himself with the body of the faithful , that man may become partaker of incorruption , by the union with this immortal body . this second benefit in st. irenaeus's mind increases the substance of flesh and blood , giving a beginning of resurrection to the body : or , to use this saint's example ; as a grain of wheat dissolved in earth , rises by the power of god with much increase ; so flesh and blood receiving in the sacrament from the presence of christ's immortal body , the living seed of incorruption , rise ( when dissolved by death ) increased with immortality . this agrees well with st. irenaeus's design , demonstrating in the place objected , that our bodies are capable of resurrection , because we receive in the sacrament the true body of christ , that body which consists of flesh , blood and bones . how can they deny , says he , the flesh to be capable of the gift of god ? for we are members of his body , of his flesh , and of his bones . this is not spoken of a spiritual or metaphorical man , for a spirit has neither bone nor flesh , but it is delivered according to the disposition of man , which consists of flesh , of nerves , and bones , which is nourished with the chalice , which is his blood , and increased with the bread , which is his body . do not flesh , nerves , bones and blood , belong to a true substantial body ? you add st. irenaeus 's words , preserved by oecumenius , when the greeks had taken some servants of the christian catecumeni ( that is , such as were disposed , but not yet baptized ) and afterwards urged them by violence , to tell them some of the secrets of the christians . these servants having nothing to say , that might gratifie those who offered violence to them , except only that they had heard from their masters , that the divine communion was the blood and body of christ ; they thinking , that it was really blood and flesh , declared as much to those who question'd them . the greeks taking this as it really were done by the christians , discovered it to others of the greeks , who hereupon put sanctus and blandina to the torture , to make them confess it . to whom blandina boldly answered , how would they endure to do this , who by way of exercise ( or abstinence ) do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten ? now if we consider blandina's answer , we shall find therein contained , a pious denyal of what was objected , and a christian reserve of what was received in the sacrament . a pious denial of eating the flesh and blood of a child , as the greeks ( and all pagans ) conceived , after a carnal manner , which shall be more amply discoursed hereafter . and this caused blandina to say , how could they be guilty of such a heinous eating ? who abstain , upon fasting days from flesh which may lawfully be eaten ? a christian reserve , not discovering the mystery to pagans , which was esteemed a betraying of religion . thus tharsilius the acholyt , as venerable beda relates , having the blessed sacrament about him , was seized on by the barbarians , and martyr'd , because he refused to shew it . st. ambrose declares the discovery of the mystery to those who were not baptized , pass'd not for an instruction , but for a sort of treason in religion . st. cyril says , we speak not clearly of the mystery to the catecumeni , and we are often constrained , to make use of such expressions ; which are understood by the faithful instructed , and do not offend other assistants . such was blandina's reply , which neither offended the greeks , nor betrayed the mystery . article iii. upon tertullian . tertullian proves against marcion , as you write , the heretique , that the body of our saviour , was not a meer phantasm and appearance , but a real body , because the sacrament is a figure , and an image of his body . his words are these ; the bread which our saviour took , and gave to his disciples , he made his own body , saying , this is my body , that is , the figure of my body . but it could not have been a figure of his body , if there had not been a true and real body . tertullian , often sententious , and difficult in expression , as lactantius and st. jerom affirm , may easily be misunderstood , and misrepresented . this father's design here , is to confute the marcionites , who defended that the god of the old testament , was opposite to god the father of christ , author of the new law. he makes good this undertaking , proving the perfect agreement of both testaments , completed in jesus , who did not abolish , but fulfil the law , when he changed the shadow into a body , the figure into truth , as tertullian phrases it , in his fisth book against marcion . this accomplishment he shew'd from that of jeremy , where we read how the jews fast'ned to the cross the bread of christ , that is , his body . this he evidenced , because bread in the old law , was a figure of christ's body . these are his words , it is what god has revealed in your own gospel , calling bread his body , making known by this , that christ , whose body the prophet represented in bread , long before he fulfilled this figure , gave from this very time ( of the prophecy ) bread to be the figure of his body . these words , christ gave the bread , even from the time of jeremy , to be the figure of his body , represent christ as master ; and these others , jeremy represented in bread the body of christ , exhibit the prophet as minister . both testifie , that bread was a figure in the written law ; and the subordination of jeremy to jesus , proves the concord of christ with the ancient testament , which was tertullian's peculiar task . the same he pursues in the place by you cited , bread , ( he made his own body , saying , this is my body , ) that is , a figure in the prophet of christ's body . this sense agrees well with the foregoing tenor of this learned father's discourse . . these following words are another confirmation , but it would not have been a figure of his body , if there was not a true body . he does not say , it was not a figure , he says , it would not have been a figure in the old law. . marcion argues for you , but why did he call bread his body , and not something else ? tertullian answers , that he argued thus , not knowing bread was an ancient figure of the body of christ , as we learn from jeremy . . he confirms the same in these words , you may likewise acknowledge the old figure of blood in wine . it follows also from hence , that our saviour's body , was not a phantasm or an appearance , which was another of the marcionits errors , but a real body ; not that the sacrament , as you would have it , but that bread in the old law , as i have demonstrated , was a figure and image of his body in the sacrament ; which must be a true body ; otherwise there is a figure of a figure , which your own party will not allow of nor could it , adds tertullian , have been a figure of his body , if there had not been a true and real body . if for all this you will pretend , that as bread in the prophet was a figure , so likewise is bread still in the eucharist a figure of christ's body ; i may without prejudice to the catholic belief , humour you so far , as to grant the sacramental bread is a figure , but a figure joyned to the reality . for if you will say , what you find not in tertullian , that the bread in the sacrament is a figure of christ's body , you cannot deny but you read in this father , that christ made the bread his body , as we read in st. john , he made water wine . the sacrament may then be a figure , and the true body . thus he proves the same thing to be called a figure , and yet to be the same substance , instancing , the word is god , and an image too . the catholic church only disallows those figures , which exclude the true substance of christ's body present in the sacrament . you urge a second testimony from the same author , using this argument against the sceptics , who rejected the certainty of sense , he might be deceived in the voice from heaven , in the smell of the oyntment , with which he was anointed against his burial , and in the taste of the wine , which he consecrated in the remembrance of his blood. these last words are somewhat changed ; tertullian says , he tasted not another savour of wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his blood. this learned father established two principles . . that christ was truly man. and . that his operations were real like other mens . the first verity , was not here tertullian's theme . this he vindicated against marcion , where he proved that christ was not a phantasm , or appearance . the second verity tertullian here made good , against the sceptics . for if the sound of the voice from heaven was not imaginary , if the smell of the perfume was not odoriferous , and if there was not another tast of the wine , which was consecrated in remembrance of christ's blood ; then these operations of our saviour were not distinct from vulgar sensation , like those impressions other men naturally receive , sincere , real , and without delusion . all catholics grant as much , and none will deny the same tast of wine after consecration . but the tast is not the substance of wine . the substance of wine is not here spoken of . and the knowledge of substance is the proper endeavour of reason . senses care is to search into the certainty of colour , tast , accidents and appearances , which was tertullian's province against the sceptics . the whole controversie then between us is left by this objection entire and untouched . article iv. upon origen . origen , on his comment on st. matthew , speaking of the sacrament , hath this passage ; that food which is sanctified by the word of god , and prayer , as to that of it which is material , goeth into the belly , and is cast out into the draught , which none surely will say ( as you remark ) of the body of christ . but some have said it of the body of christ , which they thought was conveyed under the shape of material accidents of bread into the draught : which sense , if admitted to be origen's , the learned cardinal peron might say without injury , origen talks like an heretic . the same illustrious cardinal doubts whether this be the work of origen ; because he says , erasmus was the first that produced this old fragment ; where he had it , no body knows ; and this not a fragment , but only a version thereof , and cautioned by himself . sixtus senensis suspects this testimony of origen was depraved by heretics . genebrard is of the same opinion . these critical censures take all assurance from your objection , rendring it either dubious , or depraved , or heretical . moreover , if origen in this passage , should downright prescribe the catholic belief of the change of bread into the body of christ , this ought not to disquiet any sober inquirer . because his chief error was the exclusion of the literal sense in scripture . whereupon lirinensis calls origen the interpreter of scripture after a new manner . st. epiphanious complains he turned all into allegories . theophilus says , he supplants by shades and images the truths of scripture . and the church in the fifth oecumenical council , peculiarly anathematised his works . finally , if i should answer , by what is material is understood only the material accidents of bread and wine which go into the belly , and are cast into the draught , what inconvenience would follow , from your objection ? no more , than what follows from what the same father adds by way of explication , it is not the matter of the bread , but the word which is spoken over it , which profiteth him who worthily eateth the lord ; and this ( he says ) he had spoken , concerning the typical and symbolical body . so that the matter of bread receives the word of god spoken over it , and this word , as it changes the substance of bread , so doth it profit the worthy receiver ; and this word origen calls the typical and symbolical body of christ , because the word is spiritual food . thus the fame father , in his homilies upon leviticus proves christ's flesh to be true meat , because all his speech is true food . and he adds st. peter , st. paul , and all the apostles are food , will you conclude from hence , the apostles were not true men ? at least , if this will not do , you resolve to do the business by drawing out of the same homily , a killing letter of the new testament . for if , says origen , we take according to the letter , that which is said , except ye eat my flesh , and drink my blood , this letter kills . this letter except ye eat my flesh , ( understood of the substantial presence of christ's body after a sacramental manner , invisible to sense , under the species of bread , ) is what gives life in the catholic church , according to that of st. john , who shall eat my flesh , shall live for ever . if roman catholics be out of danger , the blow must fall else where . it falls upon the capharnaits , who following the naked letter , carnally thought our saviour would give his flesh to be served in as common meat , and cut in pieces . it falls upon those who literally adhering to what they see , believe they receive , what it seems to be , bread. upon both these it falls . if we follow , saith origen , the letter , and expound it either according to the jews acceptation ( were not these the capharnaity , ) or according to what it seems commonly to be , ( are you not of this number ) i blush to confess what is writ in the law. thus you strike at catholics with the killing letter of origen , and wound your self together with the capharnaits . for your warlike argument give me leave to propose two peaceable ones , out of the same father . the first is in his homilies upon numbers , where he compares the figure with the figurated , the manna with the body of christ ; the manna was in figure food . now in reality the flesh of the word god is true meat . and what was first in the figure designed , is now compleated in truth and reality . the second is contained in these words , when you receive the holy food and incorruptible banquet , when in the bread and cup of life , you eat and drink the body and blood of our lord , then our lord enters under your roof ; do you therefore humbling your self imitate the centurion , and say , lord , i am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my roof , for where he enters unworthily , there he enters in judgment with the receiver . this holy food cannot be the substance of bread , because origen calls it an incorruptible banquet ; bread is not such . nor can it be a bare typical figure of the lord ; for when the centurion said , o lord , i am not worthy , 't was our own saviour present . and if this humiliation , o lord , i am unworthy , be attributed to any thing but our saviour there present , how can you excuse it from idolatrie ? finally , this lord invocated , enters into the wicked , which cannot be by faith. for your church , teaches unworthy receivers are not partakers of the lord in the sacrament by faith. article v. vpon st. cyprian . you object st. cyprian hath a whole epistle to caecilius against those who gave the communion in water , without wine mingled with it ; and his main argument against them is this , that the blood of christ with which we are redeemed and quickned , cannot seem to be in the cup when wine is wanting to the chalice , by which the blood of christ is represented . very well . it is wine in representation , and the blood of christ is in the cup by propriety or essence ; for it is that blood with which we were redeemed and quickned , according to st. cyprian . you argue afterwards from these other words of the same saint , by the water the people is understood ; by wine the blood of christ is shew'n ; but when in the cup water is mingled with wine , the people are united to christ ; so that you deduce , according to this argument , wine in the sacramental cup , is no otherwise changed into the blood of christ , than the water mixed with it is changed into the people , which are said to be united to christ . i shall not be strictly put to it , for an answer , after i have thus proposed st. cyprian's mind . st. cyprian compares here the jews to wine , the gentiles to water , at the marriage of canaan . the want of wine marked out the jews , who refused to embrace the law of christ ; the plentifulness of water represented the gentiles converted to christianity . hence water comes in the sacrament to design the elected people , wine the blood of christ , and both mixt in the chalice , the union of the people with christ . now to your argument . and that i may the better convince you , give me leave to make use of your logic. water is the people as wine is christ ; then as we receive christ by faith in the sacrament , so do we the people : and consequently the people sanctify the soul as christ doth in the eucharist . are you not ashamed of your sophism ? or rather , how durst you equalize the people with christ , sinners with their saviour , man with god ? again , wine signified the jews , according to st. cyprian , and water the gentiles ; now deduce from hence , the water was not changed into wine at the marriage of canaan , as you have done from the like instance , that the mixed chalice is not changed into christ's body and blood. article vi. upon st. augustin . the variety of testimonies you gather from st. augustin , cannot well without perplexity , be considered altogether . i 'll endeavour to decline this confusion , examining each one of them in so many paragraphs . paragraph i. you pitch first upon this expression of st. austin's in his book against adimantus the manichee , our lord did not doubt to say this is my body , when he gave the sign of his body . adimantus endeavours to demonstrate the god of the old testament prohibited eating of blood , grounding himself upon this principle of duteronomy , blood is the soul of the flesh , thereby to prejudice that soul , which jesus declared in the gospel , was not lyable to corporal harm or punishment . st. augustin replys , the old law speaks of the animal soul , and the words of christ are only understood of the rational . secondly , the holy doctor tells him , that blood is called the soul , only because it is the sign of the soul. this he confirms ( accommodating himself to the language of the manichees , who were of opinion , that bread , corn and grapes , naturally signified christ's body ) with this instance , our saviour did not doubt to say , this is my body , when he gave ( in the manichees opinion ) the sign of his body . the manichees opinion was not st. austin's . and he therefore forewarns us to call in question faith , because he made use of the manichee's principle in their own confutation . paragraph ii. saint austin speaking of judas , whom our lord admitted to his last supper , has these words , in which he recommended and delivered to his disciples , the figure of his body . language , say you with exclamation , which would now be censured for heresie in the church of rome . i 'm confident you are already persuaded to the contrary . and i know not any sect , which holds a figure incompatible with the reality . i shall cite two of your learned patrons ; peter martyr says , a figure , as far forth as 't is a figure , is not repugnant to the presence of the thing . and calvin before him granted , a figure doth not exclude the thing figurated . the lutherans are not of a contrary mind . and if you 'll be pleased to look either into the ancient or modern divines among catholics , you 'll find the same acknowledgment . paschasius formerly gave this answer to frudegardus , instancing st. austin's testimony , these are , replys paschasius , mystical things , in which is the verity of flesh and blood , and none others than christ's , yet in a mysterie , and figure , and the words of this mystery are called a figurative speech ; so christ himself is called , by the apostle , a figure , though christ be the truth . algerus illustrates the same , with this reflection upon st. john baptist , he was called a prophet , and more than a prophet . so the sacrament is a figure , and more than a figure . to these i add of the modern catholic schoolmen . a ruardus , b melderus , d cardinal alen , e suarez , f gordon , g gonet . and i never read any that held the contrary . and i conclude with this of st. austin ; the blessed virgin did not onely conceive christ spiritually by faith , consenting to the angelical salutation , but also conceived him corporally , in her own womb. how then doth the spiritual reception by faith exclude the substantial communion of christ's body in st. austin's opinion ? paragraph iii. in the third place you cite his comment on the th psalm , where treating of the scandal which the disciples took at that saying of our saviour , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , he brings in our saviour speaking thus to them , ye must understand spiritually , what i have said unto you , ye are not to eat this body which ye see , and to drink this blood which shall be shed by those that shall crucify me , i have commended a certain sacrament to you , which being spiritually understood , will give you life . this is as much as to say , be not scandalized , that i told you , ye shall eat my flesh , and drink my blood , ye shall not eat it as ye imagine , in the shape you see it , bruzing , cutting , digesting my flesh . i speak of a sacrament , when i commend the eating of my body ; 't is this sacrament you shall tast , touch , and see in outward appearance . the spiritual intelligence by faith will ( discovering there my body remaining invisibly ) vivify you . what more conformable to the doctrine of transubstantiation ? this i shall endeavour to manifest in examining the sense of these two propositions , which contain the force of your argument . . ye must understand spiritually what i have said . . ye are not to eat the body which ye see . the word spiritually , excluding the carnal sense of the capharnaits , establishes a miraculous or a supernatural understanding . so when st. paul says , isaac was born according to the spirit , he did not deny by this , that isaac was born of the flesh ; but declared that the power of god was required to fecundate the barrenness of his mother . in like manner , when st. austin names this word spiritually , or word of spirit , he does not deny that the bread is flesh , but intimates that the power of god is required to quicken bread into the body of christ . and thus the first proposition , ye must understand what i have said spiritually , does not at all diminish the reality of christ's substance in the sacrament . the second proposition , ye are not to eat this body which ye see , properly denotes the quality or divers existence of christ's body . thus st. ambrose said that the change of life is sufficient to verify this speech , i am not i , i justified , am not i a sinner , and yet i am the same man in substance . thus st. lanfrancus answered berengarius , alledging the same passage which you object out of st. austin , 't is not the same , if we consider the manner of christ's existence in the sacrament , 't is the same if we regard the substance . thus the very same passage is cited in gratian with this addition , ye are not to eat this body which ye see , i have recommended a certain sacrament to you , which being spiritually understood will give you life , ye are to eat him , and not to eat him , ye are to eat him visibly ( under the species of bread ) ye are not to eat him visibly in the shape of flesh . and lest we should doubt of the reality of his flesh in the sacrament , st. austin has left us this invincible argument , in the same place of your objection , he will ( says this father ) give us that flesh , which he received from mary , in which he walked on earth , and which is first to be adored , before we receive it . language which the church of england will censure for heresie ! paragraph iv. you instance this testimony , according to that flesh which was born of the virgin mary , ye shall not have me , he is ascended up into heaven and is not here . the forementioned solution satisfies this objection , for we are not to have him in his natural existence , we are to receive him in a sacramental existence . thus the variation of state and change of life caused the great apostle to say , there were two bodys in man , the animal body , and the spiritual body ; the animal body is a poor passenger upon earth , strugling with passions , and restless agitations . the spiritual body , is the glorified corps , when soul and body meet in eternity . it is sown a natural body , says st. paul , it shall rise a spiritual body . which st. austin thus expresses , it is sown a corruptible body , it rises an incorruptible body . the divers existence of christ's flesh , in heaven , and on the cross , was sufficient to st. jerom , to call it a divine body , and a terrene body . these two bodies are but one in substance , the same in heaven , the same on the cross , the same which the virgin brought forth , and the same in the sacrament , who eats , says st. austin , of this flesh let him first adore it . adoration testifies what it is . paragraph v. you alledge this similitude from st. austin , as the sacrament of the body of christ is in some manner or sense christs body , and the sacrament of his blood , is the body of christ , so the sacrament of faith , ( meaning baptism ) is faith , which the gloss , of the canon law , thus expounds . it 's called the body of christ , that is , it signifies the body of christ . boniface inquiring how infants , when they are baptized , are said to believe , and renounce the devil , was thus instructed by st. austin ; a sacrament , or holy sign , is honoured for the most part with the names of the things themselves , by reason of which similitude the sacrament of faith , ( baptism ) may be called faith , which infants receiving are said to believe . this answer exacting a confirmation , obliged the holy prelate , pitching upon the similitude of the sacrament , to cast his eyes precisely on the sole outward appearance of the symbols , which in some manner or sense , are christ's body and blood. not according to the truth of the thing , as the gloss notes ; or as st. anselme exxpresses , the visible appearance of bread is not the body of the lord , except as the canon law expounds it , improperly and after some manner , as it signifies and contains the body of christ . what is signified or contained is the mysterie , which is not prejudiced by the foregoing speech ? for a mysterie properly speaking , is some invisible thing . such is that of st. paul , if i know all mysteries or hidden things . and the roman orator expressed himself after the same manner , when he said , keep this secret , as a mystery . the visible appearance then of bread , though not the true body of christ , may be called improperly christ's body ; and yet the thing signified or contained under this appearance be the true body of christ . or as faith infused by baptismal regeneration , to use st. austin's comparison , is true faith ; so the thing received in the sacrament , is the true body of christ . paragraph vi. you add this remarkable passage of st. austin , cited by gratian ; as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism , so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and blood ; and so neither may truth be wanting in the sacrament , nor pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking of the blood of one that was slain . st. austin here delivers the strict practice of the church in his days , hiding from the pagans the mystery of the sacrament ; and adds this reason , in the same place : if the disciples of our lord could not patiently receive what our lord said , how will these incredulous endure us teaching the same doctrine ? but of this more hereafter . nor does this learned father more exclude the reality of flesh , calling it the likness of flesh : than st. paul , saying , christ appeared whilst he lived , and conversed with sinners upon earth , in the likeness of man , deny'd that he was truly man. 't is true , many dissenters from the catholic church , and hereticks , grounding themselves on this scriptural passage , christ appeared in the likeness of man , eagerly taught , that he was a phantasm , or appearance , not a natural man , composed of flesh and bone. and you , their faithful imitator , gloss after the same manner , not upon scripture , but upon a single passage of one father , and this too borrowed from gratian. but with how little reason you gloss after this manner , these following passages of s. austin , taken out of the same gratian , will farther demonstrate . a the first is part of the canon , wherein your objection is contained . these are his words , what exteriorly appears ( in the sacrament ) is a figure ; the truth is the body and blood of christ , made of the substance of bread and wine . b the second passage is , we faithfully confess it is before consecration , bread and wine , which nature made ; but after consecration , the flesh and blood of christ , which benediction consecrated . c the third is the meaning of that passage of our saviour , the bread which i will give , in the th of st. john ; which words determine in st. austin's mind , how christ is bread , not only as he is the word , which gives all things life ; but also according to the flesh assumed for the life of the world. is this not real flesh ? paragraph vii . you mention but one more testimony , but so clear a one , as it is impossible any man in his wits , that had believed transubstantiation , could have uttered . it is in his treatise , de doctrina christiana , where laying down several rules , for the right understanding of scripture , he gives this for one . if the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness , or commanding us to do good , it is not figurative ; if the contrary , it is figurative ; for example , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye have no life in you : this seems to command a heinous crime , therefore it is a figure , commanding us to communicate of the passion of our lord. if i should deny , that st. austin speaks here of receiving the sacrament , you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous assertion . for many learned writers judiciously remark , that these words , except ye eat of my flesh , in saint austin's sense may be thus explicated , except ye eat it by faith , by piety , by good works , which is a spiritual communion ( out of the sacrament ) of the passion of our lord. and if this be true , as it is more than probably so , st. austin says here what all catholics profess ; for we all say we may communicate spiritually of the passion of christ by faith believing in jesus , when we receive not the sacrament ; and yet we believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation . but if you will still keep this holy father , whose learning has always been the admiration of mankind , out of his wits , to use your phrase ; a slight reflection , supposing he speaks here of sacramental communion , will help him to return to himself , and reconcile him to the catholic affirmation . i think one of a mean capacity can distinguish the manner of eating , and the thing eaten . which if true , st. austin may literally understand the thing eaten in the sacrament , to be the true flesh of christ , god and man ; and yet at the same instant hold , that the manner of eating this flesh , ( to which this passage , except ye eat my flesh , has referenee ) is spiritual . for although the true body be taken in the shape of bread , into the mouth , and let down into the stomack , yet it is not ground with the teeth , or separated in pieces . we are taught after a spiritual manner to eat the flesh of the son of man. lissen to the voice of god , and you 'l hear the gospel mention eating a man , take , eat , this is my body . the manner is spiritual , for the body is given in the shape of bread ; and in this sense st. austin calls these words , except ye eat my flesh , a figurative speech . the substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the saint . but it is the true body of christ , as the same saint assures us else-where in these lines ; we believe ( in the sacrament ) with faithful heart and mouth the mediator of god and man , christ jesus , giving us his body to be eaten , and his blood to be drank , although it appear more horrible to eat , than to kill human flesh ; to drink , than to spill human blood. every word almost instances a new argument , for the truth of the flesh . this oral receiving with mouth god and man ; this horror of eating and drinking flesh and blood ; this antithesis between eating and killing , drinking and spilling , terminated to the same substance , leaves not the least scruple to doubt , that the thing eaten is real flesh and blood. and pray what horror would there be , to eat an image of flesh ? or what language speaks of killing the figure of a man ? the same saint , in his exposition on the d psalm , hath this passage ; he 's truly our lord , who truly gave us his body to eat , in which he so much suffered . elsewhere he says , the faithful receive into their mouth that blood which redeemed them . and in his th treatise on st. john , speaking of st. peter's confession , i find this remarkable sentence ; you are christ the son of the living god , and what you give in your flesh and blood , is nothing else but your own self . now you must acknowledge the way i have prescribed , or find some other expedient , to reconcile st. austin's wit with the doctrine of transubstantiation , or all the world will imagine , you put your own to a desperate adventure . article vii . you mention two testimonies out of theodoretus's dialogues between a catholic under the name of orthodoxus , and a heretic under the name of eranistes , who maintained with the eutichians , that the humanity of christ after the ascension , was changed into the divinity . i 'll examine each apart . paragraph i. the dispute of orthodoxus and eranistes in the first dialogue . orthodoxus undertakes to shew that the humanity of christ alwaies remain'd . this he proves , because the humanity was a vail or garment to the divinity , as we read in genesis , where jacob prophecy'd of the messias , he washed his garment in wine , and his cloaths in the blood of the grape . eranistes replys , this is understood literally of his proper habit , with which he was cloathed upon earth . orthodoxus resumes , that jesus called himself the vine ; and the fruit of the vine , is wine ; and the blood of our saviour is called the blood of the vine . and if our saviour be called the vine , and the fruit of the vine , is wine ; and from the side of our saviour ran fountains of blood , on the rest of his body : the prophet rightly foretold that he washed his robe in wine , and his cloths in the blood of the grape . again speaking to eranistes , he pursues with another simile , jesus called his body bread , and his flesh wheat ; but in the institution of the sacrament he called bread his body , and wine his blood ; though naturally the body is called the body , and blood is called blood ; but our saviour changing the names , gave to his body the name of symbol , and to the symbol or sign , the name of his body . eranistes urges to know the cause of this change of names . orthodoxus answers , nothing more easie to the faithful . for he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries , not to attend to the nature of things , which are seen , but by the change of names , to believe the change which is made by grace ; for he who called that , which by nature is a body , wheat and bread , and again called himself the vine , he honoured the symbol with the name of his body and blood , not changing nature , but adding grace to nature . this is a full view of the matter in debate . we ought to reflect , that as theodoretus compares here scriptural passages , wherein they resemble one another , and consequently acknowledges the similitude of the already mention'd expressions . so also was he not ignorant of their differences . and therefore he said , jesus changed the names , that by their change the faithful might believe , that alteration which grace effected . the change of names is acknowledged to proceed from a change made in the sacrament . for he obliges the faithful to believe a change which is made , not in the nature of things which are seen , for the natural signs or outward appearances remain ; it must be then in some inward thing , not seen , or substance of the symbol effected by grace , or the word of god. this in another place he professes in these words , christ gave his pretious body not only to the eleven apostles , but also to the traytor judas . this cannot be properly grace added to nature , for judas received his own condemnation . it must be then the body of christ made by grace of the substance of bread , and added to the nature or remaining appearance of the signs which was given to the traytor . paragraph ii. upon the continuation of the same discourse in the second dialogue . orthod . what are those symbols , which the priest offers to god ? eranist . they are symbols of the body and blood of our lord. orthod . of the true body ? eranist . of the true body . orthod . very right . eranist . very well . orthod . if these divine mysteries represent the true body , the true body of christ is not changed into the divinity . eranistes perceiving himself caught , cunningly retorts the argument , in the like manner . how do you call these symbols after consecration ? orthod . the body and blood of christ . eranist . do you believe you receive the body and blood of christ ? orthod . i do believe . eranist . therefore as the symbols of our lord's body and blood , are one thing before the invocation of the priest , but after the invocation are changed and become another thing , so the body of our lord after his ascension , is changed into the divine substance . if orthodoxus had not believed that the symbols were truly changed in substance after consecration , how could eranistes have deduced the change of the human nature into the divine substance ? he could not argue this out of his own principle . for admitting no body of christ in heaven , how could he pretend a real body of christ in the sacrament ? whence the protestant centuriators say , theodoretus dangerously affirms , that the symbols of the body and blood of christ after the invocation of the priest are changed , and become another thing . orthodoxus answers , you are caught in your own net , because the mystical symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature , for they remain in their former substance , figure and appearance , and may be seen and handled even as before . as bread is properly said to have substance and nature , which are neither seen , nor handled ; so likewise the accidents of bread may be said , though not so commonly , to have their own nature and substance , which may be seen and handled . whence that of st. austin , what is not a substance is nothing at all . 't is in this sense orthodoxus holds , the substance of the symbols remains . and lest we should doubt what this substance is , he tells us 't is figure and appearance . nor is this a constrained interpretation : for what more usual , when we have uttered some word , either harsh in expression , or difficult to be understood , than forthwith to add another , softer in language , and more obvious to the hearer . thus theodoretus saying , they remain in their former substance , adds , that is , they remain in their former figure and appearance , and may be seen and handled , even as before . nor are these latter expressions referable to substance , strictly taken for the inward thing , because this properly , is neither seen nor handled . now if you ask what these symbols are interiorly , theodoretus confesses , they are , what they were made , christ's body . and they are believed and adored as being those very things which they are believed . which words , if the bread be not substantially changed into christ's body , teach plain idolatry . nor could orthodoxus say the interiour substance of the symbols , was not changed , in his own opinion ; for this he had already granted , in these words , they are changed and become after consecration another thing . orthodoxus pretends indeed that he caught his adversary in his own net. but this was not because eranistes believed the substance of the symbols was not changed into christ's body ; for he thought christ's body was no where extant . how then was he caught in his own net ? he was caught in his own net , because these mystical symbols , were not changed in appearance , ( for after consecration they may be seen and handled ) and they were symbols still of christ's true body , which eranistes had formerly granted ; and therefore there was a true body of christ ; and so the body of christ was not changed into the divinity , as orthodoxus had argued . thus eranistes was caught in his own net. nor ought theodoretus to be censured for singularity , in giving the name of nature and substance , to accidental beings . for st. hilary gives the same to proprieties ; saying , that the flames in the babilonian furnace , lost their nature , though the substance of the fire remained . innocent the third , that venerable pope and father of the church , under whom was defined the doctrin of transubstantiation , frankly concedes the natural proprieties of bread remain , ut paneitas . and cardinal pole , another great vindicator of the same tenet , says , though there be only flesh and blood in the sacrament , notwithstanding the nature of the wine may be tasted . i would have you likewise argue , that these authors are against transubstantiation . article viii . upon gelasius the pope . these words of gelasius , the substance of bread and wine , doth not cease to be , are already satisfied by what i have said to theodoretus , that is , the outward shape of bread remains . and if these words immediately following what you objected , had been cited , the difficulty would have been removed . they ( the inward substance of bread and wine ) pass by the operation of the holy ghost into a divine nature , yet remaining in the propriety of their nature . it is only the proprieties of the nature of the bread and wine , the colour , and the tast , that remain . the substance is changed ; for how could the inward substance of bread and wine pass by divine operation into christ's body , and not cease to be ? how can a protestant pass into the roman catholic church , and become a pious member thereof , and not truly cease to be a protestant ? this gelasius is not the learned pope gelasius ; and i need not labour to prove this . your own critics write , that that treatise de duabus naturas , whence you borrowed this objection , belongs to some other of the same name . i shall instance only one reason . this author ranks the works of eusebius caesariensis among those of the orthodox fathers , which cannot be said of the pious and learned pope gelasius , who numbers the same eusebius in his own authentic works , with apocryphal writers . there is then not one of our popes against transubstantiation : and if you cannot alledg one pope from the beginning of christianity , who teaches contrary to what is now professed in the roman church , concerning this contested article of faith , is it not a great argument that it was alwaies taught in the church of god ? article ix . upon facundus . facundus the african bishop , justifying theodorus mopsuestenus , who had said , that christ also received the adoption of sons , reasons thus , christ vouchsafed to receive the sacrament of adoption , both when he was circumcised and baptized ; and the sacrament of adoption may be called adoption , as the sacrament of his body and blood is by us called his body and blood. the intern grace of the holy ghost received in baptism , properly constitutes us the true sons adoptive of god , which could not be conferr'd on our saviour ; for he was enriched with the plenitude of perfection , and was the natural son of god. yet christ may be said , facundus urges , to receive the adoption of sons , because he vouchsafed to receive baptism , the sacrament of adoption . then seeking an example to verify that baptism may be called adoption , though it was not , but only contain'd the grace of adoption , was forced instancing the blessed sacrament , barely to consider the sacrament in the outward species of bread in the eucharist , which may be called the body and blood of christ ; because it contains the body and blood of christ . what is contain'd in baptism , is it not the proper grace of adoption ? and what is contained in the consecrated species , is the true body and blood of christ . can any after this believe , that what you have objected , prejudices in the least the universal and received doctrin of the christian church , of bread and wine substantially chang'd in the sacrament into the proper and true body and blood of christ ? what you repeat by way of appendix , the names of some catholic divines , is inconsiderable . only this i can say , you might have more prudently omitted them in your own behalf , than chang'd their words in detriment to the catholic doctrin . for scotus only says , that the truth of some articles , is more explicit or manifest in the lateran decrees , than it was in the symbols of the apostles , or in the athanasian creed , or that of nice ; and in a word , what ever is here defin'd ( in the council of lateran ) is to be held as a sincere part of our faith. durandus does not say , that he would have been of a contrary opinion , had not the church defin'd for transubstantiation ; but only tacitly insinuates , that he would have made use of the bread and wine , remaining with the body of christ in the sacrament , which was possible to god , though really false , in order to solve some objections , had not the canon of the church interven'd . nor ought we to be surprised at this . for durandus ordinarily walked on the brink of faith in assertions , and therefore merited the title of temerarius doctor in the church of god. these are his words , the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of christ ; yet although this be really true , it was possible to god that the body of christ might have been in the sacrament , with the substance of bread , which is not really true , for the church has decreed the contrary , and she is presum'd not to err in her decisions ; therefore holding the bread chang'd into christ's body , i answer to the contrary objections . tunstal bishop of durham says , from the beginning of christianity , no body doubted of the real presence of christ in the sacrament , and that the learned ancient writers look'd upon the manner , how the bread passed into christ's body , as inscrutable and not to be searched into , lest we should seem to tempt christ with the capernaits , doubting how this can be ? but through god-almighty's power , to whom nothing is impossible , the change of bread into christ's body ( by transubstantiation ) seem'd to innocent the third , and those who sat with him in council , to agree most with these words of christ , this is my body . and he censures those who deny this change , with impudent boldness , and opposes them to christ ; saying , if we believe them ( who profess your error ) neither christ nor the holy ghost , can change bread into the substance of christ's body , whose word made all things of nothing . tell me what was erasmus's thought , and i 'le answer what religion he was of . in some places he favours the lutherans , oftentimes he 's a catholic ; i am sure he 's not a protestant in that epistle to conradus ; if you are persuaded there 's nothing besides bread and wine in the sacrament , i had rather be torn in pieces , than profess what you profess . if alphonsus say ther 's seldom mention in ancient writers concerning transubstantiation , these seldom intimations are sufficient to shew , that 't was always taught in the church of god , which ought to convince any unbyased understanding . chap. ii. an account of the coming in of transubstantiation . i have already done this to your hand . 't was instituted by our saviour . i suppose then you mean a particular account of the coming in of the error against transubstantiation , and by what attempts and degrees it was advanced against the romish church . the first opposers of this doctrin , were the capharnaits , who scandaliz'd at our saviour's promise , cry'd out , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? this was seconded with the complaint of his own disciples ; this is a hard saying , and who can hear it ? both were taxed with incredulity , as st. john writes in his sixth chapter . and st. austin calls them heretics , judas heading them as their prince and leader , in whom , without our envy , you may triumph and glory . how often have you been incredulous with the capharnaits , saying , how can he give us his flesh ? how often with the unfaithfull disciples murmured , who can endure this doctrin ? a second attempt was , as st. paul delivers , made by the corinthians , who not distinguishing the body of our lord in the sacrament , from bread and wine , became incredulous , not believing . not believing what ? st. austin replies , the true body of christ to be contain'd in the eucharist . a third essay must be acknowledged in the simonits , menandrians , gnostics , and marcionists , who placing in christ only a phantasm , indirectly rejected the verity of christ's true body and blood in the sacrament . a fourth opposition was from some of the arians , who thirsting after spiritual grace , were not solicitous for any corporal presence , as we learn from st. cyril , and st. gregory nazianzen . in the year . we read of certain heretics meeting together for the taking away of images , who gave this reason ; that our lord having left no image of himself but bread , which is the image of his body , we ought to make no other image of our lord. this conventicle , which then was esteemed heretical in the christian world , you mention , make orthodox , and oppose it to the doctrin of transubstantiation . you are here again mistaken , for there was no sect of men who professed at this time in any place of the world your opinion against transubstantiation . for these heretics taking the word image interiourly , for the substance it self ; said , that as our saviour deified flesh which suffered for man's redemption , so ( constituting the eucharistic bread , not a false image of his natural flesh ) he did ordain it should be made , the priest mediating by the sanctification of the holy ghost , his divine body . these words , as containing the roman belief , were approved in the nicene synod . nor did the writers of the roman church , condemning their heresie which pulled down and destroyed images , charge them with any disbelief of the real presence , or transubstantiation . these iconoclast heretics indiscreetly naming the bread the image of the body of christ , gave probably occasion to the following writers to dispute how it was an image . amongst whom scotus erigena , towards the end of the eight , or beginning of the ninth century , went so far , that he said , 't was only an image of the body . scarce had he broach'd this new doctrin , but he was straight censured by the writers of those times . hincmarus accused him that he called the sacrament a remembrance only of the true body and blood of christ . prudentius bishop of troy , and ebbo prelat of grenoble , confuted the same erigena . nor did this scotus decline the sinister opinion of pope nicholas , in his letter to charles the bald , scotus's great patron and friend . yet we never read that scotus ever reply'd in defence of his error , and so seem'd in some manner to retract what before he had imprudently spoken . his followers were but few , and those too , taught this error underhand , so fearfully , that no body could accuse them of open heresie , or convince them not to be catholics . thus this infant embrio of error covered in the shell of darkness , was at length hatch'd and brought forth by berengarius in the twelfth age. berengarius was born at tours in france . after he had finished the ordinary courses of studies , he taught grammar and philosophy . then he was made treasurer in st. martin's church . about the year , he went for anger 's , where he was kindly entertained , and constituted by bruno the arch bishop , his archdeacon . here he began to sow several errors ; viz. that children were not to be baptized ; that marriage might be dissolved ; that our saviour could not enter in where his disciples were , the door 's shut ; as we learn from guitmundus , theoduinus , and st. anselm . he added a fourth error , which is to our present purpose , that the consecrated bread was only a figure of christ's body . which , that he might the better maintain , he kept poor boys to school , educating them in all manner of learning , that so by mony and interest , he might have many at his command . but alas all in vain , for this error no sooner was vented , but it was opposed by many learned writers . among these , were st. lanfrancus , st. anselm , a guitmundus , durandus , algerus , b adelmannus , hugo lingonensis , humbertus , c petrus cluniacensis , d euthymius , e hugo victorinus , f petrus lombardus . and the same berengarius more than once abjured his error , which during his life was nine times condemned in nine several councils . the first at rome under leo the ninth . the second at vercells . the third in the convent of brion , according to the desires of henry duke of normandy , to whom he fled for protection . the fourth at paris . the fisth at tours , by order from pope victor . the sixth at rome under nicholas the second . the seventh at poictous in france . the eighth at rome under gregory the seventh . the ninth at bourdeaux , under hugo bien bishop and legat of the see apostolic in france . this we have from the writers of those times cited in baronius . the last abjuration of this heresie made by berengarius , was real . for after ten years penance , he died peaceably in the bosom of the church . this we have from a william of malemsbury , b mathew paris , vincentius bellovacensis ; and what is most convincing , we read in an old manuscript , in st. martin's at tours , these words , obiit magister berengarius , grammaticus fidelis , et vere catholicus . an. dom. . many of those whom he had perverted , imitated his pious return to the church , and his penance . others more unfortunate , propogated this figurative exposition , and exclusion of christ's body in the sacrament , after the best manner , industry could invent , and craft execute . hence you may gather what diligence the enemy of mankind used ; how often he was forced to repeat , almost the same stratagems , before the fearful error durst publickly appear , or was able to stand in any corner of christendom . pray now compare , if you please , the rise of transubstantiation with the beginning of the opposite contradiction ; and acknowledge without prejudice or partiality , which of the two ought to be sincerely embraced . whether will you believe , nine several councils , or berengarius an apostate , who yet afterwards recanted ? whether the holy fathers , who vindicated this catholic doctrin , st. austin , st. hilary , st. ambrose , st. cyril , st. justin , st. ignatius martyr ; or the marcionits , menandrians , simonits , all heretics , who deny the substantial body of christ ? whether lastly , you believe st. paul , or the erring corinthians ; st. john , or the incredulous jews ; our blessed saviour , or the contradicting calvinists ? i leave you to your own choice , whilst i pursue your third principle . chap. iii. examen of your solution given to mr. arnauld 's demonstration . mr. arnauld , a learned man in france , pretended very rightly , that it was impossible , that our doctrin , if it had been new , should ever have come in , in any age , and been received in the church , and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the church in all ages . for if it had not been always the doctrin of the church , when ever it had attempted first to come in , there would have been a great stir and bussle about it , and the whole christian world would have rose up in opposition to it . but you have shewn no such time , when first it came in , and when any such opposition was made to it , and therefore it was always the doctrin of the church . it is true , you would fain have me believe , that rabanus , archbishop of mentz , and heribaldus , bishop of auxerre , and bertram opposed this doctrin with all their might . but what you have alledg'd from their writings , do not convince me . bertram indeed says , the writers of that age talked according to their several opinions , differently about the mystery of christ's body and blood , and were divided by no small schism . but what was this schism ? this schism or difference according to bertram , precisely consisted in two questions . first , whether there was a figure in the mystery . secondly , whether the bread that was chang'd into christ's body , was the natural body of christ , which was born of the virgin mary . bertram in the first part of his treatise undertook to shew , that there was a figure in the mystery , as the conclusion of his discourse in the end evidences in these terms ; from what i have heitherto spoken , 't is clear , that the body of christ , which the faithful receive into their mouths , is a figure , if we regard the visible species . and lest any one should impeach him of error in the sacrament , he straight added , but if we consider the invisible substance the body and blood truly there exist , grounding himself upon this principle , that the substance of bread was changed , and the outward appearance only remained , he could not conceive how his adversaries ( who , though they faithfully believed with bertram and the church , that the bread was changed into the true body of christ , yet they deny'd there was any figure in the sacrament ) could reconcile faith with their opinion . and this was his reason ; for if the bread and wine were another thing than they were before consecration , they were changed . and if the substance was changed , the visible species which remained must be a figure . rabanus speaking of the second proposition , viz. whether the bread , which was changed into the body of christ , was the natural body of christ , declares , that it was not the body of christ received from the virgin mary in its natural existence , but that it was the true body which he received from the virgin after a supernatural and sacramental permanency . the first opinion which he rejects , he charges with novelty , in the passage you cite , saying , some of late not having a right opinion , concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of our lord , have said ; that this is the body and blood of our lord which was born of the virgin mary , and in which our lord suffered upon the cross , and rose from the dead : which error we have opposed with all our might . the other , which was the belief of the church , he thus delivers : god effected whatever he would in heaven and on earth . from hence he deduces , that bread is chang'd into the body of christ ; and therefore adds , it is no other flesh , no other truly than what was born of the virgin mary , and suffered upon the cross , and rose from the sepulcher . and who does not believe this , if he had seen christ upon the cross in the likeness of a servant , how would he have understood he was god , unless faith had prevailed with him to believe ? and in the chapter of the same book , he speaks thus ; it is the same flesh , which was given for thee and for all , and hanged upon the cross , because truth testifies , this is my body which shall be given for you ; and of the chalice , this is my blood , which shall be spilt for you , for remission of sins . from hence it is plain , that what is now the very doctrin of the church of rome concerning the sacrament , the two learned authors you have alledged , bertram and rabanus , never oppos'd . but you tell us , though for a more clear and satisfactory answer to the pretended demonstration of mr. arnauld , you have consented to untie the knot , yet you could without all these pains have cut it . if you strive to cut it with no more skill than you have endeavor'd to untie it , the work must be the labor of some nobler champion . 't is true , you make use of ( in hopes to do the business ) diogenes plain stroke of experience o'recoming zeno's denial of motion , by walking before his eyes . is then the doctrin of transubstantiation not the belief of the primitive church , because diogenes walked before zeno 's eyes ? a wilder proceeding i never heard of from any christian divine ; and the bare relation of this matter of fact , is a full confutation thereof . from the pagan philosophers , you run for assistance to the servants in the parable , who could not give any punctual account when the tares were sown , or by whom : yet it was manifest they were mingled with the good wheat . from hence you hasten to the civil wars of our nation , where at length our king his gracious majesty , charles the second of great brittain , was happily restored to his crown , without a great deal of fighting and bloodshed . from this place you take your journy into turky , and bring down the grand visier ( invading christendom , and besiegeing vienna ) who was not opposed by the most christian king , who had the greatest army in christendom in a readiness . whilst i ruminate these similitudes , i cannot easily conceive , how you can joyn our great monarch's happy restauration , in a simily with tares , where wheat was sown , and with the grand seigneur invading christendom , and not give occasion to the reader to think you either wanted circumspection in the choice of your arguments , or imprudently left a suspicion of your loyalty . and i wonder how a man of your great wit and judgment , could prevail with himself to conclude the nullity of mr. arnauld's solid reasoning from experiences or matters of fact , that have nothing at all to do with the sacrament ? why must mr. arnauld's demonstration be weak and insufficient , because the christian king , not long since reposed in peace , with his great army ; or some time ago our gracious monarch of happy memory , was restored to his crown ; or because st. mathew wrote the parable of the tares ? all the reason in the world is too weak to make good any such way of proceeding . but to answer precisely to what you assimilate them in , ( viz. from these comparisons you would prove , that the controverted doctrin might silently have come in , and without opposition , although the particular time and occasion of its first rise , could not be assigned ; ) did not a considerable part of christendom with all their might oppose the turkish invasion ? and if all had been quiet , would not vienna have been surprised and pilledged ? was all england ignorant of the restauration of our gracious monarch ; and were there none to be found to witness his coming in ? were not the tares , as soon as they sprung up , seen and discovered ? but no body , except heretics , ever opposed transubstantiation ; no body but rebels rofe against the right prerogative of their prince . and what has the parable of the tares to do with the blessed sacrament ? the same confidence is sufficient to extend the same comparison to the rest of our christian mysteries , and proves just as much , that is , nothing at all , except christianity be nothing else but tares . sect . iii. of the infallible authority of the present church for this doctrin . you say , the roman church made and obtruded upon the world this article , merely by vertue of her authority , seeing not any sufficient reason , either from scripture , or tradition , for the belief of it . the roman catholic church never taught any of her children , that she had power from god to make an article of faith. but she teaches us , that two conditions are required for the constitution of an article of faith. first , revelation from god. secondly , the declaration of an oecumenical council . where these two agree , that we are taught , is part of our belief . and i shall desire you will only peruse these words of the council of trent , which intimate the reason , why the church of god declared for transubstantiation ; and i am persuaded you 'l believe she did not define this doctrin , neither warranted with scripture , nor tradition . for the council says ; because christ our saviour truly said , that was his body , which under the species of bread , he offered ; therefore the church of god was always persuaded , and this holy council declares again the same , that by the consecration of bread and wine , the whole substance of bread is changed into the substance of the body of our lord , and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of the blood , which conversion is conveniently and properly called by the council , transubstantiation . sect . iv. of the necessity of such a change for the benefit of the receiver . the spiritual efficacy of the sacrament depends upon receiving the thing , which our lord instituted , and a right preparation and disposition of mind , which makes it effectual to those spiritual ends , for which it was appointed . as god might without any baptismal water , without any visible elements , have washed away the stains of original sin , and given spiritual regeneration : so could he have made the worthy receivers true partakers of the spiritual comfort and benefit design'd to us in the lord's supper , without any substantial change made in the nature of bread and wine . but as we cannot say , the water in baptism , and symbols are unprofitable , as things are instituted by god , and useless for the cleansing of original sin : so likewise ought we not to pretend , that the flesh of christ is useless , and profiteth nothing to the worthy receiver of the sacrament , because christ without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the sacrament . god might have pardon'd the world , if his only begotten son had not undergon so many griefs and anguishes , so much pain , and that ignominious death of the cross . yet who dare say this flesh was not true flesh , or profited nothing , which redeemed all the world ? if it profited on the cross , why does it not profit in the sacrament ? and if it profit not without faith , how can it profit those who believe not ? the very thought of our saviour's substantial presence in the sacrament , strikes much a deeper impression of devotion in my soul , than if i reflected on bare symbols or signs weakly exciting faith in me . and even when a terrene prince visits prisons , or in a solemn pomp enters the capital city , his corporal presence customarily frees many criminals from chains , fetters , and imprisonments , which the law would otherwise not have granted , nor the king consented too : and yet one word of command is sufficient to do greater execution . sect . v. of the power of the priest . we acknowledge a power in the priest , which is not in the people . all were not constituted apostles , all were not doctors . but we do not acknowledge a power in the priest to make god , as you calumniate us : we acknowledge a power in god to change one substance into another , bread into his body . till you prove this impossible , ( which is impossible to be done ; ) you 'll give us leave to believe god is in the right possession of his omnipotency , and loses nothing of his power by your detraction . and if you count this miraculous change no miracle , give it what title you please ; we will not dispute the name , if you contradict not the thing . and thus i have dispatched the first part of my answer , which was to vindicate the real grounds and reasons of the church of rome , for this doctrin . part i my second part was designed to answer your objections , which are of so much the less force , because i have already shewn , this doctrin sufficiently warranted with divine authority ; and this easily weighs down , and overthrows whatever probabilities sense can suggest , or reason invent . these probabilities you reduce to these two heads , first , the infinite scandal of this doctrin , to the christian religion . and secondly , the monstrous and insupportable absurdity of it . chap. i. of the infinite scandal of this doctrin to the christian religion . and this upon four accounts . first , by reason of the stupidity of this doctrin . secondly , the real barbarousness of it . thirdly , the bloody consequences of it . fourthly , the danger of idolatry . article i. of the stupidity of this doctrin . tully the roman orator , says , when we call the fruits of the earth ceres , and wine bacchus , we use but the common language , but do you think any man so mad , as to believe what he eats , to be god ? i am of cicero's opinion . and all reasonable people look upon poetical fancies , as extravagant reveries . but i hope the law of christ , is neither poetical nor fabulous . i remember the poets sing how minerva the goddess of wisdom was born of jupiter's understanding . harken , says tertullian , a fable , but a true one , like to this . the word of god proceeding from the thought of his eternal father . this likeness , or similitude of poetical invention , diminishes not in the least , the truth of the son's divinity . nor ought the stupidity of eating god , in tully's opinion , ridicule our saviour's own words , take , eat , this is my body . averröes the arabian philosopher , acknowledging in his time this doctrin , to be the profession of all christians , ought to make ( not what you say , the church of rome ) the church of england blush , objecting that the whole society of christians then , every where admitted transubstantiation . i have travelled , says he , over the world , and have found divers sects , but so sottish a sect or law i never found , as is the sect of christians , because with their own teeth they devour god , whom they worship . it was great stupidity in the people of israel , to say , come let us make us gods ; but it was civilly said of them , let us make us gods that may go before us , in comparison of the church of england , who calumniously make the catholics say , let us make a god , that we may cat him ; when we only say , god has power to change bread into his body . but the greatest stupidity of all is , that in all probability you think those common jugling words of hocus pocus are nothing else but a corruption , of hoc est corpus , by way of a ridiculous imitation of the priest of the church of rome . i grant this imitation is very ridiculous . and you are the first juggler with this divine mystery , and with our saviour's own words , that ever i read of in my life . but with all the legerdemain , and jugling tricks of falsehood and imposture , you l never make me believe you , sooner than i do the scripture . nay , if averröes , cicero , and a whole progenie of heathen philosophers , were as great jugglers as your self , and altogether design'd to put a trick upon me , you should never juggle me , by the grace of god , out of my faith in christ . and lastly , if i should ask counsil of the philosophers ( as you do in the concern of the sacrament ) to know the true cause of this universe , heraclitus would tell me atoms produced it ; pythagoras would send me to the marriage in numbers ; the valentinians would bring me to the four principles , which made the treatise of peace between verity and silence , light and profoundness . but whilst i let them enquire one of another , what gave being to these atoms ? who thought these numbers ? whence came this verity ? what is the origin of this silence ? the source of this light ? the prop of this profoundness ? i rest contented in mind , and instructed with this passage of moses ; in the beginning god created heaven and earth : god is the cause of all things . cicero may dispute with his false gods : and averröes may deride christians : a jugler may laugh at our saviour's institution . these words , this is my body , silences them all , and excites me to say with st. austin , dispute you , i will believe . article ii. of the barbarousness of this doctrin . the eating man's flesh , in its proper shape , is no doubt very barbarous . but i think the eating our saviour's flesh under the species of bread and wine , appears barbarous neither to sense , nor to reason . theophilact asks ( in john . ) why does it not appear flesh to us , but bread ? and answers , lest we should have horror to eat it . and what you call horrible , st. chrysistom calls amiable . for what more kind than to give himself ? but you cannot imagin the ancient christians ever own'd any such doctrin , because then we should have heard of it from the adversaries of our religion in every page of their writings . this cannot be expected . for very few pagans concern'd themselves with the rites of christianity : and of these the most famous complain christians conceal'd the doctrins they professed . hence that murmur of cecilius in minutius felix , why are the christians carefull to hide and steal their worship from mens eyes , since honesty is never asham'd to face light ? and celsus disgusted upon the same account , calls our religion a clandestin or hidden doctrin . to which origen occurs . t is true , there are some points among us not communicated to all the world , nor is this peculiar to christians . the philosophers observ'd two sorts of principles , some were public and common to all ; others were private , and the science of particular disciples . 't is therefore in vain celsus undertakes to discover the secrets of christians , not knowing in what they consist . st. austin , and st. denys the areopagite teach the same . and yet whether the pagans knew them , or knew them not , you will have them revile our mysteries in every page of ther writings . nor are you contented with this , for you add , with what confidence would they have set the cruelty used by christians in their sacrament , against their god saturn's eating his own children , but that no such argument was then objected by the heathens to the christians , is to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations , that no such doctrin was believed . now sure i am nonplust . for how can i solve an objection which stands instead of a thousand demonstrations ? what author will happily fall into my hand , or dictate how our adversaries gathered from slaves and captives a rude relation of this mystery , which was matter enough for them to hit us in the teeth , in requital of saturn's eating his children , with the killing and feasting on flesh and blood ? this passage perchance of tertullian may suffice any sober understanding , that the pagans did not omit such a return you seek after ; we are ( says he ) called wicked infanticides , ( child killers ) and nourished with raw flesh . athanagoras comes nearer , and reminds us how the pagans with confidence set the cruelty used by christians , in their sacrament , if not against the god saturn's , at least against thyestes's ( another like history ) eating his own child . we are impeach'd , says he , ( by pagans ) of three horrible crimes , of taking away the gods , of thyestean banquets ( eating of a child , ) and of incests . st. justin martyr fits you with saturn's own fable . 't is reported ( says he to the pagans ) we practice saturn's mystery ; and killing man , exercise , with hands full of goar , all the cruel and bloody rites of your idolatry . now sure i may conclude with you , that because such a thing was then objected by the heathens to the christians , it is to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations , that the doctrin of transubstantiation was believed in primitive ages , and then modestly vindicated from these foul aspersions . article iii. of the bloody consequences of this doctrin . if this doctrin had been the occasion of the most barbarous and bloody tragedies , to use your words , that ever were acted in the world , the enemies of christianity would have hit them in the teeth with these cruelties of terrour , fury and rage ; and what endless triumphs would they have made upon this subject ? but that no such thing was objected by the heathens , is to a wise man instead of a thousand demonstrations . and what you want here of authority , you supply and make up in a zealous appearance of devotion , breaking into this exclamation ; o blessed saviour ! who can imagine that ever men should kill one another , for not being able to believe contrary to their senses ; for being unwilling to think that thou shouldst make one of the most barbarous things that can be imagined , a principle of thy religion ; for not flattering the presumption of the priest , who says he can make god. this is certainly to run headlong into hell in heavens road , wheedling the people into blind extasies , with hypocritically crying out , o blessed saviour ! but all who says , o lord , o lord , shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven . examine your own prayer , and reason will find matter enough to discuss , and conscience more to correct . what catholic ever said , first , that men should kill one another ; secondly , that the most barbarous thing in the world is a mystery of religion ; thirdly , that we flatter the priest , who says , he can make god ? these are as true , as your prayer is without calumny or hypocrisie . they are as true , as there were execrable murders committed to drive people into this senseless doctrin , by no body , in no place . but they are not as true as the doctrin of transubstantiation was delivered by christ and his apostles , taught by the consent of the fathers , divinely revealed and propagated to posterity ; and so free from stupidity , quiet from cruelty , and a pious mystery of our religion . article iv. of the danger of idolatry . if we should be mistaken , as you suppose , about this change through the crosness of the priest ( which god forbid it should happen ) not pronouncing the words of blessing or consecration , we should not at all be guilty of idolatry for believing only one true god , we profess there is infinite distance between him and all creatures : and therefore we cannot so honour any creature , as we do the true god. nor is our intention ever determined by the will to adore any thing which is not god ; so that if the hoast were not , through mistake , consecrated by the priest , the peoples adoration would be terminated in christ , where e're he is , because it is directed to god , and not to a creature . the pagans , 't is true , or persians cannot be excused from idolatry , in worshiping the sun , because erring from the knowledge of the true god , they direct their adoration to what is not god , but a creature . mr. thorndyke , one of the great lights of your church , was so convinced in this point , that he professes , should this church ( of england ) declare that the change , which we call reformation , is grounded upon this supposition ( of idolatry in the church of rome , ) i must then acknowledge that we ( protestants ) are the schismatics . chap. ii. of the monstrous absurdity of this doctrin . to shew the absurdity of this doctrin , you are contented to ask these few questions . question . whether ever any man have , or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any divine revelation , than every man hath of the falsehood of transubstantiation . answer . if we had no surer evidence of revealed truth , than every man hath of the falsehood of transubstantiation , we should have no true evidence for christian religion ; and thus by your first question christianity would immediatly be dispatched out of the world. quest . . supposing the doctrin had been delivered in scripture in the same words , which we read in the council of trent , you ask , by what stronger argument could any man prove to me , that such words were in the bible , than i can prove to him , that bread and 〈…〉 consecration are bread and wine still ? answer . the sense of the council of trent , and that of the scriptures are one and the same . if therefore i can but appeal to 〈◊〉 eyes to prove such words to be in the bible , as you do appeal to your senses to prove that bread and wine remain after consecration ; what the scripture says , is evidently true according to the testimony of sense ; and your testimony from sense of the substance of bread remaining , is evidently false . i have great assurance of this . for st. paul forbids me to believe an angel , if he should come down from heaven , and teach me contrary to what is writ in scripture . as this is the substance of bread , and not my body , is contradictory to , this is my body . and what prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an angel ? and if you draw one way with your evidence of sense , and scriptural evidence from sense draw another way , is it not evident that your evidence is good for nothing ? quest . . whether it be reasonable to imagin , that god should make that a part of christian religion , which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole ? you mean the miracles which were wrought by our saviour and his apostles , the assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense ? answer . with great reason and justice you appeal to the senses of those , who say , they saw the miracles which were wrought by our saviour , and his apostles ; because their eyes were the proper witnesses of miracles : so with the same reason and justice i appeal to my senses to prove , that the words which teach the doctrin of transubstantiation are in scripture , because paper , ink , syllables , and words , are the proper objects of seeing , feeling , and hearing . how then does the catholic tenet shake the main external evidence of the christian religion , when this external proof of sense evidences , from scripture , transubstantiation ? quest . whether our saviour's argument were conclusive or not , proving to his disciples after his resurrection , that his body was risen , luke . . behold my hands and my feet , that it is i my self , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones , as you see me have . and if seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to our senses , then the bread in the sacrament is not chang'd into the body of christ . answer . sense , in its own objects , is frequently certain ; and here we may rely on it . according to this principle , the argument which our saviour used , did certainly prove to the disciples , that what they saw and handled , was his true body . for affirmation of flesh and bones rightly follows from feeling and seeing . these actions belong properly to the experience of sense . besides , we have all this recorded in scripture . and our saviour made use of all other arguments imaginable to confirm the mystery of his resurrection . in some circumstances the senses may deceive us , and then we ought not to rely on them . thus the jews , designing to precipitate our saviour from the top of a mountain ; jesus , as we read in scripture , passed through the crowd , and departed , and the whole multitude , trusting to that information which sense gave them , believ'd he was a ghost , or apparition . in like manner , the same true body of christ is substantially present in the sacrament after a spiritual existence ; and therefore it is not the proper object of sense ; and so we cannot here rely on our senses . we must then trust to something else , viz. to the testimony of scripture , which is the rule of faith , to know surely what substance or body lies under the species , or appearance of bread. now the scripture teaches us , that the bread in the eucharist is the body of christ , this is my body ; and , the bread which i will give is my flesh . if it be the flesh of christ , as we learn from scripture , then the substance of bread remains not ; for the remaining substance , at the same time , cannot be the substance of bread , and the substance of the body of christ . moreover , our saviour left many other testimonies in confirmation of this verity . our belief is grounded on our saviour's words ; and what more secure than to build on this immovable rock of truth . now what shall i say , but that your whole discourse has been levell'd at our saviour jesus christ , and his testimonies , against which the gates of hell shall never prevail . and i finish with these words of st. austin . when the opinion of error has prepossessed man's mind , whatever scripture shall say in opposition to his senses , he supposes a figurative interpretation . oh that this figurative receiving christ in the sacrament , presage not a figurative embracing of the same in the next world ! and so you clipping the shadow for the true body , lose for ever eternal happiness . ecclesiae judicio subjecta sunto . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e page . st. hil. cont . const . aug. die prius , si rectè disputas , nolo adversus nova venena novas medicamentorum comparationes . st. athan. d. cum ario coram probo . nominis ne offenderis novitate , anetiam ret ipsius veritate , quae hoc est sortita vocabulum . vincent . lyr. in commonit . ecclesia plerunque propter intelligentiae lucem , non novum fidei sensum novae appellationis proprietate signat . nic. . in sym. con. ephes. anat . . conc. later . decret . . an . * aristotle . gen. . v. . luke . . ex nihilo nil fit . st. greg. orat. . st. clem. alex. . stom . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. ambr. super illud psal . omnia opera ejus in fide . non creditur philosophis , creditur piscatoribus . st. cyr. apud st. maxim. tò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. chrys. in joan. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. aug. tract . . in joan. nec cognoscare , nec credere valemus . mark c. . john . from the greek . vers . . vers . . st. aug. tract . . in joan. accedat spiritus ad carnem , quomodo accedit charitas ad scientiam & prodest plurimum : nam si caro nihil prodesset , verbum caro non fieret . st. paul . cor. . scientia inflat . st. cyr. . in joan. lib. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . exod. . heb. . v. . luke . st. paul , cor. . joan. in evang. c. . joan. . v. . ep. . joan. cap. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( or as others read , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. ignat. ep. ad smyrnaeos . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. just . apol. . in the end . tertull. de resurr . carnis , c. . caro corpore & sanguine christi vescitur , ut anima de deo saginetur . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. cyr. hier. catech. . mystag . gauden . epis . bress . tract . . in exod. de pane rursus , quia & potest & promisit , efficit proprium corpus ; & quia de aqua vinum fecit , de vino sanguinem facit . lib. . de fide , c. . in carnem transfigurantur & sanguinem . st. greg. nyss . tom. . orat. cat. c. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . syn. aegypt . prov. alex. profess . fid. tom. . conc. general . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . sess . . c. . ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia dei fuit . st. aug. apud st. fulgen . & de divers . dicuntur sacramenta quia aliud videtur , aliud intelligitur . st. paul , heb. . v. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . cor. . st. luke . matth. . mark . ad heb. c. . v. . st. aug. civit. dei , l. . c. . st. cyp. l. . ep. . ad caeci . st. greg. or. . advers . julian . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . indubitanter tenendum est à bonis sumi , non modo sacramentaliter , sed & spiritualiter . amalts verò tantùm sacramentaliter , id est , sub sacramento , scilicet , sub visibili specie , christi carnem de virgine sumptam & sanguinem pro nobis fusum sumi : sed non mysticam , quae tantùm bonorum est . scor. l. . d. . q. . b. st. greg. mag. apud . scot. est quidem indignè sumentibus vera christi caro , & verus sanguis , sed essentiâ , non salubri efficaciâ . convertitur in corpus christ . n. . non estaliquis articulus arctandus ad intellectum difficilem , nisi ille intellectus sit verus ; sed si verus est , & probatur evidenter esse verum , oportet secundùm illum intellectum tenere articulum — sic autem supponitur de intellectu hujus articuli . ab eo spiritu expositae sunt scripturae , à quo conditae sunt . non enim in potestate ecclesiae fuit , facere illud verum vel non verum , sed dei instituentis , sed illum à deo traditum ecclesia explicavit , directa in hoc , ut creditur spiritu veritatis , l. . d. . q. . n. . bellarminus , l. . c. . tertio addit ( scil . scotus ) quia ecclesia catholica in generali concilio scripturam declaravit , ex scriptura sic declarata , manifeste probari transubstantiationem . etiamsi scriptura , quam nos supra adduximus , videtur nobis tam clara , ut possit urgere hominem non protervum ; tamen an it a sit , meritò dubitari potest , cum homines acutissimi , qualis scotus , contrarium sentiant . lib. . c. . de euch. l. . c. . haec verba necessariò inferunt , aut veram mutationem panis , ut volunt catholici , aut mutationem metaphoricam , ut volunt calvinistae . l. . c. . in universim demonstrabimus , non esse probabile , dominum figura te loqui voluisse . l. . c. . nullo modo lutheranorum sententiam admittunt . duran . d. . q. . de corp. & sang. domini . profanae novitatis dogma . in. . sent. q. . dico quod in altari est vere . transubstantiatio . occham . ibidem . primus medus potest teneri , quia non repugnat rationi , nec alicui authoritati . bibliae , & est rationabilior , & facilior ad tenendum inter omnes modos — — quia tamen determinatio ecclesiae in contrarium existit , sicut patet extra de summ . trin. de fid. et communiter omnes doctores ten nt quod ibi non remanet substantia panis , ideo etiam teneo quod non remanet ibi substantia panis , sed illa species , & quod illi coëxistat corpus christi . biel in canon missae , lect. . quamvis expresse tradatur in scriptura quod christi corpus sub speciebus panis continetur , tamen quomodo ibi sit christi corpus , an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum , aut sine conversione incipiat esse corpus christi cum pane , manentibus substantia & accidentia panis , non invenitur expressum in canone bibliae . ibidem . ex his & aliis plurimis authoritatibus sanctorum habetur , quod corpus christi est in sacramento , per transubstantiationem substantiae panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem christi . mel. canus de focis com. l. . c. . extat apud lucam scriptum apertissimum testimonium ad hujus rei probationem . petrus ab al. . sent. q. . possibile est corpus christi assumere substantiam panis , nec repugnat rationi , nec authoritati bibliae ; imò est facilior ad-intelligendam , & rationabilior , quàm ille modus , qui ponit quod substantia deserat accidentia . non est impossibile deo , quod substantia panis subitò sit alibi , remanentibus speciebus in ●odem loco , & eis coexistere corpus christi . ille tamen modus non esset ita rationabilis , sicut prius . cajet . in . d. . a. . in coena domini . cont. cap. baby . c. . n. . non quod res haec jam ambigua sit , sed quod ejus certitudo , non tàm habeatur ex evangelii verbis , quàm patrum interpretatione , simul & usu tanti temporis , quem illi posteris reliquerunt . cap. . de cap. babyl . adv. oecolamp . page . ins . cal. . c. . p. . st. aug. cont . petilian . . ne stabilire posse putent ulla dogmata iis qui solum vel obscure , vel ambiguè vel figuratê dicuntur in scripturis . john . john . john . cor. . cor. . gen. . . st. aug. in psal . . conc. . quomodo intelligitur in ipso david secundùm literam non invenimus , in christo autem invenimus . ferebatur enim christus in manibus , quando commendans ipsum corpus suum , ait , hoc est corpus meum . john. . st. hill. fragmentis fragmenta succedunt , & fallunt semper perfracta frangentes . raban . de sang. dom. c. . minuendo multiplicabantur . st. justin . dial. cum trypho p. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . malac. . ego dominus & non mutor . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . exod. . sept. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ corpus meum . chap. . chap. . cor. . * communion . acts . . exod. . . cor. . st. chrys . hic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st. ambr. l. . de fide , c. . panis hic caro est . ibidem . os ejus non conteretur . l. . st. hil. de trin. c. . deveritate carnis & sanguinis ejus non relictus est ambigendi locus , nunc & ipsius domini professione & fide nostra , vere caro est & vere sanguis est . st. amb. de abra. patriarcha , quàm indignum est humanis testimoniis de alio credamus , dei oraculis de se non credamus ? st. chrys . hîc , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . john . . verse . matth. . st. justin . apol. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . l. . c. . l. . c. . catech . oportet autem sicut exitiale , ita etiam salutare medicamentum admitti intra viscera hominis , ut per illa distribuatur in universum corpus , virtus ejus quod fert opem . quid hoc ergo est ? nihil aliud quam illud corpus , quod & morte ostensum fuit esse potentius & nostrae vitae fuit initium . eâ de cautâ per suae gratiae dispensationem , se per carnem inserit , omnibus credentibus , commissus & contemperatus corporibus credentium , quibus substantia est ex pane & vino , ut unione cum eo quod est immortale , sit etiam homo particeps incorruptionis . st. irenaeus . quemadmodum granum tritici decidens in terram , & dissolutam multiplex surgit per spiritum dei , sic & nostra corpora corpore christi nutrita & reposita in terram , & resoluta , resurgent in suo tempore . l. . c. . de ea dispositione quae est secundum hominem , quae ex carnibus & nervis & ossibus consistit , quae de calice , qui est sanguis ejus nutritur , & de pane , qui est corpus ejus , augetur . apud oecum . in pet. . v. bede martyr , . octr. st. amb. l. de novis baptis . c. . prodidisse potius quàm edidisse existimaremur . st. cyril , hier. cat. . adv. marcion . l. . p. . edit . rigal . lact. de divin . inst . l. . c. . st. hierom. de inst . mon. ad paul. tom. . creber in sententiis difficilis in loquendo . jer. mittamus lignum in panem ejus . tertul. l. . c. . contra. marc. sic enim deus in evangelio quoque vestro revelavit , panem corpus suum appellans , ut & hinc jam tum intelligas corporis sui figuram pane dedisse , cujus retro corpus in pane propheta figuravit . lib. . lib. . c. . non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis christi dicentis per jeremiam . — ut autem & sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas . l. . contra marc. deus est & effigies . l. de cap. . non alium postea vini saporem quod consecravit in sanguinis sui memoriam . peron in orig. sixtus sen. bib. s . l. . geneb . praef. in origen . lirin . in comm. st. epiph. haer. . theoph. l. pasch . . con. gen. . collat. . cap. . homil. . in levit. cibus est petrus & paulus & omnes apostoli . john . levit. . hom. si vero adsideamus literae , & secundum hoc : vel quod judaeis ; vel id quod vulgò videtur , accipiamus , quae in lege scripta sunt , erubesco dicere & confiteri , quia tales leges dederit deus . hom. . in numb . tunc in aenigmate erat manna cibus , nunc autem in specie caro verbi dei est verus cibus . quae in aenigmate designabantur nunc in specie & veritate complentur . homil. . in diversa . quando illud incorruptum accipias epulum , quando vite pane & populo frueris , manduc as & bibis corpus & sanguinem domini . tunc dominus subtectum tuum ingreditur , & tu ergo humilians teipsum , imitare hunc centurionem , & dicito , domine non sum dignus , ubi enim indigne ingreditur , ibi ad judicium ingreditur accipienti . nec potest videri sanguis ejus quo redempti , & vivificati , esse in calice , quando vinum desit calici , quo christi sanguis ostenditur . l. . ep. . ad caecilium . jesus ostendens gentium populum succedere in locum quem judaei perdiderant de aqua vinum fecit . contra adimant . c. . deut. . signum animae . lib. . de lib. arb. nunquid ideo fides in dubium vocanda vel disserenda est . ennaret . in ps . . pet. mart. contra gen. luth. admonit . ult . pasch . epla . ad frudeg . alg. l. . c. . a art. . b sup. auch . d l. . de eucha . cap. . e . p. d. . sect. . f contro . . cap. . g sup. auch . st. aug. de s. virg. gal. . . l. . de paenia , c. . ego non sum ego . l. avers . bereng . idem quoad substantiam , non idem quoad modum . apud gratian. de consecratioue , d. . ipsum & non ipsum , ipsum invisibiliter & non ipsum visibiliter . de carne mariae carnem accepit , in ipsa carne hic ambulavit , & ipsam carnem nobis manducandum dedit , nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit . tract . . in john. cor. . epl. . seminatur corruptibile surget incorruptibile . cap. . ad eph. aliam & aliam . ep. . ad bonifacium . de consecratione . hoc est . st. ansel . tract . de sacram. altaris , c. . similitudo illa panis per se inspecta non est corpus domini . st. paul , cor. . si noverim mysteria omnia . . de oratore . hoc tacitum tanquam mysterium teneas . apud gratian. de cons . d. . sect . utramque . si discipuli patienter ferre nequiverunt quod dominus dixit , quomodo ferunt ista increduli ? st. paul , eph. . a ibidem . veritas , dum corpus christi & sanguis , virtute spiritus s. ex panis & vini substantiâ efficitur ; figura , quod exterius sentitur . b de cons . d. . can . . fidelitèr fatemur ante consecrationem esse panem & vinum , quod natura formavit , post consecrationem verò christi sanguinem , quod benedictio consecravit . c can. . panis quem ego dabo , determinat quomodo sit panis , non solum secundum verbum , quo vivunt omnia , sed & secundum carnem assumptam pro mundi vita . matth. . l. . contra advers . leg. & proph. c. . hominem christum jesum carnem snam nobis ▪ manducandum bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli carde , atque ore suscipimus , quamvis horribilius videatur , humanam carnem perimere , quàm manducare , & humanum sanguinem potare , quàm fundere . in psal . . in quo tanta perpessus est . contra faustum , l. . c. . sanguinem quo redempti sunt . tract . . in john. tu es christus filius dei vivi , nec das in carne & sanguine tuo , nisi teipsum . gen. . per nominum mutationem mutationi quae ex gratia facta est fidem adhibere . comm in epla . ad cor. cent. . c. . periculose dicit . st. aug. enarr . in psal . . quod nulla substantia est , nihil omnino est . intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt , & adorantur & creduntur . st. hilary . naturam suam amiserunt . card. pole , p. . c. . de euch. cum in dominica mensa sit solùm caro & sanguis , nihilominus vini natura percipiatur . gelas . de duab . nat. bib. psal . tom. . facund . p. . scotus , l. . & . q. . n. . ad . in concil . lat. ubi-explioicite ponitur veritas , aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quàm habebatur in symbolo apostolorum , vel athanasii , vel nicaeni , & breviter , quidquid ibi dicitur esse credendum , tenendum est esse de substantia fidei . durand . . & numb . . substantia panis & vini convertitur in substantiam corporis & sanguinis christi . quamvis iste modus sit de facto , non est tamen negandum quin alius modus fit deo possibilis , scil . quod remanente substantia panis & vini , corpus & sanguis christi esset in sacramento . et numb . . sed quia hic modus non debet teneri , de facto , cum ecclesia determinavit oppositum , quae non presumitur errare in talibus : ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem , respondendum est ad argumenta quae sunt in contrarium . tunstal de euchar. sed omnipotentia dei cui nihil est impossibile , his qui cum innocentio in eo concilio interfuerunt visum est , quod is modus maxime , cum verbis hisce christi , hoc est corpus meum , congruere illis visus est . si illis credimus , nec christus , nec spiritus sanctus id efficere possit , ut panis in corporis christi substantiam transeat . epistola ad conradum pellicanum do euch. si tibi persuasum est in synaxi nihil esse praeter panem & vinum , ego membratim discerpi malim quam profiteri quod tu profiteris , & omnia perpeti malim , quam tali flagitio contra meam conscientiam admisso ex hac vita migrare . alph. à castro de hers . l. . in psal . . & tract . in joan. dux & antisignanus . cor. . non credentes . s. aug. ep. . c. . non credentes in euch. contineri verum christum . st. cyril . alex. in john , l. . c. . st. greg. naz. orat. . de paschate . ex pseudo-synodo iconomacorum an. . eucharistiae panem , ut non falsam imaginem , naturalis carnis per s. spiritus adventum sanctificandum divinum corpus fieri voluit mediante sacerdote . nic. . dimisso mendacio tangunt paucillum quid veritatem divinum corpus dicentes fieri . hincmarus in scot. memoria tantùm veri corporis & sanguinis christi . januis clausis . guit. l. . contra bereng . theod. ep. ad henricum galliae in bib. pp. st. anf. de sacram. altaris , c. . a in suis libris de corpore & sanguine domini . b in exempl . ad bereng . c in ep. adv . petrum b. d in cap. . matth. e l. . de sacramento , p. . c. . f l. . sect. d. . baron . ad ann. , &c. a l. . de gestis angl. b in henrico . imp. bertram de corpore domini . ex his omnibus quae hactenus dicta sunt , monstratum est , corpus & sanguis christi , quae fidelium ore in ecclesia percipiuntur , figurae sunt , securdum speciem visibilem . at vero secundum invisibilem substantiam , corpus & sanguis christi vere existunt . quo credunt destruere comprobantur , corpus etenim , sanguinémque fideliter confitentur , & cum hoc faciunt , non hoc jam esse quod prius fuere procul dubio potestantur , & si aliud sunt quàm fuere mutationem accêpere . ep. ad heribald . c. . de sanguine domini , cap. . non alia caro est , non alia plane , quam quae nata est de maria , & passa in cruce & resurrexit de sepulchro . et cap. . at vero quisquis ista non credit , si vidisset christum in cruce in specie servi , quomodo deum illum intelligeret , nisi per fidem prius credidisset ? cap. . neque aliam carnem quam quae pro te , & pro omnibus tradita est , pependit in cruce , quia sic veritas testatur , hoc est corpus meum , quod pro vobis tradetur , & de calice , hic enim sanguis meus est , qui pro vobis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum . concil . trid. sess . . cap. . quoniam autem christus redemptor noster , corpus suum id quod sub specie panis offerebat , vere esse dixit , ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia deī fuit , idque nunc denuo sancta haec synodus declarat per consecrationem panis & vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam christi domini nostri , & totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus , quae conversio convenienter & proprie à sancta catholica ecclesia transubstantiatio appellata est . notes for div a -e de natura provid . lib. . et quem tam amentem esse put as , qui illud quo vescatur , deum credat esse ? dionys . carth. in . d. . a. . st. aug. de v. apli . c. . tu disputa , ego credam . theophil . c . in john. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st chrys . hom. . in . ad cor. quid est hoc horribilius ? quid autem amabilius . apud origen . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , l. . cont . celsum . st. aug. tract . . in john. st. dionys . hicr . l. . c. . tertull. apol. c. . dicimur infanticidae & pabulo crudi — anathag . in apol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . st justin apol. . in fine . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . non omnis qui dicit domine , domine , intrabit in regnum caelorum . thorndyk 's present state of religion , c. . p. . luke . matth. . john . st. aug. l. . de doct. christ . c. . si animum praeoccupaverit alicujus erroris opinio , quidquid aliter asseruerit scriptura figuratum homines arbitrantur . a dissertation with dr. heylyn: touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist, by george hakewill, doctor in divinity, and archdeacon of surrey. published by authority. hakewill, george, - . this text is an enriched version of the tcp digital transcription a of text r in the english short title catalog (thomason e _ ). textual changes and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life. the text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with morphadorner. the annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish. this text has not been fully proofread approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. earlyprint project evanston,il, notre dame, in, st. louis, mo a wing h thomason e _ estc r this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (thomason tracts ; :e [ ]) a dissertation with dr. heylyn: touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist, by george hakewill, doctor in divinity, and archdeacon of surrey. published by authority. hakewill, george, - . p. printed by j. r. for george thomason, and octavian pullen, and are to be sold at the rose in pauls church-yard, london : . reproduction of the original in the british library. eng heylyn, peter, - -- early works to . church of england -- doctrines -- early works to . lord's supper -- early works to . mass -- early works to . transubstantiation -- early works to . a r (thomason e _ ). civilwar no a dissertation with dr. heylyn:: touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist, by george hakewill, doctor in divinity, and archdeacon hakewill, george d the rate of defects per , words puts this text in the d category of texts with between and defects per , words. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images - mona logarbo sampled and proofread - mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a dissertation with dr. heylyn : touching the pretended sacrifice in the eucharist , by george hakewill , doctor in divinity , and archdeacon of surrey . published by authority . london , printed by j. r. for george thomason , and octavian pullen , and are to be sold at the rose in pauls church-yard . . a dissertation with dr heylyn , whether the eucharist be a sacrifice , properly so termed , and that according to the doctrine and practise of the church of england now in force . this the doctor , that he may the better defend the situation of the lords table altarwise , confidently maintaineth in sundry places of his antidotum lincolniense . nay so farre he goeth in the maintenance hereof , as if without this nothing else but ruine and confusion , were to be expected in the church of god . and on the other side i am as confident , that he is the first of the reformed churches who ever published this doctrine ; nay all divines of those churches , as well forraign as our own ( whom i have read on that subject ) with one generall consent constantly maintain the clean contrary , as i trust i shall make it evidently appear in this ensuing treatise , wherein i will first shew the defects , which i conceive to be in the doctors discourse , secondly i will endeavour to answer his arguments , and thirdly i will produce such testimonies drawn from the writings of our divines as make against him . chap. i. of the defects of the doctors discourse , of this subject . two things me thinks i finde wanting in this his discourse , whereof the one is the definition of a sacrifice , properly so called , the other is how it can properly be termed a sacrifice , and yet be onely commemorative , or representative as he cals it . touching the first of these , unlesse the thing be first defined , whereof men dispute , all their disputation must needs prove fruitlesse in the end , this then because the doctor hath omitted , i will indeavour to finde out the definition of a sacrifice properly so called . saint augustine in his . book de civit. dei and . cap. teacheth that , verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur ut sancta societate inhaereamus deo relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni , quo veraciter beati esse possimus . where by verum i do not beleeve that he understands a truth of propriety , but of excellency , and so much i think will easily appear by those words of his in the chapter going before . illud quod ab hominibus appellatur sacrificium , signum est veri sacrificii , where undoubtedly by the true sacrifice he understands either the inward sacrifice of the heart , or the sacrifice of religious actions flowing from thence , which he makes to be the true sacrifice in regard of excellency , though improperly so called , and the outward sacrifice to be but a signe of this , though properly so called ; in which regard bellarmine in his first book de missa , and second chapter rejects this definition , or rather description , as not agreeing to a sacrifice properly so called , which he proves by many reasons , and thereupon brings another of his own which is this , sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli dea , qua ad agnitionem humanae infirmitatis & professionem divinae majestatis à legitimo ministrores aliqua sensibilis & permanens ritu mystico consecratur & transmutatur . the particular parts of this definition he afterwards explicates , and tels us that the last word transmutatur is therefore added , quia ad verum sacrificium requiritur , ut id quod offertur deoin sacrifi●ium planè destruatur , id est ita mutetur ut desinat esse id quod antea erat . and least we should mistake him , within a while after he repeats the same in effect again , giving us a double reason thereof , whereof the latter is quia sacrificium est summa protestatio subjectionis nostrae ad deum , summa autem illa protestatio requirit ut non usus rei deo offeratur sed ipsa etiam substantia , & ideo non solum usus sed substantia consumatur . and this condition in a sacrifice properly so called is likewise required by our own men , as namely by doctor field in his appendix to his third book of the church . if we will sacrifice a thing unto god ( saith he ) we must not onely present it unto him , but consume it also . thus in the leviticall law , things sacrificed that had life were killed , things without life , if they were solid , were burnt , if liquid , powred forth and spilt . now this ground being thus laid , i would willingly learn of the doctor what sensible thing it is in his sacrifice , which is thus destroyed or consumed in regard of the being or substance thereof . a he must of necessity answer ( as i conceive ) that either it is the elements of bread and wine , or the sacred body and bloud of christ ; but how the bread and wine may be said to be consumed in regard of their substance , without admitting transubstantiation i cannot imagine , unlesse perchance he will say that it is by eating the one , and drinking the other ; but these being acts common to the people , with the priest , if the essence and perfection of the sacrifice should consist in this , he will be forced to admit of so many sacrificers , as there are communicants , which i presume he will not acknowledge . and if he will have it stand in the eating and drinking of the priest alone , in case he should put it up again before it be consumed , the sacrifice must needs be frustrated , and if he keep it within him , and so consume it by digestion , the altar will rather be his stomack , then the lords table . besides , the sacrifice of christians properly so called , being but one , and that by many degrees more noble and excellent then any , either before or under the law , b if bread and wine were the subject matter thereof , it would both overthrow the unity of the sacrifice , in as much as both these are often renewed , and in it self be of lesse valew and dignity then many of the jewish sacrifices , which i think the doctor will not grant . but happily he will say that those elements , though in themselves they be of no great value , yet in regard of mysticall signification , they farre excell the sacrifices of the jews . whereunto i answer , that those of the jews besides , that they were sacrifices indeed properly so called , in themselves they had the same signification , and were chiefly to that end ordained by the author of them , the main difference being , that they looked unto christ to come , but we unto the same christ already come , by meanes whereof our happinesse is that , that now by gods blessing we need no sacrifices properly so called , but rest onely and wholly upon that all-sufficient sacrifice which he once for all offred up for us . it remaines then that if the bread and wine be not the subject matter of this sacrifice , the body and bloud of christ must be , and that not symbolically , but properly , otherwise the sacrifice it self cannot be proper , which assertion will of necessity inferre either the transubstantiation of the pontisicians or the c consubstantiation of the ubiquitaries . and again , if the body and bloud of christ be the subject matter of the sacrifice , it must be visibly and sensibly there , according to bellarmines own definition before laid down ; neither will it suffice to say ( as he doth ) that it is visible under the species of bread and wine , for so it may be visible to the faith of those that beleeve it , but to the sense ( which is the thing he requires as a necessary condition in a sacrifice properly so called ) it is not visible . neither can that be said properly visible , which is not so in it self , but in another thing , for then the soul might be said to be visible , though it be onely seen in the body , and not in it self ; nay , the soul might better be said to be seen in the body , then the body of christ in the bread , in as much as the soul is the essentiall form of the body , but i trust they will not say , that the body of christ is so in regard of the accidents of bread . lastly , how the body and bloud of christ may be truely , and properly said so to be consumed , ut planè destruatur , ut desinat esse id quod ante erat , ut substantia consumatur , ( which the cardinall likewise requires in his sacrifice properly so called ) d for my part i must professe , i cannot possibly understand , for to say as he doth , that the body of christ is consumed in the sacrifice not secundum esse naturale , but sacramentale , cannot reach to his phrase of planè destruitur , substantia consumitur , as any weak scholler may easily discern , and in truth he doth in the explication of this point ( touching the essence of this sacrifice , wherein it consists , and the manner of consuming the body of christ therein ) so double and stagger as a man may well see he was much perplexed therein , wandring up and down in a labarynth , not knowing which way to get out , and so e i leave him . the other defect which i finde in the doctors discourse , touching this point is , that he doth not shew us how a commemorative , or representative sacrifice ( as he every where termes it ) is a sacrifice properly so called . this proposition that the eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice properly so called , i shall easily grant if the word properly be referred to the adjunct not to the subject . commemorative it is properly called , but improperly a sacrifice . and herein i think do all writers agree , as well romish as reformed ( i mean that it is a sacrifice commemorative ) and therefore bellarmine disputes the point in no lesse then . chapters of his first book de missa , against the reformed divines to prove that it is a sacrifice properly so called , and yet acknowledgeth that his adversaries confesse it to be a sacrifice commemorative , but himself and his adherents , though together with the protestants they acknowledge it to be a sacrifice commemorative , yet they rest not in that , because they knew full well , it was not sufficient to denominate it a proper sacrifice . and in very truth it stands with great reason that the commemoration or representation of a thing should be both in nature and propriety of speech distinct from the thing it commemorates or represents ; as for the purpose , he who represents a king upon the stagef , is commonly called a king , yet in propriety of speech he cannot be so tearmed , unlesse he likewise be a king in his own person ; and therefore it is that we confesse the jewish sacrifices to be properly so termed , because they were not onely prefigurative of the sacrifice of christ upon the crosse , but were really and absolutely so in themselves , and if this could once be soundly demonstrated of the eucharist , the controversie would soon be at an end , but till then in saying we have a representative sacrifice can no more prove it to be a sacrifice properly so called , then the prefiguration of the jewish sacrifices without any further addition could prove them so to be , which i presume no divine will take upon him to maintain . now that which confirmes me herein is that both the master of the sentences , and aquinas , the two great leaders of the schoolemen terming the eucharist a commemorative , withall they held it to be an improper sacrifice , and to this purpose they both alleage the authorities of the fathers ; which makes me beleeve that they conceived the fathers , who in their writings frequently call it a sacrifice to be understood and interpreted in that sense ; the former of them in his . book and . destinction makes the question , quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur sacrificium vel immolatio , & si christus quotidiè immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit , to which he briefly answers , illud quod offertur & consecratur à sacerdote vocari sacrificium & oblationem , quia memoria & repraesentatio veri sacrificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis ; which is as much in effect as if he had said it is a commemoration of the true and proper sacrifice of christ upon the crosse , but in it self improperly so called , and that this is indeed his meaning it sufficiently appears throughout that distinction . with lombard doth aquinas herein likewise accord , parte . . quaest. . art . . in conclusione eucharistiae sacramentum ut est dominicae passionis commemorativum , sacrificium nominatur . where it is observable that he saith not sacrificium est , but onely nominatur , and what his meaning therein was , appears of that article which is this . hostia videtur idem esse quod sacrificium , sicut ergo non proprie dicitur sacrificium ita nec proprie dicitur hostia . which though it be an objection , yet he takes it as granted that it is sacrificium improprie dictum , at leastwise as it is commemorativum or representativum ; and therefore to that objection doth he shape this answer , ad tertium dicendum quod hoc sacramentum dicitur sacrificium in quantum repraesentat ipsam passionem christi , &c. dicitur autem hostia in quantum continet ipsum christum qui est hostia salutaris . chap. ii. of the sacrifice pretended to be due by the light of nature . from the defects in the doctors discourse , we now come to his arguments drawn from the light of nature , from the institution of the eucharist , from the authority of the fathers , from the doctrine and practise of the church of england , and lastly from the testimony of the writers thereof , i will follow him step by step , and begin first with the light of nature , with which he begins his fifth chapter . it is ( saith he ) the observation of eusebius , that the fathers which preceded moses , and were quite ignorant of his law , disposed their wayes according to a voluntary kinde of piety , {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} framing their lives and actions according to the law of nature . which words ( saith the doctor ) relate not onely to their morall conversation as good men , but to their carriage in respect of gods publike worship as religious men . but by this glosse i doubt he corrupts the text of the author , sure i am , the words he alleageth out of him do not reach home to his interpretation , neither do i think it can be maintained , or that it was the minde of eusebius , that the patriarchs before moses worshipped god , according to a voluntary kinde of piety . which is by the apostle in expresse terms condemned , col. . . and if their worship had relation to the messias that was to come ( wherein all divines i presume agree ) i do not see how he can affirm that they framed their religion according to the light of nature , which without the help of a supernaturall illumination could not direct them to the messias . it is indeed said of abraham , that he saw the day of christ and rejoyced , no doubt but the same might as truly be verefied of all the other beleeving patriarcks , as well before , as after him ; but that either he or they saw christs day by the light of nature , that shall i never beleeve , and i think the doctor cannot produce me so much as one good author who ever affirmed it ; but on the other side with one consent they teach , that as in morall actions they lived according to the light of nature , so in religious they were in a speciall manner inspired and directed by god himself . if that of the apostle be true . that whatsoever is not of faith is sin ; and again , that without faith it is impossible to please god . faith being grounded upon the commandements , and promises of god , it cannot be that their worship should be acceptable unto him without speciall command from him . from the worship of god in generall the doctor descends to the particular by way of sacrifice , affirming that it is likewise grounded upon the light of nature ; which if it be so , undoubtedly it binds all men , the law of nature being common to all , and consequently to us christians , as well as to the patriarcks before moses . now that some kinde of sacrifice is f●om all men due unto almighty god , i do not deny , but that outward sacrifice , properly so called ( which is the point in controversie ) should be from all men due unto him by the light of nature ; that i very much doubt . it is the conclusion of aqu●nas . omnes tenentur aliquod interius sacrificium deo offerre , devotam videlicet mentem , & exterius sacrificium eorum ad quae ex praecepto tenentur , sive sint v●rtutum actus sive certae & d●term●natae oblationes ; and farther for mine own part i dare not go . the doctor instanceth in the sacrifices of cain and abel , which he seemeth to say were offred by the light of nature , whereas of abel we read , that by faith he offered unto god a more excellent sacrifice then cain . now faith there cannot be without obedience , nor true obedience without a precept , and if perchance it be said that the excellency of the sacrifice was from faith , not the sacrifice it self , for then cain should not have offered at all , i thereunto answer that although cain did not offer by faith , or inspiration from god , yet it may well be that he did it by instruction from his father , who was inspired from god . and besides his sacrifices being of the fruits of the earth might rather be called an offring ( as in the text it is ) then a sacrifice properly so termed according to bellarmines definition . and for abel it is the resolution of the same bellarmine ( which for mine own part , i take to be sound ) deus qui primus sine dubio inspiravit abeli & aliis sanctis viris usum sacrificiorum voluit per ea sacrificia , sacrificin̄ omniū ficiorum praestantissimum adumbrari . the doctors next instance is noahs sacrifice , touching which the same may be said as formerly of abels , neither indeed can we with reason imagine that god should in other matters by divine inspiration , so particularly instruct him , and leave him onely to the light of nature , in the worship of himself , or that adam in the state of incorrupt nature was instructed by god in the duties of his service , and his posterity therein left to the light of corrupt nature . besides this , somethings there are by the doctor affirmed of this sacrifice , not so justifiable i doubt as were to be wished ; as first that it was an eucharisticall sacrifice , not typicall , whereas all divines that i have seen , make all the sacrifices commanded by god , as well before the law , as under the law to have been typicall . that is some way significant of christ to come , they being all as so many visible sermons of that all s●fficient sacrifice , through which god is onely well pleased with those which worship him . and again , the text making it by the doctors own confession an holocaust or burnt offring which noah offred , i see not how he can onely make it eucharisticall , in as much as philo the jew ( who should know what belonged to the distinction of sacrifices ) in his book purposely written of that subject , thus writes of them . sacrificia omnia ad tria redegit legislator , holocaustum , pacifica sive salutare , & sacrificium pro peccatis . noahs sacrifice then being a burnt offring , it could not be meerely eucharisticall , but i rather beleeve it might participate somewhat of all three kindes , and as little doubt but that it was in all three respects significative of christ to come . the doctors third instance , is in melchisedech , who indeed is said to have been a priest of the most high god , and that being a priest , he offred sacrifice , i make no doubt , but very much doubt whether he offred sacrifice , or were a priest by the light of nature , especially considering that christ himself was a priest after the order of melchisedech . now whereas the doctor confidently makes sem to have been the eldest sonne of noah , he hath therein against him , not onely the learned iunius , but lyranus , tostatus , genebrard , and the hebrew doctors . and again , whereas he seemes to follow the common opinion heretofore received , that melchisedech was sem ; i think he cannot be ignorant that both paraeus and pererius have proved the contrary by so invincible arguments , as there needs no further doubt to be made thereof . the doctors conclusion of this argument drawn from the light of nature is this , that there was never any nation , but had some religion , nor any religion ( if men civilized ) but had altars , priests , and sacrifices as a part thereof , or dependents thereupon . the former part of which position i will not examine , though our planters in virginia and new-england , can not ( as they report ) finde any acts of religion exercised by the natives of those countries , but for the latter part thereof , i know not why he should exclude the uncivilized nations , from acts flowing from the light of nature , such as he makes the use of sacrificing to be , unlesse withall he will exclude them from the use of reason . and surely were the use of sacrifices grounded upon the light of nature , not upon divine precept ; i do not see why the jews should be tyed to offer them onely at ierusalem ; nor yet why the mahometans ( who farre exceed the christians in number , and in civility are little inferiour to many of them ) should use no sacrifice at all . lastly for the grecians , romans , and other nations , who used sacrifices as the principall act of their religion , it may well be that they borrowed it from the church of god by an apish imitation , or that they received by tradition from their predecessors , who were sometimes of the church of god ( which are the conjectures of the doctor himself ) either of which might serve without deriving it from the light of nature . chap. iii. of the institution of the eucharist , whether it imply a sacrifice , and of the altar mentioned by st paul , hebrews . the doctor bears us in hand , that our saviour instituted a sacrifice perpetually to remain in his church , and a new priesthood properly so called , when he ordained the sacrament of the lords supper , and to this purpose he brings the words of irenaeus , novi testamenti novam docuit oblat●onem ; but that irenaeus intended not a sacrifice properly so called , the learned zanchius in his first book de cultu dei externo , hath made it as clear as the noon-day , and to him i referre both the doctor and the reader , who desires satisfaction therein . from the testimony of irenaeus , the doctor comes to the words of institution recorded by saint paul , cor. . and indeed here should in all likelyhood have been the place , to lay the foundation for a new sacrifice and priesthood if any such properly so called had been intended by our saviour under the gospell , but neither there , nor in the evangelists do we finde any mention at all of either of these ; which the doctor perceiving well enough , goes on from the words of institution , vers . , , . and tels us that if they expresse not plain enough the nature of this sacrifice to be commemorative , we may take those that follow by way of commentary , vers . . for as often as ye cate this bread , and drink this cup , ye do shew the lords death till he come . which words are doubtlesse directed to all the faithfull in the church of corinth and in them to all christians , so as the doctor will be forced either to prove his sacrificing from eating and drinking , and withall to admit all christians to do sacrifice ( against both which in the same leaf he solemnly protests ) or to seek out some other place to prove it . but for the priesthood he pretends to have found that in the words of our saviour , hoc faite , for the apostles ( saith he ) and their successours in the priesthood , there is an edite and bibite as private men of no orders in the church , but there is an hoc facite belonging to them onely as they are priests under and of the gospell . hoc faecite is for the priest who hath power to consecrate , hoc edite both for the priest and people , who are admitted to communicate . and again , within a while after , the people being prepared may edere and bibere , but they must not facere , that belongs onely to the priests who claim that power from the apostles , on them conferred by their redeemer . thus he , as if facere and sacrificare were all one , which indeed some of the romanists endeavour to prove , but so vainly , so ridiculously , so injuriously to the text , ( as my lord of duresme hath learnedly shewed ) as it appears to be a foundation too sandy to lay such a building upon it . but will the doctor be pleased to hear bishop iewells opinion of these words , whom he seemeth in some places to reverence . that incomparable bishop then in his defence of his ●h article thus writes thereof . neither did christ by these words , do ye this in remembrance of me , erect any new succession of sacrificers to offer him up really unto his father , nor ever did any ancient learned father so expound it . christs meaning is clear by the words that follow , for he saith not onely , do ye this , but he addeth also in my remembrance , which doing pertaineth not onely to the apostles , and their successors , ( as mr harding imagineth ) but to the whole congregation of corinth , as often as ye shall eat this bread , and drink this cup , ye shew forth the lords death untill he come . likewise saint chrysostome ( saith he ) applyeth the same , not onely to the clergy , but also to the whole people of his church at antioch . and truely i think this doctor is the first of the reformed churches , that ever restrained those words of our saviour to the clergy alone , or grounded the priesthood upon them . nay the romanists themselves finde this ground to be so feeble , as by the evidence of truth it self , they are beaten from it , and even forced to forsake it . iansenius bishop of gant in his commentaries on the gospels , cap. . sunt qui sacramentum illud esse sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facite , quia illud aliquando accipitur pro sacrificare , at hoc argumentum parum est firmum . alanas cardinalis lib. de eucharistia , c. . p. . hoc facite ] pertinet ad totam actionem eucharisticam à christo factam , tam a presbyteris quam à plebe faciendam . hoc probat ex cyril . lib. . in ioh. ca. . ex basilio . lib. regularum moralium regul. . . cap. . maldonatus l. . de sacram. tom. . part . . de eucharistia , non quod contendam illud verbum facere illo loco sign ficare idem quod sacrificare . estius comment . in . ad cor. . v. . non quod verbum facere sit idem quod sacrificare quomodo nonnulli interpretati sunt praeter mentem scripturae . and howsoever bellarmine where it makes for his purpose , come in with his certum est . it is certain that upon the word facite , is grounded the priesthood and power of sacrificing , yet in another place when it made not so much for his purpose , he tels us another tale ; videtur sententia iohannis à lovanio valde probabilis qui docet verba domini apud lucam ad omnia referri , id est , ad id quod fecit christus & id quod fecerunt apostoli , ut sensus sit , id quod nunc agimus , ego dum consecro & porrigo , & vos dum accipitis & comeditis , frequentate deinceps usque ad mundi consummationem . and within a while after , paulum autem idem author docet , potissimum referre ad actionem discipulorum , id quod ex verbis sequentibus colligitur ; quotiescunque enim manducabitis panem hunc & calicem bibetis ; mortem domini annuntiabetis . thus farre the words of iohannes a lovanio , whose opinion bellarmine confesseth to be very probable , that which followeth in the same place i take to be his own ; et praeterea idem planum fieri potest , ex instituto & proposito b. pauli , nam apostolus eo loco emendabat errorem corinthiorum , corinthii autem non errabant in consecratione sed in sumptione , quia non d●bita reverentia sumebant ; quare accommodat ca verba ad suum usum , ac docet christum praecepisse ut actio caenae celebraretur in memoriam passionis , & ideo attente & reverenter sumenda esse tanta mysteria . by all which it appears , that neither the words of institution hoc facite are sufficient to ground the priesthood , and power of sacrificing upon them ; nor yet that they are to be restrained to the clergy as the doctor would have it ; nay those words of the apostle , which he brings as a commentary upon the words of institution to clear the point , do indeed prove the contrary . and if we should grant that which he demands , that hoc facite were to be referred onely to the actions of christ himself , and directed onely to the apostles and their successours , yet it must first be proved that christ himself in the institution of the sacrament , did withall offer a sacrifice properly so called ; which for any thing that appeares in the text cannot be gathered from any speech which he then uttered , or action which he did , or gesture which he used . that he consecrated the elements of bread and wine to a mysticall use , as also that he left the power of consecration onely to his apostles and their successours we willingly grant , but that at his last supper he either offered sacrifice himself , or gave them commission so to do , that as yet rests to be proved . neither do i yet see what the doctor will make to be the subject of his sacrifice , either bread and wine , or his own body and bloud ; if the former , he will ( for any thing i know ) stand single ; if the latter , in a proper sense , he will be forced to joyn hands with rome , and so fall into a world of absurdities ; lastly , whereas the doctor disputes wholly for a commemorative sacrifice , that if our saviour could not be so , in as much as commemoration implies a calling to remembrance of a thing past , but his sacrifice upon the crosse , which we now commemorate , was then to come ; prefigurative it might be , commemorative it could not be . the doctor goes on , and confidently assures us that s. paul in whom we finde both the priest and the sacrifice , will help us to an altar also , and to that purpose referres us to the last to the hebrews , habemus altare : we have an altar , whereof they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle . an altar ( saith he ) in relation to the sacrifice , which is there commemorated : but his passage of the apostle bellarmine himself hath so little confidence in , and so weak authority to back it , as he forbears to presse it ; and truely i think had the doctor himself read on , and well considered the next verses , he would never have urged it to that purpose which here he doth . aquinas his exposition in his commentaries upon the place , is in my judgement , bo●h easie , and pertinent , istud altare vel est crux christi in qua christus immolatus est , vel ipse christus in quo & per quem preces nostras offerimus , & hoc est altare aureum de quo , apoc. . to him doth estius the jesuite strongly incline , and to him do the divines of collen in their antididagma firmly adhere ; which notwithstanding some there are i confesse , who understand the words of the apostle to be meant of the lords table , which i grant may be called an altar ; but whether in a proper sense it be so called by the apostle in the passage h alleaged , that is the question , and i have not yet met with any , who in full and round terms hath so expressed himself ; and till that be sufficiently proved , the apostles altar cannot certainly prove a priesthood , and sacrifice properly so called . chap. iv. whether the authority of the fathers alleaged by the doctor , prove the eucharist , a sacrifice properly so called . the doctor from the scriptures ( where in my poor judgement he hath found very little help for the maintenance of his cause ) comes in the next place to the authority of the fathers , some of which are counterfeits , and the greatest part by him vouched ( as by him they are alleaged ) speak onely of sacrifices , priests , and altars , but in what sense it appears not , whereas the question is not of the name , but of the nature of these . now among those fathers whom he names , two there are and but two , who speak home to the nature thereof irenaeus and euscbius , yet both of them speak even by the doctors pen in such sort , as a man may thereby discern they intended no● a sacrifice properly so called . i will take them in their order . first then for irenaeus , look on him ( saith the doctor , and he will tell you , that there were sacrifices in the jewish church , and sacrifices in the christian church , and that the kinde or species was onely altered , the kinde or nature of which christian sacrifice , he tels us of in the same chapter , viz. that it is an eucharist , a tender of our gratitude to almighty god for all his blessings , and a sanctifying of the creature to spirituall uses . offerimus ei non quasi indigenti , sed gratias agentes donatione e●us , & sanctificantes creaturam . in this we have the severall and distinct offices , which before we spake of , sanctificatio creaturae , a blessing of the bread ( for bread it is he speaks of ) for holy uses , which is the office of the priest , no man ever doubted it ; and then a gratiarum actio , a giving of thanks unto the lord for his marvellous benefits , which is the office both of priest and people ; the sanctifying of the creature , and glorifying of the creator , do both relate unto offerimus , and that unto the sacrifices which are therein treated of by that holy father . hitherto the doctor in his allegation of irenaeus ; but is any man so weak as from hence to inferre a sacrifice properly so called ? the sanctifying , or blessing , or consecrating of the bre●d to holy uses , we all grant to be the proper office of the priest or presbyter , and the giving of thanks common to him and the people , but that either of these is a sacrifice properly so called , that we deny and i desire to see proved . the other of the two before named is eusebius upon whose testimony the doctor largely insists , for that we cannot take ( saith he ) a better and more perfect view thereof then from him , who hath been more exact herein then any other of the ancients . and having culled out from eusebius what he conceived most advantageous for his own purpose in conclusion , he thus epitomizeth him . so that we see ( saith he ) that in this sacrifice prescribed the christian church , by our lord and saviour , there were two proper and distinct actions , the first is to celebrate the memoriall of our saviours sacrifice , which he intituleth the commemoration of his body and bloud once offred , or the memory of that his sacrifice , that is ( as he doth clearly expound himself ) that we should offer {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} . this our commemoration for a sacrifice ; the second , that we should offer to him the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving , which is the reasonable sacrifice of a christian man , and to him most acceptable ; finally he joynes both together in the conclusion of that book , and therein doth at full describe the nature of this sacrifice , which is this as followeth . therefore ( saith he ) we sacrifice and offer , as it were with incense , the memory of that great sacrifice , celebrating the same according to the mysteries by him given unto us , and giving thanks to him for our salvation , with godly hymnes and prayers to the lord our god , as also offering our whole selves both soul and body , and to his high priest which is the word . s●e here ( saith the doctor ) eusebius doth not call it onely the memory or commemoration of christs sacrifice , but makes the very memory and commemoration in and of it self to be a sacrifice , which instar omnium , for and in the place of all other sacrifices we are to offer to our god , and offer with the incense of our prayers and praises . in this discourse out of eusebius the doctor foreseeing that what he had alleaged , did not reach home to his purpose , endeavours to make it up by the addition of this last clause , as if eusebius made the memory or commemoration of the sacrifice of christ to be in and of it felf a sacrifice ; and this he would collect from these words of his {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} , which he translates for , and as a sacrifice , whereas both bishop bilson , and doctor raynolds , and others of our best learned divines translate it insteed of a sacrifice . now that which is insteed of a sacrifice , cannot be indeed , and of it self properly so called . and besides , how we should be said to offer up our commemoration for a sacrifice , as the doctor affirmeth , i cannot understand , since k commemoration is an action , and being so , it cannot ( as i conceive ) in propriety of speech be the thing sacrificed , which must of necessity be a substance as it stands in opposition to accidents ; so that if neither the sanctification of the creature , nor the commemoration of the sacrifice of christ , nor the offering up of our selves , or praise , and thanksgiving can amount to a sacrifice properly so called , surely the doctor hath not yet found it in the fathers , but will be forced to make a new search for the finding of it . chap. v. whether the eucharist be a sacrifice properly so called , by the doctrine and practise of the church of england , and first by the book of ordination . this the doctor undertakes to prove from the book of ordination , from the book of articles , from the book of homilies , and lastly from the common-prayer book . his proof from the book of ordination , is that he who is admitted to holy orders , is there cal'd a priest , as also in the liturgy , and rubricks of it . for answer whereunto , we grant that he is so called indeed , but had it been intended that he were properly so called , no doubt but in the same book we should have found a power of sacrificing conferred upon him ; and in very truth a stronger argument there cannot be , that our church admits not of any sacrifice or priesthood properly so called , for that we finde not in tha● book any power of sacrificing conferred upon him , who receives the order of priesthood , no nor so much as the name of any sacrifice in any sense therein once mentioned . read t●orow the admonition , the interrogations , the prayers , the benediction , but above all the form it self in the collation of that sacred order , and not a word is there to be seen of sacrificing , or offring , or altar , or any such matter ; the form it self of ordination runnes thus [ receive the holy ghost , whose sinnes thou doest forgive they are forgiven , and whose sinnes thou doest retain , they are retained , and be thou a faithfull dispencer of the word of god and his holy sacraments , in the name of the father , and of the sonne , and of the holy ghost , amen . ] then the bishop shall deliver to every one of them the bible in his hand saying . [ take thou authority to preach the word of god , and to minister the holy sacraments in the congregation where thou shalt be appointed . ] here we have a power given him of forgiving and retaining of sinnes , of preaching of the word and administring the holy sacraments , but of any sacrificing power , not so much as the least syllable : which had been a very strange and unpardonable ne●lect , had the church intended , by the form expressed in that book , to make them priests , properly so called . this indeed the romanists quarrell at , as being a main defect in our church ; but the learned champion of it , and our holy orders , hath in my judgement fully answered that crimination of theirs , and withall clearly opened the point , in what sense we are in that book of ordination called priests : if you mean ( saith he ) no more by priest , then the holy ghost doth by presbyter , that is a minister of the new testament , then we professe , and are ready to prove that we are priests , as we are called in the book of common-prayer , and the form of ordering , because we receive in our ordination authority to preach the word of god , and to minister his holy sacraments . secondly , if by priests you mean sacrificing priests , and would expound your selves of spirituall sacrifices , then as this name belongeth to all christians , so it may be applyed by an excellency to the ministers of the gospel . thirdly , although in this name you have relation to bodily sacrifices , yet even so we be called priests by way of allusion . for as deacons are not of the tribe of levi , yet the ancient fathers do commonly call them levites alluding to their office , because they come in place of levites , so the ministers of the new testament may be called sacrificers , because they succeed the sonnes of aaron , and come in place of sacrificers . fourthly , for as much as we have authority to minister , the sacraments and consequently the eucharist , which is a representation of the sacrifice of christ , therefore we may be said to offer christ in a mystery , and to sacrifice him objectively , by way of commemoration . ] in all these respects we may rightly and truely be called priests , as also because to us it belongeth , and to us alone to consecrate the bread and wine to holy uses , to offer up the prayers of the people , and to blesse them , yet in all these respects , the speech is but figurative , and consequently our priesthood and sacrifices cannot be proper . now for the liturgy , it is true that the minister is there likewise sometimes called a priest , and as true it is that sometimes also he hath the name of a minister there given him ; but the lords table though it be there often named , is never called an altar , nor the sacrament in which he represents , and commemorates the death of christ , is in that respect , so much as once called a sacrifice , muchlesse properly so termed , as will appear when we come to examine the doctors arguments for a sacrifice drawn from that book . in the mean time i must professe i cannot but wonder that the doctor should derive our priesthood from melchisedech ; i had thought the priesthood which we have , had been derived from the high priest of the new testament , who indeed is called a priest after the order of melchisedech , not because he derived it from melchisedech ( god forbid we should so conceive ) but because of the resemblances which he had to , and with melchisedech , as that he was not onely a priest but a king , a king first of righteousnesse , then of peace , without father , without mother , having neither beginning of dayes , nor end of life . thus was our saviour a priest after the order of melchisedech , as his own apostle interprets it ; so as if we will challenge to our selves a priesthood after his order , we must likewise be kings as he was , without father , without mother , without beginning of daies , or end of life , as he was , which will prove i doubt too hard a task for any man to make good . the romanists indeed assume to themselves a priesthood after the order of melchisedech ( though from melchisedech , i do not finde that they derive it ) but that any of the reformed churches ; besides our doctor hath done either of these , i do not yet finde , nor i dare say the doctor himself will ever be able to finde it . i will conclude this point touching the priesthood of our church , with the observable words of profound hooker , who was well known to be no enemy thereunto . because ( saith he ) the most eminent part both of heathenish , and jewish service did consist in sacrifice , when learned men declare what the word priest doth properly signifie according to the minde of the first imposer of the name , their ordinary scholies do well expound it to imply sacrifice ; seeing then that sacrifice is now no part of the church ministry , how should the name of priesthood be thereunto rightly applyed ? surely even as s. paul applyeth the name of flesh , unto that very substance of fishes , which hath a proportionable correspondence to flesh ; although it be in nature another thing , whereupon when philosophers will speak warily they make a difference betwixt flesh in one sort of living creatures , and that other substance in the rest , which hath but a kinde of analogy to flesh . the apostle contrariwise having matter of greater importance whereof to speak , nameth them indifferently both flesh . the fathers of the church with like security of speech , call usually the ministery of the gospel , priesthood in regard of that which the gospel hath proportionable to ancient sacrifices , namely the communion of the blessed body and bloud of christ , although it have properly now no sacrifice . as for the people , when they hear the name , it draweth no more their mindes to any cogitation of sacrifice , then the name of a senator , or of an alderman causeth them to think upon old age , or to imagine that every one so termed , must needs be ancient because yeers were respected in the first nomination of both . wherefore to passe by the name , let them use what dialect they will , whether we call it a priesthood , or a presbytership , or a ministery ; it skilleth not , although in truth the word presbyter doth seeme more fit , and in propriety of speech more agreeable then priest , with the drift of the whole gospel of j●sus christ , for what are they that imbrace the gospel , but sonnes of god ? what are churches , but his families ? seeing then we receive the adoption and state of sonnes by their ministery , whom god hath chosen out for that purpose , seeing also that when we are the sonnes of god , our continuance is still under their care which were our progenitors , what better title could there be given them , then the reverend name of presbyters , or fatherly guides ? the holy ghost throughout the body of the new testament , making so much mention of them , doth not anywhere call them priests . the prophet isaiah i grant doth , but in such sort as the ancient fathers by way of analogy . a presbyter according to the proper meaning of the new testament , is he unto whom our saviour hath committed the power of spirituall procreation . by which learned discourse of this venerable man , and as the doctor himself somewhere calls him incomparable now a blessed saint in heaven , it evidently appears that he held both a sacrifice , and a priesthood in the church , but neither of them in a proper signification , and consequently in his opinion the doctor hath gained little to his purpose from the book of ordination , and surely as little i presume will he gain from that which follows , and comes now to be examined . chap. vi . whether the book of articles , the book of homilies , or the common-prayer book afford the doctor such proofes as he pretends . two wayes there are ( saith he ) by which the church declares her self in the present businesse ; first positively in the book of articles , and that of homilies , and practically in the book of common prayers . first , in the book of articles the offering of christ once made is that perfect redemption , propitiation and satisfaction , for all the sinnes of the whole world both originall and actuall , and there is no other satisfaction for sin but that alone . this sacrifice or oblation once for ever made , and never more to be repeated , was by our saviours own appointment to be commemorated and represented to us for the better quickening of our faith , whereof if there be nothing said in the book of articles , it is because the articles r●lated chiefly to points in controversie , but in the book of homilies , &c. thus the doctor . why , but he had told us before , that the church declares her self positively in the book of articles , touching this present businesse , and now when we expected the declaration to be made good , he puts us over to the book of homilies , and yet had he gone on in that very article by him alleaged , he should there have found somewhat against popish sacrifices , which that article calls ( or rather our church by that article ) blasphemous fables , and dangerous deceits . nay the very first words vouched by the doctor out of the article , are in my judgement sufficient to cut the throat of any other sacrifice of christ , or any christian sacrifice properly so called . for if the offring of christ once made be perfect , it cannot be again reiterated , commemorated it may be , and must be reiterated , it cannot be ; now reiteration , it is which makes it a sacrifice properly so called , not a bare commemoration or representation , as hath already been shewed . and besides the doctor might have found another article touching the supper of the lord , where it is called a sacrament of our redemption by christs death , but of any sacrifice not a word , though there had been the proper place to have spoken of it , had our church conceived that any such had been properly so termed ; but on the other side , transubstantiation is there condemned as being repugnant to scriptures , overthrowing the nature of a sacrament , giving occasion to many superstitions ; yet how a sacrifice of the body and bloud of christ properly so termed , can be admitted without the admission of transubstantiation together with it , i must confesse for mine own part i am yet to seek , and shall be willing to learn from any that can farther instruct me . but the doctor reposing little confidence , it should seem in the articles , refers us to the homilies ; to them let us go , and truely , if i be not much mistaken , he will finde as little help from these , as from the articles : that which he alleageth , is taken from the first words of the homily sacrament , the words are as followeth : the great love of our saviour christ to mankinde doth not onely appear in that dear bought benefit of our redemption , and satisfaction by his death and passion ▪ but also , that he hath kindly provided that the same most mercifull work , might be had in continuall remembrance , amongst the which means is the publike celebration of the memory of his pretious death at the lords table ; our saviour having ordained and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his passion in the institution of his heavenly supper . here ( saith the doctor ) is a commemoration of that blessed sacrifice which christ once offred , a publike celebration of the memory thereof , and a continuall remembrance of it by himself ordained . yea , but that which the doctor from these words ( picked here and there in the homily ) should have inferred , and concluded is a sacrifice in it self properly so called , not a memory , a remembrance , a commemoration of a sacrifice . and besides , he who attentively reads that part of the homily , will easily finde that it there speaks of the commemoration thereof , not so much by the priest , as by the people ; neither doth it so much as once name any sacrifice at all , save onely in disavowing , and disallowing it , as may be seen in the page there following , part wherof the doctor taketh for his own purpose , as namely , that the lords supper is in such sort to be done and ministred , as our lord and saviour did , and commanded it to be done , as his holy apostles used it , and the good fathers in the primitive church frequented it . so that ( saith he ) what ever hath been proved to be the purpose of institution , the practise of the holy apostles , and usage of the ancient fathers , will fall within the meaning , and intention of the church of england . doubtlesse it will , but that a sacrifice properly so called , hath been proved to be either the purpose of the institution , or the practise of the apostles , or the usage of the ancient fathers , that i utterly deny . and surely it should seem that the church of england denies it too , by the words there following within a few lines ; we must take heed ( saith the homily ) least of the memory it be made a sacrifice , least of a communion it be made a private eating , least of two parts , we have but one , least applying it to the dead , we loose the fruit that be alive ; let us rather in these matters follow the advice of cyprian in like cases , that is , cleave fast to the first beginning hold fast the lords tradition , do that in the lords commemoration , which he himself did , he himself commanded , and his apostles confirmed . whereby it should seem they held the purpose of our saviours institution , and the practise of his apostles to have been , not a sacrifice properly so termed , but onely a commemoration of his death and passion . and this to have been indeed their meaning farther appears toward the latter end of the same part of the homily , where speaking of the death of christ , and the efficacy thereof to the worthy receiver , they thus go on . herein thou needst no other mans help , no other sacrifice , or oblation , no sacrificing priest , no masse , no means established by mans invention . by which it is evident , that they held all other sacrifices , beside that of christ himself on the crosse , and all other sacrificing priests , beside christ himself to be established by mans invention , and how the doctor professing that he offers up a sacrifice properly so called , can possibly free himself from the title and office of a sacrificing priest , i must professe is beyond the compasse of my brain . all which considered , i think his safer way had been not to have touched upon the homily , specially considering that the lords table is there named above or about twenty times , but is not so much as once called an altar . but perchance he will finde some better help from the liturgy , which comes now to be examined . we will next ( saith he ) look into the agenda , the publike liturgy of this church ▪ where first we finde it granted , that christ our saviour is the very paschall lamb that was offred for us , and hath taken away the sinnes of the world , that suffering death upon the crosse for our redemption , he made there of his own oblation of himself once offred , a full , perfect and sufficient sacrifice , oblation and satisfaction , for the sinnes of the whole world ; and to the end that we should alwayes remember the exceeding great love of our master , and onely saviour jesus christ , thus dying for us , and the innumerable benefits which by his pretious bloudshedding he hath obtained to us , he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries as pledges of his love , and continuall remembrance of his death , to our great and endlesse comfort instituting , and in his holy gospel commanding us to continue a perpetuall memory of that his pretious death , till his coming again . in which words i do not see , what it is that makes for the doctors purpose , but somewhat i see which makes against him ; as namely , the sacrifice of christ upon the crosse is full , perfect and sufficient in it self , which being so , surely there needs no more sacrifices , no more priests , no more altars , properly so called ; and for the memory or remembrance there mentioned ( if i be not much mistaken ) he will never be able thence to inferre such a sacrifice ; and surely i think the church never intended he should . in the next place he instanceth in the consecration . then followeth ( saith he ) the consecration of the creatures of bread and wine , for a remembrance of his death and passion , in the same words and phrases which christ our saviour recommended unto his apostles , and his apostles , unto the fathers of the primitive times , which now as then is to be done onely by the priest , [ then the priest standing up , shall say as followeth ] to whom it properly belongeth , and upon whom his ordination doth conferre a power of ministring the s●crament , not given to any other order in the holy ministry . had the book said , then shall the priest stand up , and offer sacrifice , it had been to the doctors purpose ; but then shall the priest stand up and say , makes little for him , unlesse he had been injoyned to say somewhat , which had implyed a sacrifice which i do not yet finde ; words indeed of consecration i finde , and those proper to the priest , but any words of sacrificing in that act , i finde not , yet had our church conceived , that to have been a sacrifice there , indeed had been the proper place to have expressed her self . that the ordination appointed by our church , conferreth upon the person ▪ so ordained , a power of ministring the sacrament not given to any order in the ministry , i shall easily grant ; but that his ordination giveth him , not any power of sacrificing ( which is the point in question ) hath already out of the form it self established by authority been clearly shewed . from the words of consecration , the doctor goes on to the prayer , after the communion , and here indeed he findes a sacrifice , but such a one as ( all things considered , he hath very little reason to triumph therein . the memory or commemoration of christs death ( saith he ) thus celebrated , is called a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving , a sacrifice representative of that one and onely expiatory sacrifice , which christ once offred for us , all the whole communicants , beseeching god to grant that by the merits and death of his sonne jesus christ , and through faith in his bloud , they and the whole church may obtain remission of their sinnes , and all other benefits of his passion ; neither stay they there ( saith he ) but forthwith offer , and present unto the lord themselves , their soules and bodies to be a reasonable , holy , and lively sacrifice unto him . and howsoever as they most humbly do acknowledge , they are unworthy through their manifold sinnes , to offer to him any sacrifice , yet they beseech him to accept , that their bounden duety and service ; in which last words , that present service which they do to almighty god , according to their bounden duties , in celebrating the perpetuall memory of christs pretious death , and the oblation of themselves , and with themselves the sacrifice of praise , and thanksgiving in due acknowledgement of the benefits , and comforts by him received , is humbly offred unto god for , and as a sacrifice , and publikely avowed for such , as from the tenour and coherence of the words , doth appear most plainly . hitherto the doctor , as if now he had spoken home and full to the point indeed ; whereas if we take a review of that which hath been said , we shall soon finde it to vanish into smoak . that prayer then af●er the communion , beginning in this manner . o lord and heavenly father we thy humble servants , entirely desire , thy fatherly goodnesse , mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving . i would demand of the doctor , first of what kind this sacrifice of thanksgiving is , and then by whom it is offred ; for mine own part i never heard that the eucharisticall sacrifice of christians , was other then spirituall , improperly termed a sacrifice ; and i presume the doctor himself will not stick to grant as much as he doth , that the people joyn with the priest in this prayer . from whence it will infallibly follow , that either the people together with the priest offer unto god a s●crifice properly so called , or that the sacrifice thus offred by them , both ●s so called improperly ; let him take which he please of the two , and then tell me what he can make of this sacrifice . now that which hath been said of this eucharisticall sacrifice , of praise and thanksgiving , is likewise to be understood of the obedientiall sacrifice ( if i may so call it ) which follows after , consisting in their offring to the lord , their selves , their souls and bodies , as a reasonable holy and lively sacrifice unto him : and in truth i cannot but wonder , that the doctor should insist upon this , considering he requires a materiall altar for his sacrifice , derives his priesthood from melchisedech , appropriates it to the apostles and their successors , makes it stand in commemoration or representation , and lastly , every where with scorn enough , excludes the people from any right thereunto , but thus we see how a weak cause is driven by all kinde of means , be they never so poor to fortifie it self : and yet , as if now he had made a full , and finall conquest , he concludes this argument drawn from the authority of our church ; put all together ( saith he ) which hath been here delivered from the book of articles , the homilies , and publike liturgy , and tell me if you ever found a more excellent concord then this , between eusebius , and the church of england , in this present businesse ; and then goes on to parallell the words of eusebius with those of our liturgy , which i confesse agree very well , but neither the one , nor the other speak home to his purpose , or mention any sacrifice properly so called , to be offred in the church of christ , as he hath been sufficiently shewed . chap. vii . of the testimony of some writers of our church alleaged by the doctor . will you be pleased ( saith he ) to look upon those worthies of the church , which are best able to expound , and unfold her meaning ; we will begin ( saith he ) with bishop andrews , and tell you what he saith , as concerning sacrifices . the eucharist ( saith bishop andrews ) ever was and is by us considered , both as a sacrament , and as a sacrifice . a sacrifice is proper and applyable , onely to divine worship . the sacrifice of christs death , did succeed to the sacrifices of the old testament , which being prefigured in those sacrifices before his coming , hath since his coming been celebrated per sacramentum memoria , by a sacrament of memory , as saint augustine calls it ; thus also in his answer to cardinall bellarmine . tollite de missa transubstantiationem vestram , nec diu nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio . the memory of a sacrifice , we acknowledge willingly , and the king grants the name of sacrifice to have been frequent with the fathers ; for altars next , if we agree ( saith he ) about the matter of the sacrifice , there will be no difference about the altar . the holy eucharist being considered as a sacrifice ( in the representation of breaking the bread , and powring forth the cup ) the same is fitly called an altar , which again is as fitly called a table , the eucharist being considered as a sacrament , which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the sacrifice to the severall receivers , so that the matter of altars make no difference in the face of our church . thus farre the doctor out of bishop andrews . for answer whereunto , if we take the passage at large , as it is quoted by that truely reverend bishop out of s. augustine , it will suffice to shew both his , and the bishops judgement herein . the words then are these . hujus sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur , in passione christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur , post adventum christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur . now had he conceived the eucharist to be a sacrifice properly so called , in all likelyhood , he would have termed it sacrificium memoriae in relation to the sacrifices as well before the death of christ , as the sacrifice it self of his death , sacramentum memoriae then is that saith the bishop , which with s. augustine we hold , and no christian i think will deny , nay more then so , we may safely with the bishop grant , that it is not onely a sacrament but a sacrifice , but whether in a proper signification that is the question , and this the doctor doth not clear out of the bishop , but rather the bishop , the contrary out of s. augustine . the next passage quoted by the doctor out of this learned bishop , is taken from his answer to bellarm●ne , which he lived to publish himself , and thus begins it , credunt nostri institutam à domino eucharistiam in sui commemorationem , etiam sacrificii sui , vel ( si ita loqui liceat ) in sacrificium commemorativum . see the modesty of this deep divine , making doubt whether he might give it the name of sacrificium commemorativum or no , which doubtlesse he would never have done , had he thought it had been a sacrifice properly so called ; neither would he so often in that page have taken up vocem sacrificii , rather then sacrificium , nihil ea de voce rex : sacrificii vocem scit patribus usurpatam : nec à voce vel sacrificii vel oblationis abborremus ; placeret loca videre quae citat nisi vocem propter quam citat videret lector nobis non displicere . surely so weary , and so wise a man would never have repeated vocem so often , had he beleeved the thing . to the words by the doctor stood upon , tollite de missa transubstantiationem nec diu nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio ; it may be replyed in the bishops own words immediately following , which may well serve as a commentary upon these going before : memoriam ibi fieri sacrificii damus non inviti , so as his meaning seems to be lis non erit de sacrificio , conditionally that by sacrificium they understand memoriam sacrificii , as we do , neither in truth do i see how the crutch of tranfubstantiation being taken away , a sacrifice properly so called , can well stand upon its own feete . from the bishops answer to the italian cardinall , the doctor leads us back again to his answer to the french cardinall , and there hath found an altar suteable to his sacrifice ; if we agree about the matter of the sacrifice , saith the bishop , there will be no difference about the altar , ] but about the former , sure i am , we agree not as yet , nor i doubt ever shall agree ( they making that the subject which we make onely the object of this sacrifice ) and consequently the difference is like still to remain about the altar . that the lords table may fitly be called an altar , the bishop indeed affirmeth , but that it may properly be so called , that he affirmeth not , nor as farre as we may conjecture by his words ever intended it : fitly , i grant it may be so called , and yet figuratively too . that christ was fitly called a lamb , we all willingly yeild , yet withall that he was not properly but figuratively so called , no man i presume will deny . the altar ( saith the bishop in the same chapter ) in the old testament , is by malachy called mensa domini ; and of the table in the new it is said habemus altare , as then the altar is by the pr●phet improperly called a table in the old , so likewise is the lords table , by the apostle improperly called an altar in the new testament . neither indeed can the bishop ( as i conceive be otherwise understood , the sacrifice which he allows , consisting ( by his own description thereof , in the same place ) in representation by the breaking of the bread and powring forth of the cup ) which may objectively , that is improperly be called a sacrifice in relation to the al-sufficient sacrifice of christ upon the cr●sse , but subjectively , that is properly , it cannot be so called . as bishop andrews wrote at king iames his motion , against car●inall bellarmine ( saith the doctor ) so isaac casaubon , writ king iames his minde to cardinall perron , and in expressing his minde affirmeth , veteres ecclesiae patres &c. that the ancient fathers did acknowledge one onely sacrifice in the christian church , which did succeed in place of all those sacrifices in the law of moses , that he conceived the said sacrifice to be nothing else , nisi commemorationem ejus quod semel in cruce christus patri suo obtulit ; that oftentimes the church of england hath professed , she will not strive about the word , which she expressely useth in her publike liturgy . ] yea but if casaubon , or the king by casaubons pen expressed himself , that he conceived the christian sacrifice , now in use to be nothing else but the commemoration of christs sacrifice offred to his father upon the crosse , surely they could not withall conceive it to be a sacrifice properly so called , and in saying that the church of england will not strive about the word , what is it but as if they had said , she will strive about the thing , as it is most aparent that she doth , as well in her doctrine as practise . nay one thing more , that learned writer hath , or rather that learned king , by the hand of that writer , which the doctor hath omitted , though he take the words both before and after , perchance because they made little to his purpose . quare beatus chrysostomus , quo frequentius nemo hujus sacrificii meminit , in nonum caput epistolae ad hebraeos , postquam {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} nominasset , continuo subjungit , sive explicationis , sive correctionis leco {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} {non-roman} which words , whether they be taken by way of explication or corrections evidently shew , that s. chrysostome held not the eucharist to be a sacrifice properly so called , and that herein both the king , and casaubon adhered to s. chrysostome the best interpreter of scripture among the greek fathers . the next testimony is taken from archbishop cranmer , who ( saith the doctor ) distinguisheth most clearly , between the sacrifice propitiatory made by christ himself onely , and the sacrifice commemorative , and gratulatory , made by the priest and people . ] this i easily beleeve , though the book it self , i have not now by me , but that the archbishop anywhere affirmeth either the commemorative or the gratulatory sacrifice to be properly so called , that i very much doubt , and surely if it be made both by the priest and people , as the doctor voucheth him , at leastwise for the latter there can be no question of his opinion therein . let us go on then to my lord of duresme , who ( saith the doctor ) doth call the eucharist a representative and commemorative sacrifice , in as plain language , ●s the doctor himself , although he doth deny it to be a proper sacrifice . ] deny it ? why he doth not onely deny it , but strongly proves it against bellarmine and other romish writers , in two entire chapters taking up no lesse then seven leaves in folio , so strongly , as i verily beleeve , i shall never see a full , and sufficient answer thereunto . the last testimony produced by the doctor , is from my lord of chichesters appeal , whom the doctor thus makes to speak unto his i●formers ; i have so good opinion of your understanding , though weak , that you will conceive the blessed sacrament of the altar , or the communion table ( which you please ) to be a sacrifice . ] and the doctor having a while infisted upon these words , in answer to his adversary , goes on out of the bishops book . walk you at random , and at rovers in your bypaths if you please , i have used the name of altar for the communion table , according to the manner of antiquity , and am like enough sometimes to use it stil ; nor will i abstain notwithstanding your oggannition to follow the steps and practice of antiquity , in using the words sacrifice and priesthood also . finally ( saith the doctor ) he brings in bishop morton , professing thus , that he beleeveth no such sacrifice of the altar as the church of rome doth , and that he fancieth no such altars as they imploy , though he professed a sacrifice and an altar . ) now for answer to this testimony , he that will be pleased but to peruse that chapter , will i presume , desire no farther satisfaction , the bishop having therein so clearly and fully unfolded himself , as if the doctor will stand to his judgement in the point , he will undoubtedly be cast . to the first allegation then , where the doctor makes a stop , the bishop thus goes on . not propitiatory , as they call it ( i will use this word . call it , lest you challenge me upon popery for using propitiatory ) for the living and the dead , not an externall , visible , true , and proper sacrifice , but onely representative , commemorative , spirituall sacrifice ; where the bishop as we see in downright and direct tearms denies the euch●ist to be a sacrifice properly so called , and for this immediatly he voucheth the testimony of doctor rainolds , and bishop morton , doctor rainolds ( saith he ) and bishop morton have granted , that though we have no proper altar , yet altar and sacrifice have a mutuall relation and dependance one upon another . and herein doth the bishop professe himself fully to accord with them . to the second allegation ; the bishop between the words vouched by the doctor , brings in these ; saint paul calleth the pagan altars ( which were indeed and truely altars ) tables , and why may not we name the lords table an altar ? whereby it appears , that he held the lords table an altar in none other sense than as the pagan altars were tables , that is both improperly . to the third allegation touching bishop morton , he thus brings him in not farre from the beginning of that chapter : but i rather choose ( saith he ) to speak in our bishop mortons words , apologizing for protestants against papists ; it may be i have taken licence in use of tearms , but no errour in doctrine can you finde , for to put off your imputation , from farther fastning , i beleeve no such sacrifice of the altar , as the church of rome doth , i fancy no such altars as they imploy , though i professe a sacrifice and an altar . ] in the same reverend bishops words , the lords table being called improperly an altar , can no more conclude a sacrifice understood properly , than when as saint paul calling titus his sonne according to the faith , which is improperly , a man may contend saint paul was his naturall father , according to the flesh . ] in which words we have both the bishops , and those excellently learned in terminis terminantibus , directly opposite to the doctors opinion , though by him alleadged in maintenance thereof . chap. viii . containing the testimonies of other reverend prelates , and great divines of our church , who have likewise opposed the proper sacrifice maintained by the doctor . vvith forraigne divines of the reformed churches i will not meddle , there being not so much as one of them , i thinke , of what partie soever , who in this point sides with the doctor , i will content my selfe with the suffrages of our owne divines , for learning and dignity the most eminent in our church , and consequently the fittest interpreters of her meaning . — doctor white lord bishop of ely , in his reply to fisher , pag. . the new testament acknowledgeth no proper sacrificing priests but christ jesus only , heb. . . , . & cap. . . neither is there any word or sentence in our saviours doctrine concerning any reall sacrifice , but onely of himself upon the crosse , neither was any altar used and ordained by christ and his apostles ; and if in all reall sacrifices the matter of the oblation must be really destroyed and changed , and no physicall destruction or change is made in the body of christ , or in the elements of bread and wine by transubstantiation , then romanists have devised a reall sacrifice in the new testament , which hath no divine institution . doctor davenant , lord bishop of sarisbury , professor of divinity in the vniversity of cambridge , in his determinations , qu. . missa pontificia non est sacrificium propitiatorium pro vivis & mortuis . pontificii in hoc suo missatico negotio tres gravissimes errores nobis obtrudunt . esse nimirum in missa reale , externum & propriè dictum sacrificium . esse inihi sacerdotem qui actionem sacrificandi propriè dictam exercet ; esse denique potestatem huic sacerdoti pro voluntate & intentione sua applicandi tam vivis quam mortuis praedicti sacrificii efficaciam salutarem . nos è contra asserimus , primo in missa nihil posse nominari aut ostendi quod sit sacrificabile aut quod rationem & essentiam realis , externi & propriè dicti sacrificii , quamvis quae adhiberi in eadem solent preces , eleemosynae , gratiarum actiones , spiritualium sacrificiorum nomen sortiantur ; quamvis etiam ipsa representatio fracti corporis christi & fusi sanguinis figuratè sacrificium à veteribus saepenumero vocetur . secundo contendunt pontificii presbyteros suos esse secundarios quosdam novi testamenti sacerdotes , & in missa sua actionem sacrificandi propriè dictam praestare . sed nobis iesus christus est solus & aeternus , neque successorum , neque vicariorum indigus novi testamenti sacerdos . quaero enim cui bono alii sacerdotes substituerentur ipsi christo , non ut sacrificium ejus adumbrent , tanquam futurum est enim olim deo exhibitum , non hodie exhibendum , non ut significent tanquam factum , nam repraesentare illud ut factum est sacramentum celebrare non sacrificiū offerre . non denique ut agant quod actum fuit ab ipso christo seipsum offerente , nam hoc & mutile esset si fieret , & plane impossibile est ut fiat . hactenus igitur in missa pontificia , neque sacrificium propriè dictum , nequesacerdotem , neque actionem ipsam sacrificandi , vel ipsi missarum opifices ostendere potuerunt . doctor hall lord bishop of exeter in his book , intituled no peace with rome . sect. . what opposition is there betwixt the order of melchisedech and aaron , betwixt christ and the priests of the old law , if this office do equally passe and descend in a long pedigree of mortall successors ? or why were the legall sacrifices of the jewish synagogue so oft repeated , but because they were not perfect ? and how can or why should that which is most absolutely perfect , be reiterated ? what can either be spoken or conceived more plainly then those words of god . once offred , one sacrifice , one oblation , and yet these popish shavelings ( devout men ) take upon them to crucifie and sacrifice christ again . we will remember the holy sacrifice of christ ( as cassander well advises ) and celebrate it with a thankfull heart , we will not repeat it ; we will gladly receive our saviour offred by himself to his father , and offred to us by his father , we will not offer him to his father ; which one point , whilest we stick at ( as we needs must ) we are straight stricken with the thunderbolt of the anathema of trent ; here can be therefore no possibility of peace . doctor abbot late lord bishop of sarisbury , and publike professor of divinity , in the vniversity of oxford in his counterproof , against doctor bishops reproof of the defence of the reformed catholike . cap. . pag. . it is truely said by cyprian , that the passion of christ is the sacrifice which we offer , and because the passion of christ is not now really acted , therefore the sacrifice which we offer , is no true and reall sacrifice . now therefore the oblation of the altar , of which s. augustine speaketh hath no reference to the masse , which they hold to be a proper and reall sacrifice . but now strange it should seem , that the apostle in those words should be thought to have any intention of the sacrifice of the masse , who in the epistle to the hebrews ( if it were he ) whilest he destroyeth the jewish priesthood , for the advancing of the priesthood of christ , argueth impregnably to the disavowing of all reall sacrifice thenceforth in the church of christ . whilest he affirmeth but one priest in the new testament , insteed of many in the old , he absolutely taketh away all the ranke and succession of popish priests . doctor bilson late lord bishop of winchester in his book of the true difference between christian subjection , and unchristian rebellion , the part. p. . if the death of christ be the sacrifice which the church offreth , it is evident that christ is not onely sacrificed at this table , but also crucified , and crufied in the self same sort and sense that he is sacrificed , but no man is so mad to defend , that christ is really put to death in these mysteries , ergo neither is he really sacrificed under the formes of bread and wine . his reasons why we do not use the word s●crifice so often as the fathers did , pag. . there are reasons why we do not think our selves bound , to take up the freq●ent use of their terms in that point , as we see you do , for first they be such words as christ and his apostles did forbear , and therefore our faith may stand without them . next they be dark , and obscure speeches , wholly depending on the nature and signification of sacraments . thirdly , we finde by experience before our eyes how their phrases have entangled your senses , whiles you greedily pursued the words , and omitted the rules which should have mollified and directed the letter : these causes make us the waryer , and the willinger to keep us to the words of the holy ghost , though the fathers applications , if you there withall take their expositions , do but in other terms teach that which we receive and confesse to be true . bishop jewell the iewell of bishops , in defence of his . article , which book is by publique authority to be kept in every church . even so s. ambrose saith christ is offred here on earth , ( not really and indeed , as master harding saith ) but in like sort and sense , as s. iohn saith , the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world that is , not substantially , or in reall manner , but in signification in a mystery , and in a figure . as christ is neither daily borne of the virgin mary , nor daily crucified , nor daily slain , nor daily riseth from the dead , nor daily suffereth , nor daily dyeth , but onely in a certain manner of speech , not verily and indeed , even so christ is daily sacrificed onely in a certain manner of speech , and in a mystery , but really , verily , and indeed , he is not sacrificed . archiepiscopus spalatensis , while he was ours , that is while he was himself , de rep. eccles. lib. . cap. . nobis satis est apud chrysostomum , eucharistiam in se continere sacrificium quoddam commemorativum , ac consequenter in ea non fieri verum sacrificium . confirmat haec omnia bellarminus ex eo quod in ecclesia antiquus sit usus & nomen altarium altare vero & sacrificium sunt correlativa . ] respondeo quale sacrificium tale altare , sacrificium impropriè , altare impropriè . esse verum sacrificium nunquam usque ad postrema cor rupta saecula invenio aut dictum , aut cogitatum , aut traditum aut practicatum in ecclesia . doctor rainolds , professor of divinity , extraordinary in the university of oxford , in his conference with hart. c. . divis . . sith the sacrifice offered in the masse , is a true and proper sacrifice ( as you define it ) and that of the fathers is not a true sacrifice , but called so improperly , it remaineth to be concluded that the fathers , neither said masse , nor were masse priests . laurence humphrey , doctor of the chair in oxford in his answer to campian de conciliis , p. . quale est sacrificium , talis est sacerdos , qualis sacerdos tale esse debet altaere , sive de christo propriè loquamur , sive de nobis christianis impropriè . de sacrarum literarum sententia , pag. . sacramentum propriè ab omnibus , metaphoricè à nonnullis patribus sacrificium nuncupatur . doctor field dean of glocester in his appendix to his third book of the church . pag. . christ was sacrificed on the crosse , when he was crucified and cruelly put to death of the jews ; but how he should now be really sacrificed , sacrificing implying in it a destruction of the thing sacrificed , it is very hard to conceive . doctor crakanthorp in his answer to spalat●nsis . cap. . sed nec omnino v●●um & propriè dictum sacrificium in missa ullum est . doctor whitaker publike professor of divinity in cambridge , in his answer to mr rainolds , cap. . p. . you cannot pull in sunder these two offices , but it you will needs be priests , and that properly according to the order of melchisedech , then seeing that order of priesthood hath a kingdome inseperably annexed to it , it must necessarily follow that you are also kings , and that properly , which were a very proper thing indeed , and greatly to be accounted of . doctor fulke , in his answer to the rhemists , on heb. . vers . neither doth any ancient father speak of a sacrifice in the form of bread and wine , although many do call the sacrament which is celebrated in bread and wine , a sacrifice unproperly , because it is a remembrance of the one onely sacrifice of christs death , and because the spirituall sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving is offered therein , not by the minister onely , but by the whole church that is partaker thereof . again the same author in hebr. . vers. . the apostle meaneth christ to be this altar , who is our priest , sacrifice , and altar , and not the table whereon the lords supper is ministred , which is called an altar , but improperly , as the sacrament is called a sacrifice . doctor willet , in his synopsis , controv. . quaest . . if there remain still in the church a read , externall sacrifice , then there must be also a reall and externall priesthood , and so a multitude of sacrificing priests , but this i● contrary to the scripture , that maketh this difference between the law and the gospel , that then there were many priests , because they were not suffered to endure by reason of death , but now christ hath an everlasting priesthood , heb. . , . . so that he is the onely priest of the gospel , ergo , there being no more sacrificing priests , there is no such sacrifice , for it were a derogation to the everlasting priesthood of christ , to ordain other priests beside . master perkins , in his reformed catholique . . point of the sacrifice of the lords supper . heb. . , . the holy ghost makes a difference betwixt christ the high priest of the new testament , and all leviticall priests in this , that they were many , one succeeding another , but he is the onely one , having an eternall priesthood , which cannot passe from him to another . now if this difference be good , then christ alone in his own very person , must be the priest of the new testament , and no other with or under him , otherwise in the new testament , there should be more priests in number than in the old . alexander nowell , dean of pauls , in his catechism , ordained for publique use , and so allowed in our church . m. an fuit instituta a christo coena ut deo patri hostia pro peccatis expiandis immolaretur ? a. minimè , nam christus mortem in cruce occumbens unicum illud sempiternum sacrificium semel in perpetuum pro nostra salute obtulit , nobis vero unum hoc tantum reliquum esse voluit , ut maximum utilitatis fructum , quem sempiternum illud sacrificium nobis praebet , grati ac memores percipiamus , quod quidem in caenae dominica praecipuè praestared bemus . thus have we seen that neither by the light of nature , nor by the definition of a sacrifice , nor by the institution of our saviour , nor by the practice of his apostles , nor by the suffrage of the primitive fathers , nor by the authority of our church , nor by the testimony of the most eminent writers therein , it yet appears , either that our ministers are properly called priests , or our sacrament of the eucharist properly a sacrifice , or our communion-table properly an altar , but rather the contrary that they are all improperly so called . which being so , whether the proper situation thereof should in congruity be either table-wise for the administring of a sacrament , or altar-wise for the offering of a sacrifice , i leave that to the prudent governours of our church , and better judgements than mine own to consider and determine of . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a e- cap. . p. . cap . pag. . & . pag. . lib. . de missa cap. . ioh. , . ●om . . 〈◊〉 . . qu. . a● . . heb . . lib. . de m●ss . cap . lib. ● . ca. . cap. . of the sacrament , lib. . ca. . de sac●am . eucharist . lib. . cap. . in sinc . lib. . de missi . cap. . com. in locum . de miss● sacrificio . lib. . cap. . de demonst. evingel . li● . . fr. mason of the consecration of bishops in the church of england . 〈◊〉 . . p . heb ● . heb. . lib cap. . art. . part. pag. . answ . to p●rron c. . re●p . ad card be●l . cap. . answ . to perron . cap. . l de civitate dei lib. . cap. . m e●ist . ad card. perron . defence of his fisth book against gardiner . cap. . pag. . pag. . pag. . pag. . pag. . pag . reas. . a discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation vvherein the same is declared, by the confession of their owne writers, to haue no necessary ground in gods word: as also it is further demonstrated to be against scripture, nature, sense, reason, religion, and the iudgement of t xxauncients, and the faith of our auncestours: written by thomas gataker b. of d. and pastor of rotherhith. gataker, thomas, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a stc estc s this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) a discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation vvherein the same is declared, by the confession of their owne writers, to haue no necessary ground in gods word: as also it is further demonstrated to be against scripture, nature, sense, reason, religion, and the iudgement of t xxauncients, and the faith of our auncestours: written by thomas gataker b. of d. and pastor of rotherhith. gataker, thomas, - . [ ], , - , [ ] p. printed by i[ohn] l[egat] for william sheffard, and are to bee sold at his shoppe at the entring in of popes-head alley out of lumbard-streete, london : . includes "a just defence of the former discourse and arguments against the answer of a nameles popish priest thereunto", with the text of the answer. printer's name from stc. with a final errata leaf. reproduction of the original in the british library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -- controversial literature. transubstantiation -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - jonathan blaney sampled and proofread - jonathan blaney text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a discvssion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation : wherein the same is declared , by the confession of their owne writers , to haue no necessary ground in gods word : as also it is further demonstrated to be against scripture , nature , sense , reason , religion , the iudgement of the auncients , and the faith of our auncestours : written by thomas gataker b. of d. and pastor of rotherhith . london , printed by i. l. for william sheffard , and are to bee sold at his shoppe at the entring in of popes-head alley out of lombard-streete . . this treatise consisteth of two parts . . a briefe discourse containing diuers arguments against the popish doctrine of transubstantiation . . a iust defence of the same discourse , and arguments against the answer of a namelesse popish priest thereunto . to the reader . be pleased ( i pray thee ) to vnderstand in a word , as the occasion of vndertaking , so the motiue of publishing this controuersie . hauing had some conference with an honourable lady nobly descended , whom some factors for rome had endeauoured to peruert , about the point of transubstantiation , and christs corporall presence in the eucharist ; i was by her requested to deliuer her in writing , the summe of that that had passed then by word of mouth from me , as well in way of answere to the exceptions taken to our doctrine , as in way of opposition to the romane tenet therein . whereupon within a few daies after , hauing digested it as well as streights of time would permit , and added some further enforcements of the generall heads then insisted on , i deliuered it verbatim as here thou now hast it . which writing being imparted to one of those factors , a speedy answere was promised , and ( after long expectation of it ) at length performed , such as here it is exhibited ( vnder the letters of n. p. put for a namelesse popish priest ) without word or syllable detracted , added , or altred . vnto which i soone after dispeeded a reply ; which was to the same honourable personage also not long after represented . now hauing hitherto heard of nothing returned further thereunto , ( albeit some yeeres be past since the exhibition of it ) i haue thought good by the aduice of some iudicious friends to publish all together ( my reply onely in some few places enlarged ) as well thereby the more fully to cleere some obiections vrged commonly ( to the simpler sort especially ) against our faith and doctrine concerning that sacrament , and our exposition of some passages of holy writ , either concerning , or supposed to concerne the same ; as also further to discouer ( to such especially as are not so well acquainted therewith ) the grosse and palpable frauds and falshoods , with such popish factours too frequent , which in the aduised reading and perusing hereof may easily and euidently be descried . and this is all that ( not listing to detaine thee long from the discourse it selfe ) i was desirous by way of preface to fore-acquaint thee withall . the lord vouchsafe thee and vs all true vnderstanding , sound iudgement , and a loue of the truth both in this and in all other things . thine in our common sauiour , tho : gataker . errata . in the text. page . line . for said reade say . p. . lin . for these r. those , l. . for a mans r. mans l. . for difficultie r. difficulties p. . l. . for confimeth r. confirmeth l. . for maine r. maime l. . for commodioas r. commodious p. . lin . . for to passe r so passe p. . l. . for and r. with p. . l. . for is r. is not p. . l . for crosse r. grosse . p. . l. . put out simply and p. . l. . for these r. in those p. . l. . for to conclude r. concluded p. . l. . after christs put in body p. . l. vlt. for things r. thing p. . l. . for catechising r. catechisings p. . l. . for one r. of one p. . l. . for glosse r. gospell p. . l. . for this r. this is p. . l. . for their r. that their p. . l. . for ; either r. either ; p. . l. , , . put out . . . l. . for receiue r. receiuing p. . l. . after they put out was p. . l. . for galathians r. galatians p. . l. . for conuersion r. conuersion ) l . for it ) r. it . p. . l. . for here read how l. . for before . r. before ? p. ● . l. . for body r. bodies p. l. . for therefore r. thereof , p. . l. . for to as r. as to l. . for bread r. bred p. . l. . for what r. what this p. . l. . for like like r like nature p. . l. . for whinch r. which l. . for those r. that those p. . l. . for christ r. christs p. . l. for places r. place . p. . l. for seemed r. seeme p. . l. . for assumped r. assumpted p. . l. . for canot r. can not p. . l. . for in r. is in l. . for that is r. that which is p. . l. . for prooe r. proue p. . l. . place the ( before the contrary p . l. . for tempored r. tempered . p . l. . after not put out he p. . l. . for emissemus r. emissenus . in the margent page . letter z. for signifitatiuè r. significatiuè p . l. e. for videt r. vide & p. . * for dentis r. dentibus p. . * for mittar r. mittam p. . l. vst for est . et r. esset p. l. m. for lenserus r leu●aeus p. . l. k for greg. r. graec. . p. . l q. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. . * for hom . r. nom . p. . l. f. for ducatur , iestis r. ducaturi estis , p. l. b. sor oniensis r. omensis p. . l. s remoue gal . . to p. . p. . l. f. for l. . r. l. . p . l. b. for sticorum r. stoicorum p. . l. c. for gerob . r. gorol . p. . l. l. for pa●is r. panis p. . l. x. for and r. ad l. a. for frantur . r. frangitur l. b for sacerdotes r sacerdos p. . l x. for christum r. christi p. . l. u for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . a briefe discourse conteining diuers arguments against the popish doctrine of transubstantiation . the question is , whither christ be corporally present in the sacrament of the eucharist by vertue of a transubstantiation or a reall conuersion of the bread and wine into the naturall body and blood of christ. this those of the church of rome affirme , we deny ; & refuse to yeeld to for these reasons . . that which no scripture enforceth vpon vs , that in matter of faith wee are not bound to beleeue . for the scripture is the rule of our faith. a in it ( saith august . ) are found all those things , which concerne faith and good life . and , b that which hath not authoritie from it , ( saith ierome ) may as easily be reiected , as it is auerred . and , c of that ( saith tertullian ) there is no certaintie , that the scripture hath not . but that christ is present corporally in the sacrament of the eucharist by vertue of any such transubstantiation or reall conversion of the creatures into the naturall body and blood of christ , no scripture enforceth vs to beleeue . nor are we therefore bound to beleeue it . that no scripture enforceth vs to beleeue it , shall appeare by examination of those places that are alleadged commonly to prooue it . the places vsually produced are principally two . the former place is out of the institution it selfe ; those words of our sauiour , this is my body . matth. . . marke . vers . . luke . vers . . . corinth . . vers . . that these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing , is thus prooued . if these words may well be taken figuratiuely , as well as some other speeches of the like kinde in scripture , and other the like phrases vsuall in ordinary speech , then these words enforce vs not to beleeue any such thing . but these words , this is my body , may well be taken figuratiuely as well as other speeches of the like kinde in scripture , to wit , d the seauen kine , and the seauen eares are seauen yeeres : e the ten hornes are ten kings : f the rocke was christ : and as other phrases vsuall in ordinary speech , as ff when pointing to the pictures of alexander , caesar , william the conquerour , virgil , liuie and the like , we say , this is alexander that conquered asia ; this is caesar that conquered france ; this is king william that conquered england ; this is virgil that wrote of aeneas ; this is liuie that wrote the romane storie ; and the like . these words therefore enforce vs not to beleeue that christ is corporally present in the sacrament , by vertue of any such transubstantiation . the truth hereof is acknowledged euen by our aduersaries themselues . cardinal bellarmine granteth that g these words , this is my body , may imply either such a reall change of the bread as the catholikes hold , or such a figuratiue change as the caluinists hold , but will not beare that sense that the lutherans giue them . and , cardinal caietan acknowledgeth and freely confesseth , that h there appeareth not any thing out of the gospel that may enforce vs to vnderstand those words properly . this is my body . and he addeth that i nothing in the text hindreth but that those words , this is my body , may as well be taken in a metaphoricall sense , as those words of the apostle , the rocke was christ : and that the words of either proposition may well be true , though the thing there spoken be not vnderstood in a proper sense , but in a metaphorical sense onely . and i finde alleadged out of bishop fisher in a worke of his against luther ( for the booke i haue not ) these words ; * there is not one word in s. mathewes gospel , from which the true presence of christs flesh & blood in our masse may be prooued . out of scripture it cannot be prooued . thus by the confession of our aduersaries themselues , our sauiours words may well beare that meaning that we giue them , and there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to expound or vnderstand them otherwise . it is absurd therefore for any to reason thus , as many yet are wont to doe ; christ saith , this is my body : and we are bound to beleeue christ : and therefore we must needs beleeue that christ is corporally present in the sacrament . since that the words of christ by our aduersaries their owne confession may be most true , and yet no such thing at all be meant by them , or intended in them . and the same may well be shewed , ( as caietan pointeth vs to it ) by the like . for must we not beleeue the apostle as well as christ ? or must we not beleeue christ as well in one place as in an other ? but the apostle saith , that k the rocke was christ : and yet no man beleeueth therefore that the rocke was turned into christ ; though he beleeue the apostles words in that place . yea our sauiour himselfe saith ; l this cup is the new testament : and , m this cup is my blood. and yet is no man so senselesse as therefore to beleeue that the cuppe which our sauiour then held , was turned either into the new testament , or into christs blood . as well therefore may a man prooue that the rocke was turned into christ , because the apostle saith n not , the rocke signified christ , but expressely , the rocke was christ : or that the communicants themselues are turned into bread , because the apostle saith , o we are all one bread : or that the cup was turned either into the new testament , or into blood ; because our sauiour saith , this cup is the new testament ; and , this cup is my blood : as that the bread is turned into the body of christ , because our sauiour saith of it , this is my body . the rocke was christ onely symbolically and sacramentally , by representation and resemblance : and the cup , that is , the wine in the cup , ( for so our sauiour saith it was , q the fruite of the vine ) was the new testament , as r circumcision the couenant , as s a signe and t a seale of it . and in like manner is the bread said to be the body of christ , as u the paschal lambe is called the passeouer , not really or essentially , but typically and sacramentally , as a type and signe of the same . yea so the ancient fathers expound the words . x the bread ( saith tertullian ) that christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his body , saying , this is my body , that is , a figure of my body . and , y the lord ( saith augustine ) doubted not to say , this is my body , when he deliuered the signe of his body . and he giueth else-where a reason of such manner of speech ; to wit , because z signes are wont to be called by the names of the things by them signified : and a sacraments by the names of those things whereof they are sacraments , in regard of the similitude that they haue of them . and so , saith he , a the sacrament of the body of christ is in some sort the body of christ ; and the sacrament of the blood of christ is the blood of christ. yea you shall finde that which wee herein maintaine , euidently confessed and confirmed by the glosse vpon augustine in the popes owne canons . augustines words inserted into the corps of the canon law are these ; b as the heauenly bread , which is the flesh of christ , is in it owne manner called the bodie of christ , when as in deede and truth it is a sacrament of that body of christ , which being visible , palpable , and mortall was placed on the crosse : and that immolation of christs flesh which is done with the priests hands is called christs passion , death , and crucifying , not in the truth of the thing , but in a mystery signifying it : so the sacrament of faith , whereby we vnderstand baptisme , is faith . and the popish glosse vpon that place thus speaketh ; c the heauenly bread , that is , the heauenly sacrament , which truly representeth the slesh of christ , is called the body of christ , but improperly : and therefore is it said , in it owne manner , but not in the truth of the thing , but in a significant mystery . so that the meaning is , it is called the body of christ , that is , it signifieth the body of christ. thus word for word the glosse . thus you see what our very aduersaries themselues graunt vs concerning the exposition of these words , this is my body : and that which may be gathered from them . the wordes of christ prooue not necessarily ( saith the romish cardinall ) that the bread is turned into christs body . and , when the bread is called christs body , the meaning is , ( saith the popish canonist ) that it signifieth christs body . and what is this , but the very same that we say ? to conclude , as * augustine well obserueth , christ saith , “ iohn is elias ; and iohn himselfe saith , '' i am not elias : and yet neither of them crosse the other , because iohn spake properly , and christ figuratiuely : so christ saith , this bread is my body , in one sense ; and we in another sense that it is not his body : and yet wee crosse not christ ; because wee speake properly , hee figuratiuely , as the glosse it selfe confesseth . and on the other side they were * false witnesses though they alledged christs owne words mis-expounded of the materiall temple , which s hee meant of the mysticall temple , his humanity . and so may others be , though they alleadge christs owne wordes of the bread being his body , vrging that as spoken properly , that by him was figuratiuely spoken . if it be obiected that by this our deniall of transubstantiation , and of christs corporall presence , we make the sacrament to be nothing but bare bread . i answer , that notwithstanding such transubstantiation and corporall presence bee denied , yet it maketh the sacrament no more to be but bare bread ; then it maketh the water in c baptisme to be but bare water , because all deny any such conuersion or corporall presence in it . a piece of waxe annexed as a seale to the princes patent of pardon or other like deed , is of farre other vse , and farre greater effic●cy and excellency then other ordinary waxe is , though it be the very same in nature and substance with it , and with that which it was it selfe before it was taken vnto that vse . and so is the bread in the lords supper , being a seale of gods couenant , and of christs last will and testament , of faire other vse , and of farre greater efficacie and excellencie then any other ordinary bread is , though it be the same still in nature and substance with it , and the same with that for substanse that it was before it was so consecrated . that which pope gelasius and theodoret , both expresly anouch . d surely the sacraments ( saith gelasius ) which wee take , of christs body and blood , are a diuine thing , and thereby therefore are we made partakers of the diuine nature : and yet ceaseth there not to be there the nature or substance of bread and wine , but they abide still in the propriety of their owne nature : and certainely an image and similitude of christs body and blood is celebrated in those mysteries . and , e the mysticall signes ( saith theodonet ) after the sanctification doe not forgoe their owne nature , but retaine still their former substance , and figure , and forme . and againe , the same theodoret , f he that called that which is by nature his body , g wheat , and h bread , and againe named himselfe i a vine ; he hath honoured the symbols and signes which we see , with the titles of his bodie and blood , not changing the nature of them , but adding grace to it . thus they , and thus we : and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the sacraments of christs body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine . the latter place vsually alledged to this purpose , is that large discourse our sauiour hath concerning the eating of his flesh , and drinking of his blood . ioh. . - . true it is indeed , that if the bread and wine in the eucharist be transubstantiated into the naturall body and blood of christ , and there bee such a corporall presence , as papists imagine ; it must needs follow that christs very flesh is eaten , and his very blood it selfe is corporally drunke in the sacrament : and to this purpose also pope nicholas in that solemne forme of recantation that hee enioyned berengarius inserted into the body of the canon , auoweth that k the very body of christ in the eucharist is broken with the priests hands , and torne in pieces with mens teeth , not sacramentally only , but sensually : and that all that hold the contrary deserue to be eternally damned . a sensuall indeed and a senslesse assertion , yea an horrible and an hideous speech ; full fraught ( i may well say , though it proceeded from a pope , who , they say , cannot erre ) with extreame impiety and blasphemy , and such as christian e●res cannot but abhor to hear . in so much that their owne glosser vpon the place well warneth vs to take heed how we trust him , l lest 〈…〉 fall into a worse heresie then berengarius euer held . but thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another . and this indeed must needs follow vpon the former . the corporall presence of christ in the thing eaten , must needs inferre and enforce a corporall eating of him : and to prooue the same they presse commonly our sauiours words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood . which as , with some of the ancients indeed , they vnderstand of the eucharist , so they expound ( though without their consent therein ) of a corporall and carnall eating of christs flesh . but neither are those words of our sauiour to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking : nor doth christ at all in that whole discourse speake of the sacrament of the eucharist ; which was not then as yet instituted , but of feeding on him spiritually by faith , which is done not in the sacrament onely , but out of it also . and first , that the place is not to bee vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking , it is aparent . for it is a good and a sure rule that augustine giueth : m if in any precept some hainous or flagitious thing seeme to be enioyned , you may thereby know it to be a figuratiue speech . i need not apply this generall rule to the point in hand ; augustine doth it for mee . hee instanceth in that very particular that wee now treate of . n vnlesse you eate ( saith he ) the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood , you haue no life in you . it seemeth to enioyne an hainous and flagitious thing . it is a figuratiue speech therefore , commanding vs to communicate with christs passion , and sweetly and profitably to lay vp in our memory , that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. so that this place by augustines rule , and his owne application of it is to be vnderstood figuratiuely , and doth not therefore inferre any corporall feeding . . that this whole discourse of our sauiour is not to bee vnderstood of any sacramentall or corporall , but of spirituall eating onely , it is likewise apparent . for . none are saued , but such as so feede on christ , as is there spoken of . o except you eate the flesh of the sonne of man , ( saith our sauiour ) and drinke his blood , you haue no life in you . p he hath not therefore life eternall , ( saith augustine , ) that eateth not this bread , and drinketh not this blood . for temporall life men may haue without it ; but eternall life without it in no wise can they haue . but many are and shall be saued by christ , that neuer sacramentally fed on christ in the eucharist , yea that neuer eate at all of the eucharist , or saw it , or knew of it : as not onely the ancient fathers that liued before christs incarnation , who yet , ( as augustine well obserueth ) q did eate the flesh of christ spiritually as well as we doe now , and were saued by the death and passion of christ , which , as bernard speaketh , r was effectuall euen before it was actuall ; and the thiefe on the crosse , that s passed thence to paradise the same day that he dyed : but many infants also that die ere they come to yeeres of discretion , as the councel of trent acknowledgeth , t accursing all those that hold , mis-expounding the words of christ in that place , that all infants are damned that receiue not christs body and blood in the eucharist . which yet u one of their owne popes sometime held and maintained ; and which would necessarily follow , if that place were to be vnderstood of the sacramentall eating of christ in the eucharist . it is not therefore the sacramentall eating of christ in the eucharist , that is there spoken of . . all that feede on christ so as is there spoken of , are sure eternally to bee saued . for so our sauiour himselfe saith . x if any man eate of this bread , he shall neuer dye , but liue for euer . and , y whosoeuer eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood hath eternall life ; and i will raise him vp at the last day . and , z he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me , and i in him . and , as i liue by the father se he that eateth me shall liue by me . a it is not ( saith augustine ) with this meate as with our bodily foode . that vnlesse a man take , he cannot liue : but take it he may , and yet not liue ; he may die , after he hath taken it . but in this foode of our lords body and blood it is not so . for both he that taketh it not , can not liue ; and he that taketh it , liueth eternally . for , b as if one poure melted waxe vpon other waxe , the one is wholy mixed with the other : so it must needs be ( saith cyril ) that if any man take christs body and blood , he be so ioyned with him , that he be found in christ , and christ in him ; and c consequently that he be saued by christ. but many feede vpon that that is giuen in the eucharist , that yet are eternally damned d many take it , and die ; ( saith augustine , ) yea many die in the taking of it . he eateth and drinketh iudgement to himselfe , saith the apostle . and was not the morsel that christ gaue iudas , poison to iudas that tooke it ? and againe ; e the sacrament hereof is taken at the lords table by some to saluation , by others to destruction . whereas the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament , is taken to saluation by euery one that is partaker thereof , to destruction by none . if all be saued then that eate of christs flesh in that manner that christ speaketh of in that place . but all are not saued that eate corporally what is offred them in the eucharist : it must needs follow that christ speaketh not of any corporall eating of him in the eucharist in that place . but we neede not insist longer vpon the proofe hereof . for that our sauiours whole discourse in that place is not to be vnderstood of the sacrament of the eucharist , but of feeding on christ spiritually , is confessed and acknowledged not by one or two only , but by many popish writers of great note , cardinals , schoolemen , canonists , professors , iesuites and others ; as by name , by f cardinal cusane , g cardinal cajetan , h gabriel biel a great schooleman , i astesanus a canonist , k ruard tapper , and l iohn hessels professors of diuinitie at louaine , and m cornelius iohnson a great * iesuite ; the most of them by cardinal bellarmine himselfe alleadged and acknowledged to hold as we doe , that those words of our sauiour , speake onely of a spirituall eating , and n not of any corporall , yea or sacramentall either . according whereunto it is acknowledged not by augustine onely , but by iohnson the iesuite , who at large disputeth and confirmeth that which we say , both grounding vpon o the words of our sauiour himselfe , that to eate christs flesh in the manner there spoken of , is nothing else but p to beleeue in christ. since then the places produced to prooue this corporall presence of christ in the sacrament , are by our aduersaries their owne confession such as either doe not necessarily prooue the point , or are otherwise to be vnderstood , we haue little reason to yeeld vnto them therein . hitherto we haue shewed that no scripture enforceth vs to beleeue , as those of the romish church hold , concerning the reall conuersion of the outward elements in the eucharist into the naturall body and blood of christ , and a corporall presence of either necessarily flowing there from . now . that the bread and wine remaine in substance and nature still the same , and are not so conuerted into the very flesh and blood of christ , we further thus prooue . . we reason from the very course of the context in the story of the institution . iesu● tooke bread , and blessed , and brake it , and gaue it to his disciples , and said , take , eate , this is my body . whence i thus reason ; looke what our sauiour tooke , that he blessed ; what he blessed , that he brake ; what he brake , he deliuered to the disciples ; what he deliuered to them , of that he said , this is my body . but * it was bread that he tooke , the euangelist so saith , and bread therefore that he blessed , bread that he brake , bread that he deliuered , and bread consequently of which he said , this is my body . and hence are those speeches so frequent in the auncient fathers . r the bread that hath beene blessed ( saith irenaeus ) is its owne lords body . god in the gospel ( saith tertullian ) calleth bread his body . s the bread ( saith augustine ) is the body of christ. t the bread , ( saith hicrome , ) that the lord brake , and gaue his disciples , is the lords body : and if we aske , how bread is or can be christs body ? as we may well doe , and v it is no new question ; it was long since asked by the auncients and answered by them . the author of that worke in cyprian of christs principall workes ; ( to passe by all others ; ) u our lord ( saith he ) at the table in his last supper , gaue bread and wine with his owne hands , and on the crosse he gaue vp his body to be wounded with the souldiers hands , ( marke , bread at the table , his body on the crosse , ) that the sincere truth and true sinceritie more secretly imprinted in his apostles , might expound to the nations , how bread and wine were flesh and blood , and by what meanes the causes agreed with their effects , and diuers names or kinds were reduced to one essence , and the things signifying and signified were called by the same names . in which last words he most euidently sheweth , how bread is said to be christs body ; to wit , because signes and the things by them signified are wont to haue the same titles giuen them . the bread is christs body : as u christ himselfe is bread ; * christ giuing ( saith theodoret ) the name of the signe to his body , and the name of his body to the signe . or , the bread is christ , as x the rocke was christ ; as y augustine well obserueth . yea that the bread is said to be christs body is apparent , and that it can in no other sense so be said , cardinal bellarmine himselfe confesseth : z this sentence ( saith he ) this bread is my body , either must be taken figuratiuely , that the bread be christs body significatiuely , ( that is , by signification onely ) or else it is altogether absurd and impossible : for it cannot be that the bread should be the body of christ : ( he meaneth , essentially , or otherwise then by signification or representation . ) so that the bread is said to be christs body : the course of the text sheweth it ; and the auncients commonly acknowledge it : but it cannot so be ( saith bellarmine ) but figuratiuely . in no other sense therfore are our sauiours words to be vnderstood . . we reason from the expresse words of scripture , wherein after consecration there is said to be bread and wine in the sacrament . a the bread which we breake ( saith the apostle ) is it not the communion of christs body ? it is apparent by the story of the institution that b consecration goeth before fraction . the bread is blessed , that is , consecrated , ( for c the benediction is in truth the consecration ) before it be broken . but it is bread ( saith the apostle ) euen when it is broken . it is bread therefore still , euen after it is consecrated . yea , is it bread when it is broken ? and is it not bread when it is eaten ? yes , if the apostle may be credited ; euen when it is eaten . d for as ost ( saith he ) as you eate this bread , and , e whosoeuer shall eate this bread vnworthily . and , f let a man therefore examine himselfe , and so eate of this bread . it is not so oft called christs body , but it is called bread as oft , euen after it is consecrated , and by consecration made symbolically and sacramentally christs body . the apostle then telleth vs of the one element that it is bread euen after it is consecrated : and of the other our sauiour himselfe saith that it is wine . for after that he had deliuered them the consecrated cup , he telleth them that g he will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine , &c. now the fruit of the vine what is it but wine ? there was wine ( saith augustine ) in the mysterie of our redemption , when our sauiour said ; i will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine . and yet was that after consecration that he spake it . and if it be wine still , then sure it is not essentially christs blood , howsoeuer it may well be symbolically , as we say . so origen ; * in the first place he gaue his disciples bread . yea , “ he gaue them ( saith cyril ) pieces of bread . and , cyprian saith . “ it was wine , that hee called his blood . and , w he deliuered wine , ( saith chrysostome ) when hee deliuered this mysterie : which he prooueth also by those words of our sauiour , of this fruite of the vine . and here let me debate the matter with those that vse to presse vs with christs words , which yet we thinke not much to be pressed with , if they be vnderstood as they ought ; christ saith , this is my body : and shall wee not beleeue what he saith ? the apostle saith it is bread that is broken , and that is eaten in the eucharist : and our sauiour himselfe saith , it was the fruite of the vine that he gaue them in the cup. and will they not beleeue what the apostle saith , or what christ saith ? or shall we beleeue those that tell vs contrary to the expresse words of either , that the one is not bread , though the apostle say it is : or the other was not wine , albeit our sauiour say it was ? for how our sauiours words may be true in the one place , though the bread be not essentially , but symbolically christs body , we can easily shew , and themselues see and acknowledge , as hath formerly beene shewen . but how the apostles and christs words should be true , or beare fit sense in the other places , vnlesse there be bread and wine in the eucharist after consecration , i suppose , they will not easily shew . if they will say , it is called bread because it was bread before , as h aarons rod is called a rod , after it was turned into a serpent . i answer : the reason is not alike . for . the serpent was made of that rod : but it is absord to say that christs body is made of bread . yea the papists themselues are at a stand here , and cannot well tell what to say . for they say indeede commonly , that i the bread is turned into christs body : and they say sometime also that k christs body is made of bread : and that l the priest maketh christs body of bread . yea bellarmine sticketh not to say , that m that body of christ which was crucified , was truly , or verily made of bread . they may beleeue him that lift . and yet they deny that n christs body is made by the priest : ( he maketh christs body of bread , and yet christs body is not made by him : ) or that o the body of christ is produced of bread , but doth succeede onely in the roome of bread . but it is absurd to say a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth , or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome of it : or to call a thing seriously ( for in mockery indeed sometime we doe ) by the name of some other thing , onely because it is now in the place where that thing before was : vnlesse it be in some magicall action , p wherein that seemeth to be done that indeede is not , and so the speech is not according to the truth of the thing , but according to that that seemeth to be . in a word we may truly say , of that serpent , that it was once a rod : but we cannot truly say of christs body , that euer it was bread . . the serpent there though tearmed a rod , because it so had beene , and q should againe so be , yet appeared euidently to be a serpent , in so much that r moses himselfe at the first sight was afraid of it . and so we shall finde it to haue beene euer in all miraculous conuersions , that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense , to the sight , as in the water turned into blood , to the taste , as t in the water turned into wine . whereas in the sacrament there is no such matter . we see no flesh there , we taste no blood there . nay we see euidently the contrary to that these men affirme . for we see bread and wine there : and we finde the true taste of either . and we haue no reason vpon their bare words to distrust either sense , and beleeue the contrary to that that we see and taste , onely because they say it . u that which you see ( saith augustine ) is bread and a cup : that which our eyes also informe vs : that which your faith requireth you to be informed of , is , that the bread is christs body , and the cup his blood : which they cannot be but figuratiuely , as bellarmine before confessed . a mysterie we acknowledge , we deny a miracle : v they may be honoured , saith augustine , as religious things , not wondred at as strange miracles , ) saue in regard of the supernaturall effects of them , in regard whereof there is a miraculous worke as well in baptisme , as in the eucharist . and yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either . * it is a rule ( saith the schooleman ) that where we can salue scriptures by that which we see naturally , we should not haue recourse to a miracle , or to what god can doe . . we reason from the nature of signes and sacraments . that which a the apostle saith of one sacrament , to wit , circumcision , is true of all : for there is one generall nature of all : sacraments are signes . b a sacrament , ( saith augustine ) that is a sacred signe . and , c signes appertaining to diuine things are called sacraments . now this is the nature of signes that d they are one thing and signifie another thing : that they signifie some other thing beside themselues , or diuers from themselues . and in like manner , ( saith augustine ) e sacraments being signes of things , they are one thing , and they signifie some other thing . but the bread and wine in the eucharist are signes of christs body and blood , as hath beene before shewed , and the auncients generally auow : and therefore are they not essentially either . they signifie christs body and blood : and what they signifie they are not . and g it is a miserable seruitude ( as augustine wel saith ) for men to take the signes for the things themselues by them signified . . wee reason from the nature of christs body , euen after his passion and resurrection . christs naturall body hath flesh , blood and bones , the limmes and lineaments of an humane body , such as may be felt and seene to be such . this appeareth plainely by that which he said to his disciples after he was risen from the dead , when they misdoubted some delusion : h behold mine hands and my feete : for it is i my selfe : handle me and see , for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue . but that which is deliuered , handled , and eaten in the eucharist hath no such thing . i it is not in any wise , ( saith epiphanius ) equall or like vnto christ , either his humanitie that is clad with flesh , or his deitie that is inuisible , or to the lineaments of his limmes , for it is round , senselesse , and liuelesse : as christ himselfe is not . it is not therefore the naturall body of christ. our sight and sense euidently enforme vs the contrary ; ( howsoeuer bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell vs that k christs body is verily and visibly vpon the boord , after that the words of consecration be once vttered : they thinke belike they may make men beleeue any thing . and our sauiour himselfe teacheth vs by sight and sense to iudge of his body . * as if to this day , ( saith pope lee ) he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth , as he spake there to his apostles . why sticketh our vnderstanding , where our sight is our teacher ? i may well say here as augustine in somewhat the like case , * i feare least we seeme to wrong our s●●ser , in seeking to prooue or perswade that by speech , wherein the euidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said . . we reason from the nature of all true bodies . l christs body is in heauen : m from whence wee looke for him . and n there is to abide till the end of the world . now a true naturall body as christs still is , cannot be in two , much lesse in twentie , or rather in twentie hundred places at once : which yet christs body must needs be , if that be true that they say . augustine questioned by one dardanus how christ could be both p in paradise and in heauen at once ( supposing heauen and paradise to be two seuerall places , howsoeuer q with the apostle paul they are not ) maketh answer , that he could not as he was man , or in his humanitie his body and his soule ; though he might as he was god , or in his deitie , that is euery where . and he addeth , r the same iesus christ , is euery wherein his deitîe , but in heauen in his humanitie . and further in his discourse hereof , saith he , take spaces and places from bodies , and they will be no where , and because they will be no where , they will not be : take bodies from qualities , and wanting wherein to subsist , they must needs cease to be : and yet in the popish hoast are qualities found , ( as before ) that haue no subiect body to subsist in , being not the qualities of christs body , and yet hauing no other body for them to subsist in ; for they are the qualities of bread , and yet there is no bread there , ( if they say true ) to beare them . euery bodie therefore must needs haue a certaine place : and they are so circumscribed with and confined vnto that place , that they cannot at the same time , or so long as they keepe that place , be in any other place but it . and so is it also euen with the glorified body of christ iesus . s christs body ( saith leo ) in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies . and therefore , christ ( saith gregorie nazi●nzen ) in regard of his body is circumscribed and conteined in a place : in regard of his spirit ( or his deitie ) he is not circumscribed , nor conteined in any place . and augustine , t our lord is aboue ; but our lord the truth is here too . for our lords body wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place , but his truth ( that is , his diuine power ) is diffused into all places . and therefore , u doubt not ( saith he ) but that the man christ is now there , from whence he is to come . he is gone vp into heauen : and thence he shall come , as he was seene to goe thither , ( the angel saith it ; ) that is , in the same forme and substance of flesh , which though he haue giuen immortalitie vnto it , yet he hath not taken nature away from it . according to this forme he is not euery where . for we must take heede , that we doe not so maintaine the deitie of the man , that we ouerthrow the veritie of his body . in a word ; as the angel reasoneth , speaking to the women that sought christ in the sepulcher ; * he is not here : for he is risen againe . so reasoneth the same augustine concerning christs bodily presence , reconciling those two places that might seeme the one to crosse the other : * behold i am with you till the worlds end : and , “ me shall you not haue alwaies with you . ' ' in regard , ( saith he ) of his maiestie , his prouidence , his grace we haue him alwaies here . but in regard of his flesh , which the word assumed , which was borne of the virgin , nailed on the crosse , &c. we haue him not alwaies . and why so ? because he is gone vp into heauen , and he is not here . and againe speaking of christ● being on earth and not in heauen as man , and yet in both places as god : * man according to his body is in a place , and passeth from a place ; and when hee commeth to another place , is not in that place from which he came . but god is euery where , and is not cont●ined in any place . so that the romanists if they will haue christs body in the eucharist , they must fetch it out of heauen , and indeed as if they had so done , a they doe in their masse request god to send his angels , to carry it vp againe thither : and their glosse saith , that so soone as men set their teeth in it , it retireth instantly thither : though that crosse their common tenent . or rather they must frame a new body , and so make christ haue two bodies , one that remaineth whole still in heauen , and another that the priest maketh or createth here vpon earth . but what speake i of two bodies ? christ must haue as many seuerall bodies as there be consecrated hoasts : for b the whole body of christ , ( they say ) is in each hoast ; yea more then so , there is an whole entire mans body flesh , blood , and bones with all limmes and lineaments ( for so it must needs be , if it be christs naturall body ) not in euery communicants mouth onely , but in euery crum of the hoas● that they breake of it , when they crush it betweene their teeth ; as they also flatly and precisely affirme . and by this reason the whole body of christ , ( against all reason ; for it is a principle in nature that the whole is euer greater then any part : ) shall be lesse in quantitie then the least limme or member of his body , then a nailes paring of his little finger : then which nothing is more absurd and senselesse . d euen an immortall body , ( saith augustine speaking of and instancing euen in christs body , ) is lesse in part then it is in the whole . e for a body being a substance , the quantitie thereof consisteth in the greatnesse of bulke . and since that the parts of a body are distant one from another , and cannot all be together , because they keepe each one their seuerall spaces and places , the lesse parts lesser places , and the great greater , there cannot be either the whole quantitie , or so great a quantitie in each single part , but a greater quantitie in the greater parts , and a lesser in the lesse , and in no part at all so great a quantitie as in the whole : but if their opinion be true any part of christ is in quantitie as great and greater then his whole body , and his whole body lesse then any part of it is . but how , will you say , is christs body and blood conneighed vnto vs , or how is his flesh eaten and his blood drunke then in the eucharist , if it be not really there present ? i might with aug. well in a word answer this question : how ( saith he ) shall i hold christ when he is not here ? how can i stretch mine hand to heauen , there to lay hold on him ? send thy faith thither ( saith he ) and thou hast him . thy forefathers held him in the flesh ; hold thou him in thy heart . you haue him alwaies present in regard of his maiestie , but in regard of his flesh , as himselfe told his disciples , not alwaies . but for fuller satisfaction i answer : . sacraments are f seales annexed to gods couenant . and as a deede being drawne of the princes gift concerning office , land or liuelyhood , and his broad seale annexed to it , and that deede so drawne and sealed being deliuered , that office , or that land , though lying an hundred miles of , is therein and thereby as truly and as effectually conueighed and assured vnto the party vnto whom the same deede is so made , and to whose vse and behoofe it is so deliuered , as if it were really present : so these seales being annexed to gods couenant of grace concerning christ , his flesh and blood , and his death and passion , and our title too and intere●t in either , the things themselues , euen christs body and blood themselues ( though sited still in heauen ) are as truly and as effectually conueighed with them and by them vnto the faithfull receiuer , when they are to him deliuered , as if they were here really and corporally present . . we receiue christ in the eucharist , as in the word and baptisme : wherein also we doe truly receiue him , yea , and feede on his flesh and blood , as well as in the encharist , albeit he be not corporally exhibited in either . g we are buried together with christ ( saith the apostle ) by baptisme into his death . and , h as many of you as haue beene baptized into christ , haue put on christ. i we are dipped in our lords passion : saith tertullian . sprinkle thy face with christs blood , saith hierome speaking of baptisme , that the destroyer may see it in thy forehead . k thou hast christ ( saith augustine ) at the present by faith , at the present by the signe of him , at the present by the sacrament of baptisme , at the present by the meate and drinke of the altar . yea , l no man ought to doubt ( saith augustine ) but that euery faithfull one is made partaker of the body and blood of christ , when in baptisme he is made a member of christ : and that he is not estranged from the communion of that bread and cup , though he depart out of this life ere he eate of that bread and drinke of that cup , because he hath that which that sacrament signifieth . and for the word , m christian men ( saith origen ) eate euery day the flesh of the lambe , because daily they receiue the flesh of gods word . and ; n the true lambe is o the lambe of god that taketh away the sinnes of the world : for p christ our passeouer is offred for vs. let the iewes in a carnall sense caete the flesh of a lambe : but let vs eate the flesh of the word of god. for he saith , vnlesse ye eate my flesh , ye shall haue no life in you . this that i now speake is the flesh of the word of god. and againe , q we are said to drinke christs blood not in the sacramentall rites onely , but when we receiue his word , wherein life consisteth ; as he saith , r the words that i speake are spirit and life . and , hierome also vnderstandeth those words of our sauiour , s he that eateth not my flesh and drinketh not my blood ; not of the sacrament of the eucharist onely , but more specially , or as he speaketh , more truly , of christs word and doctrine : and addeth therefore , that t when we heare the word of god , both the word of god , and the flesh of christ , and his bloud is powred in at our eares . if in the sacrament of baptisme then , and in the ministery of the word we truly receiue christ , and become partakers of christ , yea we eate and drinke christ in either as well as in the eucharist , what needeth any such reall transmutation more in the one then in the other ? . we reason from the qualitie of the communicants in the eucharist . if christs body be really and corporally present in the eucharist : then all that eate of the eucharist , must of necessitie eate christ in it . but many eate of the eucharist , that yet eate not christ in it . for none but the faithfull feede on christ : none eate him , as we shewed before , but those that liue by him , yea and in him ; that are liuing members of his mysticall body . whereas many wicked ones eate of the eucharist ; many eate of it , that are out of christ. u the other disciples ( saith augustine ) did eate that bread that is the lord : iudas did eate the lords bread against the lord. and disputing against those that hold that wicked men should be saued , if they liued in the church , because they fed on christ in the eucharist , saith , that such wicked ones are not to be said to eate christs body , because they are not members of his body . and that y christ when he saith , he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , abideth in me and i i● him ; doth thereby shew what it is truly , and not sacramentally onely to eate christs body and to drinke his blood , and that no man eateth his body and drinketh his blood , that abideth not 〈…〉 christ and christ in him . and againe he saith : he receiueth the bread of life , and drinketh the cup of eternitie , that abideth in christ , and in whom christ dwelleth . * but he that disagreeth from christ , neither eateth his flesh nor drinketh his blood , though to his owne iudgement for his presumption he daily receiue indifferently the sacrament of so great a thing . and againe : a they that eate and drinke christ , eate and drinke life . to eate him is to be made againe , to drinke him is to liue . that which is taken visibly in a sacrament , is eaten and drunke spiritually in the truth it selfe . for , b this meate and drinke maketh those that take it truly immortall and incorruptible . this is therefore to eate that flesh and drinke that drinke , for a manto abide in christ , and to haue christ abiding in him . and consequently he that abideth not in christ , nor christ in him , without doubt doth not eate his flesh nor drinke his blood spiritually , though carnally and visibly with his teeth he crush the sacrament of christs body . to augustine i adde origen , who hauing spoken what shall anone be related of christs typicall and symbolicall body , as he calleth the sacrament : c much ( saith he ) might be said more of the word it selfe that became flesh and true foode , which whosoeuer eateth shall surely liue for euer , and which no euill man can eate of . for if it were possible that any man , that continueth euill still , should eate of the word that became flesh , since it is the liuing bread , it had neuer beene written , d whosoeuer eateth of this bread , shall liue for euer . it is impossible then that any wicked man , or any that are damned should eate christ : but many wicked men eate of the eucharist , many are damned that eate of it . the eucharist therefore is not really christ. lastly , we reason from those things that are done about , or may be fall those creatures that in the eucharist are consecrated , which cannot be done to or betide now christs glorified body . . the eucharisticall bread was e broken in pieces and diuided into parts by our sauiour at his last supper . and the like rite was obserued f by the apostles in the administratiof the eucharist : and is g in the romish church also not vnusuall . but as christ ( saith the apostle ) is not diuided ; so christs body is not diuided into parts ; as they themselues confesse ; nor broken into pieces . h his body indeede is said to be broken , not that it was really broken into pieces ; but as by the prophet it is said , that i it pleased god to breake him , and to put him to griefe : ( which was fulfilled in those paines and torments that for vs he sustained ) and as we vse to say of men that with griefe and care they are broken . otherwise it was neuer broken ; much lesse is it now broken , being wholly quit euen of all those infirmities that it was so broken with before . yea the papists themselues not daring to auow that of christs verie bodie ; are enforced to affirme , that euery communicant receiueth k the whole and entire body of christ. yet they receiue but a part , ( saith their owne canon , as you shall heare anone ) of the element in the sacrament . that therefore , that is so diuided there , is not christs naturall body . and here the popish glosser is strangely troubled to salue and reconcile the words of their canons , and to make their owne doctrine agree with the sayings of some of the ancients there cited . there is inserted into the canon , this saying of augustine ; l we doe 〈…〉 make parts of christ , when we eate him . indeede in the sacrament we doe so , and the faithfull know how we eate christs flesh there . each one taketh his part : and the eucharist it selfe is therefore called their parts . christ is eaten by parts in a sacrament , and yet remaineth whole in heauen ; and yet remaineth whole in thy heart . on which place saith the glosser ; m this is contrary to that which pope nicolas saith , in berengarius his confession . and so it is indeede , for therein ( as before you heard ) it is said , that not the sacrament onely , but christs very body it selfe is broken by the priest. but that cannot be , saith the glosse ; for n a glorified body cannot suffer any such maime or harme . and therefore saith the same glosse , o the body and blood of christ is called by the name of parts , or the species that are diuided are called the body and blood of christ , in a significant mysterie : that is , as we say , because in a mysterie they signifie christs body and blood. that then which is taken in the sacrament is diuided into parts , and eaten by peece-meale : but christs naturall body is not so diuided , or taken corporally . that therefore that is taken in the eucharist is not christs naturall body . to conclude ; christ when he brake , either he brake bread or his body : but he brake not his body ; for his body remained entire still : he brake bread therefore ; and so the euangelist saith , p he tooke bread and brake it : and yet q he had blessed it , and so consecrated it first , as r pope innocent and other popish writers confesse : it remained bread still therefore euen after consecration : when as cyril speaketh , * he gaue his disciples fragments of bread : for of his body it could not be . yea , that which they breake at this day , either it is christs very body , or but bread : not christs body . for , s christs body if it were broken and diuided , would bee spoiled , saith biel the schooleman ; but that it is impossible , because it is impassible : therefore bread onely . for what they speake ( out of pope innocent therein crossing pope nicholas , as “ durand also well obserueth of diuiding nothing but * the colour , and shape , and sauour , and weight , and the like accidents , is friuolous , and contrary to the words of the institution that admit no such sense . i might adde hereunto that which pope nicholas acknowledgeth , that if the body of christ be corporally in the eucharist , it is not onely broken by the priests hands , but t torne to pieces also with mens teeth : and though the euangelist tell vs that u no bo●e of him was broken , v god indeede so kept them , that not one of them was broken , euen when x they pierced y with nailes his hands and his feete : yet if it be as they say , his very bones must needs be broken betweene their teeth that here chew him : and he sustaineth more hard measure in that kinde by the teeth of his owne disciples , then he did then at the hands of those that were his executioners . hard teeth they haue doubtlesse that can so easily breake bones : and hard hearts that can finde in their heart to vse their sauiour so hardly . z who is so sottish ( saith the heathen man ) as to thinke that that he eateth to be god. * what man in his wits ( saith theodoret ) wil account that to be god which either he abhorreth , or that he offereth to the true god , and himselfe eateth ? and who is so impious , say i , as to eate thus that which he thinketh to be god ? . that which is consecrated in the eucharist is subiect to corruption , putrefaction and foule abuse : christs naturall body now glorified is not so . that therefore is not christs naturall body , that is consecrated in the eucharist . that which is consecrated in the eucharist , i say , is subiect to corruption . for , a if we regard those visible things ( saith augustine ) wherewith we administer the sacraments , who knoweth not that they are corruptible ? but if wee respect that that is intended in them , who seeth not that it cannot be corrupted ? the elements in the eucharist , if they be kept any long time , are prone to putrisie . in regard whereof their counterfeit s. clement b instructing ( for so he speaketh ) the apostle s. iames how to deale with the sacrament ( how shamelesse are they that dare obtrude such things on the church of god ? how blockish and sottish that beleeue them ? ) doth very grauely and sagely admonish him to haue speciall care of c keeping the reliques of the hoast , or the fragments of christs bodie , ( for so he calleth them ) from growing mouldy in the pyx , and * that no mouse dung be found among the fragments of christs portion ; lest great wrong be done to some portion or piece of christs body . ( and yet they told vs before that christs body is not parted . ) and cardinal bellarmine telleth vs of the sacramentall wine , that it cannot be kept long but it will grow sowre . or if they be taken , they are consumed , and “ perish ( as the apostle speaketh ) in the vse of them . e the bread ( saith augustine ) that is made for this vse , is in the sacrament consumed . but christs naturall body is in no wise consumed . f no multitude ( saith one ) consumeth this bread ; no continuance maketh it stale . g that heauenly foode refresheth , and yet neuer faileth : it is neuer spent at all , though it be neuer so oft taken . * it neuer perisheth ( saith our sauiour ) but lasteth to life eternall . yea in many places the manner was anciently , if any bread were left after the celebration of the sacrament , either to h distribute it among the catechumeni , who might not as yet receiue the eucharist ; or to i burne it with fire , in imitation of k the paschal lambs remainders ; which yet it is to be thought they would not haue done with it , if they had held it to be christs body . yea to this day the romanists are enioyned in their church canons , l if the hoast grow mouldy or m breede mites ; ( neither of which , i suppose , christs body now can doe , ) or n if a sicke body that hath bin houseled , bring it vp againe ; or o if the priest being drunke before chance to spew it vp againe ; p to burne both the one and the other , q if no man be found so hardy as to take either , and r to lay vp , or reserue , the ashes , of it for a relique : and s if the dogs chance to licke that vp that the priest cased himselfe of , he must doe double penance for it . or t if a mouse chance to picke their god almightie out of the pyx ( of which more anone ) and she can be taken againe , she must be opened , and christs body , if it may be , picked out of her , and if no man haue a stomacke to so delicate a morsell , both shee and it must be burnt , and the ashes reserued . for that that is both taken and kept by the communicanes : let them not blame vs if with due reuerence to such holy mysteries , we argue from our sauiours owne words ; the auncients haue done so before vs : p whatsoeuer ( saith our sauiour ) goeth into the mouth , entreth not into the heart , but goeth into the belly , and is cast out into the draught , q which is the purging of all meates . whereupon as augustine saith , hauing spoken both of the foode that is r sanctified for the sustenance of our bodies , and of the bread that they vsed to giue to the catechumeni after the celebration of the sacrament , s this sanctification of meates hindreth not , but that that which goeth into the mouth , goeth into the belly , and is by corruption cast out into the draught ; whereupon our lord exhorteth vs to t another meate that corrupteth not : so origen speaking of the sacrament it selfe , u of the typicall and symbolicall body of christ ; ( for so expressely he explaineth himselfe : ) x if , saith he , whatsoeuer goeth in at the mouth , goeth into the belly , and is cast out into the draught : then euen that bread also that is sanctified ( or consecrated ; all is one ) by the word of god and by prayer , as it is materiall , goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught : nor is it the matter of the bread , but the praier added to it , and the word spoken of it , that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiuer . but to say so or to thinke so of christs blessed and glorious body were most hideous , most horrible . well therefore saith ambrose ; y it is not this bread that goeth into the belly , but the bread of eternall life , that sustaineth the substance of our soules . and augustine expressely telleth vs that z we are not to eate that body that the iewes saw , nor drinke that blood which they shed that crucified christ ; but there is a sacrament commended vnto vs , which being spiritually vnderstood will put life into vs. * there can nothing be imagined more absurd ( saith bellarmine himselfe ) then to thinke that christs body should nourish the mortall substance of mens bodies , and so should be the foode , not of the minde , but of the belly . but by the popish doctrine this it must needs doe and worse then this ; the popish doctrine therefore is most absurd . lastly , what can be more horrible , then to imagine that christs body , or any part of it , should be not in the belly of a man , but in the belly of a beast ? a christian eares ( saith benauenture ) abhorre to heare that christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw . yet by this popish doctrine both the one & the other too must needs be , if a mouse chance ( as he may ) to meete with a consecrated hoast . nor doe the popish writers ordinarily make daintie of it to acknowledge as much . if a pigge or a dogge , ( saith alexander of hales ) should swallow downe an whole consecrated hoast , i see not why or how christs body should not passe into its belly . and , thomas aquinas , c a brute beast may by accident eate christs body . and , d though a mouse or a dog eate a consecrated hoast , yet the substance of christs body ceaseth not to be there , no more then it doth , if the hoast be cast into the durt . e if it be said ( saith the glosser ) that a mouse eateth christs body , there is no great inconuenience in it ; since that the most wicked men that are , receiue it . f nene eateth christs flesh ( saith augustine ) but hee that first worshippeth it . and i doubt much whether any of these dogs , pigs , or mice , euer adored it : howsoeuer cardinal bellarmine and some others tell vs either of g an horse or an asse that worshipped the hoast . but let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations , goe together . yet so necessarily doth this follow vpon their doctrine of the eucharist ; that whereas some of their doctors seeme to doubt h what the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an hoast , and maketh a good meale of it ; and the great master of the sentences saith , i god knoweth ; for he knoweth not ; but he enclineth rather to thinke , that k the mouse eateth not christs body , though shee seeme so to doe ; whereupon the masters of paris giue him a wipe for it by the way , and said , the master is out here . and others of them , to salue the matter , would coine vs a new miracle , and say , that m so soone as the mouses mouth commeth at it , or her lips kisse it , christs body conueigheth it selfe away , and n the bread miraculously commeth againe in the roome of it : o and this ( say they ) is the commoner and the honester opinion . here is miracle vpon miracle ; such as they are . yet thomas aquinas their p chiefe schooleman , and one that could not be deceiued herein , for they say that his doctrine of the sacrament was confirmed by miracle , a woodden crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words , q thou hast written well of me , thomas ; telleth vs peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise , if christs body be in the eucharist , but that mice and rats must eate it , when they meete with the hoast and make meate of it . r some say ( saith he ) that so soone as the sacrament is touched by a dogge or a mouse , christs body ceaseth to be there : but this opinion derogateth from the truth of the sacrament . thus you may see what hideous , horride and horrible conclusions this carnall and capernaiticall conceite of christs corporall presence in the eucharist hath bred and brought forth , and must needs breede and bring forth with all those that vphold it . the summe of all that hath beene said . . that there is nothing in the gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our sauiour , this is my body , may not be figuratiuely vnderstood , is by cardinal caietan confessed . . that our sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually , is acknowledged by many popish writers of great note : and is , beside other reasons , by a rule giuen by augustine euidently prooued . . that the elements in the sacrament remaine in substance the same , and are not really transubstantiated into christs body and blood , is euinced by diuers arguments . . from the course of the context , which plainely sheweth , that christ brake and deliuered no other then he tooke and blessed . . from the expresse words of scripture , that calleth the one bread , and the other wine , euen after consecration . . from the nature of signes , whose propertie it is to be one thing , and to signifie another thing . . from the nature of christs body , that hath flesh , blood , and bones , which the eucharisticall bread hath not , that . which our taste , our sight , and our sense informeth vs , by which our sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body . . from the nature of euery true body , such as christs is , which cannot be in many places at once , nor haue any part of it greater then the whole . . from the qualitie of the communicants , good and bad , promiscuously feeding on the elements in the eucharist , whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon christ. . from these infirme and vnseemely , yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually , or may befall the elements in the eucharist , which no christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall christs blessed and glorious body . whence i conclude , that since this corporall presence , such as the church of rome maintaineth , hath no warrant from gods word , as their owne cardinal confesseth ; and is besides contrary to scripture , to nature , to sight , to sense , to reason , to religion , we haue little reason to receiue it , as a truth of christ , or a principle of christianitie , great reason to reiect it , as a figment of a mans braine , yea as a doctrine of the diuell , inuented to wrong christ and christianitie . it is the rule of a schooleman . we ought not to adde more difficultie vnto the difficulties of christian beliefe . but rather according to that which the scripture teacheth , we should endeauour to cleere that that is obscure . and therefore since that the one manner of christs presence in the eucharist is cleerely possible and intelligible , whereas the other is not intelligible ( yea , nor possible neither , ) it seemeth probable that that manner of his presence that is possible and intelligible should be chosen and held . a ivst defence of the former discovrse and argvments against the answer of a nameles popish priest thereunto : vvherein is set downe ; first , his answer word for word , and then a refutation thereof , according to his owne distribution of it . diuision i. noble ladie , i finde your diuine vtterly ignorant and vnacquainted with the authors workes by him frequently cited . for example , pag. . he tearmeth cornelius iansenius more then once a iesuite : whereas the first leafe of his booke ( if he had euer seene it ) witnesseth him to haue beene a bishop of flaunders , and no iesuite . like herein to an other of his owne coate ( for i guesse him to be a minister , who to my selfe and other worthy persons confidently auerred cardinal bellarm. to haue beene an english man borne at harr●● on the hi●● ; where there hath beene indeede an auncient familie of the bellamies , not bellarmines , as he foolishly conceiued . secondly , pag. . he citeth an authoritie out of pope gelasius written by a farre different author of that name bishop of caesarea in palestine mentioned together with his workes by photius bibliotheca sua codice . thirdly , in his . page , on the false report of an other namelesse author like to himselfe , ignorant and vnsincere in his assertions , he maketh bishop fisher to affirme the reali presence of christs body in the sacrament not to be gatherable out of any one word in scripture , contrarie to bishop fishers , yea luthers owne doctrine in innumerable places . fourthly , hauing traced him throughout his whole treatise , i finde him to be a meere collector out of other authors : and for his best arguments be hath stolne bellarmines obiections against our doctrine , craftily dissembling his full and solide solutions of them in those very places : which is the vsuall trade of such protestant petie writers . his proofes are tedious , superficiall , and stuffed with impertinent allegations , maimedly and corruptly produced : with a very bad hand ( which i suppose is his owne ) he inserteth many notes wholy idle and impertinent to his purpose ; as i haue in reading his papers particularly obserued : which is to me an euident signe , that he hoped his papers should neuer come to the view of other then ladies and vnlearned pers●… vnable 〈…〉 exam●●● them . it is the vsuall manner of those that defend a bad cause , to leaue the matter , and fall foule on the aduerse party , and ( like the crauen cocke , that hauing a eaten garlicke , by his strong and stinking breath endeauoureth to driue him away from him , whom he is not able well to bicker with ) by railing , re●iling and aboundance of bad language to seeke to beate off their aduersary , or by lying and out-facing to cry downe those that they deale with , when by euidence of truth and strength of argument they are vnable to conuince them ; hoping by such meanes to delude the simpler sort at least , that cannot so well discerne their shifts . this as i haue heretofore by experience found to be the common practise of popish companions ; so this defendant loath to degenerate from the kinde he commeth of , at the first dash beginneth with , charging the diuine he dealeth with to be one vtterly ignorant , vnacquainted with the authors workes that he citeth , a petty-writer , a meere collector , a false filcher , a foule corrupter , a superficiall disputer , and what not ? this is his charge : let vs heare how he prooueth it . . he tearmeth iansenius , whom he citeth , more then once a iesuite , when he is not . it is true indeede : i confesse , i doe twise so tearme him , and i tooke him to haue beene so : wherein if i were mistaken , the matter is not great . i hope the authoritie of a famous bishop , and a great writer of speciall note among them , our of a worke of his written b with much learning and mature iudgement , as the louaine professor acknowledgeth ; and approoued c by the common iudgement of the learned among them , as the king of spaines ( to whom also it is dedicated ) and the popes censurer of bookes testifieth , may well be deemed of as much weight as the word or worke , ( if not of any , yet ) of many a iesuite at least . as for the idle tale hee telleth of the bellarmines and bellamies , which a minister forsooth should take the one for the other , and therupon affirme card. bellarmine to haue beene borne at harrow on the hill ; it may well be thought to haue beene brought in for no other end ( being so little to the purpose ) but to let vs vnderstand that hee is a man of some worth ; for so much hee intimateth when he saith , it was averred to himselfe and other worthy persons . hee doubteth ( belike ) that his worke would scarce make his worth knowne , if hee should not otherwise acquaint vs with it . the thing it selfe is like enough to be but a meere fiction ; and might easily be requited with the tale of the frier , that d tooke messias for the masse , and so would prooue out of the gospell that christ said masse ; or of the priest e that tooke vnigeniti written short , for viginti , and so read to his people , gods twenty sonnes ; or of him f that bad the epiphanie day , but could not tell whether it weere an hee or a she-saint ; or of him * that bad solin cancro for an holy-day , because he found it written in red letters ; and with many moe the like , probable enough , if the learning of their lacke-latin priests be well weighed . but , had i ever seene the first leafe of his booke , i might haue knowne him to be a bishop of flanders and no iesuite . as if as oft as one either readeth or alleadgeth any author , hee must needes turne alwayes to the title-page , to see what his style is : or as if iansenius might not as well be bishop of gaunt , as bellarmine a cardinall , and ( if i mistake not ) arch-bishop of capua , and yet for all that a iesuite . his proofe therefore of my being vnacquainted with this author , ( whom , i suppose , hee will finde mee better acquainted with then he would ) is very silly and slight : and the exception such , as sheweth that hee wanted matter of moment to except against . but i hope when this bishop of flanders booke commeth to be reprinted againe , they will take that course with him , ( if they haue not leaft their old guise ) that they haue done formerly with many others ; to wipe out of him whatsoeuer in this kinde or any other , either maketh directly against them , or discouereth the weakenesse of such grounds as they labour to build their grosse errors vpon . of which their false and fradulent dealing , it shal not be amisse to insert one example by the way ; the rather , because it concerneth the point here debated . whereas therefore in the time of carolus calvus king of france and emperour , aboue . yeeres since , there was g much disputation and dissension in the church about the doctrine of the sacrament , one bertram a man h of great note in those times both for life and learning , willed by the emperour to declare his iudgement therein , wrote a learned discourse thereof , wherein hee confimeth by the testimonies of augustine , ambrose , and others of the ancients , the very same that we now hold : and among other things affirmeth that i there is as great difference between christs bodie that was borne of the virgin mary , and that which is dayly receiued with the month in the sacrament , as there is betweene the pledge , and that for which the pledge is giuen , betweene the image , and that whereof it is an image , and betweene the type and the truth . now the popish purgers authorised to maine and mangle authors , as well old as new , cum privilegio , without controll , lighting among others on this booke of bertrams , vse these wordes of it , and of their owne confessed courses in this kinde . k albeit ( say they ) we make no great reckoning of this booke , and therefore should not greatly care if it were vtterly lost , and were no where to be had ; ( i cannot blame them if they wish it , and many other the like , burnt and abolished ) yet seeing that the booke hath beene oft printed , and reprinted , hath beene read of very many , is knowne commonly by the name of a booke forbidden , and the heretiques by diuerse catalogues of bookes prohibited , are sure there is such an one , &c. and besides , since that in other old catholique writers we beare with very many errors , wee extenuate , wee excuse them , l with some devised shift or other we very often times deny them , and by faining giue them some commodio as sense , ( such they meane as may serue their owne turnes ) when in disputations with our adversaries they are obiected vnto vs. ( marke , i pray you , the common dealing of these men in disputation , not charged on them by vs , but confessed by themselues ; and then iudge you what fidelity or sincerity in cyting of authors , is to bee expected at their hands . ) we see not , why bertram should not finde the like fauour with vs : the rather , m l●st the heretiques should be snarling at vs , and telling vs that we burne vp and prohibite antiquitie , when it maketh for them against vs. which , you see , in this author they would faine , if either they could , or durst do it . so at length they resol●… to doe bertram the fauour to mangle and misuse his whole booke , and hauing put in , and put out what they list themselues , to let him to passe , taught to speake for them now , that spake all against them before . i may well say heere , as arnobius an ancient father , sometime said ; n to intercept writings , and seeke to suppresse things published , what is it but to be afraid of hauing the truth told and testified ? . from the first idle exception i passe to a second , as false , as the former frivolous . hee citeth , saith hee , an authority out of pope gelasius , written by a farre different author of that name , bishop of caesarea in palestine . had not meere malice and a minde bent to cavill , either blinded this wrangler , or made him wilfully to winke , hee might easily haue seene ( that which he could not also be ignorant of ) in my very quotation , that the style and ●itle i giue him , is no other then is commonly giuen him by popish writers , as among others by o margarinus la bigne , and those with him ( besides many p others ) that gathered together the workes of the ancient fathers , in the fourth t●me of their great library sundry times printed , which 〈…〉 note there also in the margine where i cite him . so that it is a meere false and friu●●us cauill to taxe me for cyring gelasius by 〈…〉 title that hee knew well to be giuen him , ( yea and that truly too , as anone shall euidently be ●…ed ) by those of their owne side that haue at sundry times set him out by no other name but of g●lasius pope or bishop of rome . but how doth this trister prooue that he was not bishop of rome ? forsooth , because photius maketh mention of one gelasius bishop of caesarea in palestine , that wrote against the heretikes called anomoei . the place wringeth them , and therefore they would faine shift off the author , from being bishop of rome at least . and b●llarmine , q he telleth vs that it was one gelasi●● a bishop of caesarea , of whom iereme maketh mention . but baronius confuteth bellarmine ; ( here is cardinal against cardinall : ) and r saith , it cannot be that gelasius : their times are too farre asunder : both hee was dead and his next successor , before that businesse was on foot , that he dealeth in . thus they sticke not to make men write bookes after they are dead , and laid vp in their graues . but who is hee then , saith baronius ? for bishop of rome hee must not be . hee is s that gelasius ( saith hee ) that photius maketh mention of : and this defendant saith the same . gennadius and diuers other , telleth vs that gelasius of the city of rome bishop , wrote against the eutychians and nestorians . and that is the very title of the book● that i cite . now photius telleth vs of another gelasius bishop of caesarea , that wrote against the anomaeans . therefore saith baronius , and from him this defendant , the one must needs bee the other . as if two bishops of the same name could not write bookes against heretiques , but they must needs be by and by the same . but obserue i pray you , how hansomely these things hang together . the t anomaeans were arrians and aetians , so called , because they held the sonne to bee vnlike the father . the u eutychians heretiques , that held that christs humanity was turned into , or swallowed vp of his deitie . and now marke how these men reason ; gelasius of caesarea ( saith photius ) writ against those that oppugned christs diuinitie : and this gelasius writeth against those that tooke away his humanity : this and the other therefore must needs be all one . rather i reason on this manner : gennadius reporteth that g●lasius bishop of rome writ against eutyches and nestorius : so doth this whom i cite ; and all editions of him , so stile him : this gel●sius therefore was bishop of rome . and how doth this now proue , that i cite authors , whose workes i am altogether vnacquainted with , when the worke i cite in their owne printed editions hath no other title , then that i giue it ? but for the further and fuller cleering of the truth in this point , and the vindicating of this piece of antiquity to his right author : besides that phetius flatlyaffirmeth that that gelasius that wrote against the anomaei , is the same with that gelasius whom they would haue this author to be , to wit , hee that wrote of the nicene councell , but a one that both for stile and learning goeth farre beyond him : nor is the frame of this authors discourse such as hee describeth his to haue beene in that worke , to wit , b fastidiously and childishly , or youthfully at least , full of logicke rules and tearmes , for which himselfe maketh an apologie ; which this neither doth , nor ( writing in a farre other straine ) needed to doe : as also that in this very worke , the author intimateth himselfe to haue beene bishop of rome , or ( as he speaketh ) of d the apostolike sea : nor is it needfull that with e melchior canu● we turne sedem into fidem , as ( to shift off this author ) he would there do : besides all this , i say , eulgentius an african bishop who liued together in the same time with pope gelasius , and was his owne countriman , doth ( as f hen●…y spondan the popes protonotary himselfe informeth vs ) g ascribe this work to pope gelasius , cyting out of it certaine passages ; as h iohn the second , who not long after succeded this gelasius in the same sea , also doth . that which putteth this truth so farre out of all doubt , that spondan by such euidence vndeniable conuinced , is enforced to i controll cardinall baronius and those other of their owne writers therein . it is cleere therefore that this gelasius was not bishop of c●sare● , as this defendant would haue him ; but bishop of rome , as i alleadge him , aboue a thousand yeeres since , and both held and taught then the same doctrine of the sacrament of the e●ch●rist , that we doe at this day . but let him giue me leaue here to tell him of a tricke too common with him and those of his coate ; to wit , as to coine and forge fathers , such as neuer were , not a few ; so to cite oft in their discourses in matters of cōtrouersie authors and writings , either iustly suspected , or evidently spurious and counterfeit . in which kinde this defendant is more then once or twice faulty . to omit cyril of ierusalem his catecheticall sermons , which euen u popish writers themselues dare not confidently auow ; and diuerse passages in them bewray to be of a later date , then that cyril whom they are fathered on . as also his citing of the very selfe same author sometime as x augustine , and sometime as y ambrose , which it may wel be was neither , and may the rather bee so deemed euen for this cause , because hee beareth the name of both ; which both sure he could not be : he citeth these confessed counterfeits as authenticall authors ; . di●nysius areopagita , branded long since in photius his time , a as posseuine confesseth , for a counterfeit ; b doubted of by c●ietan ; c denied by grocinus ; d derided by ualla and diuerse others . . the passion of s. andrew pretended to be written by the ministers of ach●ia : which dr. white ( not ours but theirs ) writing of this very argument , confesseth to be e without controuersie an apocryphall storie : and containeth manifest vntruth , if bellarmine himselfe may bee beleeued . . cyprian de cardinalibus christi operibus ; which f posseuine , g erasmus , h hesselius , and many other p●pish writers flatly deny to be cypriaus , yea or any one i n●ere cyprians time . . eusibius emissenus his homelies ; which whose they are , saith bellarmine , is not knowne ; l baro●i●s con●…th to haue beene foolishly set out vnder his name ; and m six●… s●…sis ( besides many others ) affirmeth to haue bee●e patched together by some latine author out of other mens writings , whereas e●sebi●s was a greeke . i adde onely what bellarmine saith of the most of these auth●rs together . di●nysius his booke ( saith hee ) eusebius his homilies , and cyprians sermons of christs cardinall workes , n are with some counted doubtfull , yea or counterfait writings : 〈…〉 nor is it certainē whether they bee theirs , whose names they beare . yea of some of them hee saith else-where , that p it is certaine q they are not . and yet are these of the principall authors that this defendant to vphold his tortering fabrique produceth ; albeit the things alledged out of them doe not greatly stand him in steed , as shall appeare when wee come at them . but such counterfeit feips doe they commonly tender vs , and will needs enforce vs to accept them for curr●nt 〈…〉 ; when they know that their owne criticks haue marked and bored them for such , neither will they passe in payment among themselues . § . his third exception is that hee citeth a namelesse author , ignorant and vnsincere , like himselfe ; who m●keth bishop fisher affirme the reall presence of christs bodie in the sacrament not to be gatherable out of any word in scripture . true it is , i say , that i finde bishop fisher all●adged to affirme , that there is no one word in the gospell , from which the true presence of christs flesh and blood in their m●sse may be proued . which because i had not the 〈…〉 my selfe , nor knew where to haue it , i thus only alledge . and now , to put the matter wholy out of suspence ; that ignorant and vnsincere author like my selfe , as 〈…〉 ●…rmeth him , who shall no longer be namelesse , is that right re●erend prelate , now lord bishop of winchester , r in his elaborate worke against bellarmines apologi● ; who ( i doubt not ) both had the booke by him there cited , and cited the wordes no otherwise then they are in the booke . no● ( i thinke ) is this popish doctor so extreamely brazen-faced ( though they haue many of them in their browes too much of that mettall ) that he dare challenge that m●rour of learning for an ignorant author . i should esteeme it but to great a grace to be counted ignorant as he is . § . fourthly , hauing traced him through his whole treatise ●e findeth him to be a meere collector out of other authors , & to haue stol●e out of bellar. his ●bi●ctions , cōc●aling his answeres : and in a word all so poore & so weake , that it may seeme written onely for ladies and ideotes , vnable to examine . i say no more here in way of defence for my selfe but this onely ; that this should haue beene rather discouered by him in particular , then thus charged in generall , vnlesse he could in the prosecution of it haue better discharged himselfe then he hath done hitherto . the truth is ; he himselfe is so much beholden to bellarmine , that he is faine euer and anone to referre his reader to seeke in him what he should say ( if he thought it at least worth the saying ) himselfe . as if it were a good proofe of what he auerreth , or a sufficient resutation of what he findeth obiected , to say , that bellarmine hath largely prooued the one , or bellarmine hath sufficiently answered the other . which if he haue done either , he hath done more by much then he oft attempteth once to doe . and surely his manner of dealing , beside the slightnesse and slendernesse of his answeres , with a wet finger ( as we say ) passing by the manifold allegations produced as well out of the auncients , as out of their owne authors , doth giue a shrewd suspition , that he thought this his writing would neuer be examined by any either learned or vnlearned , vnlesse they were such as wanted euen common sense , sufficient to discouer the absurditie of diuers passages therein . to giue your ladiship a taste of some of them before hand . absurd positions , and contradictions . . he saith , that s a testament , as all learned know , may well signifie a legacis . . he maketh t our sauiour to say , this my blood is the testament in my blood . . he saith , that u christs blood is offered in the eucharist , vnbloodily , or not as blood . . he expoundeth a place of theod●ret thus ; * the sacramentall signes , that is , the accidents , retaine still the same substance , that is , the same accidents , . he saith that y christs body is in the eucharist , but without bodily existence , that is , his body is there , but not as a body . . that z it is there , and yet it followeth not that it is eaten , though that that is there be eaten . . he maintaineth a a corporall eating of christ in the sacrament , and yet that he is not there corporally eaten . . he affirmeth that b all are not saued that beleeue in christ , and so fe●de spiritually on christ. . he saith that c the sonne of god is contained in the bread that is ea●en in the e●ch●rist ; whereas they dery any br●… at 〈…〉 to be there . . he maintaineth that d a thing may truly be said to be turned 〈…〉 that that commeth onely in the place of it . . he affirmeth that e one and the selfe same thing may 〈…〉 . that f christs bodie in the sacrament hath no exte●… bignesse a● 〈…〉 . . he affirmeth g christs very bodie to be present in the sacrament but in a spirituall manner , or as a spirit ; and therefore can no more there be broken , then angels wounded i●b●di●s ●ffirmed , or then his de●… on the crosse ; and that nothing but acc●●●nts are broken in the euch●rist . . that h christs hiding himselfe in the sacr●●ent is 〈…〉 ex●…ion of him . . he saith , that i christ is not touched in the sacrament , and yet we touch him : that he in●…th 〈…〉 there , and yet he cannot be touched of vs. . he saith , that k christs body is not abused , though mice and rats eate it . . that l their masse is the very selfe same with christs sacrifice on the crosse , and yet it is vnbloodie . . he maketh m christ himselfe a memoriall of himselfe . crosse and wilfull falshoods and falsifications . . that n i affirme sacraments to be nothing but bare signes and types : and that , o we make the sacrament but a bare memoriall of christ. . p that i affirme them to bee nothing but bare bread and wine . . that q i affirme caietane , bellarmine and gratian to say the same . . that r iustine martyr describeth the celebration of the sacrifice and sacrament of the eucharist iust as they now celebrate it . . that s the fathers affirme that i●das receiued christs naturall body . . that s all christians in the world celebrate as , they doe . . that t augustine and all the auncient fathers vnderstand christs words iohn . literally , and not figuratiuely . . that u all the fathers expound those words property , this is my bodie . . that x christ did not say of the eucharist cup , i will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine . . that y the centurists blame all the fathers almost of constantines time vniuersally for teaching transubstantiation , and adoration of the sacrament . . that z the auncient britens held the same . . that * origen , basil , ierome , and augustine make the sinne of such as come vnworthily to the sacrament equall with the sinne of those that betraied and kild christ. but passe we from his preamble to the worke it selfe . diuision . his first end●… for three leaues together is to pr●… that there is nothing in the gospel , whereby it may appeare that those words of our sauiour , this is my body , may not be vnderstood figuratiuely as well as other speeches of the like kinde in scripture ; as when , a seuen kine are said to be seuen yeeres ; b ten hornes ten kings ; c the rocke was christ , &c. so he ; not telling withall his reader ( as he ought to haue done , like an ingenuous solide author ) the many differences noted by d bellarmine and other catholike authors soluing this very obiection , betweene christs literall words , this is my bodie , and other figuratiue speeches ; these being simply and without any other explication vniformally recounted by three euangelists , as also by saint paul , in their historicall narrations : whereas where the lambe is called the passeouer , the rocke is said to be christ , &c. something is still added in the text , to explicate the literall and true meaning of them . the lambe ( for example ) is called in the same place the sacrifice of the passeouer : christ is said to be a spirituall rocke , &c. and the very scope of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words of them are literally to be taken : ●s the seauen kine , ten hornes , &c. besides in all such figuratiue speeches , semper predicatur de disparato disparatum : one thing is said to be another , which cannot be ●…dually or specifically the ●ame , but wholly different in nature from it . a man , ( for example ) as christ was , cannot 〈…〉 ●…narily be a vine , a lyon , a rocke , &c. but in christs words , this is my bodie , no such absurdor impossible thing is affirmed ; but onely that the substance which he had in his hands , was his bodie made by the miraculous conuersion of bread into it ; christs words being operatiue ( saith e s. ambrose ) and omnipotently able to make that to be which is signified by them in in these words . perhaps thou wilt say ; i see another thing : how prooue you to me , that i take the bodie of christ ? and this remaineth yet for vs to prooue , that it is not what nature framed , but what benediction hath consecrated : and that the force of benediction is greater then the force of nature : because euen nature it selfe is changed by benediction . moses holding a wand in his hand , did cast it from him , and it became a serpent . now if mans benediction were of such force , as that it could change nature ; what say we of that same diuine consecration , where the words of our lord and sauiour doe worke ? for this sacrament which thou takest is made by the speech of christ. and if the speech of elias was of such pow●● as to draw fire from heauen ; shall not christs words be of fo●ce to change the formes of the elements ? thou hast read of the workes of the whole world : because he spake the word , they were made ; he commaunded , and they were created . the word of christ then , which of nothing could make that which was not , cannot it not as well change those things which are into that which before they were not ? since it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures vnto things then to change natures , &c. f it is indeede bread before the words of the sacraments : but after that consecration is once added vnto it , of bread it is made the flesh of christ , &c. g i haue told you , ( saith s. augustine ) that before christs words that which is offered on the altar is called bread : but when christs words are vttered , it is called no more bread , but his bodie . and explicating the title of the . psalme , wherein these words are written , et ferebatur in manibus suis ; and-he was carried in his owne hands : who ( saith he , conc . . ) is able to conceiue how this can happen in man ? for who is carried in his owne hands ? a man may be carried in the hands of an other : but in his owne hands he cannot be carried . how this may be literally vnderstood in dauid , we finde not . but in christ we doe . for christ was carried in his owne hands , when giuing his bodie he said , this is my body . for then did he carry that body in his owne hands , &c. when as christ himselfe ( saith s. cyril ) affirmeth and saith of the bread , this is my bodie , who may presume to make any doubt thereof ? and when the same christ confirmeth and saith , this is my blood , who can doubt , and say it is not his blood ? againe , h let vs not consider it as meere bread , or bare wine . for it is the bodie and blood of christ. for although the sense teacheth thee that it is bread and wine , yet let thy faith confirme thee , that thou iudge not the thing it selfe by thy taste . and a little after ; this knowing for most certaine , that the bread which we see is not bread , although thy taste thinketh it to be bread , but that it is the bodie of christ : and the wine which we behold , although to the sense of tasting it seemeth to be wine , yet that it is not wine indeede , but the blood of our sauiour , &c. i let vs beleeue god ( saith s. chrysostome ) in euery thing ; not gain-saying him , though what he saith may seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation . i beseech thee therefore , that his speech may ouercome our sense and reason . which point we are to obserue in all things : but especially in holy mysteries ; not onely beholding those things which lie before vs ; but also laying hold of his words ; for his words cannot deceiue vs : but our sense may easily be deceiued . and elsewhere lib. . de sacerd. o miracle ! saith he : o the bountie of god! he that sitteth aboue with his father , euen in the same instant of time is handled with the hands of all , and deliuereth himselfe to such as are willing to entertaine and imbrace him . againe , elias did leaue his garment to his disciple . but the sonne of god ascending to heauen did leaue his flesh . but elias by leauing it was deuested thereof : whereas christ leauing his flesh to vs , yet ascending to heauen there also he hath it . after that he hath thus spent some part of his railing rhetorick in traducing & vilifying this protestantical diuine his aduersary , asignorant , vnacquainted with the authors he citeth , a petty writer , a meere collector , a filcher , a falsifier , &c. and disgraced his discourse as consisting of proofes tedious , and superficiall , and allegations impertinent maimedly and corruptly produced ; and ( that nothing may escape him without some nip ) written with a very bad hand , which he taketh to be his owne ; and the partie therefore one ( it may be ) not so fit to write for ladies as himselfe , being both a man of worth ( as before he intimated himselfe to be ) and writing a faire hand too , though not very scholerlike , as the worke it selfe sheweth : hee commeth now to deale with the matter and substance of the discourse . where the first proposition , that he vndertaketh to oppugne , as i propound it , is this : these words in the gospel , this is my body , may well be taken figuratiuely . ( which how it may be , i shew by some instances : to wit ; these other in scripture ; k the seuen kine , are seauen yeeres : l the ten hornes , are ten kings : m the rocke was christ : or as those other in ordinary speech ; this is caesar : that is cicero , &c. nor is there any thing in the gospel that may enforce the contrarie . now this worthy man that taxeth me for a meere collector , and a filcher out of bellarmine , hath nothing here to answere , but what he fetcheth from bellarmine , whom he saith i filch all from . but let vs see how well he vrgeth and maketh good bellarmines answeres . . the words are simply , and without any other explication , simply and vniformally ( for so in his scholerlike manner he speaketh ) recounted by three euangelists and saint paul. and therefore they cannot be taken figuratiuely . for that must follow , or else he speaketh nothing to the purpose . we shall not neede to goe farre to discouer the weakenesse of this consequence . the n three euangelists , and o s. paul speaking of the other part of this sacrament , doe all simply and without another explication vniformally ( to retaine his owne precise tearmes ) say , this cup is , &c. therefore the cup cannot be taken figuratiuely there : which if it be not , they must inuent a new transsubstantiation of some other matter or mettall then the fruite of the vine , either into the new testament , or into christs blood . § . when the lambe is called the passeouer ; and the rocke said to be christ , something is added in the text to explaine the literall true meaning of them . the lambe for example in the same place is called the sacrifice of the passeouer . christ is said to be a spirituall rocke , &c. . it is not true that he saith ; that in the same place where the lambe is called the passeouer , the same lambe is called the sacrifice of the passeouer : there is no more said , exod. . . but this ; ye shall eate it in hast ; it is the lords passeouer : there being nothing by way of explication there added . but after indeede verse . not the lambe precisely , but the whole seruice is said to be the sacrifice of the lords passeouer . when your children shal aske you , what seruice is this that you obserue ? then shall you say , it is the sacrifice of the lords passeouer . neither is christ said to be a spirituall rocke . . cor. . . but the reall rocke is called a spirituall rocke : as the manna , and the water that issued from it are called r spirituall meate and drinke : and that rocke for matter corporall , for vse spirituall , is said , as augustine well obserueth , s not to signifie , but to be christ : nothing being added more to intimate a figuratiue sense there , then heere in the wordes , this is my body , which two speeches both t augustine and u caietan compare the one with the other . . it is senselesse thus to reason ; in some places where figuratiue speeches are vsed , something is added to explicate them : therefore wheresoeuer nothing is added to explicate the figure , the words are not , or cannot be figuratiuely taken . . in many of the instances giuen , no such explication is added ; as these , x the ten hornes are ten kings ; y the seven kine are seuen yeeres : this is caesar : this cicero , &c. . in the very context there is added that which sheweth the sense to bee figuratiue . for that which is called christs blood by the euangelist in the one verse , is expresly said to be the fruit of the vine in the next verse . and that which is called christs body by the apostle , is immediately after , more then once or twice expounded to bee b bread . § . the very scope ( saith he , or bellarmine by him ) of visions and parables doth still shew in what sense the words are literally to be taken ; as , the seuen kine , ten hornes , &c. and doth not the very nature of signes and sacraments shew in what sense the wordes vsed of , or in them , are to be taken ? to wit , figuratiuely and symbolically , not properly or essentially . for what are signes and sacraments but reall parables ? both therefore tearmed mysteries , as c chrysostome noteth ; because one thing is seene in the one , as heard in the other , and some other thing vnderstood . or what is more v●uall then ( as d augustine and e others well obserue ) that signes and sacraments be called by the names of those things , which they are signes and sacraments of ? what sacrament also is there , wherein or whereof such speeches are not vsed ? circumcision is called f the covenant : the pasohall lambe , g the passeouer : the rocke , h christ : bap●●sme , i the laver of regeneration . and in like manner , saith k augustine , is the bread christ● body ; the name of the thing signified ( saith l theodoret ) being giuen to the signe . so that whereas this worthy writer thus argueth out of bellarmine ; in visions and parables the very scope euer sheweth that the things spoken are to bee vnstoode figuratiuely : but these places , the seven kine , and the ten hornes , are visions and parables : and therefore the things therein spoken are to be taken figuratiuely . why may not we as wel reason on this wise ? the very nature of signes and sacraments leadeth vnto this , that when the names of the things whereof they are signes and sacraments are given vnto them , it is to bee vnderstood not properly , but figuratiuely . but it is a sacrament wherein and whereof these speeches are vsed , this is my bodie , and this is my blood : these wordes therefore , wherein the name of the thing signified is giuen to the sacrament , are to bee vnderstood figuratiuely . and so hee hath from his owne grounds by due proportion somewhat more to conclude then was before required ; to wit , not onely , that there is nothing that may enforce vs to expound them literally , but that there is somewhat of moment to induce vs to expound them figuratiuely . § . in all such figuratiue speeches ( saith he further out of bellarmine ) semper praedicatur de disparato disparatum ; one thing is said to be another , when it cannot be indi●idually or specifically the same , but wholly different in nature from it . a man for example , as christ was , cannot but similitudinarily be a rock , a vine , or a lion. but in christs words , this is my body , no such absurd or impossible thing is affirmed ; but only that the substance which he had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it . . in this speech of our sauiour , this is my body , as well as in that speech of the prophet , m this is ierusalem , or in that speech of the apostle , n the rocke was christ , is one thing , to wit , bread ( as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context , the words of the apostle , and the doctrine of the ancient fathers ) said to bee an other thing , to wit , the flesh of christ , which is wholly different in nature from it . nor can this worthy disputer prooue thē contrary , vnlesse you grant him the point in question , which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his assertion , to wit , that that which christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it ? . a man may as well be a rocke ; as a rocke may bee a man , or bread may be flesh . and why was it not as possible for the rocke to be turned into christ , and so to become christ , as for bread to bee turned into the bodie of christ , and so to be the flesh of christ ? that the one might be vnderstood properly as well as the other . if they will say , it is impossible that the rocke should bee turned into the flesh of christ , before christ was incarnate , i might answer them , as they vse to do vs ; that god is able to do all things . and questionlesse it is * as possible that the rock should be turned into that flesh , that as yet was not ; as that a little thinne wafer cake , or the compasse of it at least , should containe christs whole and entire body here on earth , while the very selfe same indiuiduall body should be whole and entire still in heaven . a creature may as well be , and yet not be at once , as a naturall body may at the same time be wholly and entire thus contracted on earth , and yet whole and entire also in his full stature in heauen . yea how is it not a thing absurd and impossible , that christs body sitting whole and entire at the table , should hold the selfe-same body whole and entire in its two hands on the table , and should giue the selfe-same body away whole and entire ouer the table to twelue seuerall persons , to goe seuerally into each of their mouthes still whole and entire , and to become so many whole and entire humane organicall bodies in their mouthes , as in chewing they made pieces of that that was giuen them , and yet the selfe-same body that they did thus take and eate , remaine sitting there still vnstirred and vntouched ? if these things be not absurda absurdorum absurdissima ( as he speaketh ) as monstrous absurdities as euer were any , i know not what are . . obserue how these men that cannot endure to heare vs say , this , or that thing is impossible : yet tell vs themselues of many impossibilities ; and that euen then also when they speake of these miraculous mysteries , in the confuting one of another . it is impossible ( saith this worthy writer ) for a man , as christ was , otherwise then similitudinarily , to be a rock , or a vine . o it is impossible ( saith aquinas ) that a man should be an asse . p it is impossible ( saith the glosse ) that bread should be christs bodie . q it is altogether impossible ( saith bellarmine ) that this sentence , this bread is my body , should be true properly . r it is impossible ( saith biel ) that christs body should be broken or divided and so bee spoiled , being impassible . s it is impossible ( saith aquinas ) that christ in his last supper should giue his body impassible . t it is impossible that his body being now impassible should be altered in shape or hew . u it is impossible that christs body in his proper shape should be seene in any other place , but that one onely wherein he is definitiuely . x it is impossible that the substantiall forme of bread should remaine after consecration : or that the substance of bread and wine should abide there . y it is impossible that christs body by a locall motion should come to bee in the sacrament . “ it is impossible that the same thing should both rest and mooue at once . “ it is impossible that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuers severall places at once . it is impossible that christs should personally assume the bread in the sacrament . * it is impossible that christs body should bee in the sacrament any other way but by the conversion of bread into it . all these and many other impossibilities they tell vs of , that cannot endure to heare vs speake of any . now if they will tell vs why these things are impossible , we shall as soone tell them againe in their owne wordes , why such a transubstantiation and reall presence , as they dreame of , is impossible . . how doth this follow : there is no impossible thing affirmed in christs words : therefore they must needs bee taken properly , or they cannot bee taken figuratiuely ? hee might by the same reason prooue that the apostles words where he saith of himselfe , a i die dayly ; or where he saith , b i am crucified together with christ ; or where he saith of the galathians that c christ was crucified among them ; or the psalmists as some fantasticall d rabbines haue held , where hee saith of the heavens , that e they relate gods glory , &c. or our sauiours , where hee saith , that f the tongue of the rich mans soule was in torment ; must of necessity be all vnderstood literally and properly , because there is nothing simply impossible affirmed in them . § . . he telleth vs in conclusion ; that the meaning of our sauiour christs wordes is this ; the substance which i hold in my hands is my body made by the miraculous conuersion of bread into it . but where is ought in the text that inti nateth this miraculous conuersion ? yea if this were the sense of them , it should be made christs body ere those wordes were spoken of it : whereas hee and his associates commonly hold that this miraculous conuersion is wrought by those wordes , this is my body , and * is not effected till those wordes be all out ; which they giue the priest a speciall charge thereof g to vtter speedily with one breath . and here let this profound doughty doctor giue an ignorant petty writer leaue to demand of him , what is ment by the word this , in those wordes , this is my body ; ( for i suppose hee will not be so absurd as the glosser is , to say that h hoc or this there signifieth nothing at all : ) or what that substance was ( as hee speaketh ) that christ held in his hands when hee spake the word , hoc , or this . if it were christs body made before of bread , then the vttering of those wordes did not then , nor doth now worke any conuersion of the bread into christs body : for nothing can bee turned into it selfe , or into that that already it is : or i if it were bread still , ( as for ought ap peareth in the text , still it was ) then must this needs bee the summe and sense of christs wordes , this bread is my body : and so by his owne rule , when disparatum de disparato dicitur , one thing is said to be another different in nature from it , it must needs be taken figuratiuely . § . well wotting that there was no such thing either in the text , or gatherable ( to vse his owne tearmes ) out of it : hee would faine finde out some author , that would say that for him , that the text it selfe will not ; and alleagdeth therefore some few testimonies . concerning which i might well say , as hee saith , if i would doe as hee doth , that they haue beene answered long since by the l. morney , the b. morton , d. fulke , and others , and hee doth not deale sincerely in concealing their answers ; and so turne my reader over to them , as his manner is , when he hath nothing to answer . but i answer to them severally . . ambrose is alleadged out of his bookes de mysterijs , &c. and de sacramentis : which bookes , howsoeuer i for diuers passages of them , and phrases vsed in them , they may well be doubted of whether they were written by him or no ; and posseuine himselfe implieth that some haue denied it , when hee saith , that k all almost hold them to be his : and part of them ( as we shall see anone ) goeth commonly vnder another name : yet not to stand thereupon , but admit them for his . nothing there said doth necessarily enforce any such transubstantiation as the romanists hold ; yea some subsequent wordes , if they had beene annexed , would euidently speake against it . for first , ambrose there expressely teacheth , that the creatures of bread and wine still abide euen after consecration , which vtterly ouerthroweth the popish transubstantiation . if ( saith he ) there were so much force in the word of the lord , ( in the worke of creation ) that those things began by it to be that before were not ; how much more operatiue is it to cause l that things should be still what they were before , and be changed into another things . so that by this ambroses confession the elements remaine still what they were , and yet are changed indeed , which wee deny not , into that which they were not ; as waxe is turned into a seale , being annexed to a deed ; though it remaine still for substance what erst it was . . that which ambrose saith in the latter place , that m this bread is bread before the wordes sacramentall ; but when consecration commeth to it , it is of bread made christs flesh ; that hee speaketh in these wordes n in the former place , which this mangler of him omitteth ; o before the blessing of the heauenly wordes is another kinde named , but after consecrationis christs body signified . and againe p in the latter place : wine and water is put into the cup , but by consecration it becommeth blood . thou wilt say , q i see no kind or shew of blood . but it hath ( saith hee ) a similitude of it . for as thou hast taken a similitude of death in ( baptisme , hee meaneth as lib. . cap. . so ) r thou drinkest a similitude of christs precious blood , &c. and thereupon he concludeth , s thou hast learned now , that that which thou receiuest is christs body . so that it is in regard of signification and similitude that the one is said to be christs flesh , and the other his blood , as this ambrose explicateth himselfe . . expounding what manner of change hee meaneth , when he saith , they are changed into that which erst they were not . * thou thy selfe ( saith he ) wast before ; but thou wast an old creature : after thou wast consecrated , thou begannest to be a new creature ; which newnesse yet ( as tertullian well obserueth ) importeth * no corporall , but a spirituall change in the party so consecrated , not in substance , but in quality differing from what he was before . . in the next u chapter , relating the wordes of their church liturgie then in vse , hee calleth that holy oblation , x a figure of christs body and blood : which they entreate god to accept of , as hee did abels gifts , and abrahams sacrifice , &c. which cannot bee vnderstood of the very reall sacrifice of christ himselfe , vnlesse they will make the priest an intercessor to god the father in the behalfe of christ iesus . of which also more hereafter . . out of augustine are cited two testimonies . in the former whereof he sheweth , how iudicious he is in the choice of his allegations , ( that for which he taxeth the diuine he dealeth with ) and how well seene in and acquainted with the authors he alleadgeth . there are diuers sermons set out vnder augustines name , ( for this is no new thing with them to forge daily as well new workes , as new writers ) which they cite many of them , sometime vnder the name of augustine , sometime vnder the name of this or that other father : for they can finde fathers for their bastards as they list themselues . of these many by a bellarmine , b baronius , c erasmus , d the diuines of louaine , and diuers others are confessed to bee meere counterfeits . one whereof is the sermon de verb. dom. . which this worthy writer here citeth ; and indeede is nothing else but a whole chapter verbatim taken out of the fift booke of that worke de sacramentis , which he cited last before as ambroses . so that he doth herein as captaines , that wanting of their full number borrow one of an other , and so produce the same party by one name to day as one mans souldier , and by an other name the next day , as an other mans souldier , a gun-man ( it may be ) to day , and a pike-man to morrow . for this author was but euen now ambrose ; and now he is sodainely become augustine ; as if some such spel had beene said ouer him , as they suppose to be said ouer their hoast . and thus ( as their common guise is ) they make their coined creatures , like plaiers on a stage , sometime to act one part , and sometime another . and this may well giue iust cause to suspect the authoritie of the author , when sometime he is ambrose , and sometime augustine , and it may well be neither . for he is hardly euer beleeued that is taken once in two tales . and this erasmus his annotation would haue giuen him some hint of , had he beene so well acquainted with the authors he citeth as he would seeme to be . besides that this ambrose , or augustine , or what euer he be , when he is cited to giue in euidence , saith nothing but this , that that which before christs words is called bread , is after them called no more bread , but christs bodie . which vnlesse it be meant , that it is not called onely bread , but christs body also , e which manner of speaking is not vnusuall ) he will not deny himselfe to be most manifestly vnture : for he acknowledgeth a little after that euen after consecration the apostle diuers times so tearmeth it . and if it be so vnderstood , what maketh it either against vs , who acknowledge ( with the auncients , ) that it is commonly called , as all other signes ordinarily , by the name of the thing it signifieth ; or for them , who should prooue , not that it is commonly called christs body , but that it is really and essentially it . it is no more then as if one had said ; waxe before it is set to a deede and imprinted , is called waxe : but after that , it is not called waxe , but a seale . meane while it may hence appeare , that either this writer ( what euer he be ) is scarce well acquainted with the writings of those fathers that he citeth , or else he is wretchedly bent to abuse and delude those that he dealeth with . the latter authoritie is taken out of augustines first sermon on psal. . wherein he saith , that christ was carried in his owne hands , when he said , this is my body . and here againe this great doctor sheweth either his little acquaintance with augustine , or his fraudulent dealing with those whom he desireth to delude . for augustine repeating againe in the very next sermon what hee had deliuered in the former , putteth in those words , which shew what his meaning was : when he commended ( saith he ) vnto them his body and blood , he tooke into his hands , what the faithfull know : ( that was nothing , they themselues will graunt , but f bread , when he tooke it . ) and g he carried himselfe after a manner , when he said , this is my body . and if you will know what that , after a manner , meaneth , augustine himselfe will best tell you , where he saith elsewhere ; h the sacrament of christs body is after a manner christs body : because sacraments for the most part be are the names of those things whereof they are sacraments . after a manner then it is the body of christ. and yet is it bread still . for so augustine againe i elsewhere ; k it was bread that christ carried in his hands at his last supper : l which supper we to this day eate daily by faith ; and in it by faith receiue christ , in whom we beleeue ; and taking a little modicum , are spiritually fatted . his third author is s. cyril , that should be bishop of ierusalem a little after the time of constantine the great : an author not without good cause shrewdly suspected . vnder his name our popish father-forgers haue set out diuers things : among others an epistle of his that should be written to s. augustine of s. ieromes decease , and of the miracles that he wrought . which epistle is so grosse and ridiculous , writing of the death of one that many a long yeere out-liued him that should write it , that albeit many of them are not ashamed to m cite it as cyrils for the maintenance of sundry popish points , yet others of them are enforced n to confesse the worke countorfeit , and sticke not to brand the o author of it for an hereticall impostor , and a loud lier . and of late they haue set out vnder the name of the same cyrill p two bookes of catechising ; which besides sundry passages in them that argue a late writer , as q where he speaketh of the inuention of the crosse as r a matter long before his time , and saith that the whole world was then filled with the pieces of it , whereas r the true cyril was liuing at the very time when the crosse is reported to haue beene found by helen ; the same catech●sings are t reported to bee found in some written copies vnder the name one iohn bishop of ierusalem , of which name there was u one about the . nicene councel , some hundreds of yeeres after that cyrils decease . so that they may as well cite that second councel of nice for the adoration of images , as this counterfeit cyril for their transubstantiation , vnlesse they can bring sounder proofe for him , and better informe vs what he is , and whence he came . the authoritie of this catechiser is no better then the authoritie of that epistler for ought can bee shewed ; which yet x in this very argument is also produced , and y is enforced vpon vs as an indubitate and authenticall author . such bastard pearles , bristow diamonds , and glasse bugles are these poore pedlars , like pety chapmen faine to stuffe their packets with , for want of better and choiser wares . and yet may wee but haue leaue to expound this cyril , or whosoeuer he is else , by himselfe , we shall soone shew him to say no more then we willingly admit . for in a the same catechising that is here alleadged , b doe not regard ( saith he ) these things , as bare ●read and wine . and in c the catechising next before ; d doe not suppose that ointment to be bare ointment . for as the bread of the eucharist , after the inuocation of the holy ghost , is e no longer bare bread , but christs bodie : so this holy oyntment after inuocation is f no more bare or common ointment , but a gift of christ and the holy ghost , by the presence of his deitie . and looke what he saith concerning the not trusting of our senses in the matter of the eucharist , the same doth g the ambrose before cited say of the sacrament of baptisme . h what seest thou ? saith he . water : but not water alone , &c. first , the apostle teacheth thee to contemplate not the things that are seene but the things that are not seene . beleeue the presence of the deitie . for how could it worke there , if it were not present . and againe afterward ; i beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone : that is better seene that is not seene . and say not we as much ? that it is not bare bread , nor bare wine that is offered vs in the eucharist , ( whatsoeuer this lying wretch hereafter shamelesly auoweth , as when we come to it shall be shewed ) which is all that our outward sense is able to enforme ; but spirituall signes and seales , and effectuall instruments of grace , which the eye of our soule is alone able to conceiue , and our faith to assure vs of . . chrysostome is alleadged ; but little to the purpose . the former allegation is here cited out of sermon . ad popul . antioch . which sermon this answerer , had hee beene so well acquainted with the author hee citeth , as would beseeme such a doctor as he professeth himselfe to be , he should haue found to be an homily neuer made by chrysostome , but by some other composed of part of two sermons of his , on the glosse of s. matthew pieced together , to wit , the . and the . according to the latin , or the . and . according to the greeke . the place produced is out of the . on matthew : for that is the proper place of it . in which sermon chrysostome speaketh no more of the eucharist , then he doth of the sacrament of baptisme , in the very next words . k it is no sensible thing ( saith hee ) that christ hath left vs , but in things indeed sensible matters all intelligible . l in like manner it is in baptisme . by a sensible thing , to wit , water is the gift giuen , but the thing that is there wrought , to wit , regeneration and renovation , is a thing intelligible . if thou wert not corporall , he would haue giuen thee the gifts themselues naked and spirituall : but because thy soule is conioyned with thy body , thereforeby sensible things he giveth thee things intelligible . and in m the other sermon out of which that homily is pieced : beleeue thou that the same supper wherein christ himselfe sate downe , is now celebrated . for there is no difference betweene this and that . for n it is not a man that doth the one , and christ the other . but it is christ himselfe that doth both the one and the other . when therefore thou seest the priest reaching somewhat to thee : o do not imagine that it is the priest that doth it , but that it is christs hand that is stretched out to thee . for as when thou art baptised , p hee doth not baptize thee ; but it is god that holdeth thy head by his inuisible power ; and neither angel nor archangel , nor any other dare approach and touch : so is it now also . now what is here spoken but of mysteries or sacraments in generall , applied after in particular , as well to baptisme as to the eucharist ? and therefore may as well prooue a reall or essentiall transmutation in the one as in the other : and if not in both , in neither , since the very same things are spoken of either : to wit , that we must in either regard not so much what our bodily eye seeth , as what the spirituall eye of the beleeuing soule by faith apprehendeth , and vpon ground of gods word beleeueth : and that by things sensible are things intelligible conueighed to vs , and effected in vs as well in the one as in the other . the . place of chrysostome is out of his . booke de sacerdotio . wherein this alleadger of him fareth as ill as in the former allegation . chrysost. saith indeed that christ that sitteth aboue with his father in heauen , is q at that time ( to wit , when the eucharist is celebrated ) held in the hands of each one , and offreth himself to those , that will claspe him about and embrace him . but not to insist vpon what was aboue said by him , that christ himselfe and not man both there and in baptisme administreth ; nor vpon other phrases in the same place vsed by him , both before of the same eucharist , that r the people are all died purple-red in it with christs blood ; and afterward of baptisme , that in it s wee are buried together with christ : which cannot bee vnderstood but figuratiuely : he sheweth in the very next words to those here cited , what his meaning was in them , and how all this is done , when hee saith ; t and this they doe all then with the eyes of faith . the third place is not , as he seemeth to cite it , out of the same booke , but out of his . sermon ad populum antiochenum . he found them ioyned together in bellarmine , out of whom he hath all , and therefore tooke them ( it seemeth ) to bee both out of one booke . chrysostome there saith that christ hath left vs his flesh , and yet hath it still in heauen . but how that may be verified , he himselfe sheweth in the same place a little before , when he saith , that u there was a twofold elias , ( whom he compareth christ withall , ) when elias was translated , an elias aboue , and an elias beneath ; he meaneth elisaeus , on whom v rested the spirit of elias , whom hee therefore esteemeth a symbolicall elias ; as iohn the baptist is called x elias , because he came y in the power and the spirit of elias , and so was also elias , as z our sauiour auerreth ( and a augustine well obserueth ) though b not essentially elias , yet c elias symbolically . and so here in like manner . christs essentiall flesh is in heauen , whither they must also , saith chrysostome , d ascend , and flie vp like eagles , that will haue it : his symbolicall flesh is here vpon earth , as the symbolicall elias was , in the sacrament of his body ; which ( saith augustine ) e in some sort is his body , being a signe and sacrament of it . and thus you see what substantiall proofes this great blusterer hath brought to prooue their transubstantiation : and how well he hath acquit himselfe for a man well read in the auncient fathers , as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be . diuision . this is the true doctrine of the auncient fathers : and so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our sauiours words , and the miraculous cōuersion of the bread & wine of the altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of christ ; telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the contrarie ; nor conceiue it so impossible , as our carnall and grosse aduersaries pretend , for the bodie of our sauiour to bee in heauen , and in numberlesse places of the earth together i●…sibly existing . whose plaine testimonies are in a whole booke together by learned f bellarmine truly and particularly collected : where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of protestanticall diuines vnto them ; soluing all obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against catholicke doctrine . who is by this minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced , and made directly against the whole drift of his controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of protestant doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our sauiours words , this is my body ; because disputing against luther ; supposing as well as he the literall sense of our sauiours words , argumento ad hominem , by an argument drawne from luthers owne grounds , hee driueth luther either to confesse transubstantiation necessarily purported in our sauiours words , this is my bodie ; or for to admit barely ( against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples ) a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them . for if christs words be literally to be vnderstood , and bread also admitted to remaine in the sacrament , the pronoune , hoc , this , would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it , and not the bodie of christ inuisibly therein present , and so bread in our sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be christs bodie : whereas if bread remaine not , but be truly conuerted into christs bodie , no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of christs words . why then doth this minister falsely make bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy text , that may enforce vs to beleeue that christ is corporally present in the sacrament , or ( which is all one ) that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand christs words , &c. ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward . in the next place hauing digressed all this while from the argument he should haue answered , he addeth that that which they teach cōcerning the literall sense of christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of christ , is the true doctrine of the auncient fathers : and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he , nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good , he turneth his reader ouer to bellarmine , out of whom he picked all that before he had said , and telleth him that he hath both prooued it , and refuted all the shifting answeres of the protestanticall diuines . bellarmine ( it seemeth ) is his aiax , behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe , or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe . now to make bellarmine againe some part of requitall , because he is so much beholden to him , he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad minister , by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his controuersie to teach , a probabilitie at least of the protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our sauiours words , and to affirme , &c. it is true ; i say that bellarmine granteth , and so g he doth , ( i haue set downe his owne words ; they are not , nor can be denied ) that these words , this is my bodie , may imply either such a reall change as the catholickes hold , or such a figuratiue change , as the caluinists hold : and that is all i say of him . the truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie , ( as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour ) did start from him vnawares . nor is the question now de re , but de propositione , as bellarmine there speaketh : the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether christ did really conuert the bread into his body ; which bellarmine affirmeth ; but whether that speech of our sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue , which bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth . and all that this his champion can say for him is nothing but this , that bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words i haue cited out of him , without alteration of any one syllable ; and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it , when he knoweth them to be bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes . but he hopeth ( it seemeth ) that with facing hee may carry away any thing . i will adde a little more out of bellarmine , and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith . h scotus and i cameracensis , two great schoolemen , grant that the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the evangelists ; howsoeuer they hold it , because the church of rome , that cannot erre , hath so expounded it . and bellarmine himselfe k granteth that l this is not improbable : for m though the scripture ( saith he ) that we bring , may seeme so cleere , that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it , yet it may well bee doubted , whether it be so or no ; since most learned men , and most acute , such especially as scotus was , are of a contrary minde . and now we haue besides scotus and others , three cardidinals , card. bellarmine , card. caietan , and card. cameracensis , all confessing that the popish doctrine of transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by scripture . i conclude then with mine adversaries grant ; it is all one ( saith he ) to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that christ is corporally present in the sacrament , and to say that there is nothing to enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand christs words . card. caietan freely confesseth the latter : and vnlesse hee can disprooue caietan ( which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe ) he must by his owne confession yeeld the former . diuision . page . he maketh a great stir in asking , how the chalice may be called the new testament in our sauiours blood . i answer him , because our sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last w●ll and testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs , is in this chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar for vs. for the word testament ( as all learned men know ) is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans wil , but also the authenticall instrument or deed , wherein that his dying will is contained , and his legacy conueighed vnto vs , which here in the chalice is our sauiours blood to cleanse and inebriate de●●●t soules . afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of christs true body and blood ; as alexanders picture representeth his absent person ; as circumcision is called the couenant , because it was a signe thereof , &c. either not vnderstatding like a dull scholler his master caluines doctrine , or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him ; who towards the end of his booke de coena domini expressely denieth bread & wine to be empty signes of our sauiours body and blood , but such signes as haue the signified substances of our sauiours body and blood conioyned with them . for n christ ( saith hee ) is no deceiuer to delude vs with bare figures , &c. according to which doctrine of caluine it will be easie for my adversarie himselfe to salue many of his owne obiections : that for example , which he maketh out of tertullian , page . saying , the bread which christ tooke and distributed to his disciples he made his body , saying , this is my body , that is , a figure of my body . for as caluines former words import , so also tertullian meaneth , the sacramentall symbols not to be naked signes of christs absent body and blood ( as the minister would haue them ) but such signes as haue the signified substance conioyned vnto them ; as smoake is the signe of fire ; warme blood of life ; the fiery tongues ouer the apostles , in that day of pentecost , and the doue ouer our sauiour in his baptisme , were signes of the holy ghost present , &c. which manner of being signes of christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the accidents of bread and wine to containe the true substances of our sauiours body and blood in them . so is saint augustine to be vnderstood , where he saith , our lord doubted not to say , this is my body , when hee deliuered the signe of his body . and when out of gratian my aduersary citeth those wordes , the heauenly bread , which is the flesh of christ , &c. is a sacrament of christs body visible , palpable , mortal , and pierced on the crosse , &c. so when theodoret and gelasius affirme the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remaine in the sacrament ; they meane not physicall substances and nature of bread and wine still to remaine after the consecration , but onely the accidents to remaine vnaltered in their nature , signifying and containing our sauiours body and blood vnder them . and if hee had cited the place of theodoret fully out , he had vtterly ouerthrowne his hereticall and fraudulent purposes of citing him . his wordes are these : neither do the sacramentall signes after consecration depart from their nature ; for they remaine ( note how hee speaketh of the signes not of the substances of bread and wine remaining ) in their former substance figure and forme to be seene and touched as before : but they are by our vnderstanding conceiued to be as they are made ; and they are beleeued and adored according to our faith of them . so iudicious and learned is mine aduersarie here and in other places , in the choise of his arguments and authorities alleadged against vs. but howsoeuer he faileth in that , he will be sure to helpe out the matter by maiming and corruptly citing such testimonies . i haue iust cause to suspect his like dealing in citing gratians glosse on s. augustines wordes in the precedent page , and caietans words cited by him page . but i haue not these authors now by me to examine the places in themselues . and they are of so small esteeme with vs , especially caietan in his dangerous and inconuenient manner of expounding scripture with more subtilty many times then truth , as i cannot but wonder to see the minister so to magnifie him , as if hee were the oracle of our church , and his ipse dixit and bare assertion so certaine a proofe as it could not be denied by vs. in the next place therefore , skipping ouer this confession of caietan , that there is nothing in the gospell that may inforce vs to take those words of our sauiour properly , this is my body : but that they may for ought that is in the text be taken figuratiuely as well as those wordes , the rock was christ. as also leaping quite ouer the answer giuen to that obiection that we are bound to beleeue our sauiour , when hee saith , this my body : as if wee could not beleeue those wordes of his , vnlesse wee beleeue transubstantiation : whereas their owne writers grant that the words of our sauiour may be true , though no such thing be : he picketh out here and there some by-matter to bee nibling vpon , that hee may seeme to say somewhat , though hee keepe aloofe off from the maine matter . and first , because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet , which hee was desirous to vent : he saith i make a great stirre in asking , how the chalice may bee called the new testament in christs blood . i halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pus●ed him with this question ; and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit , the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice , that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out . for i mooue no such question , much lesse make such adoe about asking it , but say onely , we must beleeue our sauiour as well , when he saith , this cup is the new testament , or this cup is my blood ; as wee must beleeue him when he saith , this is my body : and that either may bee true , though there be no such reall conversion either of the cup into the new testament , or christs blood in the one , or of the bread into his body in the other . and his part had beene ( if he ment to keepe to the point ) to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other . but let vs heare how learnedly ( though it bee beside the matter ) he explicateth our sauiours wordes , this cup is the new testament in my blood . thus forsooth ; my blood in this chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last will and testament is confirmed , and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs : and it is therefore called the new testament in my blood . did any man in his right wits ( thinke wee ) euer expound scripture on this manner ? yea but he hath a singular piece of schollership by himselfe to iustifie his exposition . for all learned men ( saith hee ) know that the word testament is apt to import , not the dying mans will onely , but the deed wherein it is contained , and the legacy conueighed by it ; which here in the chalice is our sauiours blood , to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules , &c. if he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this , hee could not lightly haue beene more absurd . for , . by this exposition of his , our sauiour should say , this cup , that is , this blood contained in the chalice , is the new testament in my blood . and so * christs blood shall be not in the chalice onely , but in his blood ; would any reasonable man say , my body is in my body ; or , my blood is in my blood ? but they care not what absurd language they fasten vpon our sauiour , so it may make for their owne turne . . there is the blood of christ really contained in the chalice , and yet this blood is vnbloodily offered . it is vnbloodily offered , and yet it is really blood ; yea there is nothing there but blood . true it is the ancient fathers oft tearme the eucharist o an vnbloody sacrifice ; which sheweth their speeches , where they say , that p the altar and the people are besprinckled and dyed purplered with blood , were metaphoricall and hyperbolicall : and well might they so call it , not dreaming of any such bloody stuffe in the chalice , as these men seeme to imagine . but how there can bee an vnbloody offering , where there is much more blood then flesh ; and christ offered vnbloodily , where men drinke nothing but meere blood ; yea if chrysostomes speeches were to be taken properly , where all the communicants are dyed red with blood , let any reasonable man iudge . . all learned men ( he saith ) of which number i hope he counteth himselfe one ) know that a testament is apt to import , not a will onely , or a deed , but a legacie too . vsus loquendi magister : use is the lord and master of language . q we should thinke ( they say ) as the best , speake as the most ; and r vse , as such coine , so such speech , as is commonly currant . we ignorant and vnlearned protestanticall ministers are vnacquainted with this learning . but i would request him , if hee can here , as well for the sauing and saluing of of his owne credite , as for our better instruction , to produce any one learned man besides himselfe and f his associates , that euer so said , or euer so spake , that euer called a legacy by the name of a testament . such learned men ( i see ) as hee is , may say what they list ; we vnlearned must speake by rule , when we speake , least such learned men as hee is controll vs if we doe otherwise , for ignorant . . marke ( i beseech you ) this learned mans logicke , how soundly and substantially he argueth . this word testament may well signifie either a will or a legacie : ergo christs blood wherewith his last will was confirmed , may well be tearmed the new testament . what connexion there is betweene these two propositions , the one produced by him to prooue the other , let any one , that is not vtterly senslesse , consider . . let it be obserued , how these men that cannot endure at our hands to heare of any figure in the wordes of our saviour , though one neuer so frequent , in signes and sacraments especially , which both they grant these things to be ; yet themselues in the explicating of them are enforced to flie to figures , yea take liberty to themselues to coine and forge such figures , as were neuer heard of before , either in holy writ , or in prophane writer . for let him if he can , shew a legacie so tearmed in either . lastly , christs blood indeed may in some sense be said to inebriate mens soules , and the s ancients sometime so speake . but that which is in the chalice , if it be taken ( which the priest sometime may chance to doe ) ouer-largely , will ( as t aquinas well obserueth ) inebriate the bodie and not the soule : which i neuer yet heard that u blood did , or could doe . and therefore wee haue cause to thinke , if we see the priest drunke with it , yea we haue reason to beleeue , because we know he well may , that it is not christs blood , but * the fruit of the x vine , the blood of the grape , that is in the chalice , and produceth such effects . § . in the next place , like a man in a maze going backward and forward , as vncertaine which way to turne himselfe , afterward ( saith hee , relating , but misrelating , as his vsuall manner is , some things spoken before ) confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to be no other then bare signes and types of christs body and blood , as alexanders picture representeth his absent person , as circumcision is called the couenant , because it was a signe thereof , &c. true it is , i say these wordes of our sauiour , this is my body , may as well be vnderstood figuratiuely , as those speeches are where the rocke is called christ , and when pointing to the pictures of caesar and alexander ( it is the comparison that a augustine vseth ) we say , this is caesar , and that is alexander . and in answer to the obiection before recited ; i say , that the cup , that is , the wine in the cup , is said to be the new testament , as circumcision the couenant , because * a signe and seale of it . but that the bread and wine are no other then bare signes and types , &c. i no where say : it is his vntruth , not mine assertion . i say expressely more then so , that they are not signes onely , but seales , and signes and seales so effectuall , ( as after i shew ) that by them the things signified by them , and sealed vp in them are truely and effectually , yet spiritually , conueighed vnto those that doe faithfully receiue them . hee dealeth herein but as bellarmine ( whom hee imitateth ) doth with caluine , one while charging him to make the sacramemt * nothing but a symbole and memoriall of christs passion , and so no better ( saith hee ) nay nor so good as a crucifixe , and yet else-where acknowledging that hee maketh it not a signe onely , but “ a seale also confirming and sealing vp gods promises made in the word . but like a dull scholler ( he saith ) herein i vnderstood not my master caluine . b master in these matters wee acknowledge none but christ ; whose word alone is absolutely authenticall with vs. caluine we reuerence as a worthy seruant of christ. and as dull a scholler as i am , i vnderstand him well enough , where in that booke he calleth transubstantiation a deuice of the diuell ; * their consecration a kinde of incantation ; d the masse an histrionicall action ; and the priest acting it a meere ape . the signes indeed , saith hee , in the eucharist are not e naked signes , but such as haue the truth of the thing conioyned with them , ( that which is true of baptisme , as well as of the lords supper . ) yet not inclosed in them , nor carnally but spiritually partaked . nor doth god delude vs with bare figures , though there bee no such reall change of the elements in the eucharist , more then hee doth vs now in baptisme , or did the israelites of old , when hee fed them with g spirituall food and water in the wildernesse . § . and heere againe , i cannot say cunningly , but knauishly rather , hauing falsly related my wordes , and passing ouer mine answer to this very obiection , wherein they challenge vs to make the sacrament nothing but bare bread ; which by the instance of the other sacrament of baptisme , besides other proofes , i shew euidently to be otherwise , ( as if hee thought that like an hare by i●mping and wheeling to and fro , hee should keepe himselfe safe from being traced and taken , when either he reported grosse vntruths , or dissembled those things that it stood him vpon to giue answere vnto , if he would either make good their cause , or ouerthrow ours . ) he runneth backe to an allegation of tertullian , and then forward againe to theodoret , &c. and ( if his words may beare weight with vs ) he would make vs beleeue that this doctrine of my master caluine , if like a dull scholler i had sooner vnderstood him , would salue many of my obiections , as namely , that of tertullian ; this is my body , that is , a figure of my body ; and the like speech of augustine ; and what i cite out of gratian to the like purpose , &c. surely this man was of that opinion that h polybius saith some are , who thinke other men cannot see them , if they winke themselues . the question is whether our sauiours words , this is my bodie , may not be , or are not to be figuratiuely vnderstood ; not whether the bread and wine be bare signes or no , which none say , but this shamelesse wretch contrary to mine expresse words affirmeth me to affirme . this being the question i produce tertullian , who precisely so expoundeth them , this is my body , that is , a figure of my body . i produce augustine , who not onely doth the like ; but rendreth a reason also why he so doth , to wit , because signes and sacraments are called vsuaelly by the names of those things that they signifie and represent . i produce the glosse on gratian , that saith ; it is called christs body improperly , not in the truth of the thing itselfe , but in a significant mysterie : and that when it is said that it is called christs bodie , the meaning of the words are , that it signifieth christs bodie . all which produced to prooue that our sauiours words are to be vnderstood figuratiuely , ( which how pregnantly they doe prooue , he cannot but see , that will not wilfully win●ke ) he can giue no answer vnto ; but saith onely they may be so●…d with that which caluine saith that they are not bare signes ; which neither is denied , nor is any part of the argument here in hand . § . thus hauing leapt a page backe , he now iumpeth againe as fa●re forward ; where he lighteth againe vpon pope gelasius ( for so is his worke stiled in all editions of him , and so by fulgentius he is prooued to be ; howsoeuer they would faine shift him of , because he is so expressely against their transubstantiation , as he is also against their mangling of the sacrament , and giuing the bread without the cup , which i he condemneth as grosse sacriledge ) and with him vpon theodoret , that speaketh in effect the same with him . theodoret and gelasius both auerre that the elements in the eucharist after consecration retaine still not the same shape and forme onely , but the same nature and substance . can any thing be more plaine ? or any testimony more pregnant ? yet this nimble-headed doctor wanteth not aneuasion for it , such as it is . for ( saith he ) theodoret and gelasius doe not meane thereby that the physicall nature and substance , but the accidents ( that is , the shape and outward ●o●me , &c. ) onely remaine vnaltered . they say that they retaine still the same both shape and substance too . and this shamelesse fellow sticketh not to tell vs that they meane contrary ; that they retaine the same shape , but not the same substance . it is k a cursed glosse ( they say ) that corrupteth the text. yet such is the glosse that this sophis●er giueth gelasius and theodoret , not corrupting onely , but directly crossing that that they say , & denying them to say that that in precise tearmes they do . the substance , say they : not the substance , saith he . the substance , say they : that is , the accidents , saith he . not vnlike that glosse on gratian , that expoundeth , we ordaine , l that is , we ●brogate , or disannull . if this be not a most sorry and senselesse shift , i know not what is . but yet will you see another as grosse as the former ? by sacramentall signes ( saith he ) theodoret meaneth not the substances of bread and wine ; but the accidents onely ; for either those then , or else nothing at all . . here is a new distinction betweene the elements of bread and wine , and the sacramentall signes in the eucharist . and indeed if their doctrine be sound and true , neither bread , nor wine , are euer , or euer were signes of christs body and blood in the eucharist , though the auncients commonly so tearme them . for before consecration they are not ; and in consecration they cease to be , as they say : and after consecration they cannot be , because they haue now no being : and so consequently they neuer are . . here is a strange interpretation , and a most abfurd assertion : the sacramentall signes , that is , the accidents , retaine still their substance , that is , their accidents . this is like christs blood in his blood , that wee had a little before . these are abstruse riddles indeede : and it is no great maruell , if dull pates and shallow braines cannot easily conceiue them . . will you see how grosse and palpable this euasion is ? theodoret and gelasius ( saith bellarmine , whom hee learned some of this from ) m teach the very selfe same thing . now looke what theodoret calleth the mysticall signes , that gelasius tearmeth expressely bread and wine . by the mysticall signes therefore in theodoret is the bread and wine meant , not the accidents ( as this corrupt and corrupting glosser saith ) of either . § . yea but if theodoret had beene fully cited , all had vtterly beene ouerthrowne , and the ministers hereticall and fraudulent purpose of citing him had beene defeated . if lying and out-facing would serue the turne , this man would be sure euer to giue his aduersarie the ouerthrow . heare you but theodoret at large ; and then iudge , if this man haue not either * a brazen brow , or a leaden braine , or both . the worke of theodoret is a dialogue , wherein hee bringeth in disputing an orthodoxe diuine against an hereticke , that held that n after christs resurrection his hemanitie lost it owne nature , and his flesh was turned into his deitie ; in the same manner as these transubstantiators now say that the bread in the euchorist looseth it owne nature , and is really changed into christs naturall body . in debating of this question they light vpon the eucharist , and fall to dispute how the bread is there said to bee christs body , and what change is wrought on it . the hereticke would haue it changed to fit his turne , as our papists now hold . the orthodoxe diuine saith it is no more turned into christs body , then christs body is now turned in heauen into his deitie . but you shall haue them both verbatim in their owne words . orthodox . o tell me ; the mysticall signes which are offred god by gods priests , what say you are they signes of ? heretike . of the lords body and blood. orthodox . of a body that is truly ? or of one that is not truly ? heretike . of one that is truly . orthodox . very well . for of the image there must needs be some originall . for painters imitate nature ; and draw images of such things as are seene . heret . true. orthodox . * if then the diuine mysteries represent that that is truly a body , then the lords body is a true body still , not changed into the nature of the deity , but filled with diuine glorie . heret . you haue in good time made mention of the diuine mysterie , for euen thereby will i shew you that the body of our lord is turned into another nature . answer you therefore my question . orthodox . i will. heretike . what call you the gift that is offred before the priests inuocation ? orthodox . i may not tell openly , because it may bee there be some here that are not yet initiated . heretike . answere then aenigmatically . orthodox . the foode that is made of certaine graine . heret . the other signe , how call you it ? orthodox . by that common name that signifieth some kinde of drinke . heret . but after sanctification how doe you call them ? orthodox . the body of christ , and the blood of christ. heret . and doe you beleeue that you are made partaeker of christs body and blood ? orthodox . i doe beleeue so . heret . as then the signes of the lords body and blood are one thing before the priests prayer ; but after it are changed and become another : so the lords body also after his assumption is changed into a diuine substance . orthodox . you are taken now in a net of your owne weauing . * for the mysticall signes doe not after sanctification depart from their owne nature . for they remaine still in their former substance , and figure and forme ; and may be seene and touched as before : but they are vnderstood to be that which they are made ; and they are beleeued and adored ( or “ reuerenced ) as being those things that they are beleeued to be . compare then the image with the originall , and you shall see the similitude . for it is meete that the figure bee like to the truth . for * that body hath indeede its former forme , and figure , and circumscription , and to speake in a word , bodily substance . but since the resurrection it is become immortall , and such as no corruption or destruction can befall ; and it is vouchsafed to sit at gods right-hand ; and is worshipped of euery creature , as being called the lords naturall bodie . heretike . yea but the mysticall signe changeth his former name . for it is not any more called as it was before , but it is called a body . in like manner therefore should the truth be called god and not a body . orthodox . me thinkes you are very ignorant . for it is not onely called a body , but it is called , p bread of life . so the lord himselfe called it . and moreouer the body it selfe we call a diuine body , and a quickning body , and the lords body : and teach that it is not the common body of any man , but the body of our lord iesus christ , who is god and man. for q iesus christ is yesterday and to day the same , and for euer . will you heare more yet of theodoret ? in his first dialogue ; out of which i cite also one or two sentences , which this scambling answerer hath not list ( it seemeth ) to take notice of ; he bringeth in the same parties thus discoursing together . orthodox . r do you not know that the lord called himselfe a vine ? heretike . i know that he said , s i am the true vine . orthodox . and how call you the juice of the fruite of the vine ? heretike . wine . orthodox . when the souldiers opened christs side with a speare , what saith the euangelist did then issue on t ? heretike . t water and blood. orthodox . the patriarch iacob then calleth christs blood the blood of the grape . for if christ be called a vine , and the frnite of the vine ; and streames of blood and water issuing out of christs side trickled downe his whole body ; he is fitly u said by him to wash his coate in wine , and his raiment in the blood of the grape . for as we call the mysticall fruite of the vine after sanctification the lords blood ; so doth he call the blood of the true vine , the blood of the grape . heretike . that which was propounded hath both mystically and cleerely beene shewen . orthodox . though the things said be sufficient ; yet i will adde another proofe . heretike . you shall doe me a pleasure , because the more profit in so doing . orthodox . doe you not know that god called his body bread ? heretike . i know it . orthodox . and else-where againe hee called his flesh wheate . heretike . i know that too . for , x vnlesse the wheate corne , saith he , fall into the ground , &c. orthodox . now in the deliuery of the sacraments * he called bread his body ; and that which is poured into and mixt in the cup , blood. heretike . he did so call them . orthodox . yea but “ that which by nature is his body is also iustly tearmed his body ; and in like manner his blood. heretike . it is acknowledged . orthodox . our sauiour indeede , '' hee changed the names , and imposed that name on his body that was the name of the symbole and signe of it : and on the symbole or signe he imposed that name , that is the name of his body . and so hauing named himselfe a uine , he called that that was a signe blood. heretike . it is true that you say : but why did he thus change the names ? orthodox . because his will was , that those that are partakers of those diuine mysteries , should not attend the nature of the things that they see ; but for the change of the names beleeue the change that by grace is wrought . for hee that called that that by nature is his body , wheate and bread , and againe , named himselfe a vine ; * he honoured the symboles and signes that we see with the appellation of his body and blood , not changing nature , but to nature adding grace . and at length , the orthodoxe diuine thus concludeth : * it is cleere that that holy foode is a symbole and a signe of christs body and blood , the name whereof it beareth . for our lord when he had taken the symbole or signe , said not , this is my deitie ; but , z this is my bodie ; and againe , this is my blood : and else where , * the bread that i will giue , is my flesh that i will giue for the life of the world . you haue heard theodoret at large . it remaineth now to consider how he ouerthroweth that which i produce him for , to wit , that the bread & wine in the sacrament remaine for substance still the same ; and that the bread is called christs body figuratiuely ; as his body is else-where called bread ; and the wine his blood figuratiuely , as himselfe is tearmed a vine : or to consider rather , if you please ( because that any one at the first sight may see ) how fitly this mans explication of theodoret agreeth with theodorets owne words . by sacramentall signes ( saith he ) theodoret meaneth not the substance of bread and wine . . he vnderstandeth by the mysticall signes that that is offered to god by gods priests . and doth the priest then offer nothing to god but accidents onely ? indeed they tell vs that a melchisedech offred bread and wine ; and that their priests are b priests after the order of melchisedech , and so c offer such offerings as he did . and the auncient fathers , alluding to that story by them allegorised , say , d that bread and wine are offred to god in the eucaarist . but in the popish masse according to their opinion of it , no such thing can be offred , because no such thing is there present . . more particularly explaining himselfe he saith that by the one signe he meaneth the food that of certaine graine is made , and by the other the fruite of the vine . and is there any such foode or fruit at all that is no physicall substance , or that consisteth of e meere accidents ? he deserueth to be fed , till he starue , with such food , that would feede or infect rather mens soules with such draffy stuffe as this is . yea in precise tearmes he saith , that christ called bread ( not the accidents of bread ) his body , as he called his body else-where bread . . the very maine drift and scope euidently manifesteth his meaning ; which is to shew that the lords body , though it be not a common body , but hath glorious endowments , yet remaineth a true body still ; as the sacramentall bread though it be not common bread , yet retaineth still it former nature and substance , and is true bread still . . if wee aske theodoret himselfe what hee meaneth here by substance ; and whether hee take the word in such sense as it is vsually taken ; hee telleth vs himselfe a little before he entreth into this discourse , that f by substance he vnderstandeth a body ; and by accidents ( which hee opposeth to substance ) such things as betide bodies and yet may depart from them . and they may as well say , that by substance theodoret meant accidents , when hee saith that christs body retaineth still the same bodily substance ; as they may say hee so meaneth , when of the bread , which hee compareth therewith , hee saith the very same . but what take i so much paines g to set vp a light when the sun shines ? ( the proofe is so plaine , and his meaning so perspicuous , that it may seem h written , as tertullian speaketh , with a beame of the sunne ) saue to lay open a little this mans shamelesse carriage and senslesse shifts , who yet with a confident face telleth his reader , that his aduersarie both heere and else-where sheweth how learned and iudicious hee is in the choice of his authorities ; as if this allegation made wholly for them and against vs , were it read all out , or were nothing pertinent ( at least ) to the purpose . § . in conclusion , for gratians glosse , acknowledging the truth by vs maintained that our sauiours wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood ; and cardinall caietan confessing ; that they may well beare that sense : hauing nothing ( and that is maruell , for he dare say any thing ) to except against ; either hee excuseth himselfe that hee hath not the bookes by him , as if they were not commonly in pauls church-yard to be had , if hee had listed to looke after them . a bad excuse ( as we say ) is better then none at all with him . onely hee addeth that they are both of small account with them ; caietan especially : in regard whereof hee wondereth that i should so much magnifie him , as if he were the oracle of their church , &c. for the former , none can be ignorant , what authority among their canonists the glosses haue : and in the place cited the rather , because hee buildeth vpon augustines owne wordes . for the latter , i cite him onely by the name of cardinall caietan ( nor had they many cardinals in his time for learning his equals ) one of our aduersaries : that is all my magnifying of him . but mine adversaries lips must need ouer-runne . yet of what repute and esteeme caietan was for both kinds of learning , as well philosophy as diuinity ; to omit the titles commonly giuen him in the inscriptions of his workes by those that set out some of them , stiling him i the most eminent doctour and professor of diuinity ; his commentaries on thomas ( whence this testimony is taken ) k most luculent and euen diuine commentaries ; his smaller treatises l golden workes ; i may referre you to the workes themselues , so many , so learned , so elaborate ; and to the storie of his life written by antonius fonseca , and set out with some of them . it is apparent , and it is enough , that a prime cardinall of the sea of rome confesseth ingenuously , that the wordes of our sauiour , this is my body , may be siguratiuely taken for ought in the text , were it not that their church , * that is , the pope , will haue them otherwise expounded . diuision . he concludeth his first discourse thus , page . thus they ; and thus we : and yet neither doe they , nor wee therefore make the sacrament of christs body and blood any thing but bare bread and wine . which corollarium of his plainely so delivered may make any man see the protestanticall communion truely anathomized and plainely shewed to haue nothing holy , heauenly and diuinely ( as the fathers speake ) therein contained , but bare bread and wine , which any man may eate when and where hee pleaseth , remembring withall our sauiours passion , neuer caietan , neuer bellarmine , neuer gratian , neuer father or other catholique diuine of our church beleeued or taught this grosse and sacrilegious doctrine as my aduersarie in his wordes , they , and wee , falsely pretendeth . neither doth caluine or any other noted diuine of their church speake at least , whatsoeuer they thinke , so poorely and grossely of this sacrament ; but they endeauour with epithets and wordes to couer the bready nakednesse thereof , making it seeme mysterious at least , if not miraculous . blessed saint dennis great scholler of saint paul himselfe , i will heere presume to aske thee . if the sacrament of the altar bee but bare bread and wine , why doest thou so absurdly speake and blasphemously praey vnto it , in this manner ? m o most diuine and holy sacrament , vouchsafe to open those signifying signes , and appeare perspicuously vnto vs ; and replenish the spirituall eyes of our soule with the singular and cleere splendor of thy light , &c. why likewise , thou holy martyr and great doctor of christs church saint itaeneus , liuing so neere the apostles times , as to know great polycarpus s. iohns disciple , and deeply seene in the knowledge of heauenly verities , doest thou deny this bread after consecration to bee any more accounted common bread , but the eucharist cōsisting of two things , heauenly and earthly ; that being receiued into our bodies they may bee no more corruptible , hauing the hope of resurrection ? if no more then bare bread and wine be in this communion , as my aduersarie affirmeth , why did yee , noble confessors of the first nicene councell will vs , n in this diuine table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed , but to eleuate our minde by faith , and behold on this table the lambe of god taking away the sinnes of the world by priests vnbloodily sacrificed ; and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to bee symboles and pledges of our resurrection ? &c. o holy ephrem renowned so for thy great learning and singular sanctitie , as saint ierome testifieth thy writings to haue beene read in the church after the holy scriptures , why doest thou will vs not to search after these inscrutable mysteries , &c. but to receiue with a full assurance of faith the immaculate body of the lord , and the lambe himselfe entirely ? adding those wordes which cannot agree to such a communion of bare bread and wine as this minister teacheth ; the mysteries of christ are an immortall fire : search them not curiously , least in the search thou become burned , &c. telling vs that this sacrament doth exceed all admiration and speech , which christ our sauiour the onely begotten sonne of god hath instituted for vs. finally why doe other ancient ●nd chiefe fathers of the greeke and latine church call the consecrated bread and wine on the altar dreadfull mysteries , the food of life and immortality , hidden manna , and infinitely excelling it , a heauenly banquet , the bread of angels humbly present while it is offered , and deuoutly adoring it , &c. if there bee no more but bare bread and wine therein receiued in memorie of our sauiours passion ; as my aduersarie affirmeth of his protestanticall sacrament . the next diuisi●● hee maketh entrance into with a grosse and shamelesse deprauation ; and thereupon prosecuteth it to the end with an impertinent digression . hauing cited the forenamed testimenies of theodoret and gelasius in mine answer to that obiection brought commonly against vs , as if by a deniall of such a reall presence as papists maintaine wee should make the sacrament to be nothing but bare bread ; i conclude both mine answer and the allegation of those two authors in these wordes ; thus they , ( to wit gelasius and theodoret ) and thus we : and yet neither doe they nor we therefore make the sacraments of christs body and blood nothing but bare bread and wine . now this shamelesse wretch wanting matter to be dealing with , turneth me nothing into any thing ( a man able indeed with his shamelesse & senselesse shifts to picke any thing out of nothing ) and relateth my wordes in this manner to a cleane contrary sense ; thus they ; and thus we : and yet neither doe they , nor wee therefore make the sacraments of christs body and blood any thing but bare bread and wine . had either i or my transcriber , for the truth is , i it was not mine owne hand-writing that hee had : i write a worse hand i confesse , then he is aware of , that accounteth that so bad an one : if either i or hee , i say , had slipt heere with the pen , as i suspected hee might haue done , till i saw the copie againe that this answerer had ; yet the whole tenour of my speech , wherein i shew that the bread and wine in the eucharist are no more bare bread or bare wine , then the water vsed in the sacrament of baptisme is bare water , would sufficiently haue shewed my meaning . but when the copie that was deliuered him , remaining in the custodie of that noble personage for whom at first it was written , is found apparantly to haue the wordes in the very same manner as i haue before cited them , i cannot deuise k what colour this audacious wretch can bring to salue his owne credite with , and excuse his corrupt carriage . it argueth not a bad , but a desperate cause , that without such senselesse and shamelesse shifts cannot bee vpheld . and i beseech your ladiship well to consider , what credite is to be giuen to these men alleadging authors , ( fathers , councels , &c. ) which they know you cannot your selfe peruse and examine , when they dare thus palpably falsifie a writing that you haue in your owne hands , and may haue recourse to when you will. § . now hauing thus laid a lewd and loud vntruth for the ground of his ensuing discourse : . hee falleth into an inuectiue against our protestanticall communion , as acknowledged by me to haue nothing holy , heauenly and diuinely ( for so it pleaseth him to speak ) therein contained , but bare bread and wine , &c. adding withall , that neuer c●ietan , neuer bellarmine , neuer gratian , neuer father or other catholique diuine beleeued or taught this sacrilegious doctrine ( a lye he meaneth , of his owne forging ) as my aduersarie in these wordes , they , and wee , falsly pretendeth . in which wordes first ( for hee cannot forbeare f●lsifying for his life , no not then and there where he chargeth others with falshood ) he intimateth that in those words , thus they ; i should haue reference to caietan , bellarmine , and gratian : whereas my wordes euidently point at gelasius and theodoret , whose owne wordes in precise tearmes i had next before cited . . he chargeth me falsely to say that of the eucharish , that neither i , nor any of our diuines euer said : yea which being by way of obiection before produced , i not onely disauow and disprooue , approouing freely and at large proouing the contrary ; but in this place in plaine tearmes conclude the direct contrary vnto in the very wordes by him fowly falfified . . hee runneth out ( to giue vs some taste of his rowling rhetoricke as well as his loose logicke ) into a solemn inuocation of his forged s. dionyse , together with some of the ancients , ( as if hee were raising of spirits with some magicall inchantment , to fight with a shadow , and to skirmish with a man of straw of his owne making ) to testifie in that against vs that hee would faine put vpon vs , but none of vs ( by his owne confession ) euer said or doe say . thus hee hath nibled here and there , cauilled at by-matters , coined lies , forged and faced ; but giuen no direct answer to the argument , whereunto hee should haue answered , and whereby it was prooued that these wordes of our sauiour , this my body , may well beare a figuratiue sense ; so expounded by the ancient fathers , and confessed by their owne writers ; not so much as attempted to prooue the contrary thereunto . § . now howsoeuer i might very well let passe , as impertinent , those citations and sayings of the authors here summoned to giue in either testimony or sentence against that that none of vs auoweth , and which therfore , though all , that either they doe say , or hee would haue them say , were true , did no way crosse vs , or once touch vs in ought that is heerein affirmed of vs ; and i had sometime therefore determined wholy to passe by them , for feare of ouercharging this discourse : yet considering that some weake ones peraduenture may stumble at some passages in them , especially as they are vnfaithfully by this alleadger of them here translated : i haue thought good now ere wee part with them , to examinine what they say , that may seeme to make in any sort not against that heere charged on vs , which we vtterly deny , but against that which of this sacrament we hold otherwise . the first testimony is s. dennis his , shewed before to be but a counterfeit by the confession euen of popish writers themselues . but whosoeuer hee were ( for l certaine enough it is that he was not the party whose name hee beareth , but one of a farre later time , vnknowne vtterly to athanasius , eusebius , and ierome , though curious searchers and enquirers after the workes of those that were before them , m nor knowne commonly to the world before gregories dayes , as bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth ) hee maketh little for them in this point , either in that that here is alleadged , or in ought else that bellarmine can fish or fetch out of him . his wordes in the place heere cited are these and no more : o most diuine and holy mysterie , symbolically discouering those n enigmaticall ensoldments , bee declared brightly vnto vs , and replenish our intellectuall eye sights with o single ( or immixt ) and vnenueloped light . these ( i say ) his wordes are as neere as i can expresse them : which i so doe to giue you a taste of this dennis his stile , writing rather like p a dithyrawhicall poet ( the boldest sort of them ) then like a sober and sound diuine ; as q taking vpon him to determine the degrees , orders , and offices of the angels in heanen , which other r the ancients durst not doe ; so discoursing of them and such other matters as hee entreateth of in an affected swelling and abstruse straine , and coining a world of strange wordes and phrases no where else to bee found . and no more they are then these ; which i adde , because to the end of his allegation this fellow putteth an , &c. as if the author had in that place vsed some longer discourse of that kinde . nor is the sp●●ch ( as he would haue it ) a prayer ; but a meere prosopopoei● , or rhetoricall compellation , directed not to the elements alone , but to the eucharist , or the lords supper ( if with the s apostle t they will giue vs leaue at least so to tearme it ) the whole mysterie , or mysterious rite , as u the word there vsed properly importeth . which pachymeres the greeke paraphraser of this dennis well paralleleth with another of gregorie nazianzenes of the same nature ; ( and as well might bellarmine or this defendant haue alleadged the one as the other . ) who in his easter-day sermon turning his speech to the festiuity it selfe , and then from it to christ himselfe , the substance of it , as nicetas also well obserueth ; x o great and holy passeouer ( saith he ) the purgation of the whole world . y for i will speake to thee as t● some liuing thing . o word of god , and light , and life , and wisedome , and might . for i take delight in reckoning vp all thy titles . haue thou this oration as well●g●atul●torie as supplicatorie , and so forth . and nicet as thereupon ; those wordes , o pasch or passeouer , z he speakes or referreth to the feast it selfe . but those , o word of god , and so forward , by way of acclamation hee directeth to christ the spirituall passeouer . nor is it vnlike to the speech that ambr. makes in generall to the element of water , though with more special allusion and application to the water of baptisme : f o water that hast merited ( that is , in the vsuall language of those auncieuts , too much abused by our aduersaries , hast beene vouchsa●ed the grace ) to be a sacrament of christ : that washest all , vnwasht of any . thou bringest in the first ; thou closest vp the last mysteries . the beginning is from thee ; and the end in thee : or rather thou makest vs to bee without end . and so he goeth on in a long speech to the element , which yet no wise man will say that he had any purpose there to pray vnto . nor any more had this dennis when he discoursed thus to the eucharist ; the rather to be admitted and so conceiued in him , considering his poeticall and aenigmaticall vaine and manner of discourse . i might well put them in minde of that hymne of theirs , wherein they thus if not inuocate , at least parley with the crosse : h all h●ile , o crosse , our onely hope ; this passion time [ thy power set ope : ] in righteous persons grace encrease : to sinfull soules their sinnes release . which howsoeuer they would faine salue with such a prosopopoeia i some of them ; yet k aquinas ingenuously confesseth that therein they giue diuine worship to the woodden crosse : or of the like speeches that in a forme both of praise , and praier , they vse to l the veronicke or the print of christs face in a towel ; and m to our ladies girdle , and othèr the like , wherein they craue ●o lesse of them , beside sundry other graces , then to be clensed from all sinne , and to attaine eternall happinesse : in so much that one of their writers relating the latter of them breaketh out into these words ; n o how many , and how marueilous things are requested of that holy girdle ! to which i might well adioyne also , what aquinas saith , that o they speake & pray to the crosse as to christ crucified himself : and what bellarmine telleth vs that their p priests and friers in the pulpit are wont to say to the woodden crucifix , q thou hast redeemed vs , and reconciled vs to god the father . which he thus salueth , that this they say to it , not as it is a piece of wood , nor as it is an image neither , but as it supplyeth the place of him whom it representeth , that is , r they say it to christ , whose deputie & vicegerent the image there is . and yet from all this ( though too too bad and grosse indeed , yea absurd and blasphemous by this mans owne grant ) will no man inferre , that they hold either that girdle to be the uirgin mary , or either the woodden crosse , or the stained towel , or the carued crucifix to be christ himselfe . so that though that of dennis were a prayer indeede , which yet plaine it is that it is not , yet were it not , by their owne grounds and graunts , sufficient to prooue that he held the sacrament therefore to be christ himselfe . i adde onely what s from augustine venerable bede hath , that holy t signes not onely are called by the names , but doe in some sort sustaine the persons also of those things that they represent . which as being well considered it may helpe to cleere many speeches of the ancients wherin they speak those things of the sacred elements , which cannot be vnderstood but of the things by thē signified , so it occasioned them to take the more libertie to themselues for such rhetoricall compellations , as before haue bin spoken of . yea , but else-where ( may some say , ) and that but a little after , he turneth himselfe to the host , which is said there to be his better or aboue him , and therefore u not bare bread ; excusing himselfe to it , that he presumeth to deale with it . indeede so it pleaseth x bellarmine to cite him as if hee had said ; y the high priest , that he sacrificeth the sauing host , that is aboue him , z excuseth himselfe to him , or to it , crying out ; thou hast said , doe this ; &c. but let dennis speake in his owne language , or but a as their owne writers translate him , and both bellarmines mis-alleadging of him will soone be discouered , and the force of his reason drawne from thence vtterly dissolued . that which he saith is word for word thus ; b the diuine hierarch standing at the diuine altar , c celebrateth ( that is , praiseth and extolleth ) christs holy diuine workes out of his most diuine care of vs for our saluation by the goodwill of his father in the holy ghost by him consummated . which hauing celebrated , and by contemplation with intellectuall eyes taken a venerable and spirituall view of them , he passeth vnto d the symbolicall celebration ( or , holy administration ) of them , and that e according to diuine tradition : wherefore religiously and hierarchically ( that is , as becommeth an hierarch , or a bishop ) after the holy celebration ( or , f solemne praise ) of those diuine workes , g he maketh an apologie for himselfe in regard of that boly seruice ( or , sacrifice , as they translate it , though * the word be more generall ) that is to worthy for him to deale with , crying out to him , ( to whom but to christ iesus before mentioned ? ) thou hast said , doe this in remembrance of me . and then h hauing requested that he may be vouchsafed the grace of performing this holy and diuine seruice in holy manner , and that those that are to communicate may religiously partake in it , hee performeth the most diuine seruice , &c. for vncouering i the bread that was hitherto couered and vndiuided , and diuiding it into many pieces , and k distributing to them all the one onely cup , be doth symbolically , further their vnitie , l thereby performing his most holy seruice . now where is there here any mention of an host ? or affirming that host to be aboue him or better then himselfe ? or making any speech at all to it ? and yet if it were christ , to whom should he direct his speech more fitly then to it ? what should he speake to him as sited else-where , when hee hath him corporally there present ? the rather if , as they tell vs , * he seeth there what we doe , and heareth what we say , though he say nothing himselfe , because he would not be discouered . yea but he acknowledgeth the holy seruice then and there to be performed , to be too worthy for him to deale with ? and doth not the apostle say as much of the ministery of the word ; that m no man is sufficient , or n worthy enough for such a worke ? or may not the same truly be said of the sacrament of baptisme , and the administration of it ? there is nothing here then in either allegation that may at all helpe to establish the popish transubstantiation . and yet this is all , that out of this dennis bellarmine is able to produce . who though indeede otherwise not free from sundry fantasticall conceipts , yet is so farre from enclining to that prodigious fancy , that the whole tenure of his discourse concerning that sacrament ( as the auncient scholiast also hath well obserued on him ) runneth cleane another way . he calleth the eucharist , ( as you haue heard ) o a symbolicall seruice ; and p a distribution of bread and a cup : and the bread and the cup vsed in it , q symboles or signes , and r images , or s pictures , and t paternes u resembling the truth of their principals , to which he doth also there oppose thē . and not we , but the monke maximus aunciently expounding him , x marke you ( saith he ) how still he calleth this diuine seruice a symbolicall seruice ; that is , y a seruice ( saith he ) consisting of symboles or signes ; and z the holy gifts themselues signes or symboles of the true things aboue . and againe , * he calleth them pictures and images of true things vnseene . and if we aske him what that word symbole or signe signifieth ; a a symbole or signe ( saith he ) is a thing sensible taken for something intelligible , as bread and wine for the spirituall and diuine foode and refection , and the like . yea hereupon he inferreth that b because these things are symboles and signes , they are not therefore the truth it selfe . for c the image ( saith he else-where , and that from dennis himselfe too ) albeit it haue neuer so neere a resemblance , yet in substance differeth from that whereof it is a resemblance . d the thing indeede it selfe ( saith this dennis ) that by an exact image or picture is represented , is , if we may so say , thereby e doubled , while f the truth is shewed in the type , and g the precedent or principall in the picture or patterne ; but yet there is for all that a diuersitie of substance in either . from this dennis his owne grounds therefore , we may wel reason and conclude thus against the popish doctrine which they would haue him to vphold . no picture is the same in substance with that whose picture it is : but the bread and wine in the eucharist are pictures and images ( so he tearmeth them ) of the spirituall foode , to wit , the body and blood of christ. they are not therefore the same in substance with it . or as maximus directeth vs ; no type is the truth : * for it were then no type : but these are types : and consequently other then the truth . the second allegation is out of irenaeus : . irenaeus ( saith he ) denieth the bread after consecration to be any more accounted common bread , but . the eucharist , consisting of two things , heauenly and earthly , that being receiued into our bodies they may be no more corruptible , hauing the hope of resurrection . these words indeede are found the most of them in irenaeus , but are foulely disioynted , and related in other manner then they lye in irenaeus his context . as the bread ( saith he ) that is from the earth after diuine inuocation is no more common bread , but the eucharist consisting of two things , the one earthly , the other heauenly : so our bodies receiue the eucharist are not now corruptible , hauing the hope of resurrection . . where first , he denieth the bread after consecration , to be any more i common bread : as before him iustin martyr , that they receiued those creatures k not as common bread , or common drinke . and doth not their cyril ( as before you heard ) deny the oyle also after it is consecrate , to be any more l common oyle ? or may we not say truly as the auncients also oft doe ? yea dare any christian man say otherwise , but that the water in baptisme being once consecrated , is no more * common water ? there is nothing then hitherto said by irenaeus of the bread , but what may truly be said of any other consecrated creature : since that holy and common in this sense oppose and expell either other . secondly , he saith that the encharist consisteth of two things , the one earthly , the other heauenly . and doe not all sacraments the same ? or doth not baptisme the like ? you may be pleased to consider , what out of their owne m ambrose was before said of it ; as also out of gregorie nyssene is here after related . for it is nothing to the purpose that bellarmine obiecteth , that no man would say that the water of baptisme consisteth of two things , the one earthly , the other heauenly : for neither doth irenaeus say that the bread of the eucharist , but the eucharist it selfe of such two things consisteth . but i would faine know how the eucharist according to their doctrine should , when the bread is once consecrated , consist at all of any earthly thing , when the substance thereof is ( as they say ) thereby vtterly abolished ? sure irenaeus his eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly , and theirs hauing none at all such , are not one and the same . thirdly , irenaeus saith that our bodies receiuing the eucharist are no more now corruptible ; in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection , which thereby they are assured of and sealed vp vnto : ( for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible ? ) as he afterward expoundeth himselfe . and what is said more here of the lords supper , then o tertullian and others say of baptisme , to wit , that by it the flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternall ? yea let them looke backe but a line or two , and they shall soone see , how little irenaeus fauoureth their cause ? p how ( saith he ) say they that the flesh perisheth and liueth not euerlastingly , that is nourished with the body and blood of christ ? he affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which hee calleth the body and blood of christ. and else-where more plainely : q when the cup mixed , and the bread broken receiueth the word of god , it becommeth the eucharist of the body and blood of christ , of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth . r now how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternall , that is nourished with christs body and blood ? and againe , s that part of man that consisteth of flesh , sinewes and bones , is nourished by the cup that is his blood , and groweth , or is encreased by the bread that is his body . the same with that , which out of iustine wee shall hereafter further consider of , that t our flesh and blood are nourished by the eucharisticall foode by a change thereof , that is , it being changed and turned into them . but to say so u of the very body and blood of christ is , by these mens owne grants , most absurd . that in the eucharist therefore that irenaeus , and before him iustine , speake thus of , is not the very flesh and blood of christ it selfe , but x the creature sanctified , as he himselfe tearmeth it ; or y the first-fruits of gods creatures , which in way of thankefulnesse , z with thankesgiuing , he saith , they offer vnto god ; why so tearmed , is out of augustine and others shewed else-where . the third allegation is ( as he saith ) out of a the voices of the fathers in the first nicene councel . where i might well out of cardinal baeronius except , that there are b no● acts of that first nicene councel now extant : and that the worke out of which this allegation is taken , is c no record of those acts , but a story onely of that councell , written by one that liued long after it , d whom they themselues account to be but a sorry obscure fellow , and one of no great credite . but let the author , or the relator rather , passe ; and let vs heare his relation . those holy confessors ( saith hee ) will vs at the diuine table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed , but to eleuate our minde by faith , and be holde on the holy table the lambe of god , &c. by priests vnbloodily sacrificed ; and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to be symboles and pledges of our resurrection . heere is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause . first , they acknowledge “ bread to be and abide in the euchaerist : which these men vtterly deny . secondly , they will vs * not basely to regard therein the bread and cup , or the elements onely . and the very same in the same place of baptisme they say , that e wee must not so much regard in it the water that wee see , as the power of god accompanying it ; of which wee shall speake more vpon another the like occasion f hereafter . thirdly they will vs g to lift vp our minde , and by faith to consider ( for so their words are ) the lambe of god lying on the table . and by faith we grant that hee is not seene and considered onely , but receiued also in the eucharist . fourthly , they say , not ( as this man translateth it ) that hee is vnbloodily there sacrificed , but that hee is h without sacrificing there sacrificed ; that is not really , but i mystically and symbolically sacrisiced ; or k not in truth of the thing , but in a mystery signifying the same : as out of pope pascasius and augustine in their canons themselues speake . fiftly , they say , that wee receiue his bodie and blood in the encharist ; yea they are reported to say ( which hee omitteth here ) that wee doe l truely receiue them : which that we doe truely also and effectually ( according to our doctrine ) though spiritually and not corporally , hath m already beene shewen , and shall n in his due place againe bee further confirmed . and lastly , that these are o symboles or pledges of our resurrection ; which how they was are was before shewed out of tertullian , who p from those sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in generall ( as well other as these ) that the body partaketh in , draweth r arguments to confirme the faith of the resurrection of it . the next allegation is out of s. ephrem , whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from s bellarmine : which bellarmine when hee hath cited , addeth withall in a brauery , as if the proofes were so pregnant that there were no gainesaying of them , t to this testimonie our aduersaries neither doe answer , nor indeede can answer ought . that none had then answered , was not much to be maruelled : as u harding saith of their cyrill ; few had yet the sight of him . one of that name indeed wrote many things x in the syriacke tongue long since , hauing no skill at all in the greeke . and vnder his name our popish fatherbreeders haue of late set out a many of sermons and treaeises , that haue no testimonie at all from antiquity the most of them ; translated ( as they tell vs ) out of greeke , which hee good man neuer spake ; quoting some of them greeke authors at large , whom hee neuer vnderstood ; wanting all of them that a subtilty and sublimitie of wit , that ierome commendeth in ephrems workes , and b appeared euen in the trarslations of them , as both hee and others affirm of them ; very sorry and silly things a great part of them ; not free from grosse vntruths and c contradictions , yea and ridiculous too , if not impious assertions ; as that d the damned spirits in hell salute all the saints in heauen , and by name the apostles , prophets , and martyrs , the patriarches , monkes , and the uirgin mary : and lastly their e seuerall editions of them so chopped and changed , mangled and made vp againe , cut off or pieced out , as they pleased that had the breeding of them , that scarce any one of them is any whit like another . the testimonies cited out of him could not be answered , before the author himselfe was hatched , and his workes abroad in mens hands , that they might bee seene and knowne what they were . and now that they are seen and known what they are , they appeare plainely to be such , that they are not worthy of any answer . vnlesse it bee deemed equall that wee bee tied to answer to euery saying that is alleadged out of any counterfeite , that they shall at any time thrust out with the glorious title of some ancient father clapt on his frontispice . and yet neither are this authors wordes ( what euer he be ) by the cardinals good leaue , for all his great bragge , so pregnant and full for them that no answer can be giuen to them . he saith that the mysteries of christ are most admirable and inscrutable : and who denieth it ? this follow himselfe f bringeth in caluin and beza saying the same : and that men ought not to g pry ouer curiously into them : wherein not we , but their * s. dennis is faulty , & their h schoolemen who with their wanton wit haue therein exceeded all bounds as well of modestie as of measure : * that we partake with our lords immaculate bodie by faith : ( for so in uossius his edition are his wordes distinguished ) which we may well without any such corporall presence of it , as i by their owne authors is confessed : that k wee must be assured that we eate the lambe himselfe whole : which is contrary , not to our doctrine , who say and shew euidently , that l the fathers did as much that liued euen before christ was incarnate , but to m the doctrine of their pope nicholas , as else-where is shewed . so that here is nothing that we need so much to stick at , or that should be deemed so vnanswerable : vnlesse he wil presse vs with that that followeth , that n christ giueth vs fire to feed on , when hee giueth vs his body : as chrysostome saith sometime that o fire floweth from the lords table , and it is a coale of fire that wee receiue in the eucharist . which if they will expound figuratinely and spiritually , as i suppose they must needs , let them giue vs the like liberty to vnderstand the former wordes in like manner . i will adde only and so leaue this ephrem , what in the very same discourse himselfe saith : p what this potion and perception is ( saith he ) it is our part to learne : ( and it is lawfull then belike , yea and our dutie too , to make some kinde of inquiry into it . ) marke diligently , how christ taking bread into his hands , q blessed it , and brake it , for a figure of his immaculate body ; and how hee r blessed the cup , for a figure of his blood . which wordes ( i take it ) encline rather to our doctrine then to theirs . and yet further in the same treatise : s with the eyes of faith , when like light it shineth bright in a mans heart , doth he cleerly see the lambe of god , that was slaine for vs , and that hath giuen vs his holy and immaculate bodie t perpetually to feede vpon , and to partake of vnto remission of sinnes . u this eye of faith he that hath , doth cleerely and openly see the lord , and x by a sure and full faith eateth of the bodie of that immaculate lambe , the onely begotten sonne of the heauenly father , and drinketh his blood , &c. by faith ( saith hee ) wee see the lambe of god , ( as expounding that that was said out of the storie of the nicene councell before ) and by faith wee seede on him , and his bodie and blood , and partake of him , perpetually ; and not in the eucharist onely . which as it fitteth not their orall manducation , which without faith may bee effected , so it agreeth well with that spirituall feeding , that we expound our sauiours wordes of . so little doth this their ephrem further or auaile them in this argument . lastly , for the high tearmes and stately titles that the ancient fathers giue the eucharist ; let him but compare them with s those that they giue to its elder sister , the other sacrament of baptisme , and i suppose hee will finde little oddes betweene either . onely for what hee saith of their affirming that the angels adore it : let the places bee produced , and they shall then bee answered . that they are present oft , ( and if present , no doubt present with much reuerence ) as well at the celebration of the lords supper , as at other parts of gods worship ; and z that they adore him who is therein represented , ( which is all that chrysostome saith in the places produced out of him by * bellarmine ) we deny not : and of baptisme in effect their “ cyrist saith as much . but that they doe adore as god a piece of bread or a sorry wafer cake , as the papists doe in their masse , therein committing as grosse idolatry ( it is * their owne grant , if it be not christ , which we well know it is not ) as euer any was in the world , that we vtterly deny , nor will this defendant euer be able to produce any one orthodox father that euer so said . and thus much for his allegations , though produced here to no purpose , to disprooue ( as they might well enough without hurting of vs ) no assertion of ours , but a fiction of his owne framing ; nor was it necessarie therefore that they should haue beene answered . let vs now proceede to the next part of his answer . diuision . his next ground for ouerthrowing our literall vnderstanding of christs wordes and reall presence of his true bodie and blood in the sacrament , is an vnlearned and slender manner of proouing our sauiours large discourse in s iohn . . not to bee at all vnderstood of sacrament all manducation , but spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him . and first hee quareleth at pope nicholas manner of speech , making berengarius in the abiuration of his heresie to affirme not onely the signe , but the body it selfe of christ to bee handled by the priests hands , and rent and bruised with the teeth of the faithfull , &c. which manner of speech was purposely by pope nicholas in a councell of learned doctors devised to make this slippery shifting hereticke make a direct and plaine confession of his faith concerning our sauiours being present in the hands of the priest consecrating the sacrament , and mouthes of such as receiue him impassible now in his owne corporall nature glorified , and vncapable of renting or any kinde of corporall mutation , as being not with the sacramental signes also quantitatiuely extended , but indiuisibly and after a spirituall manner existing , yet really handled and receiued as angels in assumpted bodies are said to bee seene , and felt , and as s. iohn baptist likewise ioh. . said he saw the holy ghost , when hee onely saw a doue the signe of his presence , &c. which manner of speech is not v●usuall with the holy fathers . thou seest him , ( saith s. chrysostome speaking of christ in the sacrament ) thou touchest him , thou eatest him , &c. which is the same in sense which pope nicholas affirmeth , onely hee explicateth somewhat more particularly the diuision and fraction of the sacramentall formes containing the very bodie and blood of christ , vnder them all and each particle of them entirely and vndeuidedly remaining . insomuch as iohn husie falsely wont by our aduersaries to be claimed for patron and faithfull witnesse of their doctrine , singeth thus in certaine verses of christs presence and manner of being receiued in the sacrament , which hee with vs to his dying day constantly beleeued , as now also his disciples doe after him ; non est panissed est deus qui in cruce pependisti non augetur consecratus ; nec diuisus in fractura , homo liberator meus : et in carne defecisti : nec cōsumptus fit mutatꝰ ; plenus d●us iu statura . it is not bread , but god and man my redeemer , who hanged on a crosse , and died in flesh for me . hee is not encreased on multiplied by consecration , nor diuided in breaking of the host , but god full in stature . so likewise s. andrew in his passion authentically ( as l bellarmine proueth ) written by the clergie of achaia present thereat , told the procounsul egeus ; i dayly offer to god , who is one and omnipotent , not the flesh of buls & blood of goats , but the immaculate lambe vpon the altar , whose flesh when all the multitude of faithfull people hath receiued , the lambe sacrificed integer perseuer at ac viuus ; doth liue and remaine entire , &c. so as pope nicholas doctrine vnderstood of christs flesh being eaten in the sacrament , needeth not gratians glosse to saue it from hereticall blaspemy and the danger of a worse opinion then berengarius renounced , vnlesse hee had taught christs flesh in it selfe to haue beene torne with teeth and bloodily eaten , as the capharnites imagined ; and m the gentile persecutors were went to obiect against poore christians , that they did eate the flesh of a certaine man in their synaxes and meetings ; calling them men eaters , &c. to wit , because they did eate bread and drinke wine consecrated by the miraculous force of christs wordes into his naturall flesh and blood ; as saint iustine that holy martyr and great christian philosopher told aurelius the emperor in his second apologie for christians ; where hee describeth ( as much as it was fit for him to open the heauenly mysteries of our faith to the gentiles ) the whole order of the sacrifice and distribution of the sacrament as it is now celebrated by vs : this being the new oblation of the new testament , as n s. irenaeus tearmeth it , instituted by christ in his last supper , and that cleane sacrifice which malachie foretold should succeed in place of the iewish sacrifices , and be offered by the gentiles in all places . in the next place i proceede to discusse the wordes of our sauiour concerning the eating his flesh and drinking his blood . iohn . where first i quarell ( he saith ) at p. nicholas his maner of speech deuised purposely ( as this mine aduersary here informeth vs ) in a coūcell of learned bishops to make a slippery shifting heretike , make a direct and plain confession of his faith concerning the reall presence . his words are , as i haue related thē , that the very body of christ in the eucharist is broken with the priests hands , and torn in pieces with mens teeth , not sacramētally only , but sensually . which palpable absurdities , and carnall and capernaiticall assertions this defendant would faine salue if hee could ; ( but he sheweth himselfe therein but a sorry quackesaluer . ) . by citing ( besides some of his owne counterfaits , of which more anone ) a saying of s. chrysostome , affirming that the faithfull see , and touch , and eate christ in the eucharist : which neither they nor we deny ; nor is it ought to the purpose , vnlesse chrysostome should also say , that hee is eaten in such sort as pope nicholas averreth , not sacramentally onely , or spiritually , but euen sensually : so hee saith . for so t the galathians also saw him crucified ( as the apostle telleth them ) in their sight : and some of the ancients say that euen u at this day he is crucified . . by telling vs that christs glorified bodie is incapable of renting : which if it be so , how saith pope nicholas that it is torne in pieces ? this is a strange manner of saluing him , to tell vs that that cannot be done , which he in precise tearmes saith is vsually done . and marke here ( i pray you how these men * play fast and loose with vs. they tell vs , when wee presse them with the indignitie of the thing , that christs bodie cannot bee bruised now or broken : and this is ( it seemeth ) when they speake mystically or shiftingly , as hee speaketh . but when they make a plaine and direct confession ( for so hee saith pope nicholas did when hee thus spake , and no formes are more exact , saith bellarmine , then those formes of abiuration are ) then they acknowledge that according to their saith and beliefe ( if they beleeue at least as they speake , and doe not dally with vs and delude vs ) christs very bodie is sensually rent and torne in pieces in the sacrament . . by granting that if he had taught that christs flesh in it selfe were torne with teeth , &c. it were indeed hereticall blasphemie . and what other thing ( i pray you ) doth pope nicholas affirme , when he saith that * christs very bodie not in the sacrament onely , but in very truth and sensually is torne in pieces with mens teeth ? this is not to excuse him , but to accuse and condemne him both of heresie and blasphemy . . by affirming that the popes wordes need not gratians glosse to saue them from any such imputation . yet gabriel biel a great schooleman ( whom wee rather beleeue ) freely confesseth that pope nicholas in so saying u exceeded the truth ; ( as another glosse on gratian also x else-where acknowledgeth ) and while he sought to shun one error ranne into another : wherein * others also of their owne writers dare not defend him . so that the pops sitting in his chaire , yea and in councell too , with all his learned bishops , like himselfe , round about him , consistorially to censure and to determine truth in matter of faith , may yet erre for all his infallibility , so much & so oft b●agged of . and it was not vnwisely done of bellarmine to let this passe , y where he relateth and refuteth as well as he may , the seuerall errors and heresies that their popes are charged with . § ▪ . heere by the way ( though little to the present purpose , to wit , the cleering of pope nicholas ) that hee may fill vp his discourse with some shew of allegations ; . hee telleth vs that iohn husse was of their iudgement concerning the sacrament ; and alledgeth a sorry rome to prooue it ; which whence hee hath , i know not , nor am able to say , what husse sometime held : but sure i am that in the councell of constance one of the articles , wherewith he was charged , and for which condemned , and ( contrary to the emperours safeconduct granted him ) perfidious●● burnt , was a the deniall of transubstantiation as a deuice inuented to delude simple people with : and the teaching and maintaining as well publikely as priuately that the substance of bread , and materiall bread , remained after consecration in the sacrament ; deposed by many that had heard him , and that had argued about it with him . . he citeth a few fathers , some forged , as the author of the passion of s. andrew ; some falsified , as that of iustine martyr ; ( which shall by and by be examined ) some saying nothing but what wee will willingly yeeld him , as both irenaeus , and that also out of the apocryphall story of s. andrew : which howsoeuer he saith that bellarmine ( which is his wonted manner of proofe ) hath proued to be authenticall : yet neither are his proofes pregnant ; no iust antiquitie being produced for it ; and by b others of their owne ( as we shewed before ) it is confessed to be apocryphall : and , if we may beleeue bellarmine himselfe , there is some grosse vntruth in it . for this vncertaine author affirmeth that s. andrew was not nailed with nailes , but with cords eyed to the crosse , ( as their counterfeit c abdie also saith ) that he might liue the longer in paine , as he did preaching two daies together as he hung there aliue : whereas , if d bellarmine may be beleeued , it was not so , but he was with nailes fastned , as e christ was , to the crosse. but to leaue that , as saying nothing that we neede sticke at ; no more then we doe at ought that out of irenaeus is alleadged . i may not let passe his falsifying of iustine martyr ; whom hauing so little occasion to alledge here , he may well seeme for no other end to haue alleadged , but to falsifie what he saith of this sacrament ; in which kinde he hath the best gift one of them that euer i knew any . iustine martyr ( saith he ) in his . apologie , where , as far as was fit , &c. he describeth the whole order of the sacrifice and distribution of the sacrament as it is now celebrated by vs , telleth antoninus the emperour that they did therein eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of christs words into his naturall flesh and blood . now heare justines owne words : hauing spoken before of baptisme : after this ( saith he ) is there bread and a cup of water and wine presented to the prelate of the brethren : who receiuing the same sendeth vp praise and glory to the father of all , by the name of the sonne and the holy ghost ; and at large giueth thankes to him for being vouchsafed to be by him reputed worthy of these things . and when he hath ended his prayers and thankes-giuing , all the people answer , amen . now when the prelate hath giuen thankes , and all the people haue answered , those that we call deacons , giue to each one of those that be present to partake of f the blessed bread , and wine and water , and they carry of it to those that be not present . and this foode is with vs called the eucharist ; which none may partake of but those that beleeue , haue beene baptised , and liue as christ taught . for we receiue not these things as common bread and wine ; but in like maner as christ our sauiour being by the word of god incarnate had flesh and blood , so haue wee beene taught that the foode g blessed by the word of prayer that is from him , whereby our blood and flesh by a change are nourished , is the flesh and blood of that iesus christ incarnate . for so in the gospels haue the apostles deliuered that iesus enioyned them , hauing taken the bread and giuen thankes to say , doe this in remembrance of me ; this is my body : and taking the cup likewise , and hauing giuen thankes to say ; this is my blood ; and to giue it to such onely . now first tell me ( i pray you ) where there is any mention of a sacrifice in iustine , distinct especially from the sacrament , that this corrupter of all almost that he dealeth with , should say ; iustine describeth the whole order of the sacrifice and distribution of the sacrament . true it is that the fathers tearme the lords supper oft a sacrifice ; ( as we also in our liturgie : ) partly in regard of the h spirituall sacrifice of praise therein offred ; and partly because it is a liuely representation and commemoration of christs sacrifice i once offred on the crosse ; ( as their k master of the sentences himselfe explaineth it ; ) and partly also because l it succeedeth in the roome of the passeouer , and those other sacrifices , that in the old testament were offred . but that they euer dreamed of any other sacrifice distinct and diuers from the sacrament , no papist shall euer be able to prooue . nor either out of our sauiours words , or iustines report can be gathered . . obserue how iustly iustine describeth the whole order of this sacrifice and distribution of the sacrament , as it is celebrated by them . yea , marke and iudge ( i pray you ) whether his description of it come neerer vnto ours or vnto theirs . . where are all those crossings and bendings , and ●ringes , and turnings , and eleuations , and adorations , and mimicke gestures , and apish sooleries that their masse-bookes enioyne ? . as well the cup as the bread is giuen to all present ; which iustine also saith that christ enioyned them to giue ; and which pope gelasius m saith cannot be seuered from the bread without great sacriledge . whereas with them the people may not meddle at all with it . how many toyes are there in theirs that are not touched at all in iustine ? and againe , what is there in iustines relation , that is not found in our protestanticall ( as he tearmeth it ) communion ? that sending of it home ordinarily onely excepted , which neither they themselues vse ordinarily when they celebrate , and the danger of repaire hindring accesse ( it seemeth ) then occasioned . . where doth iustine say , as this corrupt corrupter reporteth him , that they eate bread and drinke wine conuerted by the miraculous force of christs words into his naturall flesh and blood ? no one word in him of a miraculous conuersion , nor of their being the naturall flesh and blood of christ. there is mention indeede of a change , and that a naturall change , not of the creatures into christs naturall flesh and blood , but of the blessed foode , or the foode made the eucharist ( as n bellarmine translateth it ) into our flesh . which words though o bellarmine would faine wrest awry , because they wring him , yet no grammer will admit any other sense of them . from whence it is apparent that the blessed foode that iustine speaketh of , is not really , but symbolically and figuratiuely christs body . for p there can nothing be deuised more absurd ( saith bellarmine ) then that the substance of our bodies should be nourished with christs flesh . but our flesh and blood ( and that , i hope , is the substance of our bodies ; as irenaeus also expressely speaketh ) are nourished ( saith iustine ) by the blessed foode , or by the bread and wine made the eucharist , and that q by a change of the things receiued . the blessed foode therefore that iustine speaketh of , is not really christs naturall body , as this mis-reporter and mis-expounder of him affirmeth . neither can euer the minister prooue his ensuing assertion , that christs corporall presence in the thing eaten must necessarily inferre and enforce a corporall and carnall manner of eating him , vnlesse his bodie had therein a corporall extensiue and sensible manner of existing ; which is by no catholike author affirmed ; and so no hainous and vnseemely thing is in such a manner of receiuing christs body committed : for auoiding whereof we should be enforced to runne to a figuratiue interpretation of our sauiours speeches , ioh. . so as to exclude the reall receiuing of our sauiours flesh and blood in the sacrament ; as out of an obscure place of s. austin , cited by him page . and fully o answered by cardinall bellarmine , hee falsely gathereth ; the place proouing no more but that our sauiours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figuratiue so farre forth as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten , but after a sacramentall and inuisible manner , as the signes of bread and wine doe containe them ; the chiefe end of his being so receiued by vs being indeed to communicate with christs passion , and profitably to lay vp in our memories that his flesh was wounded for vs , as s. austin in that place affirmeth . whose p plaine places for the reall receiuing of our sauiours body and blood in the sacrament my superficiall aduersarie taketh no notice of , but as eeles loue rather to hide themselues in durt then to swim in cleere waters ; so are hee and his companions glad to hide themselues and their hereticall nouelties , in darke and obscure places of the holy fathers , not regarding their pregnant and plaine testimonies for vs , and against them , vnanswerably in other places expressed . § . at length he pleaseth to recollect himselfe and returne to the matter in hand . christs corporall presence ( saith he ) in the thing eaten , doth not necessarily inferre and enforce a corporall and carnall manner of eating him , vnlesse his body had therein a corporall , extensiue and sensible manner of existing . to passe by these mysticall and metaphysicall tearmes , wherewith he and his associates are wont to enwrap and inuolue themselues , like eeles in mire and mud ( as himselfe speaketh ) that their absurd and senselesse doctrines , or dotages rather , may not be discerned ; nor to insist vpon the implication of contradiction , when he saith that christs body is corporally , that is , bodily present in the eucharist , and yet hath there no corporall , that is , bodily existence : a bodie bodily present , and yet not bodily existing ; like the marcionites riddles in tertullian ; a man no man ; flesh no flesh ; a body no body ; blood no blood : or , a body ; but not as a body ; with blood , but not as blood ; in a place , but not as in a place ; with qualities , but not qualitatiuely ; with quantitie , but not quantitatiuely . such strange fancies and prodigies are these mens braines possest with . . if the one doe not follow vpon the other , pope nicholas was much to blame , when he inferred thereupon that christs very body was sensually ( that is as much , if not more then corporally ) chewed and eaten in the eucharist . . if it be true that bellarmine telleth vs , that s by the eucharist christ remaineth carnally in vs : which he citeth also , but with a foule hand , and * some of his owne words foisted in , as a saying of s. hilaries : then sure he must needs carnally be eaten of vs. and to see how inconstant error is , and how contrary to it selfe : one while he saith that there is t a corporall eating of christs body in the sacrament ; as their common tenent is : ( and how is he not then corporaelly eaten ? ) and that christ carnally thereby abideth in vs : and yet againe another while ; out of athanasius , that u the eating of christs body is not carnally to be taken , nor is x in a carnall manner to be vnderstood . in a word ; . either bread or christs body must needs be corporally eaten in the eucharist : but not bread , if we beleeue them ; for there is none there : and to say that meere accidents onely are chewed and fed vpon is most senselesse and absurd : it remaineth therefore that christs body , if that alone be there , be corporally eaten there , as pope nicholas before affirmed . . either christs flesh is eaten there corporally , or spiritually onely . if corporally , why doth this fellow sticke at it , and is so loath to acknowledge it ? if spiritually onely , why vrge they those passages of iohn . to prooue 〈…〉 corporall and bodily manducation of christs body in the eucharist ? and so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft vrged to prooue such a carnall eating of christ. § . here this profound and learned doctor telleth vs , that his superficiall aduersarie hath in an vnlearned and slender manner endeauoured to prooue that our sauiours discourse there is not to be vnderstood of sacramentall manducation , but of spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him . i propound two propositions to be prooued . . that the words are not to be vnderstood of any such corporall eating and drinking , as they hold . . that christ doth not in that whole discourse speake of the sacrament of the eucharist , which was not as yet instituted , but of such spirituall feeding on christ , as is performed , not in the sacrament onely , but out of it also . the former i prooue by a plaine place of s. augustine ; which this aduersarie , referring vs still for an answer to bellarmine , ( from whom he borroweth the most that he hath ) saith is an obscure place , and is pleased a little after to tearme it no better then durt , which wee protestants , like eeles , desire to hide our selues in . . were it not an absurd thing for augustine to speake ●bscurely there , where he giueth rules for the opening and right vnderstanding of places obscure ? where should he speake more plainely and perspicuously then there ; where his maine aime is to make things cleere ? . this shifters answer borrowed from bellarmine is but a bare shift ; to wit , that the place prooueth no more , but that our sauiours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figuratiue so far forth , as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten , and in a bloody manner , as flesh sold in the shambles is wont to be eaten , &c. as if flesh bought in the shambles vsed to be eaten raw and in bloody manner . here is a deale of durt indeede and mud raised to trouble augustines cleere water . the question is whether our sauiours words be to be vnderstood properly or figuratiuely . y they say properly ; and not figuratiuely : augustine saith figuratiuely ; and so consequently , not properly : which is as much as is here required . z christs body ( saith bellar mine ) is with the body properly eaten in the eucharist . but it is no proper , but a figuratiue eating , saith augustine , that christ speaketh of iohn . it is no such eating of christs body therefore , as they imagine to be in the eucharist . yea so contrary to them , and so pregnant for vs is that passage of augustine , that in fulbertus his workes , where those words of his are related , they haue with a foule insertion branded them for a hereticall . yea but ( saith mine aduersarie ) there are many plaine places in augustine , cited by bellarmine , for the reall receiuing of christ ; which my superficiall aduersarie taketh no notice of . bellarmine is still much in this mans mouth ; and the superficialnesse of his silly and vnlearned aduersarie . but this ( i am sure ) is a very vnlearned , slender and superficiall proofe of points questioned , to turne his reader ouer still for satisfaction to some other . yet i will doe him the couttesie , since he telleth vs of other plaine places in augustine to present him with one of them , though such an one ( it may be ) as will not easily goe downe with him . augustine speaking of this place in iohn on psal. . saith that christ hauing vsed those words , b vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood , you haue no life in you . when some vnderstood them c foolishly and carnally , he taught them to vnderstand them d spiritually ; saying , e it is the spirit that quickneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that i speake are spirit and life . as if he should haue said ; vnderstand you spiritually what i haue spoken . f you are not to eate that body which you see , and to drinke that blood which they will shed that shall crucifie me . g i haue commended a kinde of sacrament vnto you ; which being spiritually vnderstood will quicken you . though it must be visibly colebrated , yet is it inuisibly to be vnderstood . thus augustine in plaine tearmes : and yet if we beleeue these men , the very same body of christ that was then seene , and that very same blood that was shed on the crosse is orally eaten and drunke in the eucharist . and surely if the authoritie of holy fathers might preuaile with the minister further then himselfe listeth , he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the auncient doctors expounding or treating of christs words , ioh. . haue literally vnderstood them of the sacrament , as learned q tolet , r saunders , s bellarmine , and other of our diuines haue particularly prooued ; collecting from them inuincible testimonies also , to prooue the verity of our sauiours body and blood really in the sacrament conteined and receiued : insomuch as s. austin affirmeth s. iohn purposely to haue emitted all mention of the sacrament in our sauiours last supper , because he had in the . chap. of his gospell so particularly expressed the promised excellency and heauenly fruits thereof : and many euident and vnanswerable arguments are by catholike expositors of that chapter made to prooue the same ; which with silence my aduersarie ouerpasseth . first , ( for example ) our sauiour from the . to the . verse of that chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his father had giuen to the iewes louing the world so as to giue his onely begotten sonne for it , and the gift which himselfe meant to giue to them , speaking of the one as a gift already past ; but of the other as of a gift afterwards to bee giuen vnto them . secondly , he compareth the eating of his flesh to the israelites eating of manna in the desert ; which was a corporall food really eaten by them . thirdly , if by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our sauiour meant no other thing then that they should beleeue in him , it had beene a strange course in him , who so thirsted after the saluation of soules by an obscure manner of speaking to driue away so many , such persons especially as had formerly followed him , without any word added , which might open this obscure doctrine vnto them ; as card. tollet excellently relateth there the whole processe of our sauiours doctrine . § . my second proposition is , that christ in that whole discourse iohn doth not speake of the eucharist . that augustine and diuers others of the ancient fathers doe expound it of feeding on christ , yet not corporally , but spiritually in the sacrament ( for so h bishop iansenius also ingenuously confesseth that augustine holdeth it to be vnderstood of seeding on christ spiritually , not corporally ; yea and so * pope innocent himselfe , witnesse durand , and biel , and “ peter lombard also , witnesse bon●uenture , expound it : ) i deny not ; nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the maine point here in question of christs corporall presence . yet the rather herein wee are inforced ( together with diuerse popish writers ) to depart from them in that their exposition ; so farre forth as they vnderstand the same as directly speaking of the eucharist , ( as for the one moitie of that discourse also euen * bellarmine himself doth ) in regard of some erronious consequences that they were by that meanes enforced vnto , which euen the papists themselues now condemne , and for other weighty reasons , as in my first writing i shew . yea but catholique expositors ( saith this answerer ) by many euident and vnanswerable arguments haue prooued that it is so to be vnderstood ; which his aduersarie also ( saith hee ) euerpasseth with silence . and say i , a catholique expositor ( in their language ) to wit , corn. iansenius ( no iesuite now , for so this answerer hath informed me , and yet ) a bishop of flanders , in a worke of his by common consent of the learned among them well approoued of ( they are the popes owne censurers wordes of it ) hath by euident and vnanswerable arguments prooued that it cannot so bee vnderstood ; which this mine aduersarie also ouerpasseth with silence : and the like also doth frier ferus : and gabriel biel at large in the place aboue recited . but hee will at length ( i hope ) say somewhat himselfe . . our sauiour ( saith he ) maketh a difference there betweene the gift which his father had ●iuen the iewes , and the gift that himselfe ment to giue , speaking of the one as past , of the other as to come : this out of bellarmine . i maruell where this man learned his logicke . he neuer is luckie in the framing of his consequences . there is a difference betweene the gift that god the father had giuen ; and the gift that christ would giue : ergò christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in the eucharist . how hang these things together ? or by what nec●ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other ? for first , are they diuerse gifts that god the father had giuen and that christ would giue ? then the wordes are not meant of christs corporall presence in the eucharist . for therein the very same christ that the father gaue is giuen to the faithfull , as we say , spiritually ; to both faithfull and vnfaithfull , as they affirme , corporally . and therfore the gift is not diuers , as he saith , but the selfe same . . if hee say that the gift is diuers in regard of the diuers manner of giuing : who knoweth not that christ , who had beene giuen by his father ( and yet by himselfe also ) in his incarnation ; was after i giuen also by himselfe ( and yet k by his father also ) in his passion . so their owne iansenius expoundeth his words , that l he would giue his b●die also vnto death : and frier ferus that m hee would giue it vnto death on the crosse : for n there ( saith hee ) was that bread to bee basked : and there that flesh of his ( saith bonauenture ) was to be boyled . yea so gregory of valence , my flesh that i will giue , p that is , that i will offer for the life of the world : where ( thinke we ) but on the crosse ? . christ ( saith he ) compareth the eating of his flesh to the iewes eating of manna ; which was a corporall food really eaten by them : and he must needs therefore speake of the eucharist . bellarmine was not so absurd indeed as to argue on this manner . as if the manna were not also a spirituall type of christ : and christ might not as well compare the type with the truth ; as the type with the counter-type ; the type of the manna q a spirituall food then really taken with the spirituall eating of christ that was therin figured . or 〈…〉 ●f he might not compare our spirituall feeding on him with some corporall food really eaten ( which both here and else-where it is confessed , as shal presently be shewed , that he doth ) and yet not mention the sacrament of the eucharist at all . bellarmine saith indeede that r christ compareth there with the manna his bodie , not as it is receiued by faith alone , ( and then belike by bellarmines grant it is truely so also receiued , euen out of the sacrament ) but as in the sacrament it is receiued . but how doth he proue it ? . from the apostle , where s hee compareth baptisme with the red sea , and manna with the eucharist . but how doth this follow ; the apostle doth so there : therefore our sauiour doth so heere ? especially considering how diuers the scope of either in either place is . the apostles scope is to shew that t the old israelites had as good and as sure outward pledges of gods fauour and loue as wee christians now haue ; and yet “ were not spared when they prouoked him to wrath , for all that . our sauiours scope is to prooue that the spirituall food of his flesh , which u he there tendred them and aduised them to seeke after , was much more excellent and of farre greater vertue and efficacie , then the manna that their fathers did once eate in the wildernesse . for , that x that ( considered as corporall food ) was it selfe corruptible , and could not y preserue them that eate of it from death , whereas this was z food incorruptible , and being spiritually fed on would cause them a to liue for euer . for the apostles purpose therefore it was necessary to consider the manna as a sacrament and to compare the eucharist with it , as with our baptisme hee had paralleled the red sea before . but for our sauiour so to do there was no necessity at all : nor indeed doth he consider the manna there as a sacrament , no more then the iewes did , that there mentioned it to him ; nor doth hee speake cught of the sacrament where hee speaketh of the manna , as b bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth . his speech to them occasioned by the c bread that they had eaten of , and d the manna that they spake of , is the very like to that other speech of his to the samaritane woman , occasioned by e the water that hee had asked of her ; f he that drinketh of this water shall thirst againe ; but he that drinketh of the water that i shall giue him , shall neuer thirst more , &c. which had it been considered , would easily haue assoyled those difficulties , that ( as g iansenius obserueth ) so much troubled augustine , and caietan , yea and iansenius himselfe too . nor was there any necessity that the bread of the eucharist should bee more mentioned in the one place , then the drinke of it in the other . . because h christs bodie , as by faith it is receiued , was not wanting to those of old time , that liued before christs incarnation . what hee giueth vs heere wee take , that christs body was by faith receiued euen before hee was incarnate . but how prooueth this that christ therefore spake there of a sacramentall eating of it ? and not rather that he called home those his carnall followers , from the corporall feeding , either on i the bread that they had eaten of , or the k manna that they mentioned , and l would faine still haue been fed with , that they might liue without labour , not to an eating of sacramentall bread , which they would not haue much misliked , but to that t spirituall feeding , u which as well their holy forefathers , as all true and faithfull christians now , were eternally saued by . yea this may be confirmed by bellarmines owne grants : who first confesseth this as x a certaine truth , that there is no mention at all of the eucharist in all that our sauiours discourse , before those wordes , ( which were spoken after hee had done y speaking of the manna ) z the bread that i will giue is my flesh , that i will giue for the life of the world . . hee granteth expresly that those wordes , a i am the brad of life ; hee that commeth to me shall not hunger , &c. doe b not properly belong to the sacrament . . he obserueth c a three fold bread spoken of by our sauiour : the first , that d materiall bread , e that christ had fed them withall : the second f spirituall bread , g himselfe incarnate , h which hee wisheth them to get , and must i by faith be apprehended , that it may refresh ●s : the third ( hee might well haue said k m●nna , which he omitteth , termed also l bread there , but ) m the sacramentall bread ( saith he ) expressed in those wordes . n the bread that i will giue , is my fl●sh that i will giue for the life of the world : as if this were not the same spirituall bread that hee spake of before . . being pressed with this that there is no bread at all in the eucharist ( as they say ) k & therfore it cannot be the sacramentall bread that is there spoken of , neither can it bee meant of the bread that christ was to giue in the supper , as hee elsewhere had said : he saith that p bread there signifieth not wheaten bread , q nor christs body absolutely , but r meate or food in generall : and so the sence of it is this ; the bread , that is , the meate , that i will giue , is my flesh it selfe , that is to be crucified and staine for the saluation of mankind . and he addeth that s peraduenture our sauiour called his flesh sometimes bread , to shew that vnder the species of bread it was to be eaten . so that all the force of bellarmines argument is but meerely coniecturall , and dependeth vpon a peraduenture , which hee cannot certainely auerre . but without all peraduenture hee affirmed before that the bread of which our sauiour said ; u my father giueth you the true bread from heauen ; and x the bread of god is hee that came from heauen and giueth life to the world : and y i am the bread of life ; hee that commeth to mee shall neuer hunger ; and hee that beleeueth in mee shall neuer thirst : and z i am the bread that came downe from heauen : and againe , a i am the bread of life : and b this is the bread that came downe from heauen , that whosoeuer eateth thereof should neuer die : and c i am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen : if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer : that the bread i say , of which hee said all this , was not the encharist , or the sacramentall bread , and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it . and well may wee put it out of peraduenture , that the bread of which our sauiour saith d it is his flesh that he wil giue for the life of the world , and e whosoeuer eateth of it , hath life euerlasting ; f which no man also can haue without it ; is no other then that of which hee had before said , that g it is himselfe , and that h it giueth life to the world , and i life euerlasting to euery one that eateth of it : the rather also for that our sauiour himselfe so informeth vs when he saith , ( not k passing as bellarmine would haue it from a second bread to a third , but more particularly expressing what the second bread was , and repeating more fully what before hee had said ) m i am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen : if any man eate of this bread , hee shall liue for euer : n and the bread that i will giue ( what bread , thinke we , but the same that he was euen then speaking of ? which yet was o none of the sacramentall bread , saith bellarmine ) is my flesh that i will giue for the life of the world . those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramentall bread or the eucharist , no more then the former . but leaue wee bellarmine , and returne we to this our defendant , whom we are principally now to deale with . his last argument out of tolet is not so much for the eucharist , as against the spirituall eating christs flesh and drinking his blood by faith . if our sauiour had meant nothing but that they should beleeue in him , it had been a strange course by such an obscure manner of speaking p to driue away so many that had formerly followed him and beleeued in him , without any word added that might open this darke doctrine . to omit that here againe he departeth from augustine , who q saith thus expresly ; our lord being about to giue the holy ghost called himself bread exhorting vs tobeleeue in him . r for to beleeue in him is to eate that liuing bread . he that beleeueth in him feedeth on him , s he is fatted inuisibly , because he is inuisibly bred againe : he is there filled , where he is renewed . and again , t they that shed christs blood , drank his blood whē they beleeued in him ; and u they drank it by beleeuing in him . . it pleased our sauiour sometime , as to x nicodemus , and to y the people oft-times , to speake things in obscure parables , which yet to them he did not explicate . “ nor may any taxe the wisedome of christ without impiety for so doing . yea * so ( saith augustine ) he spake that here which he would not haue all to vnderstand . . those that went away from him vpon it , were ( as our sauiour himselfe intimateth ) z such as followed him onely to be fed ; and did not beleeue in him . . if his meaning had beene that they were to eate of his very flesh it selfe miraculously made of bread , as these men would make vs beleeue , had it not beene as obscure and as difficult for them to haue conceiued it ? . it is not true that our sauiour added nothing to explicate himselfe . augustine in the place before cited * sheweth that he did . and both in the beginning , when a hee first told them of this bread : and d they desired him euer to giue them of it ; he maketh them answer in these words ; c i am the bread of life : hee that commeth to me shall neuer hunger ; and he that beleeueth in me shall neuer thirst : and in the processe of his speech againe , d uerely , verely , i say vnto you , hee that beleeueth in mee , hath life euerlasting : whereby e saith iansenius , they might well haue vnderstood , in what manner hee would giue them his flesh to eate . who also thence gathereth ( agreeably to augustine and other of the ancients ) that * it is all one to feed on christ , and to beleeue in him : as also in the conclusion and shutting vp of all , when hee saw how they mistooke him : “ it is the spirit that quickneth , the flesh availeth nothing : the wordes that i speake are spirit and life . in which wordes saith f the same iansenius ( out of chrysostome , theophylact , and augustine ) hee sheweth how they should vnderstand what before he had said . my aduersaries arguments to the contrary are meerely topicall , and prooue nothing . for first it is false , that the faithfull iewes before christ did sacramentally receiue our sauiour as well as we : which hee barely affirmeth and prooueth not , page . secondly , those words of christ , except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood , you shall not haue life in you ; was a precept respectiuely giuen and onely obliging such persons to an actuall receiuing of the sacrament as they were to whom it was vttred ; such persons ( to wit ) as are by age capable of sacramentall manducation . and surely if christs words be onely vnderstood , as my aduersarie would haue them , of spirituall eating christ by faith , they must necessarily import a precept more impossible to be fulfilled by children then sacramentally to receiue him . for sooner may children receiue the sacrament , especially drinke of the consecrated chalice ( as anciently in the greeke and latine churches they were went to doe ) then actually beleeue in him . his next argument pag. . maketh more ( if this minister had wit to discerne the force thereof ) against his owne exposition of christs words , then it doth against our vnderstanding of them . for as all that receiue sacramentally christs flesh and blood , are not saued ; no more are all that spiritually and by faith eate him . this being sufficient for the veritie of our sauiours speeches that the sacrament is ordained to produce those excellent and heauenly effects which christs promises there import in the soules of such as worthily receiue it ; and such centrarily as come vnworthily thereunto receiue death and iudgement to themselues by it . as for those few catholike writers who haue denied christs words in that . chap. of saint iohn to haue beene vnderstood at all of sacramentall manducation ; i answer , that their number is not great , and their authoritie of no weight at all against a numberlesse multitude of ancient fathers and moderne doctors of better note contrarily vnderstanding them ; yeelding better reasons for that their literall true explication , and easily soluing all hereticall obiections gathered from the literall sense of our sauiours words in that chapter against our communion vnder one kinde and other points of catholike doctrine . and sithence my aduersaerie will not sticke to contemne these very authors in their other knowne catholike doctrines , why doth he so highly value and mainely vrge them in this opinion , wherein without any hereticall intention or obstinacie of iudgement they differ from vs ? § . at length he commeth to refute mine arguments ; which he saith are topicall , and prooue nothing . my first argument is this : none are saued but such as so feede on christ , as is there spoken of . but many are saued that neuer fed on christ in the eucharist ; as the fathers before christ ; the children of the faithfull that die infants , &c. ergò it is not spoken of the eucharist . to this he answereth . . that i barely affirme that the iewes before christ did sacramentally receiue christ as well as we , but i prooue it not . it is true ; i say obiter that they fed on christs flesh spiritually as well as we now doe : though that be no part of mine argument . and i adde a place or two of augustine for the proofe of it grounded on the apostles words , . cor. . , . which seeing that this shifter ouerslippeth , let him heare bishop iansenius himselfe ( not to goe any further ) relate a little more at large , to wit , that g the good iewes in the old testament were quickned by eating of manna , because vnder that visible foode they also spiritually did eate the true bread of life by manna signified . or if iansenius will not serue , let him heare their great albert ; h there is ( saith he ) a three-fold eating of christ ; sacramentally onely , spiritually onely , or sacramentally and spiritually both . in the first sort * all that euer were saued did eate : in the second sort euill christians eate him in the sacrament : in the third sort , good communicants onely . and againe , alleadging those words of the apostle ; i all those good auncients in the manna vnderstood beleeued and tasted christ himselfe , and were thereby saued . and this no papist ( i suppose ) will be so absurd as to deny . but this is but a by-matter , no part of the maine argument ; and therefore i forbeare here to insist further on it . . that is as impossible for children to eate christ by faith spiritually , as to receiue him sacramentally in the eucharist . not to runne out into more questions then needs must at the present , i answer : . many yong ones die , though at yeeres of discretion , when in ordinary course they may well haue faith , and beleeue actually , yet ere they be admitted to the eucharist : and yet is not their saluation at all thereby preindiced . . by the doctrine of their church euen k infants haue an habite of faith infused into them in baptisme . . neither is it a thing impossible for the spirit of god by an extraordinary manner to worke faith in such infants as are to be saued dying before yeeres of discretion ; no more then it was to regenerate iohn baptist l in his mothers wombe : of whom gregorie therefore saith that he was m new bred yet vnborne . . the speech is of the same latitude and extent at least with those other ; n whosoeuer beleeueth in me , hath life eternall : and , o whosoeuer beleeueth not in the sonne of god. shall neuer p liue , but q shall be damned : and the like ; which comprehend those onely , to whom it appertaineth actually to come vnto christ , and to beleeue in him , r saith iansenius . and that is enough for my purpose . § . my second argument was thus framed . all that so feede on christ , are eternally saued : our sauiour so s saith . but many feede on the eucharist that are eternally damned . ergò christ speaketh not there of orall eating in the eucharist . now this argument ( saith he ) if i had wit to discerne the force of it , maketh more against vs then against them . and why so ? forsooth , because all are not saued that spiritually and by faith feede on christ. this is like b●llarmines bold assertion , that t some that beleeue in christ perish eternally , because they die before they can haue a priest to assoile them . and what is this but to say that all that doe truly beleeue in christ are not saued ? yea what is this ( not to repeate all the allegations both of scripture and fathers produced for the proofe of the proposition , which he purposely passeth ouer , not being able to answere ) but to giue our sauiour himselfe and the holy ghost the lye , who so oft say ; u whosoeuer beleeueth in him shall be saued . nor is it sufficient ( as he addeth ) for to verifie our sauiours speeches that the sacrament is ordained to produce such effects in the soules of such as worthily receiue it , though the contrary befall those that doe vnworthily rēceiue it . for ( to answer them againe in the words of one of their owne authors ) our sauiours words imply manifestly x a certaine effect ( as he speaketh ) not a matter that may be : ( as augustine and cyril also in the places cited by me there shew , ) whereupon also he concludeth that y it is apparent thence that all are not there said to eate the flesh of christ and drinke his blood , that receiue the sacraments of christs body and blood . § . to their owne authors , cardinals , schoelemen , canonists , publike professors , or readers of diuinity in their vniuersities , ( a friers i might haue said too , ) and in steed of iesuites ( being better informed by him ) i now say , bishops , which will not much mend the matter . . hee answereth that they bee but few in number , and their authoritie of no great weight , in regard of those that hold the contrarie . yet one of their owne bishops ( though of an other mind himselfe ) confesseth , that there are b very many of them that are of this iudgement . but had there beene but one or two of them ( especially of note , as some of them were ) of some one sort , it might well haue weighed much on our side . for c the witnesse of an aduersarie is of no small weight . how much more , when so many of all sorts , of so speciall repute , shall so vniformely speake for vs , and herein accord with vs ? . he demandeth of his aduersarie , why he doth so highly value them and mainely vrge them herein , when in other points he will not sticke to contemne them . had he any wit in his adle braine , he would neuer haue asked this idle question it is as if in a law-suite , because a man taketh hold ( as he may well doe ) of somewhat that falleth from his aduersaries , or is granted him and confessed by them , because it furthereth his owne cause , he were therefore bound to beleeue or admit all that euer they say to the preiudice of his right . the greater differences are betweene them and vs , yea in the present controuersie concerning the manner of christs presence in the sacrament , the lesse cause there is to suspect that they should speake partially for vs ; and the greater cause to suppose they were by euidence of truth enforced to confesse that , that should take away some of those grounds , whereby the cause that themselues stiffely maintained , is ordinarily vpheld . . he addeth in the end : these men herein without hereticall intention , or obstin●cie of iudgement differed from vs. whom he meaneth by that , vs , i leaue to himselfe to explaine : and the lesse hereticall their intention was ( as he vnderstandeth hereticall ) the lesse suspition there is of collusion or any purpose therein to gratifie vs ; and so much the stronger therefore is their testimonie for vs. * the testimonie of a meere stranger , or no well-willer to the cause maketh it to be of more moment . but when he speaketh of obstinacie of iudgement , he glaunceth at a secret in their church , which i shall in a word or two take occasion hereby to discouer . it is no matter what a man hold or maintaine among them , so long as he acknowledgeth the popes supremacie , the maine pillar of their faith , and submit himselfe and his workes wholly to his censure , and so be ready to vnsay what he saith , when he will haue him so to doe . for his censure indeede alone is that which they call commonly the censure of the church . and to this purpose they confesse that many of their writers haue held the very same points , for which they condemne vs now as heretikes , of whom yet they say that they were not heretikes , because they submitted themselues to this censure . i will adde an instance or two hereof out of bellarmine . . in this very particular ; he confesseth that d many of the authors before mentioned expound that . chap. of iohn as the heretikes doe : but they submit themselues ( saith he ) and their writings to the censure of the councels and popes ; which the heretikes doe not . . in the present controuersie , durandus held not a transubstantiation , but a transformation in the sacrament : e which opinion ( saith he ) is hereticall ; and yet was hee no heretike ; because he was ready to yeeld to the iudgement of the church . . ambrose catharines opinion of the ministers intention in the sacrament , differeth not ( f saith he ) for ought i see , from the opinion of chemnicius and other heretikes , saue that he in the end of his booke submitteth himselfe to the apostolike sea and councel . . durandus in the point concerning merite of workes g held as we now doe , that no reward was due to them but out of gods meere liberalitie , and that it were temerarious and blasphemous to say , that god were vniust , if he should not so reward them : and yet was he also no heretike for the cause before-mentioned . and thus are we at length arriued ( after much winding to and fro , while wee follow a shifting wind ) at the end of the former part of my discourse : wherein hath beene shewed , beside other arguments , confirming the same , by the confession of their owne authors , that those places of scripture doe not enforce any such corporall presence of christ in the sacrament as papists maintaine , which they commonly produce to prooue it . diuision . pag. . my aduersarie becommeth a more formall disputant then before : and against our doctrines of transubstantiation and reall presence of our sauiour in the sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise argument ; looke what our sauiour tooke , that he blessed : what he blessed that he brake ; what he brake that he deliuered to his disciples ; what he deliuered , of that he said , this is my body : but it was bread that he tooke : and bread therefore that he blessed ; bread that hee brake ; and bread that he deliuered ; and bread consequently of which he said , this is my body . which is a formel●sse and fallacious kinde of arguing , wholly forcelesse , if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy fathers to be true , that christs words haue force now as then they had , when himselfe vttred them , to change the substance of bread and wine into his body and blood : as if after the like manner of the water conuerted by christ into wine , i should make this deduction : the ministers drew water out of the well ; carried what they drew : therefore that which they drew and carried was water . if the minister shall tell me , that they drew water ; but carried it made wine by our sauiours omnipotent operation : so i will tell him , that christ tooke bread and wine , and conuerted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them , as he by his plaine words pronounced of them , saying , this is my body , &c. hitherto , if you will beleeue this worthy doctor , his aduersarie hath disputed without forme or figure , that you may not maruaile why his answer is so diffused , deformed and mis-figured ; for the fault ( it seemeth ) was in his aduersaries mishapen syllogismes ; which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them . here ( he confesseth ) he becommeth a more formall dissutant ; and i hope therefore we shall finde him a more formall defendant . yet ere he come to my first argument he must needs haue a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of transsubstantiation and the reall presence ( corporall , hee should haue said for more perspicuitie ; for so i speake ) ignorantly the one with the other . i perceiue well what his drift herein is ; to make some beleeue that howsoeuer transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times ; yet a reall , that is a corporall presence was euer acknowledged . but if we will beleeue bellarmine , aquinas , and the councel of trent , the one of them is euery iot as ancient as the other , yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other . h this , ( the councel of trent telleth vs , ) was alwaies the faith of the church , that by the consecration of bread and wine , the whole substance of the bread was turned into the substance of christs body , and the whole substance of wine into his blood. and , i a body , ( saith aquinas ) cannot be , where it was not before , but either by locall motion , or by the conuersion of some other thing into it . but it is manifest that christs bodie beginneth not to bee in the sacrament by any locall motion : and therefore it must needs come there by the conuersion of the bread into it . yea , k by locall motion it cannot be there , nor by any meanes but by this . and bellarm. cleane contrary to himselfe else-where , l it cannot be , that the words of christ should be true , but by such a conversion and transmutation as the catholike church calleth transubstantiation . it is no matter of ignorance therefore in this controversie to confound those things , which those we deale with conioyne , yea which they tell vs cannot be dis-ioyned . to ouerthrow this their opinion then of transubstantiation and christs corporall presence in the eucharist ; i first reason from the context , m christ tooke bread , and blessed it , and gaue it , and said ; this is my body . whence i thus argued : what christ tooke , hee blessed ; what he blessed , he brake ; what he brake , he deliuered ; what he deliuered , of that he said , this is my body . but it was bread that hee tooke , blessed , brake and deliuered ; ( n it is bread , saith durant a popish writer , that all those verbes are referred to . ) it was bread therefore of which he said , this is my body . now this ( saith mine adversarie forgetting , it seemeth , what he had said but euen now , that heere i began to dispute formally ) is a formlesse , fallacious and wholly forcelesse kinde of arguing , if we suppose with the holy fathers ( who belike held transubstantiation then as well as a reall and corporall presence , if this worthy man vpon his bare word may bee beleeued ) that the substances of bread and wine were by the force of christs wordes turned into christs body and blood . that is , as if hee should say , this argument is of no force at all , if the point in question be granted , or if that be yeelded , that is not at all in the text. yea but this is as if a man should make the like deduction of o the water that christ turned into wine ; the ministers drew water out of the well ; carried what they drew : therefore that which they drew and carried was water . how formall a disputant soeuer this mans adversary is ; sure i am hee disputeth neither in forme nor figure . but let vs helpe him a little to bring his argument into forme ; and then hee shall haue an answer . thus , it seemeth , he would argue , if he could hit on it : what the ministers drew out of the well , they caried : but they drew water : therefore they carried water . and now i deny his proposition : the ministers carried not that that they drew : they drew water ; they carried not water but wine . and for his addition hereunto , that christ after hee tooke the bread and wine , and before hee distributed them , by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his owne body and blood , as hee sheweth by his wordes plainely pronounced of them , this is my body . though it be nothing to the argument , and a meere begging of the point in question , yet let vs consider a little of it , where in the text hee findeth that christ thus converted them : for the wordes , this is my body ( as was formerly shewed ) doe not euince it . but he findeth it ( it seemeth ) in the benediction or the blessing of the bread ; which is yet against the common conceite of his associates , that say there was no conversion at all till christ vttered those words , this is my body . heare we bellarmine a little p arguing this point against luther . hauing acknowledged ( as was said formerly ) that christs words , this is my body , may beare either the sence that wee giue them , or the sense that they giue them , but not that sense , that the lutherans giue : for ( saith hee ) the lord tooke bread , and blessed it , and gaue it his disciples , saying , this is my body . bread therefore he tooke ; bread hee blessed , and of bread of he said , this is my body . either therefore christ by blessing changed the bread into his body truely and properly , or he changed it improperly and figuratiuely , by adding signification ( or as theodoret rather , * by adding to nature that grace ) which before it had not . if hee changed it truely and properly , then gaue he bread changed , and of that bread so changed he truely said , this is my body , that is , that which is contained vnder the shape of bread is no more bread , but my body : and this we say , if it be said that he changed the bread figuratiuely , then shall there be that bread given the apostles , that is siguratiuely christs body , and those words , this is my body haue this sense , this is the figure of my body : and so the protestants hold . yea so indeede ( as you haue heard before ) did augustine in precise tearmes after tertullian expound them , who belike then by bellarmines ground was in this point a protestant . now let either bellarmine , or this answerer prooue that our sauiour by his blessing wrought any other conuersion , and wee will yeeld vnto them . but they will as soone proue that christ turned the children that r hee blessed into bread , as that he turned the bread by blessing it into his naturall bodie . yea runne ouer all the whole chapter in bellarmine s wherein hee propoundeth to himselfe to proue transubstantiation out of gods word , in the entrance whereunto hee confesseth that the words of christ may be taken as well our way as their way , but not luthers way ; and you shall finde that there is neuer a word in it , much lesse any sound proofe , either to prooue that christs wordes are so to be vnderstood as they say , or that they are not to bee vnderstood as we say ; but it is wholly spent in confuting of luthers opinion , to wit , that bread remaineth together with christs body in the sacrament . which opinion also b themselues confesse that luther admonished by melancthon renounced before he died . hee beginneth with c a first argument , without any second , the summe and substance whereof was before related : either his second ( he saw ) was vnsound , and it seemed best therefore to suppresse and conceale it , or else he wanted a second , and thought to let the first though without a fellow , stand still as first by the rule of the ciuilians , who say , d that is first , that hath none before it , though no other come after it : or , that is first that hath none before it , that is last that hath none after it . and so is this bellarmines both first and last argument there . and in conclusion he is faine to flie to the councels and pretended fachers . s though there were some ambiguity ( saith hee ) in our sauiour christs words , yet it is taken away by councels ; ( what councels think we ? surely none but such as themselues held within these . yeeres as himself afterward sheweth ) and the consent of fathers : which remaineth yet to be shewed . as for the benediction , the best , nay the sole argument , whereby hee can prooue such 〈…〉 conuersion wrought there is this ; g christ is not wont to giue thankes but when hee is about to worke some great and maruelous thing : for he is read onely to haue given thankes , h when hee would multiply the fiue loaues ; and againe i when the seuen : k and when hee was to raise lazarus from the dead ; and lastly , l in the institution of this sacrament . and in like manner hee is not wont to blesse insensible things , but when he was to worke some admirable thing with them : for he is neuer read so to haue done , but m when hee blessed the bread to be multiplied ; and n in the encharist . as on the contrary o when hee cursed the figtree : for it withered away instantly . for gods blessing is a well-doing ; not a praying , as ours ; but an effecting , as appeareth , when p hee blessed the beasts : for by that blessing hee bestowed fruitfulnesse vpon them . nor do we reade that christ euer blessed the water in baptisme . and what of all this ? therefore ( forsooth ) it must needs follow that christ by that blessing turned the bread into his owne naturall body . where to omit that it is not true , that christ is neuer read to haue giuen thankes oftner then is here said : for at q other times also hee is reported to haue r giuen thankes , and that when hee was not about to worke any miracle neither : nor is it truely said , that christs blessing was not a prayer , ( which that it was , not s iansenius onely , but * maldonat the iesuite from some of the ancients also confesseth ) being conceiued by him as man , but effected by him as god : and beside , that it is absurd to reason à non scripto ad non factum , hee is not read oft●er to haue blessed or given thankes , therefore hee neuer oftner did either : yea it is impious to imagine that christ , who for our sakes made himselfe subiect to the law , did not ordinarily t blesse and sanctifie the food , that he tooke commonly , by thankes-giuing and prayer : who denyeth but that christ went about a marueilous worke , when hee was to institute this sacrament ? or who doubteth but that christs benediction was a most effectuall benediction , and as effectuall as that of gods was in the creation , whereby u he blessed the creatures ? by vertue whereof yet the creatures so blessed were not transformed into new shapes , but had a naturall facultie only conferred vpon them which before they had not , nor of thēselues could haue ; and so haue the elements a spirituall and supernaturall ( by our acknowledgement ) in the sacrament . but who seeth not what a silly and senselesse consequence this is ? bellarmine could not be so silly and sottish as not to see it himselfe . christ gaue thankes and blessed the bread ere hee gaue it : therefore hee wrought such a miracle on it as wee would haue ; or , therefore ( if you will ) he turned it into the very substance of his body . it may as well bee said that samuel wrought some miracle by x blessing the sacrifice , as our sauiour here by blessing the bread . for the water in baptisme it is easie to answer , though it be little to the purpose : it is not to bee maruelled if hee be not read to haue blessed it : for we are told expresly that y he neuer baptised , saue as he doth . z spiritually baptise to this day . but dare any say that his disciples were so prophane as to baptise without blessing ? or must a bald , yea a baals priests blessing of bread at this day be needes more effectuall then their blessing of water then was ? or doe not e the ancient fathers compare the blessing of the water and the effect thereof in baptisme with the blessing of the waters and “ the moouing of the spirit vpon them in the creation ? and why must the blessing then of necessity import such a change more in the one sacrament then in the other ? diuision . as for the names of bread and wine after giuen by saint paul and the holy fathers to the consecrated parts of the sacrament ; which with this minister is a great argument tediously vrged , page . hee cannot be ignorant ( i suppose ) as not to conceiue the little sorce of the argument . for if aarons red after it was conuerted into a serpent , and retained not the essence or figure of a rod , bee notwithstanding called so ; with much more reason may the accidents of bread and wine still remaining and containing in them christs body and blood , retaine their old names : especially with articles superadded , importing the singular and diuine excellency of them , still vsed by saint paul , cor. , . as this bread , this chalice ; the bread which wee breake , &c. willing them to prooue themselues , &c. before they come to eate of this bread ; least eating it vnworthily , they eate their owne damnation , not discerning the body of christ ; or ( which is all one ) not distinguishing it from other common bread , it being indeed bread blessed and conuerted into the very body of christ , and therefore not irreuerently and vnworthily to be receiued by any christian vnder paine of damnation ; as the ancient doctor and holy mariyr of christs church a s. cyprian affirmeth : b s. basil also , c s. chrysostome , d s. ierome , e origen , and f s. augustine , with other fathers express●ly teach the sinne of such as come vnworthily to the sacrament to be haynous , and equall even to the sinne of such as betrayed and killed christ , because they presume vnworthily to eate that bread wherein the son of god himselfe is contained . my second argument was taken from the expresse words of scripture , wherein after consecration there is said to be bread and wine in the sacrament . . the little force of this argument ( hee saith ) i cannot be so ignorant as not to conceiue : because aarons rod after it was conuerted into a serpent , and retained not the essence or figure of a rod , yet was notwithstanding so called , &c. and hee cannot bee so ignorant as not to conceiue that this very obiection is there by me propounded and answered : yea , and that bellarmine himselfe reiecteth it as g not very sound , but such as iust exception may be taken vnto . did hee thinke that any one not voyd of common sense would not soone see this ? . he saith that the accidents of bread and wine remaining retaine still their old names . to what purpose ? for who doubteth but that the accidents , that is , the colour , sauour , shape , sise , &c. of the elements , remaine still in the eucharist , not without a subiect , as they say , ( for how can accidents so do , when the very * essence of an accident , as it is an accident , is to be in some subiect ? ) but in the selfe same subiect , wherein formerly they were ? and what should hinder but that remaining so , they should retaine still their old names ? but neither are the accidents of bread and wine , bread and wine : and it is absurd to say either that the apostle by bread meant the accidents of bread onely ; when he said '' the bread which wee breake , &c. and , “ let a man eate of that bread , &c. or that by the fruit of the vine our sauiour meant nothing but the acci dents of wine , when hee said , * i will drinke henceforth no more of this fruit of the vine , &c. so that his reason is ●idiculous , the accidents remaining retaine still their old names ; therefore the substance that is gone retaineth it owne name still : or , the colour , savour shape and sise retaine their old names , and that which is in the eucharist what euer it be , is said still to be white , round , thin well tasted , &c. and that with good reason , since it is so still as it was ; therefore though it be no more bread now , yet is it said to be so still . sure reason and this mans braine were farre asunder , when he writ this . . he addeth that the apostle when hee calleth it bread , ( for so i suppose he would say , and not when he speaketh of the accidents of bread onely ) speaketh with such articles superadded , as may note the singular and divine excellency of it , this bread , and so this chalice , and the bread which we breake : and requireth men to examine themselues before they come there : least they sinne in not distinguishing it from other common bread , &c. and that the ancient fathers shew what an horrible sinne it is to come vnreuerently to it , &c. because they presume to eate that bread , wherein the son of god himselfe is contained . and is not this a most silly argument to prooue that that hee should prooue , vnlesse you take in withall his ly at the last , where he saith that the sonne of god himselfe is contained in the bread , which hee falsely also fathereth vpon those fathers , as would haue appeared , had hee cited their wordes ; and which being the point in question ( had it beene propounded as it should haue beene ) vnlesse you grant him hee sticketh fast still and cannot goe forward ? for may not a man say as much of baptisme , that the holy ghost speaks of it with such h elogies superadded , as may note the singular & diuine excellency of it ; that those therefore that are of yeeres i ought with great care to addresse and prepare themselues vnto it , when they are to be baptised , and that those that distinguish it not from ordinary water , or vse it irreuerently , commit an hainous sinne euen against christ himselfe ? and yet who euer dreamed therefore of any such transubstantiation in baptisme ? yea the very same authours here produced by him so plentifully ( though by their bare names onely out of bellarmine ) in a point for the generall not at all denied , to wit the hainousnesse of their sinne that abuse this sacrament : yet distinguish expressely some of them ( as in mine allegations i haue noted ) betweene the bread of the lord , ( as k the apostle tearmeth it ) and the bread the lord ; of which l our sauiour in the gospel ; betweene the body that was on the crosse , and the bread that is on the bord : which he taketh no notice of . . and yet neither is it true that so confidently here he affirmeth , that all those fathers in all those places , yea or that any one of them , in any one of those places that he quoteth , ( nor as i verily beleeue , in any place of their writings else-where ) doe ( as he saith ) expressely and purposely teach that the sinne of vnworthy receiuers is equall ( for the hainousnesse of it ) with the sinne of those that betraied and killed christ. which no sober diuine will say ; nor can it be iustified , vnlesse the stoicall paritie of sinnes ( charged m vpon iouinian by some , n how truly i know not , o vpon vs by some of their side , falsely i am sure , p bellarmine himselfe therein acquitting vs ) be in theologie admitted . bellarmine indeede q in the chapter , whence he tooke all these quotations as he found them there mustered together , hath somewhat out of oecumenius that may seeme to looke that way , ( r he compareth vnworthy communicants , saith he , with those that killed christ ) which this man hauing strained more then an inch further , ascribeth vnaduisedly and vntruly to them all . whereas onely basil ( if those ascetica at least be his ) and chrysostome , ( who is wont to presse farre in reproouing of sinne ) the one of them willeth vs to repaire holily to gods bord , least we incurre the iudgement of them that killed christ : the other of them in one of the places there quoted saith , that as those that defile the princes robe are t punished in like manner , as those also that rend it ; so it is u not vnlikely or vnequal that those that with an vnholy heart receiue the lords body , vndergoe x the same punishment with those that tore it with nailes ; that is , that the one be damned for so doing as well as the other ; which may well be , albeit their sinnes be not equall . the rest of them , to wit , origen , hierome and augustine haue not any one word at all in any of all those places of the sinne of those that killed christ ; yea the places well weighed vtterly ouerthrow the ground of that y argument , which from the words of the apostle , and their application of it , they would frame to prooue a reall and essentiall presence of christs naturall body and blood in the eucharist , because such vnworthy receiuers are said to be a guilty of wronging christs body and blood , and thereby b to acquire iudgemen● or condemnation to themselues . for beside that in the one place augustine saith nothing but this , that the sacrament of baptisme , as well as that other of the eucharist , is a true sacrament euen to those that vse it otherwise then they ought : which is nothing at all to that for which here it is alleadged . in d the other place he saith nothing of the eucharist , but what he saith also both of e the word of god , or the law , and baptisme expressely in the same place ; to wit , that euen f holy and diuine things hurt those that vse them otherwise then they ought . yea hierome goeth further in the place alleadged , and applieth what he speaketh not to the sacraments onely of the new testament , but to the sacrifices also ( which were sacraments too ) of the old . for commenting on those words , h wherein doe we pollute thee ? i when the sacraments ( saith he ) are violated , he is violated whose sacraments they are . and that is all he saith there . now were not the k sacrifices and the sacraments of the old testament ( as the l paschall lambe at least ) sacraments of christ , yea * and of his body and blood too ? if they were , as no doubt can be but they were , then by hieromes rule was christ and his body and blood wronged in them , when any wrong was done to them , albeit it were not essentially or corporally present in them : nor doth such wrong therefore or guilt acquired by euill vsage of the eucharist imply any such corporall presence thereof in it . . let me adde onely , that this defendant telleth vs , ●hat the sonne of god is contained in that bread that is eaten ●n the eucharist : and yet by their doctrine there is no bread at all there . how is he in bread where no bread is ? or how is there no bread there , where in bread the sonne of god is ( as he telleth vs ) conteined ? what is this but that which bellarmine condemneth in the lutherans , to forge vs m a christ impanated , or enclosed in bread ? nor doth their owne doctrine any whit mend the matter . for as bellarmine saith of rupert us and some others that they make christ haue n a breaden body : so may wee as truly say the same of them . for what is a body made of bread but a breaden body ? but that ( you see ) this doctor here swarueth from and saith , that christs body is but couched in bread. and i maruaile not to finde this minister to corrupt the sayings of the holy fathers to his hereticall purpose , sithence he maketh bellarmine himselfe page . to speake like a protestant , and seeme to say against his owne expresse doctrine , that the bread blessed and consecrated on the altar is not , nor cannot be called christs body : whereas bellarmine onely disputeth against luther teaching naturall bread to remaine still in the sacrament , and making the sense of christs words , this is my body , to be the same as if he had said , this bread is my body ; saith this and no more , that naturall bread cannot be otherwise then figuratiuely and significantly affirmed to be christs body : speaking not at all of bread consecrated , and by consecration conuerted into the true body of christ , yet still retaining the name of bread for the accidents of bread still remaining , as this false fellow would haue ; frequently citing authors which he vnderstandeth not . § . and here againe , as one running the wild goose race , he windeth backe to a passage in the former argument : and saith , he marueileth not to finde me corrupt the sayings of the fathers ( he thought sure euery one would beleeue whatsoeuer he said , though he neuer assaied to shew it ) since i make bellarmine himselfe speake like a protestant . no : i make him speake nothing but what o hee saith of himselfe : and by his owne graunts prooue that either the auncient fathers spake very absurdly , or else they ment as we meane . the argument is this : the ancients fathers say oft , that the bread in the eucharist is christs body . but this saying ( saith bellarmine , ) this bread is my body , must either be taken figuratiuely , or else it is absurd and impossible . the fathers therfore when they vsed such speeches , shewed euidently thereby that they ment as we meane , ( that is , they vnderstood christs words figuratiuely ) or else ( by bellarmines confession ) they spake very absurdly . nor is it enough to prooue that i corrupt bellarmine , to say that he disputeth in that place against luther , who taught that bread remained still in the sacrament : for what is that to the purpose ? much lesse to say vntruly , that he spake not of bread consecrated ; when the very question is there concerning the consecrated bread . but i cite authors ( he saith ) that i vnderstand not . it is true indeede ; in this very place i cite some sayings of bellarmine , that neither i , nor any such dull-heads as i am ( i thinke ) can easily vnderstand ; as for example , where p he saith , as i here cite him , that the priest maketh christs body of bread ; and yet christs body is not made by the priest : and againe , q that the body of christ that was crucified , was truly or verily made of bread : and yet confuting rupertus he saith else-where , that r it was not a breaden body that was crucified for vs ; as tertullian inferred from the doctrine of the marci●nites ; and as we may well inferre from theirs . he waiueth s else-where metaphysicall subtilties in disputing of this sacrament . and t taxeth caluine for his fond and foolish metaphysicks . but these are such transcendent subtilties , if not absurdities , as any metaphysicks will afford . and this deepe metaphysicall doctor , that hath no want of wit , and vnderstandeth him so well , should haue done well to vnfold to vs these mysteries , and arreade vs these riddles : whereas he very vncharitably passeth them by , and onely controlling vs for our ignorance , leaueth vs sticking still in the bryers with them , not vouchsafing to helpe vs out . pag. . he affirmeth it to be most absurd to affirme , as we doe , that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth , or is turned into that which succeedeth onely in the roome thereof ; whereas in euery substantiall conuersion one substance is destroied and another succeedeth in the place thereof by the same action : as where wood is conuerted into fire , &c. the difference betwixt transsubstantiation in the sacrament , and other substantiall naturall conuersions chiefely consisting in this , that the whole substance of bread passeth into another praeexisting substance , christs body , to wit , introduced in place thereof , so as nothing thereof remaineth ; whereas in them the same matter , albeit receiuing a new forme and so made a distinct substance from what it was before , still remaineth : which is to the ministers purpose wholly impertinent , vnlesse hee will falsely and foolishly withall affirme that god can destroy no substance intirely leauing the accidents thereof still remaining , to introduce an other substance in place thereof . and albeit we cannot say of christs body , that it was bread , ( which is another argument of the minister , ibidem ) yet may it be said to haue beene of bread , as being by the same miraculous and omnipotent power of christs words , whereby bread looseth naturall being in place thereof sacramentally produced and made present . and this is without any difficultie affirmed by vs , who know the same in a propertionable manner to be found in all other substantiall and accident all conuersions , howsoeuer his poore iudgement will not serue to consider it : heate ( for example ) was neuer cold , albeit in place thereof produced ; fire was neuer wood , but as a substance ( as naturall vnderstanding might teach him ) essentially different , and produced by the others destruction . § ▪ . after he hath thus recoiled back a little , now he beginneth to make againe forward . and . wheras they not knowing wel how to salu or shift of such absurdities as follow necessarily vpon this their senselesse conceit of the conuersion of bread into christs body , affirme that christs body is therefore said to be made of bread , and the bread said to be turned into christs body , because the bread ceasing to be there , christs body ( as they say ) doth onely come in the roome of it : for they dare not say that christs body is produced of it , or that the substance of the bread is that whereof as the materiall cause christs body is framed , as ashes are made of wood , or glasse of some ashes : and i thereupon reply , that it is absurd to say that a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth , or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome thereof . ( that which u suarez himself also confesseth to be rather a translocation , then a transubstantiatiō , or a true & substantiall conuersion . he telleth me , that , if my poore iudgement would serue to consider it , such a succession is to be found in euery subst●ntiall conuersion , whereby one substance is destroyed , and another succeedeth in the roome of it . ) and consequently ( for that or nothing must follow ) that it is not absurd so to say . did euer man ( thinke we ) either sober or in his right wits thus reason ? in euery substantiall conuersion one thing succeedeth in the roome of another , and is turned into it . therefore whatsoeuer thing doth succeede onely in the roome or place of another , is conuerted into it . suppose a puppy should get vp into the chaire that this disputant had sat in when he writ this discourse , after he quitted it : would he not take it euill , if a man should say therefore that he were turned into a puppy , because the puppy were got into his place . or suppose some light-fingred person hauing pickt his purse and taken a piece of gold or two out of it , should put in a copper counter or two in the roome of it ; would it follow that his gold were really turned into copper , because the one is gone , and the other is come in the roome of it ? or suppose an old house pulled or burnt downe , and an other raised vp againe in the roome of it , and that iust of the same proportion with it : would any man say , that the one were turned into the other , because the one succeeded in the roome of the other being destroied ? but idle and absurd consequences are no strange matters with this disputant for all his great learning , that which a little learning will serue to discouer . . whereas answering that silly shift of theirs , that christs body is called bread still after consecration , as aarons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a serpent , because it had sometime so beene ; i say ( among many other things , which he here ouerslippeth ) that the case , by their owne confession , is not alike : for that , of the rod it may be said that it was once a serpent , but of christs body it cannot be said that euer it was bread ; he replieth ; that albeit we cannot say of christs body that euer it was bread , no more then of heate that euer it was cold , nor of fire we can say that euer it was wood , though by the others destruction it be in place thereof produced , yet it may be said to haue bin of bread ; because in this their prodigious y metamorphosis or z methyleosis , or what euer you will tearme it ; ( for new inuentions require new names ) the whole substance ( to vse his owne tearmes ; that is both the matter and forme ) of bread passeth into a praeexistent substance , to wit , christs body , in the roome of it introduced , so as nothing thereof remaineth , whereas in other naturall conuersions the matter remaineth still , though receiuing another forme . in which few lines it is not easie to tell how many contradictions are implied both to his master bellarmines doctrine , and to his owne assertions . for first , if it cannot be said of christs body that euer it was bread ; here is it affirmed by them , as a bellarmine himselfe also acknowledgeth , that b christs body is therefore called bread , because it was bread before . neither doth bellarmine at all controle them therein : yea c he confesseth , d with caietan , that it may truly be said , e that is now christs body , that once was bread . . if it may be said to haue beene of bread , why may it not be said that once it was bread ? as of adam because he was f of the earth , it may truly be said that once g hee was earth . as for his instances , they are idle : the one is of an accident not made of , but succeeding onely in the roome of another , or in the same subiect whence it hath expelled the other ; and for the other we may say truly that a fire made of wood , not onely was wood once , but is wood still , till the forme of the wood be vtterly destroied , and the wood turned into coales , or dissolued into ashes ; whereof we may also truly then say , that those coales or those ashes were once wood ; in such sense as they say , that the rod was sometime a snake . . if it may at any time be said , christs body hath beene of bread , it might at sometime be said , christs body is of bread : and if of bread , why not h a breaden body ? which yet i bellarmine will by no meanes admit . for what is a body of bread ( as was said before ) but a breaden body , as a pot of earth , an earthen pot , a dish of wood , a wooddendish ? &c. . not to demand if nothing remaine of the bread , what figure , and colour , and weight , and taste it is that we discerne in the eucharist , whither the breads or christs bodie ; because for those things they tell vs that they hang , i know not how nor where , neither in the bread that now is not , nor in christs body neither , * the accidents whereof they are not : and in that answer we must rest ( though it be hard for any man indued with reason so to doe ) for them ; since no other from them can be had : i aske , if the whole substance of the bread be vtterly abandoned , so as nothing thereof remaineth ; how saith k bellarmine , and l other of them , that the bread is not annihilated , or m is not cleerely brought to nothing ? and checke vs for n belying them when we say that any such thing is maintained by them ? albeit their great o master of the sentences say as much . for how is it not annihilated , if nothing remaine of it ? . if no bread bee left in the eucharist , how said hee before , that christ is there contained in bread ; and that the ancient fathers so affirme ? for how can hee be contained in that that is not ? . if the whole substance of it be destroyed so that nothing remaineth of it , how doth the whole substance of it passe ( as hee saith ) into christs body ? for how can that passe into it , that is not at all ? or how can that substance passe into the substance of some other thing , that vtterly perisheth and ceaseth to be , so soone as euer that other substance approacheth ? . if the very substance of bread passeth into the substance of christs body , then christs body ( belike ) doth not barely succeed in the roome of it , ( as before was affirmed ) but is produced therefore and consisteth of it , which yet p they vsually deny . else how doth the substance of the one passe into the substance of the other ? . if the whole substance of bread ( that is , both matter and forme ) passeth into christs body , why may it not as wel be said of christs body , that that body was once bread ; as of q moses his rod it might well bee said , that that rod was once a snake ; or of r the wine that our sauiour so miraculously produced , that that wine was sometime water ? the rather since that but part of the substance , to wit , the matter onely of the snake and the water passed into the substance of the rod and the wine there , whereas the whole substance ( as this fellow beareth vs in hand ) that is , both matter and forme of bread , passeth into christs body here . . to say that one substance passeth into another substance preexisting ; is to say , that that is made , that already is , or that is produced and hath beeing giuen it , that is in beeing already , when as a thing cannot be in making and beeing at once ; nor can beeing be giuen to that , that already is ; or to say , that a creature is now s made , that was fully made before , or that a creature that was before is new made of that that before was not it : yea ( to speake more plainely ) it is all one to as say , that a man is t killed , when hee was dead before ; or is quickened when hee was aliue before ; or is now stript , when hee was starke naked before , or is now bred or begotten , when he was borne before . lastly , to say that christs body long before preexisting is now made of bread that some two or three dayes past had no existence it selfe , is all one as to say , that wine of a twelue-month old is made of grapes that were but yesterday gathered and pressed , and were yet growing the day before ; or that an oke hauing stood vpward of an hundred yeeres , and yet standing in the forrest is sprung vp this yeere of an acorne of the last yeares growth . and consider wee now how well these things agree together : the body of christ is contained in the bread ; and yet there is no bread at all in the eucharist : the body of christ succeedeth onely in the roome of bread ; and yet the substance of the bread passeth into the substance of christs body : the whole substance of bread is so abolished that nothing remaineth of it , and yet the whole substance of the same bread passeth into the substance of christs body : christs body was in beeing before : and yet it is now made of another substance that before it was not : yea christs body that was bread and borne aboue a thousand yeeres since , is now made of a wafer-cake of yesterdayes baking : the whole essence of that wafer cake passeth into christs body ; and yet wee cannot say of christs body , that euer it was that wafer-cake . but like x ropes of sand ( as wee are wont to say ) doe these things hang together : and to spend much time in refuting them may be deemed ( i feare ) as y ridiculous , ( to vse their dennis his tearmes ) as to stand seriously and curiously pulling downe by piece-meale such castles as little children haue in sport built vp of sand . neither is it a good or christian kinde of argument which my adversary in the end of the same . page to this purpose maketh ; other substantiall conversions are sensible and easily discerned , albeit miraculous , as when aarons rod was made a serpent , &c. wheras in the sacrament we see wholly the contrary : therefore we are not to beleeue therein any such conversion ; citing thus for proofe thereof a place of s. augustine in his margent , which directly if hee had marked it , overthroweth his owne doctrine , and purpose of citing it : that which you see ( saith this father ) is bread and a cup : but that which your faith requireth you to be enformed of , is , that the bread is christs body , and the cup his blood . could hee affirme any thing more plainly against this ministers sensuall and absurd argument ; which were it good , would lead vs to beleeue nothing ; g faith being onely of things which appeare not to our vnderstanding or senses . how farre is this carnall , poore , vnlearned man from the holy fathers spirit and doctrine , as i haue formerly cited their assertions ? wherein they teach vs to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses , and with the apostle to captivate our vnderstandings to the obedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith , humbly to bee vpon the warrant of gods word assented vnto , and not ouer-curiously searched after by vs. h we are ( saith s. hillarie , that great doctor of christs church , and victorious champion of his deity ) not to dispute ( as my adversarie doth ) in a secular and sensuall manner of diuine things . for of this naturall veritie of christ in vs ( speaking of the sacrament ) vnlesse we learne of christ himself , we speake foolishly and impiously . wherefore sithence hee saith , i my flesh is truely food , and my blood is truely drinke : hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood , remaineth in mee and i in him : there is no place of doubting left cōcerning the verity of christs body and blood . for now by the profession of our lord and faithfull beleefe which we haue thereof , it is his true flesh and blood : and these being receiued by vs do make vs to be in christ and christ in vs. is not this truth ? surely it is ; but to those that deny iesus christ to be true god , &c. with a cloud of such ancient and vncontrollable testimonies of the holy fathers formerly touched could i confound my sensuall adversary , and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and diuine mysteries instituted by the sonne of god with equall wisedome power and goodnesse for vs ; wherein the omnipotency of him that chiefly doth them is to be assigned for a sufficient reason of them . § . now further , whereas i alleadge among other things that in euery miraculous conversion of bodies there is a sensible change ; whereas no such thing at all is found in the sacrament : our eyes , saith augustine , informe vs that it is bread that is there . he telleth me , this is no good , nor christian , but an absurd , secular , and senslesse arguing , and such as would leade vs to beleeue nothing but what we see : and that augustine , if i had marked him , whom i cite in the margent , ( as if his very wordes were not in the text ) vtterly ouerthroweth it : as also hillarie and other fathers , when they teach vs in diuine mysteries to renounce the naturall iudgement of our vnderstanding and senses , which this poore , carnall , vnlearned man his adversarie is so farre from , &c. and withall as commiserating and bewailing my simplicity , ( oh how farre is this poore &c. ) he telleth his reader , that he could with a cloud of such ancient and vncontrolleable testimonies of the holy fathers confound this his sensuall adversarie , and teach him a new manner of disputing of these heauenly and divine mysteries . wel , when he doth this , you may beleeue that he can doe it : and his poore puny adversary shall be eternally obliged to him for it . but meane while let vs see what pyrgopolinices here saith . . augustine telleth vs that something is seene in the sacrament , and something else is to bee belieued . but doth augustine tell vs that wee must not beleeue that there is bread there , though our eyes informe vs , that there is ? no : he telleth vs expressely , that there is bread there , as our eyes doe informe vs. and what can be more euidently or plainely spoken ? yea but hee addeth withall , that our faith informeth vs that the bread is christs body . yea but , saith bellarmine , that sentence is most absurd and impossible , if it be not meant figuratiuely . in which manner augustine ( as before was shewed ) expoundeth himselfe else-where . . doe the fathers tell vs that in this holy mystery we must not so much regard what our sense informeth vs , as what our faith apprehendeth ? and doe they not say the same of baptisme , and of all mysteries or sacraments in general ? heare we one or two of them speake for all . the fathers of the nicene councell , whom before he alleaged : * our baptisme ( say they ) must not with bodily eyes be considered , but with spirituall . seest thou water ? vnderstand the power of god hidden in it : conceiue it full of the holy ghost , “ and diuine fire . and then wil they the same regard to be had also at the lords table . that ambrose that this author and his associates so oft cite , as making so much for them : t you are come ( saith hee ) to the font : consider what you there saw ; consider what you said , &c. you saw the font ; you saw water , &c. you saw all that you could see with your bodily eyes and humane aspect . you saw not those things that worke and are not seene . the apostle hath taught vs that wee are to behold not the things that are seene , but the things that are not seene . for farre greater are the things that are not seene , then those that are seene . beleeue not thy bodily eyes alone . that is better seene that is not seene . so gregory nyssene : u both the spirit and water concurre in baptisme . and as man consisteth of two parts , so are there medicines of like like appointed for either : for the bodie water that appeareth and is subiect to sense ; for the soule the spirit that cannot bee seene , nor doth appeare , but is called by faith , and commeth in an ineffable manner . yet the water that is vsed in baptisme , addeth a blessing to the body baptised . wherefore doe not contemne the divine laver : neither make little account of it as common , because of the water that is vsed in it . for it is a greater matter that it worketh : and marueilous effects proceed from it . and a little after of the eucharist : y the bread also is at first common bread : but when the mystery hath sanctified it , it is called christs body . and in like manner the wine , though it be a thing of small price before the blessing , yet after the sanctification which proceedeth from the spirit , both of them worke excellently . and so in many other things , if you regard it , you shall see the things that appeare to be , contemptible ; but the things wrought by them , to be great and admirable . and so chrysostome speaking of those wordes of our sauiour , a the wordes i speake are spirit and life . b to vnderstand ( saith hee ) things carnally , is to consider the things simply as they are spoken , and no otherwise . where as * all mysteries ( and then not the eucharist onely ) are to bee iudged not by the externall things that are visible , but are to be considered with the inward eyes , that is , spiritually . and in particular of baptisme c else-where : the gospell is called a mystery , because we beleeue not in it what we see ; but wee see somethings , and beleeue other things . * for that is the nature of our mysteries : which my selfe therefore and an infidell are diversly affected with , &c. hee when hee heareth of a laver , thinketh it but bare water : but i consider not the thing seene simply , but the purging of the soule by the spirit , &c. for i iudge not the things that appeare by my bodily sight , but with the eyes of my minde . againe , i heare christs body . i vnderstand the thing spoken one way , and the infidell another . and as children or vnlettered persons , when they looke on bookes , know not the power of the letter , nor know what they see : but a skilfull man can finde matter in those letters contained , liues , or stories and the like , &c. d so it is in this mystery : the infidels , though hearing , seeme not to heare ; but the faithfull hauing spirituall skill , see the force of the things therein contained . nothing then in this kinde is said of the eucharist , but what is said of all sacraments , and of baptisme by name . nothing therefore that argueth any miraculous change more in the one then in the other . nor doth it follow that we would haue men to beleeue nothing but what they see , because we refuse to beleeue that that we see is not so . e we may not ( saith tertullian ) call in question our senses ; lest in so doing we detract credit from christ himselfe , as if he might be mistaken when f hee sawe sathan fall downe , or g heard his fathers voyce from heauen , or h mistooke the smell of the oyntment that was poured vpon him , or the i tast of the wine that he consecrated for a memoriall of his blood . neither was nature deluded in the apostles . faithfull was k their sight , and their hearing on the mount : faithfull was their taste of the l wine that had beene water : faithfull was m the touch of incredulous thomas . ( and yet , as n augustine well obserueth ; o thomas saw one thing , and beleeued another thing : hee saw christ the man , and beleeued him to bee god : hee beleeued with his minde that which hee saw not , by that which appeared to his bodily senses . and when we are said to beleeue our eyes , p saith hee , by those things that wee doe see , wee are induced to beleeue those things that we doe not see . ) in a word , q rehearse mee ( saith tertullian ) iohns testimony : r that which we haue heard and seene with our eyes , and felt with our hands , that declare we vnto you : s a false testimony ( saith he , an vncertaine at least ) if the nature of our senses in our eyes , eares , and hands be such . but these men would haue vs as t the sonnes of eliah speake , to thrust out our eyes , and as the iewish rabbines say ( abusing u a place of scripture to that purpose ) that a man must beleeue the high priest in all things , yea x though hee shall tell him that his left hand is his right , and his right hand the left : so they would haue vs to beleeue whatsoeuer the pope or they say , though they tell vs that , that both our sight and sense informeth vs to be most false . § . but to make good in part yet his former glorious flourish ; hee citeth a place of hilarie , where hee affirmeth , that concerning the veritie of christ in vs ( not speaking , as hee here saith specially of the eucharist , but of our vnion and coniunction with him in generall ) vnlesse we speake as christ hath taught vs , wee speake foolishly and impiously : that there is no place left to doubt of the verity of christs body and blood ; that the sacraments being receiued cause that christ is in vs , and we in him . now who ( i pray you ) doubteth of , or denyeth ought that is here said ? who teacheth men to speake otherwise then christ euer taught , but they that tell vs of bread transubstantiated , and of a body of christ made of bread , of christs flesh contained in bread , or vnder the accidents of bread , and of his blood in the bread , and his body by a concomitancie in the cup , & c ? who doubteth with vs of the truth of christs body and blood ? for of the corporall presence of either in the sacrament , hilarie hath not heere a word . or who denyeth but that by the receiuing of those venerable mysteries , christ is ( spiritually ) in vs and we in him ; doth not the apostle say of baptisme that by it y we are ingraffed into christ ? and chrysostome , that z by it we become flesh of his flesh , and bone of his bone ? hilaries scope is to shew that a christ is one with god and his father , and b we one with him , not by consent of will onely , ( as some heretikes said ) but by a true and reall vnion , yet c spirituall ; as his words implie when he saith , d he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood , abideth in me , and i in him . vpon whinch wordes their owne bishop iansenius . e they ( saith hee ) that thus eate christs flesh and drinke his blood either by such faith alone , or in the eucharist , are said to haue christ abiding in them , and to abide themselues in him , in regard of the true vnion of our nature with the diuine nature by the spirit of christ , whereby we are made * partakers of the divine nature . yea those words of our sauiour cannot be meant of christ corporally receiued in the eucharist , nor could hilarie so meane , if he were otherwise of their minde , appeareth . for christs body so taken as they imagine , doth not abide long in those that so receiue it , but by their owne doctrine goeth away againe , i know not whither , a while after . whereas by vertue of such receiuing christ as our sauiour there speaketh of , we doe abide in him , and he in vs ; that is , we are most inwardly and inseparably knit vnto christ , and he vnto vs ( they are still f iansenius his tearmes , and * hilarie also saith the same , ) and obteine therefore thereby not a transitorie life , as we doe by the eating of corporall meate , that passeth est-soones away and abideth not in him that eateth it , but life permanent and eternall . g whence it is manifest also ( saith the same author ) that all are not in this place said to eate christs flesh and drinke his blood that receiue the sacraments of his body and blood , since that all such haue not christ abiding in them . but they eate his flesh and drinke his blood , as he there speaketh , who beleeuing that his flesh and blood were giuen on the crosse for the saluation of mankinde , and that by vertue of the hypostaticall vnion they haue a power to giue life , do either by such faith alone , or in the holy eucharist also , receiue the lord himselfe within themselues , & imbrace him , and by faith fast clasping him so keepe him within them , as one by whom whatsoeuer we desire , commeth to vs , and is conferred on vs. thus he ; by whose words it plainely appeareth , that our abiding in christ and christ in vs , which hilarie from our sauiour speaketh of , dependeth not vpon any such corporall presence of his body and blood in the sacrament , nor doth necessarily require the same : which h by their owne doctrine also it doth not effect . diuision . his next argument drawen from the nature of signes and sacraments is idle and forcelesse . for wee denie not ( as there he supposeth ) the sacramentall signes containing the bodie of christ vnder them to signifie somewhat distinct from themselues , to wit , the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace that worthily receiue them . they signifie likewise christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion . and so a thing considered in one manner may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered , as christ transfigured represented his owne bodie as now it is in heauen glorified : his triumphant entrance into ierusalem on palme sunday figured his owne entrance into heauen afterwards , as eusebius emissenus and other fathers teach : and as an emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victories , &c. my third argument was taken from the nature of signes and sacraments : whose nature is to signifie one thing , and to be another . the argument is this : no signes or sacraments are the same with that that they signifie : but the bread and wine signifie christs body and blood in the eucharist : they are not therefore essentially either . to this idle and forcelesse argument ( as he pleaseth to style it ) he thus answereth : . that the sacrament all signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace ; as also christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his passion . now . what is this to mine argument ? was this man ( thinke we ) euer a disputant , that answereth arguments on this wise ? which part of my syllogisme ( i pray you ) is this answer applied to ? i had thought that a syllogisme being propounded , the answerer should either haue denied or distinguished of one of the former propositions . . it is not true , that the bread and wine in the sacrament are signes of these things . some affections of them and actions vsed about them indeede are . the bread and wine themselues are signes of spirituall nutriment , not nutrition . the eating and drinking is a signe of it . signes they are of christs body and blood ; not of the dolorous seuering of them in the passion , though their being apart is a signe of it also . . he saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a signe of it selfe in another manner considered : as christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified ; his triumphant entrance into ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen ; and an emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie . but . if signum & res signata , the signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues ( as without all question they are ) a father may as well be a father to himselfe , as a signe may be the signe of it selfe . not to adde that the ancients ( as hath formerly beene shewen ) are wont to call the sacraments pictures , and pledges : and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture , or a pledge of it selfe . . i might well put this defendant to prooue that christs transfiguration was a representation of his present glorification , or that b his entrance into ierusalem was a type of his glorious entrance into heauen , whatsoeuer his bastardly eusebius emissenus say of it ; whose authoritie is no better then his owne . . let him haue what he would ; that the one was a type of the other : doth it follow ; christs transfiguration was a type of his glorification : therefore christ was a type or a signe of himselfe ? . an emperour and his victorie ( i suppose ) are not all one ; no more then christs body and the glorification of it ; nor againe the transfiguration , & the present glorification . the argument therefore is neither idle nor forceless● for ought that he hath yet shewed . diuision . his next argument pag. . is grossely carnall and vnfit indeede to be answered . for who but a babbling ignorant person would as he doth there , make such an inference ? christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion ( which tediously and needelesly he prooueth , ) but they are not so in the eucharist : ergo , the naturall parts of christs bodie are not at all in it . for if the argument were good , we might rightly inferre that christ had no body at all when in emaus ( for example ) after he had blessed and brake bread , he vanished out of the disciples sight ; when he hid himselfe from the iewes , who would haue stoned him , in the temple , not by running into a corner ( as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of christ basely and vnworthily imagine ) but by becomming vndiscernable by them ; as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there citie was built , whence they ment to tumble him . as if locall extension , visibilitie , palpabilitie and other naturall accidents and sensible properties could not by gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof . this is a grosse kinde of philosophie and diuinitie fit for such a stupide professour . my fourth argument was taken from the nature of christs body , which hath slesh , blood and bones , is an organicall body , endued with limmes and lineaments , yea and life too . whereas that which is giuen and receiued in the eucharist , is ( as epiphanius well obserueth ) liuelesse and limmelesse , &c. now here , ( according to his vsuall manner ) he letteth the argument goe , and falleth to raile downe right ; that it is an argument grossely carnall , and vnfit indeede to be answered , of a babbling and ignorant person , and a stupide professour . he sheweth where his shoe wringeth him . yet that he may not seeme to say nothing to it ; he frameth me an argument of his owne on this wise : christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion : but they are not so in the eucharist : ergò whereas i tell him that christs body hath flesh , blood and bones , and sense and life , and limmes and lineaments of a body organicall . but their silly sorry wafer-cake hath none of all these . and then he telleth vs that i might as well affirme that christ had no body when c at emaus hee vanished out of the sight of his disciples ; when d he hid himselfe from the iewes that would haue stoned him in the temple ; when e he passed through the midst of them that would haue thrown him downe head-long , &c. . let him prooue vnto vs that at any of these times those that had christs body in their hands to feele at their pleasure , as his disciples had , f when hee appeared vnto them after his passion and resurrection , ( which in prosecution of mine argument i produce also and presse ) did finde it and feele it to haue neither hands , nor feete , flesh blood , nor bone , life nor limme ; and the consequence shall then bee granted him ; but neuer till then . and looke what limmes and lineaments our sauiour then had , when hee was here on earth , the same he retaineth still . augustine demanded whether christs body had bones and blood still , and other bodily limmes and lineaments ; g i beleeue ( saith he ) that christs body is now in heauen as it was on earth , when he went vp into heauen . for so h when the disciples doubted , whether it were a body or a spirit that they saw , he had them see and feele his hands and feete : for that a spirit had not flesh and bones , as they saw that hee had . so he was on earth ; so he was seene to be when he went to heauen ; and so shall he , as i the angell told , come againe from thence . but such ( wee are sure ) their little breaden god is not . it is none of christ therefore . . looke how this man argueth , so did the heret●kes of old , to prooue our sauiour christ to haue an aiery , spirituall , aad fantasticall body . k let it not deceiue you , you simple sots , ( saith iohn of ierusalem ) when you reade that l christ shewed thomas his hands and his side , or when you heare him say , that he hath m flesh and bones : these things he made some shew of indeede to strenghthen the saith of his doubting disciples . but he shewed that hee had an ai●ry and spirituall body in truth , when n he came to his disciples while the doores were shut , and o hee vanished out of their sight . and to the like purpose did p the marci●nites vrge his q escape frō those of nazareth . now what do the ancient fathers hereunto answer ? r that christs body ( saith tertullian ) is no fancy euer , hereby appeareth , in that it end●red violent handling , when hee was taken and held , and haled to the hill-brow . for s albeit hee made an escape through the midst of them , being first forcibly held , and after let goe , either the throng being dissolued , or forcibly broken through ; yet was it not by any fantasticall delusion . for he had a true body still , and hands that hee touched others still with , and were by them felt ; ( and then his body belike was not impalpable as this fellow saith it was . ) and againe , t when christ sheweth his disciples his hands and his feet , without doubt he hath hands , and feet , and bones , which a spirit hath not . and ierome refuting iohn of ierusalem ; u as christ shewed his disciples true hands and a true side ; so hee ate truely with them , spake with his tongue truely to them , and with his hands truely brake , and reached them out bread . for that he suddenly vanished out of their sight ; as before his passion also at nazareth he passed through the midst of them , that is , he made an escape out of their hands , * it was done by his diuine power , not by any fantasticall delusion . “ could not christ doe as much as some magitians haue done ? apollonius , as he stood in the court before domitian , vanished suddenly out of sight . yet doe you not therefore match christs power with magicians iuglings in making him seeme to bee that that hee was not , to eate without teeth , breake bread without hands , walke without feet , speake without tongue , shew a side without ribs . and whereas it might be demanded how it came to passe that x those two disciples did not know him , till a little before hee left them ; y ierome maketh answer out of the text it selfe , that it was not because his body was not the same it had beene , but because their eyes were held that they might not know him . and the same ierome else-where dealing against the same dotages , z christ ( saith hee ) had hands and sides , had breast and bellie too : he that had hands and feete , had armes and thighes too . and seeing hee had all the members of the body , hee must needs haue a whole body that consisteth of those members . let vs reason backward , as well wee may . if christ haue an entire body consisting of those limmes , then he hath all those limmes , whereof such a body consisteth . and then let vs say to these , as he then to them , a you heare of flesh , and feet , and hands , and other limmes . and b doe you forge vs some c stoicall round bals , and aiery dotages . ( as these doe little round wafer-cakes , which they beare vs downe to be christs body . ) he alludeth to the stoicks , who held that the gods had some shape ; and d that shape was as a body , but yet no body ; and had as it were blood and yet no blood . wherein the marcionites also in a manner agreed with them , ( and our romanists at this day with either ) imagining our sauiour ( e saith tertullian ) to haue f flesh hard without bones , solide without muscles , bloody without blood , clad without coate , speaking without tongue , eating without teeth , &c. whereupon tertullian concludeth , that since christ had all his limmes when hee shewed them to his descipl●s , they that imagined such a christ as this , g that deceiueth , beguileth , and deludeth all mens eyes , and senses and touchings , ( and taste too hee might haue said , we at least may say ) should not bring him from heauen ( from whence the marcionites said their christ had his body , though the papists dare not say , they haue theirs from thence ) but fetch him rather out of some h iuglers box ( the popish pyx , or the like ) not to worke saluation , but to make sport with . this i haue the rather insisted vpon to shew how the papists iump in their conceits about this their breaden god ; and strange fantasticall body , that hath all parts of a mans body , and yet none at all to be seen , felt , heard , yea or vnderstood , with the hereticks of old time ; and to confirme these their dotages vse and vrge the very same arguments that they then did , by the ancient fathers long since answered : as also that the ancient fathers vsed then the very same arguments against them , that we doe now against these ; which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered . § . oh but ( saith hee ) it is a grosse kinde both of diuinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide professor , to hold that locall extention , visiblitie , palpability , and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it . . yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to haue recourse to gods omnipotency for the iustifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage , or in their lying legends they haue endeauoured to obtrude vpon the world : to say that god can make christs body to remaine still in his full stature , and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth , or goe downe a childs throat , or to make * a mans body consisting of flesh , blood and bone to haue no dimensions or extention at all , not other accidents and properties of a naturall body ; is manifestly to say that god can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be , to be a body and no body ; which implyeth contradiction . and i those things that imply contradiction , they thēselues grant that god cannot doe . for it were to make falshood truth ; which hee that is k truth it selfe can neuer doe . . in this very manner also did the heretickes reason as appeareth by theodoret , to maintaine their absurd dotages against the orthodox christians , who likewise answered them then , as wee doe these now . m there is nothing ( saith the hereticke ) that god cannot doe . wee say , that n all things are possible with god. and iob saith , that o god can doe all things , and there is nothing impossible with him . there is nothing therefore but he can doe , that is able to doe all things . now how doth the orthodoxe disputer answer this ? p god ( saith hee ) can do q whatsoeuer he will : but r god neither can doe , nor will any thing which is not agreeable to his owne nature . as for example s he cannot sin ; t hee cannot ly , u nor do any vniust thing , being iustice and truth it selfe . x many things there are therefore that god , that can doe all things , yet cannot doe . yea it is a part of his power that he cannot doe them , no argument at all of any impotency in him . this was deemed a sufficient answere to those heretikes then ; and may as well now be returned our popish adversaries , fighting with the same weapons that they then did , for points as absurd as euer any of them held . diuision . another argument is by my aduersarie tediously prosecuted pag. . wherein from christs locall being still in heaven , hee argueth and endeauoureth to prooue an vtter impossibility of his bodily being in the sacrament . of which kinde of disputing i may fitly say with saint augustine , a behold with what manner of arguments humane infi●mity possessed with vanity , contradicteth gods omnipotency . as if naturall vnder standing were able to comprehend the vtmost limit and extention of gods power , which is in it selfe infinite and inforutably manifested in many of his wonderfull miracles : of which ( as i haue said ) no other reason can be giuen , but that hee is omnipotent that did them , and cannot deceiue vs when hee is pleased to testifie them . can wee conceiue ( for example ) the creation of the world of nothing at all preexisting ; the resurrection and repaire which god will make of all bodies so vtterly by frequent and successiue conuersions into other things altered and consumed ; the personall vnion of man with god ; the torment of soules and diuels wholly spirituall by corporall fire ; the consubstantiall subsisting of the divine nature simply one of it selfe in three distinct persons ; and other like mysteries of faith not conceiuable more then the bodily being of our saviour in the sacrament ; yet vpon the warrant of scripture and doctrine of christs church faithfully by vs beleeued ? can this minister tell me ( to come more neerely to our purpose ) how our sauiour appeared visibly to s. paul on earth ( as diuerse plaine texts import , particularly by bellarmine b produced and discussed ) and yet ( as himselfe will not deny ) still remaining in heauen ? or can he tell me , how our sauiours body went out of his sepulcher , without remoouing that huge stone , rolled afterward by the angell from it ? or how hee entred the house , the doores being and remayning still shut vpon his disciples ; as for a great miracle the euangelist recounted ? or how he pierced the solide and huge orbes of heauen in his ascension without making any hole in them ? sithence it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place , as for one bodie to be in many places . and if according to christian true philosophy , the soule of man being a spirituall and indiuisible substance can at one be entirely in distant parts of mans body exercising all distinct operations in them , why is it impossible for god to giue his humane body distant presences and a spirituall manner of being in the sacrament ? when as by personall vnion with himselfe , he giueth to the same body a far higher and more inconceiuable manner of beeing . my fift argum●nt is from the nature of a true body which cannot possibly be the same whole and entire in many places at once , much lesse in places as farre distant , as east and west , heauen and earth . now heere againe is hee faine to fly ( as before ) to gods omnipotency . that is their d deus è machina ; as they had wont to speake ; that is the knife still at hand to helpe to cut all those knots that by their wanton wits and absurd fantasies they haue snarled themselues in . and the better to enforce this e catholike answer , that se●ueth them for the saluing of all sores , hee reckoneth vp a long bead roll of wonderfull works ; as the creation , the resurrection , the hypostaticall vnion , the trinity in unity , the torment of spirits by corporall fire , christ comming out of the sepulcher without remooving the huge stone , his entring into the house while the doores were still shut , his appearing to paul on earth while hee was still in heauen , ( which he telleth vs bellarmine hath plainely prooued ) his piercing of the solide orbes of heauen in his ascention , the soule being at once entirely in distant parts of mans body , &c. and then demandeth why god cannot cause christs body to be as well one and the same , whole and entire in so many seuerall distant places at once ; the rather since that it is equall aboue nature for many bodies to possesse one place , as for one body to be in many places . . here are diuers things that are questionable both in diuinity and philosophy : which albeit he take pro concessis , will not so easily be granted him , till they be better prooued then as yet they are , howsoeuer we exclude not diuerse of them out of the reach of gods omnipotency , euen as he vnderstandeth them ; as . the manner of the f soules being in distant parts of the body is disputable : nor is there the same reason of bodies and of spirits . . the torment of spirits whether it be by corporall fire or no , is not agreed on as a matter of faith ; g bellarmine himselfe so confesseth . . the manner of h christs apparition to s. paul is not certaine . neither doth bellarmine prooue that christ was below on earth , or neere the earth in his humanity ; nor is it to the purpose whether he were or no. i steuen saw him in heauen , the heauens opened : k paul was rapt vp himselfe into heauen . yea l in heauen , and m from heauen it was that christ appeared to him ; if we may beleeue pope gregory and one that goeth ordinarily for ambrose . nor can n bellarmine produce any one of the ancients that saith otherwise . howbeit neither do we so pen vp christ in heauen , but that he may at his pleasure ( though ordinarily he doth not ) descend . . for o christs comming in to his disciples when the doores were shut . why might not ( as ierome speaketh ) p the creature giue way to the creator ; as q the iron gate did to peter ? r it is said , saith durand , one of their schoolemen , that christ came when the doores were shut : but it is not said , that he came in through the doores so shut : he might enter in by some other place ; or cause the doores to open suddenly , and shut instantly againe . . for christs resurrection ; let him heare the same durand . s it cannot ( saith hee ) be prooued by any text of scripture , that christ rose againe while the tombe was so shut : and so consequently that his body passed through the stone . or if durands authority will not serue ; let them heare pope leo in one of his decretall epistles : t christs body ( saith he ) rose againe the stone being rolled away . . for his ascension ; to omit , that this u solidity of the orbes is in philosophy a thing questionable ; and such a point , as if it bee denyed , this great doctor will hardly be euer able to make good : i answer with durand ; that x whether the heauens bee divisible in their owne nature , or by divine vertue , ( as the one they well may bee , and the other certainly they are ) there is no necessity that christs body in his ascension should be together in the same place with the bodies of the orbes . so that in none of these examples there is any necessitie of two bodies being in one place at once . which yet if it were prooued ( if they will beleeue their owne schoolemen ) were not suffiicient . for howsoeuer this great doctor tell vs , that it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to be in one place , and for one body to bee in many places : yet they say , that it is not so . y though two bodies ( saith aquinas ) may be in one places at once ; yet it followeth not that one bodie may bee in two places at once . the former is not possible but by miracle ; the latter not at all . z it is not alike ( saith durand ) for two bodies to be at once in one place ; and for one body to be at once in more places then one . for the one implieth a contradiction ; the other doth not , ( the former he meaneth ) though it may seeme so to doe . . and so he hath a direct answer , why wee deny that a body can be in diuerse places at once ; notwithstanding we beleeue and acknowledge gods wonderfull workes of creation , resurrection , christs incarnation , and those vnsearchable mysteries of the trinitie , and hypostaticall vnion , &c. because the one implyeth a contradiction , those other doe not . and here let me entreat the reader ( since that these men so much presse vs with gods omnipotency ) to cast his eye backe with me to those manifold a impossibilities before mentioned , and by themselues acknowledged , euen in this very businesse concerning the sacrament . whereby it may appeare , that they make vse of it onely to serue their owne turnes , vrging it then when it may stead them , and denying it then when it doth not . to recite againe some one or two of them onely , adding one or two more to them b luthers opinion ( saith bellarmine ) cannot be true : because c it is no way possible that one thing should not be changed , and yet should become another . and d it is impossible ( saith lanfranck ) that one thing should be turned into another , and not cease to be , so farre forth as it is converted . e it is impossible ( saith this defendant , that cannot endure here to heare of any impossibility ) that a man should be a rocke , or a uine . and f it is impossible ( saith bellarmine ) that bread should bee christs body . g it is not possible ( saith maironis ) that one should be in two times at once . ( and is it not as impossible then , for one to bee in two places at once ? ) and h it is impossible that one single effect should haue diuerse totall causes : and i impossible therefore that one and the same accident should bee in diuerse subiects . ( and why not as impossible for one subiect to haue diverse accidents , as diuerse seates , sites , qualities , and quantities at once ? which christsbody must needs haue , i● it bee with vs in the eucharist . ) k it is impossible ( saith durand ) that one and the same thing should mooue two contrary wayes at once . and l it is impossible ( saith aquinas ) that the same body should by locall motion arriue in diuerse seuerall places at once . and m it is impossible that one and the selfe same thing should both rest and stirre at once . and yet should christs body , if it were in the host , or if it were the very host rather , doe all this , when at the same time it both resteth in the pyx in one place , and goeth in procession in another place , and is in diuerse processions , or on sundry seuerall occasions carried contrary wayes to seuerall persons and places at the same instant . no more therefore doe we curb or restraine gods ●mnip●tency , when we deny that a body can bee by any meanes in two distant places at once , then they doe , when they deny a possibility of the things before spoken . and for the reason of our denyall , let them heare be side durands , aquinas his confession . * for one body ( saith hee ) to bee locally in two places at once , it implieth a contradiction : and therefore cannot a body be in two places at once ; no not by miracle neither : for those things that imply contradiction god cannot do . n god therefore cannot make a body to bee locally in two places at once . the very selfe same saith o aegidius too : and amolynus on him ; that p although a thousand miracles were wrought , nothing could bee effected that implyeth a contradiction ; as this doth . certainely the holy fathers doubted not to affirme that christ left his body here on earth , and yet assumed with him the same bodie into heauen ; hee held his body in his owne hands at his last supper , and distributed it severally to his apostles ; as hath beene already out of s. chrysostome , s. augustine , and other holy fathers formerly by me alle●dged . insomuch as melancthon one of the maine pillars of protestant religion , vnderstood the opinion of the holy fathers so well in this point , and attributed so much withall to gods omnipotency , as hee writeth thus of this very argument . c i had rather offer my selfe to death then to affirme as zwinglians doe , that christs body cannot bee but in one place at once . and s. augustine ( as bellarmine prooueth ) was so farre from denying this to the bodie of christ , as he doubted whether the holy martyrs may not be at the selfe same time in severall churches and memories erected of them ; albeit naturally no spirit nor body can bee more then in one place , or remaine without some certaine place of beeing : which latter is in the places ciced by this minister out of him onely affirmed . and if a perfect substance or nature ( as was the humanity of christ ) could want the naturall personality and subsistence thereof , supplyed by the divine person and hypostasis of the sonne of god ( as our christian faith teacheth vs ) why cannot in like manner by gods omnipotency the accidents of bread and wine remaine without actuall inhering and being in their naturall subiect ? his other arguments page . are drops of an afterstorme , and obiections gathered out of s. augustine , which doe onely prooue that christ is not visibly but in heauen ; not denying his sacramentall beeing in many places ; as this minister would haue him . and surely our saviour himselfe in the . chapter of s. iohn , verse . solueth this very obiection ( as s. chrysostome vnderstandeth him ) when perceiving that his disciples murmared at his promise of giuing his flesh for meate , &c. he said to them , doth this scandalize you ? if then you shall see the sonne of man ascending where he was before , &c. as if hee had said ; are you scandalised that i said being now present with you , i will giue my flesh for food ? what then will you doe , or how farre will ▪ you be from beleeuing that i canso giue you my flesh , when i ●…ll ascend to heauen and be absent so sarre from you ? § . the places of the fathers here pointed at , were before answered , where by him they were a● large alledged . and howsoeuer augustine q spake modestly ( after his manner ) of a difficult question , not daring peremptorily to determine by what meanes that was effected , that by diuers other meanes might be : yet in his bookes against fa●stus the manichie hee saith expressely and peremptorily , that r christ in regard of his bodily presence could not bee at once in the sunne and in the moone , and vpon the crosse also : as they absurdly imagined and maintained that he was . and againe in his comment aries on the gospell of s. iohn ; not ( as bellarmine corruptly citeth him , as hee doth also many others ) that s christs body in which he rose againe , m ay be ; but ( as t peter lombard , u and other of their owne authors acknowledge him to say ) that x it mvst be in one place ; howsoeuer his verity ( that is , his deitie ) be every where . yea discusing the question at large in one of his epistles , and hauing concluded the negatiue , hee saith that y they take away the truth of his body , that maintaine it to be in many places at once : whereas though z immortality bee conferred on it , yet nature is not taken from it . to which purpose hee disputeth much of the nature of a true body , and deliuereth those things , which i presse out of him : all which together with the testimonies of other of the ancients this superficiall answerer passeth ouer with sad silence ; onely boldly and b●asen facedly auouching that all that is alleadged out of augustine prooueth nothing but this , that christ is not visibly but in heauen . did hee thinke that his reader would not cast an eye on them , whem they were verbatim set downe before him ? § . yea but our saviour himselfe ( he saith ) solveth this obiection , iohn . . as chrysostome vnderstandeth him , when hee saith , doth this scandalize you ? what if you shall see the sonne of man ascending where hee was before , & c ? as if hee had said ; are you scandalized because i said being now , present with you , i will giue my flesh for food ? what then will you doe , or how farre will you be from beleeuing that i can so giue you my flesh when i shall ascend to heauen , and be so farre aboue from you ? . where chrysostome thus expoundeth the place , i know not . vpon the place ( i am sure ) he hath nothing but this , that a christ by these wordes did intimate to them his deitie . yea so b iansenius also saith , that chrysostome vnderstandeth these words as spoken to assure them that hee came downe from heauen . the truth is ; this exposition it not chrysostomes , but bellarmines , ( from whom this collector hath filched it ) who yet to adde some grace and procure some weight to an inuention of his owne , saith that c chrysostome to him seemeth to point at some such thing . and what bellarmine saith cautelously , and timorously , chrysostome to him seemeth to point at ; that this blinde bayard saith boldly and confidently , that chrysostome saith ; and vpon the exposition as backed now sufficiently with chrysostome , he buildeth a peremptory answer to all mine obiections , that will easily remooue them all . did this man thinke that these things would euer be examined ? or is his credit so meane already that he need not feare to bee discredited , that hee dare vse such sorry shifts as these are ? . grant all to be chrysostomes , and all to bee as true , as if not chrysostome , but christ himselfe had said it : what will thence bee concluded to prooue that christs body may be in many places at once ? but since hee hath cited this place , though to small purpose ; let him heare augustines words on it , going directly agaiust them , and these absurd fantasies of theirs . d christ ( saith he ) doth in ▪ these wordes e solue that that mooued them : and openeth that whereas they were jcandalized . for they thought that hee would giue them out his body : but he told them that be should g●e vp whole into heauen . as if hee had said , f when you shall see the sonne of man ascend where hee was before ▪ certainely then you shall see , that he doth not giue out his body in such a manner as you imagine : certainely euen then you shall vnderstand , that his grace is not consumed by bits . and to augustine addewe athanasius one as ancient as the nicene councell and a principall person in it g christ disputing ( saith hee ) of the eating of his body , and seeing many therevpon scandalized , thus spake ; doth this scandalize you ? what then if you shall see the sonne of man ascend where before he was ? it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing . the words that i speake are spinit and life . for heere he spake of both , both his flesh and his spirit , and distinguished the spirit from the flesh , that beleeuing not onely that that appeared to the eyes , but that also that was invisible , they might learne that those things also that he spake were h not carnall , but spirituall . i for to how many men could his body haue sufficed to eate of ? that it might be the foodalso of the whole world . but therefore made he ▪ mention of his ascension into heauen , that hee might withdraw them form the corporall vnderstanding ; and that then they might vnderstand that his flesh which hee spake of was heauenly meate from aboue , and spirituall food to be giuen by him . for , saith he , those things which i haue spoken to you are spirit and life . which is euen all one as if hee had said ; my body that is shewed and giuen , shall be giuen to bee meate for the whole world , k that it may spiritually be distributed to each one , and become to each one a safegard and preseruatiue for resurrection to life eternall . so little doth this place auaile for this purpose , as the ancients both latine and greeke expound it : making much rather against them & this popish doctrine of a carnall feeding on christs flesh ; which those fathers gather and prooue thence to be wholly spirituall . but thus iudicious is he in the choice of his allegations ; and so sincere in his citations of the ancients , putting downe their names only , but pointing to no place , that his fraud and forgeries may not be discouered ; and fastening vpon them his owne , or his owne associates expositions , wholly differing and dissenting from that that themselues say . moreouer it is a wilde kinde of arguing from the naturall and locall extension of bodies to inferre ( as my adversary doth page . ) that by no possible power of god any body can want this locall extension ; this being a secondary effect of quantity , and an accidentall propriety , which god may therefore easily hinder , and conserue without it bodily substance ; as our sauiour himselfe insinuateth in the gospell ; affirming for a thing possible with god , to make a great camell to passe through the eye of a needle ; by taking ( to wit ) from it exterior bignesse and locall extension . of which camell so extenuated and straitned in place all the very same may be proportionably affirmed , which this minister accounteth so absurd , by vs held of christs body in the sacrament . and supposing truely that the body of christ hath no extension in place , it is ridiculous for this ignorant minister to make such inferences ; as that any part of christs body must be as great and greater then his whole body ; and his whole body lesse then any part of it . for if neither the whole nor any part thereof , as it is in the sacrament hath any exterior bignesse at all , how can one part be said to bee bigger then the whole ? as of two blacke things a man should say , one was whiter then the other , when neither had any whitenesse at all in them . § . to the recit●ll of their absurd assertions , that there is l a whole christ , flesh , blood , and bone , head , hands and feet , belly , breast and backe , in euery little wafer-cake , and euery least crumme of each ; and consequently , the whole body of christ on earth lesse then the least limme or fingers end of it in heaven : as also to the allegations out of augustine that this cannot be ; for that in euery true body , the parts cannot bee altogether , but must haue their due distance , and each of them his space or place according to his bignesse ; and none of them can be bigger then the whole : he maketh answer , that this is but a wilde kinde of reasoning : ( and yet it is augustine that so reasoneth , whom hee might haue beene pleased to vse with better tearmes : ) telleth vs what our sauiour saith of a camell passing thorow a needles ey : as if what were spoken there by our sauiour of the one did relieue the absurditie of the other : ( which no whit it doth , being onely m an hyperbolicall speech , vsed to set forth the impossibility n with man , of o such a rich mans salvation as hee there speaketh of : ) and informeth this ignorant minister , that neither the whole body of christ nor any part of it , as it is in the sacrament , hath any exterior bignesse at all . . did any man euer before heare of a body without bignesse ? or a co●pus non quantum , without those dimensions that are so vnseparable from a body , that the very same p name is giuen vnto either , and wee haue no particular name either in greeke or latine to expresse the one by , but that which is the vsuall appellation of the other ? but a number of such absurd dreames and dotages doth this prodigious doctrine produce . q accidents without subiects : bodies without bignesse : parts bigger then the whole : the whole lesse then the least part : a growne mans entire body with all limmes and toynts of it , couched and cooped vp in a thinne wafer-cake and in every crum of it . the same body that is entire in heauen still , in a thousand places entire too at the same time here on earth ; and yet never stirre an inch from the place that in heauen it still holdeth . these are r magicall mysteries indeed , which it is no maruell if this ignorant minister cannot conceiue . yea but our sauiours wordes of s a camell passing through a needles eye , sheweth that a body may be freed from it exterior bignesse and locall extension : that is as much as if hee had said , they shew that a bodie may become no bodie , and yet be a body still . the speech is hyperbolicall : and no more prooueth a possibility of the thing therein spoken , ( as t piscator well obserueth answering u bellarmine , from whom he here hath it ) then of many x other things , spoken commonly in speeches of the like kinde . * quantitie ( saith bonaventure ) is of the verity of a body : and a true bodie consequently cannot bee without it . and y though it were granted that some substance might bee without quantitie , yet it cannot be that any quicke or organicall body ( such as a camels is , and such as hee granteth christs to be ) should be without it . yea and therefore also z not the veritie onely ( as this fellow would haue it ) but the quantity also ( as bonauenture auoweth , and this fellow denieth ) that is , the exterior bignesse of christs body must needs bee with it in the sacrament , if it bee at all there . . to conclude this wilde discourse indeed , because we are in it compelled to follow one that turneth round till hee be giddy againe : when wee reason thus from the nature and property of a true body to be but in one place ; wee reason no otherwise ( howsoeuer hee esteeme it a wilde kinde of reasoning ) then wise and learned men , yea angels too , haue taught vs to reason . for as the angell reasoneth with the nomen that came to seeke christ in the sepulcher ; a he is not here ; for he is risen againe : which were no good argument , if his bodie might haue beene in two places at once : so the ancient fathers also reason in their disputes against heretikes , where it stood them vpon to speake warily , and not to argue wildly , as this giddy braines tearmeth it . b christs body ( saith theodoret ) albeit it be now glorified , yet is a bodie still , and hath the same circumscriptiō that before it had which ( as the c angels teach ) shall come in the same manner as it was seene goe to heauen . but they saw it then circumscribed . yea our lord himselfe saith , d you shall see the son of man come in the clouds . but that nature cannot be seene , that is not circumscribed . he sheweth then that his body is circumscribed . it is not therefore changed into another nature , but it remaineth still a true body , though filled with divine glory . so fulgentius , e one and the same christ ( saith hee ) is both locall man of man , and god infinite of his father . one and the same according to his humane nature f absent from heauen , when he was here vpon earth , and leaving the earth when he went vp into heauen : but according to his divine and infinite nature , neither leaving heauen , when he came downe from heauen ; nor forsaking the earth , when hee went vp into heauen . which may most certainely bee gathered from his owne wordes , who to shew that his humanity was locall , said , g i goe vp to my father , &c. now how went he vp into heauen , but because hee was locall and true man ? or how is hee h yet present with his faithfull ones , but that hee is infinite and true god ? and uigilius most euidently against eutyches ( to passe by all other places , which are more then one in him ) i if the word ( saith hee ) and the flesh were both of one nature , how should not the flesh bee euery where as well as the word ? for k when it ( to wit , christs flesh , or his body , his humanity ) was on earth , it was not in heauen ; l and now because it is in heauen , it is not on earth : for that according to it m we expect christ to come from heauen , whom according to the word ( that is , his deitie ) we beleeue to be with vs on earth . it is apparent therefore that the same christ is of a twofold nature , and is every where indeed according to the nature of his diviniti● ; but is cōtained in a place according to the nature of his humanity . and hee concludeth his discourse thus ; n this is the catholike faith and confession , which the apostles haue deliuered , martyrs haue confirmed , and the faithfull keepe to this day . and if this be so , then sure the popish doctrine that affirmeth the cleane contrary to it , is not . diuision . page . and . my adversarie wisely after his accustomed manner vndertaketh by comparisons to declare the true manner of christs body and blood being conveighed vnto vs in the sacrament : and that so easily as if there were no difficulty at all in the explication thereof ; whereas o caluin himselfe accounteth it an inconceiuable and vnexplicable mysterie , worthy with wonder and astonishment to bee by vs beleeved , how ( to wit ) christs body so remotely distant as heauen is from the earth , can be eaten and receiued by vs. p wee confesse it ( saith beza ) to be an incomprehensible mystery , wherein it commeth to passe that the same body which is and still remaineth in heauen , and is no where but there , should be truely cōmunicated to vs who are now on earth and no where else . this indeed is a mystery and true iewell of protestanticall doctrine harder to be conceived , as caluin , beza , and other chiefe calvinists seeme sometime to meane it , then to conceiue all those true miracles , which we teach to be wrought by god in the consecration and vse of this wonderfull sacrament . yea surely it implyeth an evident contradiction that christs body should be truely given together with the sacramentall signes , as caluin expressely affirmeth , and so by vt eaten , that is no neerer then the top of heauen is to the mouth of such as receiue him . if by faith onely and a gratefull memory of his passion we eate christ in the sacrament , as this minister solueth the former riddle ; no more present therein , nor in any other manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes , then the land conveighed by an indenture sealed is present or conveighed with the seale thereof , or then he is present in the water of baptisme : ( they are his owne comparisons ) then is their sacrament a bare signe and figure of christs body , having no mystery at all worthy of admiration in it . for what wonder is it for a man to eate one thing thinking vpon another ; bread ( for example ) remembring our saviours passion ? and then are caluin , beza and many more of their learnedest companions meer iuglers and impostors , who seeke to plaister rotten wals , and maske with great wordes the naked breadinesse of their protestanticall sacrament . at the end of this argument i answer an obiection , how christs body and blood can be conveighed vnto vs , or eaten and drunke of vs in the eucharist , if hee be not there present . which question from the fathers ( as you heard before ) may in a word be soone answered . because our sauiour shewed it by those wordes of his concerning his ascension , & his speech therunto annexed , to be a spirituall not a corporall kind of communication . and if they will heare one of their owne bishops , iansenius ; hee will tell them , that q to eate christs flesh and drinke his blood is to beleeue in his incarnation and in his passion and blood , sheading ; and that so by faith either of them are both present with vs , and conueighed to vs as well in the sacrament , as out of it . but hereupon this mine aduersary befooling me for my labour , for taking such a task vpon me , to answer such a question ; saith , i vndertake to declare that by comparisons , as if there were no difficulty at all in it , c which calvin and beza confesse to be a mysterie , vnconceiuable , incomprehensible , inexplicable , yea which ( as wee hold it ) implyeth an evident contradiction : affirming that christ is no more present therein , nor in any manner conioyned with the sacramentall signes , then the land conveighed by an indenture sealed is present with the same , or then hee is present with the water in baptisme . whereupon hee worthily inferreth ; that this our sacrament then is but a bare signe or figure of christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration ; and calvin and beza , &c. are but iuglers and impostors . it might well haue been one of hercules his labours to purge this mans writings . augaeus his stable was not fuller of durt and dung , then they are of foule and filthy corrupt matter , and of lowd and lewd lies . . where doe i affirme it to bee a matter without all difficulty fully to explicate the admirable efficacy and operation of divine mysteries , or the manner how the same is effected ? i shew onely by some comparisons ( and those such as the apostle warranteth the vse of ) how christ may being absent , bee truely and effectually conueighed and assured vnto vs. but followeth it thence that i hold the thing it selfe for the manner of effecting it to haue no difficulty at all in it ? doe not the ancient fathers hold the trinitie an vnsearchable mysterie ? and yet what is more common among them then s by comparisons and similitudes to shew how in one nature there may be a plurality of persons ? this disputant himselfe among other wondrous workes reckoneth the resurrection of mens bodies for one : will hee say that the fathers therefore deeme that there is no difficulty in it , because t by sundry similitudes they endeauour to proue a possibilitie of it ; notwithstanding the frequent and successiue conuersions of them into other things altered and consumed , as hee speaketh ? . let him shew how it implieth an evident contradiction , to say that christs bodie is truely given with the sacramentall signes , though it bee no neerer then heauen-top is to the mouthes of the receivers . how this may be , without colour of contradiction , not in the sacrament onely , but out of it also , when as the thing is done spiritually , beside the comparisons that i expresse it by , his owne u iansenius will shew ; yea or his owne albert will enforme him , where hee saith , that x some eate and yet eate not ; and some eate not , and yet eate . the former hee meaneth of those that eate vnprofitably in the sacrament ; the latter of those that eate spiritually out of it . if out of the sacrament men may truely receiue christs body , though it be no neerer then heauen top to their mouthes ; then is it no such strange paradox as should imply contradiction , to say that the selfe same is done in the sacrament also . i will tell him of a stranger matter . many thousands thus did eate christs flesh a thousand yeeres before hee was in the flesh . for howsoeuer hee required before to haue it prooued ; and bellarmine y in diuerse places would faine deny it , and in z effect sometime doth , though directly and absolutely he dare not : yet it was shewed before out of augustine : to whom i now adde gregorie nyssene : who in his tenth sermon on the canticles , speaking of those wordes , a eate and drinke my friends , b there is no difference ( saith hee ) betweene the wordes here vsed , and the words vsed in the institution of the eucharist . for that which hee exhorteth vs to doe in the one , c was then also done in that divine meate and drinke . and very many , yea the most of their owne writers vniformly confesse it . thomas aquinas on cor. . d they did eate all the same spirituall meate : that is , e christs body in a signe spiritually vnderstood : and dranke all the same spirituall drinke : to wit , christs blood in a signe . g they did eate christ spiritually ; according to that , h beleeue and thou hast eaten . i anselm , or hervae●…s rather that goeth vnder his name , k they did eate in the manna the same food of christs body that wee eate in bread ; and the same drinke of christs blood that wee drinke out of the chalice , did they drinke from the rocke . hugh of s. uictors ; the same ( saith hee ) l that is , signifying the same , and having the same effect . and hugh the cardinall ; m they did eate signified in the manna the same spirituall meate , that is , the body of christ ; and dranke the same spirituall drinke , the blood of christ : and this did they by faith according to that of augustine ; beleeue and thou hast eaten . if christs flesh then might be spiritually eaten by faith so long before it was ; and it implyeth no contradiction to say that christs flesh was so eaten even before his incarnation ; much lesse doth it to say , that it is now spiritually eaten , though locally and corporally it be no neerer then heauen-top is to the mouth or lips of him that so eateth it . faith like o an epistle , maketh things and persons p absent present . nor doth a spiritual feeding necessarily require a corporall presence of that that is fed on . . where say i , that christ is no otherwise conioynrd with the sacrament , then the land with the indenture and seale of it ? i say onely q that christs body maybe and is as effectually conveighed vnto vs by the one , as land is cōveighed to vs by the other , though neither of them be locally or materially present . and if no more then so were done in the sacrament , yet were there much more done thereby , then by their owne confession is done by their orall and corporall manducation ; in which manner they grant themselues that many so eate christ , as yet hee is neuer effectually conueighed or assured vnto , to be theirs . . i say indeed that christ is as truely present in the word ( which he slyly passeth by , and maketh not a word of ) and in baptisme as in the eucharist ; and wee receiue him as really and as effectually in the one as in the other . nor doth hee answer one word to the allegations of the fathers to that purpose produced : to which may be added that of tertullian , which shall hereafter be recited : and this of augustine , which he saith of mary , that s shee did eate him whom shee heard : and prooueth what he saith by that place of iohn , t i am the living bread , which whosoeuer eateth shall liue for euer . as that also of ambrose ; u he eateth that bread , that observeth gods word . and further also that x bellarmine acknowledgeth that y clemens of alexandria , z basil of caesarea , ( he might haue added a origen also , and b chrysostom ) c and hierome apply those words of our sauiour , d he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , &c. to the word : which howsoeuer indeed they bee not directly spoken of there , yet certaine it is that both in the iudgement of those ancients , ( who else would not so haue applied it ) and in truth it selfe also ( for neither dare bellarmine himselfe therein controule them ) the thing there spoken of is in and by it also effectually performed . but to passe by the word , and the vnutterable effects of it , together with the vnconceiuable manner , whereby it either worketh vpon our soules , or conueigheth christ into our soules : for in receiuing of it we e receiue christ in it : doe not the ancient fathers call the sacrament of baptisme an ineffable mysterie , as was cited out of gregorie nyssene a little before ? yea doe they not speake as much of the dignitie and excellency , and of the vnconceiuable and vnutterable efficacy of it , as either calvin or beza doe of the eucharist ? and yet this shamelesse and blasphemous beast sticketh not to say , if christ be no otherwise present in the eucharist then hee is in baptisme , it is but a bare signe or figure , hauing no mystery at all worthie of admiration . and so by necessary consequence he taxeth those worthies ( to speake in his fribald language ) as meere iuglers and impostors , that ( in speaking so honourably of it , and ascribing such admirable power and efficacy vnto it ) seeke to plaister rotten walles , and maske with great wordes the naked watrinesse of their baptisme , by them so much admired . let him shew how with any colour at all , he can here cleere himselfe of impietie and blasphemy . and let him ( if hee dare ) deny that christ is effectually receiued both in the word and in g baptisme : in neither whereof yet there is any such reall transmutation , or corporall presence , as they necessarily require vnto the receiuing of christ in the eucharist . diuision . my aduersaries next argument from the qualitie of the communicants , page . is this ; if christs body be really and corporally present in the eucharist , then all that eate thereof must of necessity eate christ in it . but many eate of the eucharist , that yet eate not christ in it : for none but faithfull and liuely members of christ eate him in this sacrament . in which argument hee endeavoureth to prooue one falshood by another , equally by vs denyed ; because the holy fathers expressely affirme that iudas and the corinthians blamed by saint paul receiued , albeit vnworthily , and to damnation , the body of christ , as the apostles words cor. . euidently import ; and when s. augustine and others seemed to deny them to receiue christ in the sacrament , they speake not of bare sacramentall , but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him . my sixt reason is taken from the qualitie of the communicants . the argument is briefly this ; many eate of the eucharist , that eate not christ in it : ergò christ is not corporally in it : the antecedent is thus prooued : none feed on christ but the faithfull ; such as be in christ , and liue by christ : but many eate of the eucharist that are vnfaithfull , and are out of christ : ergò , &c. the proposition of this latter syllogisme he denyeth , and saith it is a meere falshood : and why so ? forsooth they deny it themselues . and why doe they so ? because the holy fathers say that iudas and the corinthians blamed by s. paul , did receiue christs body , as the apostles words evidently import . . for the apostle , he saith expresly , h he that eateth this bread : as plainely as can bee telling vs more then once or twice , that it was bread that they did eat , though tearmed also christs body ( as hath oft beene said , and as augustine sheweth ) because a sacrament of it . . is not this shamelesse dealing to say the fathers affirme that iudas receiued christs naturall body ( for of that is the question ) yet not alleadging any one tittle out of any of them for the proofe of it ? and that when the saying of one them is produced directly to the cōtrary , that iudas ate christs bread , but not the bread christ ; which he answereth not a word to . if they say that iudas ate with the rest christs body ; they expound themselues what thereby they meane , to wit , i christs bread , k the sacrament of his body . § . yea but the fathers , when they deny wicked men to rece●● christ in the sacrament , they speake not of bare sacramentall , but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him . . it is true indeed , they speake not of bare sacramentall eating . and who saith they do ? or what is this tothe purpose ? what is it but that i say ? they speake not of bare sacrametall eating , when they say , wickedmen eat not christ in the eucharist , but they speake of it , when they say they do eat yet of the eucharist ; wherein they should eat christ , were christ corporally in it , which they say they doe not . . they say ( you haue their owne wordes ) that it is not possible for any wicked man to eate christs flesh and drinke his blood , albeit they doe gnaw or chew the sacrament with their teeth : because our saviour saith ; l whosoeuer eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood , abideth in mee ; and m whosoeuer eateth of this bread shall liue for euer . . this answer implieth that christs body it selfe may vnfruitfully and vnprofitably be eaten : as if the ancient fathers had dreamed of a twofold eating of it , a worthy and profitable , and an vnworthie and vnprofitable eating . to which i might answer with his owne bishop i ansenius , his words ; n he that vnworthily eateth the bread of life in the sacrament , doth not truely eate of that bread of which it is said , o i am the bread of life ; and p my flesh is meate in deed . and hee addeth , that it were an absurd thing to expound our sauiour where he saith , q if a man eate of this bread he shall liue for euer ; as if he should meane ; if a man eate worthily of this bread , he shall liue for euer : as if any man could eate vnworthily of it , as some did of the manna , and eternally died . but heare we augustine in a word what hee saith hereof , and so learne we to expound augustine and other the ancients , not by this idle fellowes friuolous conceits , but by augustine himself : s the sacrament hereof ( saith hee ) to wit , of christs body and blood and our vnion with either ) is taken at the lords table , by some to life , by some to death : but the thing it selfe whereof it is a sacrament , is taken by euery one that partaketh thereof to life ; by none to death . and if of all to life , by none to death , then vndoubtedly not vnworthily or vnprofitably of any . diuision . lastly , when pag. , , , , and . hee argueth that christs body cannot be in the eucharist : first , because then it should be broken as the bread is broken . secondly , it should be subiect to many vndecencies , as corruption , putrefaction , mice-eating and other foule abuses apt to happen to the bread and wine of the sacrament . i answer him that christs body being in it selfe now glorious and impossible , and after a spirituall and indivisible manner present in the sacrament , cannot be in it selfe broken or otherwise abused then angels in assumped bodies can bee wounded , or then the maiesty of the diuine person in christ was by thornes torne , nayles pierced , or other torments defaced : for all such indignities and painfull alterations , were immediately onely inflicted on the corporall nature of our sauiour defaced vtterly by them , and touched not immediately the diuine person , albeit personally therein subsisting : so all indignities and alterations happening to the sacramentall signes touch not at all the body it selfe of our sauiour impassibly and iudiuisibly vnder them , more then the maiesty it selfe of the diuine nature-present in all creatures is defiled in fonle places , &c. such arguments as these made against our sauiours reall true presence in the sacrament by our inconsiderate aduersaries , are like to those other arguments wont to bee made by the eutycheans , nestorians , arians , and other ancient heretickes , against the diuinity of our sauiour , and personall vnion of two natures in him ; as that it was not fit or reasonable to be conceiued , that either god so vnited with man , or man deified by personall assumption should be torn with whips , thornes , and nayles , spet vpon , buffeted , and finally die in agonies and torments ; that fleas and flies should sucke the blood of god , bite his flesh , &c. which indeed is more then can be done vnto the same , as it is here in the sacrament , euen when mice eate the sacramentall signes , or when in our stomacks wee receiue them , or by fire wee consume them , or ●…wise abuse thē , christ being not quantitatiuely and corporally with them extended , and so , not to be touched or altered by any corporall action done about them . and holy soules considering with what humility and effusion of his bounty the son of god was pleased to institute this great sacrament , affording therein for his glory and our great good his owne comfortable presence vnto vs , haue iust reason to cry out his mercy , and to admire his wisedome , power and goodnesse wonderfully manifested in this second exhiminition of himself , as i may iustly call this sacramentall presence , or hiding of himselfe in this sacrament , to become thereby an heauenly food and diuine refection of soules deuontly receiuing him ; as also a louing spouse visiting , embracing , delighting , adorning and enriching them with his presence , daily triumphing himselfe in his victory ouer sathan , and our redemption solely and abundantly purchased by his passion ; and making vs also to triumph with him : and whereas the diuell once by his ministers iewes and gentiles , caused his blood to be separated from his body , he deuised to haue that real separation mysteriously continued and daily exhibited to the f●ce of his eternall father for vs , which is t the declaring of the lords death till he come , mentioned by the apostle . my last argument is taken from those things that are done abo●… , or may befall the consecrated creatures , which if they be christs body and blood must needs befall christ , as fraction , corruption , putrefaction , mitebreeding , mice , eating , &c. to this he answereth ; . that though these things be done to or befall the sacrament , yet christs body being now glorious and impassible , and after a spirituall and indiuisible manner present , it can no more thereby be broken and abused then angels in assumpted bodies can be wounded , or christs deity was wounded or pierced on the crosse. . we take what hee granteth . christs body is now glorious and impassible : and therefore not subiect vnto such indignities , as these creatures are : and the one consequently is not the other . yea , is christs body it self impassible ? what is it then , that ( as origen speaketh ) goeth into the draught ? &c. which this defendant taketh no notice of , because hee knoweth not what to say to it . or let him resolue what those ashes , that they will to be reserued for reliques or what those mites are made of , that breed in the consecrated bread , when either they burne it , and so deale with it as they doe with heretickes , or reserue it ouer long . . it is present in a spirituall manner , had hee but added , onely , he had marred all : hee had beene a foule hereticke , and perchance might fare no better , if he would stand to his words , then this their little god almighty doth , when he groweth hoary . but is hee come to that now , christ is spiritually in the sacrament ? what is become ( i maruell ) of that carnall and corporall presence then , that they prate so much of ? and for want whereof they so much vilifie the protestantical cōmunion ? or what is the reason why hee could not endure to heare , that those wordes of our sauiour , of eating his flesh , iohn . should be spiritually vnderstood ? . if these things cannot befall christs body , because it is after a spirituall manner present ; then belike these things may befall it , yea must needs befall it when they doe fall out , if it be present in a carnall or corporall manner ; which u bellarmine granteth it is , and they sticke not vsually to afifrme . . if christs body bee in an indiuisible manner there , what is it that is there broken ? or what did our sauiour breake at his last supper ? at which time also his body was not indiuisible , or x impassible . or how doth pope nicholas tel vs that christs y body it selfe is sensually broken ? where marke ( i pray you ) how the arguments and allegations produced to prooue the thing broken in the sacrament to be bread , and to shew the absurdity of their doctrine in this point , as well of pope nicholas that saith that christs very body it selfe is broken and torne in peeces , as also of others that say , that a nothing is broken at all , or nothing but accidents only , here is not a word answered . the hoast ( they say ) is christs body , and b the priest breaketh the hoast : and yet he breaketh not christs body . for christs body neither is nor can be broken . we may reason well backward : christs body is not broken : but the hoast is broken : the hoast therefore is not christs body . or christ is not diuided : but the hoast is diuided : the hoast therefore is not christ. . christs body , though it be there , yet it cannot be abused . no ? is it not abused when the drunken priest speweth it vp againe ? which their church canons therefore make prouision for . or is it not abused , when it is burnt by them and vsed like an hereticke ? or when it is deuoured and swallowed downe by mice and rats ? as their owne schoolemen confesse . how is it then that their s. clement giueth s. iames such charge as you heard before of it , least some foule abuse befall christs body ? . yea but , though it bee so , yet is it no more abused , then an angell in an assumpted body , can bee wounded , or christs deity was on the crosse. is christs humanity then turned into his deitie ? or hath c christ now assumed the nature of angels , and so is now become a spirit ? it is a spirituall body ( saith augustine ) yet not a spirit : as an animal body is not a soule , but a body ; so such a spirituall body as the apostle speaketh of , is not a spirit but a body . but e who dare say either that christs body rose not againe a spirituall body : or if it did rise againe a spirituall body , that it was no more a body now but a spirit ? when hee himselfe refuteth this opinion in his disciples ; who when they tooke him for a spirit , f he bad them , feele , and see ; for a spirit had not flesh and bones , as they saw hee had . g euen then therefore was that flesh of his a spirituall body , and yet was it a bodie and not a spirit . and bellarmine himselfe , h christs body , as it is in the eucharist , is a true , reall , naturall , liuing , big , coloured body : and the flesh of christ is corporall , not spirituall , vnlesse we take spirituall as the apostle doth , for obedient to the spirit . it is absurd then to reason from christs god-head to his man-hood ; or from an angell in an assumpted body to christs pretended body in the eucharist ; or in things concerning the true nature of a bodie , from a spirit to a bodie . an angell could not be hurt , though the body assumed by him should bee hacked or hewed asunder : but i christs bodie ( saith biel , one of their schoolemen ) being a liuing and organicall bodie , if it should be broken and diuided , would be destroyed . § . such arguments ( hee saith ) as these were made by the ancient heretickes , to wit , the eutychians , nestorians , arrians , &c. against our sauiours diuinitie and the personall vnion of two natures in him , viz. that it was vnfit to conceiue that god to be man so vnited , or man deified should be beaten , buffetted , whipped , torn with nayles and thorns , &c. . it is true that some heretickes ; yet not the eutychians ( how should they argue against christs deitie , that held his humanity wholly turned into it ? ) no nor the arrians ; but the nestorians , and long before them the marcionites ( whose absurd dotages these men reuiue againe ) made obiection of the things here spoken of . but hee knoweth well enough , what was then answered them ( if he know ought at least in the fathers , whom he would seeme to haue at his fingers ends ) by those that refuted them ; to wit , that our sauiour was then in a state of humiliation ; whereas now he is in a state of glorification ; and freed consequently from all those infirmities and indignities that hee was then content to expose and subiect himselfe vnto , to bring vs vnto glory . . they obiected these things truely ; but without iust cause then : we obiect them , though not supposing them to be true , yet finding them to follow necessarily from their carnall conceits , vpon iust ground against them . and belike hee findeth himselfe and his , guilty of exposing & subiecting christ glorious body ( a thing most impious ) to such indignities a new . § . yea but ( saith this fantastick ) there is a second exhiminition of christ in this sacramentall presence , or hiding of himselfe in this sacrament . . in the beginning of his discourse he came ouer me for writing a bad band . i know not whether the faire band be his owne or no that his owne discourse is written in . if it be ( sure i am ) his schollarship is very small , that putteth exhiminition for exinanition : for so i suppose his meaning is ; because i finde it so in k turrian ; from whom it is like enough hee had it , fathered vpon one methodius , whom bellarmine was much to blame that hee ouerslipt , when hee mustered his fathers for christs corporall presence in the sacrament . but here is a new doctrine indeed , and yet most true , if all be as they say , that our blessed sauiour is returned to a state of exinanition , that is , humiliation , deiection , infirmity , indignity , paine and infamie againe : for all this the word of l exinanition importeth . belike they thinke hee suffered not enough , or was not throughly enough exinanited while he was here on earth , that they must needes bring him backe againe , to snffer such ignominious things , out of heauen , as to be chewed , to be burnt , to grow mouldy , to putrefie , to turne into mites and maggots , to passe into the bellies of mice and rats , &c. to vndergoe those things in his second exinanition , that in the first he neuer did . . hee thought it before m a most base and unworthy thing , to imagine that christ should haue hid himselfe in a corner from the iewes , when they would haue stoned him in the temple : ( as if he must of necessitie either so do , or else make his body to bee for the present as they say it is now in the eucharist ) yet here hee telleth vs , that hee hideth himselfe in the sacrament ; not in a corner of the temple , but in a little round wafer-cake , or in the pyx ( at least ) that reserueth it , so long now and then , for want of good looking to , that it breedeth pretty little quicke creatures , as good a god euery one of them , as any crumme of the hoast was , of which they were bred . but as n our saviour forewarned vs ; though they tell vs that christ is hid in the pyx , or in some other secret place , yet we little beleeue them . wee may rather beleeue that the wiser and learneder sort among them , hardly beleeue themselues herein . . he telleth vs here that christ hideth himselfe in the sacrament , and a little before that being not quantitatiuely and corporally extended therein , he is not touched nor altered with any corporall action done about it . if hee be hid there , how saith bellarmine , that o hee is there visibly vpon the board ? or if hee be neither seene nor touched there , why would hee make vs beleeue that chrysostome saith , that we doe see him , and touch him , and handle him there ? or how saith hee a little after that christ , as a louing spouse , doth there visitt and imbrace vs ? it is true indeed that their priests vse much wanton dalliance with their breaden god , while they make the poore people like silly ideots , adore him , and like ixion for a substance embrace a meere shadow . this is that cleane hoast , as s. irenaeus affirmeth , which the gentiles were by malachy foretold to offer vnto god in all places ; and the onely sacrifice of christians , as s. augustine calleth it ; figured by melchisedechs oblation of bread and wine , as the holy fathers ioyntly teach vs , and represented by the iewish as well bloody as vnbloody sacrifices : not distinct from the sacrifice of the crosse , by which alone our redemption was consummated , as * s. paul teacheth vs , but the same in the hoast and chiefe offerer thereof , daily repeated now in an other vnbloody and mysterious manner by the ministery of christs consecrated servants . so as all christian nations of the world , grecians ( for example ) rutenians , armenians , mozaribites , cataians , ethiopians , and other christians in india , neere mount libanus and in other the remotest places in the world , such as haue not euer heard peraduenture of the roman church since their first apostolicall conuersions , or had any commerce between themselues , are knowne to conspire ( not withstanding their other late errors ) with vs in the celebration and true beliefe of this great sacrifice and sacrament , as dr. philippus nicolai a chiefe protestant diuine in his commentary of christs kingdome , and sir edwin sands in his relation of religion , &c. with other aduersaries of our church plainely acknowledge . which may bee to any wise and well minded man an euident argument , that they receiued this common beliefe and celebration of this diuine sacrifice , from no other fountaine but the instruction and example of their first apostolicall conuerters . and when luther taught by the diuell ( as hee plainely confesseth ) vpon plaine sophismes and doceitfull arguments by himselfe particularly related ( as i haue seene in “ his works first printed at iene and now extant in the great library at oxford ) began to impugne that holy sacrifice which hee had formerly offered , and presented that his hereticall doctrine and whole confession of augusta to be accepted , as he hoped by , the grecian churches , ieremias their patriarch in his censure ( as he calleth his booke ) of the east church , yet extant in greeke and latine , plainely condemneth amongst their other hereticall doctrines , this very denyall of christs sacrifice , transubstantiation , &c. vrging ( as we doe ) invincible arguments , and the vniuersall euer continued practise of christs church to prooue them ; vsing ( as i my selfe haue seene in their churches ) alike forme to ours for the mysterious and decent celebration thereof , causesly wont by our aduersaries to be derided : whereas their owne liturgie or forme of diuine seruice is as a shadow chosen in place of the substance , hauing nothing decent therein but what they haue stollen from vs and picked here and there out of our missals , gracing all with a riming psalme , sung to a liggish tune , with iarring and for the most part vntunable voyces , neuer vsed before in any christian churches . the first authors of this new sect , were aposta●aes of our church for their confessed disorders of life , and miserable ends plainely discouered to haue been no apostolicall persons : whose endeauours haue neuer tended at any time to conuert pagans to christ , as his true church shall euer doe , but to corrupt christians truly already conuerted : and they haue seldome planted themselues in any countrey , but vpon very carnall , grosse occasions , as here in england , or with open rebellion , and tragicall acts against lawfull princes and magistrates , namely in scotland , france , flanders , swisserland sueuia , polonia , seuerall prouinces of germany , geneua it selfe and other protestant territories . the pretence of a church and religion like to theirs in former ages canot colourably be defended without many shifts & contradictory deuices : some will haue it to haue beene latent and inuisible for . others other or . yeers : others contrarily teach it to haue beene euer visible and conspicuously dilated into many christian countries , as the oraculous predictions of the prophets and expresse promises of god himselfe describe it : others say that our church was euer the true church of christ ; onely in some parts of faith not fundamentall erring , and by them since luther reformed : others deny that euer our church was the true church of christ , or other than a preuailing faction in the true church professing at all times visibly and in all christian countries their present doctrine . but no one of these dreamers and church-deuisers ( as i may tearme them ) is able before luther to assigne in any age since christ or country of the world one parish of protestant true prosessors , or single person iumping in all points with any one sect of them : their religion indeed being like a beggers cloake patched together out of olde condemned heresies and vnsutably composed . their markes of a church , to wit , preaching of true doctrine and a rightfull administration of sacraments are such as any hereticall sect past or to come may equally peetend according to the maine grounds of protestant doctrine ; which are to admit no common translation or interpretation of scripture , but what themselues list for discerning of true doctrine and rightly administring sacraments . § . he magnifieth their masse , by telling vs that this is that cleane hoast , that irenaeus saith malachie foretold ; the christians onely sacrifice figured by that of melchisedeck ; and represented by the iewish as well bloody as vnbloody sacrifices ; not distinct from the sacrifice of christ on the crosse , but the same repeated in another vnbloodie manner . . it is true indeede that p irenaeus vnderstandeth by that q pure offring in malachie the eucharist now in vse : and that the r avncients many of them suppose it resembled in s that action of melchisedeck : and they call it the christians ( yet t not the onely christian ) sacrifice , succeeding in the roome of the iewish sacrifices ; the sacrament , i say , of the eucharist , not their sacrifice of the masse . in what sense augustine will tell vs : u a sacrifice of praise ( saith he out of the psalmist ) shall glorifie me ; and there is the way that i will shew him my saluation . x the flesh and blood of this sacrifice before christs comming was promised by sacrifices resembling it : in christs passion it was exhibited in the truth it selfe : since his ascension it is celebrated in a sacrament of remembrance . and againe : y the hebrewes in their sacrifices of beasts , which they offered vnto god , z did celebrate a prophecie of the sacrifice to come that christ offred : and christians now celebrate the memorie of the same sacrifice past in an holy oblation and participation of christs body and blood . and procopius vpon genesit ; a christ dranke to his disciples in mysticall wine , saying , this is my blood : and gaue them withall b a type , figure , or image of his body , no more admitting or accepting the bloodie sacrifices of the law. . is this their sacrifice the very same with christs on the crosse. then belike christ is anew crucified againe . the apostle indeede telleth vs of some c that crucifie christ againe : and it is to bee feared that to many of them are indeede guilty of that sinne . but if this their sacrifice be , as he saith , not d a resemblance , or e commemoration , as we say in the eucharist , of christs passion , but the very same with that of christ on the crosse , how can it be but a new crucifying of him indeede ? yea then christ must needs die and suffer againe in it . for f a true and a reall sacrifice ( saith bellarmine ) requireth a true and reall death or destruction of the thing sacrificed . and againe , g a sacrifice besides the oblation requireth a mutation and consumption of the thing offred ; yea and h the slaying of it , if it be a liuing thing : and , i vnto a true sacrifice is required , that that is offred vnto god in sacrifice be vtterly destroyed . yea euen the apostle himselfe saith , that k if christ he oft sacrificed , then he must die and suffer ost . but l christ being once dead , he dyeth no more . yea and bellarmine himselfe granteth that m christ doth not truly die in the sacrifice of the masse : and that n he dyeth not there but in a sacrament or a signe representing that one onely death that once he died . he is not therefore really , properly , or verily there sacrificed : nor is this their sacrifice of the masse therfore the selfe same with that of christs on the crosse. . is this sacrifice of theirs a repetition of christs sacrifice ? then belike christs sacrifice was imperfect . for the apostle euidently maketh o the reiteration of offrings an argument of imperfection . and if christs sacrifice then be ( as this blasphemous wretch saith ) repeated , it must needs be ( by the apostles argument ) defectiue and imperfect . but christs sacrifice was most absolutely perfect , consummate and all-sufficient . for p by one oblation of himselfe once offred hath he obtained eternall redemption , and for euer consecrated them that are sanctified . christs sacrifice therefore needs no reiteration . nay , it is an impious wrong to it to say it is reiterated : and such as some of their owne writers themselues either are ashamed of , or at least dare not a●ow . peter lombard the grand master of the sentences ( as they tearme him ) and q the first father of their schoole-diuinity ; r moueth this question among others , whither that which the priest doth be properly termed an immolation or a sacrifice : & whither christ be daily sacrificed , or was once onely sacrificed . now to this question , ( saith he ) we may briefely say , s that that which is offred and consecrated by the priest is called a sacrifice and an oblation , because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and the holy immolation made vpon the altar of the crosse. t for once christ died vpon the crosse , and was there sacrificed in himselfe : but he is daily sacrificed in the sacrament , because in the sacrament is there a remembrance of that that was once done . whereupon saith augustine ; u sure we are that christ risen againe from the dead dieth no more , &c. but yet least we should forget the same , that that was once done , is in our remembrance done euery yeare , to wit , when the passeouer is celebrated . ( x and we oft therefore so speake as to say , when the pasch is at hand , tomorrow or the next day will be the lords passeouer ; whereas hee suffered so many yeeres agone ; and his passion was but once in all performed : and yet y in regard of the celebration of the sacrament , is that said to bee done that day , which not that day , but long since was done ; * the sacrament bearing the name of the thing thereby represented . ) z but is christ then so often slaine ? no : but “ onely an anniuersarie memoriall doth represent that that was once , and maketh vs so to be affected , as if we saw christ on the crosse. and what is this more then wee also say ? or how is it the very same with christs sacrifice on the crosse , if it bee not it , but a memoriall of it onely ? . he saith , christs sacrifice on the crosse is repeated there in an other vnbloody manner : and yet the one is not so much as distinct from the other . what not mysticall , but mistie riddles are these ? for . what is the sacrifice of christ but his bloody passion , but the shedding of his blood , and the pouring out of his soule vnto death , as a the prophet esay expoundeth it ? and how is this then the very same with that , when it is in an vnbloody manner performed ? . if this be ( as they say ) an vnbloody sacrifice , and christ be therein vnbloodily sacrificed : how is it that they affirme that b christs blood is verily shed in it , and was therein really shed before it was shed vpon the crosse : which to prooue also c bellarmine in expounding the words of christs institution ( contrary to the expresse d canon of the councell of trent ) leaueth their owne vulgar translation , which they count autenticall ; as also the canon of their masse , the principall part of their seruice ; which both haue , qui pro vobis effundetur , that shall be ( or , is to be ) shed for you ; because they fitted not his turne so well ; and presseth the wordes according to the greeke , e qui pro vobis effunditur ; that is poured out for you . if christs very blood bee poured out in it , how is it an vnbloody offering ? or how is not this a riddle ? there is blood there , but not as blood : and it is the very same with christs bloody passion , and yet celebrated in an vnbloody manner . . is it be an vnbloody offering , how is it ( as they vse to say ) a sinne sacrifice ; when f without sheading of blood ( as the apostle telleth vs ) there is no remission of sinnes , g nor was there euer any sinne sacrisice without blood-shead , saith bellarmine . the truth is , that h christ once for all went into the holy place with blood , and thereby obtained eternall redemption . as for their vnbloody blood , it is but a meere counterfaite . and in this case with their owne glosse may we soone stop their mouthes , which expoundeth ( contrary to bellarmine ) those words in the canon , christs blood is shead , or poured out ; i that is the sheading of it is signified , in the eucharist . . how doe these two stand together : the one is bloody , and the other vnbloody : and yet the one is not so much as distinct from the other . here is not a distinction ( as they say ) without a difference ; but a difference ( which is more strange ) without a distinction . did this fellow ( thinke we ) vnderstand what he said ? but if the sacrifice of the masse be not so much as distinct from the sacrifice of the crosse , how doth bellarmine tell vs that k the sacrifice of the crosse is of greater value then the sacrifice of the masse ; the one of infinite , the other but of finite worth . whereof l he rendereth a two-fold reason : . in regard of the hoast that is offered : because christs naturall being was destroyed in the one : whereas his sacramentall being onely is destroyed in the other . . in regard of the person offering , or the offerer ; because he was offered immediately in the one , whereas he is offered by a minister or priest in the other . and yet this fellow telleth vs , that the sacrifice of the masse is not distinct from he sacrifice of the crosse , but is the same both in the hoast , and the chiefe offerer thereof . these things hang together like harp and harrow , as they say . but our great doctor ( it seemeth ) for all his bragging and blustering , is but a nouice ; and is not yet throughly acquainted with his master bellarmines doctrine in all points , though hee make vse of him otherwise . § . hee telleth vs that all christian nations in the world , grecians , rutenians , armenians , mozaribites , catayans , ethiopians , indians , &c. conspire with them in the celebration and true beliefe of this sacrifice , and sacrament . . this is like their iesuites tricks to tell vs of many strange miracles wrought by their fathers in the indies , in goa , in america , in iapan , in china , whither they know before hand , that m no man will goe to disprooue them : and whence popish writers yet say n they can heare no such matter : yea some of their owne coat o sometime confesse it is not so . . this fellow is either extreamely impudent , or grossely ignorant , that dare so boldly and confidently auouch that all these nations conspire with them in the celebration and beleefe of sacrifice and sacrament : whereas it is commonly knowne that the most of these haue their litur gies in their owne languages , which they haue not ; communicate the people in both kindes , which they do not ; consecrate , not wafers , as they doe , but whole loaues : and many of them , the greekes especially , not vnleauened but leauened ; hold the consecration to be effected , not by the repetition of those wordes , this is my body , but by prayer and supplication ; mingle no water with their wine ; vse no eleuation for the worshipping of the sacrament ; nor admit the popish transubstantiation : as out of good historiographers , their seuerall liturgies , and some of their owne writers , both m. breerwood in his booke of religions and languages , and th. a. in his discourse of catholicke traditions , at large shew . ieremy the greeke patriarcke , whom he afterward citeth , affirmeth expresly , that * at our sauiours last supper that flesh of our lord which hee carried about him was not giuen the apostles to eate , nor his blood to drinke ; nor are they now giuen in the holy mysteries , &c. and againe , that this bread , when it is offered , is common bread offered onely to god ; but afterwards is made extraordinarie bread . and in the councell of florence ( as appeareth in the last session ) some controuersie there was betweene the greeke church and theirs about the “ transmutation of the elements in the eucharist ; nor do we finde that they euer came therein to any generall accord or agreement vnto this day . now where ( thinke you ) is this mans face or his forehead , that dare so confidently auerre that both these and all the christian world but we conspire with them herein , both for opinion and in practise ? yea when hee telleth vs ( to let vs vnderstand that he hath beene a traueller ; and it may bee brought as little wit or honesty with him home , as he caried out ) that hee hath seene their celebrations the same with theirs : hee sheweth therein , ( if he say true , that he hath seene their celebrations ) that against his owne knowledge , when he thus writ , he told vs a grosse vntruth ; and wee neede returne him for the rest of them no further answer , saue that which is commonly said , that * far trauellers may lye by authority , or ( as it may be hee hopeth ) rather , that they may tell lyes without controll . yet when we finde him false in things neerer home , and by name heere in his assertion concerning the greeke churches , he must not blame vs , if wee suspect him in his report of of mozaribites , cathaians , indians , ethiopians , and others more remote ; the rather , hauing as good cards to shew as any he can produce , to the contrary . § . in the next place he runneth out in an idle discourse of martin luther , as if he had learned the doctrine he taught in this point , of the diuell , ( a friuolous fable refuted long since by p m. charke , q dr. fulke and others : ) by the way glancing at our manner of celebration of the sacrament ; and an inuectiue against the first authors ( as hee falsely tearmeth them ) of our religion ; with an apendix concerning the markes of a church , and of the church before luther . concerning all which for the present i say nothing but that of ierome , r asellus lassus in via quaerit diuerticula . he is a wearie ( it seemeth ) of the worke hee hath in hand , and would faine slip aside therefore into some other debate , that it might not so well appeare how hee sticketh in the mire here . one thing ( they say ) at once doth well : and i suppose this will finde him worke enough for a while ; if he haue any stomacke to reioyne . let him ( if hee can ) first maintaine their prodigious doctrine in the point present ; and then ( if he desire it ) hee shall further be dealt with , either in these , or in any other controuersie betweene them and vs. onely for what hee saith of our liturgie as pieced ( i know not how ) together out of their missals , and graced with aryming psalme sung to a liggish tune . not to put him in minde of those apish gesticulations , and histrionicall firks , that their masse almost wholly consisteth of , and of their hymnes running in rime indeed , but full oft without reason , fraught with grosse barbarismes and soloecismes ; yea stuft with s not a few impious blasphemies ; which their collects also are not free from . let the ancient manner of church-seruice and celebration of this sacrament related before out of iustine martyr be considered ; and then see what is wanting in ours that was then in theirs , and whether is liker to that , ours or theirs . their missall indeede is a meere patchery of old and new together , so euill contriued ( whatsoeuer t bellarmine prate to the contrary ) and so handsomly agreeing the one with the other , that from those very fragments of antiquitie , that remaine yet in their masse , this very doctrine of theirs may very euidently bee confuted . for therein after consecration they pray vnto god , to accept that holy sacrifice , which of his gifts they offer , and vouchsafe to looke propitiously vpon those his gifts , and to accept them as hee did abels offering and abrahams sacrifice : and , that he will command them to be caried vp by the hands of his angell , to bee presented on the high altar in the sight of his maiesty ; and that through iesus christ , by whom he continually createth , quickeneth , and blesseth all these good things : and againe , that that which they haue taken may of a temporall gift become an eternall remedie . how stand now these speeches and prayers with their transubstantiation ? are christs body and blood those temporall gifts and good things , that god by christ daily createth and quickeneth ? or needeth christ the priest to entreate his father to looke propitiously vpon him ? or any angell to cary him vp and present him before his father in heauen , in whose presence and sight he is continually there ? or is it not absurd to place u abels fatlings and x abrahams ramme in equipage with the body and blood of christ iesus ? but these things ( it seemeth ) were in their ancient liturgies , before euer this new monster was hatched , and to their owne shame & confusion are yet vnwisely still retained . and if you will see , how handsomely things therein hang together , obserue but this one passage : the priest prayeth to god to send an angell to fetch the holy housell vp into heauen : ( and yet they tell vs withall , the most of them , that y it neuer came from thence , nor neuer returneth againe thither ; wherein we better beleeue them then we doe some other of their fellowes that say otherwise ) and within a while after , hee swalloweth it downe himselfe ; and then praieth god ( as if he repented him of his former prayer ) z that that which hee hath eaten may sticke fast to his guts . let him shew any such absurdities as these ( if he can ) in our seruice . if some pieces of antiquity found in theirs be retained still in ours ; that is neither derogation to ours , nor commendation to theirs . wee embrace true and sound antiquity , wheresoeuer we finde it : their corrupt nouelties , which it suteth so euillfauouredly withall , we deseruedly reiect . they pretend cleare places of scripture for each point of their doctrines wherein they differ from vs. but when they come to be duly discussed , they either make against themselues , or prooue nothing at all against vs ; as i will briefely declare in this very controuersie , for a corollarium of my whole doctrine . for whereas s. a cyprian , s. hilarie , saint ambrose , s. chrysostome , s. augustine , cyrill , hesychius , theodoret , and vniuersally all the ancient fathers commenting the . chapter of s. iohns gospell haue literally vnderstood christs promise of giuing his flesh to eate and his blood to drinke in the sacrament , these men restraine them to a metaphoricall and spirituall eating by faith onely ; and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the iudgement of the ancient church , they onely cite those wordes of christ , it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing , &c. and affirme them to import that christs wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood , and not at all according to the literall signification of them , to wit , of christs body and blood receiued in the sacrament . whereas at most they can import , that christ promised not to giue his flesh and blood cannally , as the capharnaits vnderstood him , cut ( to wit ) in pieces , and by bits eaten , as s. augustine explicateth them ; but that christs body and blood were to be after a spirituall manner present , and receiued in the sacrament , which we deny not : and great authors ( as tolet noteth ) so expound them , as to make this sense , it is the deity or diuine spirit which is vnited with my flesh , that viuificateth by grace soules worthily receiuing it , and not by flesh alone barely of it selfe eaten . neither of which explications prooue a figuratiue vnderstanding of christs wordes : this being a glosse of their owne besides the text , neuer before them taught by any catholike doctor : and so it can be no solide sufficient ground sor them to rely vpon for their hereticall deniall of christs true body and blood really present and receiued in the sacrament . for scripture ill vnderstood is no scripture , but gods word abused . § . yet in conclu●ion to say somewhat againe of the present point , hee telleth vs that s. cyprian , hilarie , ambrose , chrysostome , augustine , cyrill , hesychius , theodoret , and all the ancient fathers vniuersally vnderstood that place of iohn concerning the eating of christs flesh not figuratiuely , but literally ; whereas wee contrary to the iudgement of the whole ancient church , vnderstand them of spirituall eating by faith ; alleadging onely for this our exposition those words of our sauiour , it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing : which wordes as tolet sheweth , may beare another sense . . how prooueth hee that these fathers so expound that place ? forsooth , he sendeth vs to seeke the proofe of it in bellarmine . it is enough that he saith it ; let bellarmine ( if he can ) prooe it . but is not this impudent out-facing , to say that these fathers all literally vnderstand it , when out of diuerse of them the contrary hath beene euidently shewed ? yea when augustine ( one of them ) giuing rules to expound scripture , doth expressely affirme that the place is to be taken figuratiuely , and that it were b an haynous and flagitious thing otherwise to vnderstand it ? . it is another vntruth as grosse as the former , to say we ground our exposition on those wordes onely . wee vrge indeed the wordes following c the wordes that i speake are spirit and life . and we vrge and expound them no otherwise then diuerse of the ancients haue done before vs. to omit athanasius formerly alleadged : augustine besides that that is in the selfe same place cited ; d what meane those wordes , ( saith he ) they are spirit and life , but e that they are to be vnderstood spiritually ? and againe , f he spake this that hee might g not bee vnderstoode carnally ; as h nicodemus before had done . yea and of those former wordes thomas aquinas out of chrysostom , i when christ saith ; it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing : his meaning is , that k we ought spiritually to vnderstand those things that wee heare of him : and that l whoso heareth carnally , getteth thereby no good . now to vnderstand them carnally , is to looke on the outward things onely , and to imagine no more then wee see . to vnderstand them spiritually is not so to iudge of them , but also with the inward eyes to looke on them . m which in all mysteries ought alwayes to be done . and tertullian , n when christ saith that the flesh profiteth nothing ; his meaning must be drawne from the matter of his speech . for because they thought his speech hard and intollerable , o as if hee determined to giue them his very flesh to bee eaten ; ( or , his flesh verely to bee eaten ) to place the state of saluation in the spirit , hee premiseth ; it is the spirit that quickeneth : and then adioyneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing , to wit , to quicken . and withall he sheweth what he meaneth by the spirit : the words that i haue spoken are spirit and life . as he said before ; p hee that heareth my word , and beleeueth in him that sent mee , hath life eternall . so that he maketh the word the quickner ; because the word is spirit & life ; and he called it also his flesh ; because the q word also became flesh ; and is therefore r to be longed a●ter for life , to be deuoured by the hearing , chewed by the vnderstanding , and digested by faith . heere is the eating that our sauiour spake of in that place , not carnall but spirituall ; which our aduersarie also earstwhiles confessed . neither vrge we this alone , ( as he vntruely here affirmeth ; ) but wee vrge diuerse other passages also ( as before hath beene shewed ) wherein our sauiour expoundeth himselfe ; obserued by augustine long since , and by their flaunders bishop iansenius of late , beside diuerse others of their owne . and if he had had any thing of moment to say against this our exposition , why did hee not then produce it , where the place was discussed ? but he thought it better and safer ( it seemeth ) to let all this alone there , lest the allegations to the contrary being then in the eie , might easily conuince him of grosse and palpable falshood . . doe we alone thus expound that place ? doe not very many of their owne writers herein agree with vs ? or do those of theirs build onely vpon the clause he here mentioneth ? to which purpose , howsoeuer enough hath already beene said , yet for his better information concerning both the soundnes of our exposition of that place , and the reasons thereof drawne from our sauiours owne wordes , let him heare one , though not then pope , yet that afterward came to bee pope , and was as learned a pope as any of late times . aeneas syluius writing against the bohemians ; s it is not ( saith he ) any sacramentall drinking , but a spirituall that our sauiour speaketh of in that . of iohn . for there is , as albertus magnus she weth , a threefold drinking of christ : a sacramentall , that the priests onely receiue ; an intellectuall , that the people take in the species of bread ; and a spirituall , which all vse that are to be saued , by daily deuout meditation ruminating on christs incarnation and his passion : and of this drinking our sauiour speaketh in iohn . as the very series of the euangelists wordes clearely sheweth . for when some of them that heard it , murmured , our sauiour said , t doth this scandalize you ? what if you should see the sonne of man ascend where before he was ? it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing . in which wordes he declareth that hee speaketh not there of any carnall eating or drinking : but would you plainly see that he speaketh of spirituall eating , that is , by faith ? marke what hee saith : u he that eateth and drinketh . he speaketh in the present tense , not in the future . there were euen then those that so ate him and dranke him , when as the sacrament was not yet instituted . and how did they then eate and drinke christ , but spiritually by faith , and loue , and doing his wordes ? for he said also before , x i am the bread of life ; hee that commeth vnto mee , shall not hunger ; and he that beleeueth in me shall not thirst . for christs speech was figuratiue . so also the glosser vnderstandeth this gospell : and so doth that great augustine , noble both for doctrine and modestie , whose glory is so great , that no mans commendation can adde to his credit , no mans dispraise can disparage him . and yet dare this shamelesse out-facer confidently affirme that none of the fathers euer so expounded the place : and that the heretickes ( as he esteemeth them , as if none but they so expounded it ) had no other inducement so to expound it , but those wordes onely ; y it is the spirit that quickeneth , the flesh profiteth nothing : all which you see are nothing but grosse vntruths . secondly , whereas we prooue that christs wordes , this is my body , &c. as being vttered to the apostles , to whom it was giuen to vnderstand the mysteries of christs church plainely , and without parable , and containing in them the institution of a sacrament , fit in plaine wordes to be deliuered and vnderstood by all christians bound to receiue it , are as we say literally to bee vnderstood , and not in tropicall and figuratiue senses , as our aduersaries expound them ; producing for our opinion all the fathers successiuely in all ages since christ so vnderstanding them : protestant diuines slenderly obiect , first that of the sacramentall chalice christ affirmed , that he would no more drinke of the fruit of the vine , vntill after his passion : ergò it was wine contained in the chalice : wee answer that s. luke expressely mentioneth two chalices , one drunke after the paschall lambe eaten , and the other afterwards blessed by christ and distributed to his apostles , and that christ onely called the first the fruit of the vine , &c. so s. ierome , s. bede , and other great authors explicate and solue this difficulty with vs. secondly , they obiect those words of christ , doe this in memory of me : ergò the sacrament is a bare memorie of christs body and blood , &c. we answer and make s. paul to interpret these words of our sauiour for vs , cor. . saying . as oft as you shall doe this , you shal represent or declare christs death till hee come . which is best declared and represented by the parts of the sacrifice and sacrament , as they containe the very body and blood of our sauiour in them . for so himselfe present seemeth to triumph more gloriously , and exhibite vnto vs a more liuely memorie of his passion , then if the sacrament were no more then a bare signe thereof . § . hauing affirmed that all the holy fathers in all ages from christ haue expounded the wordes of our sauiour , ( this is my body , literally and not tropically , as they also do . the contrary wherevnto hath as clearely been shewed , as that the sunne is vp at noone-day : nor had this trifler ought of moment to except thereunto , where the same is shewed ; and yet now craketh ( as their manner is ) of all the fathers , when indeed they cannot bring any one vndoubted testimony to confirme what they so confidently affirme . ) hee will at length forsooth for fashion sake vndertake to answer two slender obiections of ours to the contrary . . christ ( say wee ) calleth that in the cup or chalice , the fruit of the vine . he answereth that s. luke mentioneth two chalices , the paschall , and the euangelicall , or eucharisticall ; and so s. ierome , and s. bede solue this difficulty . . hee spake of slender obiections . and so it seemeth indeed he esteemeth them : for he returneth very slender answers to them . for who would be so senslesse as to reason on this manner , s. luke mentioneth two chalices : ergò our sauiour did not speake any such thing of the eucharisticall cup , as yet both a mathew and b marke say expressely he did . . ierome and bede ( saith he ) so solue the difficulty . he would make his reader beleeue that ierome and bede had long since propounded this obiection , and so assoiled it as he doth . whereas the truth is ; they take no notice , either of them of the two cups , but allegorising the wordes ( as their manner is to doe many times , letting the literall sense alone ) expound the vine to be c the people of the iewes , and so the fruit of the vine , the legall obseruances , &c. and what is all this to the literall sense of the words , that this trifler is troubled with , and cannot tell how to auoyd ? let him produce ( if he can ) any one father , who denieth that christ spake those wordes of the eucharisticall cup , and of the liquor therein contained . i alleadged d clemens of alexandria , e cyprian , f chrysostome , g augustine , and might adde many others that affirme it . yea not onely iansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of h no other then the eucharisticall cuppe , which onely matthew and marke mention : but maldonate the iesuite also freely confesseth that i origen , k cyprian , l chrysostome , m epiphanius , n ierome , o augustine , p bede , q euthymius , and r theophylact , doe all expound those wordes of it : howbeit himselfe saith that s christ spake there not of his blood , but of wine . where first obserue we that ierome and bede ( cleane contrary to this fablers assertion , by the iesuites confession ) expound it of the eucharist . and secondly , conclude wee from the iesuites owne grants : it was of that that was in the eucharisticall cup that our sauiour spake those wordes , as the ancient fathers generally and ioyntly affirme : but our sauiour spake them not of his blood , but of wine ; saith the iesuite : it was not his blood therefore , but wine that was drunke in the eucharist . . wee obiect the words of our sauiour , t doe this in remembrance of me : not as this shamelesse lyer saith , therby to prooue the sacrament to be a bare memorie of christs body and blood : somewhat like the lye he told before , that his adversarie should affirme it to bee nothing but bare bread and wine : but to prooue that christ is not there corporally present : for what needeth a memoriall of him , when we haue him in our eye ? when ( if we may beleeue bellarmine ) he is visibly present with vs ? when we see him , and touch him , as this fellow telleth vs else-where ? or who would be so absurd as to say , i giue you my selfe to be a memoriall of my selfe ? u it is as if a man when hee dieth ( saith primasius ) or , x when he goeth to trauell , ( saith one that goeth for ierome ) should leaue a pledge or a token with one that hee loueth , to put him in minde of him in his absence , and of the good turnes he hath done him ; which the partie if hee loue him entirely , cannot looke on without teares . and who would be so senselesse , as deliuering his friend a ring on his death bed , to say , i deliuer you this ring to bee a pledge of this ringe , or to be a pledge of it selfe ? but let vs heare ( i pray you ) his answer . saint paul ( saith hee ) interpreteth these wordes of our sauiour , when he saith ; y so oft as you doe this , you represent christs death , till hee come . would any man that had either braines in his head , or wit in his braine , answer in this manner , or reason on this wise ? christs death is represented in the lords supper . ergo christs very body and blood must needs bee there present . yea or thus either ? in the lords supper is a representation of christs death : ergò it is not a memoriall of it . as if representation were not ordinarily of things absent ; or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate . he wanted his bellarmine heere to helpe him out ; who where tertullian saith , that a christ represented his body in bread : b saith that to represent there signifieth c to make a thing really present . but it is well that d the word vsed by the apostle here , will not beare any such sense : else ( it may be ) we might haue had it . meane while hee should haue done well ( as his vsuall manner is else-where ) to haue snipt off or concealed at least , the last clause , till i come . e for after hee is come ( saith theodoret ) we shall haue no neede of signes or symbols of his body any more , when his body it selfe shall appeare . he were scarce in his wits ( i thinke ) that would leaue a thing with his friends at his departure from them to bee remembred by in his absence till hee returned againe to them , that should lie lockt vp and kept out of their sight , and should neuer come in their view , but when himselfe should come personally in presence to shew it them : or should bid them by such a thing remember him , till hee came againe to them a twelue-moneth after , when as euery weeke or moneth in the meane space hee meant to returne to them , as oft as euer they desired to remember him in it . but mine adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should reade what hee writ , as would marke nothing but what he would haue them . lastly s. paul literally declaring the institution of the sacrament , cor. . to the end that the corinthians might vnderstand the excellency thereof , maketh the sinne of such as vnworthily receiue it to consist in this , that they discerne not that bread to be the body of christ : and his words read alone without hereticall glosses expresse plainely catholicke doctrine . and in the chapter before hee mentioneth benediction or consecration of the chalice then vsed , saying , calix benedictionis , the chalice of benediction which wee blesse , is it not the communication of christs blood ? and the bread which we breake , is it not the communication of christs body ? &c. of which words saith s. chrysostome , this is the meaning ; that which is in the chalice , is that which floweth out of christs side , and wee are made partakers thereof . which is out of the greeke text of s. luke plainely to be gathered : and the very manner of christs speeches , quod pro vobis datur , quod pro vobis effundetur ; which is giuen for you , which shall be effused for you ; import plainely a sacrifice of his body and blood , wherein the one is offered not to vs , but for vs ; the other was to be not infused as wine , but effused as blood for vs , &c. § . at last remembring himselfe , wherein he failed at the first , hee will prooue out of s. paul ( hee saith ) that christs words are literally to be vnderstood . this had beene more seasonable , where it was questioned at first . but better at last ( we say ) then neuer . . the apostle maketh ( saith hee ) this the sinne of those that vnworthily receiued the sacrament , that f they discerned not the lords body . . hee , saith , g the bread broken is the communication of the body of christ ; and the blessed chalice of his blood . stout arguments , and fit for such a champion as he is . for the former : how followeth it , men sinne in not discerning the lords body , when they come vnreuerētly to the lords board : ergò our sauiours words , this is my body , are to bee vnderstood properly . let him heare augustine expounding the words of the apostle , what it is not to discerne the lords body , to wit , h not to discerne that from other meates by a reuerence singularly due vnto it ; which is as he speaketh else-where , i in some sort christs body , because a signe and a sacrament of it . yea let him heare himselfe where he saith , k the sinne of such persons is made this by the apostle , that they distinguish not this bread from other common bread . and then see how well they serue to prooue that that here they are alleadged for . for the latter : not to demand of them , how chance they oft celebrate ( contrary to both our sauiours , and the apostles practice ) without any breaking of bread at all ; if their paper wafer-cake at least deserue that name . who denied euer a communication of christs body and blood in the sacrament ? but must it needes bee corporall ; or else it is none at all ? l the tongue tripping now and then telleth truth . and the truth start out of his mouth before vnawares , where he said , that christ is present there in a spirituall manner . and in a spirituall manner ( as out of athanasius and augustine , yea and their owne iansenius i haue shewed ) doe wee participate of , and communicate with the body and blood of christ in the sacrament ; m sending the hand of our faith ( as augustine speaketh ) vp into heauen ; yea reaching it ( as i may well say ) to christs crosse. i will adde to the former onely one obseruation of bernard , who in many places speaketh of this our communication with christ : alluding to those words of our sauiour , n hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood , abideth in me and i in him : o christ ( saith he ) both eateth vs , and is eaten of vs ; that wee may the more firmely and strictly be fastened vnto him . otherwise should wee not bee perfectly vnited to him . for if i eate and be not eaten , he may seeme to be in me , but not i yet in him . againe , if i be eaten , but eate not ; he may seeme to haue me in him , but not to be yet in me . for there is no absolute vnition in either of these alone . but when p both he eateth me , that i may be in him ; and is eaten of me , that he may be in me ; then is there indeed a firm and an entire connexion , i being in him and hee in mee . but christs eating of vs is not orall or corporall , but mentall and spirituall : of the like kinde therefore is our eating of him , and our mutuall participation alike in either : which in these wordes also most sweetly doth iansenius expresse : q by faith this bread is not simply taken , but being chewed as it were with teeth , while it is well considered what and what manner of food it is , and r so broken , it is conueighed with a kinde of delight and spirituall taste into the bowels of the soule , and s is incorporated into vs , that so christ being in an hidden and secret manner by faith vnited vnto vs , may t dwell ( as the apostle speaketh ) in our hearts , by his presence there quickening and nourishing them , and so expell all hunger and thirstinesse out of them , while he remooueth both the want of things needfull to true life , and the desire of other transitorie things . and it is the same in effect that caluine meaneth when he saith , * to feede on christ is somewhat more then barely to beleeue in him , and that it is y not so much beliefe it selfe , as an effect and fruite of it . that which bonauenture the schooleman also not vnfitly thus expresseth : z eating ( saith hee ) is properly spoken of the body , and is by way of similitude applied to the soule . that therefore we may know what is meant by spirituall eating , wee must haue an eye vnto corporall feeding . now in corporall manducation there are these two things , a mastication and incorporation , or a chewing of the meate in the mouth , and an incorporating of it into the body . in like manner in spirituall eating there is first b a spirituall chewing , that is , a recogitation or a serious consideration and faithfull meditation of the spirituall meate , that is , of christs flesh exposed for vs , both as a ransome to redeeme vs , and as food also to feed vs ; and secondly , c a spirituall incorporation , when vpon such recogitation or consideration the soule is by a louing affection vnited and incorporated to the thing considered , and is thereby refreshed or nourished , and so made in grace more and more like vnto it . so that vnto spirituall manducation are two things required , d a faithfull recogitation , and a louing affection . whence it followeth that e neither is euery kinde of faith sufficient to effect this spirituall feeding on christ , but such f faith onely as worketh by loue : g nor is euery effect of faith a feeding on christs flesh , but that onely whereby christs flesh , that was boyled ( as it were ) to make food for vs , on the crosse , is so considered , and in a spirituall manner digested and con●●cted ( as was before said ) for the feeding and refreshing of our soules . so that caluines doctrine and ours concerning this spirituall feeding on christ , and so communicating with his body and blood , is no other then the ancients long since taught , and their owne writers themselues acknowledge : which in one word i shut and seale vp with that short saying of chrysostome , tha tboth in baptisme and the eucharist , h it is faith that doth all . yea but chrysost. saith that that that is in the chalice , is that which flowed out of christs side , and we are made therof partakers : and out of s. lukes greeke text it is plainely gathered . what out of s. luke hee alleadegth wee shall see anone . onely mark how he fleeth from their onely authenticall latine heere to the greeke text , which at other times they * say is so corrupted , that there is little certainety of ought from it , further then their latine and it concurre . chrysostome saith indeede as hee is here cited . but it must be remembred what both their sixtus senensis , and bellar. also say of him ; to wit , that chrysostome is wont to speake many things k hyperbolically or l excessiuely , in his sermons especially . to passe by other places , where hee saith , that the church is m that very chamber where christ celebrated his last supper ; that n we touch his side with our lips ; that o we set our teeth in his flesh ; that p we cut his flesh assunder ; that our q tongue is died with blood ; and our r mouth is filled with fire ; while s no man , but an angell with tongs reacheth a coale of fire to vs ; that christ doth t ●neade as dough , and u mingleth himselfe together with vs ; and that x we are likewise knod as dough and y mixed or tempored together with him into his flesh . to let these passe , i say ; in the very sermon here cited he hath diuerse passages , which themselues will not deny , must needes be figuratiuely meant ; as where he saith , that a christ suffereth that in the sacrament , that he did not suffer vpon the crosse ; to wit , the b breaking , euen of his bones , which there he did not ; that d the altar is bloodied with christs blood , ( as hee saith else-where that the people are e all died red with it : ) that f the bread is christs bodie : ( which in propriety of sense , saith g bellarmine , is impossible ) and that by taking it we are not onely h vni●ed to christs body , and become i one body with christ ; or k christs body ; and all of vs one body : but that l wee our selues are that selfe same bodie that we take : not vnlike that which haimo hath , that m christs naturall bodie , and the eucharisticallbread , and the communicants themselues are all but one and the same body . yea that he is to be vnderstood figuratiuely , appeareth , as by that that hee addeth there , that n like eagles we must so●re aloft vp to heauen , and o not flagge downeward , nor creepe below vpon the ground , if wee will come at christs body ; so by that which hee saith elsewhere , that it was p wine that christ deliuered , when hee deliuered this mystery ; that which hee prooueth also by the wordes of our sauiour himselfe in the place before discussed , q i will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine . chrysostome saith that the altar is bloodied with christs blood ; and his body suffereth that there , which really it doth not : as the apostle faith , that r christ was crucified in the sight of the galatians , who in likely hood many of them neuer saw peece of his crosse : and as august . saith , s he lies not , that saith that christ is immolated on easter-day , in regard of the similitude that that sacrament hath of his passion , that that day is celebrated : and in like manner may it very well be vnderstood , when hee saith that christs blood is in the cup. nor hindreth it , but that this speech of chrysostome may be taken tropically , because he saith , t that that flowed out of christs side : ( as u augustine also , though no friend to transubst antiation , is reported to say the same ) no more then it would haue hindered , but that the apostles words might haue bin takē figuratiuely ( as caietan also well obserueth ) hough of the rocke hee should haue said , that rocke was that christ , that was crucified , and died , and rose againe from the dead . § . . in the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a sacrifice there , the very manner ( saith hee of christs speeches , quod pro vobis datur , quod pro vobis effundetur ; which is giuen for you , which shall bee shed for you ; import plainly a sacrifice : which he hath ( as all that euer he hath almost ) out of a bellarmine . as if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion ; ( which is b a true sacrifice indeed , and c a most perfect yea d the full complement of all other : ) that which their owne vulgar translation also plainely importeth , yeelding the wordes ( as they are also in the very canon of the masse ) by the future tense , tradetur , effundetur ; shall be giuen , shall be shed : as hauing an eye to the passion then e neere at hand , wherein his body was to bee giuen , and his blood to be shed . so gregorie of ualence ; f that is or shall be giuen , or broken ; that is , that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the crosse : g as ( saith hee ) the apostle himselfe also expoundeth it . so cardinall hugh ; h he tooke bread , and brake it , thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the crosse , and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified : and when he said k that shall bee shed , he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue . yea so l card. caietan ; who addeth also not vnfitly , that christs body is said then to be giuen , and his blood to be shed . because his passion was then in a manner begun , l a plot being now laid for his life , and m his bodie and blood already bought and sold by them . and to omit that christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it , then those wordes of his the like else-where , n i lay downe my life for my sheepe : let him but shew vs how christs blood is shed in this sacrifice . for as for bellarmines bold assertion that o bread is said to be broken , when it is p giuen by whole loaues ; and wine is said to bee poured out , when it is giuen by q whole hogs-heads , or rundlets at least , not by pots or pitchers full onely ; it is most senselesse and abfurd . but why doth not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe , that christ bad them , r doe this , that is , as they senselesly expound it , sacrifice this . for that is a maine pillar , that they pitch much vpon . which expositiō yet , as bellarmine is almost ashamed of , and s blameth caluin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein , by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not , nor alleadge : so t iansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue , ( as indeede u not a few doe ) yet confesseth that that is but a weake argument : and granteth in effect , that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the gospel be prooued , that the sacrament of christs body and blood is a sacrifice : and is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it : and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a sacrifice as they would haue it to be . for irenaeus ( x saith he ) that liued neere the apostles times , y calleth the sacrament of christs body and blood a sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred ( as types of christs body and blood : ) as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred , as well for the worke of our creation , as for the worke also of our redemption . and howsoeuer this doughty doctor say that our sauiours words so plainly import it , yet is their graund champion bellarmine , where at large he debateth this businesse , euill troubled to finde it out either in christs institution , or in their owne masse booke , or to shew wherein it consisteth . where it is not , indeede hee can easily tell vs : but he cannot so easily tell vs where it is . o it is not he ( saith he ) p in the oblation that goeth before consecration : for then not christs body , but bare bread should be sacrificed . it is not in the consecration : for q therein appeareth no oblation , nor no sensible immutation , which is needfull in an externall sacrifice . it is not in the oblation that ▪ commeth after consecration : for r that oblation neither christ ; nor his apostles at first vsed . it is not in the breaking : for s that is sometime ●mitted : t nor doe we ( saith ) vse such breaking as christ did now adaies . it is u not in the peoples communication : for then the people should be priests . but where is it then ? surely it is partly in the consecration : and yet it is not there neither : because there is x no true or reall , but a mysticall death onely there ; and partly in the priests manducation , or eating of it . and why there ? forsooth , because it is no where else , and somewhere it must needs be : for y in the whole action of the masse there is no reall destruction of an host but there onely . thus you see how they delude the people , telling them of a true , proper , reall sacrifice , wherein they offer christ againe for the poore soules in purgatorie , to picke their purses : and yet cannot tell themselues what or where it is , or wherein it consisteth . but if christ ( as they say ) be the thing sacrificed or the hoast : and not bread , but this hoast is really destroied , when the priest eateth it : then how scapeth christ from being then destroied ? or how scapeth the priest from being a destroier of christ ? yea at the first institution either christ did eate the consecrated host or bread , or he did not . if he did , ( * which yet indeede is not so easily prooued ) then by bellarmines doctrine he did therein really destroy himselfe ; and the rather , for that his body was not as yet then impassible . if hee did not , then belike there was no sacrific● there . for the apostles ( they say ) were not made priests till christ bad them , hoc facite , doe this ; and * thereby made them such ; which might well be not till after they had eaten . or if they were priests when they did eate , then belike they destroied christ before the iewes did him to death . but it is not to be marueiled , if they cannot finde it in christs institution when they know not where to finde it in their owne missall . in which kinde it is not vnworthy the obseruation , that corn. iansenius hauing sifted ouer and ransackt the whole story of the institution , conioyning all the three euangel●st● , that report it , together , yet can finde no sacrifice there expressed saue in the b thankesgiuing , which is ( saith he ) a spirituall ●inde of sacrifice , and of which the lords supper is called the eucharist , and may therefore well be ●earmed a sacrifice . which we deny not ; but expressely say the same . onely he saith , c it is probable too , that christ then offred himselfe to his father . but at last he is faine to flie to this , that though it be granted that christ offred not himselfe in the supper , yet it followeth net that the priests should not therein now offer him . for they are bidden by christ to doe something that christ did not , to wit , to doe it in remembrance of him , which could not be done then , when he was present , ( nor is hee present then belike now when it is done ) “ since that remembrance is of a thing absent onely : and that therefore it may well bee called a sacrifice , because it is done in memorie of christs passion . this is the very same that peter lombard before said : and to the same purpose gabriel biel ( applying that out of augustine to the sacrifice , which we did formerly to the sacrament , whereupon mine aduersarie tooke occasion to keepe such a coile , as if i made the sacrament nothing but a bare signe , like alexanders picture , &c. ) d augustine ( saith he ) saith that e images or pictures are went to be called by the names of these things whereof they they are pictures or images , as when looking on a table or a painted wall , we say ; that is cicero , that is salust : now the celebration of this sacrament is a kinde of image or representation of christs passion ; which is the true immolation or sacrificing of him : and therfore is it also called an immolation , or an oblation & a sacrifice , because it is a representation and a memoriall of that true sacrifice and holy oblation made on the crosse. and this also we all willingly and generally graunt . but such a sacrifice will not serue their turne . they must haue a reall and a proper sacrifice , the very selfe same with christs on the crosse , though they know not whence to fetch , nor where to finde it . nor is it to be 〈…〉 ( as i said before , if in christs institution there be f 〈…〉 ●…ing 〈…〉 all found of this their sacrifice : since they confesse that the sacrament of the eucharist , and the sacrifice of the masse are two seuerall things ; which both the councell of trent therefore dealeth with seuerally , and bellarmine handleth vnder seuerall heds : as also m. harding derideth bishop iewel for confounding the communion and the masse together . we finde in the gospel christs institution of the one , and therefore willingly embrace it : but we finde there not so much as any mention at all of the other ; and therefore iustly we reiect it . the protestant writers of magdeburgh in their fourth century dedicated vnto our late soueraigne queene elizabeth vndertaking to declare the primatiue estate of the church , which in constantines time illustrated the whole world , blame almost vniuersally all the ancient fathers for teaching free-will , iustification by works , merite of workes done by the assistance of grace , confession of sinnes to a priest , and enioyned penance , absolution of such as had confessed giuen with imposition of hands , inuocation of saints , purgatorie , altars called the seate of the body and bloud of christ offered on them , the reall presence , transubstantiation , with care , more then was had of the water of baptisme , that no part of the sacrament should fall to the ground , reseruation of the sacrament , worshipping of it , receiueing it fasting and chast , offering it in sacrifice to god as being propitiator●e not onely for the liuing , but for the dead , afferming it to be a sacrisice according to the order of melchisedeck , liberty for deacon● to distribute it but not to offer it , tearming it viaticum for sick persons , im●ges in the church sumptuously built for celebration of masses in them , holy vestments vsed by the priest in time of the sacrifice , corporals and couerings of the altar , lights by day burning on them , placing of saints reliques vnder them , the care of d●ceased persons , praying before them , and making pilgrimages vnto them , and other like confessed points and practises of catholike doctrine . § . to make vs beleeue that this their doctrine of transubstantiation is of great antiquitie , he telleth vs that the centurists blame almost all the fathers vniuersally of constantines time , among other things , for teaching the doctrine of transubstantiation , and adoration of the sacrament . this is all most false , as much is also of the rest by him here affirmed . they alleadge onely some passages out of counterfeit workes , g some going vnder ambrose his name , as the praiers preparing to the masse , censured by h erasmus for such , wherein mention is made of adoration of the bread in the sacrament ; which they note also not to be found in any of ambrose his owne workes ; i some going vnder athanasius his name , as an idle legend of an image of christ ; which k baronius himselfe disauoweth ; wherein mention is made of no flesh of christ left in the world , but what is made vpon the altar : ( and how haue they l his foreskin among their holy reliques then ? ) m some vnder the name of eusebius emissemus , confessed by n bellarmine in diuers places to be meere counterfeits ; as an homely , wherein the bread and wine are said to be turned into the substance of christs body and blood : ( words not found once in the writings of any one of the auncients : we produce expresse places , where the substance of bread is said to remaine still in the sacrament ; they not one where the bread is said to be turned into the substance of christs body . but a number of such counterfeits doe they daily coine and forge , and then cry out that men condemne antiquity , when they censure them , and such grosse errors as they meete withall in them : ) and withall p they obserue that two or three of the fathers that were , not in constantines time , but somewhat after , vsed some new tearmes and phrases in their discourses of these mysteries , that were not vsuall in auncienter times . but that they condemne any one father that liued in constantine , time or within that age , much lesse all of them almost vniuersally for teaching transubstantiation and adoration of the eucharist , is most vntrue . he should haue done well to haue added , what indeed they obserue , and therein hee should not haue lied , q that they did in those times deliuer the sacrament entire to all , and not mangle it , as their church doth now adaies , bereauing the people of one principall part of it : as also r that they deliuered them the bread into their hands , and not popped it into their mouthes , as their manner now is . and of constantine that renowmed first christian emperour they confesse from the testimonie of eusebius liuing with him and writing his life , of s. ierome likewise and other certaine authors , that he erected temples in memorie of martyrs , dedicated a most sumptuous church in honour of the apostles , prouided his sepulcher there , to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the praiers there offered ; he dedicated his church with great solemnitie , and celebrated the dedication thereof with a yeerely festiuall day ; he carried about with him a portable church or tabernacle , and priests and deacons attending it for the celebration of the diuine mysteries ; he had lights by day burning therein ; he translated to constantinople the holy reliques of s. andrew , s. luke , and timothie , at which diuels did roare , and certaine reliques of the crosse , found by his mother for conseruation of the citie built by him ; hee honoured sacred virgins professing perpetuall chastitie ; vnder him were monkes throughout all syria , palestine , bithynia , and other places of asia and affrick ; he greatly reuerenced anthony the monke ; hee went to embrace the sepulcher of saint peter , and saint paul , humbly praying to their saints that they would be intercessours to god for him ; he much honoured the crosse and signed his face with it ; vnder him in that age were pilgrimages made to ierusalem : he reprooued acesius the nouatian for denying the power giuen vnto priests to remit sinnes , vnder pretence that god onely remitteth sinnes : of his cleargie , priests and bishops assembled by him to the dedication of his church some of them did did preach and interpret holy scriptures , others of them , who could not doe so , appeased the deitie with vnbloody sacrifices and mysticall consecrations , praying for the health of the emperour : at the time of his death he intended to expiate his sinnes by efficacie of the holy mysteries , and confessed his sinnes in the house of martyrs : after his death praier was made for his soule , and the mysticall sacrifice offered . so euident was hee and the primatiue flourishing church of christ in his daies , in these and all other points catholike , and continued so in our countrey and other christian parts of the world vntill luthers foule apostasie and reuolt from it . the brittish auncient inhabitantt of this i le conuerted in or neere the time of the apostles , agreed in all other points of faith with s. austin our first apostle , excepting some different ceremonies of baptisme , and the iewish obseruation of easter , as s. bede testifieth : whose religion is euidently knowne and confessed by our chiefe aduersaries to haue beene romane and catholike . and neuer any countrey was in any age conuerted from paganisme to christ , but it receiued our doctrine , namely , the practise of the masse and beleefe of the sacrament . § . to passe by his impertinent catalogue of by-matters in constantines time ; ( whereof some also are vntrue , and some vncertaine ; ) which he is very forward to run out into , willing to be dealing with any thing , though neuer so impertinent , then the point that against his will he must be held to : whereunto i answer no more for the present , but this ; let him first quit himselfe of the taske that he hath already vndertaken , to wit , to maintaine this their metaphysicall transmutation in the eucharist ; and when he hath so done let him then produce , if he can , any one article of faith , that was held generally as such in constantines time by vs now reiected , and he shall not want an answere . but to passe by this ( i say ) he would make vs beleeue ( if we will take it on his word ) that the brittish auncient inhabitants of this i le held the same beleefe concerning this sacrament , that the romanists doe at this day . all the reason he produceth for it is this , that they differed from augustine that was sent by pope gregorie into england onely in some ceremonies about baptisme , and the obseruation of easter . surely this man hath a notable vaine in disputing and arguing : he can prooue any thing , if you doe but grant him all that he saith . the brittish inhabitants ( saith he ) here presently after the apostles time held transubstantiation then , as we doe now at rome . whereas he well knoweth that * for aboue . yeeres after christ their transubstantiation was not generally held ; scarce heard of for farre more then halfe that time . neither is hee able to produce any title of true antiquitie to shew , that it was then held here . yea but ( saith he ) there was no difference here about it , when austin came into these parts , betweene him and them that hee found here . but i demand how it appeareth that gregorie that sent austin , held transubstantiation ? or that in the church of rome it was then held ? till hee can prooue this to vs , not out of lying legends or bastard writings , but out of some authentick story , or gregories owne vndoubted workes , we haue little reason to beleeue him . s bellarmine ( i am sure ) can fish very little out of him , nothing at all , that prooueth ought . sure we are that our country-man venerable bede , whom he here citeth as the reporter of augustines arriuall here , was of an other iudgement , as by his writings appeareth . for commenting on the storie of the institution of this sacrament ; t the old paschall solemnity ( saith hee ) being ended , which was celebrated in memorie of the deliuerance out of egypt , christ passeth to a new one , which hee would haue the church vse in memory of redemption by him , u instead of the flesh and blood of a lambe substituting a sacrament of his body and blood , in a figure of bread and wine , &c. and x hee breaketh himselfe the bread that he deliuereth , to shew that the breaking of his bodie to come was by his owne will and procurement . and againe , y because bread strengtheneth the flesh , and wine breedeth blood , the one is mystically referred to christs body , and the wine vnto his blood . where is any tittle here that may stand well with their transubstantiation ? much lesse that soundeth ought that way ? a sacrament of his body and blood : a memoriall of his redemption : bread broken and giuen : and both bread and wine hauing a mysticall reference to the body and blood of christ. it was well and aduisedly therefore done by bellarmine , z to leaue bede cleane out of the catalogue of his authors , though a writer of the greatest note in those times , because he could finde nothing in him , that might seeme but to looke that way ; which if he could , we should be sure to haue heard of . yea that long after augustines time the same beleefe of the sacrament , that we at this day hold , was commonly taught and professed publikely in this iland , notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that popish faction suppressed , appeareth by some of them in ancient manuscripts yet extant , and of late published also in print . among others of this kinde are the a epistles and sermons written in the saxon tongue , of one aelfricke a man of great note for learning , that liued about the yeere . wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the sacrament that we hold at this day , and the contrary popish doctrine is impugned . in an epistle of his written for wulfsine then bishop of shyrburn to his clerks bearing title of a sacerdotall synode , he saith , that the holy housell is christs bodie , not bodily , but ghostly : not the body that he suffered in , but the body of which he spake , when hee blessed bread and wine to housell , and said by the blessed bread , this is my body ; and by the holy wine , this is my blood . and that the lord that then turned that bread to his body , doth still by the priests hands blesse bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood . and in another epistle to wulstane archbishop of yorke ; that the lord halloweth daily by the hands of the priest , bread to his body , and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery . and yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so , nor the selfe same body that christ suffered in : nor that holy wine is the sauiours blood , which was shed for vs in bodily thing , but in ghostly vnderstanding . and that that bread is his body , and that wine his blood , as the heauenly bread , which we call manna , was his body , and the cleere water which did then run from the stone in the wildernes was truely his blood ; as s. paul saith , b and that stone was christ. and in the paschall homily by him translated out of latine , and read commonly then on easter-day ; men ( saith hee ) haue often searched , and doe as yet search how bread that is gathered of corne , and through fires heat baked , may be turned to christs body ; or how wine that is pressed out of many grapes is turned through one blessing to the lords blood . to which he there answereth , that it is so by signification , as christ is said to be bread , a rocke , a lamb , a lion , not after truth of nature . and againe hauing demanded , why is that holy housell then called christs body and his blood , if it be not truely that that it is called ? hee answereth , it is so truely in a ghostly mysterie . and then explicating further the manner of this change ; as ( saith he ) an heathen childe when hee is christened , yet hee altereth not his shape without , though hee be changed within : and as the holy water in baptisme after true nature is corruptible water , but after ghostly mystery hath spirituall vertue . and so saith he ; the holy housell is naturally corruptible bread & corruptible wine , but is by might of gods word truely christs body and blood , yet not bodily , but ghostly . and afterward hee setteth downe diuerse differences betweene christs naturall body and it . much is betwixt the body that christ suffered in , and the body that he hallowed to housell : . the body that hee suffered in was bred of the flesh of mary , with blood , and bone , and skin , and sinewes , in humane limmes , and a liuing soule . his ghostly body which we call the housell , is gathered of many cornes without blood and bone , limme and soule . and it is therefore called a mystery , because therein is one thing seen , and another thing vnderstood . . christs body that he suffred in and rose from death , neuer dieth henceforth , but is eternall and impassible : that housel is temporall , not eternall , corruptible , and dealed into sundry parts , chewed betweene the teeth , and sent into the belly . . this mysterie is a pledge and figure . christs body is truth it selfe . this pledge doe we keepe mystically , vntill we come vnto the truth it selfe , and then is this pledge ended . truly it is , as we said christs body and blood , not bodily , but ghostly . and yet further he addeth that , as the stone in the wildernesse , from whence the water ran , was not bodily christ , but did signifie christ , though the apostle say , c that stone was christ : so that heauenly meate that fed them . yeeres , and that water that gushed from the stone , had signification of christs body and blood , and was the same that wee now offer , not bodily , but ghostly . and that , as christ turned by inuisible might the bread to his body and the wine to his blood before he suffred ; so he did in the wildernesse turne the heauenly meate to his flesh , and the flowing water to his owne blood , before hee was borne . that , when our sauiour said , d hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath euerlasting life ; he bad them not eate the body wherewith he was enclosed , nor to drinke that blood which hee shed for vs : but he ment that holy housel , which is ghostly his body and his blood ; and hee that tasteth it with beleeuing heart , hath euerlasting life . that , as the sacrifices had a sore-signification of christs body which he offered to his father in sacrifice : so the housell that wee hallaw at gods altar is a remembrance of christs body which he offered for vs , and of his blood which he shed for vs : which suffering once done by him is daily renewed in a mystery of holy housell . lastly , that this holy housell is both christs body , and the bodie of all faithfull men after ghostly mysterie : and so when we receiue it , we receiue our selues too . for , e you are christs body saith the apostle ; and , f we many bee one bread , and one body . whence it is apparent that the same faith that wee hold concerning the sacrament of the eucharist , and christs presence in it was publikely taught and ordinarily professed in this iland euen for a long time also after austins accesse into these parts . so far is it from that which this flourisher affirmeth , that the ancient brittons neere the apostles times were of the same faith & iudgement in that point with our romanists . but lost labour it is , and ( as optatus speaketh ) g a meere folly to seeke for any such noueltie in the bowels of true antiquitie . neither is this defendant , or any other of that faction , able to produce any one sentence or syllable , whereby that which he so confidently here auoucheth , may be prooued , out of any graue and approoued author , that liued neere those times , or that hath written of the same . let him but make this his assertion good ( that shall be our last issue ) and he shall haue me a proselyte , at least , in that point . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e a in his , quae apertè posita sunt in scriptura , inveniuntur illa omnia , quae continent fidem , moresque viuendi . aug. de doctr . christ. l. . c. . b hoc quiá de scripturis authoritatē non habet , eadem facilitate contemnitur , qua probatur . hieron . in math. c. . c nihil de co constat , quia scriptura non exhibet . tertull. de carn . christ. d gen. . , . septē boues , & septem spicae septem anni sunt : & non dicit septem annos significant . aug. in leuit. quaest . . e apoc. . . f . cor. . . ff intuentes tabulam aut parietem dicimus ; ille cicero est ; ille salustius , ille achilles , ille hector : hoc flumen simois ; illa roma , cum aliud nihil sint quam pictae imagines : & omnes ferè imagines earum rerum quarum imagines sunt , nominibus appellati solent . aug. ad simpl. lib. . quaest . . g haec verba necessario inferunt , aut veram mutationem panis , vt volunt catholici , aut mutationem metaphoricam , vt volunt caluinistae ; nullo autem modo sententiam lutheranorum admittunt . bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . h non apparet ex euangelio coactivum aliquod ad intelligendum haec verba propriè . cajetan . in thom. part . . quaest . . art . . i ex subi●nctis verbis non potest concludi euidenter praemiss● verba esse intelligendapropriè . ibid. et posteà ; cum ●uius relationis veritate stat praeiacentem esse veram solum in sensu metaphorico : vt patet in exemplo , petra autem erat christus , non propriè sed metaphoricè inteiligenda . et similiter illa propositio , ( hoc est corpus meum ) esset vera , si in solo metaphorico sensu esset p olata . * hactenus matthaeus ; neque est hic vnum verbū vnde probetur in mis●a nostra vera carnis & sarguinis christi presentia . ioan rof●ēs . contr . captiu . babylon . ex scriptura probari non potest . ibid. k corinth . . . l luke . . m matth. . . n non dicit , petia significat christum ; sed tanquam hoc esset , quod vtique per substantiam non erat , sed per significationem , petra autem erat christus . aug. in leuit. quae . . o . cor. . . q math. . . r gen. . . s gen. . . t rom. . . u exo. . . petra christus in signo , aug. in ioan. tract . . quia significat christum . idem . epist. . ibi petra christus ; nobis christus quod in altari ponitur . idem in ioan. tract . . x acceptum panem & distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit , hoc est corpus meum dicendo , id est , figura corporis mei . tertull. contr . marcion . lib. . cap. . y dominus non dubitauit dicere , hoc est corpus meum , cum signum daret corporis sui . aug. contr . adimant . cap. . z solet res quae significat eius rei nomine quā significat nuncupari . aug. in leuir . quaest . . aliquando res que significat , nomen eius rei quā significat accipit . idem epist. . solent imagines rerum earum nominibus appellari , qua●um imagines sunt . idem ad simplic l. . q. . a si sacramenta quand●m similitudinem eatum retum quarum sunt sacramenta , non haberent , omnino sacramenta non essent . ex hac auiem similitudine plaerumque etiam ipsarum retum nomina accipiunt , aug. epist. . a sicut secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis christi , corpus christi est ; sacramentum sanguinis christi , sanguis christi est . aug ibid. b sicut coel●stis panis quae christi caro est , suo modo vocatur corpus christi , cum reuein sit sacramentum corporis christi , illius viz. quod visibile , quod palpabile , mortale in cruce , positum est : vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit christi passio mors , crucifixio , non rei veritate , sed significante mysterio : sic sa●… amentum fidei , quod baptismus intelligitur , fides est . aug. apud grat. de consecra . d c. hoc est . c coelestis , id est , coeleste sacramentum quod verè representat christi carnem , dicitur corpus christi , sed improp●●è : vnde dicitur , suo modo ; sed non rei veritate , sed significante mysterio ; vocatur christi corpus , id est , significat . gloss. ibid. * dominus ait , ●pse est elias : ipse au●em ait , ego non sum elias . recte iohannes propriè , quia dominus figuratè . aug. in ioh. tract . . “ mat. . . '' ioh. . . * mat. . , . s ioh. . . c baptismus etsi deus non est , magnum camen aliquid est , quia sacramentum est dei. aug. de vnic . bapt. c. . d certè sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis christi , diuina res est , &c. et tamen esse non desinit substan●… vel natura panis & vini , sed permanent in suae proprietate naturae : & certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis christi in actione mysteriorum celebratur . gelas. ep. rom. de . in christo natur . in bibliothec . patr. tom . . e neque enim signa mystica post sanctificationem recedunt à sua natura : manent enim in priore substantia & figura & forma theodoret. dialog . . f qui quod naturâ corpus est triticum & panem appellauit , & vitem rursus seipsum nominauit , is symbola & signa quae videntur , appellatione corporis & sanguinis honorauit non naturam mutans , sed naturae gratiam adiiciens . theodoret. di●log . . g ioh. . . h ioh. . . i ioh. . . k verum corpus domini nostri iesu christi & non sacramētum solum , sensualiter , & non in sacramento solum , sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari , & sidelium dentibus atteri . nicol. pp. de consecra . d. . c. ego barengarius . l nisi sanè intelligas verba berengarii , in maiorem incides haeresm , quam ipse habuit . glos. ibid. m si praeceptiua locutio flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere , figurata est . aug. de doct . christi . l. . c. . n nisi manducaueritis , &c. facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere . figura est ergò , praecipiens passioni domini esse communicandum & s●au●ter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoriâ quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit . aug. ibid. o ioh. . . p aeternam ergò vitam non habet , qui istum panem nō manducat , nec istū sanguinem bibit : nam temporalem vitam sine illo habere homines possunt , aeternam verò omninò non possunt . aug. in ioan. tract . . q escam eandem spiritualem quā nos manducauerunt . aug. in ioan. tract . . & . r mors eius profuit ante quā fuit . ber. serm. de coen . dom. s luk. . . t docet sancta synodus parvulos vsu rationis carentes nulla obligari necessitate ad sacramentalem eucharistiae communionem . concil . trident. sess. vit . can. . siquis dixerit , parvulis antequam ad annos discretionis peruenerint , necessariam esse eucharistiam , anathema sit . ibid. u ecce innocentius papa sine baptismo christi , & sine participatione corporis & sanguinis christi vitam non habere parvulos dixit . aug ad bonif. l. . c. . sanct. innocentius parvulos definiuit , nisi manducauerint carnē filii hominis , vitam prorsus habere non posse . idem contr . iulian. l. . c. . hoc idem habet & idem de pecc . mer. & remiss . l. . c . & . & ad . epist. pelag. l. . c. . & ibid. l. . c. . & de veeb. ap. . x ioh. . , . . y ioh. . . z ioh. . . * ioh. . . a non ita est in hac esca , quam sustentandae temporalis vitae causa sumimus . nam qui eam non sumpserit , non viuet : nec tamen qui eā sumpserit , viuet . in hoc verò cibo & potu , i. corpore & sanguine domini non ita est . nam & qui eam non sumit , non habet vitam , & qui eam sumit , habet vitam , & hanc vtique aeternā . aug. in ioan. tract . . b sicut enim , fiquis liquefactae cerae aliam ceram infuderit , alteram cum altera per totum commisceat ; necesse est , siquis carn●m & sanguinem domini recipit , cum ipso ita coniungatur , vt christus in ipso , & ipse in christo inueniatur . cyril . in ioan. l. c. . c rom. . . d multi de altari accipiunt , & moriuntur ; & accipiendo moriuntur . vnde dicit apostolus ; iudicium sibi manducat & bibit . nonne buccella dominica venenum fuit iudae ? & tamen accepit , aug. in ioan. tract . . e hujus rei sacramentum de mensà dominica sumitur , quibusdam ad vitam , quibusdam ad exitium . res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est , omni homini ad vitam , nulli ad exitium , quicunque eius particeps fuerit . ibid. f cusan . epist. . ad bohem. g caietan . in thom. part . . quaest . . art . . & in ioan. cap. . h gabr. biel in can. miss . lect . . i astesan . sum . lib. . tit . . quaest . . k ruard tapper . explic . artic . . l ioan hessel . de commun . sub vna specie . m cor. iansen harm . euan. c. . * here i must craue : pardon for stiling this iohnson or iansenius a iesuite , being mistaken in him , and vnderstanding himnow to be none , a popish bishop only he was of gaunt in flanders . n non agi in hoc capite de sacramentali manducatione & potu corporis & sanguinis domini . bellarm. de sacrament . euchar. l. . c. : o ioh. . . . . . p hoc est manducare cibum qui non perit , &c. quid paras ventrem & dentes ? crede & manducasti . aug. in ioan. tract . . idem est manducare christum , & credere in christum . iansen . harmon . c. . q mat. . . * in hac enim narratione omnia haec verba , accepit , benedixit , fregit , dedit , vnum accusatiuum b●euiter regunt , panem . steph. durāt . de rit . eccl. l. . c. . n. . * deus in euangelip panem corpus suum appellans . tertull. contr . marc. l. . c. . r panem in quo g●…iae actae sunt , corpus esse domini sui . iren. contr . valent. l. . c . s panis est corpus christi . aug. apud grat. de consecr . d. . c. qui manducant . t panis , quem fregit dominus , deditque discipulis , est corpus dom●ni . hieron . ad h●dybiam . 〈…〉 . praecepisti vt credamus , expone vt intelligamus quomodò est panis corpus euis , & calix , vel quod habet calix , quomodo est sanguis eius ? ista ideò dicuntur sacramenta , quia aliud videtur , aliud intelligitur : quod vide . 〈…〉 speciem habet corporalem , quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem . aug. apud beda in cor. u dedit dominus noster in mensa propriis manibus panem & vinū , in cruce verò manib . militum corpus tradidit vu●nerandum , vt in apostolis secretius impressa si●cera veritas , et vera sinceritas exponeret gentibus , quomodo vinum et panis caro esse● et sanguis , et quibus rationibus causae effectibus conuenirent , et diuersa nomina vel species ad vnā reducerentur essentiam , et significantia et significata eisdem vocabulis censerentur . author de cardinal . christi oper . c. de vnct . u ioh. . . . * corpori quidem symboli nomen imposuit , symbolo verò corporis . thodoret . dialog . . x cor. . y ibi petra christus , nobis christus quod in altati dei ponitur . aug. in loan . tract . . z haec sententia , hic panis est . corpus meum , aut accipi debet tropicè vt panis sit corpus christi signifitatiuè , aut est planè absurda et impossibilis : nec enim fieri potest , vt panis sit corpus christi bellan . de ●uchar . l. . c. . a cor. . b mat. . . c benedictio consecrat ambr. de initiat . myster . c. . prece mystica consecratu● . aug. de trinit . l. . apud grat , de consecr . d. . c. corpus et sang . d cor. . . e cor. . . f cor. . . g mat. . . mar. . . ostendit vinū esse , quod benedictum est . clem. alex. paedag . l. . c. . * vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterio , cum dixit , non bibā amodò de hoc gel●mine vitis . aug. de dogmat . eccles. c. . et burchard . decret . l. . c. . “ fragmenta panis discipulis dedit . cyril , in ioan. l. . c. . “ vinum fuisse , quod sanguinem suum dixit . cypr. l. . ep . . w quando mysterium hoc tradidit , vinum tradidit . chrys. in math. hom . . primū dat panem discipulis suis. origen in mat. hom . . h exod. . . baculus , i. draco , nomine eius rei ex qua versa , et in quam reuersura . aug. in exod. quaest . . i panis conuertitur in corpus christi . bellar. de euchat . l. . c. . . k corpus christi ex pane fieri non est absurdum . ibid. c. . l christi corpus ex pane conficiunt sacerdotes . ibid. m verè corpus illud quod suit crucifixū , factum suit ex pane . ibid. n nego christi corpus absolutè à sacerdotibus fieri . ibid. o corpus domini in eucharistia non producitur , sed solum succedit pani . ibid. p exod. . . videbantur esse quod non erant ludificatione venefica . aug. in exod. quest . . q exod. . . r exod. . t ioh. . . s exod. . . u quod vidistis , panis est & calix ; quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant : quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda , panis est corpus christi , & calix est sanguis . aug. apud bedam in cor. . v aliquando ad significationē aliquam fit species vel aliquantulū mansura , sieut serpens , aeneus , vel per acto ministerio transitura , ficut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur , sed quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt , honorē tanquā religiosa habere possunt , stuporē tanquā mira non possunt . aug. de trin. l. . c. . * regula est , quod si possumus saluare scripturas sacras ●er ea quae naturaliter videmus , non debemus ad miraculum , vel ad potentiam diuinam recurrere . aegidius hexaemer . l. . c. . a rom. . . b sacramentum , i. sacrum signum . aug. de ciuit . l. . c. . bern. decoen . dom. thom. sum . part . . q. . art . c signa , cum ad res diuinas pertinent , sacramenta appellantur . aug. epist. . d signū omne aliquid aliud preter se significat . aug de doct . christam . l. . c. . e sacramenta quoniam signae sunt rerum , aliud existunt , & aliud significant . aug. contra maxim . l. c. . videt eundem supra ex beda in cor. . g miserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipeie . aug. de doct . christ. l. . c. . h luk. . . f in ecclesia offeruntur panis & vinum , antitypa carnis & sanguinis christi . macar . hom . . quomodo appellant & basil. in liturg . greg. naz. orat . in gorgon . theod. dial . . alii passim . i videmus nec par esse nec simile ; nec carne indutae imagini , nec invisibili deita●i , nec membrorum lineamentis : est enim ro●undae figurae , & sensu vacans . epiphan . serm. anchor . k per consecrationem fit vt christi corpus verè & visibilitet adsit super mensam bellar. de missa . l. . c. . * quasi ad singulos quosque cunctantes adhuc voc● corporea vtatur & dicat , quid turbati estis ? &c. quid laborat intellectus , vbi magister est aspectus ? leo. epist. . * vereor ne ipsis sensibus nostris facere videamur iniuriam , quando id loquendo suademus , vbi omnes vires officiumque sermonis facilimè superat euidentia veritatis . aug. epist. . l col. . . m philip. . . n act. . . p luk. . . q cor. . . r vnus iesus christ , vbio ; perid quod deus est , in coelo autem per id quod homo aug. epist. . o august ad dardā . ep . . r spacia locorum tolle corporibus , nusquam erunt : & quia nusquam erunt , nec erunt . tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum , non erit vbi sint , & ideò necesse est vt non sint . aug. epist. . * ita loca suis molibus tenent , vt distantibus spaciis simul esse non possiut , aug. ibid. s nulla ratione extra nostri est corporis veritatē . leo. ep. . t sursum est dominus , sed etiam hîc est veritas dominus : corpus enim domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse opottet : veritas eius vbique diffusa est . aug. in ioan. tract . . * docemus eundē christum circumscriptum corpore , incircumscriptum spiritu ; qui loco continetur , & loco non continetur . greg. naz. ad clodon . & apud thedoret dialog . . u noli dubitare ibi esse hominem christum , vnde venturus est . ascendit in coelum ; nec aliunde quam inde venturus est angelica voce testante , quemadmodum ire visus est in coelum . i. in eadem carnis forma atque substantia , cui immortalitatem dedit , naturā non abstulit . secundum hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus . cauendum est enim , ne ita diuinitatem astruamus hominis , vt veritatem corporis auferamus . aug. epist. . * mat . . * mat. . . “ mat. . . `` secundum maiestatem suam , prouidentiam , gratiam , impletur , ecce ego vobiscum . secundum carnem verò &c. non semper habebitis vobiscum . quare ? quomam ascendit in coelum & non est hic . aug , in ioan. tract . . * homo secund . corpus in loco est , & de soco migrat : & cum ad alium lolum venerit , in eo vnde venit , non est . deus vbique totus est , nec secumd . spatia tenetur locis . idem in ioan. tract . . a iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altare muum , in conspectu maieiestatis tuae . canō missae . * mat. . . b totus christus est sub v●raque specie disiunctim . bellarm. de euchar. lib. . c. . * certum est , quod quam citò species dentis teruntur , tam citò in coelū rapitur corpus christi . glos. de consecr . d. . c. trib. . d ipsum immortale corpus minus est in parte quam in toto , august . epist. . c totum christi corpus est sub parte speciei . glos. ad grat. de consecr . d. . c. qu● manducant . totum corpus christi est in qualibet parte hostiae . innocent . . apud bie●… de can. miss . lect . . in quolibet puncto sacramenti totum est corpus christi . gabr. biel ibid. e cum sit corpus substanstantia , quantitas eius est in magnitudine molis eius . ergò distantibus partibus quae simul esse non possunt , quoniam sua quaeque spacia locorum tenent , minores minora , & maiores maiora , non potuit esse in singulis quibusque partibustota vel tanta , sed amplior est quátitas in amplioribus partibus , breuior in breuioribus , & in nulla parte tanta , quanta per totum aug. ibid. f rom. . . quomdo tenebo absentē ? quomodò in coelum manū mittar , vt ibi sedentem teneam ? fidem mitte & tenuisti . parentes tui tenuerunt carne , tu tene corde . etiam absens praesens est . secundum praesentiam maiestatis semper habemus christum . secundum praesentiam catnis rectè dictum est discipulis , me semper non habebitis . math. . . august . in ioan. tract . . et idem epist. . quomodò tangeret , cum ad patrem ascendiss●t , nisi forte fidei profectu & mentis ascensu ? g rom. . . non ait sepulturam significamus , sed prorsus ait , cōsepulti sumus : sacramentum ergô tantae rei non visae eiusdem rei vocabulo significauit . aug. ep . . col. . . i tingimur in passione domini . tertul. de bapt. k habes christum in praesenti per fidē , in praesenti per signum , in praesenti per baptismatis sacramentum , in praesenti per altaris cibum : potum . aug. in ioan. tract . . l nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum , tunc vnumquēque fidelium corporis & sanguinis domini participem fieri , quando in baptiismate mēbrum christi efficitur . &c. quando ipse hoc quod illud sacramentum significat , inueni● . aug. ad infant . apud bedam in cor. . * tolse hyssopum , intinge in sanguine : videat exterminator sanguinem in fronte tua , hieron . in psal. . m christiani omni die carnes agni comedunt , i. carnes verbi dei quotidiè sumunt . origen . in gen. hom . . n vide agnum verum , &c. iudaei carnali sensu comedant carnes agni : nos comedamus carnem verbi dei. ipse enim dixit , nisi comederitis carnes meas , &c. hoc quod modò loquimur , carnes sunt verbi dei. idem in num. hom . . o ioh. . . p cor. . . q bibere dicimur sanguinē christi non solum sacramentorum ritu , sed & cum sermones eius recipimus , in quibus vita consistit , sicut ipse dicit , verba quae loquor , spiritus & vita sunt . orig. in num. hom . . r ioh. . . s quando dicit , qui non &c. licet & in mysterio possit intelligi : tamen verius corpus christi & ●anguis eius sermo scripturarum est , doctrina diuina est . hieron . in psal. . u illi manducabant panem dominum : ille panem domini contra dominum . august . in ioan. tract . . * quando audimus sermonem dei & sermo dei , & caro christi , & sanguis eius in auribus nostris funditur . ibid. x nec isti dicendi sunt manducare corpus christi , quoniam nec in menbris computandi sunt christi . aug. de ciuit . dei. l. . c. . y ipse dicens , qui manducat , &c. loan . . ostenditquid ●it non sacramento tenus , sed reuerâ corpus christi manducare , &c. q. d. qui non in me manet , & in quo ego non man●o , non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum , aut bibere sanguinem meum . ibid. escam vitae accipit , & aeternitatis poculum bibit , qui in christo manet , & cuius christus habitator est . aug. in senten . . * qui discordat à christo , nec carnem eius manducat , nec sanguinem bibit , etiam si tantae rei sacramentum ad iudicium suae praesumptionis quotidiè indifferenter accipiat , ibid. a qui manducant & bibunt christum , vitam manducant & bibunt . illum ●●nducare est refici : illum bibere est vivere . quod in sacramento visibiliter sumit●● , in ipsa veritate spiritualiter manducatur & bibitur . aug. apud . grat. de consecr . dist . . c. qui mand . b iste cibus & potus eos à quibus sumitur immortales veraciter & in corruptibiles facit . hoc est ergo manducare illam carnem & illum potum biber● , in christo manere & illum m●…nentem in se habere . ac per hoc , qui non manet in christo , & in qui non mane● christus , proculdubio non manducat spiritualiter ca●… eius , nec bibit eius sanguinem , licet carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corpotis christi aug. in ioan. tract . . c et haec quidem de typico symbolicoque corpore . multa porrò & de ipso verbo dici possunt , quod factum est caro verusque cibus , quem qui comederit , omninò viuet in aeternum , quem nullus malus potest edere . etinim si fieri posset , vt qui malus adhuc perseueret , edat verbum factum ca●em , cum sit verb● & panis viuus , nequ●que scriptum fuisset ; quisquis ederit panem hunc , viuet in aeternum . origen in math. . d ioh. . . e mat. . . mar. . . luk. . . cor. . . f cor. . . g bellar. de miss . l. . c. . nicol. pp. de consecr . d. . c. ego bereng . biel in can. miss . lect . durand ration . diuin . l. . part . . in . part . can. & durant . ex bestarione de rit . eccles. l. . c. . h cor. , . i dominus voluit conterere cum . hieron . esa. . . k totu christi corpus singu●● accipiunt . gabr. bie●… in can. miss . lect . . l nec quando manducamus , partes de illo facimus . et quidem in sacramento sic fit ; & norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnē christi . vnusquisque accipit partē suam . vnde & ipsa gratia partes vocantur . per partes manducatur in sacramento , & man●t integer totus in coelo , manet integer totus in corde tuo . aug. de verb. euang. apud grat. de conscr . d. . c. qui mand . & apud bedam in cor , . quae durandus etiam ex gregorio citat rational . diuin . l. . p . in . p. can. m supra , eadē dist . ego bereng . contr . gloss. ad c. qui mand . n glorificatum corpus laesionem aliquam pati non potest ibid. o nominibus pa●tium appellatur corpus & sanguis christi , vel ipsae species quae per partes diuiduntur vocantur corpus & sanguis christi , scil . significanti mysterio . gloss. ibid. p mat. . . q christus prius consecrauit , quàm fregit , & benedicendo consecrauit . durant . de rit . eccles. l. . c. . num . . r innocent . pp. apud gabr. biel lect . . * fragmenta panis discipulis dedit . cyril . in iohan. lib. . cap. . s corpus christi si frāgeretur & diuideretur , corrumperetur , quod est impossibile , cū sit impassibile . gabr. biel. lect . “ vide durand . rational . diuin lib. . part . . in . part . canon . * color , sapor & pondus . hostiens . sum . l. . de conser . altar . num . . t nicol pp. vbi supra . u ioh. . exod. . . v psal. . x psal. . . y ioh. . . z quis tam stultus est , vt id quo vescitur , credat esse deum ? cic. de nat . deor. * theodor in leuit. qaest . . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : a si ad res ipsas , quibus sacramenta tractantur , animum conferamus , quis nesciat eas esse corruptibiles ? si ad id , quod per illas ●es agitur , quis non videat , non posse corump● ? aug. de bapt. l. . c. . b qualiter tenere debemus in sacramentis , te ex ordine nos decet instruere . clem. pp. epist. ad iacob . fratrē dom. c reliquias fragmentorū corporis domini custodire debent , ne qua putredo in sacrario inueniatur , ne portioni c●●poris domini grauis inferatur iniutia . clem. ibid. * ne murium stercora inter fragmēta portionis dominicae appareant . clem. ibid. “ col. . . e panis ad hoc factus in aceipiendo sacramento consumitur . aug. de trinit . l. . c. . f nulla panem hunc multitudo consumit , nulla antiquitate veterascit . autor . de cardin . christi oper . c. de coen . dom. g reficit nec deficit : sumitur , nec consumitur tamen . ex aug. beda . in cor. . & aug. in ioan. tract . . & de vers . . * ioh. . . h aug. de peccat . merit . & remiss . l. . c. . euagr. histor . l. . c. . niceph. hister . l. . c. . & concil . matiscon . ● can . . i hesych . in leuit. l. . c. . & bern. epist . d vinum conseruari non potest , quin acescat . bellar. de pont. rom. l. . c. . k exod. . . l omne sacrificiū sordida vetustate perditum , igne comburendum est . burchard . decret . l. ▪ c. . ex conc. aur. c. . m vel integrum , & in eo vermis , vel à vermibus consumptum . durand . rat . diuin l. . de 〈…〉 part . can. o si casu gulae eucharistiam euomuerit . missal . in cautel . p incineretur . ibid. & du●and . ibid. q contritum cum vino sumatur , nisi horror sit sumere . duran . r iuxta altare recondatur . missal . pro reliquiis custodiatur . durand . s si canes lambuerint , vel à canibus consumitur , poeniteat dies . burch . l. . c. , . ex poenitent . theodor. & rom. t petr. de lap. resol . dub . cap. ▪ art . . dub . . apud viret . de sacrif . miss . l. . c. . h si corpus christi infirmo datum rejicitur . durand . ibid. p mat. . . q mark. . . r tim. . . s ista ciborum sanctificatio non efficit , vt quod in os intrauerit , non in ventrem vadat , & in secessum emittatur per corruptionem : vnde ad aliam escam quae non corrumpitur exhortatur nos dominus . august . de peccat . mer. l. . c. . t ioh. . . u de typico symbolicoque corpore . origen . x quod si quicquid ingreditur , &c. & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum dei perque obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit , & in secessum eiicitur . nec materia panis , sed precatio quae illi adiicitur & super illum dictus sermo efficit vt profit non indignè domino comedenti illum . origen . in mat. c. . y non iste panis est , qui vadit in corpus , sed panis vitae aeternae , qui animae substátiam fulcit . ambr. apud grat. de confecr . dist . . c. non iste . z non hoc corpus quod videtis māducaturi estis , & bibituri illum sanguinem , quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent . sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi : spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos . aug. in psal. . * nihil absurdius fingi potest , quàm eucharistiâ nutriri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri , & cibum esse ventris non mentis eucharistiam . bellar. de euchar. l . c . a aures piae hoc abhorrent audi●e , quod in ventre muris vel in cloaca sit corpus christi . bonauent . in . sent. dist . . quaest . . art . . apud aftesan . sum . part . . tit . . quaest . . b si canis , vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram , non video quare vel quomodo corpus domini non trai●ceretur in ventrem canis vel porci . alex. ales , sum . part . . quaest . . mem . . art . . c brutum animal per accidens corpus christi manducat . thom. sum . part . . quaest . . art . . d etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratā manducet , substantia corporis christi non desinit esse sub specibus , &c. sicut etiam , s● proiiceretur in ●utum . thom. ibid. e si dicatur , quod sumat , non est m●gnum inconueniens , cum sceleratissimi homines istud sumant . glos. ad grat. de consecr . dist . . c. qui benè . f nemo carnē illam manducat , nisi priùs adorauerit . aug. in psal. . g iumentū corpus christi suppliciter adorauit . bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . ex antonin . sum . hist. part . . tit . . c. . sect. . & sur. tom . . in vita anton●● de padua . h quid à mure comeditur cum sacramentum corroditur ? lomb. sent . l. . dist . . a. i deus nouit . ibid. k dici potest , quod corpus christi à brutis non sumitur , quamuis videatur . ibib. m quam citò mus rodit , corpus christi esse desinit . bonauent . in sent . l. . d. . p. . q. . art . . & astesan . sum l. . tit . . q. . n panis miraculosè reuertitur . innocent . de miss . l. . c. . & fortalit . fid . lib. . consid . . imposs . . o et haec opinio communior est , & honestior . astesan . ibid. p angelicus doctor . l hîc magister non tenetur . censur paris . q benè scrip sisti de me , thoma . erphurd . de fact . memor . c. . . r quidā dixerunt , quod statim dum sacramentum tangitur à mure vel cane , desinit ibi esse corpus christi . sed hoc derogat veritati sacramenti . thō . sum . part . . q. . a. . durand . in sent . lib. . dist . . quaest . . non oportet difficu tates fidei difficultatibus superaddere ; quin potius iuxta documentum scripturae conandum est obscuritates elucidare . et ideò , ex quo vnus modus est clarè possibilis & intelligibilis , alius antem non est intelligibilis , videretur probabiliter quod ille qui est possibilis & intelligibilis , est et eligendus & tenendus . notes for div a -e n. p. t. g. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . xenoph. in sympos . et inde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . aristoph . in ●quitib . b magna eruditione , ac iudicio maturo scriptum . tho. gozeus s. theol. profess . louan . & lib. visitat . c communi doctorum virorū iudicio . io. molan . cen●or apostolicus & regius . d marnix beehiue . e hundred merry tales f poggii facet . * h. steph. apolog . for herod . l. . c. . g non paru● schis●●ate diuidūtur , quide mysterio corporis sanguinisque christi non eadem sentientes eloquuntur . bertram praefat . ad carol. imper . h vir in diuinis scripturis valdè peritus , & in literis disciplinarum secularium egregiè doctus ; nec minus vi●â quàm doctrinâ in signis . trithem . in catalog . i appar●t quod multâ inter se differentiâ separatur ; quantum est inter pignus , & eam rem pro qua pignus traditur ; inter imaginem , & rem cuiu● est imago ; inter speciem , & veritatem . bertrā . de corp . & sang . dom. quaest . . k index expurgat . belgic . in tit . b. l excogitato commento persaepe negamus , & commodum eis sensum affingimus . m ne haeretici ogganniant , nos antiquitatem pro ipsis sacientē ex●●ere & prohibe●● . n intercipere scripta , & publicam velle submergere lectionē , non est deos defendere , sed veritatis testificationem timere . arnob. contr . gent. lib. . o gelasii episcopi romani , &c. biblioth . patrū à margar. la bigne . edit . paris . . tom . . et ib. in margine , gelasius . afer . anno dom. . p sic enim in edit . basil. & tigur . ● . q bellar. de euchar. lib. . cap. . quāquā de rom. pont. l. . c. . haesitantius idem , vel gennadii vel gelasii caesariensis . r baron . ●…nal . tom . . anno . opus illud gelasio palestino nullo modo potest asscribi . s baron . ibid. sed & greg. de valent. de transsub . l. 〈…〉 . c. . & c●● . loc . com . l ▪ 〈…〉 . c. . s ge●nad . in catalog . et cum eodem consentiunt anastasius , platina , p●ilip . bergom . trithem . & alii . t athanas ▪ ●…mine contra anomaeos d●alog . . quos maximo ttibui restatur ▪ schottus ad . photium . chrys. contr . ancmaeos . hom . . aug. de haeres . c. dissimilem per omnia p●…i asserentes filium . socrat. hist. eccles. l. . c. . & sozom , hist l. . c. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . v theod. haeres . fabul . l. . enagr . hist. l. . c. . thedor . rhaet . de hae●●l . isidor . orig. l. . c. . humanem naturam à diuina absorptam . a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . pho● . bibliot . cod . . et. ibid. de altero . illo ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid cod d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. e cum sedem apostolicam vestra dilectio vnanimiter teneat , constāter praedicet , sapienter defendat , &c. f fulgentius qui codem ●●mpore vixit , &c. gelas●… papae absque ulla dubitatione adscrihit . henr. spondan . epi●om . baron . not . ad ann . . g beatae memoriae papa gelasius . fulgent . ad ferrand . respons . . h ioan pp. . non . in epist. contr . ●utych . in biblioth . pa●r . ●om . . edit . . i spondan . vbi sup . u marc. vd. ser. catalog . codic . ms. apud posseuin . quem cytillum esse puto . x aug. de verb. dom . serm . . y ambr. de sacram . lib. cap. . a vt pseude●igrapha videntur à ph●ti● n●tari . posseui● ▪ i● apparat . b caietan 〈…〉 act. . c 〈…〉 schol ▪ ad ●ieron ▪ de scrip. eccl●… & in decla●● a●… paris . cens . d valla in act. . & erasm. praefat . ad paraphras . in cor. e sed sit apo●… , ●t est absque controue●●ia , 〈…〉 quod diuus andreas locutus ad patres memoratur , &c. wh●… diacos . m●… . f falsò tribuitur cypriano . posseuin . in apparat . g non esse stylus arguit . erasm. not . in 〈…〉 . h cypriani . non est , po. 〈…〉 de commun . sub vtr . spec . i au●… ▪ ris cypriano , imò & augustino posterioris . beliarm . de am●… . grat . l. . c. . 〈…〉 ▪ ●or ignoratur . bellar. de script . eccles. l baron . annal . tom . . m sixt. senēs . bibloth . l. . n apud nonnullos dubiae su●… , sc●ipturae , vel etiam supposi●… . bellar. de saerā . confi●… . l. . c. . o licet non sit certum an sint illi quorū no●ina praeferunt . ibid. p reuera 〈…〉 , s●… , emiss● non po●u●e ess● 〈…〉 bellrr . in recogni●● & d● euchar. l. . c. . q reuera no● est cyp● . idem de confirm . l. . 〈…〉 . . & de e●●ha● . l. 〈…〉 . c. ● r in respon● . ●d apolog. card. bellar. 〈…〉 . praefat. monitor . se●…nis princip . iacobi reg. cap. . s diuis . . § . t ibid. u ibid. x ibid. §. . y diuis . . §. . z ibid. a ibid. b ibid. ad arg. . c diuis . . §. . d ibid. §. . e diuis . . §. . f diuis . . §. . g diuis . . §. . h ibid. §. . i diuis . . §. . k ibid. §. . l ibid. §. . m ibid. §. . n diuis . . §. . o diuis . . §. . p diuis . . §. . q ibid. §. . r diuis . . §. . s diuis . . §. . s diuis . . §. . t ibid. §. . u ibid. §. . x ibid. y ibi. §. . z ibid. §. . * diuis . . §. . n. p. a gen. . . b apoc. . ● . c . cor. . . d lib. . de euchar c. . e s. ambros. de myster . cap. . f lib. . de sacram. g s. august . serm. . de verb. dom. h cyril . catech . . mystagog . i s. chrysost. homil . . ad popul . antioch . t. g. k gen. . . l apoc. . m cor. . . n math. . , . mark. . , . luke . . o . cor. . . p luk. ● . . . cor . . q math. . , . mark. . . r . cor. . , . s non dicit , petra significabat christum ; sed , petra erat christus . aug. in leu. q. . & beda ; & haimo in . cor. . petra i●m erat in creatura , & per actionis modum nuncupata est nomine . christi , quem significabat : sicut & isaac christus erat , cum ad se immolandum ligna portabat . idem aug. de trinit . lib. . cap. . t aug. in ioan. tract . . u caietan . in thom. part . . quaest . . art . . x apoc. . y gen. . . a mat. . b cor. ● . , , , . c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . chry●●st . in cor. hom . idem fere aug. de doct . christ. l. . c. . & contr . max. l. . c. , d aug. in leuit q. . & epist. . & ep . . & ad simplic . l. . q. . & in ioā . tract . . e autor de cardin. christi oper . serm . de coen . heruaeus sub anselmi nomine in cor. . thom. de differ . verb. diuin . & human . &c. f gen. . . g exod. ● . . h cor. . . i ti. 〈…〉 . . k sicut secundum quendam modum sacramentum corpotis christ● corpus christi est , sacramentum sanguinis christi , sanguis christi●st ; ita sacramentum fidei fides est . aug. ep . . l theodoret. dialog . . m ezec. . . n . co. . * yea some of them in effect confesse the one to be as well possible as the other : ante incarnationem christi potuit . eucharistia fuisse ita vera sicut nunc . et tum fuisset sub speciebu● verum & idē corpus christi illud quod sumptum est de virgine sicut modò . &c. gabr. biel. in can. miss . lect . . o thom. aqui . contr . gent. l. . c. p est impossibile quod panis sit corpus christi . gloss. ad grat. de conscr . d. . c. panis est q impossibilis est planè haec sententia , nisi tropic è accipiatur . bellar. de euchar . l. . c. . r gabr. biel. in can. miss . lect . . s thon . aq. sum . part . q. . art . . t idem ibid. q. ● . a. . u ibid. q. . a. . x ibid. art . . y ibid. q. . art . . “ ibid. q. . a. . “ bellar. de euchar. l. . c. . * thom. sum . p. . q. . a. . z ibid. a. . a cor. . ● b gal. . . c gal. . . d vide drus. quaest . l. . q. & paul. rieium de anima coeli . e psal. . . f luk. . . * in vltimo instanti , in quo pro●ertur vox vltima , ponitur effectus verborū in esse . bellar. de euchar. l . c. . g vno spiritu . tractim dicat . cu●tel . miss . in missali . h ad haec dico , quod per hanc dictionē , hoc , nihil demonst●a●ur . glos. ad gr●t . de conscr . d. . c. timorem & alii nonnulli apud durand . ration . diuin . l . part . . in . part . canon . i si substantia panis fuisset adhuc , quando christus offerebat apostolis cibum illum coelestem , pronomen , hoc , demonstra●●e● panem , & de pane dixis●et , quod esset corpus suum , &c. quod ' est impossibile . christ. de cap. font. de necess . correct . schol . theol. ad sixt. . pp. l. . c. . i vide rob. coqui censurā patrum . edit . . k cum reliquis paene omnibus posseuin . apparat . l vt sint quae erant , & in aliud commutentur . ambr. de sacram . l. . c. . citatus etiam à lumbard . sentent . l. . d. . d. & tho. aqui. sum . p. . q. . a. . m de sacram . l. . c. . n de myster . c. . o ante benedictionem alia species nominatur ; post consecrationē corpus christi significatur . p de sacram . l. . c. . q speciem sanguinis non video ; sed habet similitudinem r similinudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis . s didicisti ergò , quia quod accipis , corpus est christi . * de sacram . l. . c. . tu ipse ante fuisti ; sed era● vetus creatura : posteaquam consecratus es , noua creatura esse cepisti . * tam vetustatem hominis quam nouitatem ad moralem non substantialem differentiam pertinere defend●mus . tertul. de resurr . carn . u de sacram . l. . c. . x quod est figura corporis & sanguinis . d. n. l. c. y ibid. c. . sicut suscipere dignatus es munera abel , & sacrificiū abrahae . a bellar. de scrip . eccles. b baron annal . tom . . c eras. in censur d louaniens . in censur . append tom . . e deut. . . ier. . , . hos. . . non enim dominus respuit sacrificia ; sed non vult illa , si ab●que miserico●dia sint . bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . f math. . . g ipse se portabat quod●m modo . aug. ibid. conc . . h sacramenta plae●unque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt , &c. ergò secundū quendam modum sacramentum corporis christi ; corpus christi est . aug. epist. . i aug. de ver . dom. serm. ● . k panem quē dominus gestauit in manibus . l ipsam coenam fide quotidiè manducamus : credimus in christum quem fide accipimus . modicū accipimus , & in corde saginamur . m lensorus de purgator . eckius hom . . dominic . . aduent . peres . de tradit . & alii . n bellarm. censur . apud posseui● . o baron annal . tom . . ann . . & in martyrolog . rom. sept. . p posseuin . in appar . tom . . in august . q catech. . & . & . r l●●●um crucis testatur apud nos apparens , vsque ad hodiernum diem , & apud illos , qui secundum fidem ex ilio capie●tes , hinc uniuersum orbem ferè iam replerunt . catech. . r baron . annal . tom . . an . . t ios. simler . in biblioth . & gretz . contra . petr. molin . u magdeburgen● . centur . . cap. . x vernier . in magn . & vniuers . concil . y vide eckium vbi sup . a catech. mystag . . b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . c catech. mystag . . d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . g autor de initiat . myst . c. 〈…〉 . h quid vidisti ? aqu●s . sed non solas , &c. i non solis corporis tui credas oculis : magis videtur quod non videtur . k chrysost. in math. lat. serm. . greg. serm. ● . l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . m chrysost. in math. lat. serm. . grae. serm. . n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c. o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . u erat posthae duplex elias ille : et erat sursum elias , & deorsum elias . v . king. . x mal. . . y luk. . . z math. . a aug. in ioan. tract . . b ioh. . . c math. . , . d chrysost. in . cor. homil . . e secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis christi corpus christi est . aug. ep . . n. p. f lib . de euchar. t. g. g bellarm. de euchar. lib. . cap. . h scotus in sent . l . dist . . quaest . . i cameracens . ibid. k bellar. de euchar. l. . c. . l non est omnino improbabile . m etiamsi scriptura , quā nos adduximus , videatur tam clar● , vt possit cogere hominem non prote●uum , tamen an ita si● meritò dubitar● potest , cū homines doctissin●i , ac acutissimi , &c. contrar . sentiant . n. p. n in cap. . ad cor. . t. g. * not vnlike hugo card. on luke 〈…〉 . hic est calix in sanguine m●o , i. sanguis meus in calice . o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . euseb. demonstr . l. 〈…〉 . c. . chrysost. nomine in psal. . & alii . p chrysost. vt supr . q loquendū cum multis : sentiendum cum paucis . r vtendum planè sermone , vt nūmo , cuius publica forma est . quintil. institut . ● . . c. . f for from bellarmine also ( it seemeth ) he hath this : who to those two significations of a testament de euchar . l. . c. . which all acknowledge : addeth this third , pro bonis à testatore legatis . de euchar . l. . c. . s ex psal. . . hieron . ad hedyb . q. . ruffin . in psal. . ambr. in psal. ● . serm . . & alii . t aquin sum . part . quaest . . art . . u albeit the whore of babylon be said to be drunke with blood . apoc. . . * mat. . . x gen. . . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . sirac . . . mac . . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . eustath . ad iliad . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . clem. ●…ex . paed . l. . c. . vinum sanguinem terrae dixit androcydes apud plin. hist. nat . l. . c. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . h●liod . apud fulgent . mythol . l. 〈…〉 . c. 〈…〉 . ●…um vuarū sanguis , cruentus liquor , purpura potabilis , violeum nectar . cassod . v●r . l. . a aug. ad simplic . lib. 〈…〉 . quaest . . * hic calix est nouum testamentum , i calix quem vobis trado nouum test. significat , vt fulgent . vel nouum test , confirmat . haimo in cor. . * nihil nisi symbolum reuocans ad memoriam christi passionem . bellar. de euchar. l. . c. 〈…〉 . “ sigillum obsignans & confirmans promissionem verbo factam . ibid. l. . c. . b mat. ● . . * eorum consecratio ab incantationis specie nihil differt . d transubstantiatio cōmentum diaboli . e nuda signa . f non tamen quasi pane inclusum , aut signo visibili ●ocanter affixum . &c. d mera fimiae ae mulatio , & actio histrionica . g cor. . , . h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . polyq . hist. lib. . that which rib●ra the iesuite also obserueth in apoc. . 〈…〉 . pervulgatum est in scriptura , vt figura nomen habeat rei figuratae . i gelas. papa apud grat. de consecrat . dist . . c. comperi●us . sine grandi sacrilegio non potest prouenire * and this also after morman apud rid ●eium de coe● . dom. hath bellarmine de euchar. l. . c. . and it is as good that that he saith else-where that the accidents are as substances in the sacrament . de euchar. l. 〈…〉 . c. . k maledicta glossa , quae corrumpit textum . l statuimus . i. abrogamus . gloss. ad grat. dist . . c. statu●mus . et gloss. ad cod. lib. . de iudicus leg . quoties . quo magis i. quo minus . et alciat . parerg . l. . c. . imperare , 〈…〉 . parere , teste duareno disput . l. . c. . m idem prorsus docent . bellarm. de euchar. lib. . cap. . * quomodò canus autorem legendae ( vt● appellant ) aureae , ait hominem fuisse ferr●i oris & plumbei cordis . loc. com . l. . c. . reg. 〈…〉 . sed & frontis aereae , vel aheneae , rectissimè addidisset . n post resurrectionem amisit humanitas naturam suam ; & accepit caro mutationem in naturam diuinitatis . o theodoret. dialog . . qui & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . you may if you will in steed of orthodoxe and heretike put protestant and papist . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . “ quomodo tertull. adv . hermog . adoro plenitudmē scripturarum . et aug. ep. : baptismum christi vbique veneramur . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p ioh. . . q heb. . . r theodoret dialog . . qui & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . s ioh. . . t ioh. . . u gen. . . hinc tertull. contr . marc. l. . ita & ●unc sanguinem suum in vino consecrauit , qui tunc vinum in sangine figurauit . x ioh. . . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . '' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . y ioh. . , , . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . z matth. . , . * ioh. . . a gen. . . quo loco tamen vulg . versio , non , obtulit , sed , protulit . et card. caietan . in gen. nihil scribitur hîc de sacrificio seu de oblatione , sed de prolatione , qua● iosephus dicit factam ad reficiendum victores . b vide bellar. de missa . l. 〈…〉 . c. . & . & rhemens . in heb. . , . c rhemens . ibid. d offertur sub sacerdote christo quod protulit melchisedech . aug. de ciuit . dei l. . c. . i. panes & vinum : vt theodoret. in psal. . vide & clem. strom. l. . tertull. adv . iudaeos . chrysost. in gen. hom . . &c. e accidentia tamen mera nutrire corpora humana ; & species tantumdem facere quantum alias substantias , asserunt patres inquisitores in indic . belg. expurg . lit . b. nec id mirum esse debet : cum bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . non accidentium sed substantiae rationem velit habere , vti sunt in sacramento . f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . corpus ergò substantia vocandū : accidentia , non substantias , nominate cōuenit , quae corpori & accidunt & recedunt . theodoret , dialog . . g super vacuis laborat impendiis qui solem certat facibus adiuuare . anaclet , apud grat. c. . q. . in rebus vero apertis argumentari tam sit stultum , quam in clarissimum solem mortale iumen inferre . quintil. institut . l. . c. . h ipsius solis radio putes scriptum ; ita claret . tertul. de resurr . car . i professor theologiae eminentissimus . k luculentisma & planè diuina . l aurea opuscula . * nam papa virtualiter est tota ecclesia . herv . de potest papae . vide bellar. de concil . & eccles. l. . c. . sed & georg. dounam derens. ep. de papa antichrist . l. . c. . n. p. m s. dennis hierch . eccles . cap. . part . . n patres in votis primi nicen. con● . t. g. i yet i remēber now that the marginall notes were of mine owne writing ; which peraduenture occasioned his gird at mine hand . k dic aliquē , dic , quinti●●ane , colorem . iuven. sat , . l illum esse de quo in actis fit mentio , soli , in hac luce literarum , imperiti , & cum linguae graecae , tum antiquitatis ecclesiasticae penitus rudes audent affirmare . casaub , ad baron . annal . exerc . . ss . . m scripta dionys●i ante tempora b. georgij non videntur fuisse cog●ita mundo bellarm. in indic . scrip. ms. apud rob. cocum in cens. patr. qui & u●dendus de dionysio isto . et anastasius biblioth , ad carol , reg. apud andr. riuet . in specim . critit . l. . c. . n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p dithyrambos concinit . ma●sil . fi●in . genus dicendi cothurno tragi●o vel dithyrambicis ampullis non multum distat . casaub. vbi sub . q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 col. . . de his rebus magno supercilio pronuncians , de quibus paulus è coelo tertio reuersus non ausus est hiscere . eras. de ver . theol. r iren. cōt . valent . l. . c. . cyril . nomi . catech . mystag . . aug. enchit . c. . de athanasio vide sixt. sen. biblioth l. . de greg. & bern. eckium hom . . de michael . & riber in heb. c. . s 〈…〉 cor. . . vide casaub. ad baron . exer . . sect . . t caluinistae sinè scripturae autoritate , sine veterum exemplo , si●e ratione , sine iudici● coenam vocant . maldonat . in math. c. . u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 z ad festum ipsum perinde ac vita praeditum refert . * ad christum spi●itale pascha per acclamationem dirigit . f o qua , quae sacramentum christi esse mesuisti : quae omnia lauas , nec lauaris . ambr. in lue. l. . c. . g tu incipis prima , tu cōples perfecta mysteria . a te principium ; in te finis . vel potius tu facis vt finem nesciamus , &c h o aue , crux , spes vnica : hoc passionis tempore , auge piis iustitiam ; reisque dona veniam . i gabr. vasquez de adorat . l. . c. . dis . . num . . & bellar. de cult . sanct. l. . c. . k thom. aq. summ par . . quae . . art . . crux adoratur adoratione latriae . l salue sancta facies nostri seruatoris , impressa panniculo niuei candoris , dataque veronicae signum ob amoris : nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum : atque nos consortio iunge beatorum , &c. oratio à loanne pp. . instituta . antidot . animae . m o veneranda zona , fac nos haeredes aeternae & beatae vitae , &c. oratio ab euthymio composita . n o quam magna & mira petit a veneranda zona . lipoman . o crucem alloquimur & deprecamur quasi ipsum crucifixum . thom. vbi sup . p sic concionatores alloquuntur imaginem crucifixi , &c. bellar de imagin . c. . q tu nos redemisti , &c. r dicuntur christo , cuius imago vicem gerit . s ex aug. de ciuit lib. . c. . bed. in . cor. . t omnia significantia videntur quodammodo earum rerum quas significant sustinere personas . u at certè purus panis non supra nos est . bellarm. de euch. l. . c. . x bellarm. ibid. y pontifex quod hostiam salutarem quae supra ipsum est litet , &c. z se excusat ad ipsum exclamans , &c. a perionii versio à lansselio soc. ies. subornata & suppleta . b dionys. hierarch eccles cap. . part . . c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . sacrificium quod signis continetur . lauss . e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . diuinorum operū laudes . g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . de sacrificio quod ipsius dignitatem superat se purgat . laus . * it is vsed by this author oft . speaking of baptism . chap. . h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . &c. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * corpus christi , siue christus , ibi videt & audit , quamuis non loquitur , ne deprehendatur . bonauent . in sent . i. . dist . . quaest . . m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; . cor. . . n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . vt math. . & . . luke . . & . . o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . maxim. schol. in hierarch . eccles. c. . y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . maxim. ibid. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . idem in interpret . nom . b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . idem in schol . c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . idem in cap . d dionys. eccles . hierar . c. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . maxim in lib de diuin . nomin . c. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i non iam communi pani , &c. k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . iustin. apolog . . l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . cyril catech . myst . . * non iam aqua communis . chrysost. hom . in psal. . & greg. nyssen , de baptism . 〈…〉 irenaeus contr . valent. l. . c , . m ambros. nom . de initiat . myst c. . * greg. nyssen . de baptis . n bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . o ad spem resurrectionis baptizatur corpus quae nisi corporalis , non alias sic baptismate corporali obligaretur . &c. tertull. de resurr . carn . hinc hilar. de trinit . l. . regeneratio baptismi resurrectionis est virtus . p quomodo dicunt carnē in corruptionem deuenire &c. quae à corpore domini & sanguine alitur . iren. l. . c. . q quando mixtus cali● & fractus panis percipit verbum dei , fit eucharistia sanguinis & corporis christi , ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia . idem l. . c. . r idem ibid. s ea dispositio quae est secundum hominem , quae ex carnibus & neruis & ossibus consistit , de calice , qui est sanguis eius nutritur , & de pane qui est corpus eius augetur . ibid. t ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . iustin. apolog . , u eucharistia nutriri corporis nostri substantiam nih●l fingi potest absurdius . bellarm. de euchar. l. c . x offerimus ei , non quasi indigenti , sed gratias agentes donationi eius , & sanctificantes creaturam . irenaeus l. b. . cap. . y primitias earum quae sunt eius creaturatum offerentes . z offerens ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura eius . ibid. a patres in votis primi niceni consilii . b baron . annal . tom . . anno . num . & . c i de ex photio , ibid. et annal . tom . . anno . d baron ibid. & greg. de valent. de transubstan . l. . c. . “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . gelas. cyzic de act . conc. nic. diatyp . f diuis . . sect . . g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . &c. ibid. diatyp . . h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. i mysticè immolatur , & in mysterio christi passio traditur . paschas . pp. apud grat ▪ de cons. dist . . c. iteratur . k non rei veri●●te , sed significante mysterio . aug. ibid. c. hoc est . l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . m discourse argument 〈…〉 . answer to obiection . n diuisiō . o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p caro abluiter , vngitur , signatur , manuum impositione adumbratur , corpore & sanguine christi vescitur , &c. tertul . de resur . carn . r quam deus sacramentis suis disciplinis que vestiuit , cuius munditias amat , castigationes probat , passiones adpreciar , haeccine non resurget ? ibid. s bella. de euchar . l. c. . t idem ibid. u harding answer to iewel . art . . sect . q sacrificia deo grata de bonis carnis adolentur deo. x hieron . in catolog . script . a a cumen sublimis ingen i. hieron . catal . scr b hieron . ibid. & sozom. hist. l. . c. . c in his last will and testament , that he neuer in all his life spoke foolish word , nor cursed any one , nor was contentious , &c. and yet the direct contrary in his relation to the monks of his con●ersion . d saluete omnes sancti , saluete apostoli , prophetae , &c. de poenit . c. . y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . theodoret. hist. l . c. . & sozom. l. . c. . e tot ferè mutationes , inuersiones , & additiones , dum iste omittit quae ille habet , & contra , quot verba . riuet . specim . criti. l. . c. . f diuision . . g curiosè rimari . * qui tamen ipse in eccles. hierar . c. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . h vide eras. in moria , & in enchirid . sarcer . de vanit . schol. theolog. statum lacessunt omnipollentis dei calumniosis litibus : fidem mintuis dissecant ambagibus : vt quisque lingu● nequior ; soluunt ligantque quaestionū vincula persyllogismos plectiles quid non libido mentis humanae stru●t ? quid non malo●um prutiat ? prudent . apotheos . * pa●ticipa corpori domini tui fide . i see diuision . num . . k certum quod agnum ipsum integrum comedis . l see diuision . sect. . m ibid. sect. . num . . n ignem & spiritum māducandum ac bibendū praestitit nobis , corpus sci● . & sanguinem suum . ephrē . ibid. o chrysost , de euchar. in encaen . p quaenam sit ista potio atque perceptio disc●re nostrum est . ephrem de non scrutā nat . dei. q benedixit & fregit in figuram corporis sui . r in figuram sanguinis sui benedixit . ib. s fidei oculis &c. dei agnū sincere intuetur . t vt eo perpetuo vescamur . u si quis hunc side● oculum possider , patēter & lucidè con●picit dominum . x fide agni immaculati corpus manducat & sanguinem bibit . s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dionys. hier . eccles . c. . punici christiani baptis . salutem , sacramentum corporis christi vitam vocant . aug. de pecc . mer. l. . c. . z heb. . * de euchar. l. . c. . “ in praefat . ad catechis . y cor. . . * talis error qualis in orbe terrarum nunquā visus vel auditus fuit . tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro deo colunt statuam aureā aut argenteam , aut alterius materiae imaginem , quomodo gentiles deos suos venerabantur , vel pannum ubrum in hastam eleuatum , quod narratur de lappis , vel viua animalia vt quondam aegyptii , quàm eorum qui frustum panis , &c. coster . iesuit , enchirid . de transubstan . n. p. l lib. . de euchar. m s. aug. in psal. . n lib. . c. . t. g. t galat. . . u quotidiè nascitur christus . hieron . nomine in ps. . quotidiè nobis crucifigitur : quotidiè resurgit . idem in psal. . quod bern. explicatius , in vigil . nativ . ser. . immolatur adhuc quotidiè , donec mortem eius annuncia● us : 〈…〉 videtur , dum natiuitatem eius fideliter repraesentamus . * quod cardano s●al . de su●ti● . exerc . . more cingarorum in alpinis mercatibus intus foras mitt●nt corrigiolam . `` nullae sunt exactior●s formulae loquendi in materia fide● , quàm eae , quibus vtuntur , qui haeresin abiurant bellar. de imag . c. . * non solum sacramentum , sed verum corpus & sanguinē christi in veritate sensual●ter , & non in sacramento tantum tracta ●i & frangi durand . ex nicol. in ration . diuin . l. . p. . ad . p. can . u veritatem excessit gabr. biel in can miss . lect . x gloss. ad grat de consecr dist . . c. vtrum . * quae nec roffensis cōtra oecolamp . l. . c . nec caietanus lib. de coena domini ab errore liberare potuerunt . canus loc . cōmun . l. . c. . y de pontif. rom. lib. . a concil . constant. sess. . art . . b to which adde card. baronius annal . tom. . ann . . nu . . & . & ann . num . . acknowledging as much . c abdias babylon . histor . lib. . d bellarm. de cult . sanct. l. . c. . e ioh. . . f eucharisticatum . i. sanctificatum & benedictum . bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . g eucharistiam factum . ibid. l. . c. . h vnde & eucharistia dicitur . iansen concord . cap. . vide aug. epist . & euseb. demonstr . euang . l. . c. . i heb. . . k lombard . sent . l . d. . l tertull. contr . marc. l. . ambr. in luc. c. . gaudent . in exod. tract . . & aug. contr . faust. l. . c. . & l. . c . & contr . advers . leg . & proph . c. . m diuisio vnius eiusdem mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenice . gelas. pp. apud grat. de consecr . d. . c. ●ōperimus . n de eucharist . lib. . c. . o bellarm. ibid. p eucharistia nutriri substantiam corporis nostri , nihil absurdius fingi potest . bellarm. ibid. q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . n. p. * ex quibus augetur carnis nostrae substantia . iren. l. c. . o lib. . de euchar. p vide apud bellarm. l. . de euchar. t. g. r vide tertull . de carn . christi , & contr . marc. lib. . & . s carnaliter in nobis manere per eucharistiam , bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . * per eucharistiam . t manducatio corporalis . ibid. u manducationem corporis christi non debere carnaliter accipi . ibid. c. x carnali modo . ibid. c. . y non possunt figuratè accipi sed propriè . bellarm . de euchar . l. . c. 〈…〉 . z caro christi verè ac propriè manducatur . bellarm . de euchar . 〈…〉 . . c. . a facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere . figura est ergo , ●…icet hereti●us , &c. apud fulbertum in excerp●is post se●m ●o tr . iud. p. . b ioh . . c stultè carnaliter . d spiritaliter intelligere . e ioh. . . f non hoc corpus quod videtis manducatur , iestis & bibituri illum sanguinē quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent . g sacramentum aliquod vobis commendaui : spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos . etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari , oport●t tamen inuifibiliter intelligi . n. p. q tolet in c. . ioan. r saunders in lib. de illo cap. s bellarm. lib. . de euchar. t. g. h iansen . harmon . euang. cap. . sed & gabr. biel i● can. miss . lect . . * de comestione sacramentali ait dominus ; accipite & comedite ; hoc est corpus meum : de comestione spirutuali dicit ; nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis , &c. non habebitis vitam in vobis . innocent . pp. apud durand in ration . diuin . l. . p. . ad p. . can. & biel in can. lect . , “ magister apud bonauen . in l. . sen. d . q. . * see below bellar. de eucharist . l. . c. . i mat. . . ephes. . . k rom. . . and . . l quam & in mortem dabo . iansen . vbi sup . m in mortem ad crucem . fe●us in ioan. . n illic coquetur panis iste . fer. ibid. p quam dab● . quā●fferam pro mund● vita . greg. de . val. de sacr . mis. . . c. . o in cruce facta est de●octio ca●●is , &c. bonauen . in sent . l . c. . q . q cor. . . r bellar. de euchar. li. . c. . s cor. . , . t cor. . , , , . “ vers. - . u ioh. . . x vide quae ex cyri●lo iansen . concord . cap. . y ioh. . . z vers. . a vers. . . b bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . & . see below . c vers. . d vers. . e ioh. . . f vers. . . g vide iansen . in ioan. . . h quia corpus domini vt sumitur sola fide , non defuit veteribus . bellar . ibid. i ioh. . . k vers. . l vers. . t vers. . u vers , . x constat in magna parte capitis de eucharistia non agi . solū quaestio est de illis verbis , panis quem ego dabo , &c. & sequentibus bellarm , de euchar. l. . c. . y vers. , . z vers. . a vers. . b non pertinent ad sarramentum propriè ibid. c. . c triplicis panis mentio fit . bellar ibid. d panis materialis . e vers. . . f secundum panem dicit seipsum esse . g vers. . , . h verse . i vers. . . k vers. . l vers. . ex p●… l. . , . m panis eucha●…st cus . ibid. n vers. . o de pane quē da●u●us erat in coena . ibid. c. . p non significat panem triticeum . ibid. c. . q nec corpus christi absolutè . r cibum generatim . s pan●s , i. cibus , &c. ibid. t fortasse ideò carnem suam aliquoties panem appellauit , &c. ibid. u ioh. . . x verse . y vers. . z vers. . a vers. . b vers . . c vers . . d vers . . e vers . . f vers . . g vers . . . h vers . . i vers . . . k transitum facit ad panem euchar. bell. ibid. m vers . . 〈…〉 vers . , , . n vers . eodem . o bellar. vbi sup . c. . & . p ioh. . . q aug. in ioa. tract . . r credere in eum , hoc est manducare panem viuum . s qui credit in eum , manducat . in●…sibiliter sa●…r , quin invisibiliter renascitur : iuf us nouus in●us est : vbi novell●…r , ibi satiatur . t sang●… em fuderunt cum saeuire●t , biberunt cum crederent . aug 〈…〉 ioan. tr . . saeuieutes ●ude●u●t , credentes biberunt . de temp . . & de verb. dom. . u c●edendo biberunt , quem saeuiendo fuderunt . idem . in ioan. tr . . x ioh. . . y math . , , . “ see chrys. on ioan. hom . . * sic oportebat vt diceretur , quod non ab omnibus intelligeretur . aug. in ioan. tr . . z reade ioan. . vers . . , , , , . * exponit quomodo id fiat quod loquitut ; & quid sit manducare corpus cius & sanguinem bibere . aug. in ioan. tr . . citante etiam biele in can. iect . . beda in cor. . & fulbert . in excerpt . exposuit modū attributionis & doni sui . aug. ibid. . a ioh. . . c vers. . d vers. . e iansen . harmon . cap. . * idem esse manducare se , & credere in se. et biel. idem est in christum credere , & in christum ite : & qui credit in christum , incorporatur christo ; & per hoc manducat christum . “ verse . f ●ansen vbi sup . b vers. . n. p. t. g. g iansen . ibid. boni manna manducando viuificati sunt : eo quod sub visibi●● illo cibo etiam spiritualiter manducauerunt ve●um panem vitae per manna significa●um quem & nos ede●…do viuificamur . h albert. magn. de sacram. euchar. serm , modus manducationis triplex , sacramentalis tantûm , spiritualis tantùm , sacramentalis & spiritualis simul . * omnes saluandi ab origine mundi . i idem ibid. se●m . omnes ●oni veteres in manna cibum inuisibile . n. s●… . christum spiritu●…ter in●…exerunt , crediderunt , gustauerunt , &c. k b●llarm . de bapt. l. . c. . ex concil . tr●dent . sess . . can . . et biel. in can miss lect . de pueris eti●m quod spiritualiter manducant corpus christi in susceptione baptismatis , patet de consecr . dist . . quia passus l luk. . . m prius quam nasceretur renatus gr●g . mor. lib. . cap. . n ioh. . . & . . o iohn . vers . p ●…tam , pro viuere ; vti videre mortem pro mori . psal. . vers . . & iohn . . q ioh. . vers . . mark. . vers . . r iansen . vbi sup . s ioh. . , , . t aliquos credentes in christum in aeternum perire , quod ante moriantur , quam à sacerdote absolui potuerint . bellarm. de poenit . l . c. . u ioh. . , , , , . & . . & . . rom. . . &c. x manducationis & potus certum effectum . iansen . concord . c. . y hinc manife stum euadit , non omnes . &c. idem ibid. a feius in ioan. . & mathias doring in replic . super . lyr. in psal. . b ex ipsis catholicis perm●lti ●unt , qui totum is●um sermonem ad spiritualem manducationem referunt : sebastian oxoniens . epi●c . ad part . . thom. q. . nu . . c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . isidor . pesus . ep . . l. . * confessio propria testimo●is quibusnis ; ●estesque non familiares domesticis praeferuntur . menoch . lib. . a●b . cas . ● . & althus . dicaeolog . l. . c. . d bellarm. de euchar. lib. . cap. . e idem ibid. lib. . cap. . f idem de sacram . in gen. lib. . cap. . g idem de iustific . lib. . cap. . n. p. t. g. h concil . trident . sess . . cap. . et idem bellarm , de euchar. l. . c. . i thom. aq. sum part . q. . art . . k idem ibid. art . . l bellar. in apolog . contr . praefat. monitor . reg. iacob . c . m mat . mark. . . n steph durant . de ritib. eccles. l. . c. . o ioh. ●… p bellar. de euchar. lib. . cap. . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . r mar. . . s de euchar. lib. . cap. . b i indan . in di●…og . quam ruew rd siue pacificum ins●…psit . c primum autem argumentum ducitur ex illis domini verbis , &c. d primus est , quem nemo praecedit , e●iāsi nullus sequatur . reg. iur. e primus est , quem nemo praecedit : vltimus , quem nemo sequitur . ibid. s bellar. vbi sup . in fine cap. g bellar. de euchar. lib. . cap. . h ioh. . . . i mat. . . k ioh. . l mat. . . mar. . luk. . . cor. . . m luh . . . mark. . n mat. . . mat. . . o mat. . . p gen. . . q mat. . luk. . . r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . chrysost. in mat. hom . confiteor hic gratiarum actionem significat . ex beda thom. in luc. . s dei beneficentiam & potentiam super panem invocauit , &c. iansen . concord . c. . galat. . . * sanctumque precatus . iunenc . l. . i. prece sanctificans . maldon . in mat. . t tim. . . u gen. . , . x sam. . ▪ y ioh. . . z ioh. . . e tertul. de bapt . h●eron . ad ocean . de bapt . episc. ambrosium quem volunt esse de initiat . c. . “ gen. . 〈…〉 ▪ n. p. a s. cyprian serm . . b s. basil. l. . de bapt . c. . c s. chrysost. hom . in . ad corinth . & hom . . in mat. & hom . . in joan. d s. ierom. in 〈…〉 . cap. malac. e origen in psal. . f s. aug. l. . de bapt . c. . & l , . contr . crescon . c. . t. g. g haec solutio non videtur solidissima . bellar. de euchar . l. . c. . * accidentis esse est messe . '' cor. . . “ cor. . . * mat. , , h rom. . . col. . . tit. . . gal. . . i see bellar. de bapt . l. . c. . k . cor. . . l ioh. . , . m aug. de haeres . c. . n nihil enim eiusmodi i●●uiniano hieronymus obiicit . o campiā rat . . sed & ●occius idem ferè , thes. cathol . tom . . l. . art . . p lutherani non dicunt paria esse peccata . bellarm. de iustif. l. . c. . q de euchar. l. . c. . r oecum . cōparat indignè communicantes cum eis qui christum crucifixerunt . t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. chrysost. in ioan. hom . grae. . lat. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel vt alii , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . basil de bapt . l. . c. . y bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . a . cor. . . b ibid. ● . c de baptism . l. c. . vide & eundem contra faust. l. . c. , . d contra crescon . l. . c. , . e rom. . . . cor. . . f obsunt sancta & diuina malè vtentibus . g in malac. . h malac. . . i dum sacramenta violantur , ipse cuius sunt sacramenta violatur . k colos. . . heb. . , 〈…〉 ▪ . & . , . talium figurarum obseruatio , christi fuit praefiguratio . aug. ad faust. l. . c. . * heb. . . & . , , . m christum impanatum . bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . n corpus panaceum , non carneum . ibid n. p. t. g. o de euchar. lib. . cap. . p de euchar. l . c. . q ibid. r de euchar. l. . c. . s de euchar. l. . c. . t inepta caluini metaphysica . idem de euchar. l. . c. . n. p. t. g. u suarez in thom. part . . quaest . . disp . . sect . per ●olam actionem adductivam . non explicatur vera conuersio substantialis , sed solum translocatio quaedam . quando vna substantia solum succedit loco alterius , non potest dici vna conuerti in aliam , ibid. y transformatio . z transmateriatio . a bellarm. de euchar. lib. . c . b vocari panem , quia auteà suit panis . c de euchar. l. . c. . d in thom. p. q. . a. . e quod fuit panis , nunc est corpus christi . f gen. . . . cor. . . g gen. . . h corpus panaceum . i bellarm. de euchar. lib. . c. . * neque enim potest verè dici , hoc album & rotundum est corpus christi . bellarm. de euch. l. . c . k panis in eucharistia verè non annihilatur . bellarm. ibid. l quod panis substantia in nihilum vertatur , nemo dicit . roffens . contr . occolamp . lib. . c. . m we doe not say that the substance of bread is cleerely consumed to nothing ; as many haue dreamed , harding ag . apolog. part . . n idem ibid. o vel in praeiacentem materiam solui , vel in nihilum redigi . lombard . sent . l. . d. . d. p non est producti●a , sed adducti●a cō-uersio . bellar. de euchar. l. . c. . q exod. . . r ioh. . . s actum agere . cic. de amic . t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . sophocl . antig. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . chrysost. in mat. hom . . an ignoras nudum nec à decem palaestritis despoliari posse ? apul . metam . l. . itaque maximas nugas agit , nudo detrahere vestimēta qui iubet . plaut . asin. . . x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . v●l . ar●…a fine calce . y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dionys de diuin nomin . c. . n. p. g ad heb. . h lib. . trin. i ioh. . , . t. g. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . gelas. cyzic . act . conc. nic. diatyp . . “ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. t ambrosii nomine de sacram . l. . c. , . & de initiand . c. . u greg. nyss. de sacr . bapt . idem ibid. a ioh. . . b chrysost. in ioan. hom . . lat. . graec. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. c idem in . cor. hom . . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . e tertul. de anima . cap. . non licet nobis in dubium sensus revocare : ne & christo de fide eorum deliberetur . &c. f luk. . . g mat. . . & . . h mat. . , , . i vini saporē quod in sanguinis sui memoriam consecrauit . k pet. . , l ioh. . . m ioh. . . n aug. in ioan. tract . . o non hoc credidit quod vidit : sed aliud vidit aliud credidit . vidit enim hominē credidit deum . p idem . ibid : q tertul. ibid. r ioh. . . s falsa vtique testatio , si oculorum , & aurium , & manuum sensus natura mentitur . t num. . . u deut. . . x talmudici glossatores in eum locum . teste lyra in deut. & hieron . à s. fide hebraeomastig . l , c. . y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . rom. . . & pachymer . in dionys. hier eccles . c. . z chrysost. in ephes. hom . . a ioh. . . b ioh. . . . c cor. . . d ioh. . . e iansen . concord . euag. cap. . * pet. . . f iansen . ibid. * per honorem nobis datum 〈…〉 dei , & permanentem in nobis carnaliter filium , & in co nobis corporaliter & inseparabiliter vnitis , mysterium verae & naturalis vnitatis est praedieandū . hilar. de trin. l. . et ibid. vt nos quoque in eo naturaliter inessemus , ipso in nobis naturaliter per manente . g idem ibid. h ideircò voluit christus à nobis manducari , vt nos sibi incorporaret , quod non intelligitur nisi de spirituali manducatione ; quia in sacramentali tantum non fit haec incorporatio . biel in can. miss . lect . n. p. t. g. a math. . b math. . - . n. p. t. g. c luk. . . no more was done with christ here , then with philip. act. . . d ioh. . . e luk. . . f luk. . . g aug. epist. . ego domini corpus ita in coelo esse credo , vt erat in terra , &c. h ●uk . . , . i act. . . k ioan. hieroscl . ep in fpist hieren . contr . ●rror . 〈…〉 . l ioh. . . m l●k . . ● . n ioh. . . o luk. . . p tertul. contr . mare . l. & hieron . ad pāmachi . q luk. . ● . r tertul , cōtr . marc lib. . s etsi per medios euasit , sed ante iam vim expertus , & poste à dimissus scil . soluto , vti assolet , tumultu , vel etiam irrupto , non tamen per caliginem eluso &c. t idem contr . eund . lib. . u hieron . ad pāmach . contra error . ioan . hieros . * virtus dei est , non vmbtae aut phantasmatis . “ quod magis licet , hoc domino non licet ? apollonius , &c. repente non comparuit . noli potentiam domini magorū praestigiis coaequa re , vt videatur fuisse quod nō suit , comedisse sine dentibus , fregisse panem sine manibus , ambulasse sine pedibus , locutus sine lingua , latus ●stendisse sine costis . x luk. . . y hieron . ibid. z idem in epitaph . paulae . a idem . ibid. b sticorum globos & a●ria quaedam deliramenta . c globosam siue rotundā formam diis dabant stoici . ex sen ep . . lips. physiol . stoic . l. . c. . d nec tamen ea species corpus est sed quasi corpus ; nec habet sanguinem , sed quasi sanguinem . c●c . de nat . deor. l. . e tertul. de carne christi & contr . marc. f vt carnem gestaret sine ossibus durā , sine mus . ulis solidam , sine sanguine cruen●… , sine tunica vestitam , sine same esurientem , sine dentibus edentem , sine lin●…●●quer tē . g ecce 〈…〉 , decipit , circumuenit omnium o●ulos , sensus , access●s , contactus . ergò christum non de coelo deferre debueras , sed de caetu aliquo circul●torio , spectaculi artificem , non salutis pontificem , h so translate i him , aliuding to our enlish phrase . his sense is apparent . * ex vi sacramenti sub specie panis continentur , non solum caro , sed totum corpus christi , soil . osla & nerui , & alia huiusmodi ; non enim dicitur , haec est caro mea , sed , hoc est corpus meum . thom. aq sum . part . q. . a. . ad . i quae contradictionem implicant , sub divina omnipotentia non continentur . idem ibid. part . . q. . a . k elohim emeth deus veri●as . ier. . . ioh. . . m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . eranista apud theod. dial . & . n mar. . . o iob. . . p theodoret. ibid . q psal. . . & . . r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . s iam. . 〈…〉 . t tit. . . u psal. . . x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . n. p. a aug. lib ● . de ciuit. dei , cap. . b lib. de euchar . t. g. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . quem aduocabant comici , vbires haerere videbatur . e catholicon medicorum , siue panacaeú papisticum . f vise iul. scalig. de subtil . exercit . . sect. . aegidium in l. . de anima . c. . q. . & hospinian . de sede anim . g de purgat . l. . c. . h act. . . i act. . . k cor. , , , . l apparuit illi primum in coelo . ambr. hom . in . cor. . m superna ei pietas coelos aperuit , seseque illi iesus de sublim●bus ostendit . greg. mor. l. . c. . n bellar. de euch. l. . c. . o ioh. . . p creaturam cedere creatori . hieron . ad pāmach . contr . error . ioan. hieros . q act. . . r durand . in senten . l. . d. . q. . ad . . s idem ibid. ad . t reuoluto monumenti lapide caro surrexit . leo pp. epist. . u vid : zanc de operibus creat part . . l. . c. . th. et keckerm . system . physic . l. c. . x durand . vbi sup . ad . y tho. aqui. quodlib . . art . . z durand . in . d. . q. . ad . a diuis . . sect . . num . . b bellarm , de euchar. 〈…〉 . . c. . c nullo modo fierr potest vt vna res non mutetur , & ta●en 〈…〉 alia . d impossibile rem vnā converti in aliam , nec tamen in ea parte desinere esse quod erat . lanfranc . contr . bereng . e supra diui● . . f fieri non potest vt pauis sit corpus christi . bellar. de euch. l. . 〈…〉 . ● . g non potest esse aliquis simul in diuersis temporibus . fr. mairon , in sent , l. . d. . q. . h idem effectus non potest habere plures causas totales . ibid. i ideò idem a●●idens non potest esse in diuersis subiectis . ibid. k vnde & idē non potest simul moueri motibus oppositis . durand . in sent . l. . d. . q. . l impossibile est quod vnus motus eiusdē corporis localiter moti terminetur simul ad diuersa ●oca . thom sum . p. . q . a. . m impossibile est idem esse motum & quietum . ibid. q . a. . * v●um corpus non potest esse in lu●bus locis . v●… enim corpus esse localiter in duobus locis implicat contradictionem . thom. aq. quodlib . . art . . n deus non potest sacere , vt vnum corpus localiter sit simul in duobus locis . idem quodli i. . art . . o aegid . rom. quodlib . q. . p si essent mille miracula , non adaequarent potentiam ad id quod implicat contradictione . laurent . amolyn . in eund . ibid. n. p. c epist. ad martinum ge●ob . t. g. q aug. de cura pro mort . ger . c. . r secundum presentiā corporalem simul & in sole , & in luna , & in cruce esse nō potest . aug. contr . faust. l. . c. . s corp. christi , in quo resurr . vno in loco esse potest . bellar. de euthar . l. . c. . t vno in loco esse oportet . aug. in ioan. tr . . u petr. lomb. sen. l. . d. . a x grar . de consecr . d. z. c. . thom. in . d. . a. . scot. in . q. . & alii . ibid. y cauendum ne veritatem corporis auferamus , august . epist. . z immortalitatem dedit , naturam non abstulit . ibid. a chrysost. in ioan. hom . . b iansen . concord . euang. cap. . indicare mihi videtur chrysost . bellar. de euch. l , . c. . d august . in ioan. tr . . e hie so ●uit , quod eos mouerat , &c. f aug ibid. g athanas. in illud euang. quicunque dixerit , &c. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . n. p. t. g. l omnes partes integrales corporis christi , caput , pectus , manus , pedes , &c. gabr. biel. in can. miss . lect . . qui & asserit lect . . non esse inconueniens , si ponantur infinitae partes substantiae pu●ctualis paris ante co●ecratio ēquod infinities corpus christi est sub speciebus panis post consecrationē . that christs body may be ten thousand thousand times ( and why not ten thousand thousand bodies of christ then ? ) with head , feet , hands , legs , backe , breast , and belly , in one wafer if there be but so many crums as big a needles point in it . vide & fr. maironis in . ●ist ▪ . quest . a. m hyperbole , qua nihil aliud quam hoc difficillimum esse intelligi voluit . erasm. de rat . ver . theolog. n mat. . . mar. . . o mar. . . p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . corpus a●…st . categor . quantit . q monstra quis tanta explicet ? sen. theb. ▪ r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . theod. rhaetens . de haeres . s mat. . . t piscat . in math. . u de euchar. l . c . x sic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . et ex en●io vairo , prius pariet locusta lucā bouem , i. elephantem . * quantitas est de veritate corporis . bonauent . in sen. l. . d. . q. . y quamuis substantia possit abstrahi à quā●itate : tamen quod corpus viuat & sit organicum , & non sit quantum , hoc nec esse nec intelligi potest . ibid. z in altari nō tantum est corporis chri sti veritas , into etiam quantitas . bonauen . ibid. a mat. . . b theodo●et . dialog . . c act. . . d mat. . . e fulgent . ad thrasimund . sib . . f absens coelo cum esset in terra ; & derelinquens terram , cum ascendisset in coelum . g ioh. . . and . . h mat. . . i vigil . contr . eutych . lib. . k quando in terra fuit , non erat in coelo . l et nunc quia in coelo est , non est vtique in terra . m phil. . . n haec est fides & confessio catholica , quam a. postoli tradiderūt , martyres roborauerunt , & fideles nunc vsque custodiunt . n. p. o lib. . instit . c. . sect . . . & . p beza de re sacram. q. . t. g. q iansen . in concold . euang . c. . c all this of calvin and beza he borroweth from bellarmine de euch. l. . c. . s see greg. naz. ad nectar . and aug. de trinit l. , , , . & de verb. ap hom . &c. t see tertull. de resurr . carn . athenag . de resurr . &c yea the apostle himself cor . . , . . u iansen . vbi sup . x manducantes non mandu●ā● , & non manducantes manducant . a●bert ▪ de sacram . euchar. serm . . y paulus nusque dicit escam vel potu●… illum fuisse christum : non aquam , sed petram . bellar. de euch. l. . c. . z non sumebant reipsa carnem christi , sed effectū eius . ibid. l. . c. . esca & potus ille non propter effectum spirituales dicuntur . idem de sacr . effect . lib. . c. . nec fuerunt sacramenta . ibid. a cant. . . b ei qui mysticas illas euangelii voces intelligit , nullum apparebit discrimen inter hoc loco posita verba , & institutam ibid mysterii celebrationē &c. greg. nyss. in cant. ser. . c idem hic & id temporis sac●um est . d cor. . , . e id est , corpus christi in signo spiritualiter intellecto . g manducabant christum spiritualiter . h crede & manducasti aug in ioan. tr . . i anselmi nomine prostant , sed har●aei sunt commentarii illi . vise fontanum in praefat . & posseuin . in appar . k eandem escam corporis christi , quam nos in pane manducamus , ipsi manducauerunt in manna : & eundem potum sanguinis christi , quem nos ex calice bibimus , ipsi biberunt ex petra . l idem significantem , & idem efficientem . m eundem cibum spiritualem , in manna significatum , i. corpus christi : eundem potum spiritualem , sanguinem christi biberunt . f scilicet , christi sanguinem in signo . n aug in ioan. tract . . o absentes prosentes facit . turpilius . quid enim tam presens est inter absentes quam per epistolas & alloqui & audire quos diligas ? hier. ad nitiam . p nam rerū absentium presens est fides . aug. de trinit . l. . c. . quem & vide sup . ex tr . . in ioan. & epist. . q quo modo etiam caluinum hoc explicasse docet bellar. de euchar . l. . c. . sed & longe ante caluinum bern. de temp . . datur annulus ad investiendum de haereditate aliqua . &c. s audeo dicere ; ipsum manducabat , quem audiebat . aug. de diueri . serm . . t ioh. . . u panem illum manducat , qui ea quae scripta ●…t seruat . ambros. in luc. . x de euchar. l. . c. . y clem alex. paedag . l. 〈…〉 . 〈…〉 . . z basil. caes. epist. . r tertul. de resur . carn . see diuis . . sect. . num . . a origen . in gen hom . . & in numb . hom . . & . b chrys. in ioan hom . . c hieron in psal. . d ioh. . , . e ioh. . , . & . . in part borrowed also from bellarmine ●e euch. l. c. . g nulli est aliquatenus ambigendum tunc vnūquēque fidelium corporis & sanguinis christi participem fieri quando in baptismate membrum christi corporis efficitur etiamsi antequam illum panem comedat , &c. de hoc seculo abscedat . gratian. ex august , de consecr , dist . . & biel in can. miss . lect . . n. p. t. g. h cor. . . i panis christi datus est iudae . aug. in ioan. tr . . k tunc iudas christi corpus accepit , quando omnibus eis distribuit sacramentum corporis & sanguinissui , vbi & ipse iudas erat ibid. l ioh. . m ioh. . . n iansen . cōcord . cap. . o ioh. . . p ioh . . q ioh. . . r ioh. . . s huius rei sacramentum de mensa dominica sumitur , quibusdam ad vitam , quibusdam ad exitiū . res verò ipsa cuius sacramentum est , omni homini ad vitam , nulli ad exitium quicunque eius particeps su● erit . august , 〈…〉 an . tract . . n. p. t cor. . t. g. u carnaliter . bellar. de euchar . l. . c. . corporaliter . idem ibid. l. . c. . x as themselues grant . duran . ration . diuin . l. . p. and . part . can. & thō . sum . p. . q. . a. . ex innocent . . de sacr . altar . l. . c. . y corpus ipsum . a quidam dicunt quia nihil ●bi frantur . lombard . sent . l. . d. . c. b durand rational diuin . l . p. . c. . et biel in can. miss . lect . frangit sacerdotes hostiam . corpus spiritale , non spiritus sicut animale corpus non est anima sed corpus : ita & spiritale corpus non spiritum debemus putare sed corpus . aug. ep . . e quis audeat opinari vel christi corpus spiritale non resurrexisse , vel si spiritale surrexit , iam non corpus fuisse sed spiritum ? d cor. . . f luk. . . g iam igitur illa caro spiritale erat corpus , n●c tamen spiritus erat , sed corpus . h corp. christi , vt est in bucharistia , est verum , reale , naturale , animatum , quantum , coloratū , &c. & caro corporalis , nō spiritualis , nisi vt obediens spiritui in omnibus bellarm. de euchar. liq . . cap. . i gabr. biel in can. miss . sect . . corpus christi cum sit animatum & organicum , si frangeretur & diuideretur , corrumperetur . k turrian . de euchar. tract . . cap. . l philip. . . m diuis . . ad arg. . n mat. . . see dr. sheldens sermon on it . o super mensam visibiliter adest bellar. de misla . l. . c. . n. p. * ad heb. . “ tom. . germ. ienensi . sol . . in lib. de missa angulari . tō . . wittenberg . anno dom. , in lib. de miss . priuata , & vnctione sacerdot . fol. . & fol. . t. g. p iren. adu . valent. l. . c. , . q mal. . . r cypr. ep . . lib. . euseb. praepar . euan. lib. . cap. . hieron . ad marcell . aug epist . & alii . s gen. . . t heb. . & pet. . . vide & quot sacrificiorum christianorum mentionem ●aciant , lactant instit . l. . c. . & ● . te●tull contr . marc. l. . & . chrysost. contr . lud orat . 〈…〉 . eiusdem nomine in psal. . cyrill . contr . iulian. l. . aug. de ciuit. l. . c. . &c. u sacrificium laudis , &c. aug. contr . ●…ust . l. . c. . x huius sacrificii caro & sanguis ante aduentum christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur : in passione christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur : post ascensū christum per sacramentum memoriae celebratur . y aug ibid. cap. . z christiani peracti eiusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant , &c. a procop. in gen c. . b typum , effigiem , vel imaginē corporis sui . c heb. . d gal. . . e . cor . , . f bellarm. de missa lib. . c. . g ibid. l . c. . h ibid. l. . c. . i ibid. l. . c. . k heb. . , , . l rom. . . m bellarm. de missa l. . c. . n christum non mori nisi in sacramento seu signo repraesentāte vnicam illam mortē , quam aliquando obiit . o heb. . , , , p heb. . , , . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . athanas. serm. contr . arian . . q quanquam petro abeilardo honorē hunc deferat beat. rhenan . not . ad tertull. r petr. lombard . sentent . l . d. . g. s vocati sacrificium , quia memoria est & repraesentatio v●ri sacrificii & sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis . t semel christus mortuus in cruce est , ibique immolatus est in seipso : quotidiè autem immolatur in sacramento , quia in sacramento record ●…io fit illius , quod factum est semel . u aug. prefat . in . expos . psal. . & apud grat. de consecr . d. . c. semel . x aug. epist. . y dicitur illo die fieri , propter sacramenti celebrationem , quod non illo die , sed olim factum est . * ex similitudine sacramēta nomina rerum ipsarum accipiunt . z lomb. ibid. “ sed tantum anniuersaria recordatio repraesentat quod olim factum est , &c. a esa. . , . b vera & realis effusio sanguinis christi . c bellar. de sacrif . miss . l. . c. . &c. . & l. . c. . d decret . de sacr. script . concil trident . sess . . vt latina vetus & vulgata editio pro authentica habeatur , & nullo praetex●… reiiciatur . e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . luk. . . f heb. . . g bellar de miss . l. . c. ● . h heb . . i effunditur , i. significatur effundi . gloss. ad grat. de consecr . d. . si quotiescunque . k bellarm de miss . l. . c. . l ibid. lib. . cap. . m quod cardano ●ul . scal. de ●ubtil . exerc . . sect. . cedā potiùs quàm credam , credam citiùs quàm sciam . n miracula & signa nulla audio . fr. victor . relect . . o signa non edimus . ios. acost de procur . ind. sal . l c. . prodigia nulla producimus . ibid c. . * ieremie patriarch . in his answer chap. alleadged by th. a. of cathol . tradit . “ de panis transmutatione . * quod de vlysse homer . odyss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . et quod aristot . metaph . l. i c. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ita etiam & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . quibus atque poetis quidlibet audendi ( ac fingendi ) semper fuit aequa potestas . p answer to the censure , &c. q defence of that answer . r hieron . ad laetam . s they professe to place their whole hope in the wooden crosse : and so worship it ( as aquinas confesseth ) with diuine worship . they pray to be saued by thomas becker a traytors blood : they entreat the virgine mary to command her sonne christ : and pray to her , that being redeemed by her , they may be able to climbe to heauen , &c. t id est maximè admirandum & commend indum quod canon missae sit multorum aut●rum , & tamen ita aptè partes omnes in●er se iungantur , & cohaereant , vt vnius autoris videatur . bellar. de miss . l . c u gen. . . x gen. . . y nos vt descensū negamus , ita nec ascensum statuimus . petr. scarga de euchar . art . . non descendit de coelo corpus christi : ex damasc. orthod . fid . l. . c. . biel in can. lect . but pope innocens would not haue vs ouer-curious in this point . non oportet in talibus curiosos existere . innocent . de sacram. l. . c. . z corpus tuum , domine , quod sumpsi , & sanguis quem potaui , adhaereat visceribus meis . in post commun . n. p. a vide bellar. lib. . de euchar . cap. . t. g. b facinus & flagitium . c ioh. . . d august . in ioan. tr . . e spiritaliter intelligenda sunt . f idem tr . . g ne carnaliter intelligerent . h ioh . . i ex chrysostomo aquin. in ioan. . k spiritualiter oportet ea quae de me sunt audire . l qui carnàlites audit , nihil proficit . m omnia mysteria interioribus oculis aspicere . n tertul. de resurr . carnis . o quasi verè carnem suam illis edendā determinasset . p ioh. . . q ioh. . r se●…o caro factus , in causam vitae appetendus , deuorandus auditu , ●ummand●s intellectu , ●de digerendus . s aeneas syl. aepist . . cōtra bohem. t ioh. . . , . u ioh. . . x ioh. . . y and yet those words also doth durand vse to prooue that christs wordes iohn . , . are meant of eating spiritually , not corporally . in rational , diuin , p. . l. . ad . p. can. n. p. t. g. a mat. . . b mat. . c esa. . , . psal. . , . d clem paedag l. . c. . e cypr. ep . . l. . f chrysost. in mat hom . . g aug. de dogmat . eccles . c. . h nullus alius calix intelligi potest iansen . concord . c. . i orig. in mat. tr . . k cypr. ep . l chrysost. in mat. hom . . m epiph. haer . . n hie. on . in mat. . o aug. quaest . euang. l. . q. . p beda in mat. . q futhy . ib. r theoph. ib. s non de sanguine suo , sed de vino dixit . maldon . in mat. . t luk. . . u primas . in cor. . vt siquis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit , pignus aliquod , &c. idem habet & herueus , & haimo . x peregrè proficiscens . hieron . nomine in cor . . & sedul . ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . basil. caes. hom . de charit . y cor. . . a tertul. contra marc l. . panem , in quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat . b bellar. de euch l. . c. . c praesentem rem facere & reipsa exhibere . d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . e etenim post eius adventum non amplius erit opus symbolis seu signis corporis , cum ipsum corpus apparebit . theodoret. in cor. . n. p. t. g. f cor. . . g cor. . . h aug. epist. . c. . qui hoc non discernebant à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita . i idem ep . . k diuis . . sect. . l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . m quomodo mittam manuum in coelum ? fidem mitte ; tenuisti . aug. in loan . tr . n ioh. . . o bernar. in cant. serm . . et manducat nos , & māducatur à nobis ; quo arctius illi astringamur . p si manducat me , vt habeat me in se , & à me vicissim manducatur , vt sit in me , quatenus integra firmaque sit connexio , &c. q per fidem panis iste non simpliciter sumitur , sed veluti dentibus quibusdā masticatur , &c. iansen . concord . c. . r frangitur , & in animae viscera traiicitur . s nobis incorporatur . t ephes. . * amplius quiddam esse christum manducare , quam in christum credere vide caluin . institut . l. . c. . sect . , , . y non tam ipsum credere , quam effectum eius . ex caiuini sent . bellar. de euch. l. . c . u viuificet , alat , esuriem pellat , &c. z bonauent . in sent . l. . dist . . quae . z. a masticatio & incorporatio . b spiritualis masticatio est recogitatio cibi i. carnis christi pro nobis expositae in pretium ad redimendū & in cibum ad reficiendum . c incorporatio dum recogitans charitatis amore ei quod cogitatur iungitur , & sic incorporatur , & dum incorporatur reficitur , eique assimilatur . d recogitatio fidei , & affectio charitatis . e non sufficit qualiscunque fides . f gal. . . g non quilibet actus credendi manducare facit , &c. h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chrysost in tim. hom . . * vide lindā . de opt gen. interp . l. c. canum . loc . com . l. . c . & analys . fid . l. . c. 〈…〉 . k per hyperbolen enunciare . sixt. sen. biblioth . lib. . annot . . l per excessum bellarm. de missa l. . c . m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chrylost . in mat. hom . n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . idem in encoen siue de poenit . tom . . orat . o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . idem in ioan. hom . . & ad pop . ant. . p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . in mat. hom . q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ibid. s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . in encaen . t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . in math. hum : . u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ioh x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . in math. . y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . in 〈…〉 . a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . in cor. hom . . b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . dr sacerd lib. . f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in cor. hom . g de euc ar lib . c. . h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ioan. . l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . m ilia caro quam assumpsit , & iste panis , omnisque ecclesia , non faciunt tria corpora , sed vnum corpus . haimo in cor. . n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chrys. in mat. hom . q mat. . . . r galat. . . s aug. epist. . t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . chrys. in cor. hom . u in sacramēto spei consociatur ecclesia quamdiu bibirur , quod de christi latere manauit . aug. contr . faust. beda in cor. . hoc accipite in calice quod manauit de christi latere . ex aug. serm . ad neophyt . i●● ad haimer . de corp . dom. x cor. . . y caietan . in thom. part . . quaest . . art . . a bellarm. de miss l. c. . b esai . , ephes. . . heb. . . & . , . c heb. . , , , . d heb. . , . de qua chrysost . nomine in psal. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . e lo. . . f quod tradetur siue datur , siue frangitur . . quod offeretur à me pro vobis in cruce mactatum . greg de valent. de miss . sacr . l. . c. . g tradetur . i. dabitur atque offer●etur in cruce in odorem suauitatis vt apostolus interpretatus est . ibid. c. . k accepit & fregit . frangendum in cruce signauit . hugo in math. . i sponte sua frangendum & crucifigendum exposuit . idem in marc. . l caietan . in math. . m ioh. . . o bellarm. de miss . lib. . cap. . p integri panes dentur . q plenae amphorae donentur . k effundetur : de passione praedixit . idem in luc. . hoc facite , luk. . . s bellarm. de miss . l. . c. . fingit catholico● ità probare , &c. non tam ineptè argumentantur . t iansen . concord . cap. . sunt qui sacramentum istud esse sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facere , quod aliquando per sacrificare accipitur , &c. u inter caeteros sanderus nostras de coena dom. l. . c . circumst . . item gregor . de valent. de miss . sacrif . l. . c. . x iansen . ibid. y iren. lib. . cap. . o bellarm. de miss . l. . c. . p in oblatione panis & vini non consistit . q in consecratione non apparet vlla oblatio , nec sensibili● vlla immutario , &c. r oblationem i●●am n●c christus nec apostoli faci●bant , quam nos post co●…ationem fac●… . s non solet frangi quandoque . t fractio nostra christum autorem non habet . u manducatio & consumptio non sit à solo sacerdote . x consecratio non veram & realem mortem , sed mysticam tantum efficit . y in tota actione missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae preter istam . * vide bonauent . in sent . l. . d. . q. . a iansen . concord . cap. . * concil . trident. seff . . de sacrif . mis● . cap. . & can . . b gratiarum eūim actio est quoddam sacrificium . idem ibid. c probabile est quod oblatio sui deo sit facta . ibid. * vt demus christum non obtulisse , &c. non consequitur sacerdotes non offerre debere . “ cum memoria tantum sit rei absentis . d gabr. biel in can. miss . lect . e aug. ad simplie lib. . quaest . . f nec vola , nec vestigium . n. p. t. g. g centur. . cap . p. . h in censur . ad ambros. non esse ambrosii . i centur. . c. . pag. . k baron . in martyrolog . nouembr . . planè constat autorem illius historiae non esse athanasium alex. l caluin . de reliq . charrouienses monachi iactant se praeputium habere . m centur. . cap. . pag. . n bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . de confir . lib . cap . de script . eccles. ann . . & in recognit . reuerâ eusebius emissenus non potuit esse . p centur. . cap. . pag. . 〈…〉 rob. coqui censur . patrum quorundam ; & andr. riuetti specimen criticum . q centur. . cap. p. . r ibid. p. . n. p. t. g. * doctrinam hanc de conuersione hac , seu de transsubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dicunt scholastici , inter quos lo , scotus dist . . q. . & d. . q . & gabr. biel in can. lect . . suarez . tom. . disp . . quaest . . art . . ait scotus ante lateranense concilium ( quod fuit anno domini . ) transsubstantionem non fuisse dogma fidei . bellarm. de euchar. lib. . cap. . in synaxi transubstantiationem serò definiuit ecclesia . erasm in cor. . s bellarm. de euchar. l. . c. . t beda in marc. . & in luk. . nam in math. non habeo . u pro carne agni & sanguine sui corporis & sanguinis sacramentum in panis & vini figura substitutens . x frangit ipse panem quem porrigit . y quia panis corpus confirmat , vinum verò sanguinem operatur in carne , hic ad corpus christi mystice , illud refertur ad sanguinem . z lib. . de eucharist . a they are of late reprinted and set forth by m. william lisle . b cor. . . c . cor. . d ioh. . . e cor. . . f cor. . . g quae est ista noua & stulta sapientia , nouitatem quaerere in visceribus vetustatis ? optat. adv . l'armen . lib. . transubstantiation defended and prov'd from scripture in answer to the first part of a treatise intitled, a discourse against transubstantiation. gother, john, d. . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing g estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) transubstantiation defended and prov'd from scripture in answer to the first part of a treatise intitled, a discourse against transubstantiation. gother, john, d. . [ ], , [ ] p. printed by henry hills ..., london : . in reply to a pamphlet by john tillotson, archbishop of canterbury. attributed to john gother. cf. bm. errata: p. [ ]. reproduction of original in newberry library. marginal notes. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng tillotson, john, - . -- discourse against transubstantiation. transubstantiation -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images - john pas sampled and proofread - john pas text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion transubstantiation defended , and prov'd from scripture : in answer to the first part of a treatise , intitled , a discourse against transubstantiation . the first part. s. ignatius ep. ad smyrnaeos . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they abstain from our communion , because they do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our saviour jesus christ , that very flesh which suffer'd for our sins , which the father of his bounty raised again : those therefore which contradict this free gift of god , die scrupulously questioning the matter amongst themselves . publish'd with allowance . london , printed by henry hills , printer to the king 's most excellent maiesty for his houshold and chappel . . the principal contents of the introduction . . reasons why the discourse against transubstantiation lay so long unanswer'd . . the real or essential presence of christs body in the sacrament , shew'd to be the doctrin of the english church . . how the catholic church necessarily inferreth transubstantiation from our saviours words understood in a proper sense . . the pretended demonstration to the contrary from the sense of the word this , in those words of our lord , this is my body , so highly boasted of in the expostulatory letter to mr. sclater of putney , shew'd to be a mere illusion . an introduction to the ensuing ansvver . some have wondred , whilst others triumph't , and a late writer particularly hath vainly boasted , in a certain * letter to a friend , that two great doctors of the english church , had baffled their adversaries of rome even to the silencing of that party , and all this was because the discourse against transubstantiation lay so long unanswer'd . the best account , that i can give of the so long silence , is , that the more considerate knew , that the said discourse contained no new matter , but only what had been very often objected against us since the pretended reformation of the english church , and as often fully answered , as also , that there have been a two large volums writen by a learned catholic author , and b cited by the discourser himself , wherein the objections against transubstantiation are put much further than this late discourse urges them , and all clear'd beyond the power of any solid answer ; and we find none for many years last past so much as offer'd at against the said treatises , nor yet to a more compendious one entitled , a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation publish't . in which the chief objections repeated since by the discourser are fully clear'd . moreover , the doctrin of the english church concerning the real presence being no less vigorously attacqu't by the late discourser , than that of the roman catholic , it was thought more proper , that some of them should have first return'd an answer to it , because they had the greater reason to resent the injury done them , since a wound from a pretended friend is more grievous than from a profest adversary . indeed , i would not have the genuin sons of the english church to think , that we differ so much with them in this point , as some by misrepresenting the thing , would make us to do , seeing that they do acknowledge with bishop andrews , praesentiam non minus quam nos veram ; no less true presence of christs body in the sacrament , than we do , and i am sure that is true enough ; our difference with them , ( who deny consubstantiation , as is manifest from their writings , ) being only about the not admitting the word transubstantiation , whereas they have so long freely acknowledged the thing . for if the body of christ be really present in the sacrament , and not with the substance of bread , it must be there without it , under the external species only of bread , and consequently such a change of substance as the catholic church calls transubstantiation , must certainly be made ; and there can be no other sense given of that real presence which hath been received in their church . now , that the real presence of christs body , together with it's vertue and efficacy , is the acknowledged belief of the greatest and most learned persons of the english communion is * certain , notwithstanding the weak endeavor of an imperfect answerer to the animadversions upon the alterations of their rubrick lately publisht , to shew the contrary . which that it may the more plainly appear , i shall add one observation made by a famed doctor of their church , which will be the more authentick , because it was drawn from their records . it was proposed , saith this * doctor , to have the communion book , viz. that put forth in the beginning of queen elizabeths reign , so contriv'd , that it might not exclude the belief of the corporal presence : ( i doubt not , but they meant after a spiritual manner , as catholics do suitably to st. paul who uses the words spiritual body to signifie a real body existing after a spiritual manner ) for the chief design of the queens council was to unite the nation in one faith , and the greater part of the nation continued to believe such a presence ; ( which however seems to have been determin'd against in their former articles and rubrick . ) thereupon , the rubrick that explain'd the reason for kneeling at the sacrament , that thereby no adoration is intended to any corporal presence of christs natural flesh and blood , because that is only in heaven , which had been in king edwards liturgy , is left out — * and in the article about the lords supper the refutation of the corporal presence was by common consent left out . — and in the next convocation the articles were subscribed without them , of which , he tells us , he had seen the original . now , whatsoever this doctor ( whose usual practice it hath been , like the snake in the fable , to bite and betray those that have cherisht him ) pretends to know of a secret concerning this matter , ( for which he doth not bring the least proof or authority , whereas he had seen the original to be an evidence of what he had before said , ) yet for my part i have more deference for the english church , than to believe that the real presence of christs body in the sacrament was , after so much consideration about the matter , ( now behold the secret comes out , ) left as a speculative opinion , as he saith , and not determin'd , but every man left to the freedom of his own mind , because an express definition against the real presence might drive from the church many who were still of that perswasion . for then those studiously alter'd articles and rubrick had only been made as a trap to draw men into idolatry , and keep them in it , if you will believe some of the great modern writers who live in communion , at present , with the english church , and yet deny that real presence , which was both in queen elizabeths time , and ever since believed in that church , and tax those with idolatry who worship christ thus present . therefore we have good reason to allow , what he tells us afterwards , that some ( we are sure that many of the most learned amongst them ) have since truly inferr'd , that the chief pastors of the church did then disapprove of the definition made in king edwards time , and that they were for a real presence . and of this we can make no doubt , when we peruse the writings of those pastors , who succeeding them till this very time , have given so full an account of their faith in this weighty instance , and yet have past uncensur'd , nay , have been of greatest esteem in their church . and how indeed can we imagin , that men of the least sincerity would leave an article of infinite concern to mens immortal souls in so undeterminat a sense , that christians might believe , which they pleas'd , either that christs body was thus really present in the sacrament , which , if it were not , they incurr'd the guilt of gross idolatry , or that it was not so , which if really it was , they were guilty of infidelity , in not believing our lord upon his word ; and a breach of the first commandment , in not worshipping the second person in the trinity , presenting himself to us in this sacrament ; according to that saying , of the great * st. augustin concerning this matter ; peccamus non adorando , we sin in not worshipping ? such an equivocation as this , in an assembly of christian pastors , upon the proposal of so great a point , must needs have been of far more dangerous consequence to christians , than the ambiguous answers of the delphic oracle , were to the heathen world. this far then the business is clear'd , that the real , and not virtual presence only of christs body in the sacrament , was the doctrin of the english church ; for what some men amongst them of great latitude in belief have maintain'd to the contrary , doth not prejudice the truth , which the more sound of that communion have generally asserted . and notwithstanding , that their late clergy in the year , . in compliance to the dissenting party , by the chief management of the late lord shaftsbury's politic spirit , were induced after hard solliciting to receive an additional declaration , ( tho' not printed in their rubrick letter , ) at the end of their communion service , yet , since they would not by any means be brought to receive the former declaration of king edward the sixth's time , without the change of those words [ it is here declared that no adoration is here intended or ought to be done unto any real and essential presence of christs natural flesh and blood ] into these which follow [ it is here declared , that no adoration is here intended or ought to be done , either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received , or unto any corporal presence of christs natural flesh and blood ] the words real and essential , as you see , being changed into , corporal ; this cannot but reasonably be imagin'd to be done out of caution to the present church , her maintaining still a real and essential presence of christs body in the sacrament ; whereas those in the latter time of king edward seem to have denied it . moreover , tho' it be said in this last declaration , that the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances , and therefore may not be adored , yet if by natural substances or essences here is no more meant , ( as the words may very well be understood , and are shewn by catholics to be understood in the authorities of theodoret , and gelasius , ) than the external and sensible essences , or properties of bread and wine , and not the internal substance , or essence , this declaration will not be repugnant , either to the real presence or to transubstantiation , and the adoration will be terminated neither on the internal or external essences of bread and wine , but upon christ the only begotten son of god , really present in the blessed sacrament , which the * council of trent it self hath declared to be the sense of the catholic church as to the point of adoration . again , if the last part of this declaration , wherein it is said , that the natural body and blood of christ are in heaven and not here ; it being against the truth of christs natural body to be at one time in more places than one , be yet urg'd , to prove , that the above mention'd real presence of christs body in the eucharist is not at present the doctrin of the english church . i answer , that whereas it is there said , that the natural body and blood of christ are in heaven , and not here , meaning in the sacrament ; if by natural body be there understood christs body , according to the natural manner of a bodies being present , and according to which , tho' in a glorified state , it actually exists in heaven , we do not say , that the body of christ is here in this sacrament in that natural manner , any more than the doctors of the english communion ; but if no more be mean't by the words , natural body , but the very true and ( as we may call it ) essential body of christ , tho' present in a supernatural manner , proper to the sacrament , it is a very bold assertion to say absolutely , that it is against the truth of it to be so , or that this cannot possibly be true , since we know so little to what the omnipotence of god , which could convey this very body into the room , where the disciples were , the doors being fast shut , can extend it self , and yet the body be the very same body in verity of nature which is in heaven ; the presence of which in the sacrament a late eminent * author of the english church a sufficiently intimates , that some ( he might have said very many ) of their divines have maintain'd ; notwithstanding the vain endeavors , which the answerer to the treatise , printed at oxford , to shew the sentiment of the church of england divines in this point , has us'd to wrest them to another sense : for after having told us his own opinion , viz. that all which the doctrin of his church ( meaning the church of england ) implies , is only a real presence of christ's invisible power and grace , so in and with the elements , as by the faithful receiving of them , to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men , he subjoyns , if any one yet thinks , that some at least of our divines have gone farther than this , i. e. do seem to speak of the presence of the very same body which is in heaven , let them know , says he , it is the * doctrin of our church i am to defend , and not of every particular divine in it . now altho' by those wary terms , of every particular divine , and seeming to speak , he endeavors what he can both to diminish the number , and their clear acknowledgment of the presence of the same body in the sacrament which is in heaven , yet he could not but know that the asserters of it were very many , and still are , even since the declaration , and such as may be presumed to know the meaning of it , as cunningly worded as it is , as well , if not better than himself ; and for this , besides what i have had by particular converse with divers , i will appeal to the sincerity of those who have heard the determinations which have been made by their learned professors in the publick schools of both their vniversities , ever since this last declaration was receiv'd , whether they are not fully satisfied , that they have been much more positive for a real presence of christs body in the sacrament , in a further sense than the abovementioned author , and others in their late discourses against transubstantiation declare themselves to be . and i have the rather given the sense before expressed of the last clause of their new declaration , which indeed is the only one it can truly bear , because the catholic church authoriseth it in the * council of trent , by declaring there , that these two things are not inconsistent , viz. that our saviour according to his natural way of existing , should sit at the right hand of his father in heaven , and that he should be in the substance present to us sacramentally , by that manner of existence ; which altho' it can scarcely be expressed in words , yet our mind enlightened by faith can be brought to conceive , that it is possible with god. i hope therefore , that christian charity may in time put a happy end to the tedious disputes , which have been so long held about the blessed sacrament ; that so the sacred symbols of peace and vnity may no longer be made the subject of contention . especially when we consider , that tho' , when the * strange opinion , of there being only some certain vertue of christs body in the sacrament , and not that very body it self was first privately held , about eight hundred and eighteen years after our saviours time , by some persons that erred through ignorance , yet they were asham'd publickly to contradict , as some in this last age have done , that real presence which the whole christian world believ'd and confest , and concerning which none had ever before erred in the church , but those who had erred concerning christ himself . likwise , that altho' the fourth great council of lateran , one of the greatest which ever was held in the christian world , that they might put an end to the contentions then arisen , and maintain christian verity , and peace amongst the faithful , did in declaring the faith of the church concerning the blessed sacrament make use of the word * transubstantiated , to express precisely that great and supernatural change therein made , which the catholic church had in all precedent ages even from christs time believed , as being necessarily deduced from our saviours words , and exprest by the primitive fathers in several other terms signifying the same thing ; yet the catholic church thought it not necessary to determin any thing concerning those nicer speculations about the modes of this wonderful change , which have exercised the more subtle wits , even before the time of the lateran council and ever since . and of this excellent moderation used by the catholic church we have a clear evidence from the proceedings of the council of trent in reference to this matter which , as * padre paul himself , notwithstanding he was no great friend to catholics in his historical relations of the proceedings of this council , relates , determin'd to use so very few , and those universal terms in the article of the blessed sacrament , as might satisfie both parties , viz. the scotists and thomists , and be fitly accommodated to the sense of each of them ; but not so as to establish their distinct private speculations . a cardinal pallavicino likewise tells us , speaking concerning the circumspection of the tridentin fathers , that they would have nothing determin'd concerning the modus or manner of the sacramental presence of christ . so far were they from prejudicing either of the theological classes , or from offering to declare those things as articles of faith which were not the revelations of god , but the speculations of men. so that , if we can agree , that this great supernatural change is made in the sacrament , without the admission of which those of the english church can never prove , that presence of christs body in the holy eucharist , which they acknowledge to be b no less true than we do , they will be yet left at liberty , and need not determin rashly concerning the manner of it , nor so much as anxiously to inquire into this point . for indeed transubstantiation is a great mystery of christian religion , so is the doctrin of the trinity , so is the incarnation of our lord , to which the primitive fathers do so often compare the supernatural change made in the sacrament ; so is the resurrection of our bodies ; yet these articles of christian faith are to be believed upon the authority of the revealer , and not too curiously to be pried into . i shall insist only upon the resurrection at present , to shew how little ground they have to believe this , upon the account of natural reason , who reject the belief of transubstantiation , by vertue of which we receive the instrument and pledge of our resurrection christs real body in the sacrament : both these indeed may seem contrary to reason , before enlightned by faith : for how can that convince us , that the same body which dies shall rise again ; since some that eat mans flesh in the extremity of famin , or , as the cannibals , out of luxury , have the substance of the bodies , that they eat , converted into the substance of their own bodies by the way of nourishment : and several other ways there be , by which the reduced parts of our dead bodies are changed into the substance of other human bodies , even so , that the same bodies may be claimed by many at the resurrection ? notwithstanding we believe , that we shall rise with the same bodies we had , whilst living . dim sighted reason will ask , how this can be , since it is against the nature of a body to be in two places at the same time ? yet nature and experience prepare us for the belief of the resurrection , which seems to be against nature , by the example of those things , which are obvious to sense . seed , as the apostle instanceth , is cast into the ground , it corrupts , and yet riseth again , for god giveth it a body , and to every seed it 's own body . so to dispose us to the belief of the supernatural change made in the sacrament , nothing is more familiar than natural transubstantiation , for our life is sustained by a dayly change of the substance of other creatures into that of our bodies ; we should soon die without this : nay we cannot breath , but the substance of our bodies is converted into air ; and he that denies this transubstantiation , confutes himself while he speaks . thus bread also was dayly transubstantiated into our lords body , whilst he fed upon it here on earth . all which may dispose us to believe , that the bread in the sacramental consecration , as * gregory nyssen teacheth us , passeth into the body of christ the word , not indeed as it did by the way of manducation , and nourishment , but being suddainly transform'd into the body of the word , as is said by the word , this is my body . and if our curious inquirers shall further ask ; how this can be , since the accidents or outward species of bread still remain ? i desire them to resolve these questions : how a thousand species can be reflected from the same glass at once , to a thousand eyes at the same time ? how the same glass being whole , transmits one intire species , and yet broken into many small pieces , every piece reflects the same whole and intire species , there being all the while but one subject , and what that subject is wherein these species do subsist ? or let them but give a true account of the nature of any small particle of that matter , which composeth the vniverse , before they pry too far into the secrets of divine and supernatural mysteries , and think that god can do nothing , but in such a manner as they can comprehend . therefore our adversaries had good reason to say , speaking concerning the objections against the trinity , incarnation and the resurrection with identity of bodies , a that if there were as plain revelation of transubstantiation , as of those , then this argument were good ; and that if it were possible to bring a thousand more arguments against transubstantiation , yet that we are to believe the revelation in despite of them all : again , that b those who believe the trinity in all those niceties of explications which are in the schools , and which now a days pass for the doctrin of the church , believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural philosophy , as can be imagin'd to be in the point of transubstantiation . and do not therefore insist upon the point c how far reason is to be submitted to divine authority , in case of certainty , that there is a divine revelation for what they are to believe . and , d that there are things , haud pauca , not few in number , which we all believe , that , if human reason be consulted , do not seem less impossible , and less manifestly contradictory than transubstantiation it self . now , that the words of our lord , this is my body , being understood in a proper sense , as in the ensuing answer is prov'd they ought to be , do necessarily infer transubstantiation , is manifest . because , as is allowed by all , that was bread which our lord took into his hands , before he spoke those words ; there must therefore a change be made , otherwise it could not really become christs body , nor that which he gave his disciples , be in a proper sense so called . and the accidents or sensible species still remaining as before , the change must be made in the substance . this is what the * tridentine council infers in these words : because christ our redeemer did affirm , that truly to be his body which he offer'd , under the species of bread , therefore , it was ever believed in the church of god , which also the holy synod now again declares , that by the consecration of the bread and wine , there is a conversion made of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of our lord christ , and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood , which conversion is , by the holy catholic church fitly and properly called transubstantiation . the foregoing inference will evidently appear to be true , if we consider the proper and genuin sense of every particular word in that proposition of our lord , this is my body . this , here in its true and * proper sense , signifies some thing , essence , substance , or object in general , under such an appearance as was demonstrated to sense . for if by the word , this , were exprest the whole nature of the predicate in such a proposition , e. g. as this is bread , or this is my body , then the proposition would be purely identical , or tautological ; for it would be no more than if one should say , this bread is bread , or this my body is my body : whereas it is the property of the attribute to extend , and fully to determin the idea of the subject , by adding clearness to it . and we must remember , that the english word , this , is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the original greek here , as also in most other languages , not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the masculine gender , so as to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread. now tho' there be no distinction as to the gender in the english word , this , yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this bread , as our adversaries would have here meant , is false grammar . in like manner the word , is , hath here it's proper sense ; not as it is used sometimes , for signifies . the word my can have relation to no other person but our lord , who spoke it ; nor consequently to any other body , but his own , truly so , as to it's substance , and therefore truly exprest by the word , body ; that , which was before bread , at the beginning of the enunciation , this is my body , being now made to be his body at its conclusion , because in practical propositions as this is , with god to say , and to do , are the same thing ; and thus you see , what is meant by each word in the proposition , this is my body , as explicated by catholics , tho' you do not believe the mystery . let us now observe , what a late * expostulator hath said against this explication . he undertakes to prove , that the words , this is my body , cannot be taken in a literal , ( i conceive he means proper , in opposition to figurative ) sense , which he supposes his enemies themselves of our party will grant , if he proves that the , this , here mentioned is bread ; which he thus undertakes to do . that , saith he , which our saviour took into his hands , ( when he was about the institution ) was bread ; that which he blessed was the same thing that he had taken into his hands ; that which he brake was the same thing that he had blessed ; that which he gave them when he said it was his body , was that which he had broken ; but that which he broke , which he blessed , which he took into his hands was bread : therefore it was bread , which he gave his disciples , and by this , is meant this bread. this * induction , saith the expostulator , is so fair and so clear , that i am sure you cannot evade it . but what , sir , if after all your mighty boasting , this prove to be neither a fair induction , nor any argument at all , but a mere fallacy or illusion proceeding from what logicians call , ignoratio elenchi , ignorance of argument or proof ? and just such a one as this would be , if proposed to you : that which the butcher exposed to sale was raw flesh ; that which you bought was the same thing , that the butcher exposed to sale ; that which you eat was the same thing that you bought ; but that which you bought , which the butcher expos'd to sale was raw flesh , therefore you eat raw flesh . the kitchin-boy will tell you where the fallacy lies , and help you out at a dead lift . but to make the matter yet more plain , i shall give you some other instances in your way of sophistry , which the most ignorant at the first hearing will discover to be fallacies . that which the servants at the marriage of cana in galiee , took from the fountain , was water ; that which they poured into the water-pots was the same , that they took from the fountain ; that which the guests drank was the same , that the servants put into the water-pots ; but that which the servants took from the fountain , which they poured into the pots was water ; therefore it was water which the guests drank . or your argument may in a shorter way be turn'd against you thus : that which christ took into his hands , he gave : but , that which he took into his hands was not sacramental bread , nor virtually christs body , therefore that which he gave was not sacramental bread , nor virtually christs body . and now repeating your argument truly , tho' without all your heap of words , i shall expose it's fallacy plainly . that , you say , which christ took , &c. he gave ; but he took bread ; therefore he gave bread. i distinguish the major . that he took , he gave ; unchanged or in the same manner he took it , i deny : what he took , he gave , changed and made his body i grant , and so agreeing he took bread , i deny your consequence . look into your logic again , observe it well , and you will find , that to make a proposition contradictory to ours , viz. that , that which christ gave was his real body , you must observe the rules of your master aristotle , so as to speak , de eodem modo , & eodem tempore , which you have not here known how to do . yet you for all this , would be esteemed the great champion for the protestant cause , and boast , that this your matter and argument is so demonstrative , that you cannot but stand amazed that men , who pretend to reason , can refuse it . this pretended demonstration might be much more exposed , had i leasure , whilst i am discoursing upon so serious a point , to insist upon trifles . neither would the * remarks , which he afterwards makes , help him in the least ; for tho' our saviour did say , according to st. luke and st. paul , this cup is the new testament in my blood , yet this passage doth not fully determin , that , by this is my body is meant this bread is my body : for the word , this , in the proposition , this cup is the new testament in my blood ; being joyned with the word cup , by a known figure , to signifie in a general way , what is contained in the cup , only makes the proposition to signifie , that , which is contained in the cup is the new testament in my blood ; which in the evangelists st. matthew and st. mark , is exprest by these words , this is my blood of the new testament ; so that the word this still , altho' joyned to cup , hath no other kind of signification than it hath in the words , this is my body , as i have before explained them : also if it had the sense which the author of the expostulatory letter would give it , then the meaning would be , this wine is the new testament in my blood , or as according to st. matthew and st. mark , this wine is my blood of the new testament , which words in the sense that our adversaries put upon them , would in those circumstances , wherein they were spoken , have been contrary to the rules of human discourse , suitably to what is shew'd in the ensuing * answer concerning the words , this is my body , taken in their sense . the adversary indeed , in this expostulatory letter , insolently triumphs , because he hath found out some mistakes in translating , &c. but his answer to the fathers authorities which have been so often truly cited as an undeniable evidence against his party , will easily be shew'd to be unsatisfactory , ( when we come to their proper place ) and he so slightly attacks , as you have seen , our main evidence the * proper sense of our lords words as hardly to bring the face of an argument against it : so we read that a humorsom a emperor , when he came to invade great britain , only gather'd cockles , and yet for this he demanded triumph in a letter to his senators , thinking his shell-spoils worthy offerings for the capitol . we have one request now to make to those who oppose the doctrin of transubstantiation , that because it is necessary for an answerer to know distinctly what the persons mean to whom he is to make an answer , they would deal sincerely with us ; and since we have told them in what sense every word in the proposition this is my body is taken by us , and how the catholic church doth necessarily infer transubstantiation from them , they would now deal as candidly with us , and tell us , as plainly , as we have done , how they understand each of these words . i have reason to intreat this favor of them , because altho' they seem sometimes to maintain only a vertual not real presence of christs body in the sacrament , which opinion of theirs i have chiefly opposed in the ensuing answer ; yet at othertimes they * ( and even the discourser himself ) readily acknowledge a great supernatural change to be made by the divine benediction , and the author of the * expostulatory letter hath a reserv'd distinction , of christs natural and spiritual flesh and blood , seeming to allow that christ hath a spiritual body in the sacrament : we know not but that he intends the same , which the learned author of a brief discourse of the real presence hath lately given us of two bodies of christ , the one natural in which he was crucified , the other spiritual belonging to him , as he is the eternal logos , in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , life or spirit , which goes along with the divine body of this life or spirit of christ , and consequently is rightly call'd his body . for this , he grounds himself upon that earnest lofty and sublime discourse ( as he calls it ) of our saviour in the th . chapter of st. john , confessing ingenuously , that it seems to him incredible , that under so lofty , mysterious a style , and earnest asseverations of what he affirms , tho' to the scandal both of the jews , and his own disciples , there should not be couched some most weighty and profound truth concerning some real flesh and blood of his , touching which this vehement and sublime discourse is framed . pa. . and than again , pa. . and . it is plain , says he , that our saviours discourse in that chapter , has for its object or subject , not the manner or way of receiving his body and blood , as if meant of that very body and blood on the cross , to be receiv'd in a spiritual manner , which interpreters several of them ( meaning of the reformers ) drive at , and which he thinks would be a very dilute and frigid sense of such high and fervid asseverations of our saviour ; but the object of his discourse , says he , is his very flesh and blood it self , to be taken ( as the fish and loaves were wherewith he lately fed them ; ) or it is himself in reference to his flesh and blood , which belongs to him as he is the eternal logos . thus evidently did our saviour seem to this learned man , to speak all along to the very end of his discourse , of a really eating his flesh and drinking his blood ; and not of the manner of eating , as if it never came nigh them , but only they thought of flesh and blood , god knows how far distant from them , and so eat the human flesh of christ by meer thinking of it , and drank his blood after the same imaginary manner . thus to avoid the catholic tenent of transubstantiation ( which he could bear no more than the jews ) and yet verifie the words of christs bodies being receiv'd verily and indeed , and such other expressions found in the catechism and homelies of the church of england ( which he thought himself bound to maintain ) he was driven to distinguish a double body of christ , the one human and natural , the other spiritual and divine , but both real , as has been said before . good god , what chimera's will not a mind preoccupated with error , frame to it self rather than submit to the truth ! luther indeed tells us of about ten opinions of the sacramentarians in his time ; and a book was publisht in the year , , in which were reckon'd no less than several expositions of the sense of these words ; hoc est corpus meum ; this is my body . what we would gladly know of our adversaries with whom we have now to deal , is , which of these ( now two hundred and one ) opinions , it is that they maintain , or whether they have any other yet in store ( for error hath no end ) different from all these . for surely after all , they must be forc'd to allow , that there is but one true sense of our saviours words , viz. either that it is his very true substantial body , which is taken and received , or a figure only , what vertue soever they please to assign to it . if the former , they fall in with the catholics , or * dr. moors tenet ; if the latter , what vertue soever they assign to a figure , it is not the real body , nor the body really present . let them speak plain , that the world may understand them : the faithful are not to be deluded with ambiguities in a point of so great concern to their immortal souls . reader , be pleased to observe concerning the manner and method of the ensuing treatise and answer , that the discourse against transubstantiation is faithfully here reprinted section by section , and a reply made to the sections in their order . also , that because the discourser against transubstantiation would delude unwary christians by making them believe , that catholics have no proof for this doctrin from scripture , this first part which is chiefly concerning scripture authority is publisht by it self , to be consider'd distinctly ; to which in convenient time , the second part is to be added . some errata's to be corrected . pag. . in marg. for preface read introduction . p. . last line read under the species p. . in the hebrew citation , read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bis p. . read relicks . observe that in the marginal notes . p. . , , . the word , infra , hath relation to the second part of the answer , which is not yet published . transubstantiation defended : in answer to a treatise , intitled , a discourse against transubstantiation . discourse . concerning the sacrament of the lord's supper , one of the two great positive institutions of the christian religion , there are two main points of difference between us and the church of rome . one , about the doctrine of transubstantiation ; in which they think , but are not certain , that they have the scripture and the words of our saviour on their side : the other , about the administration of this sacrament to the people , in both kinds ; in which we are sure that we have the scripture and our saviour's institution on our side ; and that so plainly , that our adversaries themselves do not deny it . answer . concerning the sacrament of union , the lord's supper ; which is the chief of those several positive institutions of religion which christ hath ordained in his church , there are many great differences even between protestants themselves ; it is no wonder therefore if there are as many between protestants and catholics : of these the author gives two instances , the one about the doctrine of transubstantiation , the other about the administration of this sacrament to the people in both kinds : as for that of transubstantiation , he would have done well to have told us , in what supposition he means to take the word in his discourse . if he suppose the true , real and substantial presence of christs body in the sacrament , and take the word transubstantiation precisely , as it signifies that presence , not with the bread , but by it's being chang'd into his body , this is a difference indeed , and the only proper one in this supposition , between him and catholics , in this matter : but then if he would have proceeded sincerely , and as one that was really master of so much sense as he talks of in this treatise , he should have held to his point , and not impugned what he supposes ; but if he suppose no such real or substantial presence of christs body , and under the name of transubstantiation fight expresly against the real presence , through his whole discourse , as it is evident he doth , ( and therefore ought to have call'd it a discourse against the real presence , and it's consequence transubstantiation , and not a discourse only , against transubstantiation ; ) then the difference is not only as he would make it with the catholics , but with the lutherans also , and those of his own communion , as king james , bishop andrews , mr. thorndike , and many others who profess'd to believe the body of christ to be present in the sacrament no less truly than catholics do . but however he compose this difference with them , yet the catholics , as for their tenent , do not think only , as he says , but are certain , as i shall shew in the process of this discourse , that they have the words of our saviour , which they do not doubt to be scripture , on their side . and for the other point , viz. the administration of the sacrament in both kinds , they are sure that neither he , nor any of his party have , or ever can prove from the scripture and our saviours institution , that he laid a command upon all the faithful to receive it always in both kinds , and this they constantly affirm . but before i leave this paragraph , i cannot but desire the reader to take notice of two things , first , that how sure soever the author makes himself , that he hath the scripture and our saviours institution on his side , yet his good friend dr. tillotson in his rule of faith , which he makes scripture only to be , speaking in his own name , and that of his party , saith : we are not infallibly certain , that any book ( for example s. matthew or any other of the evangelists , ) is so ancient as it pretends to be , or that it was written by him whose name it bears , or that this is the sense of such and such passages in it , it is possible all this may be otherwise . the second is , how high soever he talk of the catholics not being certain , and his own being sure , of having the scripture for them , yet he doth not vouchsafe to tell us what he means by that word , viz. whether express texts , or deductions only . if express texts : let him produce one , if he can , for that new article of his creed , ( a creed much younger than that of pope pius the fourth ) i do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the lord's supper , or in the elements of bread and wine , &c. if deductions only , why may not the catholics , who have the express words of scripture , that it is his body , infer as surely from thence , that there is a change in the elements of bread and wine , as the protestants , who have no such express text , that it is not his body , can do to prove , that there is no change ? discourse . of the first of these i shall now treat , and endeavour to shew against the church of rome , that in this sacrament there is no substantial change made of the elements of bread and wine into the natural body and blood of christ ; that body which was born of the virgin mary , and suffered upon the cross ; for so they explain that hard word transubstantiation . answer . of the former of these i shall now treat , and endeavour to vindicate the catholic church , which declares it as an article of faith , that by vertue of consecration in the sacrament , there is a conversion made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of our lord , and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood , which conversion she conveniently and properly calls transubstantiation , a a hard word indeed to those who will not believe the great mystery expressed by it . discourse . before i engage in this argument , i cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon , by the bold confidence of our adversaries , to dispute a matter of sense ; which is one of those things about which aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute . answer . before i engage in this argument , i cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our adversary , not to dispute a matter of sense , ( since upon this all parties are agreed , that there ought to be no dispute ; ) but to answer all the absurdities , which the author is engaged in by espousing false principles , and among the rest as the chief , that sense can judge of the internal nature or substance of things : for , all that is the proper object of sense , that is , the species , or outward accidents of bread and wine , are allowed to be present in the sacrament by all catholics as well as separatists : and we strangely admire , that he should not remember that rule of his master aristotle , which every young scholar learns , in the beginning of his logick , that substantia non incurrit in sensus ; substance is not the object of sense . from whence it is apparent to all men that have the use of their reason , that all the authors cracking confidence upon this argument , is founded upon a vulgar error slily insinuated , that catholics believe that which they * see in the sacrament of the eucharist , to be the substance of the body and blood of christ . but lest any should be deceived with this popular argument , and take up a prejudice against us as in good reason they may , since they are made to believe that we would perswade them out of their senses ; i shall be so far from endeavouring to do this , as the author fondly imagins all catholics do ; that rather out of a deep sentiment of gratitude to the great god of nature , who hath so fearfully and wonderfully made these bodies of ours , i shall freely acknowledge that the senses do not deceive us at all . for the deception doth not lie , at any time , in the senses , but in the judgment , and the senses do always give true hints to the mind , when their organs and the medium are rightly disposed , and they are employed about their proper and adequate objects . what we may certainly conclude from the goodness and veracity of god , is , that he will not deceive man , the creature that he loves , and therefore usually those objects which are represented to him by his senses , as having relation to the conservation of his body , are of such and such a determinate substance , as the outward and sensible accidents do hint them to be of . so that he is not mistaken in them , unless he judge rashly , and then too there are means provided by which he may correct his error . thus the substance of fire is generally represented under the species or usual form of fire : of a dove under the usual form or likness of a dove : ( so that we may allow in this manner , that ordinarily the substance doth incur into the mind through the senses , by means of the accidents , but it is certain that the senses cannot judge either of the substance or accidents . ) therefore god who is the author of nature , and can change it , when he pleaseth , that man may not be deceived in this kind , doth usually inform him , when he maketh any substantial change , of this nature , in his creatures , which is above the reason of man to comprehend , from any hints made by his senses , as being truly miraculous . thus , when the holy ghost appeared in the form of a dove , man was informed by god , that it was really the holy ghost in substance of nature , and not a dove . when the same holy spirit descended upon the apostles in the visible appearance of cloven tongues of fire ; they had notice from heaven , that this was truly that holy spirit which came in this visible shape . when angels appeared in the forms of men ; they had it revealed to them , that they were , notwithstanding , angels . when our lord presented himself to his disciples under the species of bread , he told them plainly , that it was his body . to shew which revelation to have been made , from the authority of holy scripture and fathers , will be the subject of the ensuing discourse : this which i have here said , being fully conclusive against the argument of sense's being properly the judge of substance . and now who is it that abuseth the senses , the author , or catholics ? he , by applying them to judge of substance , which is an object that is no way adequate to them , would make them to deceive men. we , employing them about their proper objects , which are here the accidents , or outward species of bread and wine , which , as by them we are convinced , do still remain after consecration , prove the miracle from sense ; because at the same time that these appear , the understanding , being inlightened by faith , discerns the true and real substance of christs body , to be veiled under them , which makes the thing truly miraculous . to employ therefore the senses about their true and adequate objects , and the mind about those which are proper to it , is rational : but to advance sense above reason , and even faith it self ; the beast above the man , and the christian too , as the author doth , is such a piece of stupidity , as is not to be parallel'd . discourse . it might well seem strange if any man should write a book , to prove that an egg is not an elephant , and that a musket-bullet is not a pike : it is every whit as hard a case , to be put to maintain by a long discourse , that what we see and handle and taste to be bread is bread , and not the body of a man ; and what we see and taste to be wine is wine , and not blood : and if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof , i do not see why any man , that hath confidence enough to do so , may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is ; or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not ; and this without all possibility of being farther confuted . so that the business of transubstantiation is not a controversie of scripture against scripture , or of reason against reason , but of downright impudence against the plain meaning of scripture , and all the sense and reason of mankind . answer here the author , like another lucian renouncing the christian faith , begins to ridicule the most sacred mystery of our religion . i confess i am very unwilling to follow him in such dirty way as he takes . it is not at all suitable to the retiredness , wherein our devout minds should be entertained , when we conceive of a thing so truly divine , to speak slightly . i must intreat therefore the candid reader , to abstract his thoughts wholly from the blessed sacrament , at such time as any of this froth is cast back again upon the author , which i heartily wish he had spared me the pains of doing ; and that he had kept his egg and his elephant to himself : the analogy would have been more easily made out by those , who maintain that grace , and vertue are the body and blood of christ verily and indeed received ( for so an egg is vertually at least an elephant , if according to the principle of the philosopher , omnia animalia generantur ex ovo ; every animal is generated out of an egg ) then by such as hold with the catholic church , that the sacrament is not bread and wine , but what verily and indeed it is , the real body and blood of christ . now , how to change a musket-bullet into a pike , i confess i know not ; the dragoons better understand that piece of martial exercise . howsoever , i must needs acknowledge with the author , that it seems strange , that any man should write a book , to prove that an egg is not an elephant , and that a musket-bullet is not a pike ; therefore it is a thousand pities , that so curious a wit as his , should be concern'd in so absurd an enterprise as he believes his to be . and yet , good god , what will not the confident presumption of some men put them upon ! he undertakes a task fully as impossible to be performed as that ; and of infinitely more dangerous consequence , to prove that not to be , which by the power of god , is really made to be in the sacrament . the author knows , that the catholic church grounds this wonderful change , made in the elements , upon divine revelation , which depends upon the veracity of god : so that it will not be so very hard a case , to maintain by a discourse much shorter than this of the author , even our lords words of institution , that what we see , and handle , and taste as bread , is not bread in substance , but the body of christ ; and what we see and taste as wine , is not wine in substance , but the blood of our saviour . and if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any further proof , i do not see why any man , that hath confidence enough to do so , may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is , or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not , ( since the word of god is more infallible than our senses ) and this without all possibility of being farther confuted ; for , he that denies the veracity of god , can no ways conclude his senses to be veracious . the denial then of the real presence , or transubstantiation , is not a controversy of scripture against scripture , or of reason against reason , but of down-right impudence against the plain meaning of scripture , and all the sense and reason of mankind . discourse . it is a most self-evident falsehood ; and there is no doctrin or proposition in the world that is of it self more evidently true , than transubstantiation is evidently false : and yet if it were possible to be true , it would be the most ill natur'd and pernicious truth in the world , because it would suffer nothing else to be true ; it is like the roman-catholic church , which will needs be the whole christian church , and will allow no other society of christians to be any part of it : so transubstantiation , if it be true at all , it is all truth ; for it cannot be true unless our senses and the senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects ; and if this be true and certain , then nothing else can be so ; for if we be not certain of what we see , we can be certain of nothing . answer . the doctrin of the real presence or transubstantiation is a truth that is evident upon the authority of the revealer ; and there is no opinion that the author holds is more evidently false , than this is evidently true : for faith is the evidence of things not seen , heb. . . and the best natur'd truth in the world it is , which conveys us infinite blessings : which unless it be so , we have no reason to believe any thing else to be true ; a truth like that of the catholic church , which , unless it be that which hath lived in communion with , and just obedience to her chief pastors , especially st. peter and his lawful successors in the see of rome , then there hath been no true church upon the face of the earth : for so the real presence or transubstantiation , unless it be true , we cannot be assured of any truth : it must be so if god be veracious , that is , unless what he reveals be false ; since the very truth of our senses , and all our faculties , depends upon his veracity ; and if we be not certain of what he hath revealed , though it seem to contradict our senses , we are certain of nothing . discourse . and yet notwithstanding all this , there is a company of men in the world so abandon'd and given up by god to the efficacy of delusion , as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable error , and to impose the belief of it upon the christian world under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation . and therefore to undeceive , if possible , these deluded souls , it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a doctrin , and to lay open the monstrous absurdity of it . answer . and yet notwithstanding all this , there is a sect of men in the world , so abandon'd and given up by god to the efficacy of delusion , as confidently to deny this revealed truth , and to impose this strange negative article of faith of theirs , that in the sacrament of the lords supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of christ , at or after consecration by any person whatsoever , under no less penalties , than the temporal loss of their estates and livelihoods , the loss of their lives , the formal renouncing of the catholic faith and religion , which is dearer to them than their lives , and consequently eternal damnation . therefore to undeceive , ( which we hope is possible ) these deluded souls , it will be necessary to shew the real grounds upon which transubstantiation is built , that so the monstrous absurdity of the contrary doctrin may be made to appear . discourse . and in the handling of this argument , i shall proceed in this plain method . i. i shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrin . ii. i shall produce our objections against it . and if i can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it , and that there are invincible objections against it , then every man is not only in reason excused from believing this doctrin , but hath great cause to believe the contrary . first , i will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the church of rome for this doctrin . which must be one or more of these five . either st . the authority of scripture . or ly . the perpetual belief of this doctrin in the christian church , as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our saviour's words , this is my body , in this sense . or ly . the authority of the present church to make and declare new articles of faith. or ly . the absolute necessity of such a change as this in the sacrament , to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this sacrament , or ly . to magnifie the power of the priest , in being able to work so great a miracle . st . they pretend for this doctrin the authority of scripture in those words of our saviour . this is my body . now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence , i shall endeavour to make good these two things . . that there is no necessity of understanding those words of our saviour in the sense of transubstantiation . . that there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . answer . in the handling of this argument i shall proceed in this plain method . i. i shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the catholic church for this doctrin . ii. i shall weigh the objections which the author makes against it . and if i can shew that there is a real ground for it , and that the objections against it are weak , and inconsiderable , then every man is not only in reason obliged to believe it , but hath great cause to reject the contrary . first , i shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the catholic church for this doctrin . which are at least these five . st . the authority of scripture . ly . the perpetual belief of this doctrin in the christian church , as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our saviours words , this is my body , in this sense . or ly . the authority of the church in every age to declare , propose , and exhibit , when , by misinterpretation of heretics , they are forc'd to it , a more explicit sense of the ancient articles of our faith. or ly . the infinite mercy and condescension of god to operate such a change as this , for the comfort and benefit of those who receive this sacrament . or ly . the just dignity of the priest , whom god is pleas'd to make use of as his minister for the working so miraculous a change . st . the catholic church hath always grounded the doctrin of the real presence or transubstantiation upon the authority of divine revelation in these words of our saviour , this is my body . now to shew the validity of this proof i shall endeavour to make good these two things . i. that there is a necessity of understanding these words of our saviour in the sense of the real presence , or transubstantiation . from whence it will necessarily follow , ii. that there is no reason at all for the understanding them otherwise . discourse . first , that there is no necessity to understand those words of our saviour in the sense of transubstantiation . if there be any , it must be from one of these two reasons . either because there are no figurative expressions in scripture , which i think no man ever yet said : or else , because a sacrament admits of no figures ; which would be very absurd for any man to say , since it is of the very nature of a sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure : and especially since it cannot be denied , but that in the institution of this very sacrament our saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally . when he gave the cup , he said , this cup is the new testament in my blood , which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins . where first , the cup is put for wine contained in the cup ; or else if the words by literally taken , so as to signifie a substantial change , it is not of the wine but of the cup ; and that , not into the blood of christ , but into the new testament , or new covenant in his blood. besides , that his blood is said then to be shed , and his body to be broken , which was not till his passion , which followed the institution and first celebration of this sacrament . answer . first , that there is a necessity of understanding those words of our saviour in the sense of the real presence or transubstantiation , for these two reasons . . because although there be many figurative expressions in scripture , which all men allow , yet this , in relation to the case in hand , is not such . . although a sacrament admits of figures , which no man is so absurd as to deny , since it is of the very nature of a sacrament , to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure ; yet the figure doth not lie where the author pretends it doth . the rule which men ought to observe in their discourse in relation to figures is this , that a figure should not be used which the auditor doth not easily apprehend to be so . to compare , therefore , a figure , which all the world can easily understand to be so , with an expression which no man can construe to be a figure , according to the rules of human discourse , is very absurd : yet such is the authors instance from scripture . from whence he alledgeth , that when our saviour gave the cup , he said , this cup is the new testament in my blood , which is shed , ( or more properly poured out ) for you , and for many , for the remission of sins . did not our lord plainly read in the minds of his disciples , that , by the cup , they would understand , that which was contained in the cup ? if any one should advise the author , when he is thirsty , to drink off his glass , would he be so inconsiderate as to swallow it together with the wine ? nay further , so unhappy is the author , as to urge this instance of holy scripture in the first place , which alone is enough fully to clear the point against him . neither the apostles , nor any men else could be so ignorant of the manner of human discourse , as not to apprehend , that our saviour , by the cup , meant what was contained in it , which was most certainly christs blood ; for otherwise it could not be said of it , as it is luke . . that it was then poured out for the apostles , and for many , for the remission of sins : it is said , is poured out , in the present tense ; not , shall be poured out , in the future ; therefore here can be meant , only the blood of christ , as now poured out in the sacrament for them , not as it was afterwards shed from his crucified body upon the ground . the original runs thus , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : where in construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and wine as a figure only of christs blood , or signifying its virtue , could not be poured out for the remission of sins : you might with more congruity of speech , affirm of an image of the blessed virgin , * this is that which conceived the son of god ; because in this there is some plain resemblance to the prototype . beza a great critic , in his way , though an adversary to the catholic doctrin in this point , not being able to deny this proof , would rather have the scripture to be thought false , although that be the whole foundation of their faith , than change his opinion ; and saith , that it is a * solecism , and should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 : he concludes that the holy spirit , or st. luke , that divinely inspired pen-man , the most eloquent of all the evangelists , could be sooner mistaken , though in a matter of so great moment , than himself ; or else he would have the scripture to be falsified , and corrupt , in this place , and not himself . for he acknowledges that all the ancient manuscripts which he had seen , and even his own , which was of great authority , and of venerable antiquity , venerandae antiquitatis , together with the syriac version , to which he gives this elogy , that it was deservedly accounted to be of greatest authority , maximae meritò authoritatis , did conspire together , to refer the effusion of blood to the cup. the author , therefore , and all that separate from the catholic church in this point , must either , at last , be forced to confess here , as * beza doth concerning those words of our lord , this is my body , that this saying thus exprest cannot be retained , but it must prove transubstantiation , after the manner of the papists ; or else that the holy scripture , the foundation of christian faith , is made invalid : so that it is plain from what hath been said , that the cup is here put for what is contained in the cup , and that the words , so taken , do signifie , and operate a substantial change , not of the cup , but of the wine in the cup ; and that , not into the new testament , or covenant , but into the blood of christ , in which this new covenant , or testament is made , sealed and confirmed . besides , that his blood is said , here , then to be poured out , and his body , then to be broken , and given for us , which they could not be unless they were then really in the sacrament ; because the passion , ( wherein * his body was peirced only , not broken , as in the sacrament , and his blood was shed from his crucified body upon the ground , not only poured forth from one vessel to another , and drunk as in the sacrament , ) followed the institution and first celebration of this sacrament . discourse . but that there is no necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , i will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome in this controversie . a bellarmin , b suarez and c vasques do acknowledg scotus the great schoolman to have said that this doctrin cannot be evidently proved from scripture : and bellarmin grants this not to be improbable ; and suarez and vasques acknowledg d durandus to have said as much . e ocham , another famous schoolman , says expresly , that the doctrin which holds the substance of the bread and wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to reason nor to scripture . f petrus ab alliaco , cardinal of cambrey , says plainly , that the doctrin of the substance of bread and wine remaining after consecration is more easie , and free from absurdity , more rational and no ways repugnant to the authority of scripture ; nay more , that for the other doctrin , viz. of transubstantiation , there is no evidence in scripture . g gabriel biel , another great schoolman and divine of their church , freely declares , that as to any thing express'd in the canon of the scriptures , a man may believe that the substance of bread and wine doth remain after consecration : and therefore he resolves the belief of transubstantiation into some other revelation besides scripture , which he supposeth the church had about it . cardinal h cajetan confesseth that the gospel doth no where express that the bread is changed into the body of christ ; that we have this from the authority of the church : nay , he goes farther , that there is nothing in the gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of christ , this is my body , in a proper and not a metaphorical sense ; but the church having understood them in a proper sense , they are to be so explained : which words in the roman edition of cajetan are expunged by order of pope i pius v. cardinal k contarenus , and l melchior canus one of the best and most judicious writers that church ever had , reckon this doctrin among those which are not so expresly found in scripture . i will add but one more , of great authority in the church , and a reputed martyr , m fisher bishop of rochester , who ingenuously confesseth , that in the words of the institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and blood of christ in our mass can be proved : so that we need not much contend , that this doctrin hath no certain foundation in scripture , when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our adversaries themselves . answer . the author hath had very little success yet , in that , which he calls , a discourse against transubstantiation ; therefore because he would now do some execution , he is forc't to come down to his adversaries to sharpen his blunt weapons . which , notwithstanding will prove no advantage to his cause . he here , then , tells us in his first period , that he will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome in this controversie , that there is no necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation . but what if it manifestly appear from the words of these writers , that he takes this by force , which they never gave him ; since they all thought themselves bound to accept the words in that sense which they acknowledge the church to have given of them , as deducible from scripture by necessary consequence , tho' not so plainly prov'd from the bare words , consider'd by themselves , as you shall see from their authorities hereunder cited ? then he proceeds , like a false mustermaster , to make up the number of his list , by calling men that are not in it , to answer to other names than their own . bellarmin , suarez , and vasquez do acknowledge scotus , &c. again , bellarmin grants this not to be improbable ; and suarez and vasquez acknowledge durandus to have said as much . here they are wheel'd about a second time to make the greater show ; yet there are but two men in effect after all this calling . the author says , bellarmin , and suarez , and vasquez say , such a man said such a thing : why , such a blundering sort of an evidence would be flung out of any inferior court of judicature ; it faulters so manifestly at the very beginning , that we may assure our selves it can never speak clearly . let us see therefore what * scotus saith for himself ; his words are these : if you say that christ , by saying this is my body , doth plainly teach us , that the bread doth not remain , for then the proposition would be false ; this is not cogent : for supposing ( so that 't is but a supposition still ) the substance of bread did still remain , the substance of bread is not demonstrated here , but what is contain'd under the bread , as now the accidents are shew'd , for then the proposition would be false ; but the sense is , that which shall be contain'd under this sensible sign , is my body . mark , how much scotus favors the author's opinion of the senses being judges of what is in the sacrament . again he saith , a the truth of some things that are to be believ'd , is more explicitly set down than in the apostolic , athanasian , or nicene creed ; and in brief , whatsoever is ( by the catholic church ) propos'd to our belief , is to be held of the substance of faith , after a solemn declaration made by the church ; he gives the reason afterwards , because the scriptures are expounded by the same spirit by which they were made : and thus he concludes , telling us in plain terms , that the church therefore chose this sense of transubstantiation , because it is true ; for it was not in the power of the church to make it true or false , but of god instituting it : but the church explain'd the sense which was deliver'd by god. and if it be so , that transubstantiation was the true sense , and that before the declaration of the council , then there was a necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , according to scotus , as well before as after the council , since 't was the sense deliver'd by god. therefore when the author saith he hath the plain concession of a great number of the most learned writers of the church of rome , reckoning scotus in the first place , that there is no necessity to understand our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , he saith that which is not true . bellarmin indeed grants what scotus said of the substance of bread remaining ( notwithstanding its being converted into the substance of christs body , as i shall presently shew ) that it is not altogether improbable , non omnino improbabile , altho' there may be great improbability in the thing notwithstanding , ( mark the * word which the author is pleas'd to leave out ) that there is no place of scripture extant so express , as that , without the declration of the church ( which notwithstanding clears the whole matter ) can evidently compel us to admit of transubstantiation , viz. in the sense of the thomists , whose way of explication of it is somewhat different from scotus's . but that not being of faith , there ought to be no controversie about it , and therefore the * council of trent directly condemn'd neither of these ways . and b durandus himself after he has discours'd problematically upon the point , like a schoolman , at last concludes solidly : that that is not always to be chosen in matters of faith , which hath fewest difficulties consequent to it — that the substance of bread and wine is chang'd into the substance of christs body : that that only is principally effected in this sacrament , which is signified by the form of the words , viz. of consecration . which argument being urg'd by him from scripture for transubstantiation , is a plain evidence that he did not deny the necessity of understanding our saviours words in that sense : for he concludes positively from scripture , that both these things are made to be in this sacrament , viz. the existence of the body of christ and the conversion of the bread into it : and what is this but transubstantiation ? therefore what the authors abovemention'd say concerning scotus and durandus , is to be applied rather to their particular manner of explicating the doctrin of transubstantiation , than to the thing it self , since many c other authors do not think them to be mistaken in the point . d ocham seems to allow , that the substance of bread may remain tho' it forsake its accidents , and the substance of christ's body doth not forsake them ; and this according to him was one way of solving transubstantiation , which he is far from saying to be contrary either to reason or scripture . e petrus ab alliaco cardinal of cambray was of opinion that it was possible , and not repugnant to reason nor the authority of the bible , nay that it was more easie to be understood , and more reasonable that the substance of bread should remain there where the body of christ begins to be , and that so the substance of the bread should be said to pass into the subsance of the body of christ . so that here is transubstantiation still plainly maintain'd in his sense ; and he doth not believe that there was need of any other revelation for it , than scripture . f gabriel biel tells us , that although it be expresly deliver'd in scripture , that the body of christ is truly contain'd under the species of bread , and receiv'd by the faithful , yet it is not found expresly in the canon of the bible , how the body of christ is there , whether by the conversion of something into it : or whether the body of christ begins to be with the bread without conversion , the substance and accidents of the bread remaining ; but he doth not deny the former of these ways to be necessarily deduc'd from scripture ; and therefore this authority makes nothing against us . cardinal cajetan ' s words were censur'd and expunged by authority , and therefore ought not to be brought against us . g cardinal contarenus freely declares , that all divines agree , although it be not plainly deliver'd , viz. not in express words , yet following reason as their guide ( and what is this but necessary rational deduction ? ) that this ( viz. which is done in the sacrament ) cannot be effected by a local motion , but by some change of the substance of bread into the body of christ , which is call'd transubstantiation ? h melchior canus doth acknowledg that the church hath by the spirit of truth explain'd some things which are accounted obscure in the holy writings , and that she doth justly judge the authors of the contrary opinions to be heretics . but things may be necessarily contain'd in scripture , altho' with some obscurity . so that there is not so much as one of these authors , ( unless it be that which is condemn'd by the church , and therefore in that point is none of ours ) who hath told us , that there is no necessity to understand our saviours words in the sense of transubstantiation . lastly , as if that true martyr bishop fisher , had not suffer'd enough already , the author exercises further cruelty against him , by a false and imperfect recital of his words , and corrupting their sense . this holy bishop indeed , speaking of the words of institution , saith : a there is not one word put here , by which it can be prov'd , that in ovr mass the true presence of the body and blood of christ is made to be , which last words , is made to be , the author falsly renders by these words , can be proved . but this good martyr doth not say , that christs words of institution are not to be understood in the sense of the true and real presence of his body , as made to be in that sacrament which our lord himself consecrated ; but that the power of priests , now , to consecrate in our mass after the same manner , is not express'd in the bare words of institution ; and it is evident from the immediately following words of this reverend bishop , that this is his true sense , which words run thus : for altho' christ made of the bread his flesh , and of the wine his blood , it doth not therefore follow by vertue of any word here plac'd , that we shall effect the same as often as we endeavor it : as is also plain from the other words of this reverend authors in the same chapter . without the interpretation of the fathers , and the usage of the church by them deliver'd down unto us , no body will prove out of the bare words of scripture , that any priest can consecrate the true body and blood of christ . — for , although we allow christ to have said ( what scripture saith he did in this kind ) to the apostles out of luke and paul , it doth not therefore follow , that he gave the same power to all that were to succeed them , for a power of casting out devils was given to the apostles . but that this learned and pious bishop asserted the change of the substance of the bread into the body of christ to be the necessary sense of the words of christ , this is my body , is clear from these words of his : b if the substance , saith he , of bread is changed into christ's body , christ ought not to have said otherwise than he hath said : and again , if the substance of bread remain , then christ ought to have spoke otherwise . we must take notice , that this pious bishop was defending tradition as necessary for the interpretation of some places of scripture , and particularly such which relate to the power that those who succeed the apostles have to consecrate , and upon very good grounds , since without tradition , we cannot conclude the scripture it self to be the word of god ; and no church can prove the succession of her pastors to this high function , which is without doubt a fundamental point . since therefore the protestants hold , that there is a lawful succession of pastors in gods church , as necessary to the salvation of mankind , as evidently deduced from scripture , interpreted by tradition , tho' not from the bare words of the institution of the eucharist , no less than catholics ; and that they have as full a right to consecrate as the apostles themselves , they must therefore allow that they do do so : and then there can be no doubt rais'd from the words of this holy bishop , but that christ's body and blood are truly in the sacrament by way of transubstantiation , which doctrin he allows to have a certain foundation in scripture . but the author here would rather pull down the pillars on which the church of christ stands , by interrupting the episcopal succession , and undermine its very foundation , than not set a face upon his argument , that he may thereby delude unwary christians . upon the whole matter , it is plain from what hath been said ; . that not any of these catholic authors , which are cited , held that there was no necessity to understand our saviours words in the sense of transubstantiation , but the contrary . . that they indeed differed only about some curious speculations concerning the dependences and circumstances of this doctrin of transubstantiation , which they discours'd of in a problematical way ; as for instance ; whether this transubstantiation is a mutation and transubstantiation productive , that is to say , by vertue of which the substance of the body is produc'd from the substance of bread ; or a mutation and transubstantiation adductive , that is to say , by vertue of which the substance of bread ceases to be ; and that of the body be introdu'd in it's place : and whether in this adductive . transubstantiation , the cessation of the substance of bread and wine , is to be call'd annihilation ; or whether it ought to be exempt from this name , for as much as , altho' it cease to be , nevertheless this cessation of it's essence hath not non entity for it's final term , but the substitution of the essence of the body of christ , or the like ; and such kind of disputes which did not at all relate to the essence of the article of transubstantiation , but only to some consequences , and modes of it ; for all the school-men agree , that the bread and wine are chang'd and transubstantiated into the body and blood of christ , by vertue of consecration , the substances of bread and wine ceasing to be , and those of the body and blood being substituted in their place . . they evidently deduce the essential part of the doctrin of transubstantiation from scripture ; and altho some few of them do sometimes say , that the bare words of scripture do not compell us to believe the less material consequences of it , yet they do not deny that these also may be rationally deduc'd . . the author doth not pretend to prove from these authorities , that these writers did not hold the real presence of christs body here , but only a sign and vertue of it , as protestants do , since it is clear from all their writings , that they did hold it , as proved from scripture . altho i might have saved my self the trouble of clearing this point so largely , had i not thought it convenient rather for the vindication of these writers , whom the author hath so grosly abused , than for the defending the doctrin of the real presence or transubstantiation . for what if seven authors should before the solemn declaration of the church have denied it to be necessarily proved from scripture , tho' really they have not ; are there not seventy times seven of another mind ? were not the arian bishops , the semi-pelagians and other heretics , who at several times oppos'd the articles of the christian faith , vastly more numerous ? and the author knows , that catholic christians are not to rely upon the judgment of any inconsiderable number of private doctors opinions concerning the sense of an article of religion , but upon the judgment of the generality of catholic fathers , which is discerned in their writings , and in the decisions of the most general councils , and in the constant and general tradition of the church . discourse . secondly , if there be no necessity of understanding our saviour's words in the sense of transubstantiation , i am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise . whether we consider the like expressions in scripture ; as where our saviour says he is the door , and the true vine ( which the church of rome would mightily have triumph'd in , had it been said , this is my true body . ) and so likewise where the church is said to be christ's body ; ) and the rock which follow'd the israelites to be christ , cor. . . they drank of that rock which follow'd them , and that rock was christ : all which and innumerable more like expressions in scripture every man understands in a figurative , and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense . and it is very well known , that in the hebrew language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent ; and there is not in that language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signifie so and so , than to say that it is so and so . thus joseph expounding pharaoh's dream to him , gen. . . says , the seven good kine are seven years , and the seven good ears of corn are seven years , that is , they signifi'd or represented seven years of plenty ; and so pharaoh understood him , and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions ; nor do i believe that any sensible man , who had never heard of transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our saviour , this is my body , would upon reading the institution of the sacrament in the gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our saviour in those words ; but would have understood his meaning to have been , this bread signifies my body , this cup signifies my blood ; and this which you see mee now do , do ye hereafter for a memorial of me : but surely it would never have entred into any man's mind to have thought that our saviour did literally hold himself in his hand , and give away himself from himself with his own hands . answer . secondly , since there is a necessity of understanding our saviours words in the sense of the real presence , or transubstantiation , i am sure there can be no reason given to understand them otherwise . for if we consider the expressions which the author produceth out of scripture as resembling these , they are so far from being like them , that from thence we shall prove the quite contrary to what the author alledgeth them for : therefore , to reduce this head of discourse to some method ; i shall first lay down the principles by which it is to be governed , that i may the better afterwards draw my conclusion . . christ ever spake reasonably , and in a manner conformable to good sense , nothing escaping him through imprudence or mistake . . his power infinitely exceeds the capacity of our minds ; therefore it is against reason , that we should confine it to the narrow bounds of our understanding , or pretend that god cannot do what we cannot conceive . . when the sense of the words which christ speaks , if taken properly , is not contradictory to right reason , tho' above it , and the rules of human discourse oblige us to take these words in the proper sense , then we are not to doubt of the truth of them as so taken . that we may the better apply these principles , and the ensuing discourse to the case in hand , i shall endeavor to state it as precisely as may be , and draw it into as narrow a compass as i can . christ in the institution of the blessed sacrament said , this is my body : which words those of the english church , that do not believe the presence of christs real body in the sacrament , yet attribute the efficacy thereof to the due reception of the sacramental elements ( and i will charitably suppose the author to be one of these ) interpret thus : this thing , which you see to be bread in substance , is a sign of my real body , wherein the vertue of my body , tho' it self be absent , is contained ; or whereunto this vertue is conjoyned , or together with which it is exhibited ; which several sorts of expressions i am forc't to use , that i may by some of them reach that sense which they have not yet sufficiently explained . catholics thus : this thing , which by the means of your senses , is represented to the mind under the species or appearance of bread , is my body in substance . in these explications , i say , that by , this , in the proposition , this is my body , is meant , this thing ; because this is a pronoun demonstrative , that doth not express any particularly determinate , and distinct nature or substance : for it may be applied to any thing that is the object of sense , or of pure understanding , when it is but confusedly represented to the mind : as we say pointing to a person before us , this is john , or this is thomas , pointing to an animal , we say , this is a lamb , this is a dove ; after we have discoursed of the nature of the soul , we may say of cogitation , conceiving it in our minds , this is the property of the soul. but because it would be great rashness of judgment , and that which is strictly called prejudice , to conclude fully of the nature of any thing , which another , that is presumed to know it better than we do , should be shewing to us , before he hath fully pronounced his proposition , by which he is to discover it's nature : as for instance , if any one holding up a gilt shilling , or a counterfeit guiny ; should be about to inform us truly , that this was but a shilling , or a counterfeit piece of gold , which notwithstanding appeared to the senses like gold , we should rashly conclude , before he tells us fully , what it is he shews us , that it is a true piece of gold : or on the other hand , if any one should hold up a true piece of gold , which is discoloured so by sulphur , that it looks but like silver , and should be informing us , that this is a piece of true gold , we should , before he hath spoke his words , conclude it was but silver : so it would have been prejudice in our lord's disciples , to have concluded of the determinate nature of that , which he held in his hands , when he was going to tell them , what it really was , viz. his body , before he had fully pronounced the proposition , saying , this is my body : which the sacramentarians and our author do , rashly determining the thing which appears as bread , to be so in substance , upon the exhibiting the species , and saying , this , which notwithstanding , when the proposition is finished , is in the sacrament made and declared to be the body of christ : this therefore being a pronoun demonstrative , it is enough , that it exhibits something unto us , under a certain outward appearance , without signifying distinctly and clearly the whole nature of the thing , for it is the propperty of the attribute or thing , that is affirmed of another , to add clearness to the subject , or thing of which it is affirmed , by explaining the nature of the thing , intended to be demonstrated in the proposition , more fully ; otherwise the proposition would be ridiculous ; as if one should say , this bread is bread , or this my body is my body . this therefore in the proposition , this is my body , only discovers some real thing which appears in such a manner ; as for instance , the species of bread , to the senses , which our saviour , who was truth it self , who did know the truth of all things , and could alter the nature of any created thing , by his word , declares fully unto them to be his body , tho' under such an appearance ; so that , whether the change was made before , or at that very instant of time , when our lord spake the words , the latter of which is the general opinion of catholics ; the proposition is strictly true in a proper sense . i shall only premise one thing more , before i examin the authors pretended proofs from scripture , because i would by no means make the breach betwixt us wider than it is , which is this , that catholics acknowledge a figure in the sacrament , no less than protestants . thus the bread and wine , before consecration being distinct things , and separate one from the other , do resemble christs body and blood separated upon the cross , and his soul separated from his body , altho' they could not do this in their own nature ; and till , after the first institution , they were exposed upon the altar for such a use , as might make us consider them as such resemblances , since there is not so much of natural likeness , as to call the idea of the passion into our mind . we believe also , that after consecration , christs body in the sacrament under the veils of the species of bread and wine , is a figure , similitude , or examplar of the same body of christ , as it suffer'd upon the cross , in like manner as his body when newly born , was a resemblance , and exemplar , and express image of his body at full growth : but this we conclude , not from those words of our lord , this is my body , which must still be understood in a proper sense ; but from the nature of the thing it self , after the institution known to be made . from whence we firmly believe the body of christ to be there ; it being of the nature of a sacrament to represent and exhibit somthing more unto us , than what it outwardly appears to be . i now proceed to consider the expressions which the author produceth out of scripture , by which he would prove a figurative presence of christs body , in opposition to a real one in the catholic sense . and this being the main proof upon which those , who have renounced the authority of the church do pretend to build their faith , since they allow that nothing ought to be admitted as an article of faith which is not clearly deduced from hence ; and consequently nothing ought to be condemned as contrary to the christian faith , but what is manifestly repugnant to this . from hence then it is , that he should bring an evidence , which is able to overthrow the authority of so many councils , and several of them general ones , as have determined this point against him , and to shew plainly that the whole true visible church of christ , which hath for near mdcc years received the doctrin of the real presence of christs body , hath erred in so necessary a point of faith , and been guilty of idolatry , even grosser than that of the heathen world , as the author pretends ; notwithstanding the evidence of the same holy scripture , that the holy spirit shall lead it into all truth , and that the gates of hell shall not be able to prevail against it . let us see therefore how well he acquits himself in this vast enterprise , of so great concern to the christian world. his argument from scripture is this ; there are other expressions in scripture which are taken figuratively , therefore this must be so taken . out of the innumerable like expressions in holy scripture , as he is pleased to term them , he citeth two very different sorts : the first are barely figurative , such as are used in ordinary human discourse as well as scripture , without preparing of the mind of the hearer beforehand , that he may receive them . then he compares the words of our lords institution to a dream or vision of the night , that was to be interpreted , which indeed hath something more of resemblance than the former expressions which he alledgeth ; because it being known that the things which are represented in dreams and visions are not real but imaginary ; yet since they are sometimes considered as representing real things , that are to come to pass , they are of the nature of signs of institution , and so may come nearer to the case in hand . but he seems to be soon weary of these resemblances , which being so different in nature , one from the other , are not like to agree to the same third thing , the sacrament . then he flies from scripture to justin martyr's testimony concerning the ancient form of the passover used by the jews . yet he knows not whether he should stick to this expression , which is sacrifical or sacramental , and so most likely to resemble the sacramental , about which he argues ; or the former , which are not so . for he begins his periods thus : whether we consider the like expressions in scripture , as where our saviour saith , &c. or , whether we compare these words with the ancient form of the passover : and i am sure these are not of a like nature with the other . surely there is no man of common sense that can admit of such a sort of proof as this , from one author that so fluctuates in his judgment , since it hath the visible character of falshood in its very front , and condemns the real presence of christs body , in a proper sense , which was never openly contested in christs church till berengarius's time , ( nor so much as privately , till the time of pascasius , unless by those that denied the incarnation of our lord it self ) as well as the more explicit sense , transubstantiation , against the authority of all the doctors of the catholic church and its constant tradition for so many ages . but lest any one should be deceived with such a pretended evidence from scripture ; i shall shew plainly that never a one of these sorts of expressions , suits with this of our saviours in scripture , and that therefore most certainly all of them do not . the first , that are mentioned , are barely figurative expressions ; as where our saviour saith , i am the door , and the true vine ( and the church of rome may triumph in this , that our lord saith , that his flesh is truly meat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , joh. . . ) the church is said to be christs body , and christ is termed a rock in a spiritual sense , cor. . . they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them , and that which before is called a spiritual rock , without doubt was christ . though the author is pleas'd to leave out the word spiritual , but i would advise him to have a care of that curse which justly falls upon those that diminish from holy scripture , to favour a party . that i may the better demonstrate the dissimilitude of these , and the other figurative expressions , which are by the author alledged out of holy scripture , to that proper one of our lord , this is my body ; i shall lay down these rules to distinguish them by . . the desire which men have to make themselves to be understood , and to imprint lively ideas of that which they conceive themselves , in the minds of others , and of retaining them the better , doth naturally incline them to search for comparisons and resemblances , which may render the idea that they would form , the more sensible . the reason of which is , because things of sense do most affect the mind , and make the deepest and most lasting impressions ; and this rule is the ground of most metaphorical expressions , which are of so great use and ornament in human discourse . . hence it follows , that the qualities of the thing , which we affirm of another in this figurative way , should be more plain and familiar to us , or at least fully as plain as the thing of which we affirm it , otherwise it will not be fit to work the effect before mentioned . . the resemblance lies usually in but one , or but some few , at the most , of those qualities , wherein the thing that is affirmed is like to that thing whereof it is affirmed . . the inclination which men naturally have to abridge their discourse , joined with the desire of imprinting things in the mind , by sensible ideas , is the cause they ordinarily include these comparisons in the same words that the things they are compar'd to are exprest by , suppressing all the terms of relation , and expressing them , as if the things of which they speak , were really those things which they use as images to express them the more clearly by : thus we find it said , gen. . . judah is a lions whelp . v. . joseph is a fruitful bough . hos . . . israel is an empty vine . . the thing from which the resemblance is taken is generally more ignoble , and of an inferior order to that of which it is affirmed , as being more sensible ; for the objects of sense are inferior to those of pure understanding ; and heavenly things are of that exalted nature , that they cannot be compared to any thing that is above them . . therefore the terms are not convertible ( for altho' we call a man of courage a lion , by reason of the resemblance of the quality of boldness , yet we term not a lion a man. ) and the reason of this is , because in the subject is understood the whole idea of the thing expressed ; but in the predicate but some qualities . . altho' for the explaining a barely metaphorical expression , a parable or a dream , that which is properly the predicate be put in the place of the subject , yet it is rarely so used but upon such like occasions as this ; and then too it doth not lose its nature , but is the predicate still ; for we are not to mind the position of the words to find out the predicate , but the sense of the proposition : as in that proposition of our lord , joh. . . the bread of god is he which cometh down from heaven , he which cometh down from heaven , is the subject , altho' put in the place of the predicate , as is plain : so that , here the thing which is signified or resembled , is always the subject , and the thing signifying or resembling the predicate . . in metaphors you cannot punctually design the thing to which another is resembled by pointing to it , or , using a pronoun demonstrative ; as for instance , tho' christ in scripture be called a way , and a shepherd , yet you cannot say , christ is this way , pointing to some particular way , nor christ is this shepherd , demonstrating some particular man that is a shepherd ; nor on the other hand that this way is christ , this shepherd is christ . . none ever can pretend , that after a mere metaphorical allusion in way of doctrin , a real vertue should be imparted by receiving that thing to which another is compared : as when christ calls himself a vine in scripture , that the eating of the fruit of the vine should have conveyed christs blessing and vertue . it will be easie to discern the great disparity between the expression of our lord , this is my body , and those metaphorical ones which the author here alledgeth , by comparing them together , and examining them by the foregoing rules . our saviour calleth himself a door , because of the natural resemblance , which the mind , casting about for the meaning of this expression , immediatly , without any difficulty finds , and he himself declares ; for as by a door we enter into the house , so by christ we enter into heaven ; for through him the way is opened : a vine , in like manner , because from him all true believers as branches receive their nourishment and growth in grace , by which they are enabled to bear fruit : a rock , because from him the fountain of living waters doth spring : the church his body , because of the union of the members of his body one with another , and of all with the head , and the mutual assistance which they afford each to other , in which the spiritual body resembles a natural body . a by these sensible and easie comparisons the idea of the thing which our saviour expresses , by them , is more lively imprinted in our minds , and by this means the memory the better retains them : b these do explain the things of which they are affirmed , and render them the more familiar to us ; c and yet the resemblance lies in but one , or , at the most but some few of the qualities ; d the terms of relation are suppressed in the first proposal of these expressions , altho' explained afterwards , and one word includes the comparison . it is otherwise in the expression of our lord , this is my body , supposing that by the term , this , bread is meant in the sacramentarian sense ; ( ) for the body of christ is not a fit thing to resemble bread by , the notion of bread is not the more sensibly imprinted , by comparing christs body with it , neither doth the memory by this means the better retain it ; the applying the idea of christs body ( ) to bread doth not render the nature of bread more familiar , but on the contrary more abstruse and difficult to apprehend , ( ) the resemblance lies in none of the visible qualities , ( ) the terms of relation are not suppressed , for no such relation can be conceived . now to proceed ; e in the former expressions , the things which are expressed , are of an inferior nature to the things of which they are expressed , yet more sensible ; therefore the terms are not convertible : f for altho' it be said christ is the door , yet we cannot say of any particular door , that it is christ ; altho' it is affirmed that christ is the true vine , yet we cannot say of any vine , pointing to it , that it is christ ; altho' he be called a rock , yet we cannot say , designing some particular rock , that this rock is christ : for in that proposition , the rock was christ , we must not regard the order of the words , but the sense of the proposition to find out the subject and the predicate ; so that when it was said , the rock was christ , the meaning is , christ was typified by that rock , or christ was like that rock , unless we understand , as we ought to do from the preceding words of the apostle , by the term rock , a spiritual rock , and so he was really such a rock , and not typically so ; altho' it be said , that the church is the body of christ , yet we cannot affirm of the natural body of christ , that it is his church . it is g otherwise in the expression of our lord : for the predicate is here of the same nature with the subject , if understood in the sense of catholics ; it is of a superior nature , if understood in the sense of our adversaries ; the terms , if taken in the former sense are convertible ; for as it was said by christ , this is my body , meaning the thing that was contained under the visible species , so it might be affirmed of the same body , that it was , this ; which was thus contained : in the latter sense we may as well affirm , that the body of christ was bread , as that bread was the body of christ , for indeed neither of these could be truly affirmed , since these propositions , in this sense , would be false , and absurd , there being no sensible resemblance , nor no identity , for the terms are incompatible : and therefore we need not consider of the sense of them , to find out which is the subject , and which the predicate , for there is no true sense here to be found , nor no such relation , because our lord had not declared the bread to be a sign of institution , before he spoke these words , this is my body , and the bread was not naturally a sign of his body ; as shall be shewed in the ensuing discourse . well , but tho' the proposition seem so very absurd in this sense , where the body of christ is taken for the predicate , or thing by which bread is resembled ; yet if this , that is , the bread shew'd in christs hands , according to our adversaries , be taken for the predicate , meaning by the proposition , this is my body , that this bread is a resemblance of my body , they will say perhaps it is not so : but i shall prove it to be so , for these reasons . . because if the words were to be so understood , then if the predicate were restored to its proper place , the sense would be clear and obvious , as in that proposition of our lord ; joh. . . the bread of god is he which cometh down from heaven ; when we change the position of the words , and say , he which cometh down from heaven is the bread of god ; for now the subject and predicate have their proper places ; but it is otherwise in this proposition , this is my body , meaning by , this , the bread then demonstrated ; for you cannot say , without absurdity , that the body of christ is this bread , meaning some particular bread. . in metaphorical expressions the predicate is not put in the place of the subject at the first proposal of the similitude , parable , or the like ; but afterwards when the explanation is made , according to the sixth and seventh rules before mentioned . thus it was said by our lord , matt. . . the kingdom of heaven , ( that is , christ the son of man setting forth , and obtaining this kingdom for us ) is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field ; before he would say by way of explication , ver. . he that sowed the good seed is the son of man , and when he had proposed the rest of the parable unto them ; then , by way of explication , it also follows ; the field is the world : the good seed are the children of the kingdom , but the tares are the children of the wicked one : which method is also used in the other parables of scripture , that are explained . . the predicate or thing resembling in these metaphors , whether it be put in the place of the subject , or in it's own , is never particularised by a pronoun demonstrative : for our lord doth not say , pointing to any husband-man , this is the son of man ; or of a field that he was in , this is the world ; or of any good grains of corn , that he sees sown , these are the children of the kingdom : so likewise it would have been improper to have said , this my body is bread ; or this bread is my body . lastly , those of the english church do pretend from these words of christ , this is my body , that there is some spiritual blessing or vertue of christs body ( tho' the body it self be not there ) annexed to the elements , or their reception , which , if they were but a mere metaphorical expression , like the rest mentioned by the author , it is highly unreasonable to conclude . therefore for this reason , as also for all the disparities before shewed , we may truly affirm , that there is no such resemblance , as the author pretends , between the foregoing expressions alledged out of scripture , where our saviour is call'd a vine , a door , &c. and that of our lord's institution , this is my body . i shall now proceed to examin the next that are cited , which are of a very different nature from the former . as when joseph expounding pharaohs dream to him , gen. . . says , the seven good kine are seven years , and the seven good ears of corn , are seven years : which expressions , as also that out of justin martyr that follows , the author compares to the words of christs institution . now , that i may shew , that there is no reason that our lords words should be taken in the figurative sense of these expressions , but contrarywise in a proper sense , i shall lay down these distinctions and rules to shew the disparity by . signs are either naturally so , as black clouds are a sign of rain , smoak is a sign of fire ; or else so , only by institution and agreement ; concerning which latter , i again distinguish . that of signs of institution , some have so much of natural resemblance , as that they may fitly be chosen to signifie and represent , altho' not enough to exhibit the idea of the thing upon the bare sight or mentioning , which afterwards by institution they are to signifie unto us ( thus a living creature sacrificed typifies , or signifies christ crucified upon the cross ; ) and some have not ; thus the word moses doth signifie such a man ; where there is no natural resemblance between these letters compounded into a word , and the person represented by them , but this depends upon mere institution and compact amongst men. . all rational discourse used amongst men is founded upon the imperfect penetration , at least , into the minds of those with whom we discourse , and the presumed knowledge of them . for we regulate our speech , according to the apprehension that we believe those , with whom we converse , have of it . if we believe mens minds to be prepared to understand our discourse , then we utter it to them ; if they are notable as yet to perceive what we say , then we must either prepare them beforehand , or else give a distinct and formal explication of our words , soon after we have uttered them , otherwise we abuse our auditors . from whence it follows , . that that sort of improper discourse , wherein we give the sign the name of the thing signified , or to the thing signified the name of the sign , being very rare , to make it intelligible , it is required , . that the sign be plainly instituted . . it must be justly presumed , that those to whom we speak , regard the thing as a sign , or else we ought to advertise them , that we intend to use it as so . for there is no example either in scripture or ordinary human discourse of a like expression to this of our lords , by which , at the very first constituting any thing into a sign , it is called the thing signified , without preparing the minds of the auditors to understand it so . to apply these rules to the case in hand , we must observe , that this dream or vision of pharaohs was a sign of institution , it having been appointed by god to signifie something to him : again , indeed this sign had some sort of fitness , in it's own nature , to be made a sign of what it was to represent , even more than bread hath to represent christs body , yet it could not exhibit to pharaohs mind the thing which it was to signifie without some explicit interpretation of good authority , and it was so obscure a sign , that none of all his magicians could give it . therefore pharaoh proposes this to joseph as a dream , gen. . v. . advertising him of what he saw in a dream ; which joseph undertaking to interpret , pharoah could not but consider his words as an interpretation of this sign of institution ; therefore by the second , and third rules , beforementioned , it was very rational for him to put the predicate in the place of the subject , the sign for the thing signified , by saying , the seven good kine are seven years , and the seven good ears of corn are seven years , that is , they signified or represented seven years of plenty ; since it is very well known that in the hebrew language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent : but then it must be known beforehand , that they do only signifie and represent ; otherwise it cannot be understood when they only express a resemblance , and when identity . on the contrary , if in the expression of our lord , this is my body , the bread had been a sign of institution , tho' it have some remote resemblance , yet since it could not of it self , before plain positive institution , bring the idea of the thing , supposed to be represented , to the mind , therefore since there was no such foregoing institution , or action to prepare the minds of the apostles to consider it as so , and these words of christ are no explication of a sign of institution , but must be the original institution it self of a sign , if any had been here made , and the apostles were no ways advertised before-hand to consider the bread as a sign ; since the predicate therefore could not rightly here be put in the place of the subject , much less a pronoun demonstrative be used according to a former rule ; therefore these words , this is my body , according to the known rules of human discourse , which it were blasphemy to say our lord would swerve from , so as to speak absurdly , do signifie that , that was his real body which he held in his hands , and not a sign only of his body , as our adversaries falsly pretend . neither do i believe , that any sensible man , who had never heard before of this figurative sense , which the author and sacramentarians have so often inculcated into their followers , as to make them prejudiced in the case , would upon reading the institution of the sacrament in the gospel , or if they had heard christ speak the words , ever have imagined that by these words , this is my body , no more was to be understood , than that , this , which christ held in his hands was only a sign of his body , any more than our saviours apostles and disciples could be made to understand the like words , john . , . i am the living bread that came down from heaven . and the bread that i will give is my flesh , which i will give for the life of the world ( the jews therefore strove amongst themselves saying , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? ) in that sense : but would have understood his meaning to have been thus : this which hath the outward appearance of bread is really my body , this which hath the resemblance of wine is my blood. not as the author fallaciously proposeth the meaning , this bread signifies my body , this cup signifies my blood , but that he should enjoyn them to do that which they then saw him do , that is , offer up , hereafter , his real body and blood , under the species of bread and wine , by way of an unbloody sacrifice , for a memorial of that bloody one of his body and blood , which he was soon after to offer up upon the cross . and in this great mystery , a true christian , one that hath an humble soul rightly disposed for the belief of our lords words , as st. augustin had , who speaking of our lord , saith : christ was carried in his own hands , when recommending to them his very body , he saith , this is my body . for he carried that body in his hands ; such a one i say , can readily believe that our saviour did properly , and really hold himself in his hand , and give away himself , but not from himself with his own hands ; by reason of the natural connection and concomitance which his sacred soul and divinity have with his body and blood , under the visible species of bread and wine . discourse . or whether we compare these words of our saviour with the ancient form of the passover used by the jews from ezra's time , as n justin martyr tells us , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , this passover is our saviour and our refuge : not that they believed the paschal lamb to be substantially changed either into god their saviour who delivered them out of the land of egypt , or into the messias the saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it : but this lamb which they did eat , did represent to them and put them in mind of that salvation which god wrought for their fathers in egypt , when by the slaying of a lamb and sprinkling the blood of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared ; and did likewise foreshew the salvation of the messias , the lamb of god that was to take away the sins of the world. answer . the author having tried several very different sorts of expressions in holy scripture , with which he hath offer'd to compare the words of our lord's institution , seeming not at all to be satisfied in his mind , about their analogy to these , yet not able to discover any of a nearer resemblance , being at a great loss , hath recourse to the authority of an ancient father , and now he will either find one or make one , if he can , for his purpose . for considering that our saviour had just before this institution celebrated the passover , it might seem reasonable to conclude , that he should now imitate that manner of speaking which he used so very lately . therefore it is but finding , or coyning a paschal form of institution , suitable to the saying of our lord , this is my body , and he may think his work is done . what pity it is , that he could not discover one in all the scripture or fathers for his purpose , but that he must be forc't to use such pitiful sophistry as he here doth to impose upon his reader in this manner ? whether , saith he , we compare these words of our saviour with the ancient form of the passover used by the jews from ezra's time , as justin martyr tells us ; but where doth he tell us so ? there 's not a word said , by him , that , that which is cited here , was an ancient form of the passover , or that it was used by the jews from ezra's time ; this is a pure invention of the authors , which you will be fully convinced of , by consulting justin martyr himself , about the words , which were by the jews left out of those interpretations of ezra's , or esdras's , wherein he expounds the law of the passover , and which run thus : * esdras said to the people , this passover , sacrifice is our saviour and our refuge , but if you think , and it enter into your heart to conceive , that we render him abject in a sign , and afterwards place our hope in him , let not this place be forsaken for ever , saith the lord of hosts , and if you do not believe his words , nor hearken to his preaching , you will be had in derision by all nations . this is all that the father saith of the matter , where we find not one word said , of what the author cites , as being an ancient form of the passover used by the jews , but only that , in these words , esdras expounded the law of the passover to the people ; neither is here the least mention made of it's being used by the jews from esdras's time , all this is the mere fiction of our author , who did not consider , that , holy scripture , and learned authors amongst his own party , give us an account of the paschal forms that were used , which are quite different from this , which no author gives us as one but himself . for exod. . . god saith , it is the lord 's passover , or more explicitly , ver. . . it shall come to pass , when your children shall say unto you , what mean you by this service ? that ye shall say , it is the sacrifice of the lord 's passover . and ver. . it is said , the blood shall be to you for a token , or sign , and when i see the blood i will pass over you . and dr. hammond tells us that the lamb drest in the paschal supper , and set upon the table , was called , the body of the passover , or the body of the paschal lamb , ( not the body of christ , of which , notwithstanding , it was a sign and type ) another paschal form he tells us , was : this is the bread of affliction , referring to the unleavened bread : which forms are nothing like this expository phrase of esdras cited by justin martyr . well , but altho' this be not a paschal form , yet it is a certain expression which esdras used concerning the passover , and i shall now shew so great a disparity between it , as so considered , and that of our lords institution , as will plainly discover how falsly it is urged here to prove , that our lords words are metaphorical . for , . these words were true in a proper sense , which our adversaries will not allow christs to be : the , passover was a saviour or salvation ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a way of speaking used by other authors and explained in the following word ) and a refuge to the jews , in a strict sense , god having appointed it as a means and instrumental cause at least of their deliverance , at it's first institution , and it was a salvation and refuge to those who afterwards used it aright . why then may we not likewise conclude from hence , that , that which christ gave to his disciples , when he said , this is my body , was really his body ? . all the jews , who had a right understanding of things , considered the sacrifices , that were offered as types of christ the messias , and this of the passover more signally as so , as appears from this authority of esdras out of justin martyr , in these words , if you think that we render him abject in this sign , and afterwards place our hope in him ; therefore it was not at all unreasonable to attribute the thing signified to that which they regarded in their minds as a sign , by saying , this passover sacrifice is our saviour and our refuge : not that they could have any ground from hence to believe the paschal lamb to be substantially changed , either into god their saviour , who delivered them out of the land of egypt , or into the messias the saviour , whom they expected , and who was signifyed by it : but this lamb which they did eat , being known to be a sign of institution , did represent to them , and put them in mind of that salvation which god wrought for their fathers in egypt , when by the slaying of a lamb , and sprinkling the blood of it upon their doors , their first-born were passed over and spared ; and did likewise foreshew the salvation of the messias , the lamb of god that was to take away the sins of the world. now the bread , and wine , not having been at all discovered to be such signs of our saviours body and blood , to the disciples , nor consequently considered as so , it was against the rules of human discourse , to say they were his body and blood , if no more was meant , than that they were signs of them ; and as absurd , as for moses before the formal institution of the paschal sacrifice , recited at large in exod. . to have said to the people upon sacrificing a lamb , this is the lords passover . or this passover is your saviour . for it was to be known and considered as a passover sacrifice , and as a type of the messias , before he could reasonably have affirmed thus of it . . the jewish passover was a type of this sacrament , and so it is generally acknowledged by the * fathers to be ; now that there should be a sign of a sign only , a type of that , which it self was but a type , instituted by christ , is very unreasonable to imagin ; especially since we do not now live under a law of shadows and figures , but of verity and substance . since , therefore , the paschal lamb was really , and in a proper sense the sacrifice of the lords passover according to that true paschal form in * holy scripture , because a true paschal sacrifice was offered by the jews as well for a grateful acknowledgment of their past benefit , as of one that was certainly to come ; since this passover sacrifice was really a saviour , or salvation to the jews , as well as a type of the messias ; since the lamb drest in the paschal supper , was not only call'd , but really was , the body of the passover sacrifice , or paschal lamb , according to the foremention'd expressions of esdras , and the rabins , which , notwithstanding we can by no means allow to be paschal forms of constant usage , since they so vary from one another ; much less of divine institution , because no such are used in holy scripture ; since the bread which the jews eat , when they used that phrase , this is the bread of affliction , was real bread ; and all that eat this bread , as they ought to do , were really afflicted , when they seriously consider'd what their * fathers suffer'd in egypt ; because they also , for their own sins , deserv'd to suffer as much , this bread also being the same which their fathers did eat , viz. unleavened bread : surely none can be so hard of belief , as to imagin , after serious consideration , that there was less of truth and reality in our lords words , this is my body , in which , as is not improbable , he might imitate some of these phrases , than there was even in these expressions which were used under the law , of types and shadows . and to shew the analogy the more perfectly , and not to represent it partially , as our * adversaries do , we are further to consider , that as the bread of affliction , which was yearly eaten by the jews at the time of the paschal solemnity , was really bread , and of the same kind with that which their fathers did eat in egypt ; and was also a memorial of the first bread of this kind , which their fathers did eat ; as the paschal lamb that was yearly drest , and really eaten , was the real body of the passover sacrifice thus yearly offer'd , and was also to put the jews in mind of the first deliverance wrought upon the first paschal offering ; so christians , when they renew the sacrifice of eucharist , feed upon christs real body , which is the antitype of the paschal lamb , and at the same time * remember that first oblation which christ made of the same body , altho' in a different manner upon the cross . discourse . and nothing is more common in all languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the sign . as the delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an estate , and it is really so ; not the delivery of mere wax and parchment , but the conveyance of a real estate ; as truly and really to all effects and purposes of law , as if the very material houses and lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands : in like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new covenant of the gospel between god and man , are given to the signs and seals of that covenant . by baptism christians are said to be made partakers of the holy ghost , heb. . . and by the sacrament of the lord's supper we are said to communicate or to be made partakers of the body of christ which was broken , and of his blood which was shed for us , that is , of the real benefits of his death and passion . and thus st. paul speaks of this sacrament , cor. . . the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? but still it is bread , and he still calls it so , v. . for we being many are one bread and one body ; for we are partakers of that one bread. the church of rome might , if they pleased , as well argue from hence , that all christians are substantially changed , first into bread , and then into the natural body of christ by their participation of the sacrament , because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body . and the same apostle in the next chapter , after he had spoken of the consecration of the elements , still calls them the bread and the cup , in three verses together , as often as ye eat this bread , and drink this cup , v. . whosoever shall eat this bread , and drink this cup of the lord unworthily , v. . but let a man examin himself , and so let him eat of this bread and drink of that cup , v. . and our saviour himself when he had said , this is my blood of the new testament , immediately adds , * but i say unto you , i will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine , until i drink it new with you in my father's kingdom , that is , not till after his resurrection , which was the first step of his exaltation into the kingdom , given him by his father , when the scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his disciples . but that which i observe from our saviour's words is , that after the consecration of the cup and the delivering of it to his disciples to drink of it , he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of the fruit of the vine , which he had now drank with them , till after his resurrection . from whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the vine , real wine , which our saviour drank of and communicated to his disciples in the sacrament . answer . here , since neither the authority of the fathers , nor the word of god can afford the authors cause any relief , he at length flies to the laws of men , for it , where we shall see him immediately cast himself , and be non-suited at the very beginning of his trial. he tells us , that the delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is called a conveyance or making over of such an estate , ( that is , of a title to such an estate ) and that it really is so ; that we deny , unless there be possession also given , as i shall presently shew . and yet what do we affirm more of christs words in the sacrament , this is my body which is given for you , &c. which we have , taken from his own mouth by the hands of inspired pen-men , sealed by himself with miracles , and delivered to his church , than that they are a conveyance , or making over of his sacred body to us , and that they are so really , not only in sign or figure ? he proceeds to tell us , that this delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal , is not the delivery of mere wax , and parchment , but the conveyance of a real estate , as truly and really to all effects and purposes of law , as if the material houses and lands themselves could be , and were actually delivered into my hands . well , but we say that a deed of feoffment takes not effect to all purposes of law , without livery and seisin , neither doth it convey an estate without that , nor a deed of release neither , unless the purchaser be put in possession , before hand , by a lease , and then too , not by the common law ; but so necessary is possession deemed for the through conveyance of an estate , that in case of absence from the land or the like , the law-makers have by a particular statute necessarily provided to give possession otherwise , for it is not necessary to the making a man in possession of an estate , that he should hold his land and house in his arms , or stand always upon the premises . but i hope the author will not so far endeavor to invalidate the common assurance of the nation , as to maintain , that because the man hath thus a conveyance of a real estate to all effects , and purposes of law , therefore he must not enter upon it , dwell in the house , reap the fruits of the ground , and nourish himself therewith , i imagin the purchaser will not be put off so . in like manner , the words of christ delivered , as his act and deed , by the priest his substitute , in the consecration of the sacrament for the use of those that are to communicate , is not the bare delivery of so many words only , but the making over of a real title to them , to the thing which is meant by them , that is , the body of our lord , as truly and really to all effects , and purposes of the gospel , as if it actually hung upon the cross before their eyes , in that form , and with the same configuration , and quality of parts as it once did . shall they therefore be hindred from taking immediate possession of what is thus made over to them ? no , this were too great a sacriledge against god , and violation of the property of a christian . they shall receive christs body and blood , that they may dwell in him and he in them . they shall partake of the fruits of the sacrament , as of a goodly heritage of their own , since christ hath given them a just right and title to it , and shall cherish their souls and bodies therewith to immortality . those who are contented only to hear of , or to see this goodly land , and not to go and possess it ; those who will leave their fathers house the catholic church , and go abroad to feed upon husks , and imaginary vertue , are the objects of our pity . so indeed there is a sort of a fiction in law , in the authors way of conveyance , of a tenant by deed or lease of possession , who notwithstanding hath nothing to do to enter upon the estate , or enjoy it ; if the author be contented with such a title only in the sacrament , i am sorry for him . and thus the similitude is reasonably applied , as for our adversaries way , who saith , that as the delivery of a deed or writing under hand and seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an estate , ( he should have prov'd that the deed is called the estate it self , and not only the conveyance of an estate , if he would have made this phrase any thing suitable to that of our lord , this is my body ) in like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new covenant of the gospel between god and man , are given to the signs and seals of the covenant ; whereas there is no analogy between these things , nor truth neither in this instance . it is just as if one should say , that tenterden steeple were like the goodwin sands . i confess , i have often admired with my self at this sort of similitude , which protestants are mighty big with , pretending to illustrate their fond opinion about the sacrament clearly hereby , which being examined , proves as you see , but a mere tympany of the brain . the author having before told us , that nothing is more common in all languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the sign , proceeds now to give us examples of this out of holy scripture ; by baptism , saith he , christians are said to be partakers of the holy ghost , heb. . . and so they really are , and their bodies , are his temples : but since baptism is the sign , and the holy ghost the thing signified , according to him , why doth he not bring us one instance out of scripture of baptisms being called the holy ghost , as they pretend that bread in the words of institution is called christs body ? for this which he hath brought of baptism is no example to his common rule : we may reasonably conclude , that if the sacrament of baptism had been so very like this of the eucharist , as they would have it , it would have been instituted in a like form , but it is quite otherwise : for neither water , nor baptism it self are called in holy scripture the holy ghost , neither is there any form of cousecration of the element , delivered . indeed , by the sacrament of the lords supper we are also said to communicate , or to be made partakers of the body of christ which was broken , and his blood that was shed for us ; but that is his real body and blood together with all the real benefits of his death and passion , which do thereby accrue to us . and thus st. paul speaks of this sacrament , cor. . . the cup of blessing which we bless , is it not the communion of the blood of christ ? the bread which we break , is it not the communion of the body of christ ? that is , after consecration , it really is so ; altho' the apostle calls it bread by a metaphor ( that being to our souls what the ordinary bread is to our bodies , true nourishment ) so also it is said that aarons rod devour'd the other rods , exod. . . altho' it was then become a serpent , v. . that water which was by our lord converted into wine is still called water , joh. . . the angels are called men , gen. . . because they appeared in the shape of men , according to the usual language of sense , very many instances of which are to be found : for our saviour had fully instructed them before , that the bread which he would give them was his flesh , joh. . . the apostle also saith again , v. . for we being many are one bread , and one body ; for we are partakers of that one bread , and that one bread can signifie nothing here but the body of christ , which indeed is but one , altho' appearing in innumerable place of the world at the same , and at several times , because it is still animated by the same one soul and divinity of christ ; which cannot be said of the bread in the sacrament , if but mere bread , for then it would not be one bread or loaf , but many , and of several sorts , being received at very many places at the same time : and the true reason here , why they are called one bread and one body or society of christians , is , because they are all partakers of that one bread , viz. the body of christ , and therefore also all inspired with the same spirit . but , in the authors sense , it would be no reason , but they should rather have been many bodies , because they did eat of so many breads : so that we see he hath still the same success , in bringing those texts of scripture to uphold his cause , which are the most pregnant proofs against him . he then proceeds to teach the catholics how they might argue in his new way , from a sign already instituted and known as so , to an aenigma , or dark saying , taken from things of a disparate and really different nature , and of no acknowledg'd resemblance , that is , from chalk to cheese ; but they beg his pardon for that . well , but the same apostle , in the next chapter , after he had spoken of the consecration of the elements , still calls them the bread and the cup in three verses together , as often as ye eat this bread , and drink this cup , v. . whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the lord unworthily , v. . but let a man examin himself , and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup , v. . it is true it was bread metaphorically , but it was still this bread with an emphasis , not such bread as you ordinarily eat , but the body of christ , which he told us was truly meat , or meat indeed , the true bread from heaven , john . . it was a cup , but it was this cup , that is , his blood , which was truly drink , or drink indeed , as he also hath taught us , john . . and after examination , let the true christian eat of that bread and drink of that cup , which will strengthen his body and soul both , much more than the ordinary bread and wine can his body only . our saviour himself , when he had said , this is my blood of the new testament , immediately adds , but i say unto you , i will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine ( that is of the true vine , as our lord is pleased to call himself , ) or of that wine , which by the words of benediction becomes my blood , being originally the fruit of the vine ; ( or possibly it may refer to the unconsecrated wine that was left in the vessels ) until i drink it new , that is fresh and newly consecrated again with you in my fathers kingdom , or after my resurrection , as some , with the author , interpret the place ; but as others more generally , till i drink of that new wine of another sort and nature , in the kingdom of my heavenly father , where we shall drink of the river of his pleasures , psal . . . and therefore the authors following observation is nothing worth . for after the apostles were satisfied that they really drank the blood of our lord in this sacrament , and fed upon his real body , it was an easy and familiar metaphor to call them bread and wine , because the outward species gave a sufficient hint , for the understanding of this figurative speech , suitable to the language of sense in the instances above mentioned , out of scripture ; and because there was true spiritual nourishment conveyed to the faithful by the body and blood of our saviour thus received , as there is corporeal nourishment received by the natural bread and wine , which we take for the refection of our bodies . discourse . besides , if we consider that he celebrated this sacrament before his passion , it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural body and blood of christ ; because it was his body broken and his blood shed , which he gave to his disciples , which if we understand literally of his natural body broken and his blood shed , then these words , this is my body which is broken , and this is my blood which is shed , could not be true , because his body was then whole and unbroken , and his blood not then shed ; nor could it be a propitiatory sacrifice ( as they affirm this sacrament to be ) unless they will say that propitiation was made before christ suffered : and it is likewise impossible that the disciples should understand these words literally , because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was bread and wine , but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his body which was given , but his body which gave that which was given ; no his body broken and this blood shed , because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd ; and therefore they could not understand these words literally : if they did , can we imagine that the disciples , who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections , should make no difficulty of this matter ? nor so much as ask our saviour , how can these things be ? that they should not tell him , we see this to be bread and that to be wine , and we see thy body to be distinct from both ; we see thy body not broken , aud thy blood not shed . from all which it must needs be very evident , to any man that will impartially consider things , how little reason there is to understand those words of our saviour , this is my body , and this is my blood , in the sense of transubstantiation ; nay on the contrary , that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise . i proceed to shew , answer . besides , if we consider that our lord celebrated this sacrament before his passion , it is impossible that these words should be understood otherwise than properly , of the real body and blood of christ ; because it was his body broken , and his blood poured out , which he gave to his disciples , which if we understand as figurative only of his natural body broken , and his blood shed , then these words , this is my body which is broken , and this is my blood which is shed , could not be true , because his natural , organized , and visible body was then whole and unbroken , and its blood not then shed ; yet that very body as broken in the sacrament was said to be * then given for them , that very blood as there poured out was said then to be poured out for the remission of sins : therefore it was a propitiatory sacrifice , although offered before , as well as after christ had suffered , to pay the full price of our redemption , because its whole nature did consist in the relation which it had to the sacrifice that was offered up for us upon the cross , from which it received all its vertue : it was very possible therefore for our lords disciples to understand these words properly , because although they plainly saw that what he gave them had the species of bread and wine , yet they believed him , when he said that it was his body that was given for them , although his body at the same time gave what was given ; his body broken and his blood poured out for them , although they saw him alive at that very time , and beheld his body whole and unpierced , because he had plainly told them so , who had the words of eternal life , and could not deceive them ; and for this reason they could not but understand his words properly : otherwise , can we imagin that the disciples , who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections , if they could have conceiv'd that these words were to be understood in a parabolical or improper sense , would not have desired an explication of them of our lord , as they did of other parables , which were more easy to be understood , than these words , in such a sense ? nor so much as ask our saviour , how can these things be ? that they should not tell him , we see this to be bread , and that to be wine , and we see thy body to be distinct from both ; we see thy body not broken , and thy blood not shed ; what therefore should be the meaning of these words ? or that our saviour the true guid , and greatest lover of souls , or any of his apostles after him , should never have given any explanation of them ? i have already shewed , in answer to the author , that the words of our lord , this is my body , could not , according to the rules of human discourse , be taken figuratively , so as to signifie this is a sign of my body , unless the apostles had bin before-hand prepared to understand them as so : there are no words recorded by any of the evangelists to dispose them to believe the words in such a sense , nor any indeed , that relate to the matter , unless it be some sayings of our lord in the sixth chapter of saint johns gospel , that were delivered before the institution of the eucharist , which i shall now , consider , for the further clearing of the point , as also those words of saint luke , this do in remembrance of me , used by our lord , at the time of the institution ; and prove that none of these expressions do at all favor our adversaries figurative sense , but the clean contrary . we read in the sixth chapter of saint john's gospel , that our saviour had prepared the minds of his disciples before-hand , by two great miracles , both which tended towards the strengthning of their faith in the sacred eucharist ; the * former being a figure of this sacrament , since in it he multiplied five loaves , so as to make them feed five thousand persons , altho' the fragments which remained filled twelve baskets , and were more in quantity than the five loaves were at the first ; so that they needed not to doubt , but he could feed as many thousands as he pleas'd with his own precious body , exhibited under the species of bread , in the blessed sacrament , and yet his body be still one and the same : the latter shewing them , that he could convey his body how and whither he pleased , which made them ask him , when they saw him on the other side the sea , without taking ship at the shore , rabbi , when camest thou hither ? then he proceeds to instruct them in three of the greatest mysteries of religion . . his incarnation , or coming down from heaven , and taking human flesh upon him ; from verse . where he also gives them a hint of the blessed sacrament , that meat that perisheth not , to v. . . the real presence of his body , and manducation thereof , in the sacrament ( which wonderful presence there , the fathers did ever compare to the incarnation it self ) from v. , to v. . . the ascension is mentioned , to prove the two former mysteries . v. . our saviour , having styled himself the bread of life , towards the beginning of the discourse of the incarnation , v. , and . after some explication made of this , repeats it again twice , v. , and , to inculcate it the better into his disciples minds : and then instructs them how they should be partakers of this bread ; not by believing only , that the son of god came down from heaven , and was made man , taking upon him human flesh , but by feeding upon his flesh in the sacrament , which being a deep mystery , that they might not doubt of the truth of it , he explains to them what he meant , when he said . v. . i am the living bread which came down from heaven , if any man eat of me , he shall live for ever ; not by telling them , that by this bread is meant the doctrin , which he taught , or that by , eating this bread , is to be understood , the believing of this doctrin , in a metaphorical or parabolical sense , as the socinians , and sacramentarians fondly imagin ; or in like manner as he explained the parable of the sower that sowed good seed , telling them that the field is the world , the good seed are the children of the kingdom ; or as when he had said , i have meat to eat which ye know not of , he explained himself by saying , my meat is to do the will of him that sent me , putting the predicate in the place of the subject in the manner before hinted , and saying , the bread is my word or the doctrin that i teach ; but quite otherwise , he assures them , that the bread , that he will give them , is his flesh , which he promiseth to give for the life of the world , and which , by an elegant metaphor , christ calleth bread , because it was to afford nourishment to the soul and body both , in a spiritual manner in the sacrament , as the ordinary bread , was to nourish the body , in a carnal manner , by way of corporeal digestion , out of the sacrament : and there is no doubt but the jews understood our lord in a proper sense , when they said , v. . how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? our saviour did not answer this doubt , by telling them , ( as he easily might have done in the sacramentarian way ) that no more was meant but believing stedfastly in his death , and applying to themselves the merits of it , and which explication he would have certainly given them , then , or afterwards , by himself or by his disciples , if no more had bin meant than so ; as he did in the case of parables , less difficult to understand , than this would have bin , if it had bin by our lord proposed as one ; but proceeds , to deliver this profound mystery to them , in more express words , using a vehement asseveration to confirm the truth of it : verily , verily i say unto you , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye have no life in you : whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , hath eternal life , and i will raise him up at the last day : for my flesh is * truly meat , my blood is truly drink : he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , dwelleth in me , and i in him : as the living father hath sent me , and i live by the father : so he that eateth me , even he shall live by me : this is that bread which came down from heaven ; not as your fathers did eat manna , and are dead : he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever : all which words , being used by our lord , to clear the doubt , and answer that question of the jews , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? i cannot imagin , how the real presence of christs body , and its manducation in the sacrament , could have bin more fully asserted , in order to the disposing of his disciples to believe the sense of the reality , when he should institute his blessed sacrament : and so the * fathers interpret this place : and do not say , that the manna , mentioned in the verse , which was miraculously sent from heaven , was a type of ordinary bread , made by the hands of men , and set upon the table , which is of a far more ignoble nature and less significant , than the manna which thus came down from heaven ; but of the real body of christ in the sacrament , which was the true bread from heaven , that nourished to immortality : after our saviour had spoke thus to them , many of the disciples themselves , to whom christ did not think fit as yet to reveal the manner of feeding upon his body in the blessed sacrament , thinking that he meant , that his body was to be eaten in a gross manner , like the capernaites , cried out , this is a hard saying , who can hear it ? to whom , as well as to the jews , who before are said to murmur at him ; because he said , i am the bread which came down from heaven ; and that ask , how this man could give them his flesh to eat ? our lord replies , doth this offend you , and then clears the doctrins to them , as far as he judg'd convenient for the confirmation of such high mysteries , about which they were to exercise a strong and a lively faith , by saying thus , v. . what and if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before ? as if he should have said , if you do not yet believe , that the son of man came down from heaven , yet when you see him ascend thither again , you will be more ready to believe , that it was really god who came down , took flesh and dwelt amongst you ; which solution had relation chiefly to the former of the mysteries , viz. his incarnation ; but withal insinuates , that such as believe not his words touching the holy sacrament , and think it impossible for him , to give his body to be eaten in so many places at once , being yet on earth , would be much more scandalized and tempted after they saw or knew him to have ascended into heaven . therefore , to clear the latter mystery , and solve their doubt , who thought , like the capernaites , that christ was to have cut pieces of flesh from his body , and to have given them to be eaten ; or that thought his body to be that of a mere man , he tells them , v. . it is the spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing , that is , the flesh , which he had told them before that they must eat , altho' not in the gross manner , without the spirit profiteth nothing ; not but that by the spirit quickning it , it profits very much ; suitable to that of st. paul. cor. . . knowledge puffeth up , but charity edifieth , that is , knowledge without charity puffeth up , altho' when chariy is joyned with it to enliven it , it edifies , and charity it self edifieth by knowledge : for if these words of christ were to be taken in the sense of the sacramentarians , they would derogate no less from his incarnation , manhood and death , than from the real presence of his body in the sacrament , in all which , without doubt , the flesh profiteth very much : wherefore , our lord goes on to tell them here , that , the words , which he spake unto them , were spirit and life , therefore not to be understood in the gross carnal sense , before mentioned , which some of his disciples took them in : for it is the use of the scripture , to call mans natural sense , carnal reasoning , and resisting , or not reaching to the belief of supernatural truths , flesh and blood , as , matth. . . flesh and blood revealed not this to thee , &c. but , the words , that i speak unto you , they are spirit and life ; therefore , not to be carnally understood : but as by the word of god , the world was created , and nature hath been , since , often chang'd ; so , there is no doubt but christ could , by it , change the bread into his body , as he did daily , by ordinary natural nutrition ; but , * here in a supernatural way . our lord , therefore , said unto them , that their fathers did eat manna , in the wilderness , which was but a type of this heavenly manna in the sacrament , and yet they did spiritually feed upon christ the messias ; for it is said , cor. . , . that , they did all eat the same spiritual meat , and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them , and that rock was christ , and yet they are dead , all of them a temporal , some of them an eternal death also ; and those of them which now live the life eternal , received this life from the son of god , who hath now given us the antitype of that manna which the children of israel did eat , viz. his own body in the sacrament , something of a far more excellent nature to feed upon , which will be to our bodies , as well as to our souls the seed of immortality , the instrument , and pledge of our resurrection , ascension , and glorification . yet as our lord said to his disciples , there are some of you which believe not , so we may say still of the sacramentarians , who , notwithstanding all that christ hath said , will admit of nothing but signs , and figures of imaginary vertue ( whom nevertheless our saviour hath no further instructed in any such easie sense , as this , which might certainly have prevented their relapse as well as that of the jews , his disciples , and which if any such sense had been to be admitted , would most certainly have been given ) that they will not believe our lord , and therefore they go away and will walk no more with him in the communion of his church . having , thus , made it to appear , that these words of christs institution , this is my body , according to the rules of human discourse , ought to be taken in a proper sense , not only if considered in themselves , but especially if we regard what christ hath said before touching the sacrament , to dispose his apostles thus to believe them ; it will necessarily follow , that those words also of the institution , this do in remembrance of me ( which relate chiefly to the priests power and duty , as the other did to the body of christ in the sacrament , and which st. paul explains in these words , as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the lords death till he come , ) ought not to be considered as a determination of the former words of the institution in a figurative sense after the sacramentarian way , but as a declaration of one great end of the sacrament , viz. the calling to mind , and setting forth of christs death till he comes , which is so far from being a reason to prove , that christs body is not really there , that on the contrary , this commemoration and annunciation is founded upon the real presence of christs sacrificed body and blood in this sacrament ; since without this , it could not be done so effectually in christs church as now it is . for , as the jews , in eating the peace-offerings , did remember that they were slain for them ; so by offering here the real body of christ , after the manner of an unbloody sacrifice , we commemorate , and set forth , in this lively exemplar , that bloody sacrifice , which christ himself offered in a different manner upon the cross , and receive the benefit thereof ; which we need not to question , since he gives us daily of this victim to feed upon in the blessed sacrament , tho' without the horror of blood. shall christians , then , under a pretence of celebrating the memory of the passion in the eucharist , evacuate christs institution , by taking away , from this pious commemoration , that which , he out of his tender love , hath given us as most efficacious in it , for the good of our bodies ( into which this sacrifice of christs body being received , sanctifies them , and consecrates and prepares them for a glorious resurrection ) as wells as for the good of our souls ? ought we not to consider , that jesus christ doth , not only command us to remember him , but likewise that we should do this by feeding upon his sacramented body and blood , since he doth not say , that bread and wine should be a memorial of his body and blood , but that in doing what he prescribes us to do , which is , that in receiving his body and blood , we should remember him ? and what more precious and lively memorial could he give to his disciples , and to all his beloved children , what better legacy could he bequeath them , at his departure out of the world , than this ? if the the primitive christians were inflamed with zeal and devotion when they approached to the monuments , where the bodies only of holy martyrs , lay intombed ; more especially , if they could but touch any of their precious reliqus , being by this means stirred up to a pious memorial , and imitation of their holy lives and deaths ; and therefore , did religiously preserve the smallest pieces , and even the nails of that cross , upon which christ suffered , commemorating thereby his holy passion ; how much more then should our memory , and love be excited , when we approach to the holy altar , and know , that we receive there , tho' veiled under the sacred symbols , the very body and blood of our lord , who sacrificed himself for us , enlivened and quickened by his grace and spirit ? i could now proceed to shew , for the further confirmation of what i have here alledged , from the authority of holy scripture , that unless the words of st. johns gospel above mentioned , as also the words of our saviours institution , be taken in the sense of the reality or transubstantiation , that there is no promise to be found , in holy writ , of any spiritual vertue to accompany this sacrament ; so that , our adversaries , whilst they are so eager to oppose the reality , do , as much as in them lies , destroy the nature , and end of this blessed institution , and have no argument at all to use against the socinian , who denies the real vertue , as well as the real presence of christs body , in the sacrament : which is the reason , why , i do sometimes term this vertue , ( which the author , without ground conceives to be in this ordinance , tho' separate from christs real body ) imaginary ; because there is no reason to conclude the vertue of the body to be here , from scripture , unless the body be so too ; not that i would derogate at all from the vertue of christs body , which by reason of the hypostatical union is infinite . but this task is already performed by a learned modern * author : and the reader may easily discern the truth of what i have here asserted , by inspecting such places of holy scripture as relate to this sacrament , into the number of which they will not allow the sixth chapter of st. johns gospel to be admitted . having therefore thus explained those places of holy scripture which relate to the blessed sacrament , as also those other forms of speaking , both of divine and human authority , which the author is pleas'd to compare with the words of our lords institution , and shew'd , upon comparing them together , that they will not at all fit his purpose , but prove the quite contrary to what he would have them to do : i shall now sum up such of the reasons and arguments for the understanding the words , in which our saviour instituted this blessed sacrament , in a proper sense ( as the catholic church expounds them ) as are plainly deduced from the nature and end of this holy institution , and the manner of expressing it in holy scripture ( which i intreat the christian reader seriously to consider of ) and so conclude this head of discourse . . because christ the great lover of souls never spake to his apostles and disciples in figures and parables which had any obscurity or difficult sense , ( especially , if the discourse related to the practice of a necessary duty ) with an intention to keep them in ignorance ; but * that their humble and well disposed minds might be the more excited and inflamed with a desire of inquiring into and understanding the true meaning of what he said , and that they might the better retain it : and because in all such cases , even of less difficulty than this of the sacrament ( as particularly in the parable of the sower of seed , altho' the mystery , concerning the success of the gospel which was herein prefigured , was not necessary for every one to know , as that of the eucharist was ) christ did fully explain himself to his disciples , who were also to instruct others . therefore since the words of the institution of the blessed sacrament , if understood figuratively , as the protestants , and particularly the author , would have them to be , must need be allow'd to be obscure and difficult , because they differ so much among themselves , as well as from the catholic church , about the meaning of them , and yet none of the evangelists nor st. paul , altho ' varying in expressing the words of institution , have inserted any words which in the least explain the sense to be figurative or parabolical ; hence it follows , that the church hath great reason to understand them properly . . because now , just upon our lords passion , it was the time for figures and shadows to vanish , and for truth and reality to appear ; and our lord was instituting the great sacrament of christian religion , he could not therefore speak with too much force and efficacy , especially , since he now spake to his apostles in private , to whom he was used , at such times , to speak very plainly . . because christ was making his last will and testament , which was to be expressed in such plain and distinct terms , that there might be no just reason for his children to contend about their legacy : and can we be so unworthy as to imagin , that in this his last and kindest bequest , he left us no more but a morsel of common dry bread to eat , and a little ordinary wine and water to drink , in remembrance of him ; whereas a kind and good natur'd man will leave his most precious jewel to his dear friend to remember him by , when he departs from him to take a long journy and to make any considerable stay ? a good father when he is to dye , thinks all his best goods and possessions too little to leave his children . he was also delivering a commandment to observe , which that it might be rightly executed , ought to be promulged in a manner very intelligible . . our lord was near his death , and therefore it was a time to avoid obscurity in speech , since he was not to continue any longer amongst them to interpret it . . our saviour in the choice of these words had not only regard to the apostles , but he likewise spake them to all the church in all succeeding ages , and knew certainly , when he pronounced them , how they would always construe them ; and yet , for the confirmation of the sense of the reality , did never suffer it to be call'd in question so much as privately , for almost a thousand years , when also the whole body of his pastors who were endu'd with extraordinary light and assistance of his holy spirit , to enable them to interpret aright the divine misteries , had already just before in a three councils agreed upon this sense , as that which had been constantly receiv'd in the church ever since our saviours time , and which was more explicitly b declared against that one c dissenter who sometime after appear'd against it , but was ashamed of his opinion and recanted . lastly , if we consider , as hath been now fully prov'd , that all the places of holy scripture , as also all other forms of human discourse which are alledged by our adversaries , as like to this of our lords institution , are wholly different from it , shewing them the quite contrary to what they pretend them for , and that our saviour did neither before , at , or after the institution any ways prepare or dispose his disciples to understand these words in a figurative sence , it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially regard things , that because christ ever spake reasonably , and in a manner conformable to good sense , and his power infinitely exceeds the capacity of our minds ; therefore there is no reason to understand those words of our saviours , this is my body , and this is my blood in a metaphorical sense , as the author and the sacramentarins do , but an evident necessity to believe them in that proper sense , which * necessarily inferreth transubstantiation , as the catholic church doth , since scripture interpreted by the rules of human discourse , as also the tradition and authority of this church oblige us so to do : the latter of which is to be the subject of the second part of the answer to the discourse against transubstantiation . the contents of the first part of the answer to the discourse against transubstantiation . . it is shew'd that our adversary doth not rightly state the point . page . what is meant by transubstantiation . . the argument from sense shew'd to be senseless . ibid. . the catholic faith is ridicul'd by the adversary . . the real presence and transubstantiation depends on gods veracity . . no transubstantiation an article of faith with our adversaries , and establish'd with penalties . . the method of the ensuing discourse . . the necessity of understanding our lords words in the sense of the real presence or transubstantiation . . the sense of the schoolmen corrupted , and their problematical discourse mistaken for their conclusion by the adversary . . the disparity between the figurative expressions in holy scripture , and the words of institution , this is my body , shews that the latter are to be taken properly . , &c. . principles upon which the ensuing discourse is grounded . ibid. . how catholics interpret the words of institution , and how protestants . . in what sense catholics allow a figure in the sacrament . . rules to judg of metaphorical expressions by . , . . the application of the forgoing rules : by which it appears , that those merely metaphorical expressions of our saviors being a door , a vine , &c. are not at all like to the form of consecration , this is my body . , &c. . a metaphor conveys no spiritual vertue . page . the exposition of pharaoh's dream doth not resemble the sacred words of consecration , this is my body . ibid. . distinctions and rules for the following discourse of the nature of signs . ibid. . application of the foregoing rules and distinctions . . the analogy which the words of institution , this is my body , might have to the paschal form in scripture , or to those phrases cited from esdras , or any of the rabins , doth not prove that christs words here , are taken figuratively and not in a proper sense . . a deeds being call'd a conveyance doth not prove that the words , this is my body , are not to be taken properly . . texts of scripture examined , and prov'd not at all to favour the sense of the author of the discourse against transsubstantiation . . christ's body being broken , and his bloud being poured out , for the remission of sins , before he was crucified , proves the sense of the reality , or transubstantiation . . . the th chapter of s. john's gospel interpreted , as relating to the blessed sacrament . , &c. . the words , do this in remembrance of me , explain'd . . . the real vertue of christs body in the sacrament cannot be prov'd from scripture , unless the real presence of his body it self be admitted . . further reasons from scripture for the proper sense of the words of institution , which necessarily inferreth transubstantiation . . the conclusion of this head of discourse upon scripture authority for the real presence and transubstantiation ; and of the first part of the answer to the discourse against transubstantiation . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e * publisht at dublin . a mr. arnauds two last volums concerning the perpetuity of the faith , &c. b pa. . of the discourse against transubstantiation . resp . ad apol. bell. c. . p. . * vid. two discourses concerning the adoration of our blessed saviour in the eucharist , &c. c. . of the first discourse . printed at oxford , an . * dr. burnet in his history of the reformation part . p. . of the reign of qu. elizabeth . see also dr. heylins cyprianus anglicus , p. . in the introduction . * part . of hist . reform . p. . * in psal . . * can. . de eucharistia in sancto eucharistiae sacramento christum unigenitum dei filium cultu latriae adorandum . * in a treatise intitled several conferences . &c. a pag. . * see their art. of religion which confirms the body of christ to be given , taken and eaten in the supper after an heavenly and spiritual manner , and catec . where it is said , the body and blood of christ are verily and in deed taken and received . the forecited author doth not well defend this doctrin . * sess . . c. . neque enim haec inter se pugnant , juxta modum existendi naturalem salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidere ad dextram patris & nobis substantiâ suā adesse praesentem sacramentaliter , eâ existendi ratione ; quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus , possibilem lamen esse deo cogitatione per fidem illustratâ assequi possumus . * paschasius epist . ad frudegard — miror quid volunt quidem nunc dicere , non in re esse veritatem carnis christi , vel sanguinis ; sed in sacramento virtutem quandam carnis & non carnem . — concerning which real presence it is said : vsque ad praesens nemo deerrasse legitur , nisi qui de christo erraverunt , and futher — quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent , nemo tamen est adhuc in aperto . qui hoc ita esse contradicat , quod totus orbis credit & confitetur . * de christo loquens concilium , eujus corpus & sanguis in sacramento altaris , sub speciebus panis & vini veraciter continentur , transubstantiatis pane in corpus , & vino in sanguinem , potestate divinâ . concil . lateranense . generale , anno christi . vid. in binnio . c. . p. . * historia concil . triden . francofurti edit . . lib. . pa. . in congregatione mox generali statutum , in dogmate conficiendo verbis uti quam paucissimis , iisque adeo universalibus , ut uirisque , viz. scoti . & thomae sectatoribus , quaent satisfacere , & ad uiriusque partis sensum commodè aptari . a in parte seconda del istoria del concilio di trento l. . cap. primo . speaking of the definitions of the council , hath these words : le quali tutte sono cosi circuspette che tolora paiono in cercar forme di parole lontane da ogni sembianza di pregiudicio à veruna delle classi teologiche . e percio niente si volle determinare , intorno al modo della presenza sacramentale di cristo . b praesentiam credimus nec minus quam vos veram , de modo praesentiae nihil temerè definimus ; addo , nec anxie inquiramus . bishop andrews , resp . ad apoll. bell. c. . p. . cor. . . * vt enim illic verbi dei gratia sanctum efficit illud corpus cujus firmamentum ex pane constabat , & ipsum etiam quodammodo panis erat , sic etiam hic panis , ut ait apostolus , per verbum dei & orationem sanctificatur , non quia comeditur eo progrediens ut verbi corpus evadat , sed statim per verbum in corpus mutatur , ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) ut dictum est à verbo , hoc est corpus meum . catecbet . orat. c. . a dr. taylor of the real presence . pa. . b idem liberty of prophecying . §. . n. . c dr. stillingfleet rat. account , p. . and . d bishop forbes p. . vid. etiam confessionem theologorum , wirtemberg . in confess . a. . * sess . . de euchar. c. . quoniam autem christus redemptor noster , corpus suum id , quod subspecie panis offerebat verè esse dixit , ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia dei fuit , idque nunc sancta haec synodus declarat , per consecrationem panis & vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis christi domini nostri , & totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus , quae conversio convenienter & propriè à sanctae catholica ecclesia transubstantiatio est appellata . * see also p. , . of the answer . * see veteres vindicati . in an expostulatory letter to mr. sclater of putney , pa. . * observe that this is no induction but rather a sorites , altho' the author knew not how to put the subject and predicate in their right places . see any common logic. * see expostulatory letter , pa. . * pag. . &c. * ipse panis & vinum transmutantur in corpus & sanguinem dei. nec quicquam nobis amplius perspectum & exploratum est quam quod verbum dei verum est & efficax , atque omnipotens . s. johan . damascen . lib. . orthodox . fidei . c. . a caligula . * see p. . in the discourse against transubstantiation , edit . londini , . * pag. . a brief discourse of the real presence , printed . and licenc'd by guil. needham archiep. cant. à sac. domest . * viz. the author of the brief discourse , &c. cited supra . notes for div a -e our adversary doth not rightly state the point . see two discourses concerning the adoration of our b. saviour in the sacrament printed at oxford , . pag. . . what is meant by transubstantiation . a s. augustin . putaverunt quod praecisurus esset dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo & daturus illis , & dixerunt , durus est hic sermo , ipsi erant duri , non sermo . in psal . . adorate scabellum , &c. the argument from sense shew'd to be senseless . * quod vidistis panis est & calix , quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant , quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda , panis est corpus christi , & calix sanguis ejus . augustinus serm ad infant . the catholic faith ridiculd by the adversary . the real presence depends on gods veracity . no-transubstantiation an article of faith with our adversaries , and establisht with penalties . see the penal laws and tests . the method of the ensuing discourse . the necessity of understanding our lords words in the sense of the real presence . luke . . * hoc simulachrum est virgo quod filium dei peperit . * solecophanes . * contra westphal : hoc quidem saepe diximus , quod nunc quoque repetam , retineri reipsa non posse , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his christi verbis , hoc est corpus meum quin transubstantiatio papistica stauatur . compare * joh. . . a bone of him shall not be broken , with cor. . . this is my body which is broken for you which gave occasion to st. chrysostome to say of christ , that that which he did not suffer upon the cross for the love of thee , he suffers in the eucharist : this is my body which is broken for you . a de euch. l. . c. . b in dis . . qu. . sect. . c in part . disp . . qu. . art . . c. . d in sent. l. . dist . . qu. . n. . e in sent. qu. & quodl . . qu . f in sent. qu. . art . . g in canon miss . lect. . h in aquin. part . qu. . art . . i aegid . conink . de sacram. q. art . n. . k de sacram. l. c. . l loc. theolog. l. . c . m contra cajtiv . babylon c . n. . the sense of the schoolmen corrupted and their problematical discourse mistaken for their conclusion by the adversary . see all the citations above in the margent of the author's last section as they are plac'd in order . * si dicas , quod christus , dicendo , hoc est corpus meum , expressè instru it panem non remanere , quia tunc esset propesitio falsa , hoc non cogit , quia dato quod substantia panis maneret , non demonstratur substantia panis , sed contentum sub pane ; sicut modo . monstrantur accidentia , quia tunc esset propositio falsa , sed est sensus , hoc quod erit contentum sub signo sensibili est corpus meum . a scotus ubi supra . ponitur veritas aliquorum credendorum magis explicite quam hibeatur in symbolo apostolorum , vel athanasii , vel nicaeno , & breviter quicquid ibi dicitur esse crederdum tenendum est de substantia fidei , & hoc post illam declarationem solemnem factum ab ecclesia — dico quod eo sensu expesitae sunt scripturae quo conditie . — et ideo hunc intellectum eligit , quia verus est ; non enim in potestate ecclesiae fuit facere istud verum vel non verum , sed dei instituentis ; s●d intellectum a deo traditum ecclesia explicuit , &c. * omnino , altogether . * see the preface 〈◊〉 this discourse . b durandus tria solide ponit . primo , quod substantia panis & vini convertitur in substantiam corporis christi . secundo , quod mediante tali conversione corpus & sanguis christi virtute divina habent talem ordinem seu harbitudinem ad species , sub quibus fuerunt panis & vinum quod sunt eis r●aliter praesentes . tertio , quod quamvis ille modus sit de facto , non est tamen negan lum quin alius modus sit deo possibilis : concluding for the first he gives his reasons for it : . in his quae sunt fidei non est semper eligendum illud ad quod sequuntur pauciores difficultates , &c. . quod illud solum efficitur in hoc sacramento principaliter , quod significatur per formam verborum . — utrumque efficitur in hoc sacramento , scilicet existentia corporis christi & conversio panis . c so he that writes the scholia upon this author , ib. n. . vana sunt ergo quae ex hoc suarez & sotus objiciunt contra scotum , cui falso imponit sotas , quod asserat ecclesiam accepisse transubstantiationem a doctoribus . vid. etiam card. peron . de his auctoritatibus . d ochamus . in altari est vera transubstantiatio corporis christi , sed hoc potest multis modis poni . vno modo ponendo quod remaneat ibi substantia panis , & cum hoc quod corpus christi coexistit substantiae illi , ita quod prima substantia sit deserens accidentia , secunda non , sed tantum coexistens : alio modo quod recedat substantia panis subito de illo loco ad alium locum , & remaneant accidentia , & eis coexistat corpus christi . tertio , quod redigatur in materiam per se stantem , viz. aliam formam recipientem , & hoc sive in eodem sive in alio , & tunc illi materiae & accidentibus coexistat corpus christi . quarto , quod substantia panis redigatur in nihil . quodlibet istorum est possible . e petrus ab alliaco card. tertia , opinio fuit , quod substantia panis remanet ; & hoc potest dupliciter imaginari , uno modo : — quod remaneat ibidem ubi corpus christi incipit esse , & sic diceretur substantia panis transire in substantiam corporis : quoniam ubi est hoc , incipit esse illa , &c — prior quidem ille modus est possil illis , nec repugnant rationi , nec repugnant rationi , nec actoritati bibile , imo est facilior ad intelligendum , & rationaliiror quam aliquis corum . f gabriel biel. quamvis expresse tradatur in scripturae , quod corpus christi veraeiter sub speciebus panis continetur , & a side●ibus sumitur , tamen quomodo ibi sit christi corpus , an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum : an sine conversione incipiat esse corpus christi cum pane ●●a●●ntibus subst●ntia & acci●●tibus panis , non invenitur expressum in canone bibliae . g contarenus cardinal . omnes theologi conveniunt , licet non sit proditum in sacris , rationis tamen ductum sequentes , quod fieri istud non queat motu locali , sed mutatione quadam sub●tantiae panis in corpus christi , quam appellant transubstantiationem . h melchior cenus . nonnulla per spiritum veritatis explicuit ecclesia , quae in sacris literis habentur obscura . — ecclesia haereticos judicat contrariorum dogmatum auctores . a de evangeliis loquens , ait , neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur , in nostra missa veram fieri carnis & sanguinis christi praesentiam . nam etsi christus ex pane carnem suam , & ex vino sanguinem effecerit , non ob id consequitur virtute alicujus verbi hic positi nos quoties id ipsum tentaverimu , idem effecturos . ib. cap. . not . . edit . wirceburgi a. m. d. xcvii . citra patrum interpretationem , & usum nobis ab eisdem traditum , nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis evangelii verbis sacerdotem quempiam veram christi carnem & sanguinem consecrare . — nam ut largiamur , christum apostolis dixisse , ut ex luca & paulo , non propterea consequitur quod omnibus eorum posteris eandem tradiderit potestatem . nam illis data fuit potestas ejiciendi daemones . b contra captivitat . babil . c. . n. . de patribus concilii lateranensis quarti loquens . si substantia panis in christi corpus convertatur quemadmodum illi definerunt , non debuit aliter dixisse christus quam dixerit . si maneat substantia panis , quanquam tunc aliter dixisse christus debuerat , tamen per unius adjectionem voculae potuisset totam hanc discordiam sustulisse . nam si dixisset hic panis est corpus meum , hoc vinum est sanguis meus , omnis omnino sublata fuit controversia . the disparity between the figurative expressions in h. scripture and the words of institution , this is my body , shews that the latter are to be taken properly . principles upon which the ensuing discourse is grounded . see m. arnaud tom. . , . , . fusè de hac re . how catholics interpret the words of institution , and how protestants . in what sense catholics allow a figure in the sacrament . rules to judge of metaphorical expressions by . the application of the foregoing rules : by which it appears , that those merely metaphorical expressions of our saviours being a door , a vine , &c. are not at all like to the form of consecration , this is my body . a see rule . b see rule . c see rule . d see rule . contrary to r. r. r. . r. . r. . e see rules , : f see rules , . g contrary to r. , , , . see rule . see rule . a metaphor conveys no spiritual vertue . see rule . pharaohs dream doth not resemble the sacred words of consecration , this is my body . distinctions and rules for the following discourse of the nature of signs . application of the foregoing rules and distinctions . ferebatur christus in manibus suis , quando commendans ipsum corpus suum , ait , hoc est corpus meum . ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis . aug. comment . in ps . . n dialog . cum tryph. p. . edit . paris . . the analogy which the words of institution , this is my body , might have to the paschal form in scripture , or to those phrases cited from esdras , or any of the rabins , do not prove that christs words here , are to be taken figutively and not in a proper sense . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * see in their authorities , infra . * exod. ● . . * deut. . . * vid. a discourse of the holy eucharist . edit . a. . p. . * vid. exposition of the words , do this in remembrance of me , infra . * matth. . . a deed 's being call'd a conveyance doth not prove that the words this is my body , are not to be taken properly . other texts of scripture examin'd , and prov'd , not at all to favor the authors sense . christs body's being broken , and his blood being poured out for the remission of sins , before he was crucified , proves the sense of the reality . * luke . , . this is my body , which is given for you , in the prensent tense . see also the words of institution as recited by the other two evangelists , all in the present tense . c. . . the . of st. john's gospel interpreted as relating to the blessed sacrament . * from v. . to v. . v. . v. . matth. . . john . , . john . . vers . , , , , , . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . * see the authorities , infra . v. . * v. d. gregorium nyssen infra . the words , this do in remembrance of me , explained . the real vertue of christs body in the sacrament , cannot be proved from scripture unless the real presence of the body be admitted . * m. arnaul de la perpetuite de la foy , &c. tom. . reasons from scripture for the proper sense of the words of institution . * see dr. hammond in matt. . . a viz the constantian●p●litan , the second general one at nice , and that of frankford . b in the council of rome under gregory . &c. c beren●arius . * see the introduction john barclay his defence of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist to the sectaries of the times book ii, chap. ii / englished by a person of quality. barclay, john, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing b estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) john barclay his defence of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist to the sectaries of the times book ii, chap. ii / englished by a person of quality. barclay, john, - . p. printed by mary thompson and sold by matthew turner and john lane, london : . reproduction of original in the harvard university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -- apologetic works. transubstantiation. lord's supper -- catholic church. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images - mona logarbo sampled and proofread - mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion john barclay his defence of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist , to the sectaries of the times· book ii. chap. ii. englished by a person of quality . with allowance . london , printed by mary thompson at the entrance into old-spring-garden near charring-cross : and sold by matthew turner at the holy-lamb in holbourn ; and john lane at the corner of wild-street , · of the most holy sacrament of the eucharist· chap. ii. let us now speak a little of the eucharist , if in treating of so great a subject it may be lawful to say but little . do not thou , o lord , leave us , to whom thou hast left thy self ; but restore sight to the blinded sectaries , that they may courageously acknowledge this thy gift , which is so wonderfully great , that they believe it not only above themselves to receive , but also above thee to give . for , as nothing more frequently deters the jews from embracing the christian faith , than their being oblig'd to believe in it , that the living god , the god of abraham , became man , led a mortal life , and died on a cross : so nothing more offends many of our sectaries than the excellency of this sacrament , whilst they cannot persuade themselves , the bounty of christ could ever make him stoop so low , as to permit that very body to be held in the hands of priests , and receiv'd by the mouths of sinners , which , having been once extended on the cross , now sits in glory at the right-hand of the father . but there is not , o ye sectaries , any greater prejudice against you , than the universal agreement of all christians in their belief of the eucharist at such time , as you first began to appear , and the exceeding great disagreement amongst your selves in this your errour . is it probable , that there was then no church in the world , which had a right belief of this sacrament ? or must we think , the spirit of truth resides in you , who in this so great affair contest more fiercely with one another , than with us ? all christians in the world , latines , greeks , armenians , abissines and muscovites , had at that time one and the same sense of that sacred mystery . they all , i say , ( except a few hussites in bohemia , who as they were none of ours , so neither are they yours , there not being any amongst you altogether of this opinion concerning the eucharist ) agreed with us ( and still do ) that under the species or appearance of bread and wine the body and blood of christ are really conceal'd ; that there is no bread , no wine remaining ; that the eucharist is therefore to be ador'd , because there is in it no other substance but christ himself . but you , o ye sectaries , were nothing mov'd with this general consent of christians . you departed from them all , that is , you resolv'd to be hereticks . nor did you all take one way ; but having once left the well known path of the church , you wander'd in your own inventions : so that if any one enquires , what your thoughts are of the eucharist , you are fain to tell him a long story , which in the end wants an oedipus to unfold it . for so numerous are your dissensions concerning this point , that there are reckon'd amongst you above fourty different opinions , altogether contrary to each other . nay farther , you do not sufficiently explain , or to speak more truly , do not well understand , what the several sects amongst you hold . those of you which follow luther , confess , that our lords body is really contain'd in this sacrament , though they think withall the bread still to remain . the hugonots , english protestants , and other calvinists affirm on the contrary , that it is nothing but meer bread ; because , say they , christ is sitting at the right-hand of the father , and therefore cannot be in several places . others think otherwise ; but these two are the most eminent opinions amongst you . let us now see , how absurd they both are . the lutherans confessing christ's body to be really present , deny nevertheless , that 't is to be ador'd . and behold , how excellently they reason ! for , say they , christ instituted not this sacrament , that it might be ador'd , but that it might feed our souls . why do they not also say , that kings and princes ride a hunting for recreation , and not to be reverenc'd by their subjects : and that they are therefore mistaken , who , when they meet their king , as he is hunting , pay him the respect , due to their soveraign ? christ was on the cross , that he might save the souls of many , and bear the reproach , which was due to us ; not that he might be there ador'd . hadst thou , o lutheran , been then present , wouldst thou have thought it a crime to have prostrated thy self on earth , and ador'd him hanging on the cross. what madness is it in thee , not to adore christ , wherever he is ; who , wherever he is , is god , the disposer of thy life , and judge of thy soul ? but this opinion of the lutherans , which asserts the bread to remain in the eucharist , is no less contrary to scripture , than to the doctrine of the primitive church . for if the bread and chrit's body were both there , christ would not have said , this , but here , is my body ; nor yet would he have said , the bread , but in the bread , which i will give is my flesh. and if the church in the apostles time had not believ'd with us , that there is no substance of bread remaining in the eucharist , st. justin martyr would not have written , that this sacrament , after the words of consecration are pronounc'd , is the flesh and blood of that incarnate jesus ; but that after the consecration , that flesh and that blood are added to the eucharistical bread and wine : nor yet would st. cyril of hierusalem have us'd these words , this which we see , is not bread , though the taste thinks it to be bread ; but 't is the body of christ ; but he would rather have taught us , that the bread , which is seen , is bread , and the taste not deceiv'd in it ; but that with the bread is joyn'd chrit's body . nor do the calvinists talk more wisely , when they say , that christ's body is not really present in the sacrament ; but yet that we are really partakers of it . an opinion so foolish , and so destructive to it self , that they themselves understand it not . for tell me , o sectary , canst thou really receive christ's body , and christ not be really present ? but thou sayst , he is always in heaven ; and cannot be in several places at once . thou then being only on earth , and he only in heaven , how can his body really come to thee ? and when at the same instant thou communicat'st at london , another at geneva , by what art can it be effected , that ye should be really fed with christ's body , if christ cannot be really present in two places at once ? wilt thou say , that thy soul by faith flies up into heaven , and is there really fed with this holy food ? this is nothing to the purpose . for though thou mayst by faith , by thought , by will mount above the stars , and converse in the midst of heaven ; yet art thou still really on earth : nor is any part of thee ; that is , either thy mind , or body really in heaven , there to receive nourishment . shouldst thou never so seriously fix thy thoughts on rome , or on hierusalem ; couldst thou be therefore said to be really at rome , or in hierusalem ? it remains therefore , that thou shew , how thy soul , which ascends not really into heaven , can be really fed with the flesh of christ , unless christ be truly and really on earth , and there also in many places at one and the same time , since many of you at the very same moment communicate both in england and france . but thou wilt reply , thou art indeed ignorant of the manner ; yet certainly knowst , that thou art fed. is it so ? if thou knowst not , by what means these things are done , then art thou not sure , but it may be by transubstantiation . why then dost thou with so great boldness and fury inveigh against it ? but be it , that thou knowst not the manner ; yet thou at least knowst , that the manner is such , as may not in thought and faith only , but in very deed , joyn thee to christ's body , or else thou must confess , that thou dost not indeed receive christ's body . for thou sayst , that by faith thou eatest our lords body . now what doest thou mean by these words ? that thou by faith hold'st and believ'st , vertue so to flow into thy soul from the body of christ , who is in heaven , that thou art thereby in some sort united to him ? but this , o sectary , is not really to receive christ's body , 't is at most to receive it but imaginarily . for that power , and those vertues , which thou say'st , flow from christ into thee , are not indeed christ's body : and thou believest that thou receivest really nothing else . nor dost thou , i suppose , eat these vertues . why therefore to elude the sentence of the fathers , who testify , that christ's flesh and blood is in very deed receiv'd ; do you make use of such vain deceits , saying , that you also hold the same ? but if thou say'st , that thou by faith apprehend'st , and believ'st christ's body to be really communicated to thee ; i answer , that this faith of thine is , even in thine own judgement , false and ridiculous , as making thee believe , that which is not : since in thy opinion our lords body is no where but in heaven , and thou art really no where but on earth . but because thou frequently appeal'st to the scriptures , come and let us hear , what they say . in st. matthew ( chap. xxvi . ) our saviour says , this is my body , this is my blood : in st. mark ( chap. xiv . ) this is my body , this is my blood : in st. luke ( chap. xxii . ) this is my body ; this is the chalice of the new testament in my blood : in st. john ( chap. vi . ) vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye shall not have life in you : and st. paul in his first epistle to the corinthians ( ch . xi . ) pronounces him who comes unworthily to the eucharist , guilty of the body and blood of our lord. these are plain words , no perplex'd testimonies , nor things mention'd but once . 〈◊〉 which being clearly vanquish'd , you presently fly to 〈◊〉 ●xposition ; whereas , when any thing seems to fav●● you , ye stick close to the letter , refuse all interpretation , and cry out , we must adhere to the word of god. as if you were the sole judges , and had authority , at your pleasure , one while to decide by the bare text of scripture , without admitting any expositor ; and soon after to appeal to interpretations , and those only of your own invention . but come on : what do you object against us ? arguments you say , taken out of the scriptures . first , that the eucharist is sometimes in the scripture call'd bread and wine . next , that christ said in st. john ( chap. vi . ) it is the spirit that quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing . the words , which i have spoken unto you , are spirit and life . lastly , that christ sits at the right-hand of the father , and shall come from thence to judge the quick and the dead . but i answer , that these words are more obscure , than those you would have explain'd by them , to wit , this is my body ; my flesh is meat indeed . now what kind of philosophy is this , to explain one obscurity by a greater ; or , that i may speak more truly , to gather the sense of a clear place from a dark one ? but what , if we should say , that these places , you object against us , are to be interpreted by those , we have alledg'd ? what if we deny , that you have any more right to expound them , than we ? you bring only doubtful arguments , and such , as will be turn'd upon your selves . nor will it be any great labour briefly to solve them all . the eucharist , you say , is in the scriptures call'd bread and wine . therefore the scriptures , you say , acknowledge bread and wine to be truly in that sacrament . proceed , sectary , and by the same argument more closely press us in this manner . the catholicks in their discourses and prayers frequently call the eucharist bread : they believe therefore , that there is in it true bread ; and not only our lords body . is not the reason and strength of the argument the same ? why will you rather make the scriptures , when they mention the eucharist by the name of bread and wine , to assert true bread and wine to be therein , than us catholicks , when we call it by the same names ? give me leave therefore thus to retort this argument upon you . in the catholick church we often term the eucharist bread and wine ; and yet believe not any substance of bread or wine to be therein . therefore it cannot from the scriptures , using the same names , be concluded , that they acknowledge true bread and wine to remain in it . lay aside , sectary , the prejudice of thy faction , and tell me , whether thou art not more justly overthrown by the same argument , with which thou assaulted'st us . for , that we often style this sacrament bread and wine , is so well known to those , who live amongst us , that 't were impudence to deny it , and gross ignorance not to know it . how often do we desire , that not only the eating , but the effect of this bread may be granted us ? how often do we beg of god the father , that this bread may be to us not a pledge of death , but of glory ? and all this by similitudes and figures . which kind of speeches you your selves also do not deny to be frequent in holy writ . so st. bernard ( whom none can without blushing deny to be ours ) calls the eucharist bread , when in his first sermon on the sixth sunday after pentecost distinguishing bread into several species , he says , moreover the seventh kind of bread is the eucharist , because our saviour says , the bread , which i give , is my flesh for the life of the world. we therefore with the scriptures call this sacrament bread : both because , as the natural man lives by bread , so does the spiritual man by the eucharist . to signify which , christ commanded it to be made of bread and wine , and many of the fathers by our daily supersubstantial bread , which we are taught to pray for , understand this heavenly food . and also , because it is in the form of bread ; but principally because 't was bread before . for we often call a thing , that now is , by the name it formerly had . and how often have you heard from our writers the example of aaron's rod , which , being turn'd into a serpent , was certainly no longer a rod , unless you will say , that god rather put an illusion on pharaoh's eyes , than by a real miracle admonish'd him of his majesty ; and yet even then it was call'd a rod : to wit , because it had from a rod been chang'd into a serpent : and they all cast down their rods , which were turn'd into serpents ; but aaron 's rod devour'd their rods , exod. chap. vii . but not to say much against so weak an argument . the scriptures call the eucharist bread : be it so . the antient fathers have often done the same : and we also do the same . why then may we not be believ'd to think with those , with whom we speak ? nor is the arrow of any greater force , they shoot against us from these words of our lord : it is the spirit which quickneth , the flesh profiteth nothing . for if they will have them simply understood , that the flesh of christ profiteth nothing ; i would ask them , why they then say , that our lord's body is receiv'd by them in the eucharist : nay , why christ said , vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye shall not have life in you . do they think that christ contradicted himselfe ? or will they deny it to have been always believ'd in the church , that christ's flesh profiteth the receiver ? they must ever be fain to distinguish between the manner , how our lord's flesh , being receiv'd , profits , and how it profits not . they must , to wit , acknowledge , that the capharnaits hearing christ's words , fancy'd to themselves some gross , unworthy , and carnal manner , in which he would affirm , he should be eaten : my flesh so taken , as you in your selves imagine , profits not : i will give my self in a more noble and spiritual manner than you believe . and being by you taken for food , will quicken your souls . and thus of the manner of taking , and not meerly of the taking it self , did christ say , the flesh profiteth nothing . let us now see the force of your argument . christ says , his flesh taken as the capharnaits fancy'd , will profit nothing : therefore , say you , it will not profit , being taken in such manner , as the catholicks believe : but thou must first , o sectary , prove , that we think , as the capharnaits did , and that we will not hear the spirit , which quickens . now both these are false . the capharnaits , as is manifest from the scriptures , had no higher conceit of our saviours words , than that he promis'd , his body should be eaten as other meats ; that it should be divided into parts , taste like flesh , and being taken consume . we in a spiritual quickning sense believe , that christ is indeed truly and really present in the eucharist . but after a spiritual and incomprehensible manner ; that he is receiv'd by us , whole , inviolate , and never consuming . thus will there be a mutual agreement between those words of our lord , by which he asserts , that his flesh is truly given for meat ; and those others , by which he shews , that , if you understand this matter carnally with the capharnaits , the flesh profiteth nothing . now if you deny , that the flesh of our lord is any way profitable , you will contradict those words , vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the son of man , ye shall not have life in you . but if you say , that 't is in some manner , but not in that capharnaitical one , both receiv'd and profitable : this indeed we shall readily grant , but shall withall add , that this holy manner is in our church , and that neither these texts , nor any other , have any thing to the contrary . you say lastly , that the scriptures often affirm , that christ is , and shall be in heaven , till he shall come in great majesty at the end of the world : and that therefore he cannot be on earth , in the eucharist , in the hands of the priests . the answer is ready . christ is and shall be in heaven in that great and visible majesty till the end of the world. he is not seen publickly by us in that brightness , nor is he yet so much as conversant amongst us , to receive those offices , which may be indeed profitable to a body . such , as st. mary magdalen perform'd , when she anointed him , and in respect of which our saviour said , the poor you have always with you ; but me you have not always . he will not therefore come down from heaven in the glory of his majesty till the calling of all men to judgment . but he is often present at our affairs in another manner , after another fashion , with lesser state ; he is , i say , often truly and really present with us here on earth . he appear'd in the way to st. paul , as he was going to damascus , and spake to him in the way . so says ananias to st. paul ( act. ix . ) our lord jesus hath sent me , who appear'd to thee in the way , as thou camest . and barnabas declar'd to the apostles , how paul had seen our lord in the way , and that he had spoken to him . and ( acts xxxiii . ) now the night following our lord , standing by him , said , be constant , for as thou hast testify'd of me in hierusalem , so must thou testify at rome also . and lastly , ( act. xxvi . ) i am jesus , whom thou persecutest . but arise , and stand upon thy feet : for to this end have i appear'd to thee , that i may ordain thee a minister and witness of those things , which thou hast seen , and of those things , in which i will appear to thee . and say not , that , 't was an angel , who having taken christ's shape , appear'd to st. paul. for to let pass its being distinguish'd in the acts of the apostles , when our saviour or when an angel appear'd to st. paul , he himself has in his first epistle to the corinthians ( chap. xv . ) taken away the doubt , where , after he had , to prove christ's resurrection to them , affirm'd him to have been seen after his rising again by his apostles and disciples , he adds , and last of all he was seen of me also , as of an abortive . now 't is certain , that this his being seen of st. paul was not till some years after the day of his ascension : for st. paul was a long time a persecutor , not an apostle . 't is certain also , that 't was not an angel , but christ himself , who thus appear'd to st. paul : since he affirms him to have been the same , that was seen by st. peter and the other apostles , to assure them of his resurrection . for sure thou wilt not say , that 't was an angel , and not our lord himself , that appear'd to the apostles during the fourty days , which were between the pasch and his ascension . childish moreover would st. paul's argument be , were it thus to be understood , that christ was undoubtedly risen , because he had seen an angel in christ's shape . our lord was then really present on earth with st. paul , and has been so with several other saints . he is really also present with us in the sacrament , but cover'd with the form of a creature , and under vails , that conceal the creator . and do'st thou still say , thou doubt'st , whether the body , which is in heaven , can be also on earth ? assuredly , sectary , it can . our lord's body can be at one time in two several places : and if in two , why not in infinite ? for what hinders our bodies , that they cannot be at once in several places ? is it not the condition of our nature ? but why cannot he , who fram'd our nature , change also its laws ? this is the humble learning , this is the christian phylosophy of the primitive church . st. ambrose ( lib. hexam . cap. . ) has this expression : since his word is the beginning of nature , he may by right assume the giving the law to nature , who gave it its original . and again ( lib. . hexam cap. . ) the word of god is the efficient cause of nature . but this perhaps thou can'st not sufficiently comprehend : no more indeed canst thou comprehend god ; and yet god is is not therefore less god. if thou measurest the works of god by the extent of thy understanding , how weak , how obscure , how depending on thy self thou wilt make him ! thy strength of understanding depends on him , and not his power on thy understanding . but is there any greater difficulty in granting one body to be in several places , than two bodies to be in one ; or admitting , as the ppilosophers speak , a penetration of dimensions ? the difficulty is altogether equal . now christ brought his reviv'd body through stone , which was very great at the door of the monument , that is , he shew'd , there might be a penetration of dimensions , whenever he pleas'd : for the stone was not roll'd away by the angel , till st. mary magdalen came to anoint our lord. mary magdalen came , and the other mary to see the sepulchre : and behold there was a great earthquake : for the angel of our lord descended from heaven , and coming roll'd back the stone , and sate upon it , &c. and the angel answering , said to the women , fear not you , mat. chap. . after christ came to his disciples through close and solid walls . and when it was late that day , the first of the sabbaths , and the doors were shut , where the disciples were gathered together for fear of the jews , jesvs came , and stood in the midst , &c. joh. chap. . again , jesvs came , the doors being shut , and stood in the midst . here some of you are not asham'd to pretend certain unworthy trifles , that christ perhaps came in at the window , or descended by the tunnel of the chimney , or open'd the doors , which before were shut : an impudent saying , proceeding , if i am not mistaken , from men , who seek to gain repute by inconsiderate cavilling . is it then to no purpose , that we hear these words so carefully repeated : when the doors were shut : the doors being shut ? to what end did st. john use these words , but to signify christ's miraculous entrance , at which himself was present ? why did he not add , that he came in at the window , or the chimney , or by opening the doors , the shutting of which he had so distinctly noted : that he entred then , o sectary , the doors being shut , is nothing else , but that he entred against the laws of nature through the said doors . moreover , says st. hierom in his first book against jovinian , he so entred the doors being shut , which the nature of humane bodies suffers not : shall we therefore deny that our lord and st. peter had true bodies , because contrary to nature they walk'd on the waters ? st. ambrose on the four and twentieth chapter of st. lukes gospel has these words : but st. thomas had just cause of admiration , when he saw a body brought in through places unpassable to bodies , all things being shut , and no place broken . and 't was therefore a miracle , how a corporal nature should introduce it self through an in penetrable body , by an invisible passage , in a visible appearance , easie to be touch'd , hard to be understood . and in the same place , though st. peter believ'd the resurrection , yet might he be troubled , when he saw our lord on a suddain with his body come in upon them into those places , which were incompass'd with lock'd doors , and close walls . nor did christ at his resurrection only , but at his birth also shew this penetration of dimensions , coming into the world from the womb of his most holy mother without violating the enclosers of her virginity . st. augustin in his two and twentieth book of the city of god ( chap. . ) relates to this purpose a famous miracle , hapening in his time . he says , that patronia a carthaginian matron , had obtain'd from a jew a certain ring , which she wore bound to her naked body with a girdle for the cure of her disease . that , she going afterwards in pilgrimage to the relicks of st. stephen ; the ring which she wore , fell from her whole and unhurt ; the girdle to which it was ty'd , remaining whole also ; that the judaical remedy might by a christian miracle be remov'd from this woman before she was heal'd through the martyrs intercession . he further adds , they believe not this , who believe not , that our lord jesvs was brought forth without detriment to his mothers virginity , and went in to his disciples the doors being shut . but let them indeed enquire of this , and if they find it true , believe those . she is a woman of quality , nobly born , nobly married , and dwelling at carthage ; the largeness of the city , and the dignity of the person will not suffer the truth to be conceal'd from the enquirers . the martyr himself , by whose intercession she was cur●d , certainly believ'd in the son of her , who remains a virgin ; in him , who went in to his disciples , the doors being shut . these then are the scripture histories of our lords nativity and resurrection ; this the primitive churches sense of those histories ; that two bodies may , god commanding it , be together in the same place ; or , to speak with the phylosopbers , that there may be a penetration of dimensions by the divine power . now 't is certainly no less repugnant to humane sense and nature , that two bodies should be thus together in one place , than that one should be at the same time in many . the difficulty on both sides is not only alike , but the very same . the church has always acknowledg'd both of them above the force of nature , but below the power of god , having ever taught her children , that christ both penetrated the walls , and is present in the blessed sacrament in several places at once . but there are three things , which you , o sectaries , cannot well digest : the name of mass , the eucharists being term'd a propitiatory sacrifice , and lastly the doctrine of transubstantiation . the mass is to you so hateful a word , that the hating of it is amongst you a token of love. and yet , were it not , that i confine my self to that briefness , i began with , it might abundantly be shewn , that this holy word has always been us'd to signify the celebration of the eucharist . 't is now about thirteen hundred years , since the time of st. ambrose , who in his epistle to marcellina , says , i began to say mass : and soon after , i began to pray unto god in the oblation , that he would help , &c. st. telesphorus pope and martyr , who might for his age have seen st. john the apostle , testifies the mass to have been in his time , ordaining many things in the celebration of it : which very thing the sectaries themselves confess . for the magdeburgians in their second century ( cap. . ) blame him for multiplying masses , encreasing their ceremonies , and tying them to a certain time . behold , how , whilst they unwarily accuse telesphorus , they acknowledge the antiquity of the mass : confessing even the name to have been us'd in the very beginning of the primitive church . but whatever becomes of the name , let us consider the thing it self . we say , that the celebration of the mass is a sacrifice truly and properly propitiatory . you , or rather some of you deny it ; for the more learned agree , at least tacitly , with us . isaac casaubon but few months before his death being in the presence chamber of the most serene king of great britain , i fell in discourse with him , as did also another gentleman , a courtier , but no catholick ; whom , were it necessary , i could easily name . passing from one thing to another , we hap'ned amongst the rest upon the eucharist , which i earnestly defending , you need not , ( said casaubon ) take all this pains , i willingly profess , and do assert it to be manifest from the rites of the antient church , that the eucharist is a sacrifice ; and not only a sacrifice of praise , as many amongst us would have it , but a propitiatory sacrifice ; sacrificium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . these were his very words : thus did he in two languages express , what kind of sacrifice he thought it to be . i was not a little glad to hear him ; whilst the third person , who was present at our discourse , wondred at this his opinion , affirming , that he was more startled at these words , than at an hundred arguments of the papists . he can testify the truth of this , being still alive , and daily attending on the king. and he has been so far from being a catholick , that it cannot be fear'd , he would advantage us by speaking contrary to the truth . and the oblation indeed of the eucharist is so frequently by the fathers call'd sacrifice , that the sectaries no longer dispute with us about the name ; but only about what is to be understood by it . it cannot , ( says kemnitius ) be deny'd , that the antients , when they spake of the celebration of the lords supper , us'd the words sacrifice , immolation , oblation , host , and victim ; as also the verbs to offer , sacrifice , and immolate . hear therefore , sectary , but st. augustin alone , and thou wilt say , that the church in his age us'd not these words as borrowed or figuratively taken , but understood them in their proper , true and usual sense ; that the eucharist is a true sacrifice , properly so call'd , and propitiatory not for the living only , but also for the dead . he relates therefore in the ninth book of his confessions ( ch. . ) that his dying mother spake thus , lay this body any where , let not the care of it trouble you in the least : this only i desire of you , that when you shall be present at our lords altar , you will there remember me . and again , ( chap. . ) he says of her , she thought not of having her body sumptuously bury'd , &c. she commanded us not this , but only requested , that she might be remembred at thy altar , where she had without one days intermission constantly serv'd , whence she knew the holy victim to be dispens'd , by which the hand-writing that was against us , is blotted out . he had also before ( chap. . ) said more plainly ; behold , when her corps was carry'd out , we went and return'd without tears . nor did i so much as weep at those prayers , we pour'd forth to thee , when the sacrifice of our redemption was offer'd for her ; her body now being plac'd near the grave , before it was deposited therein , as the custom there is ; but i was all the day in secret exceeding sad , &c. thou hear'st now , o sectary , not only st. augustin's mother , not only st. augustin , but the very custom and sense of the church in that age. when the sacrifice of our redemption was offer'd for her . here thou hast three things : that the oblation of the eucharist is a sacrifice ; that 't is also propitiatory . for in vain , or impiously would the church offer a sacrifice to our lord for the dead , which could not render him propitious to them . thou hast lastly , the church in that age , wherein , you are wont to say , she was yet pure , by publick consent praying for the dead . hence the matter is so clear and certain , that the blindness of those is to be lamented , who refuse so clear a light. now what is their complaint against transubstantiation ? does the word offend them ? or the thing , that is signify'd by this word ? they say , 't is a popish fiction , sprung up under innocent iii. in the lateran council . to wit , because transubstantiation is there manifestly decreed . now , i ask , sectary , if pope innocent deliver'd this faith to us , who deliver'd it to the greeks ? for certainly they wholly agree with us in this matter . would they , who have rejected our communion , who hate the very name of the roman pontifs , have all generally admitted , and inviolably held such a doctrine , of so great moment , so newly ( as you would have it ) devis'd by the latins ? but they have not the word transubstantiation . what then ? they hold and believe th● thing . for they believe that the bread and wine after consecration cease to be such , and that instead of them succeed the true body and blood of our lord. why then may we not believe , that the roman church holds still the same faith , which she held , before the word transubstantiation came into use ; when the greeks at this very day use not the word transubstantiation , and yet have in this matter altogether the same belief with the romans ? was not the holy trinity believ'd to be homousian or consubstantial , before the word homousian was ever taken up ? what matter is it , if some significative word , lately found out by divines , be received into use , as long as the thing signify'd by it , was before part of the christian faith , though express'd in other words and phrases ? now that the christians before the time of innocent the iii. had the same belief of the eucharist , as we now have , may be easily shewn from approv'd authors , who preceded innocent . st. bernard dy'd fifty years , before innocent the iii. was advanc'd to the pontificat . now what can be more express than these words of his in his sermon on our lords supper ? this is truly an heavenly favour , this is certainly an abundant grace , this is surely a super excellent glory , that a priest should hold his god , and with his hand give him to others . but left he should repeal these testimonies by such frivolous exceptions , as you for the most part use ( pretending , that an universal darkness had then over-shadow'd all mankind , and driven them into many and great errors ) let us go back to those ages , which were even in your own judgment uncorrupted . we have already given you not only the judgment of st. augustin , but also the opinion and practice of the church describ'd by him : that the eucharist is a victim , whereby our sins are effac'd ; that 't is a sacrifice ; that 't is a propitiation , which is offer'd to god for the dead . you require those , that are more antient than st. augustin ? st. justin martyr the very next age after the the apostles in his second apology to the emperor , has these words . as by the word of god our saviour jesvs christ was incarnate , and took flesh and blood for our salvation : so we are taught , that by prayers taken from god's word the eucharist , by him made food , with which our blood and flesh are through mutation nourish'd , is the flesh and blood of that incarnate jesvs . st. hilary , who liv'd in the third age of the church , says in his eighth book of the trinity , there is no room to doubt of the truth of the flesh and blood : for now both by the profession of our lord himself , and our own faith , it is truly flesh , and truly blood. st. gregory nyssen of the same age in his catechetical oration ( chap. . ) we rightly believe , that the bread , sanctify'd by the word of god , is truly chang'd into the body of god the word . st. chrysostom in his two and fiftieth homily on st. matthew speaks thus , why should he disdain to give thee his body , who did more , that is , laid down his life for thee ? let us hear therefore , priests , as well as others ; how great , how admirable a thing is granted us ; let us hear , i pray , and tremble , he has deliver'd us flesh , he has set before us himself immolated . and st. cyril of hierusalem , more antient than st. chrysostom , says in his fourth catechism , that a christian man knows , and certainly holds , this bread , which is seen by us , not to be bread , though the taste thinks it to be bread , but the body of christ ; and the wine , which is beheld by us , though it seem wine to the sense of tasting , yet not to be wine , but the blood of christ ? what needs many words ? no age of the primitive church , none of the fathers dissented . the testimonies of all ages and writers have been formerly given thee by such , as have thought good to handle this argument more at large . let me now speak to thee , o sectary , if thou desirest to be cur'd . this is one of the greatest affairs in the christian faith , whether in the eucharist be christ himself , or only bread , which is the figure of christ's body : in so great a matter , and in which to err , is certain destruction ; consider , whether side is supported by the safest arguments . as to the scriptures , 't would be impudence to affirm , that there are clearer , or even as clear words for you , as these are for us : this is my body , this is my blood : the bread , which i will give , is my flesh. some places therefore are plain and clear of themselves ; and others , which want interpretation , we expound according to the sentiments of men certainly great and numerous , whose wisdom , learning , and piety were remarkable ; and lastly , as is most agreeable to the divine institution , this is my body . now if you would understand , what the sense of the church was from the apostles time , it can no way better be understood , than by that of the fathers , who then liv'd . but there is not any one of the fathers , that have written of the eucharist , whom we approve not , or whom we refuse for our judge . for though some of them may have sometimes us'd certain obscure words , which you also have endeavour'd to abuse for the support of your heresies ; yet is there none of them that have spoken thus dubiously , who has not also other words extant , which are plain and clear for us . nay , most of them have so written , that asserting our opinion , they cannot be so much as imagin'd to have the least word or expression , which favours your heresy . then , if you have regard to the consent of christians , it must be confess'd , that not only the latin and greek churches , but all christians throughout the whole world unanimously agree in our opinion . so that which way soever you seek for arguments , there are still more for us : if the learning of the persons be respected , we have far the greater part of men , famous for knowledge ; if ages , we have unquestionably more ; if the number of men , you may well be asham'd to compare with us . thus being every way inferior to us , you have nothing remaining but your obstinacy , and vain incredulity , which with you is call'd prudence , or wisdom , wholly consisting in such kind of philosophy as this : can god do this ; or is it likely , that he would ; what inconveniencies hence arise ; how unworthy is this of the divine majesty ? after the same manner did the heathens put up queries against christ , and the arians against the trinity . away with this vain solicitude : you may possibly sometimes know , why god's works are done ; but never how . give me leave to use the words of st. ambrose , who ( says he , hexam . chap. . ) seeing these things , can with his weak understanding search out a possibility of the reason ? all which the divine power , not to be comprehended by humane minds , nor express'd by our discourses , has knit together by the authority of his own will. but if thou , o sectary , art not mov'd by our agreement , let the blind contention , that is among your selves , startle thee : since divided into sects , you with great bitterness contend about the opinion , you ought to have of this sacrament . would to god thou knewest , how pleasant it is to prostrate thy self before the altar , where the angels ( says st. chrysosthm in his third homily on the epistle to the ephesians ) with trembling reverence the host : how sweet it is there to adore our lord , who ( to use st. augustin's words in his commentary on the psalm ) walk'd here in the flesh , and gave the same flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation : how far lastly it excells all humane delights to reject vain circumstances , and believe only the word of god , to which so many foregoing ages have assented ; to acknowledge that to be our lords body which our lord himself has affirm'd to be his body ; and with a mouth of flesh to receive in all due humility the flesh of our lord , that he may nourish our souls with the effect of the sacrament , and the spirit which quickneth . none shall before the tyranny of antichrist deprive the faithful of these joyes , nor can any one , but he , who has experienc'd them , comprehend them . the end of the second chapter . advertisement . there being many excellent pieces of the same author , containing a direct , short , and full proof of all those points commonly objected to roman catholicks by sectaries , as having furnish'd a pretended occasion of their schism : i design god willing , one by one to prepare them for the press , that the world may see , how unreasonable and groundless are all the exceptions made against us ; and manifestly repugnant to god's holy word , and the received judgment of all antiquity . transusbstantiation examin'd and confuted in two sermons on the lord's supper / preach'd in the reign of queen elizabeth by h. smith, sometime preacher at st. clement danes. smith, henry, ?- . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing s estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) transusbstantiation examin'd and confuted in two sermons on the lord's supper / preach'd in the reign of queen elizabeth by h. smith, sometime preacher at st. clement danes. smith, henry, ?- . [ ], p. printed by j. wallis, and are to be sold by most booksellers, london : . "licensed june the th, ." imperfect: cropped and stained, with loss of print. reproduction of original in the huntington library. includes bibliographical references. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng bible. -- n.t. -- corinthians, st, xi, - -- sermons. transubstantiation -- controversial literature. lord's supper. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - andrew kuster sampled and proofread - andrew kuster text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion transubstantiation examin'd and confuted , in two sermons on the lords supper , preach'd in the reign of queen elizabeth . by h. smith , sometime preacher at st. clement danes . licensed , june the th . . london , printed by j. wallis , and are to be sold by most booksellers . . the first sermon on the lord's supper . cor. xi . , . the lord jesus in the night that he was betrayed took bread : and when he had given thanks , he brake it , and said , take , eat : this is my body which is broken for you , this do ye in remembrance of me . the word and the sacraments are the two breasts wherewith our mother doth nurse us . seeing every one receiveth , and few understand what they receive , i thought it the necessariest doctrine to preach of the sacrament ; which is a witness of gods promises , a remembrance of christs death , and a seal of our adoption : therefore christ hath not instituted this sacrament for a fashion in his church , to touch , and feel , and see , as wee gaze upon pictures in the windows , but as the woman which had the bloody issue , touching the hem of christs garment , drew vertue from himself , because she believed : so christ would that we touching these signs should draw vertue from himself , that is , all the graces which these signs represent . therefore as the levites , under the law , were bound to prepare their brethren before they came to the passeover ; so preachers of the gospel should prepare their brethren before they come to the supper of the lord. for which purpose i have chosen this place to the corinthians , which is the clearest and fullest declaration of this sacrament in all the scripture . the lord jesus in the night , &c. the summe of all these words is , the institution , and use of the lords supper . first , paul sheweth the author of it , the lord jesus ; then the time when it was instituted , in the night that he was betrayed ; then the manner how he did institute it , he took bread and when he had given thanks , he brake it , and gave unto his disciphes , &c. then the end why he did institute it , for a remembrance of his death . touching the author , he which is signified by it , was the author of it , the lord jesus hath bid us to supper , i am not worthy ( sayth john ) to loose his shoe : so we are not worthy to waite at his trancher , and yet he will have us to sit at his table . to him belongeth the power to ordain sacraments in his church , because he fulfilled the sacraments of the law. when christ came , the passeover ceased , because he is our passeover ; that is , the lamb by whose blood we are saved . when christ came , circumcision ceased , because he is our circumcision , that is , the purifier and clenser of our sins . now these two sacraments are fulfilled : he hath appointed two other sacraments for them ; in stead of the paschal lamb , which the jews did eat , he hath given us another lamb to eat , which john calleth the lamb of god , that is himself upon whom all do feed , whosoever do receive this sacrament with an assured faith that christ died to possess them of life . the breaking of the bread doth signify the wounding of the body : the powring out of the wine doth signify the shedding of his blood. the eating of the bread and drinking of the wine doth signify that his flesh and blood do nourish in us life eternal , as the bread and wine do nourish the life present . in stead of circumcision , which began at abraham , he hath ordained baptisme , which began at john , a more lively representation of the true circumcision of the heart , because it representeth unto us the blood of christ , which washeth our souls as the water in baptism washeth our bodies . touching the time , in the night ( saith paul ) therefore this sacrament is called the lord's supper , because it was instituted at night when they used to sup . but what night ? even that night ( saith paul ) when he was betraied : that night which he should have cursed , as job did the day of his birth , if he had suffered against his will : that night when he should have thought to destroy men , as men conspired to destroy him . that night ( saith paul ) this sacrament of grace , and peace , and life began : even that night when we betraied him . many nights did he spend in watching and praying for us ; and is there a night now for us to betray him ? that was a dark night , when men went about to put out the sun which brought them light . who can but wonder , to see how christ and they for whom christ came , were occupied at one time ? when they devised mischief against him , and sought all means to destroy him , then he consulted how to save them , and instituted the same night this blessed sacrament , to convey all his graces and blessings unto them , even that night when they betraied him . the reason why this action was deferred until night , is , because that was the time appointed by the law to eat the pass-over which was like a predecessor of this sacrament . the reason why he deferr'd it untill his last night , was , because the passeover could not be ended before the fulness of time , and the true paschal lamb were come to be slain in stead of the other . therefore how fitly did christ end the pass-over , which was a sign of his sufferings , so presently before his suffering ; and beside , how sweetly did he confirm his disciples faith , when as they should see that the next day performed before their eyes , which over night both in the pass-over and in the sacrament , was so lively resembled unto them ? if any man from this do gather , that we ought to eat the lords supper at night , as christ did , he must understand that we have not the same cause to do so which christ had , because of the passover . and therefore the church which hath discretion of times and places , hath altered both the time and the place , using the temples in stead of the chamber , and the morning in stead of the evening : for indifferent things are ruled by order and decency . touching the manner , he took bread , and when he had geven thanks , he brake it and gave it unto them . he would not eat it , not break it , before he had given thanks to god. what need he which was god , give thanks to god , but to shew us what we should do when we eat our selves ? in all things give thanks ( saith paul ) whereby we declare that all things come from god : but the wicked believe easier that god doth take , than that he doth give , and therefore they never pray heartily unto him for any thing , nor feelingly thank him for it . for which the lord complaineth , saying : i have loved you , yet ye say , wherein hast thou loved us ? shewing that we are worse then the ox , which knoweth his feeder . and if that we acknowledg all things from god , yet we do like lot , is it not a little one , ( saith he ) when he craved to go unto zoar ? as though it were not much which he asked : so we mince and extenuate the gifts of god , before we receive them and after : like them which have a grace for dinner , and none for breakfast , as though they had their dinners from god , and breakfasts of their own . our example did not so , although it was but bread which he received , yet he was more thankful for bread , than many which bury the fouls , and fishes , and beasts in their belly : for if account of all were kept , for one that prayeth ; give us this day our daily bread , a hundred take their bread , and meat , and sleep too which never pray for it . after he had given thanks , he brake it , and gave unto them , and said . take , eat ; for when he had given thanks to god , then it was sanctified , and blessed , and lawful to eat . so when thou servest god , then it is lawful for thee to use gods blessings , then thou maist eat and drink as christ did , but not before : for these things were created to serve them which serve god : if thou doest not serve him for them , thou encrochest upon gods blessings , and stealest his creatures , which are no more thine , then thou art his : for the good god created all things for good men , as the devils possessions are reserved for evil men . therefore as christ would not break the bread before he had given thanks to the founder , so know , that there is some thing to be done before thou receive any benefit of god , and presume not to use his creatures with more liberty than his son did , which did not eat without giving thanks , nor rise again without singing a psalm . it followeth , this is my body . here is the fruit of his thanks before ; he prayed that the bread and wine might be blessed , and they were blessed . as isaac's blessing shewed it self upon jacob whom he blessed , so christ's blessing appeared straight upon these mysteries : for it could not be said before , this is my body , because it was meer bread ; but now it may be called his body because his blessing hath infused that vertue into it , that it doth not only represent his body , but conveys his body and himself unto us . the efficacie of his blessing is in this sacrament ever since , sanctifying it unto us as well as it did to the apostles , even as christ's prayer stayed peter's faith after christ was dead . now you have heard the meaning of these words , he took bread , and blessed it , and brake it , and gave it : you shall see with what a mystical resemblance they unite christ and us . first , as christ in the supper took bread to feed us , so in his birth he took our flesh to save us . secondly , as christ when he had taken the bread , blessed the bread to make it a spiritual food : so christ when he had taken our flesh , powred forth most rich and precious graces into it , to make it food of life unto us . thirdly , as christ when he had blessed the bread , brake the bread ; so christ when he had filled his body with most precious graces , brake it up like a rich treasure-house , his hands by the nailes , his back by the stripes , his head by the thorns , his side by the spear , that out of every hole a river of grace and goodness might issue and flow forth unto us . lastly , as christ gave the bread when he had broken it , so christ ( by a lively faith ) communicateth his body after he hath crucified it . hereby we are taught , that when we see the minister take the bread to feed us , we must conceive , that christ ( being god from everlasting ) took our flesh to save us . when we see the minister bless the bread to a holy use , we must conceive , that christ ( by uniting the god-head unto it ) sanctified his flesh for our redemption . when we see the minister break the bread to sustain our bodies , we must conceive that christ in his death , break his body to refresh our souls . when we see the minister give the bread to our hand , we must conceive , that christ as truly offereth himself to our faith , to be received of us . because upon these words the papists ground their transubstantiation , that is , that the bread is changed into christ's flesh , and the wine is turned into christ's blood , whereby we eat the same body which dyed upon the cross ; and drink the same blood which issued out of his side . that you may see the blindness of this popish dream , i would have you but mark every word of the scripture , how they make against transubstantiation , that ye may see them slain like goliah with their own sword : even as god made caiphas speak against himself , so the scriptures which papists and other hereticks alledge , do make against themselves , like the baalites which wounded their own flesh . i may liken their al●egations to satan's when he tempted christ in the wilderness , he alledged but one sentence of scripture for himself , and that psalm out of which he borrowed it made so plain against him , that he was necessitated to pick here a word and there a word , and leave out that which went before , and skip in the midst , and omit that which came after , or else he had marr'd his cause . the scripture is so holy , pure , and true , that no word or syllable thereof can make for the devil , or for sinners , or for hereticks : yet as the devil alledged scripture , tho' it made not for him but against him ; so do the libertines , epicures and hereticks , as tho' they had learned at his school . now there is no sentence of the scripture , which the wiser papists alledge boldly for transubstantiation but this , that christ said , this is my body : by which they may prove as well , that christ is a door , because he saith , i am the door : or a vine , because he saith , i am a vine : for his sayings are alike . figurative speeches must not be construed literally , but this is hereticks fashion . if you mark you shall see throughout , that all the testimonies which the papists alledge for their heresies , are either tropes or figures , allegories , parables , allusions or dark speeches , which when they presume to expound allegorically , or literally , without conference of any other scriptures ; then they wander and stray from the mark , or else it is impossible that the truth should maintain error , that is , that the scripture should speak for heresie , if it were not wrested and perverted : therefore we see that eve never erred , untill she corrupted the text. now we will enter the lists with our adversaries , and see whether these words do prove that the bread and wine are turned into christ's body . paul saith , jesus took bread : well then ; yet it is bread : when he had taken it , then he blessed it ; what did he bless ? the bread which he took ; well then , yet it is bread : when he had blessed it , then he break it ; what did he break ? the bread which he blessed ; well then , yet it is bread : when he had broken it , then he gave it ; what did he give ? the bread which he break : well then , yet it is bread : when he had given it , they did eat it ; what did they eat ? the bread which he gave them ; well then , yet it is bread : when they did eat it , then he said , this is my body ; what did he call his body ? the bread which they did eat ; well then , yet is it bread. if it be bread all this while , when he did take it , and bless it , and break it , and gave it , and they did eat it , when is it turned into his body ? here they stand like the sadduces , as mute as fishes . now that ye may see , that not we only say it is bread and wine after the consecration ; in the . verse , christ himself doth call it bread and wine after he had given it , as he did before . and in mark he saith , i will drink no more of the fruit of the vine . here christ saith , that it was the fruit of the vine which he drank ; but his blood is not the fruit of vines , but wine , therefore wine was his drink , and not blood. beside , if you would hear paul expound christ , he sheweth that all our fathers had the same substance of christ in their sacraments , that we have in ours ; for he saith , they all did eat the same spiritual meat , and all drank the same spiritual drink . straight he saith , that this meat , and this drink was christ. mark that he saith not onely , they did eat the same meat that we eat ; but he saith , that this meat was christ : and not only so , but to shew that christ is not a corporal meat , as the papists say ; he saith , he is a spiritual meat as we say : therefore you see that we do not eat him corporally , no more then our fathers , but that as they did eat him spiritually , so do we ; for spiritual meat must be eaten spiritually , as corporal meat is eaten corporally . again , for the signs to be turned into the thing signified by them , is utterly against the nature of a sacrament , and makes it no sacrament , because there is no sign : for every sacrament doth consist of a sign , and a thing signified : the sign is ever an earthly thing , and that which is signified is a heavenly thing . this shall appear in all examples : as , in paradise there was a very tree for the sign , and christ the thing signified by it : in circumcision there was a cuting off of the skin , and the cuting off of sin : in the passover there was a lamb , and christ : in the sabbath there was a day of rest , and eternal rest : in the sacrifice there was an offering of some beast , and the offering of christ : in the sauctuary there was the holy place , and heaven : in the propitiatory there was the golden covering , and christ our cover : in the wilderness there was a rock yielding water , and christ yielding his blood : in the apparition there was a dove , and the holy ghost : in the manna there was bread , and christ : in baptism there is very water which washeth us , and christ's blood washing us : so in the supper of christ there is very bread and wine for the sign , and the body and blood of christ for the thing signified , or else this sacrament is against the nature of all other sacraments . again , there must be a proportion between the passover and the lord's supper , because this was figured by the other . now the jews had in their passover , bread and wine , and a lamb : so our saviour christ instituting his last supper , left bread and wine , and a lamb : the which name is given to himself , because he came like a lamb , and dyed like a lamb. again , if christ's very body were offered in the sacrament , then it were not a sacrament , but a sacrifice , which two differ as much as giving , and taking : for in a sacrifice we give , and in a sacrament we receive , and therefore we say our sacrifice , and christ's sacrament . again , every sacrifice was offered upon the altar . now mark the wisdom of the holy ghost , least we should take this for a sacrifice , he never names altar when he speaks of it , but , the table of the lord. therefore it is no doubt but the devil hath kept the name of altar , that we might think it a sacrifice . again , if the bread were christ's flesh , and the wine his blood , as these two are separate one from the other ; so christ flesh should be separate from his blood , but his body is not divided , for then it were a dead body . again , that which remaineth doth nourish the body , and relish in the mouth as it did before , which could not be , but that it is the same food which it was before . again , i would ask , whose are this whitness , and hardness , and roundness , and coldness ? none of them say that it is the whitness , and hardness , and roundness , and coldness of christ's body : therefore it must needs be the whiteness , and hardness , and roundness , and coldness of the bread , or else qualities should stand without substances , which is , as if one should tell you of a house without a foundation . again , as christ dwelleth in us , so he is eaten of us : but he dwelleth in us onely by faith , ephe. . . therefore he is eaten onely by faith . again , none can be saved without the communion of the body of christ : but if all should communicate with it corporally , then neither infants , nor any of our fathers , the patriarchs , or the prophets , should be saved , because they received it not so . again , christ saith not , this wine , but this cup : and therefore by their conclusion , not only the wine should be turned into blood , but the cup too . again , paul saith , they which receive unworthily , receive their own damnation . but if it were the flesh of christ , they should rather receive salvation than damnation , because christ saith : he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood , hath life everlasting . john . . again , if they would hear an angel from heaven : when christ's body was glorified , an angel saith to the woman , he is risen , and is not here , mat. . as if he should say ; his body is but in one place at once , or else he might have been there though he was risen . again , why do they say in receiving this sacrament , ever since the primitive church , lift up your hearts , if they have all in their mouths ? to end this controversy , here we may say as the disciples said to christ , whither shall we go from thee ? i mean we need not to go to any other expositor of christ then christ himself , therefore mark what he saith : at first , when christ said that he was the bread of life , and that all which would live , must eat him , they murmured until he expounded his words , and how did he expound his words ? thus , he that cometh unto me hath eaten , and he that beleeveth in me , hath drank . after when he instituted this sacrament , in like words , they murmured not , which they would as before , if he had not resolved them before , that to eat his body , and to drink his blood , was nothing but to come to him , and believe in him . after he had said so , they murmured not , because they did see some reason in it , as it is plainly said , this is my body : so it is plainly said , these words . are spirit : that is , they must be understood spiritually , and not literally . but if it be flesh indeed , why do they not satisfy the simple people how they may eat this flesh in lent , when they forbid them to eat any flesh , they must needs eat it doubtfully , and he which doubteth , saith james , receiveth nothing : therefore he which eateth the mass , receiveth nothing . i did not alledge the fathers in my sermon , but if any suspend his assent , till they bring in their verdict , let him hear them make confession of their belief . augustin saith , the lord doubteth not to say , this is my body ; when he gave only a sign , or sacrament of his body . tertullian saith , this is my body , that is a sign of my body . ambrose saith , the bread and wine remain still the same thing that they were . theodoret saith , after the consecration , the mystical signs do not cast off their own nature , but abide still in their first substance and form . origen saith , the bread that is sanctified with the word of god , as touching the material substance thereof , goeth into the belly and forth again like other meats . irenaeus saith , that it hath two things in it , one earthly , and the other heavenly . cyril saith , our sacraments avouch not the eating of a man. cyprian saith , the lord called bread made of many grains , his body ; and called wine made of many grapes , his blood. athanasius saith , christ made mention of his ascension into heaven , that he might withdraw his disciples from corporal and fleshly eating . chrysostome saith , god giveth us things spiritual , under things visible and natural . and again , being sanctified , it is delivered from the name of bread , and is exalted to the name of the lord's body , although the nature of the bread still remain . and because they believe that the pope cannot err , pope gelasius setteth too his hand , and saith with the rest : neither the substance of the bread , nor nature of the wine , cease to be more than they were before . tell us papist , do not these fathers speak as plain as we ? canst thou avouch transubstantiation more flatly then they deny it ? how had this heresy bin chased , if the divel had hatched it in their time ? thus the scriptures on the one side , and the fathers on the other side , did so trouble three arch-papists , biel , tonstall , and fisher , that gabriel biel saith , how the body of christ is in the sacrament , is not found in the canon of the bible . tonstall saith , it had been better to leave every man to his own conjecture , as they were before the councel of lateran , than to bring in such a question . fisher saith , no man can prove by the words of the gospel , that any priest in these days doth consecrate the very body and blood of christ. here is fulfilled , out of thine own mouth i will condemn thee . but we will not carry the matter so , because a judg must have two ears , therfore now let them speak . because they cannot tell how the bread and wine should be turned into flesh and blood , and yet appear bread and wine still , they say it is a miracle : but how do they prove it ? if they contend it is a miracle , they must shew us a sign : for every miracle may be seen , like all the miracles of moses and christ , and the apostles : and therfore a miracle is called a sign , because it may be seen like a sign , and the word signifieth a wonder . and the jews craving a miracle , said ; shew us a miracle : as though they were taught to judg of miracles by sight . all which doth shew that a miracle may be seen : but here no miracle is seen . again , a miracle ( especially in the time of the gospel ) is an extraordinary thing : but they make this an ordinary thing : for if the bread and wine be turned into flesh and blood , then miracles are as common as sacraments , and so because they have mass every day , they should work miracles every day . lastly , this seemeth strange that augustin ( whom they so much honour ) gathered all the miracles which are written in the scripture , and yet amongst all , speaks not of this : therefore then it was counted no miracle : but paul speaks of lying miracles , and this is one of them . if they say that christ can turn bread and wine into his body , and therefore he doth . first , they must prove that he will , for they can do many things themselves which they do not , because they will not : therfore it is an old answer , that from can to will no argument followeth . the leper did not say unto christ , if thou canst , thou wilt : but , if thou wilt , thou canst . but the question which they think cannot be answered , like their invincible navies , is this . if the bread be not his body , why doth he call it his body ? resolve this knot , and all is clear . mark then , and we will loose it as well as we can : he saith , this is my body : as he saith after , which is broken for you : why ? his body was not broken before he suffered , how did he say then , which is broken , before it was broken ? there is no sense of it but this , the bread was broken , and signified that his body should be broken . now as the breaking of the bread did signifie the breaking of his body , so the bread must needs signifie his body : but as his body was not broken indeed when the bread was broken , so the bread could not be his body indeed , for then his body should have been broken when the bread was broken : yet let them object what they can . if ( say they ) the bread and wine be not changed into his body and blood , why doth he speak so darkly ? he might have spoken plainer . i answer , though this seem dark to papists , yet it was not dark to the apostles , they understood his meaning well enough , and all the rest for years after christ , before transubstantiation was spoken off . if the apostles had not understood his meaning , they would not stick to ask him , as their manner was , until they were acquainted with christ's phrase , whensoever they doubted upon any of his speeches , they were wont to come unto him and say ; master , what is the meaning ? but they were used to such phrases : for it was christ's manner to teach by similitudes , shewing one thing by another , which is the plainest manner of teaching , and most used in holy scripture , especially in the types and shadows of this sacrament . for example , christ calleth the lamb the passover , in place whereof this sacrament succeeded , and therefore presently after they had eaten the passover , christ instituted the sacrament to be used for it . christ ( i say ) called the lamb the passover , and yet the passover was this , an angel passed over the houses of the israelites , and struck the egyptians : this was not a lamb ; and yet because a lamb was a sign of this passover , as the bread and wine is of christ's body , therefore christ called the lamb the passover , as he calleth the bread and wine his body . again , circumcision is called the covenant , and yet circumcision was nothing but the cutting away of a skin : but the covenant is , in abrahams seed all nations shall be blessed , i will be their god , and they shall be my people , i will defend and save them , and they shall serve and worship me . this is not circumcision , and yet as though circumcision were the covenant it self , it is called the covenant , because it signifieth the covenant ; so bread and wine are called christ's body , because they signifie christ's body . again , baptism is called regeneration , and yet baptism is a dipping of our bodies in water ; but regeneration is the renewing of the mind to the image wherein it was created . this is not baptism , and yet as though baptism were regeneration it self , it is called regeneration , because it signifieth regeneration : so the bread and wine are called christ's body , because they signifie christ's body . again , the cup is called the new testament ; and yet the cup is but a piece of mettal filled with wine : but the new testament is : he which believeth in the son shall be saved . this is not a cup , and yet as though the cup were the new testament it self , it is called the new testament , because it signifieth the new testament : so the bread and wine are called christ's body , because they signifie christ's body . they which knew that the lamb is not the passover , though christ called it the passover ; that circumcision is not the covenant , though god calleth it the covenant ; that baptism is not regeneration , though it be called regeneration ; that the cup is not the new testament , though christ called it the new testament ; could they not as well understand , that the bread and wine were not christ's body , though christ called them his body ? as they understood these speeches , so they understood this speech : therefore they which say , that the bread and wine are christ's body , because christ saith , this is my body ; may as well say , that the lamb is the passover , because christ calleth it the passover ; that baptism is regeneration , because paul calleth it regeneration ; that this cup is the new testament , because christ calleth it the new testament . if every sacrament was called by the thing which it signified , and yet never any sacrament was taken for the thing it self ; what reason have they to take this sacrament for the thing it self more than all the rest ? it is the consent of all writers , that a sacrament is a sign , therefore not the thing signified : no more than the bush at the door is the wine in the seller . if i call the prince a phoenix , the university a fountain , the court a peacock , the city a sea , the countrey an hermite : why , can the papists understand me , and not understand christ ? what a dark , and strange , and intricate , and incredible speech had this been for them to understand grosly , and literally ? would they think that they did eat christ's body , when his body stood before them , and he had told them before that his body was like their body ? nay this would have required more words , and made them come again ; with master , what is the meaning ? for they were not so instructed yet before the resurrection , to believe every thing without questioning , if it were contrary to sense and reason : but as they asked , who had given him any meat , then he said that he had meat , and they could see none : so they would have asked , what meat is this which we see not ? how can every one of us eat his body , and yet he hath but one body , and that body is whole when we eat it ? loe , he standeth before us and saith , that his body is like unto ours , and yet he takes bread and breaks it , and gives it unto us to eat , and when we eat it , he saith , this is my body , and yet his body stands before us still . if his body be like ours ( as he saith ) how can it be eaten , and be there , for ours cannot ? thus they would have questioned , if they had not been used to such phrases : but as they could understand him , when he called himself a stone , a rock , a door , a window , and a vine : so they pickt out his meaning when he had said that bread was his body : for he had told them before , that he was the bread of eternal life . now the bread of eternal life is not eaten with teeth , for the body cannot eat spiritually , no more than the soul can eat corporally ; and therefore he is such a bread as is eaten with faith , and so himself saith in the gospel of st. john. mark this eating by faith , and all the strife is ended . flesh and blood indeed need not faith to chew them , for the teeth can chew them well enough . therefore if the bread and wine were the body of christ , then we need not faith to eat it , but all those which have teeth might eat christs body , yea the mice might eat it as well as men , for they eat the same bread that we do , as well after it is consecrated , as before . if this bee not enough to batter the ruines of this upstart heresie , i will come to interrogatories , and see whether they have learned it by rote , or by reason . if they ground their transubstantation upon these words of christ this is my body , which he spake to his disciples , i ask them , whether they receive that body which was mortal , or that body which is glorified ? because one of these bodies they must needs receive , either his mortal body , or his glorified body . if they say that it is his mortal body , the mortal body will not profit them : for you see that mortal food is but for this mortal life : neither hath christ a mortal body now to communicate unto them , because it is changed to an immortal body ; therefore they cannot receive the mortal body , because christ hath not a mortal body to give unto them . if they say , that they receive his glorified body , then they must fly from this text : for at that time christ had not any glorified body . when this sacrament was instituted , and christ said , this is my body , his body was not glorified , because the sacrament was instituted before his death , and his body was glorified after his resurrection . therefore if they receive the same body which the apostles received , as they say they do , they cannot receive a glorified body , because then christ had not a glorified body to communicate unto them . thus the rocks and sands are of both sides them , they receive a body neither mortal nor immortal : if christ have any such body , judg you . here they stand like a fool , which cannot tell on his tale . nabuchadnezzar dreamed a dream and knew not what it meant . beside i ask them to whom christ spake when he said , this is my body ? s. mark saith , he spake to them , that is , to his disciples : well then , if these words , this is my body , were not spoken to the signs , but to the persons : not to the bread and wine , but to the receivers , as the words which follow , do this in remembrance of me : if these words were not spoken to the bread and wine , then it is plain that they do not change the nature of the bread and wine . if the nature of them be not altered , then the substance remaineth , and then we receive no other substance with them , because two substances cannot be in one place . what then , is there nothing in the sacrament but bread and wine , like an hungry nunscion ? nay , we say not that the sacrament is nothing but a bare sign , or that you receive no more than you see : for christ saith , that it is his body : and paul saith , that it is the communion of christ's body and blood : therefore there is more in sacramental bread then in common bread ; though the nature be not changed , yet the use is changed : it doth not onely nourish the body as it did before , but also it bringeth a bread with it which nourisheth the soul : for as sure as we receive bread , so sure we receive christ ; not onely the benefits of christ , but christ : although not in a popish manner , yet we are so joyned and united unto him , even as though we were but one body with him . as the spouse doth not marry with the lands and goods , but with the man himself , and being partaker of him , is made partaker of them : so the faithful do not onely marry with christ's benefits , but with christ himself , and being partakers of him , they are made partakers of his benefits , for christ may not in any wise be divided from his benefits , no more than the sun from his light . it is said , the father gave us his son , and so the son giveth us himself . for as the bread is a sign of his body , so the giving of the bread is a sign of the giving of his body . thus he lieth before us like a pellican , which letteth her young ones suck her blood : so that we may say , the lord invited us to supper , and he himself was our meat . but if you ask how this is ? i must answer . it is a mystery : but if i could tell it , it were no mystery . yet , as it is said , when three men walked in the midst of the furnace , one like the son of god walked amongst them : so , when the faithful receive the bread and wine , one like the son of god seemeth to come unto them , which fills them with peace , and joy , and grace , that they marvel what it was which they received besides bread and wine . for example , thou makest a bargain with thy neighbour for house or land , and receivest in earnest a piece of gold : that which thou receivest is but a piece of gold : but now it is a sign of thy bargain , and if thou keep not touch with him , happily it will clasp thee for all that thou art worth : so , that which thou receivest is bread , but this bread is a sign of another matter which passeth bread . again , thou hast an obligation in thy hand , and i ask thee what hast thou there ? and thou sayest , i have here an hundred pounds : why ( say i ) there is nothing but paper , ink , wax : oh , but by this ( saist thou ) i will recover an hundreth pounds , and that is as good . so beloved , this is as good , that under these signs , you receive the vertue of christ's body and blood by faith , as if you did eat his body , and drink his blood indeed , which is horrible to think that any should devour their god , thinking thereby to worship him : never nay heretick nor idolater , conceived so grossely of their god before the papist . we read of a people which did eat men , but never of any people which did eat their god. all the apostles say , that it was needful that christ should take our flesh : but no apostle saith , that it is needful that we should take christ's flesh ; for all the blessings of christ are apprehended by faith , and nothing fit to apprehend him whom we see not , but faith : and therefore one of their own pillers said , believe and thou hast eaten . faith doth more in religion than the mouth , or else we might say with the woman , blessed are the breasts which gave thee suck : and so none should be blessed but mary : but mary was not blessed because christ was in her body , but because christ was in her heart : and least this should seem incredible unto you , because mary is called blessed among women ; when christ heard the woman say , blessed are the breasts which gave thee suck , he replyed unto her , blessed are they which hear the word of god and keep it : these are my brethrea , and sisters , and mother , saith christ , as though the rest were no kin to him in heaven , though they were kin in earth . thus if christ were in thy body , and thou shouldest say as this woman : blessed is the body that hath thee in it , nay would christ say , blessed is the heart that hath me in it . if mary were no whit better for having christ in her arms , nor for having him in her body , how much better art thou for having him in thy belly , where thou canst not see him ? must the sun needs come to us , or else cannot his heat and light profit us ? nay it doth us more good , because it is so far off : so this sun is gone from us , that he might give more light unto us , which made him say , it is good for you that i go from you : therefore away with this carnal eating of spiritual things . many daughters have done vertuously , but thou ( saith salomon ) surpassest them all . so many hereticks have spoken absurdly , but this surpasseth them all , that christ most be applied like physick , as though his blood could not profit us , unless we did drink it , and swallow it as a potion . is this the papists union with christ ? is this the manner whereby we are made one flesh with christ , to eat his flesh ? nay , when he took our flesh unto him , and was made man , then we were united to him in the flesh , and not now . christ took our flesh , we take not his flesh , but belive that he took ours , therefore if you would know whether christ's body be in the sacrament , i say unto you as christ said unto thomas , touch , feel , and see . in visible things god hath appointed our eyes to be judges , for as the spirit discerneth spiritual objects , so sense discerneth sensible objects . as christ taught thomas to judge of his body , so may we ; and so should they : therefore if you cannot see his body , nor feel his body , you may gather by christ's saying to thomas , that he would not have you believe that it is his body , for my body ( saith christ ) may be seen and felt . and thus transubstantiation is found a lyar . now , if you ask me why christ calleth the sign by the name of the thing it self , i ask thee again ; maist thou say when thou seest the picture of the queen , this is the queen , and when thou seest the picture of a lyon , this is a lyon ? and may not christ say when he seeth a thing like his body , this is my body ? i shewed you before , that every sacrament is called by the name of the thing which it doth signifie , and therefore why should we stumble at this more then the rest ? the reason why the signs have the name of the things , is to strike a deeper reverence in us , to receive this sacrament of christ reverently , sincerely , and holily , as if that christ were there present in body and blood himself , and surely , as he which defaceth the queens seal is convicted of contempt and treason to her own person ; so he which prophaneth the seals of christ , doth not worship christ , but despite him , and that contempt shall be required of him , as if he had contemned christ himself . this is the reason why christ calleth the signs of his body his body , to make us take this sacrament reverently , because we are apt to contemn it , as the jews did their manna . it followeth ; do this in remembrance of me : that is , these signs shall be a remembrance of my death : when you break the bread you shall remember the wounding of my body , and when you drink the wine you shall remember the shedding of my blood . if we do this in remembrance of christ's body , which was broken like the bread , it is an argument that his body is not there , because remembrance is not of things present , but of things absent ; we remember not , but we see that which is before us . this might put the papists in remembrance that christ is not sacrificed now , when we do but remember his sacrifice ; this is not christ's sacrifice , but a remembrance of his sacrifice : he was sacrificed before , and now it is applied , lest his sacrifice should be in vain . this was done once really , when he offered himself upon the cross , therefore that offering was called a sacrifice , because he was sacrificed indeed ; but this offering is called a sacrament , because it is but a sign of his sacrifice . if christ in this sacrament were offered indeed , then it should be called a sacrifice , as his once offering was : but because it is but a remembrance of his sacrifice , therefore it is called a sacrament . this is not a sacrifice of christ , but a sacrifice of our selves . least we should take it to be a sacrifie of christ , christ himself calleth it a remembrance of his sacrifice , do this in my remembrance . here is our work , as christ hath done , so must we do , so we minister , and so you receive , we can give you nothing but that which we have received from him , as paul saith . therefore if christ did not give his mortal body which stood before them , and could not profit them ; nor his glorified body , which was not glorified then , and when it was glorified , ascended up into heaven , and there abideth : how can these juggling priests make their god again , which made them ? they can no more turn wine into blood , and bread into flesh , than they can command a gnat to be a camel ; for it is a greater work to make god , than to make the world. therefore as christ saith , when they tell you here is christ , or there is christ , believe them not : so when they tell you that christ is in heaven , and that christ is in earth , in this place and that place , believe them not ; for elias's ascension was a figure of christ's ascension : when elias was ascended , yet some sought for his body upon earth : so though christ be ascended , yet many seek his body upon earth ; but as they could not find elias's body , so these cannot find christ's body , altho' they have sought years . but if his body were upon earth , as they say , should we handle it , and touch it , now it is glorified ? after his resurrection he said unto mary , touch me not , because his body was glorified : that is , not to be touched with fingers any more , but with faith. therefore we read of none that touched his body , ( after it was risen ) but only thomas , to settle his faith. thus you see we need to suborn no witnesses , for every word in this text which you seem to alledge for transubstantiation , doth make against transubstantiation , whereby if antichrist doth signifie those which are against christ , you see who may be called antichrist . there is no question in popery ( except purgatory the popes publican and tasker ) about which the papists are at such civil wars among themselves , as about this transubstantiation . they cannot tell when the change beginneth , nor what manner of change it is , nor how long the change continueth : some hang one way , and some another , like the midianites , which fought one against another . and no marvel though their consciences stagger about it ; for to shew you the right father of it , it was one of the dreams of innocentius the third , in the year of our lord . so many years passed before transubstantiation was named , and then a pope set it first on foot : so it came out of rome , the mother of all heresies , and for want of scriptures , hath been defended with fire and sword , and swallowed more martyrs than all the gulfs of the papal sea beside , now , when the doctrines of men go for scriptures , you shall see how many errors rush into the church ; for grant but this to pope innocentius , as the papists do , that the bread and wine are are changed into christ's body : first it will follow , that christ's body is not ascended up to heaven , because it remaineth upon earth , and so one of the articles of our faith shall be falsified , which saith , he is ascended into heaven , or if he be ascended , and descended again , another article will be falsified , which saith , that he sitteth at the right hand of his father , that is , as peter saith , he abideth in heaven . secondly , it will follow , that christ hath not a true body , but a fantastical body , because it may be in many places at one time : for if his body be in the sacrament , he must needs have so many bodies as there be sacraments ; nay , he must have so many bodies as there be bits in every sacrament . thirdly , it will follow , that his body is divided from his soul , and consequently is a dead body , because the bread is only changed into his body , and not into his soul. fourthly , it will follow , that the wicked and prophane , and reprobate , may receive christ as well as the godly , because they have a mouth to eat as well as the best . fifthly , it will follow , that christ's sacrifice once for all , was not sufficient , because we must sacrifice him again , and break his body , and shed his blood , as the jews crucified him upon the cross , sixthly , it will follow , that the bread being turned into the body of our redeemer , hath a part of our redemption as well as christ. seventhly , it will follow , that christ did eat his own body : for all the fathers say , that he did eat the same bread which he gave to his disciples . lastly , it will follow , that a massing priest shall be the creator of his creator , because he makes him which made him . all these absurdities are hatch'd of transubstantiation . thus when men devise articles of their own , while they strike upon the anvil , the sparks fly in their face ; and they are like the man which began to build , and could not finish it . when i see the papists in so many absurdities for entertaining one error , methinks , he seemeth like a collier , which is grimed with his own coals . therefore , as in manners , we should think of peter's saying , whether is it meet to obey god or men ? so in doctrines we should think , whether it be meet to believe god or men ? thus you have heard the author of this sacrament , the lord jesus ; the time when it was instituted , in the night that he was betrayed ; the manner how it was instituted , after thanksgiving : the end why it was instituted , for a remembrance of his death ; and the discovery of transubstantiation , one of the last heresies which babylon hatch'd . now , they which have been patrons of it before , should do like the father and mother of an idolater , that is , lay the first hand upon him to shorten his life . thus i end : think what account ye shall give of that ye have heard . the end of the first sermon . the second sermon on the lord's supper . cor. xi . , , , . after the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped : saying , this cup is the new testament in my blood , this do , as aft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me . for as often as ye shall eat this bread , and drink this cup , ye shall shew the lord's death till he come . wherefore , whosoever shall eat this bread , and drink the cup of the lord unworthily , shall be guilty of the body and blood of the lord. let a man therefore examine himself , and so let him eat of this bread , and drink of this cup. here i am to speak of the second service , as it were , at the lords table , and of that preparation , which is like the wedding garment , that every man must bring to this banquet . these words are diversly repeated of the evangelists . here it is said , this cup is the new testament in my blood. in mathew and in mark it is said , this cup is my blood of the new testament . this is the first mention which christ makes of a testament , as though now his promises deserved the name of a testament , because the seal is set unto them , which before this sacrament was not sealed , but like a bare writing without a signet . this word testament , doth imply a promise , and therefore teacheth us , that the sacrament doth confirm , and strengthen , and nourish our faith , because it sealeth the promise which we should believe . here is to be noted , that christ doth not only speak of a testament , but he calleth it a new testament : which words never met together before , as though the law were for the old man to mortifie him , and the gospel for the new man to comfort him again : or , as if the old testament had so wash'd her face , and chang'd her apparel at christ's coming , that one would not think it the same , but a new testament , because even now she was shadowed with a thousand ceremonies , and now they are gone from her , like a mist at the sun-rising . as christ calleth love , a new commandement , because he renewed it like a law worn out of memory ; so he calleth the promise of salvation , a new testament , because as it was renewed to sem , and after renewed to abraham , and after renewed to david , so now he renewed it again , which should be alway new and fresh unto us . every tsteament is confirmed with blood , the old testament was confirmed by the blood of goats , and bullocks , and rams ; but the new testament is confirmed by the blood of christ : my blood ( saith christ ) is the blood of the new testament : nay , this cup ( saith christ ) is the new testament . you may see then that they may gather as well out of christ's words , that the cup is the new testament , as that the wine is his blood : for christ saith , this cup is the new testament , as well as he saith , this wine is my blood , or this bread is my body . beside , when christ speaks of a new testament , he implyeth that the old testament is fulfilled ; the sacrifices and ceremonies of the law did signifie christ before he came , therefore they are fulfilled in his coming : no more sacrifices , no more ceremonies , for the truth is come : sacrifices and cerimonies are honorably buried with the priesthood of aaron , let them rest : it is not lawful to violate the sepulchers of the dead , and take their bodies out of the earth , as the witch would raise samuel out of his grave . therefore they which retain ceremonies , which should be abrogated , reliques of judaism , or reliques of papism , may be said to violate the sepulchers of the dead , and disturb the deceased , like the witch , which presumed to raise samuel out of his grave . this testament is called a testament in blood , because the testament and will of a man is confirmed , when the man is dead : so christ confirmed his testament by his death . moses saith , that life is in the blood : so the blood of christ is the life of this testament . if christs blood had not been shed , this testament made unto us had been unprofitable , as the testament of a father is unto his son , if the father should not die but live : therefore the apostle saith , without shedding of blood , there is no remission of sins . therefore the testament or covenant of the remission of our sins , is called the testament in blood : the blood of christ is the seal of the testament , which we have to shew unto god , for the remission of our sins , and the two sacraments are a seal of that blood , to witness that it was shed . again , this is a matter regarded in testaments and wills ; to the testament of him that is dead , no man addeth or detracteth , but as the testator made it , so it standeth without alteration : so should this testament of christ , and this sacrament of christ , no man should alter it now he is dead , for he which addeth or detracteth , hath a curse in gods book . therefore christ when he instituted this sacrament , commanded , do this ; that is , do as i do : least they should swerve one whit from his own manner : yet how many gawdes have the papists adeed to it , that he which had heard christ say , do this in remembrance of me , and should see how they handle the matter in their mass , could see nothing to remember christ by but a vail to hide christ from him . therefore this commandment was repeated again , when he gave the wine , do this , &c. as he commanded them to eat the bread in remembrance of him , so he commanded them to drink the wine in remembrance of him : nay , he speaks more precisely of the wine than of the bread : for he saith of the wine , drink ye all of this , which he saith not of the bread . surely , christ did foresee that some proud hereticks would do otherwise after him , even as it is come to pass : for the papists do break this commandement of christ , as flatly as saul break the commandement of samuel . samuel commanded him to kill the sat and the lean , saul killed the lean , but not the fat ; so christ commandeth to receive bread and wine : they teach to receive bread , but not wine . christ saith , drink you all of this : they say , drink not all of this : christ gave the bread and wine to all ; they give the bread to all , and the wine to some : their priests receive all , but the people must content themselves with half ; the priest eats and drinks , but the people must not drink for spilling on their cloaths . is this the church which cannot err ? do they think to hem christ in their mass , and shut his ordinance out of their mass ? the souldiers divided christs coat , but these divide his body , and seperate the bread and wine which christ hath joyned . paul speaketh of hereticks which taught , louch not , tast not , handle not : so these say , touch not , tast not , handle not ; when they should say , touch , and tast , and handle . of all heresies either old or new , there is none so injurious to the common people , as the pasture of shavelings popery : for st . they may not read the scriptures , . they may not come to councels , . they may not examine that which is tought them , . they may not be buried without a mortuary , . they may not drink at the communion : as the their priests were their lords . therefore we may say as a heathen did , there is no charity in the papists sacrament : because like ananias , the priests keep back that which they should distribute , and mangle the sacrifice as tho ely his sons had left his book to the massing friers . thus that ye may know who succeeded the pharisees , they have fulfilled that which the pharisees did , that is , by their own commandements , they have made the commandement of god of no effect . for whereas the purpose of christ was to tie our faith wholly to himself , that we should not seek for any thing without him , knowing that the maintenance of this life hath need both of meat and drink , to teach us that all sufficiency is in himself : by bread and wine he sheweth , that he is in stead both of meat and drink , that is , in stead of all : which signification is taken away where the wine is not given as well as the bread . therefore as it is said of a horrible and odious crime , consider the matter , and give sentence : so i wish all to consider this innovation , and give sentence of it . can there be any cleerer contradiction to the word , or bolder check to christ , then when he saith , drink ye all of this ; to say , drink not all of this ? it is even as when god said , ye shall dye , the devil said , ye shall not dye : shall we go now to a councel , or a father , or a doctor , to enquire whether this doctrine be like christs doctrine ? i do verily think that none is here so simple , but that he seeth , that if any thing can be contrary to christs speech , this is contrary to it : but this is only their detraction from the sacrament . now you shall hear their additions to the sacrament : look upon their vestures , and their gestures , and their altars , and their pix , and their incense , and their becks , and their nods , and their turnings , all this is more than christ did : and therefore the prophet may say again , who hath required this of you ? did christ command you to do more than he did , and not do as he did ? therefore let them which have eyes to see , be thankful for their light , when they hear how blind they were whom god gave over to be seduced . the fruit of this sacrament is noted in these words , which is broken for you , which is shed for you , that is ( as matthew interpreteth ) shed for the remission of sins . as all was made for us , so all which christ spake , he spake for us , and all which christ suffered , he suffered for us , that the sins of men might be forgiven , and yet so few apprehend this benefit , that the way to heaven is called a narrow way , as though all these pains did ransom but a small number , and certain order of men. all are not saved by christs death , but all which are saved , are saved by christs death : his death is sufficient to save all , as the sun is sufficient to lighten all : but if any man wink , the sun will not give him light : so if any man contemn , and will not receive christ , he will not thrust him into heaven , but every man will have that which he chuseth , ( as david saith ) blessing to him that loveth blessing , and cursing to him that loveth cursing . there wants not a hand to give , but a hand to take , i would ( saith christ ) but you would not . stretch forth thy hand , and here is christs hand , which takes gods hand , and mans hand , and joyns them together , and then the remission of sins is sealed . this is the will and testament of christ. he had no goods , nor lands , nor money to give by his testament . a rich man when he dieth , bestoweth the money which he hath gathered , and forgiveth many debts which are owing him : but christ hath nothing to give , nor any thing to forgive . the lord of all had least of all , and he might say like his servant peter , gold and silver i have none , no not a grave to bury his body in , but the grave that joseph made for himself , served to bury christ. his father was a carpenter , but never made any house for himself : his mother lay in a stable for want of a chamber : his disciple was fain to borrow twenty-pence for him of a fish : therefore when one offered , master i will follow thee , thinking to gain by his service , like retainers to noblemen ; he replyed unto him , the foxes have holes , and the fowles have nests , but the son of man hath not a house to hide his head : shewing that the bèasts and fowls were richer than he , therefore when he had nothing to give , he gave himself , and when he had no debters to forgive , he forgave his enemies . what then , this is a poor and weak testament , which gave nothing ? oh the goodliest testament that ever was made , for it bringeth to us the remissions of sins : it is such a matter to forgive sins ? yea , the greatest benefit in all the world , nay , a greater benefit than all the world : for thus it stood , thou hadst committed high treason against the queens person , thou art detected , apprehended , accused , convicted , and condemned upon it to be hanged , and drawn , quartered , and thy quarters to be set up for a spectacle , like a carcass which thou hast seen hanging upon a gibbet , and the crows pecking upon it . what a horror and shaking to thy mind , to think of that day , when all these torments , and shame and fear shall surprize thee at once , which would make thee quake and tremble if thou shouldst see but another so dismembred before thy face ? thou hast no comfort now but this , when i have suffered ▪ i shall be free , before to morrow at this time all my pain will be past , though my shame continue , and my children be beggers . what grace , what favour , what mercy , now to pardon thee all this , and save thy life , and set thee at liberty , as though thou hadst never offended ? so i and thou , and every one here had committed treasons against the king of kings , and stood condemned for it , not to suffer , and then be free , like them which break the laws of men : but to suffer and suffer , and ever to suffer all that the devils would heap upon us . then came the mercy of god for christ , which shed his blood , like an umpire between god and us , and said as esay said to hezechia , * thou shalt not die , but live , loose him and let him go , for he is mine . so we were stayed like the widows son , when he was carried to his grave . this is the benefit of christs death , and this sacrament is the remembrance of it , and therefore whensoever we receive it , this addition cometh with it , which is shed for the remission of sins : our fault was so heinous and grievous , that no ransom could countervail it , unless god himself had suffered for us . being in this extremity , neither man , nor angel , offered his life for us , but the prince himself , which should have crucified us , came to be crucified of us for us , that we might say with stedfast saith , i believe the remission of sins , not the satisfaction of sins , but the remission of sins . mark this distinction against popish merits of works or penance , christ hath satisfied and not we , we are remitted , and not christ ; therefore we say in our confession , i believe the remission of sins , which i may call the quintessence and sweetness of the twelve . therefore who but antichrist durst deprave it ? if there be a satisfaction for our sins by works , or by pilgrimages , or by our masses , or by our penance , let christ never be called a forgiver , but an exchanger , like the pope , which selleth his pardons . wretched creatures which will not receive the lord , when he comes to their door . christ saith ; take for nothing , and they say no , we will not take , but buy . vile , base , miserable man , disdain to take grace of god without satisfaction , but they will cope with the lord , and give him so many pilgrimages , fast so many days , hear so many masses , and pay so many works for it , untill they have done as much good as they have done evil . our sins are infinite , & god is infinite : but our works are finite in number & measure ? therefore be content with josephs brethren , to take your money again , and say that you have corn for nothing , that is , you are saved for nothing , or else when you say , i believe the remission of sins , you lie unto god , because you do not believe the remission of sins , but satisfaction for sins , like the papists . it followeth , as often as ye shall eat this bread , and drink this cup , ye shall shew the lords death till he come . here are three invincible arguments against popish transubstantiation , like the three witnesses , under which every word doth stand . first we are said to eat bread ; then it is not flesh , but bread. secondly , we are said to shew the lords death ; then it is but a shew or representation of his death . thirdly , it is said , until he come ; if he be to come , then he is not come : if he be come , how can we say , untill he come ? the effect of this verse was shewed in these words , do this in remembrance of me . for to say , do this in remembrance of me , and to say , so oft as ye do this , you shew my death , is much at one : so that if you call this sacrament a shew of christs death , as it is called here , then it is not christ ; or if you call it a remembrance of christ , as it is called there , yet is it not christ , but a shew or remembrance of christ ; but this is such a shew and remembrance , that the next verse saith , whosoever receiveth it unworthily , is guilty of the body and blood of christ. will ye know who receiveth unworthily ? in the th verse , paul saith , he discerneth not the lord's body : i. e. which putteth no difference between this bread and othes , but eateth like a child , the meat which he knoweth not : and after the bread seemeth stones to him , & the wine poyson , because his conscience telleth him , i have received unworthily , before i could say like david , my heart is prepared . my sheep ( saith christ ) know my voice : as they discern christs body , and therefore so often as they come into the lords table , they seem to come into the lords presence ; there they greet , and kiss , and imbrace one another with affections , which none can know but they that feel , like john which leaped in the womb , so soon as christ came near him . will ye know beside , what it is to be guilty of the body and blood of christ ? even as judas was guilty for betraying him , and pilate for delivering him , and the jews for crucifying him : so they are guilty which receive this sacrament unworthily , as pilate , and caiphas , and judas were . if they be guilty of christs death , they are guilty of their own death too ; as if they had committed two murthers : and therefore paul saith after , that many of the chorinthians died , only for the unworthy receiving this sacrament . as the word is the savour of death to them which receive it unworthily , so the sacrament is the savour of death to them which receive it unworthily : it never goeth into their mouth , but they are traitors ipso facto , and may say to hell , this day have i taken possession of thee , because i am guilty of christs blood . therefore it followeth immediately , let a man examine himself before he eat of this bread , or drink of this wine : as if he should say , if he which receiveth this sacrament unworthily , be guilty of christs death , like judas which hanged himself ; if these signs be received to salvation or damnation , like the word ; the next lesson is to examine your selves before you receive , lest you receive like the son of perdition , which swallowed the bread and the devil together . therefore , let a man examine himself , and so let him eat ; that is , let him examine first , and receive after ; for if we should receive the bread of the earth reverently , how should we receive the bread of heaven ? when jehonadab came to jehu his chariot , he said , is thy heart upright as my heart is towards thee ? so when we come to the lords table , he would have our hearts upright to him . the golden ring sitteth highest at our table , but the wedding garment sitteth highest at this table . it is safer eating with unwashed hands , than with an unwashed heart . the jews were taught to choose the lamb of the pass-over on the tenth day of the first month , in which month they came out of egypt . and the fourteenth day after , they were taught to eat him : so they had four days respite between the choosing and the killing , to prepare and sanctifie themselves for the pass over , which was a sign of the lords supper . this admonished them that the matter ( now to be performed ) was very weighty , and therefore they were deeply to consider it : for now was the action and sum of all salvation in handling . if they did prepare themselves so before they did receive the figure of this sacrament , how should we be prepared before we receive the sacrament it self ? therefore as josiah commanded the levites to prepare the people ; so paul adviseth the people to prepare themselves , that is , to examine whether they have faith , and love , and repentance before they come to this feast . by this all may see ; first , that paul would have every lay-man skilfull in the scripture , that he be able to examine himself by it : for this admonition is not to them which minister the sacrament , but to all which receive the sacrament . and the rule by which we must examine our selves , is the law by which we should obey : therefore if the rule be unknown , the examination must be undone . our doctrine must be examined by the doctrine of the prophets and apostles ; our prayers must be examined by the sixth petition of christs prayer ; our belief must be examined by the twelve articles of faith ; our life must be examined by the ten commandments of the law. now , he which hath this touch-stone may try gold from copper ; but he which hath it not , takes one for the other : therefore before paul's examine , you had need to learn christ's search , search the scriptures , and they will lighten you to search your selves . this is the doctrine with which i will end , and the necessary point for which i chose this text , to teach ( if i could ) that christian art how to examine your selves . let a man examine himself before he eat . here is first an examination : secondly , an examination of our selves : thirdly , an examination before we come to the sacrament . touching the first , here paul saith , examine your self , but in chron. . he doubleth his charge , prove your selves ; and again at next word , examine your selves : as if he should say , this work must be done whon it is done , because it is never throughly done ; and therefore we must double our examination , as paul doubleth his counsel . if a man suspect his enemy , he will try him with a question : if that will not search him , he will put sorth another : if that be spyed , he will move another , like one which putteth divers keys into a lock until it open : so he which examineth , must try and try , prove and prove , search and search : for the angel of darkness is like an angel of light , and we have no way to discover him , but that of john , try the spirits . god examineth with trials , the devil examineth with temptations , the world examineth with persecutions ; we which are thus examined , had need to examine too . if any man skill not what examining meaneth , the very word examine is so pregnant , that it prompteth us how we should examine ; for it signifieth to put our selves unto the touchstone , as if we would try gold from coper . therefore one saith , that examination is the eye of the soul , whereby she seeth her self , & her safety , and her danger , and her way which she walketh , and her pace which she holdeth , and the end to which she tendeth ; she looks into her glass and spieth every spot in her face , how all her graces are stained ; then she takes the water of life , and washeth her blots away . after she looks again , and beholdeth all her gifts , her faith , fear , love , patience , meekness , and marketh how every one doth flourish or whither . if they fade and decay , that she feeleth a consumption ; then she takes preservatives and restoratives of prayer , and council , and repentance , before the sickness grow . thus every day she letteth down a bucket into her heart , to see what water it bringeth up , least she should corrupt within , and perish suddenly . to hear , and read , and pray , and sast , and communicate , is a work of many : but to examine those works is the fashion of few : and therefore jeremie complaineth , no man saith , what have i done ? as if he should say , no man examineth himself . and therefore in all the scripture it is said but of one , that he feared all his works ; as though he durst not think , nor speak , nor doe any thing before he had examined what it was , from whence it came , and whether it went ; so the more precious treasure is deeper hid in the ground . the second point is to examine our selves ; paul saith , try all things , much more should we try our selves . the good sower doth sow his own ground , but the bad sower doth sow another mans ground , as the devil did . the disciples of christ said , master , is it i ? not , master , is it he ? the disciples of john asked , master , what shall we doe ? not , master , what shall they do ? we must obey some , and hear others , and admonish others , and love all ; but examine our selves . that which we apply unto others , the apostle applieth unto our selves : for when we speak of an examiner , we intend one which examineth other ; when we speak of an accuser , we intend one which accuseth other ; when we speak of a judge , we mean one that judgeth others : but the scripture crieth , examine thy self , accuse thy self , judg thy self ; that is , be not curious to search a mete in thy brothers eye , but pull out a beam which is in thine own eye . this doth shew that they which sit in gods chair to judg others , commonly have greater fault themselves , than they whom they use to judge : and therefore christ calleth their fault a beam , and the others a moat . this made david say , examine thy heart : thy heart is thine own heart , therefore thou must examine whether thou pray , whether thou watch , whether thou sast ; and not whether he pray , whether he watch , whether he fast , as the pharisee examined the publican , least thou have peters check , when he examined what john should do , christ said , what is that to thee ; follow thou me . thou art a private man and hast a private examination , therefore let thy question be , what have i done ? and make thy anatomy of thy self . see beloved , we may not believe our selves , before we have examined our selves ; for we are falshearted , and the notablest cousoner that deceiveth most , for one time that he deceiveth others , ten times he deceiveth himself . because the flesh is a wily servant , and will lie like gehezi to his master , & face him that he hath not sinned , when it cometh from sin ; therefore as elisha examined his servant , so the soul must examine her servant , that is , man must be jealous of himself , and take himself for a lyer , for a flatterer , for a dissembler , until he be throughly acquainted with himself ; for no man is so often bebeguiled as by himself , by trusting his double heart , and taking his own word without further tryal . if paul had bid us examine others , we would have sifted them like satan . satan hath desired to sift thee , ( saith christ to peter ) so we have a desire to sift others . even peter which was sifted of satan , longed to sist john , and know what he should do , before he harkened to his own charge . therefore the help of examination is a needfull preservative , altho' we were as sound as peter . they which are suspected of a crime , do not examine themselves , but are examined of others , lest they should be partial : but a christian must examine himself of his crime , and be his own judge , his own accuser , and his own condemner : for no man knoweth the spirit of man , but the spirit which is in man , which will condemn him if he be guilty , and tell him all that he hath done , and with mind he did it , and with what mind he did it , and what he deserveth for it . this is the private arraignment , or close sessions , when conscience sits in her chair to examine , and accuse , and judge , and condemn her self , because she will not be condemned of god. thus holy men have kept their sessions at home , and made their hearts the fore-man of the jury , and examine themselves as we examined others , the fear of the lord stood at the door of their souls , to examine every thought before it went in , and at the door of their lips , to examine every word before it went out , whereby they escaped a thousand sins which we commit , as though we had no other work . so thou shouldst sit in judgment of thy self , and call thy thoughts , and speeches , and actions , to give in evidence against thee , whether thou be a christian or an infidel , a son , or a bastard , a servant , or a rebell , a protestant , or an hypocrite : if thou find not faith , nor fear , nor love , nor zeal , when thou examinest thy self , let no man make thee believe that thou art holy , that thou art sanctified , that thou art a christian , that thou art a believer , that thou art a gospeller , because thou art worse than thou seemest thy self : for every man is partial to himself when he is most humbled . therefore if my heart tell me that i do love god , whom shall i believe before my self ? as solomon saith , no man can search the heart of the king : so paul saith . no man knoweth the spirit of any man , but the spirit which is in man : that is , no man feeleth the heart of man so well as himself . and yet himself , although he have lived with it ever since he was born , doth not know his own heart , unless he examine it narrowly , no more then he knoweth his own bones , or his veins , or his sinews , or his arteries , or his muscles , how many are in his body , or where they lie , or what they do . this seems strange that a man should not know his own heart : yet it is true that the best of all doth not know his own heart , tho' he hath dwelt with it from his mothers womb . for christ saith to his disciples , you know not of what spirit you are , that is , you think better of your selves than you are , and know not what the clock striketh within . there is a zeal without knowledge , and there is a knowledge without zeal : there is a faith without obedience , and there is an obedience without faith , there is a love without fear , and there is a fear without love , and both are hypocrites . therefore as dalilah searched where sampson's strength lay , so let every man search where his weakness lyeth , and alway be filling the empty gap . now this examination must go before us to the sacrament . every meat worketh according as it is digested , and this meat worketh according as it is received . therefore when christ had taught what we should do in receiving the sacrament , now paul sheweth what we should do before we receive the sacrament . let a man examine himself . but some will come before they examine themselves : and therefore as the priests of the law had authority to put by lame and blind sacrifices , so the ministers of the gospel have power to put by lame and blind receivers , and he which doth not so , giveth a sword into their hands to kill themselves . if the pastor would use this examination duly , it were the only way to make every one examine himself , lest he be put by like non proficients as jiphtah discerned the ephramites , because when they should pronounce shibboleth , they pronounce sibb●leth : so all which cannot pronounce christ , that is , give a reason of their faith , are to be thrust from this table . there is a hearing , and a preparative before hearing . there is a praying , and a preparative before praying . there is a receiving , and a preparative before receiving : which if it be wanting , the receiver receiveth uncomfortably , the prayer prayeth idly , the hearer heareth unfruitfully , like those which do eat before hunger , and drink before thirst . this preparative before hearing , and praying , and receiving , doth signifie that there is a kind of physick in these three : for preparatives are ministred always before physick , and as the preparative which goeth before , maketh way to the physick , or else it would do no good , but hurt : so unless examination go before the sacrament , we seal up the threatnings which are written against us , in stead of the promises which are made unto us : for the sacrament is a seal , and therefore sealeth good or evil , as every other seal doth . the preparative before we receive , is to examine . as jobn was the fore-runner of christ , so examination is the fore runner of the sacrament , like the harbinger which rideth before to prepare the room . for if job commanded his sons to sanctifie themselves before they did come to his sacrifice , how should we sanctifie our selves before we come to christ's sacrament , wherein we are commanded to do as the lord himself did which instituted it ? it is said that the chamber wherein christ did institute this sacrament , was trimmed ; the chamber wherein the apostles received this sacrament , was trimmed : if judas's chamber , his inner chamber had been trimmed so too , he had received this sacrament with as much comfort as the other disciples did : but because his heart was not trimmed : therefore he was the first which was condemned for the unworthy receiving of the sacrament . adam did not think that death had been in an apple , so you would not think that death should be in bread : but as a coal hath fire in it , beside the coal it self , which fire doth either warm , or burn ; so this meat hath another meat in it , beside that which is seen , which doth either save or destroy : therefore he which commeth to this spiritual meat , must examine whether he have a spiritual mouth , as well as a carnal mouth , or else he shall receive no more than he seeth , and that which he seeth not shall destroy him . no man ( saith christ ) putteth new wine into old vessels , lest the vessels break , and the wine leak . this wine is new wine , therefore put it into new vessels , holy vessels , sanctified vessels , or else it will leak forth and break the vessel , and thou shalt have no more taste of it , than while the relish of bread is in thy mouth . when christ commeth to our house , shall we not look whether our chamber be trimmed , as the chamber was trimmed against his coming to the passover ? but how shall we trim it ? when a man takes an office , he examineth his substance ; when takes a trade , he examineth his skill : when he goeth to fight , he examineth his strength : but these wants are no wants when he goeth to sacrament . wilt thou know now upon what articles thou must enquire at that time , that is , how thou shouldst examine thy self . as some prayer may be at all times , and some rejoycing may be at all times ; so some examination is at all times . thus job examined himself every day , nay , every hour , because he scanned all that he did . but there is a special examination before the sacrament , because it is the bread which is received to salvation or damnation ; because it is the feast , to which whosoever cometh without his wedding garment , shall be cast into utter darkness ; because it is a seal which sealeth a curse or a blessing . therefore having observed that examination is the necessariest lesson in christianity , and less known than other , i have studied since my sermon to lay down three examinations which you should use at all times , and a special examination , for the communicants catechism , which leadeth immediately to the sacrament as a guest is handed to the table . in the first examination i will shew thee a rule how thou shalt try others spirits , and how thou shalt try thine own . thou shalt try strange spirits by their manner of speaking , plainly , or doubtfully , boldly or fearfully : therefore we read that the oracles of the heathen had a double meaning , and that the false prophets never spake boldly , but where their patrons were ready to flesh them . by the proportion of faith : for every heresie is contrary to some article of our belief , as every sin is against some of the ten commandments . by the event of their speeches ; for they take not effect , as it is said in deuteronomie , chap. . and therefore they are called false prophets . by their fruits : for none of the false prophets were good men . by their success : for if they be not of god they will come to nought , as the arrians , and manichees and pelagians are vanished , as if they had never been : fortune shall wear out every doctrine that is not truth . this is thy rule to try other spirits . thou shalt try thine own spirit by the motions that it hath to good or evil . for as a good stomach turneth all that it eats into nutriment ; and a bad stomach turneth all that it eats into raw humours ; so likewise a good mind converteth all that it heareth , and that it seeth , and all that it feeleth , unto some profit : but a bad mind maketh a temptation of every thing : therefore it is said , to the clean all things a clean , and so , to the unclean nothing is clean ; that is , they defile themselves with every thing . secondly , by the first cause or preparation which thou hadst unto it ; for whatsoever it be , thy thoughts will be where thou lovest : to verifie that saying , where are mans treasure is , there will be his heart : for lightly , the beginning is a picture of the end , and the act is like the thought which set it a work . thirdly , by the manner of the consolation in it , whether it be of knowledge , or ignorance , whether it be constant , or mutable , calm , or boy sterous , simple , or mixt : for as a clear fountain yieldeth clear streams , so a pure heart hath pure joys . fourthly , whether it bring to christ , or take any thing from him to thy self , like all the parts of popery , which mangle his honour either to angels , or to saints , or to pope , or to images . if it abide all these questions , and draw thee not from any good , then thou mayst say it is from god , water the seed , o lord , which thou hast sowen . this is the fruit of thy first examination . in the second , by making thee discern whether another be a christian , i will teach thee to know whether thy self be a christian ; which that thou mayst reach to , observe this direction , and thou shalt see of what side thou art . it must needs be , that they which walk to contrary ends , should go divers ways : therefore there be more differences between the children of god , and the children of the world , than there be between men and beasts . first they are distinguished in will : for the wicked strive to bring gods will to their will , like balaam , which when he had an answer , stayed for another ; but the faithful labour to bring their will to gods will , like christ which said ; not as i will , but as thou wilt . they are distinguished in faith : all men have not faith ( saith paul ) but the just live by faith : as if he should say , the just believe , and the unjust believe not . the just believe , and apply that they believe to themselves ; the wicked may believe like the devils , but their faith is like the gadding hen , which carrieth her eggs to other , and never layeth at home : so they believe that other shall be saved , but not themselves . they are distinguished in hope : for because the wicked hope not for any mends of god , therefore they never deferr their reward : but if they do any good , they are trumpets of it themselves , for fear it should be blazed enough : and therefore christ said , that the pharisees had their reward already , because they were boasters of their works : and if they do not good but evil , yet they would be magnified as much for evil , as others are for good . but the faithful are likened to handmaids , which wait their reward : their left hand seeth not when their right hand doth well , and they are afraid to take honour of men , for losing their honour with god , like john baptist , which made his virtues meaner than they were , and debased hemself , when he might have got a name above his lord. they are distinguished in obedience : therefore christ teacheth us to judge men by their fruit , as an unfallible rule : for the evil . tree will bring forth evil fruit , and the good tree good fruit , and neither change his property , although the evil fruit is sometimes beautiful , and the good fruit sometime blasted . all slip , but in the wicked one sin teacheth another , and in the faithful one sin preventeth another . they are distinguished in repentance : for the wicked do but weep for their sins past , but the godly purpose to sin no more : so pharaoh , saul , and judas said , i have sinned : but sadrach , meshech , and abednego said , we will not sin : therefore the heart of the godly is called a contrite heart , but the heart of the wicked is called a heart that cannot repent . beside , as christ cast out a legion of divels at once , so the godly would be purged for all their sins together ; but the wicked never consent to leave all , but as naaman said , let the lord spare me in this , so ever he excepteth one sin , which is his beloved sin ; like herod , which reformed many things , and yet would not leave his brother's wife . they are distinguished in charity : for ye shall never see the wicked love their enemies : and therefore when the pharisees could not love their enemies , they taught that men might hate their enemies : and christ speaking of publicans and sinners , exhorteth his disciples not to love like them , because they loved none but their friends . they are distinguished in prayer : for the wicked cannot pray , therefore david saith , they call not upon the lord : as if they had not the spirit of prayer : and therefore christ calleth their prayer babling , for they think not of god when they speak unto him they are distinguished in patience : no hypocrite can bear the cross , but saith like cain , it is heavier than i can suffer : but paul and silas sing in prison for a faithful man would have something to humble him , and rejoyce to bear his masters marks , because the wounds of a lover are sweet . they are distinguished in the use of adversity : for this is a proper and peculiar mark of god's children , to profit by affliction : and therefore we read not in all the punishments of the wicked , that one of them said like david , it is good for me that i have been afflicted . they are distinguished in humility : for the wicked are not humbled before the cross , like pharaoh that never sorrowed , but when he suffered : but the apostles learned humility of their master , before their persecution came . they are distinguished in their judgement of the word : for to the wicked it seemeth the hardest , and simplest , and unpleasantest book that is : and therefore st. paul saith , that it is foolishness unto them : but to the godly it seemeth the wisest , and cloquentest , and sweetest and easiest book of all others , as though god did suddenly bring the understanding of it to them , as jacob said of his venison : according to that , he that will do his will shall know his doctrine . they are distinguished in their judgement of god : the wicked are perswaded now and then of god's mercy for the present time while they feel it , as the jews praised him always , when he did as they would have him ; but they cannot perswade themselves that god will be merciful to them still , like job , which said , though the lord kill me , yet will i trust in him : therefore the hope of the righteous is called hope in death . beside , if the wicked love god , it is but for his benefits , as saul loved him for his kingdom . and this is always to be noted , that in the wicked , the fear of hell is greater than is their hope of heaven : but in the faithful , the hope of heaven is greater than the fear of hell. they are distinguished in their delights : for the sport of the ungodly is folly , like belshazzer's , and therefore when they are sick or troubled , they never run to the word for comfort , as though god's promise pertained not to them ; but to feasts , or tables , or tales , or mnsick , as saul did to the harp. but all the delights of the godly are like david's dance about the ark ; they are never merry but when they are doing well ; nor at peace , but when their prayers have overcome god , like jacob. they are distinguished in their opinions of death : for the faithful long to be dissolved , and although they might live for ever in continual prosperity , yet they would not stay so long out of heaven : but the wicked would never be dissolved , because death comes always unto them like a jaylor to hale unto prison , as achab said to michaiah , that he never prophesied good to him . hereby a man shall know whether he have faith : for if he do believe the promises , he wi●l be glad to receive them . they are distinguished in their sence of sin : wicked men feel the lothsomness of their vices , but none but the faithful feel the defects of their righteousness . the natural man never complaineth of his good works , but vaunteth of them : but a godly man findeth fault with his prayers , and his alms , and his watches , like isaiah , that said , his righteousness was like a menstruous cloath . as christ met the temper in the wilderness , a place of prayer , and fasting , and meditation : so a godly man meeteth the tempter in his prayer , and in his fasts , and in his meditations , that is , he finds some let , or spot , or want in all his devotions . therefore unless thy righteousness mislike thee as well as thy prophaneness , know that yet thou art no farther than the wicked . they are distinguished in their ends : for the children of god propose the glory of god , and level all their thoughts , and speeches , and actions , as if they were messengers sent to carry him presents of honour . thus did david when he said , all that is within me praise the lord. as though himself had rather been without praise than his master : but the children of the world set up their own glory for their mark , like nebuchadnezzer , which said , for the honour of my majesty , dan. . . therefore they speak , and look , and walk , as if they did say to their tongue , and eyes , and feet , and apparel , as saul said to samuel , honour me before this people . lastly , they are distinguished in perseverance : for the zeal of the wicked lasteth not , and therefore god saith , they are soon turned out of the way : but the zeal of the faithful was represented by the fire of the temple , which never went out . by these differences thou mayst see how much thou dost differ from the wicked , or whether thou be of their band . then come to the third examination : as the devil tempteth thee , to see what thou wilt do for him , so thou must tempt thy self , and get of thy soul what it would do for god , and what it should suffer for him , which hath suffered death for it . therefore here we will set down certain interrogatories , whereof thou shalt examine it . first , whether thou hast the heart of joshua to worship god ; as boldly as thou dost , though all the world did renounce him , and every one did mock thee as they did noah , while he built the ark ? whether thou wouldst not deny christ as peter did , if thou were in peters straights , and nothing to succour thee but policy ? whether thou wouldst not steal , if thou didst see a booty as fit as achan , which thou mightst catch up , and no one spy thee ? whether thou wouldst refuse a bribe like elisha , if thou didst meet with one which were as willing and able to give it as naaman ? whether thou wouldst not deceive , if thou were in such an office as the false steward , whose master referred all unto him , and knew not when he kept any thing back ? whether thou wouldst not fulfil thy lust as david did , if thou hadst the oportunity and allurement , and mightst do it without danger of law like a king , as david might ? whether thou wouldst not tell a lye , as abraham did , if it stood upon thy life , which made him twice dissemble that his wife was his sister , lest he should dye for her beauty ? finally , if it should be said unto thee , as the devil said to christ , all these will i give thee , if thou wilt fall down and worship me : that is no more , but if thou wilt sin , whether thou wouldst yield or no ? if thou hast sinned thus and thus before , i will not say , therefore the lord will not hear thee . but david saith , if i regard wickedness in my heart , the lord will not hear me , that is , if for any cause a man purpose and carry a mind to sin when he is tempted , the lord is so far from helping him , that he will stand like baal , as tho' he did not hear him : for he hath a traytors mind as deep as any , which thinks , for a dukedom i would betray my prince , though he never play the traytor in his life . thus you have heard how to try spirits , and how to discern a christian from an hypocrite , and how to oppose your hearts , that ye may be sure to judge rightly what ye are . now we come to that examination , which is the epitome or abridgment of all these , for memory is short , and all are not of one strength : but some run , and some go , and some creep , and all do well , so long as they strive to perfection . the matters whereof principally the mind should be examined before the sacrament , are these . first , whether thou have faith , not only to believe that christ died , but that he died for thee : for as the scripture calleth him a redeemer , so job calleth him his redeemer . the second article is , whether thou be in charity , not whether thou love them which love thee ; but whether thou love them which hate thee : for christ commandeth us , to love our enemies . the third article is , whether thou repent , not for thy open and gross sins , but for thy secret sins , and petty sins , because christ saith , that we must give account for every idle word . the fourth article is , whether thou resolve not to sin again for any cause , but to amend thy evil life , not when age cometh , or for a spurt , but to begin now , and last till death : for christ is alpha and omega , both the beginning and the end , as well in our living as in our being , which hath made no promise to them which begin , but to them which persevere . the last article is , whether thou canst find in thy heart to dye for christ , as christ died for thee : for we are bid not only to follow him , but to bear his cross : and therefore we are called servants , to shew how we should obey : and we are all called souldiers , to shew how we should suffer . these are the receivers articles , whereof his conscience must be examined before he receive this sacrament : happy is ●●e which can say , all these have i kept : for the dove was not so welcome to noah , as this man is to christ. but if thou find ●ot these affections within , but a nest of vices , leave thine ●●ffering at the altar , and return to thine examination again : ●or thou art not a fit guest to sup with the lord , until thou ●ave on this wedding garment . how is it then , that some regard their other garments more ●●an this ? st. paul saith , examine your selves , and they exa●ine their apparel : if they have new cloaths in the country , ●●en they are ready to receive . i have known many kept ●●om the sacrament a whole year together by their masters , for nothing , but for want of a new sute to set them forth with their fellows . others respect whether it be a fair day , that they may walk after service , making that day upon which they receive , like a scholars thursday , which he loves better than all the days in the week , only because it is play-day . thus like the jews , they sit down to eat and rise up to play , that as christ calleth the pharisees prayer babling , matth. . . so their receiving may be called dallying . when they have the sacrament in their belly , they think that all is well , as micah , when he had a levite in his house thought that god loved him : but as the levite did not prof●● him , because he received nothing but the levite , so the brea● and wine do them no good , because they receive nothing b●● bread and wine for want of faith. marvel not then if yo● have not felt that comfort after the sacrament , which yo● looked for , for it is comfortable to none but to them whic● prepare their hearts and examine themselves before , because is not the mouth but the heart which receiveth comfort . now it may be the most that are here have brought mouth and not a heart , these go away from the sacrament despight christ , as judas went from the sacrament to betr●● him . the other go away like one which hath received a cheer countenance of the prince , all his thoughts are joy , and t● countenance of the prince is still in his eye . as he which h●● eaten sweet meat , hath a sweet breath : so they which ha●● eaten christ , all their sayings and doings are sweet , like a p●●fume to men , and incense to god , their peace of conscien●● and joy of heart , and desire to do good , will tell them w●●ther they have received the bare signs , or the thing signified . every one which receiveth this sacrament , shall feel him better after it , like the apostles : or else he shall find him worse after it , like judas . hereby ye shall know whether have received like the apostles , or like judas . thus we 〈◊〉 ended the doctrine , of the lord's supper . now if you can remember all that i have said , yet remember the text : 〈◊〉 is , examine your selves before you receive the sacrament 〈◊〉 after finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e the two breasts of the church . mat. . . ● chr. . . the division . the author . ioh. . . none but christ may ordain sacraments . joh. . . rev. . . iohn . . gen. . . who was therefore called john the baptis . mat. . . lev. . . ▪ . why the sacrament was instituted at night why it was deferred to his last night . why we receive not the lord's supper at night . gen. . . zuke . . note . mat. gen. . luke . heb. . . john . . pet. . ephes. . . sa. . . joh. . . k. . . hereticks alledge scripture like the devil . mal. . psal. . mat. . . joh. . . joh. . . note . gen. . . arguments against popish transubstantiation . mat. . mar. . . cor. . . uerse . . verse . gen . . gen. . . exod. . . exod heb. . . exod. . exod . exod . mat. . john . . john . . cor. . exod. . mat. . john . exod . john . . john . . john . . john . . aug. upon the psal. tertul. against marcion the . book . . book . can . of sacraments . in his first dialogue upon the of mat. iren. . book cap. . against valentinus ad ob theod . anathematis . . book of epi. in that gospel whosoever speaketh a word &c. hom. . to the people of antioch . to caesirius the monk against eutiches the heretick . upon the canon lect . . book of the sacra . pag. . against the captivity of babylon , made by m. luther . luk. . . the papists allegations for the real presence . exod. . . & . exod. . . thes. . objection . answer . mar. . . objection . answer . objection . answer . luke . . mat . exod . gen. . . gen. . tit. . . cor. . luke . . john . . mat. . luk. . . john . . luk. . john . mat. . . whether christs mortal body can be in the sacrament . dan. . . mar. christ spake not to the bread and wine , but to his disciples . more in the lord's supper , then bread and wine . cor. . a similitude . rom. . . dan. . . a similitude . another similitude . augustin . luk. . luk . . note . joh. . . pro. . . a way to know whether christ's body be in the sacrament . john . why christ calleth the bread his body . verse . if christ's body were in the sacrament , it were not a sacrament but a sacrifice . mat. . kin. . . joh. . . judg. . . a monster of his age. eight absurdities which follow transubstantiation . . act. . . rom. . . act. . . . . . . heb. . . and . . . . . act. . . conclusion . deut. . . and . notes for div a -e mat. . . mar. . . joh. . . heb. . . matt. . luk . heb. . . for types and figures . sa. . lev. ●● heb. . . deut. . . rev. . . the popish receiving under one kind confuted . mat. . . sam. . . mat. . how the popish priests do injure the d●●p●e . col. . . acts . . sam. . mar. . . jud . . gen. . . esay . . verse . mat. . . gen. . cor. . . mat. . . ps. . . matth. . acts . . mar. . mat. . luk . . mat. . luk. . . luk. . . a similitude of mans estate his words are not so , but the effect of his words . * kings . luk. . . matt. . . the merciful article . rev. . . gen. . verse . three arguments against transubstantiation in one verse . dan. . . vers. . what it is to receive unworthily . john . luke . . how receivers may be guilty of christs death . mar . mar . mar . vers. . . cor. . . how we should be prepared before we come to the lord , table . joh. . . sam . kings . sam. . . exod. . . & . chr. . all are bound to know the scriptures act. . . note . exod. . &c. cor. . . joh. . . ters . . the divsion . cor. . . john . a description of true examination . jer. . . joh . . mat. . . thes. . mat. . mat. . luke . . cor. . . matt. . . psal. . . luk. . joh. . . kin. . kin. . luk. cor. . . pro. . . cor. . . luk. . . judg. . luk . . eccl. . . luk. . . the second examination . job . . luk. . . gen. . . mar. . . thes. . job . . cor. ii . . mar. . the first examination upon the marks of true spirits and the false in our selves or others . king. . . deu. . mat. . . mat. . . rom. tit. . . mar. . . the second examination upon the difference between the wicked & the godly . num. . . mat. . . rom. . . iam. . . matth. . tim. . psal. . matth. . joh. . . mat. . . exo. . . sa. . . mar. . . dan. . . isa. . . rom. . . luk. . . kin. . . matt. . . mat. . . luk . . psal. . . z●ch . ● rom . . . gen. . . act. . . gal. . . . psal. . ● . . exo. . . mat. . . . cor. . . gen. . . joh. . . . ex. . . job . . pro. . . pro . . sam. . dan. . . sam. . . isa. . . gen. . . phil. . . luke . . kin. . . esa . . psal . . mat. . . psal. . dan. . . sa. . exod. . . levit. . the third examination . mat. . . josh. . mat. . josh. . . . kin . . luk . . although this is a parable , yet it carrieth the signification of a history . sa. . . gen. . gen. . . mat. . . psa . . kin. . . the fourth examination . heb. . the receivers articles . esa. . job . . mat. . . mat. . rev . rev. . . luk. . tim. . . mat. . gen. . . mat. . . mat. . the preparation of country-folk before they receive . judg . joh. . . how a man shall know whether he have received well . a revievv of ten publike disputations or conferences held vvithin the compasse of foure yeares, vnder k. edward & qu. mary, concerning some principall points in religion, especially of the sacrament & sacrifice of the altar. vvherby, may appeare vpon how vveake groundes both catholike religion vvas changed in england; as also the fore-recounted foxian martyrs did build their new opinions, and offer themselues to the fire for the same, vvhich vvas chiefly vpon the creditt of the said disputations. by n.d. review of ten publike disputations. parsons, robert, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a stc estc s this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) a revievv of ten publike disputations or conferences held vvithin the compasse of foure yeares, vnder k. edward & qu. mary, concerning some principall points in religion, especially of the sacrament & sacrifice of the altar. vvherby, may appeare vpon how vveake groundes both catholike religion vvas changed in england; as also the fore-recounted foxian martyrs did build their new opinions, and offer themselues to the fire for the same, vvhich vvas chiefly vpon the creditt of the said disputations. by n.d. review of ten publike disputations. parsons, robert, - . , [ ] p. imprinted with licence [by f. bellet], [saint-omer] : anno m. dc. iiii. [ ] n.d. = robert parsons. place of publication and printer's name from stc. the last leaf is blank. also issued as part of: parsons, robert. "a treatise of three conversions of england", published in (stc ). print show-through. reproduction of the original in the harvard university. library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation -- early works to . great britain -- church history -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - john latta sampled and proofread - john latta text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a revievv of ten pvblike dispvtations or conferences held vvithin the compasse of foure yeares , vnder k. edward & qu. mary , concerning some principall points in religion , especially of the sacrament & sacrifice of the altar . vvherby , may appeare vpon how vveake groundes both catholike religion vvas changed in england ; as also the fore-recounted foxian martyrs did build their new opinions , and offer themselues to the fire for the same , vvhich vvas chiefly vpon the creditt of the said disputations . by n. d. aug. lib. . against petilian the donatist . vve are constrayned to heare , discusse , and refute these trifles of yours : least the simpler and weaker sort should fall into your snares . imprinted vvith licence anno m. dc . iiii. the contentes of this reuievv . the preface shewing what vtility disputation may bring , for discussion of matters in controuersy ; and how farre : togeather with the causes , why the reuiew of these ten disputations is now published . . often publike disputations , recounted by iohn fox to haue byn held in england , about controuersies in religion , especially concerninge the blessed sacrament of the altar , vvithin the space of foure yeares , at two seuerall changes of religion vnder k. edward and q. mary ; besides many other more particular , held in bishops consistoryes and other places about the same matters . chap. i. . the state of the cheife question handled in the forsaid disputations , concerninge the reall presence , transubstantiation , and the sacrifice of the masse ; with the cheese grounds that be on eyther side . chap. ii. . certayne obseruations to be noted , for better answeringe of hereticall cauillations against the forsaid articles . chap. iii. . the examination of such arguments , as in the former disputations were alleaged by the zivinglians and caluinists , against the reall presence of christs body in the sacrament . chap. iv. . vvhat catholike arguments were alleaged in these disputations for the reall presence : & how they were answered or shifted of by the protestants . chap. v. . of two other articles about transubstantiation , and the sacrament of the altar , what passed in this disputation . chpp. vi. the preface , shewinge what vtility disputation may bringe , for discussion of matters in controuersie , & how farre : togeather vvith the causes , vvhy the reuievv of these ten disputations is now published . that disputation is a good meanes and profitable instrument , to examine and try out truth , euen in matters of faith , yf yt be rightly vsed , & vvith due circumstances , no man can deny ; for that experience in gods church doth teach yt , to vvitt , that great vtility hath often-tymes byn receaued by such disputations : and vve read amonge other examples , that in the tyme of antoninus the emperour sonne of seuerus , that died in yorke , a little more then a hundred yeares after christ , the montanists heresy , vvho vvere called also cataphrigians , grovving strong , and dravvinge to it diuers pricipall men , and namely tertullian , vvith the admiratiō of the vvhole vvorld ; one caius a cath man most excellently learned , and of rare and vertuous life , tooke vpon him to dispute publikely in rome in the presence of the vvhole church , vvith licēce of zepherinus the pope , against a chiefe principall man of that sect called proclus , and so confounded him therin , as frō that day forvvard the sect began greatly to decline ; of vvhich disputatiō do make mentiō both eusebius & s. hierome , & yt did much profitt that catholike cause . . and about . hundred yeares after this againe , vve read of another profitable disputation held in our countrey , by s. germanus & his fellovves , french bishopps , vvith the brittish pelagians vpon the yeare of christ . vvherby they vvere so confuted , as also vvith the miracles vvrought by s. german , by certaine reliques brought from rome , as their heresie neuer prospered there aftervvard , but vvas soone extinguished . vve read in like manner of diuers publike cōflicts & disputatiōs , held by s. austen vvith diuers learned heretiks of sundry sects , as namely vvith fortunatus a manichean priest , in the citty of hippo in africa , vpon the yeare . al the clergy & people being present , & publike notaryes appointed to set dovvne both their argumēts : & the issue of this disputatiōs vvas , that vvhē the manichean heretike could not ansvvere , he said ( saith possidonius ) secum suis maioribus collaturum , that he vvould conferre those difficultyes vvith his betters , & then if they could not satisfy him se animae suae consulturum , that he vvould haue care of his ovvne soule . but this care vvas ( saith the same possidonius ) that he ranne avvay from the citty , and neuer appeared there againe . vvhich point s. augustine himselfe obiecteth , in a certayne epistle , to another manichee priest , that came to succeed in fortunatus his place in that citty , prouokinge him also to like disputation , but the heretike refused the combatt . . and after this againe , the said father being novv made bishopp , vpon the yeare of christ . he disputed publikely for tvvo dayes togeather , vvith another principall manichean heretike named foelix , in presence of the vvhole people , notaryes being appointed on both sides to take their arguments . in vvhich disputation , s. austen did so euidently conuince his aduersarie , as he in the end yelded ( a strange example in an heretike ) and renounced his heresie , and became a catholike , vvhereby the mauichean heresie vvas so shaken and discredited throughout all africa , as no man euer openly aftervvard durst defend the same in disputation , but it vanished avvay by little and little , as a smoke vvhen the fire is putt out . this vvhole disputation is to be seene at large in s. austen , laid forth in tvvo books of his de actis cum faelice manichaeo . and this for the manicheans . . but vvith the donatists and arrians , he had many other like conflicts : as for example , vpon the yeare of christ . there vvas a sollemne disputation held at carthage in africa , for diuers daies togeather , betvvene the catholike and donatist bishopps , the cath. bishopps being in number . vvherof the principall disputer vvas s. austen himselfe ; & of the donatist bishops . vvhich shevveth the multitude of heretiks in those parts to haue byn great , notvvithstandinge they had bin much diminished by cath. bishops labours and vvrytings : for that . yeares before , there mett togeather against the catholiks . donatist bishopps , exceptinge six : this disputation vvas before the conte marcellinus gouernour of that countrey , and publike notaryes vvere present to take the argumēts on both sides , and all being ended the iudge pronounced this sentence : omnium documentorum manifestatione , à catholicis donatistas confutatos . that the donatists vvere conuinced by the catholiks , by the manifest truth of all kind of arguments . s. augustine himselfe setteth forth a breefe relation of all that meeting & disputation , intituling yt breuiculum . and in a certayne epistle of his testifieth moreouer of the euent , that albeit those miserable bishops vvere not conuerted therby , but rather made more obstinate & obdurate : yet that many of their people vvere , & especially of the furious circumcellians , that vvere ready to murder men vpon zeale of their heresie . . i lett passe another disputation vvhich the said father had , some . or . yeares after that , by the order of pope zozimus of rome , in the citty of caesarea in mauritania , vvith one emeritus a donatist b. of that citty ; all the vvhole people of the citty , togeather vvith diuers bishopps , being present ; but little good could be done vvith him , his obstinacy vvas so great and peruerse . the acts of that disputation are extant in s. austen , & often mention therof is made by himselfe , & by possidonius in his life . and this for the donatists . . but vvith the arrians i find the same father to haue had sundry disputations also , as namely once vpon the yeare of christ . the gouernour bonifacius , hauinge many gothes in his campe vvho vvere of the arrian sect : they had also an arrian bishopp that gouerned them , named maximinus , vvho in their opinion vvas very learned , and therfore they made instance , that he might dispute vvith s. augustine , vvhich the good father accepted , for he refused none , and so they had their meetinge and disputation , and the acts thereof are extant in his vvorks , togeather vvith a certaine booke of his ovvne added thervnto , for explication of diuers points , vvherof these heretiks vvere vvont to vaunt aftervvard , as though they had gott the victory ; vvhich happened to the same father in another combatt , held the very same yeare , vvith one conte pascentius of the same arrian sect , vvho vvas cheefe fifchall or treasourer of the emperor , and most arrogantlie chalenged to dispute vvith s. austen , but yet in priuate & vvithout notaryes , in respect of the emperiall lavves , that did forbidd publike disputations in fauour of sects and heresies . vvhich disputation s. augustine accepted ; and the same vvas held priuatly , in the presence of many noble and learned men , but the heretikes vvould not yeld , but rather published soone after ( as their fashion is ) that they had the victory , vvhich s. austen vvas forced to refute by many seuerall epistles , and by settinge forth the disputation it selfe , as yt is to be seene in his vvorks . . and this may suffice for a tast of some disputations , held at diuers tymes and in diuers countreyes , vvith heretiks of sundry sects in the ancient church : and i might recite many more , as that of maximus a learned catholike monke in africa , vvho vpon the yeare of christ . held a very famous disputation against one pyrrhus , archbishop of constantinople , a great pillar of those heretiks called monothelits , that held one only vvill , and not tvvo to be in christ our sauiour , vvhich disputation being made in the presence of many bishopps , and of the gouernour of that country , named gregorius patricius , the hereticall archbishopp vvas so confounded , as he left his heresie , vvent to rome , and gaue vp a booke of his pennance to pope theodorus , and vvas receaued by him into the catholike communion againe : and that vvas the euent of that disputation . . and not full . yeares after this againe , to vvitt vpon the yeare . vvas that great disputation also in england , betvvene the english and scottish bishops , about the obseruation of easter , in the presence of tvvo kings oswyn and egfrid his sonne , kinges of northumberland and of the mercians : the cheefe disputers , on the scottish bishopps parte , vvere colman and cedda , and of the english , agilbertus bishopp of the vvestsaxons and vvilfrid : and the issue of this disputation vvas , that kings osvvyn vvas conuerted to the vnion of the roman church , and caused the vse thereof to be practized in his countrey . . and so vve see by these examples , and many more that might be alleaged , that disputations in points of religion are sometymes necessary , & do much good , vvhen they are taken in hand vvith equall and due conditions , and conuenient lavves for indifferency in tryinge out the truth , for that othervvayes they may be pernicious , & haue byn refused by anciēt fathers , as vve read of one reiected by saint ambrose in milayne , vpon the yeare of christ . vvhen auxentius the arrian-bishopp , being puffed vp vvith pride & arrogancy , by the fauour of the empresse iustina , infected vvith the same heresy , had not only prouoked s. ambrose to publike disputation , but had further procured that valentinian the yong emperour , being yet a child , & not baptized but only cathecumenus , did make a publike edict , to commaund the said disputations to be held vpō such a day , in his publike court or consistorie , before himselfe & the said empresse , certaine learned pagans and ievves being appointed for iudges in that matter . but s. ambrose , by the counsell of diuers bishopps gathered togeather vvith him , refused to come to those disputatiōs , vvryting a booke to the emperour valentinian for his excuse , shevvinge the iniustice and vnequality of the order , and of those tymes , and persuadinge him to recall the said lavv . and yf he vvould haue that controuersie in religion , betvveene them and the arrians , treated againe , he should follovv therin the excellent example of his predecessor constantine the great , vvho suffered priests and bishopps only to handle that matter in the councell of nice , and so vvas this disputation broken of : & presently there happened a thing of great admiratiō ( saith paulinus in the life of s. ambrose ) vvhich vvas , that a certaine principall learned arrian , acerrimus disputator ; & inconuertibilis ad fidem catholicam , being a most eager disputer , and esteemed not possible to be conuerted to the catholike faith ; being deceaued , at it seemeth , of his hope and expectation to dispute in this conflict , vvent to the church , to heare at least vvhat ambrose could say out of the pulpit in his sermons : vvhere seing an angell to speake as it vvere in his eare , he vvas by that miracle not only conuerted to be a catholike , but became also a most vehement defendor of that faith against the heretiks . . to returne then to our purpose of disputation , yt is of great moment , hovv , and in vvhat tyme and place , and vvith vvhat lavves and conditions they are made , vvherof yovv vvill see the proofe and experience also in these ten , that heere vve are to present ; vvherof six being held vnder the gouernemēt of protestants , and . vnder catholike magistrates , yovv shall see complaints on both sides of inequality vsed : but he that shall read and consider them in differently , and vvithout passion , euen as they are sett dovvne by fox himselfe ( for vve could gett no other records therof for the present ) he shall easily see no small differences to appeare . for that the disputatiōs both at oxford and cambridge in k. henryes dayes , vvere only certaine ostentations of light skyrmishes a farre of , so vainly and fondly performed , as they haue no substance in them at all . and so he vvill see that shall read these examinations . the other vnder queene mary , though the first of them in the conuocation-house , vvherin protestants only vvere opponents , vvas not much vnlike the former for substāce , or rather lacke of substance : yet the other three held in oxford against cranmer , ridley and latymer by catholike disputers , are of a farre different kynd , as hauinge both iudges , notaryes , and arbitrators to the likinge of both parts appointed . and albeit in the manner of vrginge arguments , there vvant not complaints of the protestant party , as after yovv shall heare : for that diuers somtymes are said to haue spoken togeather , & one man to haue putt himselfe into the prosecution of another mans argument , somevvhat disorderly as to them yt seemed : yet touchinge the thinges themselues , to vvitt the arguments & proofes there laid forth & prosecuted , there vvere so many cleere , substantiall & vveighty , as the reader vvill cōfesse there vvas no tyme lost in those . dayes disputation of the cath party . and so to the examination therof i remitt me . . one thing of no small importance there is to be cōsidered in this preface about the nature of disputation ; to vvitt , that as it is a fit meanes to styrre vp mans vnderstandinge to attēd the truth , by layinge forth the difficultyes on both sides ; so is yt not alvvayes sufficient to resolue his iudgement , for that yt moueth more doubts then he can aunsvvere or dissolue . and this happeneth not only in vnlearned people , vvhich by no meanes can descerne vvhich party hath the better , vvhen both parts are learned & alleage arguments for themselues , in matters aboue their capacity , but euen the most learned also , yf they haue no other meanes of resolution then arguing to and fro by disputation , are brought many-times to be more doubtfull therby then before , & this euen in matters both naturall and morall of this life . the reason vvherof is , that mans vnderstandinge being limited , and the light of knovvledge imparted vnto him from god , being but a little particle or sparkle of his infinite diuine knovvledge : yt cometh to passe , that the more this sparkle is exercised , & inkendled in searching out gods vvorks and secrets in this life , the more yt seeth her ovvne vveaknes , and beginneth to doubt more , & to be more ambiguous in herselfe , vvhether that vvhich shee apprehendeth be truly apprehended or no , or vvhether by further search shee shall not find it othervvise , and see herselfe deceaued in this apprehensiō , as she hath found in many other apprehensions that vvent before , vvhen she had lesse knovvledge . . and vpon this ground no doubt came those philosophers , called the academicks , to found their sect & profession , that they vvould belceue or affirme nothing , but dispute of all things to and fro vvithout assent . and heere hence came also the sayinge of that other philosopher : hoc unum scio , me nihil scire . i knovv only this , that i knovv nothinge . and s. austen himselfe before his conuersion , being yet a manichee , & vvearyed out vvith this search by vvay of arguments to and fro , vvhich should be the true religiō ( for this vvas one of their principall groūds , as himselfe testified , to beleeue nothinge , but that vvhich vvas euidēt by reason ) fell at length to forsake the manichees , & to ioyne himselfe to the academiks : but after long search finding no certainty also therin , and hearing their sect euery day impugned by s. ambrose bishopp of millayne ( vvhere then augustine remayned ) he returned in the end by the motion of almightie god , to consider vvhat more grounds the catholike religion had , to stay a mans iudgement or cōscience , then the vncertainty of disputations , and findinge the same , resolued himselfe to renoūce all sects and to be a catholike , as in his ovvne confessions at large he declareth . . by this then vve do see , that albeit disputation rightly vsed , be a good meanes to discouer truth by mouinge doubts to and fro , yet is yt not alvvayes sufficient to resolue and quiett a mans iudgement , euen in naturall thinges : and yf not in these , hovv much lesse in supernaturall and diuine , vvherin humaine disputation hath farre lesse force ? for that humaine sciences , deducinge their disputation from principles that are euidently knovvne vnto vs by light of nature , may farre better resolue a man by force of those disputations , and enforce him to yeld his assent , then in matters of diuinity , vvhere the first grounds and principles , are not knovvne to vs by light of nature , as in humaine sciences , but are receaued only by light of faith , & reueyled from god : vvherfore these disputations may serue to examine and discusse matters , for stirring vp our vnderstanding , but the resolution & determination , must come frō a more certaine meanes vvhich is infallible , and this vve see practised in the very first cōtrouersy , that euer vvas handled in the priuitiue church , as is recorded by s. luke in the acts of the apostles , vvhere the question being , vvhether christiās conuerted of gentills , should be bound to the obseruation of the mosayicall lavv or no ? there vvas ( saith the text ) first magna conquisitio , a great search or disputation about the matter ; and then secondly the apostles declared their sentences in order ; and finally the determination vvas in all their names , representing the vvhole church , visum est spiritui sancto & nobis , yt seemed good to the holy-ghost and vs , and so vvas the matter determined , and the like forme hath byn obserued euer since that tyme in the cath. church , determining all cōtrouersies that haue fallen out , to vvit , that first there should be great search & discussion of the matter , by lavvfull and free disputation , to vvhich end the most learned men of all nations are sent cōmonly to generall councells , to performe this point . and secondly all argumēts on both sides being heard & examined , the bishops presēt do giue their voices , and accordinge to the greater part , vvith concourse & generall approbation of the generall head , do they determine visum est spiritui sancto & nobis . so as heere disputatiō serueth not to determine but to examine . . and for that the sectaryes of our dayes haue not this sound meane to determyne matters , but do depend only vpon probability , and persuasibility of speach , or vvryting one against the other , by which ( as tully saith ) nothinge is so incredible , that may not be made probable : therfore are their questions and controuersies endlesse and indeterminable ; and though they haue had aboue a hundred meetings , conferences , disputations , councells and synods from their first disputation held at lypsia , vpon the yeare . vnto their synodde in vilna , vpon the yeare . vvhereof yovv may see more largely in stanislaus rescius his obseruations : yet could they neuer agree , nor vvill hereafter , lackinge the forsaid meanes of resolution and determination vpon their disputations . . and yf this do fall out euen in the learnedst of our sectaryes , that they cannot by disputations alone resolue soundly eyther themselues , or others in matters of cōtrouersy , for that still there remaine doubts and difficultyes , vvhether matters vvere vvell prosecuted or no ; and nevv arguments do offer themselues dayly to and fro : vvhat shall vve thinke of the vnlearned and ignorant people , that cannot vnderstand that is argued , and much lesse iudge therof ? and yet vpon the creditt of such disputations do aduenture their foules , as yovv haue seene by many lamentable examples before in both mē & vveomen , that vpon the fame & creditt of these english disputations heere sett dovvne by fox , partlie vnder k. edward , & partlie vnder queene mary , and vpon the probabilitie of some fond and broken arguments vsed therin for the protestants side , as somevvhat apparant & plausible to their senses & capacity , haue not only stood therein most arrognatly against their bishopps , and learned pastors by open disputatiōs in their courts and consistoryes , but haue runne also to the fire for the same , vvherof allerton , tankerfield , crashfield , fortune , and others * before mentioned being but cooks , carpenters , and coblars by occupation : yea vveomen also as anne alebright , alice potkins , ioan lashford , alice dryuer , and others may be ridiculous but lamentable examples . . neither is this a nevv or strange thinge , that hereticall vveomen should grovv to such insolency , as to stand in disputation vvith the learnedst bishops of the catholike side , for that vve read it recorded in ecclesiasticall historyes aboue . hundred yeares gone , to vvitt vpon the yeare of christ . that a certayne vvillfull vvoman of the citty of antioch named iulia , infected vvith the abhominable heresie of the manichees and feruent therein , came vnto the citty of gaza , vvherof s. porphyrius a holy learned man vvas bishop , & beginning there to peruert diuers christians , & being for the same reprehended by the bishopp , she contemned him , yea chalenged him to open disputatiō , vvhich the good man admittinge , she behaued herselfe so insolently therein as vvas intolerable : so as vvhen he had suffered her a great vvhile to alleage her blasphemous arguments , & could by no meanes reduce her or make her harken to the truth , he fell from disputation to vse another meane , turning himselfe to god , sayinge : o eternall god vvhich hast created all thinges , and art only eternall , hauinge no beginninge or endinge , vvho art glorified in the blessed trinitie , strike this vvomans tongue , and stopp her mouth that she speake no more blasphemyes against thee . vvhich vvords being vttered , iulia began to stammer , and to change countenance , fallinge into an extasis , and so leesing her voyce , remained dumme vntill she died , vvhich vvas soone after , vvherat tvvo men and tvvo vveomen that came vvith her fell dovvne at the bishopps feete as kinge pardon , and vvere conuerted , as vvere diuers gentills also by the same miracle . . and this vvas the conclusion of that disputation ; and though it pleased not almightie god to vse the like miracles externallie in qu. maryes dayes , for the repressinge of those insolēt vveomen that disputed so malepartlie , and vttered so manie blasphemous speaches against the soueraigne misterie of christs reall presence in the sacrament ; yet can there be no great doubt , but that invvardlie he vsed the same , or no lesse iustice vnto them , especiallie seing he suffered them to go to the fire all vvithout repentance , and so to perish both bodilie and ghostlie , temporallie add eternallie . and for that in recytinge their storyes before sett dovvne , intendinge all breuitie possible , i could not conuenientlie lay forth their seuerall arguments in disputation , as neyther of those that vvere their maisters and inducers to this maddnes ; i haue thought good heere to examine all togeather in this re-vievv , vvhereby yovv shall see vvhat grounds they had of so great an enterprise , and of so obstinate a prosecution therof . and this shall suffice by vvay of preface : novv vvill vve passe to the recytall of the said disputations . of ten pvblike dispvtations , recounted by iohn fox , to haue byn held in england , about controuersies in religion , especially concerning the blessed sacrament of the altar , within the space of . yeares , at two seuerall changes of religion , vnder k edward , and queene mary ; besides many other more particular , held in bishops consistoryes , and other places , about the same matters . chap. i. novv then to come more neere to the matter yt selfe , we are breefly to recount the forsaid ten disputations , or publike meetinges and conferences , that after the change of the outward face of catholike religion in england , were held in our countrey within the space only of . or . yeares , and the effects that ensued thereof , which in great part were not vnlike to the successe of all those disputations , meetings , conferences , colloquies and other attempts of triall before mentioned , to haue ben with little profitt of agreement , made in germany , polony , france and other places amongst the protestants of this age , since the beginning of their new ghospell , the causes and reasons wherof , haue in part ben touched by vs in our precedent preface , and shall better appeare afterward by the examination of these ten publike disputatiōs , from which , as from generall storehouses , or head schooles , were borrowed the armour & arguments , for these other lesser bickerings of particular foxian martyrs , which they had with their bishops , prelates & pastors at their examinations & arraignemēts , vpon the confidence & pride wherof , they were induced to offer themselues most obstinately & pittifully vnto the fire , as in th'examē of iohn fox his calendar , you haue seene aboundantly declared . first disputation . §. . . wherfore to recount the particulars as breifely as we may , the first publike disputation of these ten , wherof we now are to treat , was held at oxford against the reall presence of the blessed body & bloud of our sauiour in the sacrament of the altar , by peter martyr an italian apostata friar , vpon the yeare of christ ( as fox setteth it downe ) . which was the third of k. edward the sixt his raigne , about the moneth of iune ( for he expresseth not the very day ) and the cheife moderator or iudge in this disputation , was d. cox chancelourat that tyme of the vniuersity ; but after vnder q. elizabeth was b. of ely , and his assistents were henry b. of lincolne , d. haynes deane of exceter ; m. richard marison esquier , and christophor ne●●son doctor of cyuill law ; all comissionars ( saith fox ) of the kings maiestie , sent downe for this effect to authorize the disputations . . for better vnderstandinge wherof yow must note , that albeit k. edward had raigned now more then full two yeares , and that the protector seymer and some others of his humour , would haue had change of doctrine established euen at the beginninge , about the point of the blessed sacrament ; yet could they not obtayne it in parlamēt , partly , for that the farre greater part of the realme was yet against it , but especially for that it was not yet resolued by the archbishopp cranmer himselfe , of whome if you remember , iohn fox doth complaine in one place vnder k. henry ; that good cranmer had not yet a full feelinge of that doctrine . whervpon we see , that in the first parlament of k. edwards tyme , begon vpon the . of nouember & ended vpon the . of december . there was an act made with this title . an act against such persons as shall vnreuerently speake against the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ , &c. wherin magnificent words are spoken of this sacrament and all those greatly reprehended , that in their sermons , preachings , readings , ta●ks , rymes , songes , playes , or gestures , did name and call yt , ●y such vile and vnseemely words ( saith the statute ) is christian eares did abhorre to heare yt rehearsed ; and this was the the first spiritt of that caluinian humor in england , misliked by cranmer and the rest at that tyme , but soone after allowed well by iohn fox in such of his martyrs , as call yt wormes-meate , idoll , and the like . . and finally this party so much preuayled with them that gouerned , as not longe after , that is to say , in the second parlament be gone the . of nouember . and ended the . of march . they gott their new communion booke to be admitted , wherin their new doctrine also against the reall presence was conteyned , and then peter martyr , who , as in his story we haue * shewed , was sent to oxford before with indifferēcy , to teach what should be ordeyned him from higher powers in that parlament , hauing expected all the lent long , whilst the parlament endured , what would be decreed about this point ; and finding himselfe in straytes , for that he was come to the place of s. paul to the corinthians , where he must needs declare himselfe , receauinge now aduertisment of the new decree , did not only accomodate himselfe to teach and preach the same doctrine presently : ( which yet the other friar , his companion martyn bucer would not doe in cambridge ) but also was content vpon request & order from the councell , to defend the same in publike disputations , for better authorizinge yt through the whole body of the realme . this then was the occasion of this first publike disputation , to giue some countenance and creditt to the new receaued opinion and paradox of zuinglius , occolampadius , and carolstadius , three schollers of luther himselfe , against the reall presence , which as often yow haue heard before , luther did condemne for damnable heresie , and them for heretiks that mayntayned yt . . the questions chosen by peter martyr were three : first about transubstantiation , whether after the words of consecration , the bread and wyne be turned into the body and bloud of christ. the second about the reall presence ; whether the body and bloud of christ be carnally and corporally ( for so are his words ) in the bread and wyne , or otherwise vnder the kinds of bread and wyne . the third was : whether the body and bloud of christ be vnited to bread sacramentally ? but of this last question fox relateth nothing , that yt was eyther handled or touched in this disputation . about the former two , this manifest fraud was vsed , that wheras the first about transubstantiation , dependeth of the second of the reall presence , it should haue byn handled in the second place , and not in the first , as heere yt is ; for cleerer conceauing whereof , the reader must note , that the mayne controuersie betweene the sacramentaryes & vs , is about the reall presence , to witt whether the true body of christ be really and substantially in the sacrament after the words of consecration , which we do hould affirmatiuely , and so doth luther also , & then supposing that it is so , there followeth a second question de modo essendi , of the manner of christs being there , to witt , whether yt be there togeather with bread , or without bread , or whether the bread be anihilated by the ptesence of christs body , or whether yt be turned into the very substance of christs body , as we haue shewed out of scotus and durand before , in the discussion of plessis mornay his triall ; and euery one of these opinions , about the manner of christs being there , do presuppose the reall presence , denyed by the sacramen taryes : so as to dispute first about this particular manner of christ his being there by transubstantiation , before yt be discussed whether he be really there or noe , ys to sett the cart before the horse , and the foote before the head . . and yet for that they do persuade themselues , that they haue some more shifts or shewes of probability against transubstantiation , then against the reall presence , or can delude better our arguments in the simple peoples eyes , they alwayes runne to this , & leaue the other : and it is , as if the question being , first whether gold were in a purse , & then whether yt were there alone or els togeather with ledd , tynne , or some such baser mettall ; some wrangeler would first dispute the second question before the first ; or as if two demaūds being propounded , first whether in such a vessell ( where watter was knowne to be before ) there be wine put in , and secondly whether this wine haue turned that water into it selfe or noe ? or that water & wine do remaine togeather , and that one would pretermit the first questiō , to witt , whether wine be really & truly there or no ? and cauil only about the second , vvhether the vvater be turned into wine , or remaine togeather with the wine ? in which cases yow see first , that this manner of dealinge were preposterous and impertinent wrangling , but especially , yf the wrangler did deny expressely that there was any gold at all in the purse , or wine in the vessell , for then yt were too too much folly for him to dispute the secondary questions whether the said gold were there alone , or with other mettalles ; or whether the wine had cōuerted the water into it selfe or no ; for yf neither gold nor wine be really there presēt , then is there no place for the secōd dispute at all . and so fareth it in our cōtrouersy of the reall presence of christs body . for if the said body be not really & substātially in the sacramēt at all , as the zuinglians & caluinists do hould ; then is it impertinēt for them to dispute the second question , whether it be there without bread or with bread , or whether bread be turned into it or no by trāsubstātiation , for so much as they suppose it not to be there at all ; only luther & lutherans may haue cōtrouersy with catholiks , about the māner how it is there , seing they beleeue it to be there in deed ; but zuingliās & caluinists cānot , but only about the first question , whether it be there or noe ; which question notwithstanding , for so much as they fly and runne alwayes to the second , as we haue shewed ; notorious it is that they runne frō the purpose , & shew thēselues not only wrāglers but also deceauers , seeking to dazell the eyes of the simple in this behalfe , as in this first disputation at oxford , peter martyr begon with transubstantiation , and was much longer therein , then in the controuersie of the reall presence . . and in the second disputation of b. ridley in cambridge , two only questions being proposed ; the first was by preposterous order of transubstantiation , and the second of the sacrifice , but the reall presence was wholy omytted , and the like in the rourth disputation vnder maister pearne for the protestants , as after yow shall see . and when lastly maister ridley came to resolue vpon all three disputations , held vnder him in cambridge , and the questions handled therin , he quite passeth ouer the controuersie of reall presence . and so yow shall obserue the like tricke in most of the other disputations , and yet ( as i say ) yf there be no reall presence , the question of transubstantiation hath no place at all , no nor the sacrifice neyther , as ridley confesseth in his said resolution , and this for the first shift of peter martyr & his fellowes in this disputation . . the second shifte is , that he putteth downe fraudulently the second question about the reall presence , whether the body of christ be there carnally or corporally , for albeit we do hold that both caro & corpus , which is the flesh and body of christ our sauiour , be there truly and really , yet not after a fleshely and corporall manner , as these words seeme to import , but rather sacramentally , that is to say though truly , and really , yet after a sacramentall and spirituall manner , euen as our soule is in our body , and an angell in a corporall place . and albeit some authors and fathers do vse sometymes the word corporaliter , speakinge of the reall presence , yet do fox and martyr malitiously euery where call yt a carnall and corporall presence , therby to deceaue the simple reader , as though yt were there with locall dimensions , after the manner of other bodyes , and not after a spirituall manner of being . . the third fraude in settinge downe this first disputation is , that wheras fox doth tell vs in this place , that the principall disputers against peter martyr were doctor tressam , doctor chadsey , and maister morgan , yet doth he not tell vs one word what they said against him , nor doth he relate any one of their arguments or answers , but only the arguments of peter martyr against them with triumph , as who would say , he had gotten the victory without resistance : but yow shall see in the ensuing chapters , what manner of arguments peter martyrs were , and how easy to be answered , as no doubt but they were by them , yf fox had thought good to haue related both parts ( as he ought to haue done ) or haue left both parts out . but this is his ordinary custome of dealing . wherfore that you may vnderstād partly how the matter went in deed , by the relation of one that was present , to witt d. saunders , i will set downe breefely his words of the action in generall , as yt passed . thus then he wryteth about this first oxford disputation . . petrus martyr ( saith he ) &c. peter martyr , of whome many of the sectaryes promised to themselues great matters , for that he was publike reader in oxford , being challenged in those dayes by many of that vniuersity , to defend his doctrine by disputation , and namely by d. rich. smyth who had byn his predecessor in the same chaire , neuer durst to yeld ther vnto , vntill he had obtayned that d. cox a sectary of his owne side , and a man of very loose life should be sent from the court , to be moderator and iudge in the same disputation : and that d. smith was called from the vniuersity , &c. but when the said disputation had endured for three dayes , and that cox had seene his peter martyr much more pressed then he looked for , and almost hissed out of the schooles by all the schollers and hearers , he was forced to say that he was sent for away in all hast to london , & consequently could no longer attend to these disputes . wherfore hauing giuen great praises publikely to peter martyr , and admonished the schollers to keep peace , he brake vp those disputations , & so departed with infamy in the sight of all men : yet peter martyr afterward set forth these disputations fraudulently , as heretiks are accustomed , and would needs seeme to haue had the victory , but by the iudgment of that vniuersity he was twise vanquished , first in that he durst not encounter d. smith , & secondly for that he could not answere the arguments of the other cath. doctors . thus he . wherby we may perceaue , the reason wherfore fox would not set downe at length the particulars of this first disputation at oxford , as he did of some of the others after . second disputation . §. . . the second disputation was held at cambridge about the same tyme ( saith fox ) to witt vpon the . of iune anno . the defendant for the protestant side was d. madew ; the opponents d. glyn , m. langdale , m. sedgewike , and m. yonge , the moderator was d. ridley b. of rochester at that time , but soone after of london by depriuation of d. bonner . the commissionars sent from the king to assist as iudges , besides the said nicolas ridley , were thomas b. of ely , syr iohn cheke schoolmaister to the king , a forward protestant in those daies , though vnder q. mary he left them , d. may a ciuilian , and d. vvenday the kings phisition . the questiōs disputed were two , as before hath byn said . the first , whether there were any transubstātiation & the second , whether there be any externall & propitiatory sacrifice in the masse . the question of the reall presence , wherof both these do depend , was not handled at all , for the causes yow must thinke before mentioned , and he that shall read ouer this whole disputatiō , shall find it a very cold & trifling thing , much of the time being spent in ceremoniall words of courtesy , much in impertinēt excursions frō the purpose , out of all scholasticall forme of disputing or strayning the defendant , & when any thing drew neere to vrge or presse , eyther the moderator would diuert the same by intrudinge himselfe , or the proctors by their authority would interrupt yt . heere ( faith fox ) the proctors commaunded the opponent to diuerte , &c. and againe , heere the proctors commaunded langdale to giue place to another . and further ; heere he was cōmaunded to reply in the second matter . and yet further , heere m. sedgewike was commaunded to ceasse to maister yonge . which yonge , hauinge scarce made three instances in proofe of the sacrifice against ridley , ended all the disputations with these words : vvell i am contented , and do most humbly beseech your good lorshipp , to pardon me of my great rudenesse & imbecillity vvhich i haue heere shewed , &c. which indeed sheweth great imbecillity , yf he said so in deed , and that fox hath not made him to speake as best pleaseth himselfe . . i could alleage diuers other simplicityes out of this disputation , yf i would stand vpon them , yea on the part of fox and ridley themselues ; for in one place fox maketh this note vpon a certayne answere of ridley : heere is to be noted ( saith he ) that peter martyr in his answere at oxford , did graunt a change in the substances of bread and vvyne , vvhich in cambridge by the bishopp doctor ridley vvas denyed . behould heere the goodly agreement , that was betweene the first founders of sacramentaryes doctrine in england , and how worthy to be noted by themselues . friar martyr in oxford graunted a change in the substances themselues of bread and wyne , by the words of consecration ; but bishop ridley in cambridge denieth the same , so great difference is there betweene oxford and cambridge , the friar and the bishopp : and is not he well holpen vp that hangeth his soule on these mens opinions ? this then is one simplicity of fox , but lett vs heare another of ridley related by fox his ownepen , in his answere to maister sedgewicke , who began thus . . right vvorshippfull maister doctor i do aske of yow first of all , whether the greeke article ( this ) being of the neuter gender , be referred to the vvord ( bread ) or to the word ( body ) ? to the first yt cannot be , for that it is of the masculine gender , ergo to the second . this was the obiection or demaund , lett vs heare the bishopps solution . forsooth ( saith he ) that article is referred to neyther of both , but may signisie vnto vs any other kind of things . thus the bishopp . so as by this exposition , christ might as well fignifie a staffe , or a stoole , or any garment or thing that lay on the table , or whatsoeuer els any man will diuise , as well as bread , or his body , when he said of bread , this is my body . and is not this a bishopp like aunswere ? but of the arguments and aunswers of this second disputation , we shall haue occasion to speake afterwards , when the controuersies themselues shal be discussed in particular , and so we shall passe forward to recoumpte the other disputations that ensue . third disputation . §. . . the third disputation was held at cambridge vpon the . of iune in the same yeare . as fox recounteth , wherin two propositions were held affirmatiuely for the catholiks , by the aforesaid d. glyn defendant , to witt for the reall presence & sacrifice of the masse . the opponents for the protestants were m. perne , m. gryndall b. afterwards of london , and canterbury , m. ghest and m. pilkinton , which last vnder q. elizabeth gott the bishopricke of durham . the moderator and iudges were the same as in the former disputation , to witt ridley and his fellowes , and the manner and forme not much vnlike , though somewhat more disorderly , each one puttinge in his verdict to and fro at his pleasure . but yet whosoeuer shall pervse the same vvith equality , will easily perceaue an eminent difference for learninge , discretion and clere aunsweringe betweene the said doctor glyn and his opponents , which principally is to be attributed to the difference of his cause from theirs ; they neuer prosecuting commonly one medium for aboue one or two instances , but leaping presently to another : so graue and substantiall a disputation was this for poore people that heard yt , or heard of yt , and followed the resolution therin sett downe , to hange their soules vpon the certaynty therof . . maister perne beginneth with a complaint , against d. glyn , that he had left transubstantiation & taken vpon him to defend the reall presence in the sacrament , vvheras we deny nothinge lesse ( saith he ) then his corporall presence or absence of his substance in the bread . wherby yt is euidently seene , that maister perne was not of ridleyes opinion , but held the reall presence , though with luther perhaps he did not beleeue transubstantiation : and this is euident by his arguments which after he vsed , nothinge in deed against the reall presence , but only to proue that christ his body was togeather with bread . the like manner of impertinent dealinge vsed ridley himselfe in diuers of his arguments ; as for example : this is that bread ( saith he ) vvhich came downe from heauen , ergo , yt is not christs body , for that his body came not from heauen : which proueth also that yt was not bread , for that ridley will not say ( i thinke ) that the materiall bread which christ had in his hand , camed owne from heauen . the like argument vseth pilkin●on thus : vvhersoeuer ( saith he ) christ is , there be his ministers also , for so he promised : but christ as you hould is in the sacrament , ergo his ministers are there also . which were a foule incōuenience as you see , if all our english ministers should be in the sacrament for the poore people to byte at . and yet this argument seemeth so graue vnto iohn fox , as he maketh this marginall note theron . vvhere christ is , there are his ministers . and the poore fellow hath not so much witt , as to see that those words of christ were meant of his glory in the life to come , and not of the sacrament which is ministred vpon earth . . but to the end yow may the better perceaue , how disorderly this and the former disputation at cambridge , was made by the new protestants to ouerbeare the catholike cause , i shall sett downe some lynes of a narration of d. langdale , archdeacon of chichester , a cambridge man who was present at the said disputation , and confuted afterward in print the said ridleyes determination vpon these disputations . thus then he wryteth : vix dum finita collegiorum visitatione , &c. the colledges of cambridge were no sooner visited by the kinges commissionars , but there appeared vpon all the gates two conclusions set vp , the first against transubstantiation , the other against the sacrifice of the masse , and presently the bedells of the vniuersity went about to giue warning , that yf any man had any thinge to say against these conclusions , he should come forth the third day after , ( which was corpus-christi day , ) to dispute , or otherwise all to be bound to perpetuall silence for euer after . the concourse of noble men , & all other degrees was great , and scaffolds made for the place of disputation , that the multitude might the better heare : but all that were indifferent , did see matters to be handled with great inequality ; for that whosoeuer spake for the catholike side presently his speach was eyther interrupted , or for breuity shifted of to another tyme , and ridley that was the captayne of all steppinge in at euery turne to assist his defendant , did eyther with threates or fayre words , or by scoffes and bytter taunts seeke to diuert the catholike disputers . . and when the first dayes disputation was in this manner ended , yt was denounced to the auditory , before the dismission of the schooles , that yf any man would come forth and defend within a day or two , the catholike parte of those questions , he might , but afterwards it should not be lawfull for any man to speake therof : which vnexpected denuntiation being heard , one man looked vpon another , and all for a tyme were silent , vntill at length a most learned and graue man , pious and skillfull , as well in knowledge of the tongues , as also in diuinity , wherof he had bvn there publike reader before ( to witt doctor glyn ) stept forth and offered himselfe to the combatt , and performed yt the third day after , takinge the place of defendant without help of any moderator , but all rather against him , beginning his declaration , ( which cambridge men call his position ) with the words of the prophett : credidi propter quod locutus sum . and the protestants were so vrged in these disputations about the reall presence , that notwithstandinge they auoyded and dissembled that question so much as they could , yet were they driuen to such shifts , to putt of the cleere places & authorityes of ancient fathers about the same , as was ridiculous to heare ; for that sometymes they said christs body was present in the sacrament by signification , then by representation , then by meditation , then by appellation , sometymes by propriety , other tymes by nature , then by power , then againe by grace , then by memory or remembrance , then by vertue & energy , and by many other diuises of deluding or shifting of the matter . all which being done , and another third day of disputation passed ouer in like manner , ridley tooke vpon him to giue the determination of all , as though he had gotten the victory . thus farre out of doctor langelands booke ; wherby may be gathered how the matter passed in these disputations . fourth disputation . §. . . the fourth disputation was held also in cambridge soone after the former , wherin , according to fox his relation , the forsaid maister perne was defendant for the protestants , and the opponents for the catholike part , were maister parker , maister pollard , maister vauesour , and maister yonge : the moderator and iudges was maister ridley of rochester togeather with his fellowes aforementioned : the two questions were about transubstantiation , and the sacrifice ; the other of the reall presence was pretermitted ( accordinge to the former declared sleight ) though yt were the principall and the ground , wheron these other two do depend , & concerneth the very substance of the zuinglian and caluinian sect , now newly set vp and authorized by these disputations , and consequently should first and principally haue byn discussed , yf eyther good method or shew of true dealinge had byn obserued . but d. perne the defendant beleeued the reall presence , as in the former disputation yow haue heard him protest , though in this disputation he sought to expound himselfe in these words : i graunt that christ is in the sacrament truly , wholy and verily after a certayne property and manner . i deny not his presence , but his reall , and corporall presence . but this is a difference without a diuersity ( by m. pernes licence ) for yf christs body be there truly , wholy and verily , he must also be there really , as to euery mans common sense and reason is euident ; and so maister perne by this distinction sheweth , that he beleeued nothing at all really , truly , or verily at that tyme , yf his heart were accordinge to his words . . and albeit , as i haue said , maister perne propoundeth the questions of transubstantiation & sacrifice of the masse , yet when they came to ioyne issue , their speach was most of all about the reall presence , and i call yt a speach rather then disputation , for that yt had neyther order , method , nor substance in yt , but was a most ridiculous colloquy of one to another , without vrginge or answeringe any one argument substantially , but as little beagles lyinge togeather , one starteth vp and giueth a barke or two , and lyeth downe againe ; so these disputers , aunswerers , and moderator handled the matter ; as for example , m. parker being to argue first , began to alleage three vayne reasons ( as fox calleth them in the margent ) for the reall presence , to witt , that yt was prophesyed , promised , and performed as he proued by diuers places of scripture , which being done iohn fox , without tellinge vs any aunswere at all giuen by maister perne , hath these words . heere they were sorced to breake of through the want of tyme , yet maister parker replyed this with a prayer against maister perne ; vve giue th● thankes most holy father , that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent , and hast reueyled them to babes , for pride is the roote of all heresies whatsoeuer , &c. . now heere i vvould aske iohn fox what he meaneth by this note ; that they were forced to breake of for lacke of tyme ? and yet that parker replyed , and began his reply with a prayer ? for yf they brake of , how did he reply , especially his reply being somewhat long ? and yf he replyed in so large a manner as fox setteth it downe , how did they breake of ? & how ridiculous a thing is it , that a sollemne disputation being begon in presence of the whole vniuersity , and of so great an audience , and maister parker being the first opponent , the matter should be broken of without hearing any one answere of the defendant ? but these are fox his fooleryes , and these were the first and most firme foundations of our new caluinian sect in england . many other particulars might be sett downe , especially of ridley● moderatinge , who at euery turne made himselfe defendant & answered farre worse then perne himselfe , but we shall haue better occasion to touch the same afterward , when we shall examine more particularly what passed about euery controuersie , in each of these disputations ; only vauesour of all the opponents seemeth to haue spoken best to the purpose ( as fox relateth him ) for that he alleaged an authority of s. augustine in psalm . . which ridley , not able to answere , ridiculously shifteth of as yow shall see afterwards , when yt commeth in ranke to be examined , and in his preface he cited two sayings of zuinglius and oecolampadius , of their owne doubtfullnesse at the beginninge , in the doctrine with they first broached against the reall presence . zuinglius his words are : albeit this thinge that i meane to treat of , doth like me very well ; yet notwithstandinge i dare define nothinge , but only shew my poore iudgement abroad to others , &c. oecolampadius his words are wrytinge to his brother . peace be with thee . as farre as i can coniecture out of the ancient fathers , these words of christ ( this is my body ) is a figuratiue locution , &c. thus they at the beginninge very doubtfully , as yow see , but afterward , as those that tell lyes so often , as at length they beginne to beleeue them to be true themselues , so did these men ; and yet others were so foolish as to follow them in their doubtfull fancyes , a pittifull case in the cause of our soule . well , iohn fox concludeth this whole disputation with these words : heere endeth ( saith he ) the third and last disputation holden at cambridge . fifth disputation . §. . . the fifth disputation was the publike determination made by b. ridley , as iudge and moderator vpon the questions , before handled in the three disputations of cambridge , vvhich determinatiō i do reckon among the number of the other disputations publike , and colloquyes , both for that yt was made vpon a seuerall day most sollemnely , and with no lesse concourse of people then the former , as also for that yt setteth downe all the heads of his principall arguments , as the first disputation doth those of peter martyr , though without the answers or replyes of his aduersaryes . and indeed this being a collection of all the substantiall points , of whatsoeuer had byn alleaged by the protestants in all three disputations , as also whatsoeuer himselfe could adde thervnto ; and being done with so great study & deliberation , as to be deliuered in the greatest concourse and expectation of people ( for the nouelty therof ) that euer perhaps were seene togeather in cambridge before ; yt being the first publike determination against the truth of christs sacred body in the sacramēt , that euer that vniuersity , from her first foundation had heard of : for all these reasons and respects ( i say ) this determination may perhaps be numbred amongst one of the most sollemne conferences , or disputations held by the sacramentarye protestants in our countrey . . ridley then began the assembly with these words : there hath byn an ancient custome amonge you , that after disputatiōs had in your common schooles , there should be some determination made of the matter disputed and debated , especially touching christian religion ; because therfore it is seene good to these worshipfull assistants , ioyned with me in commission from the kings maiestie , that i should performe the same at this tyme , i will by your fauourable patience declare , both vvhat i do thinke and beleeue my selfe , and what all other ought to thinke of the same , vvhich i vvould that afterward ye did with diligence weigh and ponder , euery man at home seuerally by himselfe , &c. this is his preface , wherin yow may note first , what a different assurance it is for a man , to repose the saluation of his soule vpon this new beleefe and thinkinge of maister ridley , which was not yet as yt seemeth full three or foure yeares old with him ( for vntill k. henryes death he was euer held of another opinion ) or vpon the generall determination , learninge , iudgement , piety , & consent of the worthiest in the christian world , assembled togeather in councells , wheroften , ( as in our preface we haue touched , and shall againe afterward ) had determined for the reall presence in the space of the last . yeares , before this contrary determination of ridley , to witt after the question was once moued by berengarius , vntill yt was moued againe by zuinglius and oecolampadius ; lett euery discreet man , i say , consider what a differēce this is , for a man to aduenture his soule and euerlastinge inheritance theron . for yf a man had demaunded of ridley himselfe . or . yeares before this day , what a man was bound to thinke and beleeue in this point for sauinge his soule , he would haue said the quite contrary to that he determineth now . . secondly yow may consider another difference in this priuate determination , of ridley & his associates from that of catholike councells , for that councells after enquiry and disputations made for the truth , do determyne by generall consent of the bishopps assembled , with assured assistance of the holy ghost ; wheras maister ridley remytteth all to the priuate iudgement of euery one at home , seuerally by himselfe ; which is as much to say , notwithstanding all the disputation , and his determination , yet must euery man and woman follow their owne fancy at home , and be iudge of all that hath byn disputed , or determyned : & this is the certainty that protestants haue for common people to rely vpon . . thirdly yt is to be noted , that notwithstanding fox calleth this decision , the determination of doctor nicolas ridley b. of rochester , vpon the conclusions aboue prefixed , yet handleth he only two questions in this his determination videlicet ; transubstantiation , and the sacrifice of the altar , but the first much more amply and aboundantly , pretermitting the very cheefe & principall question in deed , wherof all the rest dependeth , which is of the reall presence , which maketh the very essence of caluinian and zuinglain sect , wherby they do differ from both lutherans and vs : of which absurd imposture we haue spoken sufficiently before , and seing so much had byn said in the former disputations about that point , though greatly against the protestants inclination , me thinketh he ought not to haue left out wholy that question in this his determination . but as i haue often said , their principall shift in those dayes was to stepp from the mayne point , whether christ were really in the sacrament or no ; & to leape vnto a quiddity of the manner of his being there , to witt by transubstantiation . about which notwithstandinge , b. ridley beginneth his resolution with great oftentation of words sayinge ; that he had fiue principall grounds or head springs for the same : first ( to vse his words ) the authority , maiestie , and verity of the scriptures : secondly the most certayne testimonyes of ancient catholike fathers : thirdly the definition of a sacrament : fourthly the abhominable heresie of eutiches , that may ensue of transubstantiation : fifthly , the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith ; he ascended into heauen , &c. . these be maister ridleyes fiue bulwarks or castles of defence builded in the ayre , which he handleth so fondly and childishely , as after yow shall see in the particular examinations of his arguments . only heere i will say in generall , that the reader shall find his authority , maiestie , and verity of scriptures against transubstantiation , to be a meere vaunt and vanity , for he hath no one cleere or substantiall place at all . and as for his certayne testimonyes of the ancient fathers , they will proue so vncertaine for his purpose , as yow shall see them most certaynely against him . his third castle of the definition of a sacrament , vvill proue a cottage of no strength at all , for that the true nature of a sacrament standeth well vvith transubstantiation . his fourth head springe about the heresie of eutiches , will proue a puddle , and himselfe puzzeled therin , for that the heresie of eutiches confoundinge two distinct natures in christ , hath no more coherence vvith transubstantiation , then rochester with rome . and finally his last ground about the article of christs ascendinge into heauen , hath no ground to rest on , but is a meere imagination in the ayre , to witt , that for so much as christ ascended into heauen , ergo there is no transubstantiation . . wherefore to leaue this first question of transubstantiation , and passe to the second of sacrifice , vow must vnderstand , that when maister ridley had spent most of the time about transubstantiation , he had little left concerning the sacrifice of the masse , but concluded his said determination in very few words thus : now for the better conclusion ( saith he ) concerning the sacrifice , because yt dependeth vpon the first , i will in few vvords declare what i thinke . two things do persuade me , that this conclusion ( against the sacrifice of the masse ) is true , that is certayne places of scripture , and certayne testimonyes of the fathers . lo heere the graue and weighty motiues that ridley had , to aduenture vpon so great a change in beleefe as this was , after so many yeares , being a priest and catholike bishopp , and offeringe sacrifice after the manner of the catholike church , from the first day of our contreyes conuersion , vnto th' end of k. henryes raigne . his motiues were , as yow heare , certayne places of the scripture , which were only taken out of the epistle to the hebrues , talkinge of christs bloudy sacrifice on the crosse , which was but one , & certayne places of the fathers , to witt , two or three misvnderstood out of s. augustine , and one out of fulgentius , all which notwithstandinge proue nothinge for his purpose , as after yow shall see declared in their place , and turne . and the selfe same fathers haue so many other cleere places to the contrary , as we will desire no better iudges for proofe of our catholike cause , then yf ridley would remitt himselfe to these two fathers iudgements , by him cyted against vs ; for that both of them do professe themselues to be priests , and to offer externall sacrifice , vpon the altar as our priests do now . . consider then how wise and constant a man ridley was , to leaue his ancient faith so generally receaued throughout all christendome in his dayes , and so many yeares practised by himselfe , vpon two such motiues , as are certayne places of scripture misvnderstood by himselfe , and certayne testimonyes of fathers , that seemed to him to haue some difficulty . which ieuity vvas so displeasaunt vnto almighty god , as by the effects we see , that wheras at the beginning he seemed to doubt vpon these two motiues , leauinge other men to iudge therof , he became by little and little to be so obstinately blinded at length therin , as albeit some foure or fiue yeares after , he were openly conuicted in disputations at oxford , as by his answers yow shall afterwards see , yet was he content to burne for the same , which was the highest degree of calamity that could fall vpon him , in body and soule . and thus much of him and his determination for the present . sixt disputation . §. . . in all the former disputations both at oxford and cambridge , yow shall find nothinge of friar martyn bucer , no not so much as that he is once named in all these conflicts , about the blessed sacrament . and yet yow must remember , that he was principall reader of diuinity in cambridge at this tyme , as peter martyr was in oxford : and therfore as the first place was giuen to the said peter in oxford ; so yt is likely , that the same would haue byn to martyn in cambridge , yf they had found him so pliable to their hands in his opinions about the sacrament , as the other was ; but in no case would he be induced as yet , to accommadate himselfe therin , and therfore had he not any part allowed him in this comedy , eyther of defendant , opponent , disputer , counselour , moderator , assistant , or other office or imployment : nay yt is thought that he incurred so great disgrace about this matter , as he could willingly haue departed the realme againe , ( as bernardinus ochinus vpon such like discontentment did from london ) had not the necessity of his woman , and other impediments of pouerty letted him , not knowinge well whither to goe , as being expulsed from argentina at his comming to england , as * before we haue shewed in the story of his life . . wherfore resoluinge himselfe at length to passe ouer this mortification , and to giue our english protestants some satisfaction , though not in the points which they desired , he thought it good after ridleyes departure , to defend certayne other paradoxes , which fox recordeth in these words : ouer and besides these disputations aboue mentioned , other disputations vvere holden in cambridge shortly after by martyn bucer , vpon these conclusions followinge : first , that the canonicall bookes of scripture alone , do sufficiently teach the regenerate all things necessary belonginge to saluation . secondly , there is no church on earth that erreth not , as well in faith , as in manners . thirdly we are so iustified freely of god , that before our iustification , yt is sinne and prouoketh gods wrath against vs , whatsoeuer good worke we seeme to do . then being iustifyed , we do good works . . these were bucers conclusions , which well i may call paradoxes , for that euen in the common sense & iudgement of euery meane capacity , the falsity and absurdity therof is apparant . for as touchinge the first , though we graunt , that the diuine books of scripture , yf they were fewer then they are ( respectinge gods holy prouidence ) are sufficient to teach both regenerate and not regenerate ( that beleeue the verity therof ) the true way of saluation , and that the said diuine prouidence hath , doth , and will so prouide , that albeit some parts of these we now haue should be lost ( as diuers others before haue byn ) yet should the remnant still be sufficient to that purpose , with such other supplyes of gods assistance as he would send ; yet to say , as this man doth , that the canonicall bookes of scripture alone , do sufficiently teach all things belonginge to saluation ; yf by alone he will exclude all other helpes of tradition , antiquity , testimony of the church , interpretation of the fathers , direction of generall councells , and other like aydes , yt is a most absurd paradox ; for neyther can we know which bookes are to be held canonicall , nor what they teach truly & sincerely , nor what may be deduced out of them ; yf we remoue the former helpes ; and the case is , as yf one of the kings of our countrey goinge abroad , as some did to hierusalem , or other forrayne warres , and intending to be longe absent , should leaue with his councellors for their better gouernement certayne lawes wrytten with his owne hand , & other directions by word of mouth how to proceed , interprett , and vse them , commaunding all men to obay them , and that some troublesome people after many yeares continuance in their gouernement , should appeale from them , to the kings wrytten lawes only , prayinge the sufficiency therof ( for better colou●inge their pretence ) and suinge that yt were ● blott vnto the said lawes , and to the kings wisdome that made them , to acknowledge any insufficiency at all in them for perfect direction of the common welth , which lawes ●et , themselues would expound , as pleased them best for their owne purposes . ● . in this case , who seeth not whervnto this practise tendeth , and for what causes so great prayses are giuen to the sufficiency of these lawes , vsed to make the praisers iudges of all , and to exempt them from all controlment of others ? and the very same is seene in the other case of the scriptures , which being written by the spiritt and fingar of god himselfe , and deliuered vnto vs by the church , whose commission also and authority in the same scriptures is sett downe , byndinge vs vnder dlamnation to heare her from age to age as the pillar and firmament of truth , there stepp vp togeather diuers sorts of sectarves in all ages , & of this of ours , lutherans , zuinglians , caluinists , anabaptists , trinitarians , and the like chalenged by the said church of disobedience , and do all appeale ioyntly and seuerally from her , to only scriptures , praysinge highly the sufficiency , and excellency therof , and refusinge all other meanes , eyther of tradition or ancient exposition , for vnderstandinge of the sense and true meaninge . and when we alleadge the catholike doctors and pastors of euery age , as spirituall gouernours and conselors vnder god in the church , for explaninge his diuine will and meaninge in this behalfe ; they refuse all , and only will be interpreters and expositors themselues , and this not only against the catho . church , which they ought to obay , but one sect also against another for their particular opinions , and diuersityes , which by this meanes are made irreconciliable , and indeterminable , as experience teacheth vs. for when , i pray yow , will luther & zuinglius or their followers , come to any accord eyther with vs , or amongst themselues by only canonicall scriptures , expounded after each partyes particular spiritt , iudgement and affection ? the like i may aske of anabaptists & arrians , english protestants and puritans , or of any other sectaryes that yow can name vnto me , which neuer agreed by this way , nor euer will. and this is the first paradox of martyn bucer , that only scriptures are sufficient to teach euery man. . the second is yet worse ( yf worse may be ) to witt ; that there is no church on earth , which erreth not as well in faith as manners . which yf yt be so , then erreth also in faith the true church of christ , and is a lyinge church , and may lead vs into error and heresie . and of this yt followeth againe , that we can haue no certainty of any thinge in this life , and that almighty god doth damne vs very vniustly for heresie , wherinto we may be brought by his true church , and spouse , which on the other side , he hath commaunded vs to heare , and obay vnder payne of damnation ; yt followeth also that s. paul did falsely call the church , the pillar and firmament of truth ; for as much as yt may both deceaue and be deceaued . christs promise also was false , when he assured his church , that he would be with her by his spiritt of truth vnto the worlds end ; and that , the gates of hell should not prevaile against her . all these absurdityes , impossibilityes and impietyes , do follow of this second paradox , besides infinite others , which any meane capacity may deduce of himselfe . . the third paradox also is no lesse monstrous to common sense and reason , then the two former , to witt , that vvhatsoeuer good worke any man doth , or may seeme to doe before iustification , a sinne , and prouoketh gods wrath . but i would aske this new opiniatour or paradox-defender , how he would answere to that of exodus , where yt is said of the egyptian mid-wyues ● infidells no doubt ) quia timuerunt obstetrices deum , aedificauit illis domos . god gaue them aboundant children , for that vpon feare of offendinge almighty god , they disobayed their king pharao in sauinge the hebrues children . doth god vse to reward sinne ? or to prayse that which prouoketh his wrath ? againe , the prophett ezechiell sheweth vs how god did temporally reward nabuchodonozor and his army with the spoyle of egypt , for that they had serued him faithfully in chastizinge of tyrus . and s. hierome vpon that place hath these words : by that nabuchodonosor receaued this reward for his good worke , we learne that gentills also yf they do any good thinge , shall not leese their reward at gods hands ; and how can god be said to reward that which offendeth him ? the prophet daniell also to the same nabuchodonosor an infidell , gaue this counsell , peccata tua eleemosymis redime : redeeme thy synnes with almes , which he would neuer haue done , yf yt had byn a synne , & prouoked gods wrath to giue almes , or to performe any such other morall vertue before iustification , especially being styrred & holpen thervnto by gods especiall help , which may be before iustification , as martyn bucer in this paradox supposeth . and lastly not to stand any longer in this which is of it selfe so euident ; i would aske friar martyn , whether cornelius the centurion being yet a gentile , did sinne and prouoke gods wrath in prayinge , and giuinge almes before his conuersion ? yf he say yea ( as needs he must accordinge to his doctrine ) the text of scripture is against him , for the angell said vnto him : thy prayers and almes deeds , haue ascended vp , and haue byn called into remembrance in the sight of god ▪ vpon which words s. augustine in diuers of his works , doth call the said almes-deeds of cornelius , before he beleeued in christ , iustice , and the gifts of god , which he would neuer haue done , yf they had byn synnes , and prouoked gods wrath , as this new-fangled friar hath taken vpon him to defend . . and this shal be sufficient for this sixt disputation of martyn bucer , which is fiue tymes as much , as fox setteth downe of the same , for that he relateth only the time and place of the said dispute , togeather with the conclusions afore mentioned , & that sedgewicke , yonge , and ●erne were opponents to bucer therin ; but all the rest he remitteth to a larger discourse at another tyme , supplyinge the breuity of this bucerian disputation , with another dispute betweene custome and verity , which he calleth : a fruitfull dialogue , gathered out ( saith fox ) ●f the tractations of peter martyr , and other authors , ●● a certayne reuerend person of this realme , teachinge all men not to measure religion by custome , but to try custome by truth , &c. ● . and this was another diuise of those ●ayes of innouations and noueltyes , to dazell ●●mple mens eyes , as though custome and veri●● , the handmayd and maistresse , were so fallen out , that one impugned the other , & could not agree or stand togeather any longer , and consequently custome and antiquity , must needs ●ue place to nouelty ; the fraud and folly of which diuise may in very few words be dis●ouered , and their true frendshipp and agreement easily be declared ; yea their in separable ●●herence to be such , as in our case of the con●●ouersie about the reall presence ( for in this ●●int they are made to braule and full out ) they cannot possibly be separated . for yf verity in this matter haue not antiquity and custome with yt , yt is nouelty , and by consequence not verity at all . and on the otherside , custome in points of christian faith and beleefe , yf yt be generall , and of long tyme ( for otherwise yt cannot properly be called custome , in the subiect we handle ) may not possibly be found in our christian church without verity , for that otherwise the whole church should vniuersally admitt a falsity , & continue yt by custome , which to imagine were folly and madnesse , yea most insolen● madnes , yf vve beleeue s. augustine , whose words are : disputare contra id , quod tota per orbe● frequentat ecclesia , insolentissimae insaniae est . it is a most insolent madnes to dispute against that which the whole church throughout the world doth practice . and he addeth in the same place , though it be not cōteined in the scriptures . . wherfore for iohn fox , and his reuerenc maister nicolas ridley , peter martyr and others to come out now with a dialogue or brauling altercation , betweene custome and verity about the matter of the sacrament , and to seeke to sett them by the eares , or make a diuorse betweene them , for that custome had continue● from the beginning of our conuersion to that day without verity , was a very simple and rediculous diuise , & worthy iohn fox his wi●● and grauity , for by this he confesseth in effect that custome and antiquity was against him wherof we in this matter do rightly also inferre , verity i say in this matter concerninge christian faith and beleefe , receaued in the church by custome and tradition of former ages , which our sauiour christ did promise to assist with his spiritt of truth , whatsoeuer fox or his fellowes may obiect , or we admitt , against idolatry or other reprehensible customes of former tymes amongst the iewes , gentills , nations , contreyes , and common-welthes different from the christian church ; all which had no such assurance of truth , for beginninge and continuinge their customes , as our christian church hath . and so much of this feigned fight , betweene custome and verity in christian religion ; whatsoeuer arguments of moment are alleaged in the combatt betweene them about the reall presence , shal be afterward handled in their due places . so as of this disputation and martyn bucers we shall make but one , to witt , the sixt . seauenth disputation . §. . . hitherto are the publike disputations , recorded by fox to haue byn held by protestants , for establishinge and authorizinge their new religion vnder k. edward , and all within the compasse of one yeare , to witt , . there ensue now foure other , appointed some foure yeares after in the first of q. maryes raigne . vvhich albeit they were vnder a catholike gouernement , yet were they for giuinge satisfaction only to protestants of those dayes , when catholike religion was to be restored to th' end that the other might see their owne leuity in changinge the same . and the first of these disputations ( being the seauenth in order ) was held in the conuocation house , at s. paules church in london , begon ( as fox saith ) vpon the . of october in the foresaid yeare , and during for six dayes togeather . the questions vvere the accustomed about the reall presence and transubstantiation . the manner of disputinge was not in forme or after any fashion of schoole , but rather of proposinge doubts , and answeringe the same for satisfaction of them that were not resolued , and so much lesse then in the former was any thinge pursued to any point of triall . doctor vveston deane of vvestminster was chosen prolocutor , who protested in his preface ( as fox saith ) that this conference vvas not held to call any points of catholike religion into doubt , but to solue such scruples or doubts , as any man might pretend to haue . . this conuocation consisted for the greatest part , of all those clergy-men that had borne rule in k. edwards dayes , exceptinge cranmer , ridley , latymer and rogers , and i know not yf any other that were commytted before . and the first point that was handled therin , was about a certayne caluinian catechisme , sett forth a little before vnder the name of that conuocation , whervnto the prolocutor required subscriptions , to testifie that yt was not sett forth by their consents , meaninge , as yt seemed , therby to conuince ridley or crammer , or both of false dealinge therin . the second point was of subscribing to the reall presence , whervnto all the whole house agreed ( saith fox ) sauinge fiue or six , to witt , maister philips deane of rochester , maister haddon deane of exceter , maister philpott archdeacon of vvinchester , maister cheyney archdeacon of hereford , & maister elmour archdeacon of stow , and one other whome he nameth not , and by these were propounded all the doubts , that were there discussed : and as for the first two dayes , there was nothinge done at all , but a certaine communication . the third day came the lord great-master , with the earle of deuonshire and diuers other noble men , and cheiney afterward bishopp of glocester , who confessed the reall presence , but not transubstantiation , proposed some doubts about the second point , which we shall afterwards examine in their place . the prolocutor appointed doctor moreman to aunswere him and the rest extempore , wherby we may ghesse how substantiall a disputation yt was , for that the defendant came nothinge at all prepared . pho●ipps also proposed some what about the reall presence ; elmour and haddon spake little vpon that day , though the next day elmour , then chaplaine to the duke of suffolke , and after bishopp of london , read certayne authorityes but of a note-booke , which he had gathered against the reall presence . ● . but of all other , the most busy was philpott , both that day , and the other followinge , vauntinge and chalenginge the whole company to dispute . then quoth philpott ( saith fox ) i vvill speake playne english , the sacrament of the altar , which yee reckon to be all one with the masse ; is no sacrament at all , neyther is christ any wise present in yt , and this his sayinge he offered to proue before the vvhole house , yf they listed to call him thervnto , and before the queens grace , and her counsell , and before the face of six of the best learned men of the house of the contrary opinion , and refused none . and yf i shall not be able ( quoth he ) to maintayne by gods word that i haue said , and confound those six which shall take vpon them to withstand me , in this point , let me be burned with as many sag gotts as be in london , before the court-gates , &c. this was philpotts vaunt , and yet yf yee consider the poore arguments he brought forth in this conference , which afterwards shal be discussed , togeather with his fond answers that he gaue in his . or . seuerall examinations , before the bishopps of vvinchester , london , chichester , bangor and others ( for so much payne was taken to saue him ) yow will say that his b. gardiner had reason , when he held him for more then halfe madd , as in his story we haue related . consider also , that his denying christ to be present any wise in the sacrament , is much different from that yow heard maister perne affirme before , by approbation of maister ridley the moderator , that christs body was truly , wholy , and verily in the sacrament after a certayne propriety ; but these men must not be taken at their words . . and finally , the conclusion of all this conference with philpott was , that the prolocutor in the end , seing him out of all reason to trouble the house , layed two comaundements vpon him ; the first that he should not come thither any more , vnlesse he came in gowne and typpett , as the others came : the second , that he should not speake but in order , and with licence as the rest did ; whose aunswere fox relateth in these words : then quoth philpott i had rather be absent altogeather , so insufferable was all order , or temperate manner of proceedinge to this disorderly man ; and so q. mary sent a wryte the next day to dissolue the conuocation : and such as had disputed ( saith fox ) on the contrary part , were driuen , some to sly , some to deny , and some to dye , though to most mens iudgements , that heard the disputation , they had the vpper hand , &c. these are hereticall bragges , as yow will better see afterwards when we come to examining of arguments . and as for dyinge , none of the forsaid disputers died , to our knowledge , but only philpott in his madd moode ; cheyney , elmour , and haddon gott bishopricks , & other dignityes vnder q. elizabeth . and so much of this disputation in the conuocation house . eight , ninth , and tenth disputation . §. . . these last three disputations i do ioyne togeather , for that they were held successiuely in oxford vpon three seuerall dayes in the moneth of aprill , anno . with cranmer , ridley , and latymer vpon the forsaid three questions of the reall presence , transubstantiation , and the sacrifice of the masse . the names ( saith fox ) of the vniuersity doctors and graduates , appointed to dispute against them vpon the said questions , were these of oxford , doctor vveston prolocutor , doctor tressam , doctor cole , doctor oglethorpe , doctor pye , maister harpesfield , maister fecknam . of cambridge , doctor yonge vice chauncelour , doctor glynn , doctor seton , doctor vvatson , doctor sedgewicke , and doctor atkinson , to witt six of each vniuersity , all meeting at oxford togeather to this effect . thus farre fox ; who describeth also the manner and forme of this disputation , much more reasonable , orderly & indifferent , then all the former disputations vnder the protestants , yf we beleeue fox himselfe , who saith ; that in the middle of the doctors , there were appointed foure to be exceptores argumentorum , wryters of the arguments ( to vse his words ) and a table sett in the middest , and foure notaryes sittinge with them ; so as by his relation there were eight indifferent men chosen to register whatsoeuer passed : yet yf he relate truly , the manner of arguinge , was not so orderly and schoolelike as might haue byn , wherby yt came to passe , that scarce any argument was prosecuted to the end ; and the answeringe was such , as comonly was wholy from the purpose , as by diuers examples , yow shall see afterwards declared ; as also we shall examine what arguments cranmer could alleage against the reall presence , vpon the fourth day of disputation , to witt the next day after latymer had ended . for that doctor harpesfield answeringe for his degree , defended the question of the reall presence , and maister cranmer was courteously inuited to the said disputation , and suffered to say what he would or could against that verity , & was fully answered ; notwithstandinge fox will needs beare vs in hand to the contrary , as his fashion is . . and wheras the said doctor harpesfield in his preface , did much commend the diligent readinge of scripture with prayer , and conferring one place with another , but yet said that this was no secure way or meane , for euery particular man to resolue himselfe of the sense therof , but must rather beleeue the body of the catholike church therin , then his owne ●udgement . fox saith that maister cranmer in his reply reprehended that direction , sayinge : vvheras yow referre the true sense & iudgement of the scriptures to the catholike church , as iudge therof , yow are much deceaued , &c. and fox himselfe addeth this marginall note : yf maister harpesfield ( when he saith we must not follow our owne heads and senses , ●ut giue ouer our iudgement to the holy catholike church ) had willed vs to submitt our selues to the holy ghost he had said much better . so iohn . but i would aske him , who shal be iudge what the holy ghost teacheth vs ? for that is the question . for yf a particular man readinge the scripture with prayer , and conferringe place with place only , may be presumed to attayne therby the true meaninge of the holy ghost ( which notwithstanding cannot be certayne , for that an heretike may vse the same meanes ) how much more may the vniuersall body of the church , vsing the selfe-same meanes also , as many of her learned members no doubt do ; how much more , i say , may shee be thought and presumed to attayne to the true sense of the holy ghost , seing that she hath a speciall promise of his infallible assistance to that effect , which particular men haue not , though heretiks are wont proudly to presume thereof ? and so yow shall see yt appeare also in these disputations , when we come to discusse the particulars . . and heere it is to be noted , that presently vpon the end of this oxford disputation , vnder q. mary , it was reported , that others should be held at cambridge betweene the doctors of that vniuersity , and the residue of the protestant preachers that were in prison ; wherof they being aduertised by the warninge of doctor ridley , as yt seemeth by fox , and castinge their heads togeather vpon the matter , determined to refuse all disputation , except it were before the queene and priuy councell , or before the houses of parlament , to which effect they sett sorth a publike wrytinge and protestation , with certayne reasons of excuses mouinge them thervnto , subscribed by hooper , farrar , taylor , philpott , bradford , rogers , saunders , and some others . and their cheefe excuse was , for that matters had byn determined by parlament before they were disputed of , not consideringe that in k. edwards dayes , the same course with farre lesse reason was held and determined by parlament , before the protestants disputations in cambridge . of diuers other disputations held besides these ten . §. . . these ten disputations i thought good to sett downe , for that they were held vpon the first chaunges of religion in england , within the space of . or . yeares , as before hath byn said : diuers others i do passe ouer , though some of them were as sollemne as these ; as that of k. henry the . against lambert , vvherin doctor cranmer disputed for the reall presence , and the lord cromwell gaue sentence against him , as we haue shewed * before in lamberts story . that also which was held on pretended in the beginninge of the raigne of q elizabeth at westminster , betweene nyne persons of the catholike parte , and as many of the protestant preachers newly come from beyond the seas . those of the catholike side were siue bishopps , to witt doctor iohn vvhite bishopp of vvinchester , doctor baynes of lichsield , doctor scott of chester , doctor oglethorpe or carliele , doctor vvatson of lincolne , with foure other doctors adioyned vnto them , doctor cole deane of london , doctor langedale archdeacon of lewis , doctor harpesfield archdeacon of canterbury , and doctor chadsey archdeacon of middlesex . and for the protestant parte , were doctor scory an apostata friar , & doctor cox before mentioned , that fledd the realme vnder q. mary , with whome ioyned m. vvhitehead , m. grindall , m. horne , m. sandes , m. ghest , m. elmour , and m. iewell , all freshly come from beyond the seas , who all , except some one or two , were soone after for their good demeritts , made bishopps , and accommodated by thrustinge out the other , in reward of this disputation , wherin notwithstanding there was not one argument made , nor solution giuen , but only an ostentation sought to effectuate that with some colour , which otherwise was determined before , and lacked but a pretence , for that the queene and those that were nearest about her , hauinge determined to make a change of religion , thought they should do yt best , and most iustifiable , yf they promised some name of disputation , wherin the catholiks had byn satisfied or vanquished ; to which end , there were so many shifts , partialityes , and diuises vsed , and so many iniuryes offered to the bishops of the catholike party , as they thought good vpon the second dayes meetinge , to passe on no further , except more reason or indifferency vvere vsed towards them . . for first , in this disputation summoned & denounced throughout the whole realme , by order of the queene and councell , syr nicolas bacon lately made lord keeper , tooke vpon him to be president , and cheefe moderator , whome all men knew to be one of the greatest aduersaryes to catholike religion , that was in england , violent in condition , and vtterly ignorant in matters of diuinity . secondly the questions appointed to be disputed on , were not chosen nor assigned by the said bishopps , but by the same syr nicolas and his adherents in the name of the councell , at the instance or pleasure of the protestant new pretenders , wherof when the bishopps complayned , the lord keeper answered : the questions are neyther of their ( to witt the protestants ) propoundinge , nor of your diuise , but offered indifferently to ●ow both . . the questions were three , first vvhether yt were against godsword , and the custome of the primitiue church , to vse a tongue vnknowne to the people in common prayer , and administration of sacraments . the second , vvhether euery church had authority to appoint , take away , and change ceremonyes and ecclesiasticall rites , so the same be to edification . thirdly whether yt can be proued by the word of god , that there is offered vp in the masse a sacrifice propitiatory for the quicke , and the dead : vvhich questions vvere to be handled ( saith fox ) in the presence of the queenes councell , nobility , and other of the parlament house , for the better satisfaction and enablinge of their iudgements , to treat and conclude of such lawes as might depend heerevpon . by which words you may easily conceaue what the drift of this pretended disputation was , and how guilefully these questions were chosen , and sett downe , yf yow marke their words and sense , especially the former two , which only or principally were to be handled , and how impertinent these questions were to the great moment of the whole matter and sequele , that was to ensue therof , which was no lesse then the vniuersall change of the whole body of catholike religion , throughout the realme . . this then was the first hereticall fraud in appointinge this disputation , and the questions to be disputed , but they were many more and greater in the prosecution therof ; for first the catholike cleargy lackinge their cheife head , which was the archbishopp of canterbury lately dead , the other archbishopp of yorke , to witt , doctor heath was entertayned with feyre words for a time , to effectuate with his brethren , what the protestant party of the conncell should thinke expedient ▪ whervpon he being chancelour yet in name , though the effect of his office was giuen to syr nicolas bacon , vnder the little of lord keeper , he was brought into the place of disputation , and sate in his roome amongst other councellours , togeather with the duke of norfolke , & other of the nobility as one of them , and rather against the bishops , then for them , ( though no doubt the good man meant yt not so ) then was yt appointed to the said catholike bishopps by the archbishopp , in name of the councell , only two dayes before their meetinge at the conference ( for so complayneth the bishop of lincolne in the second dayes meetinge ) that both they , to witt the bishops , should begin to say what they could for themselues , & the protestant preachers should answere them . and secondly that the conference should be in english and not in latyn ; and thirdly , that yt should not be by way of arguinge or disputinge , but only of speach or readinge yt out of some booke or paper : all which three points seeminge indignityes to the bishopps , they complayned greeuously therof at their first publike meetinge , which was in vvestminster church vpon the last of march . being friday ; and bishop vvhite of vvinchester being the first to speake for his side , said that they were ready to dispute & argue , but had not their wrytinge ready to be read there , but would do it at their next meeting : yet for giuinge some satisfaction , doctor cole extempore alleaged some breife reasons concerninge the former questions or propositions , reseruinge the rest vnto their fuller booke or wrytinge . . but heerevpon presently the protestant preachers came out with their booke , or inuectiue against latyn seruice , fraught with a vayne shew of many allegations , scriptures , fathers , councells , and constitutions of emperors , sounding as it might seeme somewhat to their party , though nothing at all in truth , yf yow examine them , as they ly in fox himselfe , but with this ostentation they sought to get the applause of the people , & heerby well declared that they had more then two dayes warninge to prepare themselues ; and albeit when this was done , the bishops offered to refute all the same cleerely at the next metinge , yet could they not be heard or permitted , as presently we shall shew , but that this must needs stand for the whole resolution in the first questiō . and fox like one of his kind , seeketh to preuent the matter in these words : the same being reade ( to witt the wryting of the protestant party ) vvith some likelyhood as it seemed that the same was much allow able to the audience , certayne of the bishopps began to say , contrary to their former aunswere , that they had now much more to say in this matter , vvherin although they might vvell haue byn reprehended ; yet for auoydinge of any more mistakinge , and that they should vtter all they had to say , yt was ordered that vpon munday followinge , the bishopps should bringe their mynd and reasons in vvryting to the second assertion , and to the last also ys they could , and first read the same , and that done the other part should bring likewise theirs , &c. . lo heere the indifferency that was vsed ; the bishopps are accused of cauillation , that they offered to aunswere in wrytinge to the protestants libell , which is not only denyed them , but yt is ordayned also , that after other two dayes , they should bringe in whatsoeuer they haue to say to the second and third questions , and readinge yt first , giue their aduersaryes leaue to triumphe in the second place , as they had done vpon the first question the day before . but vpon munday , when all the assembly was sett , the bishopps stood firmely vpon this , that they would first read publikely their owne vyrytinge , vvhich there they brought with them vpon the first question of latyn seruice , in answere to that of the protestants at the last meeting , but in no case would yt be graunted them . fox relateth the altercation thus . . vvinchester . i am determyned for my part , that there shal be now read that , vvhich vve haue to say for the first question . l. keeper . vvill yow not then proceed in the order appointed yow ? winchester . vve should suffer preiudice , yf yow permitt vs not to treat of the first question first , and so vve vvould come to the second , and i iudge all my brethren are so mynded . bishopps . vve are all so determyned . l. keeper . yow ought to looke vvhat order is appointed yow to keepe , &c. winchester . syth our aduersaryes part haue so confirmed their assertion , we suffer preiudice yf yow permitt vs not the like . lincolne . vve are not vsed indifferently , sithen ●ow allow vs not , to open in present vvrytinge that , vve ●aue to say for declaration of the first question , &c. for that vvhich maister cole spake in this late assembly , ●as not prepared to strengthen our cause , but he made ●is oration of himselfe extempore , &c. vve are all euill ordered as touchinge the tyme , our aduersaryes ●art hauinge warninge longe before , and we were war●ed only two dayes before the last assembly in this place , and vvith this busines and other trouble , we haue byn dryuen to be occupied the whole last night , for we may in no case betray the cause of god nor will not do , but susteyne it to the vttermost of our power , but heervnto vve vvant presently indifferent vsinge , &c. l. keeper . i am vvillinge and ready to heare yow , after the order taken for yow to reason therin , and further or contrary to that , i cannot deale vvith yow . lichfield . let vs suffer no disorder heerin , but be heard vvith indifferency . . thus went on that contention , wherof i omitt much for breuityes sake ; but by this little , so partially declared by fox , as may be immagined , and appeareth also by diuers circumstances , yow may ghesse how the matter passed , and which part had more reason . at the length , the archbishop of yorke , knowing belike that this standinge of the bishopps would not preuaile against designements , already made by the queene and councell in disgrace of the catholike cause , willed the bishopps ro giue ouer in this matter , and to passe to the second question . but then began a new strife , which party should first begin to speake in this question also , the bishops affirminge both in respect they had begonne the other day , and that the protestant party was plaintife or accusant , they should begin , and the bishopps would answere , but this in no case would be graunted , but that the bishops must begin againe , and the other haue the last word as before : which indignity the bishop of lichfield being not well able to beare , requested humbly the lords there present , that they might dispute , and try first which party was catholike and of the catholike church , for that therby would appeare who had right to the first or second place of speach , and being somewhat earnest therin , spake to m. horne in these words as fox relateth . . lichfield . maister horne , maister horne , there are many churches in germany , i pray yow vvhich of these churches are ye of ? horne . i am of christs catholike church . l. keeper . yow ought not thus to runne into wandringe talke of your owne inuentinge , &c. lichfield . nay vve must first go thus to vvorke vvith them yf vve vvill search a truth : these men come in and pretend to be doubtfull , therfore they should first bringe vvhat they haue to impugne , &c. winchester . lett them begin , so vvill vve go onward . chester . they speakinge last vvould depart cum applausu populi , &c. surely vve thinke yt meete that they should for their parts giue vs place . lichfield . yea that they should and ought to do , vvhere any indifferency is vsed . elmour . vve giue yow place , do vve not ? i pray yow begin . l. keeper . yf yow make this assembly gathered in vayne , and vvill not go to the matter , lett vs rise vp and depart . winchester . contented , lett vs be gone : for vve vvill not in this point giue ouer . and so finally after some other like altercation , bacon dissolued the assembly with this threat . l. keeper . my lords , for that yow vvill not , that vve shall heare yow , you may chaunce shortly to heare of vs. so he . and this hearinge was ; that soone after ( saith stow ) the bishopps of lincolne and winchester vvere sent to the towar , and the rest bound to make dayly , and personall appearance before the councell , and not to depart the citty of london and vvestminster , vntill further order vvere taken vvith them for their disobedience and contempt . . and this was the issue of the first disputation vnder q. elizabeth , vvherof presently there was a booke printed and published , accordinge to the fashion of the new doctors , giuinge the victory to the protestants , and ouerthrow to the cath. bishopps , who yet , as yow see , were neuer permitted to propose any one argument , or reason in due place and tyme. . and with this shall we end our narration of publike disputations , omitting many more priuate and particular , as the conference of ridley , and secretary burne , doctor fecknam , and others in the towar , in the beginninge of q. maryes raigne : the colloquy of the foresaid fecknam , with the lady iane in the same place ; the particular conferences and examinations of hooper , farrar , taylour , rogers , philpott , smyth , bradford , tyms , saunders , blandford , and others of the learneder sort of protestants , but many more of craftesmen , artificers , weomen , and such like of the ignorant sort , in the bishopps consistoryes and other places : out of which also we shall reduce the summe of the principall arguments or answers , yf yt be different from the rest , when we come afterward to their due places . . and now all this being seene and considered , the reader will easily discerne , what ground of certainty may be drawne from all these disputations , altercations , and conferences , to found theron the security of his soule in beleeuing , as the protestants doe : yea and yeldinge themselues to the fire for yt , as many did in q. maryes dayes , vpon the fame and creditt of the forsaid disputations , which yet many of them vnderstood not , nor euer heard or read , but most of all were not able to resolue themselues by them , yf they had heard , read , or vnderstood them , but only in generall they rested themselues vpon this point , that the protestants were learned men , and had gotten the victory in disputations against the catholiks , for that so yt was told them . and this they thought sufficient for their assurance . . but now on the contrary side , yf a man would oppose to these ten publike disputations before recyted , ten learned councells of the catholike church , that disputed , examined , and condemned this heresie of theirs against the reall presence , vvithin the space of these last . yeares , since berengarius first began yt , as namely those foure named by lanckfranke , to witt , that of rome vnder leo the . and another of versells vnder the same pope ; the third at towars in france vnder pope victor successor to leo , the fourth at rome againe vnder pope nicolas the second ; in all which berengarius himselfe was present , and in the last , not only abiured , but burnt his owne booke . and after this , six other councells to the same effect , the first at rome vnder gregory the . where berengarius againe abiured , as * vvaldensis testifieth : the second of lateran in rome also vnder innocentius the third : the generall councell of vienna ; the fourth at rome againe vnder pope iohn the . the fifth at constance , and the sixt at trent . all these councells ( i say ) yf a man consider with indifferency of what variety of learned men they consisted , of what singular piety and sanctity of life , of how many nations , of what dignity in gods church , how great diligence they vsed to discusse this matter , what prayer , what conferringe of scriptures , and other meanes they vsed , and with how great consent of both greeke and latyn church conforme to all antiquity , they determined and resolued against the opinion of protestants in our dayes ; he will easily discouer , how much more reason , and probability of security there is , of aduenturinge his soule of the one side then of the other , which yet he will better do , by contemplation of the vanity of new protestants arguments and obiections , against so ancient founded and continued a truth . which obiections we shall examine in the chapters followinge . and so much for this . the state of the chiefe qvestions handled in the forsaid disputations , concerninge the reall presence , transubstantiation , and the sacrifice of the masse , vvith the chiefe groundes that be on eyther side . chap. ii. the questions that were most treated , and vrged on both sides , at the two changes of religion vnder k. edward and q. mary , were principally three , all concerninge the sacrament of the altar , as before hath byn shewed : the first about the reall presence of christ in the said sacrament : the second concerninge the manner of his being there by transubstantiation : and the third about the same as it is a sacrifice . which three points of catholike doctrine being left by k. henry the . standinge in vigour , as he had found them deliuered , and preserued by all his ancestours kings of england , from the beginninge of our conuersion vnto christian religion , they were all changed within two yeares after the said kings death , by authority of his sonne , being then somewhat lesse then a dozen yeares ould , and by force of a certayne act of parlament , confirmed by his name intituled : an act for the vniformity of seruice and administration of sacraments , &c. which act though in shew yt conteyned nothinge els , but the admission and approbation of a certayne new booke of common-prayer and administration of sacraments ( for so are the words of the statute ) gathered togeather by cranmer , ridley , and some others of the same humor , yet for that in this new communion booke , togeather with many other articles of auncient beleefe , these three also of the reall presence , transubstantiation , and sacrifice were altogeather altered , and a new manner of faith therin taught , yt was giuen forth that all was established and setled by parlament : and for that this collection of new articles of beleefe , passed , as you haue heard , in a bundell or fardell shuffled vp togeather in hast , vnder the name of a reformed booke of common-prayer , without any great examination or dispute about the particulars , but in generall only takinge voyces in the parlament house , as well of lay-men as other learned and vnlearned , whether the booke should passe , or noe ; wherin the l. seymour protector and his crew , hauing the kings authority in their hands , and gettinge cranmer and ridley on their sides for loue of weomen , and other preferment , easily preuayled , as by the statute yt selfe may appeare : yt was thought expedient , as before hath byn noted , that presently after the statute published , two meanes should be vsed for authorizinge and better creditinge the same . the one by persuasion of diuers meetings , conferences , and disputations of the learneder sort , which before yow haue heard related ; and the other by imprisonment & depriuing such bishops , and other cheefe ecclesiasticall persons , as should shew themselues most forward or able to resist this course , which they began with vvinchester , durham , and london : and thus passed they on for those . or . yeares that remained of k. edwards raigne after this change , wherein notwithstandinge , almighty god shewed wonderfully his hand of iudgement and punishment soone after , vpon the principall authors of this innouation both spirituall & temporall ; as of the later , both the seamours , northumberland , suffolke , and diuers of their followers ; of the former cranmer , ridley , hooper , latymer , & the like , as to the world is euident . . for vpon this followed the raigne of q. mary for other . or . yeares , who seeing so pittifull a breach made in the realme by this vnlucky alteration , she as a zealous catholike princesse , endeauored to restore the old faith and religion againe , to the former vnity of the vniuersall church , and close vp the wound that had byn made , vsinge to this effect the selfe same meanes of instruction and correction , by arguments and punishments , but in different manner , and with farre vnlike iustice of proceeding . for that the arguments were the very same , which euer had byn vsed by ancient fathers , against old heretiks in the like controuersies : and the punishments were no other then such , as auncient ecclesiasticall cannons did prescribe , and were vsed only towards them , that eyther had byn cheefe authors of the innouations , or stood so obstinately in defence therof , as by no meanes they could be recalled . . now then yt is to be considered , which of these two sorts of people had more ground or reason , either those , that withstood the first change in k. edwards dayes , which was from the old accustomd religion to a new : or those that resisted the second change or exchange vnder q. mary , which was nothinge els indeed but a returne from the new to the ould againe . and heerby will appeare the state of the controuersie vvhich now vve are to handle . for as for the first sort , to witt catholiks , the historicall state of their controuersie is manifest , concerninge these three questions about the sacrament ; for that no man can deny , but that the doctrine of the first , and third , which is the reall presence , and sacrifice , had byn receaued and held for true throughout england , ( wherein concurred also the vvhole christian vvorld abroad ) from the tyme before by me prefixed of our first conuersion , and more , euen from the apostles dayes : neyther could any tyme be appointed , or memory brought forth , when , how , or by whome , the said doctrines had their beginnings in england , or els where , which accordinge to s. augustines rule , and diuers particular demonstrations layd downe by vs before , in the first part of the treatise of three conuersions , doth euidently couuince , that they came from christ , and his apostles themselues ; vvhich ought to be sufficient , though no other proofes of scriptures , fathers , doctors , and councells could be shewed in particular for the same , as may be almost infinite , and some yow shall heare a little after in this chapter . . and as for the second question of transubstantiation , though yt be but a certayne appendix of the first , about the manner how christ is really in the sacrament , as * before hath byn shewed , & was not so particularly declared , and defined by the church in this very tearme of transubstantiation , vntill some . yeares gone in the generall councell of lateran , ( as neyther the doctrine of homusion or consubstantiality was , vntill . yeares after christ in the councell of nice , neyther the dignity of theotoces , wherby the blessed virgin is called the mother of god , vntill the councell of ephesus aboue . yeares after christ : ) yet was the same doctrine euer true before from the beginninge , and vttered by the fathers in other equiualent words & speaches , of changes , and transmutations of natures , conuersions of substances , and the like ; and when there had not byn such other euident proofes extant for the truth therof ; yet the consent and agreement of so great and vniuersall a councell of christendome , as the said lateran was , wherin both the greeke and latyn church agreed ; and after great and longe searche by readinge , disputinge , prayinge , conferringe of scriptures and fathers , and other such meanes , concluded this doctrine to be truth : yf there had byn ( i say ) nothinge els for english catholiks to rest vpon in this point , but the generall consent , and agreement of so learned , holy , and venerable an assembly ; yt might iustly seeme sufficient in the sight of an indifferent or reasonable man to weygh , and ouerweygh , against the particular iudgements of all the innouators of any age to the contrary ; and so no maruayle , though they stood so earnest against that innouation , this being the state of the controuersie on their part . . but now for the protestants , the state of their question was farre different . for first , wheras martyn luther about the . or . yeare of k. henryes raigne , had begon some noueltyes about the second and third question of transubstantiation and sacrifice , holding still the first of the reall presence for firme , and that three of his first schollers oecolampadius , carolstadius , and zuinglius full sore against his will , takinge occasion of his innouations , had added others of their owne , about the said first question , denyinge the reall presnce , though in different sorts : and that after them againe iohn caluyn a french-man , had diuised a third manner of beleefe therin , not a little different from them all about the said doctrine , both affirminge & denyinge the reall presence in different manner and sound of words : yt seemed good to our english protestants at that tyme , or the more part therof , to choose the last and newest opinion of all , and to establish yt by parlament , banishinge ther vpon the ould faith , that euer vntill that day had byn held and beleeued in our countrey , as well by themselues as others . . and thus came in the first new religion ●nto england , by some shew of publike authority , which being sett forth with so great applause , and ostentation both of publike disputations , colloquyes , conferences , lectures , preachings , exposition of scriptures , and consent of parlament , as yow haue heard , did partly by this outward shew and ostentation of authority , partly by the pleasinge face of ●ouelty yt selfe , and sweet freedome that yt brought from all former ecclesiasticall discipline , so infect , and enchaunt the harts , iudgements , & affections of diuers of the common people , and some also of the learned , ( but the ●ighter , and more licentious sort ) as afterward vvhen q. mary came to take accoumpt , and vvould recall them againe to the station vvhich they had forsaken ; they chose rather of ●ride and obstinacy , to suffer any thinge , yea ●o dye , and go to the fire , then to renounce these new fancyes once fastened vpon them : ●nto which pertinacity the fame of the forsaid protestants disputations , did not a little animate them ; for that yt was giuen out generally ( and so doth fox stand stiffely in the same ) that the sacramentaryes had the vpper hand in all , as well against the lutherans in the first question of reall presence , as against the catholiks in that and all the rest : vvhich bragg how vayne yt was , will appeare after when we come to examine their arguments in particular . . but yet before we come to that , two other points seeme expedient to be performed , for better direction of the readers vnderstandinge in these high misteryes of our faith : the first to see what sure grounds the catholiks had , and haue at this day to stand firme , and immoueable in their old beleefe about these articles , notwithstandinge any plausible or deceytfull arguments of sense and reason , that may be brought against them ; & secondly certayne obseruations , wherby the force or rather fraud of hereticall obiections may be discouered , which so beguyled many simple people in q. maryes dayes , and made them runne headlonge to their perdition ; the first of these points i shall handle in this chapter : the second in the next that followeth . catholike groundes of these three articles , and first of the reall presence . §. . . the first ground that catholike men haue of these , and all other misteryes of christian faith that are aboue the reach of common sense and reason , is the authority of the catholike church , by which they were taught the same : as points of faith reuealed from god. and this is such a ground , as we see by experience , that the most part of people of what religion soeuer , being yonge or vnlearned , can yeld no other reason in effect , why they beleeue this or that article of theire faith , but for that they receaued the same from their church and teachers therof , being not able themselues to searche out any other grounde therof : yea the most learned of all from their infancy , tooke all vpon this assurance only of their church , which church yf they held to be of infallible authority , so as she can neither be deceaued nor deceaue ( as we do of the catholike ) then should they rest firme & sure in their opinion vpon this ground ; but yf they hould that all churches may erre , and bringe into error both in doctrine , and manners , as yow haue heard martyn bucer hold before in his cambridge conclusions , and most sectaryes of our tyme do follow him in that assertion , then can they haue no ground or certainty this way , but each man and woman must seeke other grounds and proofes , and stand vpon their owne iudgements for triall of the same , which how well the most part of people can do , being eyther yonge , simple , vnlearned , or otherwayes so busyed in other matters , as they cannot attend thervnto , euery man of meane discretion will consider , and consequently they must needs be said both to liue and dye , vvithout any ground of their faith at all , but proper opinion , and so perish euerlastingely . . the famous doctor s. augustine handleth this matter in a speciall booke to his frend honoratus deceaued by the manichies , as himselfe also sometymes had byn , and he intituleth his booke de vtilitate credendi : of the profitt that commeth to a man by beleeuing the church , and points of faith therin taught , without demaundinge reason or proofe therof , which the manichies derided , and said that they required nothinge to be beleeued of their followers , but that which first should be proued to them by good proofe and reason , and not depend only of mens creditt : but the holy father scorneth this hereticall bragg and oftentation of theirs , and commendeth highly the contrary custome of simple beleeuinge vpon the creditt of the catholike church , for that otherwise infinite people should haue no faith at all , and exhorteth his frend honoratus to take the same course ; first to beleeue , and after to seeke the reason . his discourse is this : fac nos nunc primum quaerere , cuinam religioni , animas nostras , &c. suppose that we now first of all did seeke , vnto what religion we should commit our soules to be purged and rectified ; without all doubt we must begin with the catholike church , for that she is the most eminent now in the world , there being more christians in her , at this day , then in any other church of iewes , and gentills put togeather : and albeit amongst these christians , there may be sects and heresies , and all of them would seeme to be catholiks , and do call others besides themselues heretiks : yet all graunt , that yf we consider the whole body of the world , there is one church amongst the rest more eminent then all other , & more plentifull in number , & ( as they which know her do affirme ) more sincere also in truth ; but as concerninge truth , we shall dispute more afterward ; now yt is sufficient for them that desire to learne , that there is a catholike church , which is one in yt selfe , whervnto diuers heretiks do feigne , and diuise diuers names , wheras they , ( and their sects ) are called by peculiar names , which themselues cannot deny , wherby all men that are indifferent , & not letted by passion , may vnderstand vnto what church , the name catholike , which all parts desire & pretend , is to be giuen . . thus s. augustine : teachinge his frend how he might both know and beleeue the catholike church , and all that shee taught simply , and without asking reason or proofe . and as for knowing and discerning her from all other churches , that may pretend to be catholike , we heare his marks , that she is more eminent , vniuersall , greater in number , and in possession of the name catholike . the second that she may be beleeued securely , and cannot deceaue nor be deceaued in matters of faith , he proueth elswhere , concluding finally in this place : si iam satis tibi iactatus videris , &c. yf thou dost seeme to thy selfe now to haue byn sufficiently tossed vp and downe amonge sectaryes , and wouldst putt an end to these labours and tormoyles , follow the way of cath. discipline , which hath flowen downe vnto vs from christ by his apostles , and is to flow from vs to our posterity . . this then is the iudgement and direction of s. augustine , that a man should for his first ground , in matters of faith , looke vnto the beleefe of the greatest & most eminent church of christendome , that hath endured longest , embraceth most people , & hath come downe from our fore-fathers with the name of catholike , not only among her owne professors , but euen among her enemyes iewes , infidells , and heretiks , and so is termed & held by them in their common speach , as the said father in diuers others places declareth at large . which rule of direction , yf we will follow about these three articles of faith now proposed , the reall presence , transubstantiation , and sacrifice of the masse , yt is easily seene what ground we haue for their beleefe , in this kind of proofe , so highly esteemed by s. augustine , which is the authority of the vniuersall cath. church . for that when luther and his followers began to oppose themselues in our dayes , no man can deny , but that our beleefe in these articles was generally receaued ouer all christendome , as well asia and africa , where so euer christians be , as europe , and so vpward tyme out of mynd ; neither can any beginning be assigned to these doctrines in the cath. church , but only a certayne definition and determination of some councells , about the name of transubstantiation , as after shal be declared . . now then , hauinge found out this first ground which s. augustine and other fathers do make so great accoumpt of , which is the authority and beleefe of that church , that generally is called catholike : yf we passe further , and see what grounds this church had or hath to admytt the same , ( which yet is not needfull , or possible to all sortes of men , for that only can be done by the learneder sort ) we shall find that she hath such grounds , as may conuince any man that is not obstinate , and indurate to the contrary . and first to begin with the article of the reall presence , what ground , proofe , or theologicall demonstration can there bee , which the cath. church hath not for her beleefe in that high mistery ? which as it was to be one of the cheefest , most sacred , and admirable of christian religion , so was yt meet that yt should be confirmed , by all the principall wayes that any article of faith could or can be confirmed , that is to say both by scriptures of the ould and new testament , and the true exposition therof by auncient fathers , that liued before this controuersie began with sacramentarye● ; by authority and tradition of the apostles and their successors ; by testimony of auncient fathers from age to age ; by consent and agreement , practise and vse of the vniuersall church ; by the concourse and approbation of almighty god , with euident and infinite miracles , by confession of the aduersaryes , and other such generall heads of arguments , which catholike diuines do produce for this truth , for iustifyinge the churches faith therin . . and out of the scriptures their demonstration is not single or of one sort only , but in diuers manners , as to the height and dignity of so diuine and venerable a mystery was conuenient . for that out of the ould testament , they shew how yt was prefigured and prophesied , and in the new both promised againe , exhibited , and confirmed , and this not by exposition of their owne heads only , as sectaryes do , but by intendement , and interpretation , of the grauest and most ancient fathers , that haue liued in the church of god from age to age , who vnderstood so the said figures and foreshewinges of the old testament . as for example , the bread and wine misteriously offered to almighty god by melchisedeck king and priest , who bare the type of our sauiour gen. . psalm . . heb. . the shew-bread amonge the iewes , that only could be eaten by them that were sanctified exod. . &c. reg. . the bread sent miraculously by an angell to elias , whereby he was so strengthened , as he trauayled . dayes without eating by vertue only of that bread . these three sorts of bread to haue byn expresse figures of this sacrament , and of the trew flesh of christ therein conteined , do testifie by one consent all the ancient fathers , as s. cyprian lib. . epist. . clem. alexand. lib. . strom. ambros. lib. . de sacram. cap. . hier in cap. . ad titum . chrysost. hom . . in gen. august . lib. . cont . litteras petii . cap. . cyrill . catechesi . mystag . arnobius , eusebius , gregorius , and many others . . three other figures there are not expressed in the forme of bread , but in other things more excellēt then bread , as the paschall lambe exod. . leuit. . the bloud of the testament described exod. . heb. . and fulfilled by christ luc. . when he said : this cupp is the new testament in my bloud , and againe : this is my bloud of the new testament matth. . the manna also sent by god from heauen was an expresse figure of this sacrament , as appeareth by the words of our sauiour . ioan. . and of the apostle . cor. . out of all which figures , is inferred , that for so much as there must be great difference betweene the figure , and the thing prefigured , no lesse yf we beleeue s. paul , then betweene a shaddow , & the body whose shaddow yt is ; yt cannot be imagined by any probability , that this sacrament exhibited by christ , in performance of those figures , should be only creatures of bread and wine , as sacramentaryes do imagine , for then should the figures be eyther equall , or more excellent then the thing prefigured yt selfe , for who will not confesse but that bread for bread , elias his bread made by the angell , that gaue him strength to walke . dayes vpon the vertue therof was equall to our english-ministers communion-bread , and that the manna was much better . . and yf they will say for an euasion , as they do , that their bread is not common bread , but such bread as being eaten and receaued by faith , worketh the effect of christs body in them , and bringeth them his grace ; we answeare that so did these figures and sacraments also of the ould testament , being receaued by faith in christ to come , as the ancient father and preachers receaued them : and for so much as protestants do further hould , that there is no difference betweene the vertue & efficacy of those old sacramēts , and ours , ( which we deny ) yt must needs follow , that both we & they agreeinge , that the fathers of the old testament beleeued in the same christ to come that we do now , being come , their figures and shaddowes must be as good as our truth in the sacrament , that was prefigured , if it remaine bread still after christs institution , and consecration . but catholike fathers did vnderstand the matter farre otherwise , and to alleage one for all , for that he spake in the sense of all in those dayes , saint hierome talking of one of those forsaid figures , to witt , of the shew-bread , and comparinge yt with the thinge figured , and by christ exhibited , saith thus : tantum interest , &c. there is so much difference betweene the shew-bread , and the body of christ figured therby , as there is difference betweene the shaddow and the body , whose shaddow yt is , and betweene an image and the truth , which the image representeth , & betweene certaine shapes of things to come , and the things themselues prefigured by those shapes . and thus much of figures , & presignifications of the old testament . . in the new testament , as hath byn said , are conteyned both the promise of our sauiour , to fullfill these figures with the truth of his flesh , which he would giue to be eaten in the sacrament , as also the exhibition and performance therof afterward , the very night before his passion , with a miraculous confirmation of the same by s. paul , vpon conference had therin with christ himselfe after his blessed assension . the promise is conteyned in the sixt chapter of s. iohns ghospell , where our sauiour foretelleth expressely , that he would giue his flesh to vs to be eaten : for that except vve did eat the same , vve could not be saued : that his flesh vvas truly meat , and his bloud truly drinke ; and that his flesh that he would giue vs to eat , vvas the same that vvas to be giuen for the life of the world : all which speaches of our sauiour expounded vnto vs in this sense , for the reall presence of his flesh in the sacrament by the vniuersall agreeinge consent of auncient fathers , must needs make great impression in the hart of a faithfull christian man , especially the performance of this promise ensuing soone after , vvhen christ being to depart out of this world , and to make his last will and testament , exhibited that which heere he promised , takinge bread , brake and distributed the same , sayinge : this is my body that shal be deliuered for yow , which words are recorded by three seuerall euangelists , and that with such significant , and venerable circumstances on our sauiours behalfe , of feruent prayer , washinge his apostles feet , protestation of his excessiue loue , and other deuout , and most heauenly speaches in that nearnesse to his passion , as well declared the exceeding greatnesse of the mistery which he was to institute : whervnto if we add that excellent cleare cōfirmation of s. paul , who for resoluing doubts as it seemed had conference with christ himselfe after his ascension ( for before he could not , he being no christian when christ ascended ) the matter will be more euident . his words are these to the corinth . ego enim accepi à domino , quod & tradidi vobis , &c. for i haue receaued from our lord himselfe , that which i haue deliuered vnto yow about the sacrament ; and do yow note the word ( for ) importinge a reason why he ought specially to be beleeued in this affayre , for so much as he had receaued the resolution of the doubt frō christ himselfe . and then he setteth downe the very same words againe of the institution of this sacrament , that were vsed by christ before his passion , without alteration , or new exposition , which is morally most certayne that he would haue added for clearinge all doubts , yf there had byn any other sense to haue byn gathered of them , then the plaine words themselues do beare . nay himselfe doth add a new consirmation , when he saith , that he which doth eate and drinke vnworthily this sacrament , reus erit ●orporis & sanguinis domini , shal be guilty of the body and bloud of our lord. and againe : iu●cium sibi manducat & bibit , non dijudicans corpus domini , he doth eat & drinke his owne iudgement , not discerninge the body of our lord : which inferreth the reall presence of christes body , which those , whome the apostle reprehendeth , by the fact of their vnworthy receauing doe so behaue themselues , as yf they did not discerne it to be present . all which laid togeather , & the vniforme consent of expositors throughout the whole christian world , concurringe in the selfe-same sense and meaninge of all these scriptures , about the reall presence of christs true body in the sacrament , yow may imagine what a motiue yt is , and ought to be to a catholike man , who desireth to beleeue , and not to striue and contend . and thus much for scriptures . . there followeth the consideration of fathers , doctors and councells , wherein as the sacramentaryes of our tyme , that pleased first to deny the reall presence , had not one authority , nor can produce any one at this day , that expressely saith , that christs reall body is not in the sacrament , or that yt is only a figure , signe , or token therof ( though diuers impertinent peeces of some fathers speaches they will now and then pretend to alleage ) so on the cōtrary side , the catholiks do behould for their comfort , the whole ranks of ancient fathers through euery age , standinge with them in this vndoubted truth : yea not only affirming the same reall presence in most cleere , and perspicuous words ( wherof yow may see whole books in catholike wryters replenished with fathers authorityes , laid togeather out of euery age from christ downe wards ) but that which is much more , yeldinge reasons , & endeauoring to proue the same by manifest arguments , & theologicall demonstrations , vsing therin such manner of speach and words , as cannot possibly agree vnto the protestants communion of bare bread and wyne , with their symbolicall signification or representation only . as for example , where the fathers do shew how christs true flesh commeth to be in this sacramēt , videlicet : by the true conuersion of bread into his body , and by , that this body is made of bread , and by , that the substances of breat and vvyne be changed , and other like speaches , as may be seene in s. ambrose . de sacram. cap. . & lib. . cap. . lib. de myst . init . cap. . cypr. serm. de coena . chrysost. hom . . in matth. & de proditione iudae . cyrill . catec . . mystag . nissenus orat . catech. . and others . . secondly , yt is an ordinary speach of the fathers , to cry out & admyre the miracle that happeneth , by the conuersion in this sacrament , ascribinge the same to the supreme omnipotencv of almighty god , as yow may see in s. chrysostome l. . de sacerdotio : o miraculum , &c. s. ambrose lib. . de sacram. cap. . iustinus martyr apolog. . sayinge : that by the same omnipotency of god , vvherby the vvord vvas made flesh , the flesh of the vvord vvas made to be in the eucharist , which agreeth not to a caluinian communion . . thirdly , some of them do extoll and magnifie the exceeding loue & charity of christ towards vs , aboue all other humane loue , in that he feedeth vs with his owne flesh , which no shephards did euer their sheepe , or mothers their children , which is the frequent speach of s. chrysostome hom . . in matth. & . in ioan. & hom . . in ep . . ad cor. . & homil . . & . ad pop. antioch . and to the same effect s. augustine ep . . cap. . & in psal. . which speaches can no wayes agree to the protestants supper . . fourthly , diuers of the said fathers do expressely teach , that we do receaue christ in the sacrament not only by faith , but truly , really , and corporally ; semetipsum nobis commiscet ( saith s. chrysostome ) non side tantum , sed & reipsa : christ doth ioyne himselfe with vs ( in the sacrament ) not only by faith , but really . and ●n another * place , he putteth this antithesis or opposition betwixt vs , and the magi , that saw and beleeued in christ lyinge in the manger , that they could not carry him with them , as we do now by receauinge him in the sacrament , and yet no doubt they beleeued in him , and carryed him in faith as we do now ; to which effect s. cyrill alexand. saith : corporaliter nobis filius vnitur vt homo , spiritualiter , vt deus : christ as a man is vnited vnto vs corporally , ( by the sacrament ) and spiritually , as he is god. whervnto yow may add s. hilary lib. . de trinitate , and theodorus in the councell of ephesutom . . appendic . . cap. . and others . . fiftly the fathers do many tymes , and in diuers places , and vpon sundry occasions go about to proue the truth of other mysteryes , and articles of our faith , by this miracle of the being of christs flesh and body in the sacrament , as s. irenaeus for example , doth proue christs father to be the god of the old sestament , for that in his creatures he hath left vs his body & bloud , and in the same place he vseth the same argument , for establishinge the article of the resurrection of out bodyes , to witt , that he that vouch safeth to nowrish vs with his owne body and bloud , will not lett our bodyes remayne for euer in death & corruption . s. chrysostome in like manner , by the truth of his reall presence in the sacrament , doth confute them that denyed christ to haue taken true flesh of the virgin mary , which hardly would be proued by the sacramentary supper of bread and wyne , as euery man by himselfe will consider . . sixtly to pretermitt all other points handled to this effect , by the said fathers , as that diuers of them do exclude expressely the name of figure , or similitude from this sacrament , as s. ambrose lib. . de sacram. cap. . damasc . lib. . cap. . & . theophilact . in matth. . others yeld reasons why christ in the sacrament , would be really vnder the formes or accidents of bread and wyne , to witt , that our faith might be proued and exercised therby , & the horror of eating flesh & bloud , in their owne forme & shape , taken away , and so the same s. ambrose ibid. l. . de sacram. c. . cyrill . in cap. . luc. apud d. thom. in catena . others do persuade vs not to beleeue our senses that see only bread and wyne , wherof we shall speake more in the obseruations following : so s. augustine , serm . de verbis apost . & l. . de trinit . cap. . others do proue this reall presence by the sacrifice , affirminge the selfe same christ to be offered now in our dayly sacrifice vpon the altars of christians , after an vnbloudy manner , which was offered once bloudely vpon the altar of the crosse , as more largely shal be shewed : so s. chrysostome hom . . ad haebr . & . ●● . ad tim. greg. lib. . dial . c. . nissenus orat . . ●● pascha , &c. all these considerations i say , and many others that may be taken out of the fathers wrytinges , i do for breuityes sake lett passe in this place , though most euidently they do declare the said fathers plaine meaninge , and beleefe in this article , and cannot any way be applyed to the new communion of protestants , but by manifest impropriety and de●ortion . . and therfore i will end only with one consideration more , very ordinary with the said fathers , which is , the diuine reuerence , honour , and adoration , that in all ages the said fathers haue giuen vnto the blessed sacramēt , whose authorityes were ouerlong heere to recyte in particular . the sayinge of s. austen is knowne nemo manducat nisi prius adorauerit , no man eateth the sacrament but first adoreth the same , and s. chrysostome , adora & manduca ▪ adore yt and receaue yt ; and theodoret to the same effect , et creduntur & adorantur , quòd easint quae creduntur . they are beleeued and adored ( the flesh and bloud of christ ) for that they are in deed the things they are beleeued to be . and to speake nothinge of many other fathers sayings to this effect , s. chrysostome his large discourses about this matter may serue for all , who wryteth , that at the tyme of consecration and sacrifice , the very angells come downe , and vvith tremblinge do adore christ their lord therin present ▪ vvhich he vvould neuer haue vvrytten , y● bread , and wyne were only there present . . by all these wayes & meanes then , may easily be seene what the auncient fathers in their ages did thinke , speake , and beleeue , of this high & admirable mistery of christs real presence in the sacrament . and albeit ther ▪ were no councells about this matter , for the space of a thousand yeares after christ , the cause therof was , that in all that space no on ▪ man euer openly contradicted the same , atleast after the tyme of s. ignatius vntill berenga●rius , ( for yf any man had done yt , we may se● by the foresaid fathers speaches , who must haue byn the chiefe in these councells , what their determination would haue byn against them ) and when the said berengarius had once broached this sacramentary heresy , the whole christian world rose vp presently against the same , as against a blasphemous nouelty , and ten seuerall councells condemned the same , as in the former chapter hath byn declared . . wherfore the catholikes hauinge with them all these warrants of truth by scriptures , fathers , councells , tradition of antiquity , vniforme consent of all christian nations , both greeke , latyn , asian , african , & other countreyes embracing the name & faith of christ , and that no beginninge or entrance can be shewed of this doctrine in the said church , nor any contradiction against yt when yt first entred : as on the cōtrary side the first of spring of the other , togeather with the place , author , tyme , manner , occasion , resistance , condemnation , and other like circumstances are and may be authentically shewed , prooued and conuinced , yea that the very face of christendome from tyme out of mynd , by their ●hurches , altars , offerings , adoration , and manner of diuine seruice admittted euery where , without contradiction , doubt , or question , do testifie the same : the truth moreouer therof being confirmed by so infinite con●ourse of manifest miracles , recorded by such authors , as no man with piety can doubt of their creditt ; the catholiks i say hauinge all his mayne cloud of wittnesses ( to vse the apostles ●ords ) for the testimony of this truth , and being practized and accustomed in the beleefe ●●erof for so many ages togeather without ●●terruption , and seing moreouer that luther ●●mselfe , and all the learned of his side that were open professed enemyes in other things to the catholike beleefe , yet in this protested the truth to be so euident , as they durst not impugne it , nay held the first impugners therof for damnable heretiks , addinge also heerevnto that zuinglius the first chiefe author , confesseth himselfe to haue byn moued thervnto by a certayne extrauagant spiritt , which he saith he knew not whether yt was blacke or white . all these things , i say , laid togeather , and the liues and manners considered of them , that haue held the one & the other faith ; that is to say the infinite saints of the one side , whome the protestants themselues do not deny to haue byn saints ; and the qualityes and conditions of the others , that first began , or since haue defended the new sacramentary opinions : lett the discreet reader iudge , whether the catholiks of england had reason to stand fast in their old beleefe , against the innouations of our new sacramentary protestants in k. edwards dayes . and the like shall yow see in the other articles that ensue of transubstantiation and sacrifice , dependinge of this first of the reall presence , as before yow haue heard . but much more will yow be confirmed in all this , when yow shall haue read ouer the disputations followinge , and seene the triflinge arguments of the sacramentaryes in these so weighty & important articles of our beleefe and the ridiculous euasions where with they seeke to auovd , or delude the graue tistimonyes of scriptures , and fathers before mentioned . for therby wil be seene , that they seeke not truth in deed with a good and sincere conscience , & feare of gods iudgements ; but only to escape and entertayne talke for continuaunce of their faction , which ought to be marked by the reader , yf he loue his soule . and thus much for the grounds of the reall-presence . groundes of transubstantiation . §. . . touchinge the second question about transubstantiation , though yt be lesse principall then the former of the reall-presence , for that yt conteyneth but the particular manner how christ is really in the sacrament , & consequently not so necessary to be disputed of with sacramentaryes , that deny christ to be there really at all , as before hath byn noted : ●et shall we briefely discouer the principall ●rounds wheron catholiks do stand , in this ●eceaued doctrine of the church against lutherans especially , who grauntinge the said ●●all presence , do hold that bread is there togeather with our sauiours body : which catholiks for many reasons do hould to be absurd . ●nd albeit the word transubstantiation & particular declaration therof , was not so expresse● sett downe in the church vntill some . ●cares gone in the generall councell of lateran vnder pope innocentius the third , as the word trinity , homousion , or consubstantiality and cleere exposition therof , was not vntill the councell of nice . yeares after christ ; yet was the truth of this doctrine held euer before in effect and substance , though in different words : to witt mutation , transinutation , conuersion of bread into the body of christ , transelementation , and the like , which is proued by the perpetuall consent of doctrine , vttered by the ancient fathers in this point from the beginninge , which are recorded by catholike wiyters of our dayes from age to age : and one only alleageth thirty and two , that wrote heereof before the councell of lateran , and are ouerlong to be recited in this place ; only they may be reduced for more perspicuitie to two heads : the one of such as deny the substance of bread to remayne after the words of consecration ; the other of such as do expressely auouch a conuersion of bread into christs body . . of the first sort , that deny bread to remaine , is s. cyrill bishop of hierusalem , whose words are : hoc sciens , ac pro certissimo habens , panem hunc , qui videtur à nobis , non esse panem , etiamsi gusts panem esse sentiat , &c. thou knowing and being certayne of this ; that the bread which we see is not bread , not withstanding it tast as bread and the wyne which we see not to be wyne but the bloud of christ , though to the taste still see me to be wyne . and s. gregory nissen panis iste panis est in initio communis , &c. this bread at the beginninge is comon bread , but when yt is consecrated , yt is called , and is indeed the body of christ. againe eusebius : antequant consecrentur , &c. before consecration there is the substance of bread and wyne , but after the words of christ , yt is his body and bloud : all which do exclude , as yow see , bread after consecration . and to the same effect s. ambrose : panis hic , panis est , ante verba sacramentorum , sed vbi accesserit consecratio , de pane sit ●aro christi . this bread before the words of the sacraments , is bread , but after the consecration , of bread is made the flesh of christ. and s. chrysostome treating of this mistery , asketh this question , and aunswereth the same . num ●ides panem ? num vinum ? absit , ne sic cogites ! dost thou see bread ? dost thou see wyne heere ? god forbidd , thinke no such matter . and to this same effect many others might be cyted , but yt would grow to ouergreat prolixity . . the second sort of testimonyes that do affirme conuersion and change of bread into the body of christ , are many more , yf we would stand vpon their allegation , and in place of all might stand s. ambrose , whose faith was the generall faith of christendome in his ●ayes ; & he doth not only oftentymes repeat , that by the words of christ vttered by the priest vpon the bread , the nature & substance therof is changed into the body and bloud of christ , but proueth the same by examples of all the miraculous mutations & conuersions , recorded in the old and new testament . prebemus ( saith he ) non hoc esse quod natura formanit , sed quod benedictio consecrauit , maiorémque vim esse benedictionis quam naturae , quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur . lett vs proue then ( by all these other miracles ) that this which is in the sacrament , is not that which nature did frame ( vsed bread and wyne ) but that which the blessinge hath consecrated , and that the force of blessinge is greater then the force of nature ; for that nature herselfe is changed by blessinge ; and againe : si tantum valuit sermo eliae , vt ignem de coelo depoueret ; non valebit sermo christi , ●t species mutet elementorum ? yf the speach of elyas was of such force , as yt could bring downe fire from heauen , shall not the words of christ ( in the sacrament ) be able to change the natures of the elemēts ? videlicet ( as i said before ) of bread and wyne . and yet further : yow haue read , that in the creation of the world , god said , and thinges were made , he commaunded , and they were created ; that speach then of christ , vvhich of nothinge created that which was not before ; shall yt not be able to exchaunge those thinges that are , into other thinges , vvhich they vvere not before ? sor yt is no lesse to giue new natures to things , then to chaunge natures , but rather more , &c. . thus reasoneth that graue and holy doctor , to whome we might adioyne many more both before and after him , as namely s. cyprian in his sermon of the supper of our lord : panis iste quem , &c. this bread which christ gaue vnto his disciples being change not in shape , but in nature , is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh . s. cyrill bishop of hierusalem proueth the same by example of the miraculous turning of water into wine , at the marriage of cane in galeley : aquam mutauit in vinum ( saith he &c. ) christ turned water into wyne , by his only will , and is he not worthy to be beleeued quod vinum in sanguinem transmutauit , that he did chaunge wyne into his bloud ? for yf at bodily marriages he did worke so wonderfull a miracle , why shall not we confesse that he gaue his body and bloud ( in the sacrament ) to the children of the spouse ? wherfore with all certainty , let vs receaue the body and bloud of christ , for vnder the forme of bread is giuen vnto vs his body , and vnder the forme of wyne his bloud . thus hee of this miraculous chaunge , wherof saint chrysostome treatinge also vpon s. mathew wryteth thus : nos ministrorum locum tenemus , qui verò sanctificat & immutat , ipse est . we that are priests , should but the place of his ministers : ( in this great chaunge ) for he who doth sanctifie all , and maketh the chaunge , is christ himselfe . to like effect wryteth eusebius emissenus ; quando benedicendae , &c. when the creatures of bread and wyne are layd vpon the altar to be blessed , before they are consecrated by the inuocation of the holy ghost , there is present the substance of bread and wyne ; but after the words of christ , there is christs body and bloud . and what maruayle yf he that could create all by his word , posset creata conuertere , could conuert , and chaunge those thinges that he had created , into other natures ? . i might alleage many other fathers to this effect , but my purpose in this place doth not permitt yt : this shal be sufficient for a tast , that the doctrine of conuersion or chaunge of bread and wyne , into the body and bloud of christ , which is the doctrine of transubstantiation , was not new at the tyme of the councell of lateran , but was vnderstood and held euer before , by the cheefe fathers of the catholike church , yea and determined also by two councells at rome : and the first therof generall , wherin was present our lansrancus vpon the yeare of christ . vnder pope nicolas the second ; and the other . yeares after vnder pope gregory the seauenth , & both of them aboue an hundred yeares before the councell of lateran , wherin notwithstanding is declared expressely this doctrine , of the chaunge of bread & wyne into the body and bloud of our sauiour , albeit not vnder the name of transubstantiation ; and yt is proued expressely out of the words of christs institution , this is my body , which can haue no other probable exposition , but that the bread is chaunged into his body . and so yt is expounded by all the forsaid fathers , and others that , before this controuersie fell out , interpreted the same words of our sauiour . . these grounds then had the english catholiks in k. edwards dayes to stand in the defence of this doctrine , that is to say , the cleere words of scripture so vnderstood by all antiquity , togeather with the assertions and asseuerations of all the fathers , the determination of councells presently vpon the controuersie first moued , and namely of that great famous lateran councell , wherin concurred both the greeke and latyn church , there being present , the greeke patriarks of constantinople and hierusalem , . metropolitan archbishops , and aboue a thousand and two hundred other fathers of diuers states , & degrees , ( compare this with a meeting of some twenty or thirty ministers impugninge the same . ) all which hauinge disputed the matter , and considered as well by scripture , and by ancient tradition of the fathers and vniuersall cath. church , what had byn held before , did with full agreement determine & declare this matter , accursinge whosoeuer should from that tyme foreward , deny that doctrine of transubstantiation . which decree of that councell being receaued generally , vvithout contradiction throughout the christian world , hath byn confirmed by seauen other councells since that tyme , as before we haue shewed . and let the discreet reader vveigh vvith himselfe , vvhich party hath more security for yt selfe , eyther the catholike that followed all this authority & consent of antiquity , or our new protestants , that vpon fresh imaginations of their owne heads , diuised a new doctrine contrary to all this antiquity . and thus much of this article , for a tast of that which may be alleaged for yt . groundes for the sacrifice of the masse . §. . . the third question proposed to be handled in the foresaid disputations , was about the sacrifice of the masse , to witt , whether the selfe-same body of our lord , whose reall presence is proued in the first question , be not only a sacrament in the christian church , as yt is receaued vnder a signe of bread and wyne by the priest and communicants , but a sacrifice also , as yt is offered to god the father by the priest vpon the altar ; and whether this externall and visible sacrifice be appointed by christ , to be iterated and dayly frequented in the church vnto the worlds end , and this both for an externall worshipp peculiar to christians , whereby they are distinguished from all other people , as also for propitiation of sinnes , by applyinge the meritt and vertue of the other bloudy sacrifice of our sauiour on the crosse once offered for all , and euer auayleable ( as s. paul at large declareth in his epistle to the hebrewes ) for sanctifyinge the redeemed : this then being the question , and this being a doctrine so generally receaued throughout the christian world , both in the greeke , latin , aethiopian , armenian , and other christian churches , as there was no doubt or question therof , when luther and his ofspring began ; yt fell out in england , that vnder the child king edward his raigne , name & authority , that the l. seymour protect our and his followers , with some few priests that were weary of massinge , and desirous of marriage , but cheefly cranmer and ridley , hooper , latymer , and others , bad heads of the cleargy in those dayes , tooke vpon them to pull downe this publike vse of sacrifice , and afterward to examine , and call in question the doctrine therof . at which chaunge and suddayne innouation , neuer seene in england before , from the first day that christian religion entred vnder the apostles , as all the realiues and contreyes round about remayned astonished : so diuers notwithstanding of the lighter sort , enclyned to noueltyes , applauded to them , & followed their diuise ; others more prudent and respectiue to their owne saluation , consideringe that there went more in this matter then the pleasure and fancyes of a few particular men , stood constant in that , which before they had receaued , and that which generally they saw , and knew to be in vse throughout all christendome without cōtradiction , which could not be by s. austens rule , but that yt must needs come downe from the apostles themselues , for so much as all opposite doctrine to that , which was first planted by them & receaued from them , could neuer be so generally admitted without contradiction . . wherfore entringe into due consideration of this matter , whilst all the ruffe ran the other way for . or . yeares space , vnder that king child , and those other little tyrants that bare sway , and one destroyed the other by gods iust iudgement vnder him . these good men ( the catholikes i meane ) fell to search what grounds they had , or might find out for this so receaued a doctrine & practise , as this of the masse and sacrifice was . and first they found , that wheras the first insult of heretiks was against the very name of the masse , as a new diuised thinge without reason or signification ; they found ( i say ) that it was a very ancient and vsuall word , for the externall sacrifice of christians vpon the altar , in the latyn church , for twelue hundred yeares past and downeward ; in place wherof the grecians haue vsed the word liturgie , synaxis , and the like , and this vse is not only to be shewed by the testimonyes of particular fathers , as saint a ambrose , s. b augustine , s. c leo , s. d gregory , e victor vticensis , f cassianus , and other ; but by whole councells also , as by that of g rome , vnder pope siluester the first of . bishops , held almost . yeares gone ; the second & fourth of h carthage held the next age after , and the councell of i agatha in france the same age ; the councell of k ilerdum and l valentia in spaine , and of m orleance in france , all aboue . yeares gone , which was sufficient matter against the vanyty of heretiks , that condemned the name & the words : for example of s. ambrose sayinge missam facere coepi , orare in oblatione deum . i began to say masse , and to pray to god in the oblation of the sacrifice , and those of s. austen : in lectione quae nobis ad missas legenda est , audituri sumus . we shall heare or this matter more in the lesson which is to be read vnto vs at masse . these speaches i say , & this practise of so ould learned & holy priests , as these and their fellowes were , did preuayle more with the grauer sort of english people , then the lightnesse & inconstancy of cranmer ridley , and such other licentious priests , as for liberty fell to apostasie . . and this for the name of the masse . but for the nature and substance therof , which conteyneth the externall true and proper sacrifice of the christian church , they found such store of euident proofes , and most graue authorityes , as might stay , confirme and satisfie any mans mynd , that were not willfully bent to the contrary . and wheras i do vse the words of externall , true and proper sacrifise , yow must remember therby the fraud of these new heretiks , who , as before about the reall presence , did go about to delude all the sayings of holy fathers , and other testimonyes of antiquity , that spake of christs reall being in the sacrament , by running to the words spiritually , sacramentaly , by faith , and the like : so heere fyndinge the whole torrent and streame of christian antiquity to stand for this christian sacrifice , & to mention , reuerence , & auouch the same ; these fellowes for auoydinge their authorityes do runne from the proper externall sacrifice , wherof we treate , vnto the internall , and inuisible sacrifice of the mynd , wherof k. dauid saith , that a contrite spiritt is a sacrifice to god. and when this cannot serue , they run also to improper and metaphoricall externe sacrifices , such as are , mortification of the body rom. . sacrifice of thankesgeuinge . psalm . . sacrifice of almes deedes . hebr. . and other such good works , which by a certayne analogy or proportion with the nature of proper sacrifices , are called also sacrifice in scriptures & by the fathers , but improperly . to these then do our protestants runne , when they are pressed with the authorityes of auncient fathers , that name the vse of christian sacrifice in the church , and will needs make vs beleeue , that the fathers ment not properly of any true visible or externall sacrifice , but eyther of inward or inuisible sacrifice of the hart , mynd , and good desire ; or els of outward metaphoricall sacrifice of pious and vertuous workes . . but all these are fraudulent shifts to ouerthrow one truth by another . for as we do not deny , but that there is an inward and inuisible sacrifice of our mynd , in dedicatinge of our selues to god , and to the subiection of his maiestie , without which the externall sacrifice is little worth to him that offereth the same : and as we graunt that all good works be sacrifices in a certayne sort , by some similitude they haue with true & proper sacrifices , for that they are offered vp to god in his honour ; yet do we say , that this is from our purpose in this place , who talke of a true proper externall sacrifice offered vp to god , after a peculiar sacred rite , or ceremonyes , by peculiar men deputed to this office in acknowledgement of gods diuine power , maiestie , and dominion ouer vs , & protestation of our due subiection vnto him , such as were the externall sacrifices in the law of nature , offered vp by patriarks and heads of familyes , and by priests of aarons order vnder the law of moyses , and by christ and his priests accordinge to the order of melchisedech in the new law ; and for so much as both the internall , & metaphoricall sacrifices before mentioned of good affection , desires , and holy works , are not peculiar to any law , but were lawfull and needfull vnder all lawes , and in all tymes , and require no particular kind of men or ministers to offer them , but may be offered vp by any man or woman whatsoeuer : therfore do we exclude all these from the name of the sacrifice , which heere is meant by our description , and comprehendeth as yow see an externall visible oblation , made by him or them , who are peculiarly deputed by god to this office , which are priests : so as when soeuer our aduersaryes do slipp from this proper signification of a sacrifice to the other , eyther internall or metaphoricall , which may be offeted by all sorts of people , and therevpon do say that all men are priests , they runne , as vow see , quite from the purpose , as they do also for examples sake , when to auoyd the necessity of externall fastinge , they runne to the internall fastinge of the mynd , sayinge that true fastinge , is to fast from sinne , which as we deny not in that sense of spirituall fastinge ; so is it notwithstandinge a plaine shift , and runninge from the purpose , and cannot stand with many places of the scripture , which must needs be vnderstood of the externall fast ; as when christ is said by the euangelists to haue fasted . dayes togeather ; and s. paul affirmeth that he and his fellow apostles fasted frequently ; it cannot be vnderstood ( i say ) of fastinge only those tymes from sinne ; for that christ fasted alwayes from sinne without exception ; and so do all good men both fast and facrisice also , by offeringe vp good desires and pious actions to almighty god , dayly and hourely without distinction of men or tymes . . but this is not the proper , visible , & externall sacrifice which heere we meane , which was instituted by god , as peculiar to christian people vnder the law of the ghospell , for an externall worshipp vnto him ( besides the internall ) and testification of their inward subiection , loue , and piety towards him ; which sacrifice comming in place of all others that went before , both in the law of nature and of moyses that prefigured and foresignified the same ; and being but one and singular insteed of them all , and their great variety , is to be esteemed so much more excellent then they all , as the law of the ghospell is more excellent then those lawes , and truth aboue shaddowes , & the sacred body of christ god and man himselfe , to be preferred before the bodyes of beasts , byrds and other such creatures , vvhich vvere but signes and figures of this . . and in this sense do both scriptures , fathers , councells , and all holy christian antiquity speake and treat of this most diuine , venerable and dreadfull sacrifice , wherof , as of the highest and most principall mystery and treasure , left by our sauiour in his church , there are so many testimonyes , as before hath byn signifyed , that yt shall not be possible for me in this place , and with the breuity which is necessary , to alleage the least part therof ; yet some few generall heads shall i touch , which the learned reader may see more dilated , by diuers catholike wryters of our dayes , and he that hath not commodity or tyme to do that , may geue a ghesse by that which heere i shall sett downe . . first then , for that this holy sacrifice of the christian church was so principally intended by almighty god for the new law , as hath byn said , many things were sett downe by the holy ghost in the old testament , both prefiguringe and prophecyinge the same , as first the sacrifice of the king and priest melchisedech in bread and wyne , gen. . which all the auncient fathers , by generall consent , do apply to the sacrifice vsed now in the christian church , and yt were ouerlong to alleage their particular authorityes , lett . s. augustine speake for all : primum apparuit ( saith he ) sacrificium ( melchisedech ) quod à christianis nunc offertur deo toto orbe terrarum . the first sacrifice appeared in melchisedech , which now is offered to god by christians throughout all the world . and in another place : vident nunc tale sacrificium offerri deo toto orbe terrarum : christians do see the like sacrifice ( to that of melchisedech ) to be offered to god , ouer all the world. and all the other sacrifices , signes and oblations mentioned before , as prefiguringe the reall presence of christs sacred body , and true flesh in the sacrament , are applied by the selfe same fathers , whome before we haue named , to the prefiguration also of this diuine sacrifice , conteyninge the selfe same thinge , which the sacrament doth , but in a different sort , in respect of diuers ends , the one as yt is receaued by the communicants ; the other as yt is offered vnto god the father . . after these prefigurations there follow the predictions of prophetts as that of esay . and . where is forteold the reiection of the aaronicall priesthood and sacrifice , and a new promised vnder the christians . the prophesy of daniell also , where it is foretould , that in the last age of the law of grace , by the comminge of antichrist , iuge sacrificium , that is the dayly sacrifice shall cease . of this ( i say ) is inferred by the ancient fathers , that vntill antichrists comminge there shal be a perpetuall and dayly sacrifice amonge christians ; which is most of all confirmed by the prophesie of malachias in these words : ad vos ò sacerdotes , &c. to yow ò priests , that despise my name , and do offer vpon my altar polluted bread , and do sacrifice the beasts that are blind , lame and weake , i haue no more likinge of yow , saith the lord of hosts , and i will not receaue at your hands any gifts , for that from the east to the west my name is great amonge the gentills , and they do sacrifice vnto me in euery place , and do offer vnto my name a pure oblation , for that my name is great amonge the gentills , saith the lord of hostes . out of which place the fathers do shew first , that heere the priesthood and sacrifice of aaron was to be reiected , & a new priesthood and sacrifice , accordinge to the order of melchisedech , erected amongst the gentills , wherby ordinarily are vnderstood the christian people conuerted chiefly ( from gentility ) who were to succeed in their place , and that with such certainty , as the present tense is put for the future , accordinge to the manner of prophesies ; and the antithesis or opposition betweene the two sacrifices , the one reiected , the other promised , doth make the matter more plaine ; for that as the iewes sacrifice could not be offered but in one place , to witt , in the temple of hierusalem : so shall the christian sacrifice be offered vp in omni loco , that is euery where without respect of places from the east to the west . the iewish sacrifices were many and of diuers sorts , but the christian sacrifice that should succeed in place therof was to be but one . the iewish sacrifices were polluted , not so much in respect of great quantity of beasts bloud powred out therin , and for that they offered defectuous beasts , as for the wickednesse of them that offered the same ; but the christian sacrifice was to be cleane & vnspotted , not only in respect of the vnbloudy manner , wherin yt was to be offered vnder the formes of bread and wyne , but especially for the excellency of the thinge yt selfe offered , being the most pretious body of christ himselfe , and for that the demeritt of the offerer cannot take away the worth of the offeringe . . these circumstances then considered , and that the heretikes heere cannot runne to their shift of inward , and inuisible sacrifices , ( for that these could not be vnderstood by the prophett as new sacrifices , that should succeede to the ould , for that these were alwayes in vse with good men , duringe the tyme of the old sacrifice also , and were lawfull , yea commaunded in all tymes , to witt , to haue inward piety and deuotion , giue almes , and the like ) these things i say considered , togeather with the expositions of holy fathers , as well vpon these as vpon other places of the old testament , there can be no probable doubt , but that this externall sacrifice of the christian was prophesyed by the holy ghost longe before the comminge of christ. . secondly , the same is proued out of diuers places of the new testament : and first out of s. iohns ghospell , where as our sauiour promised in mysterious words the institution of this blessed sacrifice , as before hath byn seene ; so also did he signifie that this sacrifice should succeed in steed of all sacrifices that went before . for wheras the samaritan woman at the well , speakinge of the schisme betweene the iewes & samaritans about adoring in the temple of ierusalem , and in the hill garizim of samaria ( which word of adoringe must needs in that place signifie sacrifycinge , as yt doth also in other places of scripture , as gen. . act. . and els where , for that the controuersie betweene the iewes and samaritans was about the vse of sacrificing , as the highest externall act of adoration ) our sauiour aunswereth to her question , that the houre was now come , when neyther in that hill of samaria , nor in ierusalem they should adore ; that is to say , vse any more sacrifice , but that a new adoration in spiritt and truth should succeed the former ; which adoration being vnderstood of sacrifice , as the circumstance both of the place and matter do enforce , yt followeth that christ did heere promise a new sacrifice , that should be spirituall and true : spirituall , both in comparison of the bloudy sacrifice that went before , & for that the consecration of christs holy body in this sacrifice , is made by speciall worke and operation of the holy ghost ; true also and in truth it may iustly be said to bee , for that yt is the fullfillinge of all precedent sacrifices , and the truth of all former figures . . there ensue the places of saint mathew , s. marke , s. luke , and s. paul about the institution and first celebration , of this vnbloudy sacrifice of christ in his last supper , where yf we admitt that , which all the circumstances of the places themselues do plainly insinuate or rather inforce ; the continuall exposition and tradition of the auncient church doth teach vs , to witt , that christ our sauiour hauinge consecrated his sacred body , did offer the same vnto his father as a most gratefull sacrifice in his last supper ; then must yt follow , that the words hoc facite in meant commemorationem , do this in remembrance of me , implyed a precept not only of receauinge and communicatinge the body of christ , but to offer vp the selfe same also to god in sacrifice , after the example of christ himselfe ; which is that we call the sacrifice of the masse , & to proue that th' apostles vnderstood these words ( i meane , do this in remembrance of me ) so ; and in this sense , not only the most ancient fathers , as hath byn said , do testifie the same , but the ancient liturgies or ritualls also of the apostles and their schollers , as namely of s. iames , s. clement , and s. dionysius areopagita , do make the matter manifest , concerning the apostles practise in this behalfe , to witt , that they did offer vp this christian externall sacrifice in all places of the world , where they liued , and that from them the church ●ooke the same precept and vse , accordinge to the testimony of old irenaeus bishopp & martyr , that liued aboue . yeares gone , whose words are : eum qui ex creatura pa●u est , accepit , & gratias egit , dicens ; hoc est corpus meum ; & calicem similiter qui est ex e● creatura quae est secundum nos suum sanguinem confessus est , & noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationem , quam ecclesia ab apostolis accipiens , in vniuerso mundo offert deo. christ tooke that bread which was a creature and gaue thanks sayinge : this is my body ; and that cupp or wyne in like manner , which accordinge to vs , is of a creature , he confesseth to be his bloud , and heerby taught a new oblation of the new testament , which the church receauinge from the apostles , doth offer the same to god , throughout the whole world . . heere now are touched all the points that might be doubted of by sectaryes , to wit , that this bread and wine being first creatures , are confessed by christ , after consecration , to be his body and bloud : secondly that this was not only an institution of the sacrament , and communion , but of a new oblation & sacrifice for the tyme of the new testament : thirdly that yt was not only to be offered once and in one place , as christs bloudy sacrifice was vpon the crosse , but throughout the whole world by the whole church . and fourthly that this manner of oblation was taught the apostles by christ himselfe , and by them deliuered to the said church . what can be spoken more cleerly or distinctly by so ancient a wittnesse ? neyther can heretiks heere haue any refuge to internall or inuisible sacrifices of the mynd , or to vnproper externall sacrifices of thankesgeuinge , almesdeeds , and the like , for that they are many , and were before also lawfull vnder the law of moyses , as often hath byn noted , & heere is said to be taught a new particular and singular oblation of the new testament , in steed of all the sacrifices of the ould testament , vvhich irenaeus confirmeth presently in the next words after , by the prophecye of malachye before mentioned sayinge : malachias sic praesignificauit , &c. malachy the prophet did so foretell vs , ( that this new sacrifice and oblation of the new testament , should thus be instituted by christ , and frequented by the church ) when he said to the iewish priests , i haue no will or likinge in yow , &c. manifestissimè significans , quoniam prior quidem populus cessauit offerre deo ; omni autem loco sacrificium offertur deo , & hoc purum in gentibus ; most manifestly signifyinge , that the former iewish people ( being reiected ) haue ceased to offer sacrifice vnto god ; but that amonge the gentills ( to witt , christians conuerted of them ) a pure sacrifice is offered in euery place of the world , that is to say , without respect of any certayne place , as the iewish sacrifices were . . with s. irenaeus bishop and martyr , concurreth in the same age , and somewhat before him , s. iustinus philosopher and martyr , who speakinge of the selfe same thinge , and of the iewes reprobation , and of the sacrifice of the new testament ordayned by christ in place therof , writeth thus in his dialogue , intituled , triphon against the said iewes : a nemine deus hostias accipit , nisi à sacerdotibus suis , &c. god doth accept hosts and sacrifice of none , but of his priests ; wherfore he preuenting all those that do ofter such sacrifice vnto him in christs name , as iesus christ hath deliuered to be made in the eucharist of bread and wyne , & are made by christians in euery place , doth testify that they are gratefull vnto him : but your sacrifices ( o iewes ) he doth reiect . thus he . and these two testimonyes , of two so famous martyrs and doctors , are sufficient for wittnesses of the first and next age after the apostles , to declare what the said apostles both taught and practised in this point of publike sacrifice , and what the church of that time vnderstood christ himselfe to haue done in that behalfe , though i might adioyne other foure testimonyes more auncient yet then these ; which are s. a clemont , scholler to s. peter s. b dionysius areopagita , scholler to s. paul ; s. c martiall bishop of burdeaux , and s. d alexander bishop and martyr of rome ; all which do no lesse cleerly then these two , declare vnto vs the doctrine and practice of their tymes vnder the apostles . . but for auoydinge prolixity i must passo them ouer , aduertisinge only by the way , that where in the acts of the apostles yt is wrytten by s. luke , cōcerning the mission of s. paul , and barnaby to preach , ministrantibus illis domino , & ieiunantibus , dixit spiritus sanctus , segregate mihi saulum & barnabam , &c. they ministring vnto god , and fastinge ( to witt , barnabas , symon , lucius , manahen and saul , that were prophetts and doctors saith s. luke ) the holy ghost said to them , take out for me saul , and barnabas , to the worke that i haue chosen them for . now as concerning the mynistery which these men were performing , when the holy ghost spake vnto them , the greeke word vsed by s. luke , importeth rather sacrificing , and so doth erasmus translate yt , who was no euill grecian , nor of small creditt with our aduersaryes : and of that word proceed the names before mencyoned of liturgy , conteyninge the order of this sacrifice in the christian church . . but howsoeuer this bee , yow haue heard the iudgement of the first age , after the apostles , by two wittnesses of singular credit , s. iustinus , and s. irenaeus : for the second may speake s. cyprian to the same effect : iesus christus dominus & deus noster , ipse est summus sacerdos dei patris , & sacrificium deo patri ipse primus obtulit , & hoc sieri in sui commemoratione praecepit . iesus christ our lord and our god , he is the high priest of god the father , and he offered vp first of all to god his father a sacrifice , and commaunded this to be done in his commemoration . lo he commaundeth vs to sacrifice as he did sacrifice . and for the third age after the apostles s ambrose may only speake : ponti fex noster ille est , ( saith he ) qui obtulit hostiam nos mundamem ipsam offerimus nunc , quae tunc oblata quidem , consumi non potest . he is our high priest that offered the host which made vs cleane , the selfe same do we offer now , which then was offerred , and cannot be consumed . behould that we offer the selfe same host that christ offered , and cannot be consumed . and for the fourth age s. austen may stand for all , who answering faustus the manichee , that obiected , that he and other catholiks did offer sacrifice vnto martyrs ; the holy father denyeth yt sayinge : sacrificare martyribus dixi , &c. i said that we did not sacrifice vnto martyrs , but i said not , but that we sacrifised to god in the memoryes of martyrs , which we most frequently vse to do , after that only rite , which god in the manifestation of the new testament hath comaunded vs to sacrifice vnto him . . by all which testimonyes is euident , that the church of god , in the first foure ages after the apostles , did both offer an externall sacrifice , which was the same that christ had offered before , and this after a peculiar rite insinuated by christ to the apostles , and deliuered by them to their posterity ( which peculiar rite is more expressed in the liturgies before mentioned ) and that all this is done by the authority and example of christ himselfe in his last supper , and by tradition of the apostles , which is inough to settle any pious mans conscience . now then thirdly , wheras i should by order passe to the consideration of ancient fathers sayings & testimonyes about this matter , they are so many and copious , as i should be prolix and weary to the reader in producing so many as may be alleaged , no one article or mystery of our faith , being so often handled or inculcated by them , as this of the church sacrifice . for better comprehendinge wherof , i shall , as for the mystery of the reall presence before , heere note only vnto thee certayne generall heads , whervnto the said fathers testimonyes may be reduced ; as first , that euery where in their wrytings , speakinge of this oblation made in the masse , they vse the words sacrificium , hostia , victima , offerre , immolare , sacrificare , all which are words that peculiarly and properly do signify sacrifice ; which is certayne that the said fathers would neuer so comonly haue vsed , no more then the protestants do vse them now of their supper , if they had meant no otherwise then the protestants do for other sacraments ; as baptisme for example they do not call eyther sacrifice , host , or victime , nor that the act of baptizinge , is offerringe , immolation or sacrifice , as they do the act of celebratinge masse , wherof you may read all the fathers generally , as s. hyppolitus martyr , orat. de antichrist . s. ambrose in psalm . . nissen . orat . de resurrect . chrysost. hom . . in . cor. & hom . . in epist ad hebraeos . cyrill . lib. de adorat . aug. l. . quaest . euang. q. . & l. . de trinit . cap. . . the second head is of those authorityes , that do compare this christian sacrifice with the sacrifices of the iewes , affirminge the one to be of the flesh of beasts & spotted , the other of the pure , and immaculate flesh of christ , which they would neuer haue done in like manner , yf they had not meant properly of true externall sacrifices , offered by christians in the new law , wherof yow may see at large tertullian lib. contr . iudaeos cap. . iustin. in triph. chrysost. in psalm . . cyprian . lib. de vnitat . ecclesiae ambros. in cap. . lucae . nazianz. orat . . de paschat . aug. lib. . de ciuitat . dei cap. . s. leo. serm . de passion . and many others . . the third head is of those authorityes , that compare this dayly sacrifice of the christian church , offered in euery place throughout the world , with the only sacrifice of christ , offered once for all vpon the crosse , wherin for differēce sake they vse the words , cruentum & incruentum sacrificium , that is bloudy and vnbloudy sacrifice , for distinguishinge the māner of the oblatiō , the one vpon the crosse , the other vpon many altars in the church at once , till the worlds end , otherwise holding the thing it selfe offered to be the very same in th' one & other sacrifice . see s. chrysost. hom . . in . cor. & hom . . ad . tim. cyprian . lib. . ep . . ambros. in psalm . . nissen . orat . . de resurrect . aug. lib. . cont . donatist . cap. . & lib. . contr . faust. cap. . isichius in leuit. cap. . and others . . the fourth head is of those , that affirme this our dayly sacrifice to be propitiatory both for the liue and dead , as well those that are absent as present , and that for both these sorts of people yt ought , and was accustomed to be offered in their dayes , which doth euidently proue yt a true sacrifice , for that a sacrament only doth profitt only those that do communicate and receaue the same , and no protestant will say that their communion is offered vp for those that are absent , quicke or dead , as the ancient fathers do euery where say , that our host & eucharist was offered vp in their dayes , and consequently they held yt not only for a sacrament , but also for a sacrifice ; whereof yow may see s. chrysostome hom . . ad pop. antiochen ; where he saith yt was offered for bishopps and gouernours of the church ; & hom . . in matth. for sicke men , & lib. . de sacerdotio for the dead . for which effect see s. augustine lib. . de ciuit . cap. . & in enchirid. cap. . & lib. . confess ▪ cap. . where he professeth to haue offered sacrifice of the masse for his mother s. monica . . the fifth head is of those places wherin the fathers do vse the words altar , priests and priesthood , as proper , peculiar , and appropriated to true sacrifices ; for as the protestants of our tymes do not vse these words , for that they hould not their supper to be a sacrifice , but rather do fly them , though neuer so much vsed by the said fathers , and in place therof do vse the words , table , minister , mynistry , and other such like of their new religion ; so neyther would the fathers haue vsed the same words , yf they had had the same meaning that protestants haue ; for that well knew the said fathers how to expresse their meaninge in proper words , and therfore when they say that altars amonge christians , are , sedes a corporis christi the seats of the body of christ , and that in their dayes christians did b adgeniculare aris dei , knele downe at the altars of god , & quod c obsculabantur altaria , that they kissed the altars , and that the office of christian priests is to sacrifice vpon the said altars , yt is euident what they meant , to him that will vnderstand them , wherof more may be read in s. cyprian lib. . ep . . euseb. lib. . demonstr . euang. cap. . athan. in vita anton. nazianz. orat . in gorgon . nissen . lib. de baptisimo . chrysost. hom . . ad pop. antioch . & hom . . in . cor. hieron . lib. cont . vigilant . & dial . cont . lucifer . aug. lib. . cap. vlt. and others . . the sixt consideration out of the fathers , may be their lyturgyes or forme of diuine seruice or masse , for offeringe of this sacrifice in those dayes , of which sort of liturgyes there are extant vnto this day diuers , as that of s. iames the apostle , s. clement scholler and successor of s. peter , of s. basill , s. chrysostome , s. ambrose , which albeit in all particular forme of prayer , do not agree with our forme and canon of masse at this day , yet in the substance of the sacrifice they do , as also in many other particular circumstances , vsinge the words of oblation , sacrifice , victime , signes , singings , blessings , eleuations , and other such rites which protestants cannot abide . and for the cannon , and forme of our masse , which is vsed at this day in the latyn church , most parts therof are to be seene in s. ambrose his books de sacramentis , and the whole order as now yt is hath endured without alteration from s. gregory the first downeward , wherof yow may see alcuinus , amalarius , vvalfridus , and other ancient authors in their books de diuinis officijs . . by all which generall heads , yow may easily see the multitude of testimonyes , that may be alleaged out of the fathers , yf we should prosecute euery one of these in particular ; & how great reason martyn luther had to except against them all , or rather to defy them all , when first he begā to write against this sacrifice , hic non moramur ( saith he ) si clamitant papistae , ecclesia , ecclesia , patres , patres ; heere we care not , though papists cry , church , church , fathers , fathers ; and againe : heere i do professe against them that vvill cry out , that i do teach against the rite of the church and ordinances of fathers , that i vvill heare none of these obiections . and in another place against our k. henry of england , much more immodestly and wickedly , when the king alleaged the authorityes of ancient fathers for the masse , this shamelesse fellow answered : thomisticos asinos , &c. i say that these . thomisticall asses haue nothinge to bringe forth , but only a multitude of men , and vse of antiquity . and a little after he saith expressely ; that he careth not though a thousand augustines , and a thousand cyprians be brought against him . so as this first father and chiefe captayne of our protestants , did easily graunt , as yow see , that the whole consent of ancient fathers was against him . ponderations upon the premises . §. . . all which being considered , there remayneth only to weigh , what a discreet man may thinke or do in this important case : for first heere is all the antiquity of the christian church on the one side , that testifyeth vnto vs not only what was beleeued and exercised in their dayes , but vpon what grounds also , both of scriptures of the old and new testament , and by christs owne institution , fact and ordination , and by the practise and tradition of the apostles themselues . then is there the continuance of all ages since , throughout all countreyes and nations of christendome , as hath byn said . there is the agreement of all generall councells : the consent of all ecclesiasticall historyes , wherin as there is continuall mention of both publike and priuate exercise of this externall sacrifice : so is there no memory at all , of any tyme synce the apostles wherin yt began , or that euer any contradiction , doubt , or question was about the same , for . yeares togeather after christs assension , which must needs haue happened , yf the vse therof had not byn prescribed and left by christ and his apostles themselues . for what men or people would haue attempted to begin , or bring in so great a matter as this ? or who would haue receaued yt without opposition , yf yt had not byn established euen from the beginninge ? i adde also another cōsideration of no little importance , which is , that yf christ had left his church & people without a particular externall sacrifice , wherby they should be distinguished from all other people ; the christian church vnder the law of grace , should be inferiour to the church of the patriarks vnder the law of nature , and vnto the prophetts vnder the law of moyses : for that both of those churches and people had an externall dayly sacrifice , wherby to honour god , besides the internall sacrifice of their mynd : neyther can yt be said , that christs owne sacrifice on the crosse , once offered for all , is this dayly sacrifice apprehended by vs in faith , for that they also beleeued in him , and their sacrifices were acceptable only by faith in him to come . and therfore as christs one sacrifice then to come , was no impediment , why their dayly sacrifices , which tooke their valour from this one of christ , should not be dayly offered amonge them : so the same sacrifice of christ vpon the crosse , being now past , should not take away our dayly sacrifices offered in remembrance therof , and for the applying of the infinite valour of that one sacrifice vnto vs , from which this other dayly sacrifice taketh his sufficiency . . furthermore the very outward forme of all christian churches , there buildinge with crosses , altar , iles , and the like , the foundinge of monasteryes , chappell 's , oratoryes , the ceremonyes in foundinge them , their statutes for sayinge of masses for the dead , which were in britany both before our nation was conuerted , and much more after ; the whole canon of our latyn masse-booke which is graunted by our aduersaryes , and euidently proued to haue byn , as yt is now , for aboue a thousand yeares togeather , and brought in by s. augustine our first apostle : all these things i say , do shew whether this were a matter to be called in question by a few libertyne priests , and auaritious noble men , & to be banished the realme vpon a soddayne , vnder the name of a child kinge , that knew not what yt meant , as yt was in k. edwards dayes in our miserable countrey . . moreouer yf yow ponder with your selfe , what manner of priests they were for life , learninge , and vertue that acknowledged themselues to haue offered sacrifices vpon altars in their dayes , as s. irenaeus , s. cyprian , s. ambrose , s. chrysostome , s. augustine , s. gregory . and others of the first ages , yea and for these ●ater ages , since berengarius mooued first the question about the reall presence , as s. anselme , ● . bernard , s. thomas of aquin , s. dominicke , and almost infinite other saints , and holy men , of whome all historyes do report wonderfull extraordinary tokens , of almighty god his speciall fauours towards them ; and do compare them with the first marryed priests and apostata friars , that were the first impugners of this sacrifice in england or round about vs , we shall find a great difference . and then yf we consider , by what good spiritt or motiue luther began the first contradiction in germany , which was by the diuells owne persuasion and personall appearance vnto him , and disputinge against yt ( for yt seemed that he esteemed so much both of the man and the matter , that he would not send an embassadour vnto him , as he did soone after to zuinglius , for impugninge the reall presence , but go himselfe in proper person ) and that all this is confessed by themselues , and testifyed by their owne wrytings : all this , i say , being laid togeather , may strengthen him that hath any faith at all , to stand constant in the beleefe of the catholike church concerninge these articles : for yf there be any certainty or ground in christian religion at all , yt must needs be in these , wherein authority , learninge , antiquity , consent , continuance , vniuersality , miracles , and all other sorts of theologicall arguments , both diuine & humane , do concurre and nothinge at all with the impugners , but only selfe-will , passion , and malitious obstinacy , as yow will better see afterward , when yow come to examine their obiections . . furthermore yt is to be pondered , what miserable men they were that first in our dayes , against the whole army of god church did presume to impugne this blessed sacrifice , vpon such simple and fond reasons a● before yow haue heard , to witt luther in germany , vpon the motiue laid downe vnto him by the diuell , in his disputation with him , recorded by himselfe in his wrytings , and nicolas ridley in england , vpon certayne places of the scripture , and certayne testimonyes of fathers ( to vse his owne words ) which made nothinge at all for his purpose , as after most cleerly shall be shewed in due place , and we may easily ghesse by that , which hath byn alleaged before out of scriptures and fathers : for that scriptures cannot be contrary to scriptures ; nor are fathers presumed to impugne fathers , in so great a point of faith as this is . . wherfore miserable & twise miserable were these men , that first vpon so small grounds aduentured to make so fatall a breach in gods church ; and thrise miserable were other , who vpon these mens creditts , ranne to aduenture both body and soule euerlastingly , in pursuite of this breach and contradiction begunne , as were the most of fox his phantasticall martyrs of the ruder and vnlearned sort , who in all their examinations & answers , were most blasphemous in defiance and detestation of this blessed-sacrament , as yow haue seene in their historyes ; and therby did well shew that they were gouerned by his spiritt , that aboue all honours doth enuy this that is done to almighty god , as the highest , and most pleasing to his diuine maiestie of all others . and so much for this point . certayne observations to be noted , for better aunsweringe of hereticall cauillations , against these articles of the blessed sacrament . chap. iii. having exhibited a tast in the former chapter , of the many great and substantiall grounds , which catholike men haue to stand vpon , in these high and diuine misteryes of christs sacred body in the sacrament and sacrifice , and shewed in like manner that the faithlesse and infidious sacramentary , that wrangeleth against the same , hath no one plaine place indeed , eyther of scriptures or fathers for his purpose , but only certayne obiections , founded for the most part vpon sense and humayne reason against faith , and aunswered ordinarily by our schoolemen themselues that first obiected the same , and out of whose books the heretiks stole them ; i haue thought yt best for more perspicuityes sake , & for helpinge their vnderstanding , that are not exercised in matters aboue sense , to set downe a few obseruations in this very beginninge wherby great light will grow to the reader , for discouering whatsoeuer shall after be treated about this matter . but yet before i enter into the obseruations themselues , i would haue the reader consider two things ; first the inequality betweene our aduersaryes and vs in this case , for that their arguments against these mysteryes , being founded almost all in the appearance of comon sense ( as hath byn said ) the vnlearned reader is capable of the obiection , but not of the solution , which must be taken from matters aboue sense , as presently yow shall see . . the second point is , that yf any of the old heretiks , or heathen philosophers should rise againe at this day , and bringe forth their arguments of sense & humaine reason against such articles of our faith , as in ould tyme they did impugne , for both improbable and impossible in nature ; as namely the creation of the world out of nothinge ; three distinct persons of the blessed trinity in one , & the selfe same substance ; two distinct natures in one person conioyned by the incarnation of christ ; the resurrection of our putrifyed bodyes , the selfe same substance , qualityes , quantityes , & other accidents , & such like points : against which , i say , yf ould philosophers , & heretiks should come forth againe in our dayes , and propose such arguments as in their dayes they did , which seeme inuincible and vnanswerable to common sense and humaine reason ; do yow not thinke that they should haue infinite people both men and weomen to follow them , especially yf they were countenanced out with the authority of a potent prince and kingdome , and suffered to speake their will , as our men were , that first impugned the reall presence , and sacrifice in england ; and yet as the auncient fathers in their tymes , did not abandone these articles of faith for those difficultyes , or appearance of impossibilityes ; no nor the common cacholike people themselues , that could not reach to the vnderstandinge therof ; so must not we do now , though we could not aunswere in reason the aduersaryes arguments , which yet by the ensuinge obseruations , yow will easily be able to do , and this for an entrance ; now to the obseruations themselues . first obseruation . that vve are not in this mystery to follow our sense , or imagination . §. . . the first obseruation is taken out of the ancient fathers wrytings , who treatinge of this mystery of christs being in the sacrament , do expressely warne vs to beware , that we iudge not of the matter according to sense or humayne imagination : so saith s. cyrill b. of hierusalem , whose words are : quamuis sensui hoc tibi suggerat , &c. albeit externall sense do suggest vnto thee , that this sacrament is bread and wyne ; yet lett faith confirme thee to the contrary ; neyther do thou iudge by the tast , knowinge most certainely , that this bread , which seemeth so vnto vs , is not bread in deed , notwithstandinge the tast doth iudge it to be bread ; but is the body of christ ; and that the wyne , which so appeareth to our sight , & by the sense of our tast , is iudged to be wyne , yet is it not wyne , but the bloud of christ. thus hee , neere thirteene hundred yeares gone . and the like aduertisment giueth in the same matter s. ambrose , somewhat after him , who hauing determined most cleerly the truth of the reall presence , sayinge : panis iste , panis est ante verba sacramentorum , vbi accesserit consecratio , de pane sit corpus christi : this bread is bread , before the words of the sacrament be vttered ( by the priest ) but when the consecration is added thervnto , the bread is made the body of christ : he frameth an obiection of the senses in these words : fortèdicas , aliud video , &c. perhaps thou wilt say , i see another thinge ( to witt bread , and not the body of christ ) and how then dost thou say that i receaue his body ? to which question s. ambrose aunswereth at large alleaginge many other myracles , wherein our senses are deceaued . . the like obseruation hath s. chrysostoine in sundry places , talkinge of this mystery : credamus ( saith he ) vbique deo , nec repugnemus ei , etsi sensui & cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur , &c. let vs alwayes giue creditt to god , nor let vs resist him , albeit the thing seeme absurd to our sense and cogitation , for our sense may easily be deceaued ; and therfore for so much as he hath said ; this is my body , lett vs not doubt therof at all , but beleeue him . saint epiphanius standeth also vpon the same aduertisment , reprehendinge them greuously , yea condemninge them that dispute and frame their arguments , from the testimony of their senses against the reall presence , whose words he bringeth in thus : et videmus ( say they ) quod non aequale est , &c. we do see with our eyes , that this which we do receaue in this sacramēt ( to witt , the host ) is neyther equall nor like the image of christ in flesh , nor to his inuisible deity , nor to the formes or lineaments of his body , for yt is of a round forme , &c. so they ; but s. epiphanius his conclusion is against them thus : qui non credit esseipsum verum , excidit à gratia & salute ; he that doth not beleeue christ himselfe to be truly there ( vnder the round forme of bread that is giuen ) is fallen both from gods grace , and his owne saluation . . and finally not to enlarge my selfe further in this behalfe , eusebius emissenus , or who els was the author of that excellent sermon de corpore dominï , concurreth also in this note against the iudgement of our senses sayinge ; verè vnica & persecta hostia side aestimanda , non specie , non exteriori consenda visu , this only and perfect host is truly to be esteemed by faith , and not to be iudged by the externall shape or veiw of our eyes . thus hee ; wherof s. chrysostome giueth an example when he wryteth of this mystery : o quot modò dicnns , vellem formam , & speciem cius , vellem vestimenta ipsa , vellem calce amenta videre . o how many are there ( videlicet of the simpler sort , and not so grounded in faith ) that say , i would i could see christ , his forme & shape in the sacrament , i would see his apparell , i would see his very shooes . thus said some in those dayes , vpon simplicity perhappes ; but so say many more in our dayes , vpon heresie and infidelity . and truly yf we consider most of the arguments of all fox his artificers , or weomen martyrs , they were such as these heere mentioned , & deryded by s. chrysostome , and vpon these arguments went they to the stake : let your god in the sacrament ( said alice driuer and her fellowes ) shedd some bloud , and vve vvill beleeue . the like cryed out many other simple & rude people ; vve see bread , we see wyne , vve see a round cake , we will neuer beleeue yt to be god , except we see him worke some miracle . what would s. chrysostome ( thinke yow ) and other fathers before mentioned haue said ' to these people , yf they had heard them sound out such blasphemous cryes of infidelity , and vnbeleefe in their dayes ? and so much for this first obseruation , which is vsually to be found in all auncient fathers wrytinges . the second obseruation . that not only sense and common imagination , but neyther philosophicall reason is necessary to be followed in these mysteryes . §. . . the second obseruation is much like to the first , but passeth some degrees further , and is taken out of the auncient fathers aduertisments in like manner , to witt , that not only sense , and sensuall imagination is not to be followed in these diuine mysteryes , of our sauiours body ; but neyther naturall , or philosophicall reason it selfe , is allwayes to be followed , notwithstandinge yt reacheth farre higher then sense can attayne to : which is proued first by the generall definition of faith , vsed by s. paul in his epistle to the hebrues , where yt is said to be argumentum rcrum non apparentium , an argument or assent of things , that do not appeare by reason , which yet is more explicated by saint gregory , when he saith : sides non habet meritum , vbi humana ratio praebet experimentum ; faith hath no meritt , where humane reason doth yeld a proofe : saint augustine also saith : this is the praise of faith , yf that which is beleeued be not seene , for what great matter is it , yf that be beleeued , vvhich is euident ? and this is vniuersally in all points of our faith , the beleefe wherof must not depend of the euidency of reason , for then yt should be science ( as philosophers tearme yt ) and not faith , which faith dependeth on the authority , trust and creditt we giue to the reuealer , which is god himselfe . . but especially is this to be done in this high mystery of the blessed sacrament of the altar , which is not only a mystery , but a miracle also , and such a miracle , as requireth no lesse power then the omnipotency of god to performe the same : necessarium est ( said s. chrysostome to his people of antioch ) mysteriorum discere miraculum , &c. it is necessary for vs to learne this myracle of mysteryes , what it is , why it was giuen vs , what vtility cometh therwith vnto vs & the like : and againe the same father in his bookes of priesthood , descending to treat more in particular one point of this mystery , which is , how christs body is at one tyme in many places , he cryeth out ; o miraculum ! o dei benignitatem ! o myracle ! o goodnesse of god! and why ? qui cum patre sursum sedet , in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus petractatur , he that sitteth aboue with his father , in that very instant of tyme is handled by all priests hands : and s. cyprian to the same effect : panis quem dominus discipulis porrigebat , non effigie sed natur a mutatus , omnipotentia verbi sactuiest caro : the bread which our lord gaue to his disciples ( at the last supper ) being changed not in outward shew ( for yt appeareth bread still ) but in nature , by the omnipotency of gods word is made flesh . . thus thought and spake the ancient fathers of this high mystery , and myracle in the sacrament . and conforme to this , they called vs alwayes from reason to faith , from contention to humble beleefe , when they treated therof , for so wryteth among other auncient fathers s. hilary speakinge of this matter : non est humano aut saeculi sensu in dei rebus loquendum . we must not talke of works of god accordinge to humayne and wordly reason , &c. touchinge the naturall verity of christ in vs ( by this sacrament ) that which we affirme except we haue learned yt of himselfe , we do affirme the same folishly , and impiously , but he hath said : my flesh is truly meate , &c. vnto whome s. ambrose agreeinge , saith of the same mystery : quid hic quaeris natura ordinem , &c. why seekest thou heere the order of nature ( touchinge the body of christ in the sacrament ) forsomuch as our lord iesus was borne of the virgin beside the course of nature . heere yow see he compareth this mystery , and myracle of christs being in the sacrament , with the myracle of his incarnation & myraculous byrth , of the blessed virgin. the very same iudgement held s. ephrem equall in antiquity to s. ambrose . quid scrutaris inscrutabilia . &c. what dost thou search after thinges vnsearcheable ? yf thou examine these thinges curiously , thou wilt seeme not to be faithfull but curious : be faithfull and simple , and so participate the immaculate body of thy lord , beleeuinge most certaynely , that thou dost eat the very whole lambe yt selfe , &c. so he . . saint augustine also in many places doth beat earnestly , against this standing vpon reason in matters of faith , but especially in his epistle to volutianus , sayinge : quae sibi quisque fatilia , &c. the thinges which each man esteemeth easy for him to conceaue , though he cannot make them , he is content to beleeue them , but all that is aboue his capacity he holdeth for false and feigned . and againe : si ratio quaeritur non erit mirabile , yf yow seeke reason for euery thinge , yt will not be maruelous , demus , deum aliquid posse quod nos fateamur inuestigare non posse : lett vs graunt that god can do somewhat , wherof we cannot seeke out the reason ; in talibus rebus tota ratio facti est potentia facientis ; in such matters all the reason , that can be alleaged for the fact , or for that which is done , is the power of the doer . and in another place the same father hauinge spoken of the blessed sacrament and how christ our sauiour is therein sub aliena specie , vnder another forme of bread and wyne , as the angells also appeare vnto vs vnder assumpted bodyes , he concludeth thus : mihi autem omnino vtile est , &c. it is very profitable for me to remember my owne feeble forces , & to warne my brethren that they also be myndfull of theirs , to the end that our humayne infirmity do not passe further ( in search of these mysteryes ) then is safe for vs to do . so blessed s. augustine . . and finally s. cyrill bishop of alexandria handlinge those words of the faithlesse capharnaites , ioan. . how can he giue his flesh to be eaten . &c. reprehendeth greatly such curious inquisition sayinge : numquam in tam sublimibus rebus illud ( quomodo ) aut cogitemus aut proferamus . in so high matters ( as these of the sacrament ) let vs neuer thinke or alleage this word ( quomodo ) that is , how yt can be ? and in this manner did the ancient fathers proceed about this mystery , by way of faith and humble submission of their iudgements and vnderstandings , and not by feeding their imagination with probability of humayne reason against faith , as the sectaryes of our tyme do , yea and placinge so much confidence therin , as they were content to dy for the same ( as after yow will see by experience , when we come to handle their arguments in particular , wherof the greater part ( yea almost all ) relyed eyther vpon common sense , or some little shew of humayne reason . and thus much for the second obseruation . third obseruation . that reason is not contrary to faith , but inferior vnto it . §. . . the third obseruation may be , that though yt is iustly accoumpted a fault of folly , pride , heresie , or infidelity by the foresaid fathers , to stand too much vpon sense & reason in these mysteryes , which do surpasse them both ; yet are they not contrary to reason , for that one truth cannot be contrary to another , and god is the author of both lightes , the one as a lower , the other as a more high and eminent light , so as , though this lower cannot reach to discouer that , which the higher doth disclose & comprehend ; yet is not this extinguished or violated by the other , but rather perfected and strengthened . reason reacheth only to thinges that are probable in nature , faith ascendeth to all that is possible , and not only possible to man , but euen to god himselfe , which so farre exceedeth both the power and vnderstanding of man , as s. paul speaking but of one point only of our faith , which is the ioyes of heauen , saith that the hart of man could not comprize the same . . and yet yf we would enter into the search of what is possible to gods power and omnipotency , the scripture in few words setteth yt downe : non est impossibile apud deum omne verbum : there is nothinge impossible to god , which is as much to say , that all thinges are possible . and againe our sauiour speaking to his father said : omnia tibi possibilia sunt : all things are to thee possible . and yf we would require examples , the creation of the heauens , and of all things both in & vnder them , will minister thousands , whervnto humayne reason cannot reach . and s. iohn baptist gaue an example to the iewes , that god of stones is able to raise vp children to abraham ; but this also is nothing in respect of gods infinite and incomprehensible omnipotency , which is aboue the reach of our vnderstandinge . . no limitation then at all is to be layd to gods almighty power , but that he may do whatsoeuer he please , except only one , accordinge to diuines , which is , that the thinge do not imply contradiction in yt selfe , as that yt should be and not be at once , which is impossible , or that yt should import any imperfection or impotency in god , as to synne , or dye , which are effects rather of want of power , then of omnipotency . and in this do the more learned protestants also agree in word with vs , sayinge , that yf yt were cleere that god would haue yt so , or had said yt , that of bread should be made his flesh , and that one substance should be turned into the other , they would graunt that he could do yt by his omnipotency . thus they say in , words , to auoid the odious note of infidelity , or limiting gods power ; but when they come to the point indeed , they found all their greatest arguments vpon the impossibility thereof , as though god could not do yt . and so shall yow see afterwards , when we come to discusse their strongest arguments . and their great grand-father iohn vvikliffe , or rather vvicked-beleefe , as vvalsingham calleth him , did absolutely deny that god was able to do yt , as thomas vvalden testifieth out of his owne wrytings . and iohn caluyn his scholler in this point calleth vs madd-men , for that we beleeue that god was able to make bread his flesh in the sacrament , and yet not to haue the externall forme , nature and propriety of flesh : insane ( saith he ) quid à dei potentia postulas , vt carnem faciat simul esse , & non esse carnem ? thou madd-man how dost thou demaund of the power of god , that he should make flesh to be flesh , and not flesh at one tyme ? but how doth caluyn proue ( thinke yow ) that our beleefe of the sacrament implyeth this contradiction of flesh and no flesh ? forsooth ( to vse his words ) for that we graunt , that god can make , that the selfe-same flesh of christ can occupy diuers places at once , and that yt be conteyned in no certayne place , and that yt lacketh both the outward shape of flesh and proper manner of being , &c. and for beleeuinge of this he counteth vs madd-men , as yow haue heard , and so must he account also of necessity all those holy fathers before mentioned , who beleeued the same mystery , as we do , notwithstandinge the outward appearances of impossibility , for comprehendinge wherof they fledd from sense and reason to faith and beleefe . . and yet further then this the reader must vnderstand , that for so much as the said reason and faith , are not contradictory the one to the other , but more eminent the one aboue the other , as before hath byn shewed , catholiks do take vpon them to proue , that no one of these difficultyes obiected by faithlesse protestants , is impossible , or implieth contradiction in reason it selfe , as by the ensuing considerations shall more particularly be declared ; notinge only to the reader by the way , that yf the particular intrinsecall natures and essences of euery thing were cleerly knowen vnto vs , ●s they are for example vnto angells , and other saints , that be in glory , we should easily see what doth imply contradiction to the said natures , and what doth not , but for that god , for our humility and greater meritt , would haue vs not alwayes to see this ; therfore are we forced to ghesse at the same by way of discourse and reason , and by one example to another , as yow shall see in the ensuinge obseruations . fourth obseruation . how a body may be vvithout an ordinary naturall place . §. . . one of the greatest difficultyes therfore obiected by the aduersary , is , that a true and naturall organicall body , such as christs is confessed to be in the sacrament , cannot be without the ordinary dimensions of a peculiar place , which we deny in such sense , as heere we shall declare . for better vnderstandinge wherof is to be noted , that three wayes a thinge may be in a place , first naturally and ordinarily by extension and commensuration vnto the said place , soe as euery part and part cell of the thinge placed , do aunswere to each part of the place yt selfe , which manner of being in place , philosophers do call circumscriptiuely , for that all places of the body so placed are so limited and circumscribed by the part of the place , as neyther that body can be i● any other place , nor that place admitt another body , without penetratinge the one of the other , which by ordinary course of nature is held for impossible . . another manner of being in place is more spirituall , and hard to conceaue , to witt , when a thing is so in a place , as the parts therof are not extended to the parts of the place , as in the former example , but yet that the whole thing is so defined and limited within the compasse of that whole place assigned thervnto , as naturally yt cannot be in any other , whilest yt is there , as for example , the soule of a man in the body thervnto assigned , is so conteyned therin , as yt is not elswhere , and yet is it not so extended by commensuration , as in the former example , that one part of the soule aunswereth one part of the body , and another , another part , but the whole soule which is indiuisible , and hath no parts at all , is wholy in the whole body , and wholy in euery part and parcell therof , which is a miraculous strange being , yf yt be well considered , & notwithstanding naturall as all philosophers do graunt , for that the whole soule of man is as wholy ( for example ) in the singar and foote , as in the breast and head , and yet is but one soule in all , and nether many soules nor one soule diuided into parts . and after the same manner , is an angell also in a place definitiuely , and not circumscriptiuely , that is to say wholy in the whole place , which he occupieth , & wholy in euery part therof , without multiplication or diuision in himselfe , or extension vnto the parts of the place wherin yt is . but for that the example of the soule , is more familiar and euident to our sense and reason , it doth better expresse the matter . and yt is to be noted , that yt doth somewhat imitate the being of god himselfe wholy , and without diuision in all parts of the world , and in all creatures therof without limitation , change , or multiplication , but only yt differeth in this , that the soule , or an angell , being both creatures , cannot be euery where , as the creatour naturally is , and he cannot be otherwise ; but yet by his diuine power , the said creatures may be in diuers places at once , as after shal be shewed . . these two wayes then of being in a place , as i haue said , are naturall ; the first circumscriptiuely , the second definitiuely . but besides these two , there is a third supernaturall , and possible to gods diuine omnipotency , and not repugnant to reason yt selfe , as after shal be shewed ; which is , that one and the selfe-same thing , may by gods diuine power , be placed in two different places at once , that is to say , that the selfe-same soule , as yt is naturally , wholy , and entyrely in the head , for example , and in the foote ; so yt repugneth not to the same nature or essence of the soule , to be putt in two different bodyes at once . the like of an angell in diuers places , and the same also may be held of a naturall body , ys god will haue yt so , as in the next obseruation shal be proued . and this way or manner of being in place , for that the cath. church doth hould yt to be in the body of our sauiour in the sacrament , is called by diuines a sacramentall being in place , nor for that the true body is not really there , as some hearinge the word sacramentally , vsed sometymes by the fathers and doctors , do fondly apprehend , but for that it is there after this speciall manner , as we haue declared , that is to say , so as yt is also in other places at the same tyme. . now then , these three wayes or manners of being in place declared , yt remayneth , that we shew how yt is possible to gods power , and not repugnant to naturall reason , that a true body , which of his owne nature is in place , only after the first manner of circumscription and commensuration , or extension , may , by gods power , be in place also after the second and third way , that is difinitiuely and sacramentally , without the first way of commensuration and extension to a place . and first heere we shall shew the said possibility in the second way , and then of the third in the ensuinge obseruation . . the only cheefe ground , or reason obiected by the heretiks , why it may seeme to repugne or imply contradiction , that a true organicall body togeather with his quantity , such as christs is in the sacrament , should be definitiuely without extension in place , is , for that yt appeareth contrary to the nature of quantity to be without such extension ; but this ground cath. philosophers and diuines do easily ouerthrow , shewinge that three things do agree to quantity or magnitude , wherof the first is to be extended in yt selfe , and to haue distinct partes one from the other among themselues , though not euer visible , or perceptible by our sense ; and this first point is so essentiall to quantity and magnitude , as yt cannot be imagined separable , so as it remaine quantity . and therfore this is graunted to be in the body of our sauiour in the sacrament , though our sense doth not comprehend yt . the second property of quantity or magnitude , proceedinge from this first , is ; not only to haue partes distinct in themselues , but to haue them extended also in place , accordinge to the commensuration therof , as in the first way of being in place we haue declared . . and for that this second condition , or propriety , is later then the former , & ensueth therof , yt is not so intrinsecall to the nature & essence of quantity , but that by gods diuine power yt may be separated , without destroyinge the said nature , which our diuines do shew by examples of other thinges , where god hath separated such secondary proprietyes , without dissoluinge the natures , as heatinge , for example , from fyre in the fornace of babylon , which heatinge notwithstandinge is as naturall to fyre , as yt is to quantity to occupy place . christ also in s. mathewes ghospell , hauinge said to his disciples , that yt was easier for a camell to passe through the eye of a needle , then for a rich-man to enter into the kingedome of heauen , and the apostles wondringe therat , and sayinge : vvho then can be saued ? our sauiour answered , that , that vvhich vvas impossible to men , vvas possible to god , which yet could not be possible , but by separatinge from the camell all his naturall extension , and commensuration of place . wherfore all the auncient fathers vpon this place attributing this to myracle , do affirme , that by gods diuine power yt may be done , to witt , that a camell remayninge in the nature of a camell , may passe through a needles eye : quid prohibet ( saith s. gregory nazianzen ) quo minus hoc siat , si voluntas it a tulerit ? what letteth but that this ( of the camell ) may be done , yf gods will be to haue yt so ? some protestant will stepp forth , and say that yt cannot be done , for that the camell should not in that case haue quantity and be organicall ( for so they say of our sauiours body in the sacrament ) , but nazianzen was of another opinion : and so may yow read origen , s. hierome , s. augustine , s. hilary , s. chrysostome , and other fathers in their commentaryes , and expositions vpon this place of s. mathewes ghospell . . the third naturall condition or propriety of quantity ( proceedinge of this second ) is , that for so much as by the forsaid second propriety , the thinge placed doth fill vp the place which yt occupyeth , euery part therof answeringe to euery part of the said place only , and one place conteyne one body ; so as naturally yt is no lesse impossible for two bodyes to be in one place , then for one body to be in many . yet notwithstanding supernaturally , and by gods omnipotent power , both the one & the other may be without implication , or contradiction of the essence , or nature of a true body . the reason wherof is this : for that this third propriety in quantity or magnitude , flowinge of the second , as hath byn said , may much more easily be separated from the essence of the said quantity and body , then the second , and consequently the former being separable , this is much more , wherof our diuines do giue diuers most euident instances , out of scripture yt selfe . as for example out of s. iohns ghospell , where twise yt is said , that he came in to his disciples , when the gates were shutt . and in s. mathew , and s. marke , where yt is shewed , how christ after his resurrection came forth of the sepulcher , the stone also being shutt ; and in his natiuity he came forth of his mothers wombe , without violation of her virginity , and in his assension he passed through all the heauens with his naturall body . in all which myraculouse examples ( for so do the ancient fathers hould and affirme them to be ) there must needs be penetration of bodyes , or two bodyes in one place , which is no lesse repugnant to the ordinary nature of quantity ( as hath byn said ) then for a body to be without certaine dimension of any place . . besides this our diuines do alleage the examples of the damned spirits , miraculously tyed to certayne locall places in hell ; and that which is more maruelous , that the damned soules being spiritts , should suffer , and be tormented by corporall fire , wherof s. augustine treateth at large lib. . de ciuit. dei cap. . . & deinceps , which is no lesse against the ordinary nature and propriety of spiritts , to suffer corporally , then yt is against the nature of a body , to be after a certayne spirituall manner without his locall dimension ; by all which we may perceaue , that although yt be aboue naturall reason , that organicall bodyes should want these externall locall positions ; yet is yt not contrary , or contradictory thervnto , but subiect to gods omnipotent power , when , and where yt pleaseth him to make yt so , and consequently yt may be so also in the blessed sacrament , without destroyinge the nature of a true body , as fondly protestants do pretend . . and heerby now falleth to the ground , a whole mayne multitude of vayne arguments , brought by fox his martyrs , as after yow shall see , against the reall presence , all of them founded vpon this ground , that a true organicall body cannot , by gods power , be either without locall dimensions , or in moe places then one at once . the first of which two assertions hath now ben improued , and the second shal be in the next ensuinge obseruation . the fifth obseruation . how a body may be in diuers places at once . §. . . as the weake faith and learninge of the sacramentaryes of our tyme , cannot reach to conccaue , that a body can be without an externall place ; so much lesse , can they comprehend , that yt may be by gods omnipotency placed in diuers places at once , for that yt seemeth to their sense , and humayne reason to be impossible ; but the ancient holy fathers , more wise and learned then our said sectaryes , tooke another course in this point , which was to asscribe yt to miracle , and to gods infinite power , which they could not by reason arriue vnto : i might cyte diuers fathers , but one or two shall serue for all ; omiracle ! ( saith s. chrysostome ) o goodnes of god! that the same christ who sitteth in heauen vvith his father , is conuersant at the selfe-same tyme , in the hands of all that receaue him on earth ! and the same father , wrytinge of the same sacred body of our sauiour , as yt is a sacrifice , saith : vnum est hoc sacrificium , &c. this sacrifice is but one , for that otherwise , because yt is offered in many places , there should be many christs , vvhich is not so , but one , and the selfe same christ is in euery place , ( when yt is offered ) here yt is whole christ , and there it is whole christ , and yet but one body : for as euery where one body , and not many bodyes are offered , so is there also but one sacrifice , &c. in which places you see s. chrysostome to hould & to affirme , that christs true body , without diuision or multiplication , is offered vp in many places at once , yea innumerable places , yf we beleeue s. gregory nissen whose words are : as christs diuinity doth replenish the world , and yet is but one ; so is his body consecrated in innumerable places , and yet is but one body . so he . and do yow obserue , that the father saith not , that christs body is euery where , as his diuinity is , as the lutherane vbiquitaryes of germany , do absurdly affirme ; but that yt is in innumerable places by consecration . . well then these fathers denyed not the reall presence , as our sacramentaryes do , for that they conceaued not the reason , how one body might be in diuers places at once , but mounted by faith aboue reason , asscribing the same to miracle and gods omnipotency , as yow haue heard : and so do catholiks at this day . heare the pious speach of a great learned man aboue . yeares gone . yow vvill say to me ( quoth he ) , how can one and the selfe same body , be at one tyme in diuers places , &c. do not maruayle , he that made the place , made the body , and the place for the body , and the body in the place ; and vvhen he ordayned that one body should be in one place , yt was as pleased him , and yf he would , he could haue made yt othervvise , &c. thou hast seene only that vvhich he hath made , and not that vvhich he can make , and heerevpon dost maruayle when thou seest any other thinge , then that which thou art accustomed to see ; but do thou thinke vpon the matter , and yt will cease to be maruaylous , or at leastwayes , yt will not seeme to be incredible . thus he . . but our diuines do go yet further , shewinge that this is not impossible , euen in nature yt selfe , for god to performe , as yow may perceaue by that we haue declared in the former obseruation : for yf yt were repugnant and contradictory to the nature of a true body , to be in diuers places at once , this must be eyther in respect of the vnity therof , for that yt should therby be diuided from yt selfe , or multiplyed in yt selfe , and so not be one but many bodyes ; or els secondly yt should be impossible to be in diuers places , in respect of the quantity , which a true body hath , wherby yt should be limyted to some certayne space or place ; but neyther of these two difficultyes do impossibilitate the matter , as now we shall declare . . not the first about vnity , for that god being a substance indiuisible , is euery where wholy , and in euery one of his creatures , and yet remayneth one still , nor can be diuided or multiplyed : which is so wonderfull a consideration , as s. augustine saith therof : miratur hoc mens humana , & quia non capit , fortasse non credit . mans mynd doth wonder at this , and for that yt conceaueth yt not , perhaps yt doth not beleeue yt . some likenesse also of this admirable being is in an angell , which though it cannot be euery where at once , as god is , yet hath yt a wonderfull being in place ; notwithstanding , as before hath byn touched , being placed within any compasse or circuite , as for example in a house or church , yt is wholy in all that space , and wholy in euery part therof , & yet remayneth one and simple without diuision in himselfe : which example is more euident also in our soule ; as before we haue declared , for that the selfe-same soule in a body , when yt is an infant , and when yt is at his full grouth , is wholy in the whole body , & wholy in euery part therof , and yet is yt not multiplyed therby , nor diuided . whereby is made manifest , that yt repugneth not to the essence or vnity of any one substance , to be in diuers places at once , and this naturally , but much more supernaturallye , by the omnipotent power of god. . there remayneth then the second difficulty about quantity , or a body indued with quantity , how yt is not letted therby to be in two places at once , wherof we haue treated in the former obseruation , shewinge how actuall locality by circumscription , being but a secondary propriety , following and flowing from the nature of quantity , may , by gods power , be separated from the same , so as the said quantity may remayne with her true essence , of hauinge distinct parts in yt selfe , and yet no extensiue location , or commensuration of place , in which case yt repugneth no more for the selfe-same quantity to be in many places at once , then yt doth vnto a spirituall substance without quantity , such as is an angell , or the soule of man , and consequently the substance of christs body , togeather with the quantity in this manner , may by gods power be put in many places at once , as we see by course of nature it selfe , that the substance of mans soule without quantity , is put in many particular places of a mans body , without diuision or multiplication , remayninge still but one only soule , as hath byn declared . and this shall suffice for explication of this possibility , how yt doth not imply contradiction , and therefore is not impossible to god. . neyther do our diuines shew only , that this is not impossible in our sauiours body , but further also , that we do beleeue diuers other mysteryes of our faith as hard or harder then this , yea much more impossible to sense and reason , yf we consider well the difficultyes therof , as the creation of the world of nothinge , the mystery of the blessed trinity , the beleefe of christs incarnation , our resurrection , and the like , for yt is much harder by humayne reason and naturall philosophy , to conceaue how the world could be created of nothinge , and how one and the selfe-same nature can be wholy in three reall distinct persons , without diuision or multiplication in yt selfe , and how one person can be in two diuers distinct natures , as yt is in our sauiour , and how one , and the selfe-same thing being perished and corrupted , may be raised againe with the selfe-same accidents that perished before . these points i say , and diuers others which both we and protestants do confesse to be true , are more harde , and impossible in naturall reason , then yt is to be beleeue that one body is in diuers places at once . . furthermore there be certayne familiar examples in nature yt selfe , that do resemble somewhat the matter , and may induce a man that is not obstinate , and hath any meane capacity to conceaue somewhat of the possibility therof , as when a great lookinge-glasse that represented but one face vnto yow when yt was whole , being broken into many parts euery part will represent wholy the selfe-same face . the voyce also of him , that speaketh to a great multitude , though yt be but one in yt selfe , yet cometh yt wholy to euery mans eares , which s. augustine alleaged for a wonderfull thinge towards the prouinge of gods being wholy euery-where : omne quod sonat ( saith he ) & omnibus totum est , & singulis totum est . all that soundeth is heard wholy of all , and wholy of euery particular man. and though these examples be not like in euery respect , yet may they serue for a certayne induction to make vs comprehend the other , wherof we now speake . . last of all , catholike diuines do not only shew the possibility of this point , that our sauiours body may be in diuers places at once , as also that sundry other mysteryes of our faith are beleeued , of more difficulty then this , yf we regard common sense and reason , but do shew also out of the scriptures themselues , that christ after his assension hath byn in more then one place at once , as is manifest by that famous apparition of his to s. paul , recorded in the acts of the apostles , when he appeared vnto him in the way neere to damasco , inuironed with a great light , and talked with him in such sort , as both the light and words were seene and heard by his companions , and many other apparitions to s. peter himselfe , testified by egesippus , and s. ambrose ; to s. anthony also testified by s. gregory , & besides diuers others recorded by s. paulinus , ioannes diaconus , and other authenticall wryters , from whome , except we will derogate all creditt and authority , we may not doubt , but that christ remayninge still in heauen ( for so hould both we and protestants togeather , that he departed not from thence ) appeared also in diuers places of the earth to his saints , and consequently his body could be in diuers places at once , wherby is broken and dissolued another squadron of arguments , framed by the sacramentaryes of our dayes to the simple people , as though christs reall body could not be in the sacrament , for that yt is in heauen ; wheras we affirme , that both may be and stand togeather , though in different manner , for that in heauen he is circumscriptiuely , and in the sacrament sacramentally , which tearmes we haue before declared . the sixth obseruation . how christes body in the sacrament , may be now vnder a greater forme , now vnder a losse , and the least , that may be discerned . §. . . by this also which is said may be conceaued , how the sacred body of our sauiour , in the sacramēt vnder the accidents of bread , is sometymes in a greater visible quantity , and sometymes in a lesse , accordinge to the externall formes and accidents vnder which yt is , yea and in the least part & parcell of the consecrated host , that is perceptible to our sense , for that the said body being remoued by gods omnipotent power from all locall extension , it may be vnder a greater or smaller externall quantity , without alteration of the body yt selfe , as we see in the soule of man , which is the selfe-same in the least part of the body wherin it is , as in the greatest , or in the whole body , yea when the said body is changed , or groweth from a lesser to a greater quantity , as in an infant , who after commeth to be a great man , the selfe-same soule replenisheth the one and the other without grouth or diminution in yt selfe , and so the body of christ in a great host or a little , or in any least part therof , when yt is broken , is wholy , and the selfe-same body , with the selfe-same internall organicall quantity , which yt had vnder a great host . and this point that the quantity of a substance may be increased or diminished externally , in respect of place , without alteratiō of the inward quantity , or substāce , is euident by many examples , which we see dayly of rarefaction and condensation . as for example when a gallon of water is put in a great vessell ouer the fire , yt cometh by boylinge to fill the whole vessell , that is capable of many gallons , and yet as the inward substance is not increased , so neyther the quantity in yt selfe ; and contrary wise , when the said water is againe cooled , it returneth to occupy as small a place , as yt did at the beginninge , and yet retayneth allwayes the selfe same both quantity and substance . . by which example , & many other that may be alleaged , some kind of notice may be gathered vnto our common sense and reason , how the substance of christs body in the sacrament , togeather with his internall quantity , may by his omnipotent power , be sometymes vnder a great externall quantity , or extension in place , & sometymes vnder a lesser ; yea the least , that by our senses may be perceaued : and yet is christs body wholy and entirely there , accordinge ( in some proportion ) to the lookinge-glasse before mentioned , which being broken into diuers small peeces , each one representeth the whole visage seuerally , which before was exhibited by the whole : and so , when any consecrated host is broken into many parts , that which was cōteyned before in the whole host , is now cōteyned wholy vnder euery particular parcell therof , as yt was also before . and to this effect , are those words of s. epiphanius before alleaged , against them that said : videmus quod est aequale , &c. we see that the host receaued in the sacrament , is not equall or like to the figure of christs body , but is round , &c. wherfore all the arguments of fox his martyrs , that were founded on this improportion of the host to christs naturall , and externall quantity , haue no ground at all , but a little fraudulent shew and appearance of sensible improbability , and yet were many of their cheefest arguments builded on this only foundation , as yow haue seene readinge ouer their historyes before recyted , and shall do more afterward , when we come to examine their arguments seuerally ; and in the meanee space this shall suffice for an aduertisment about this obseruation . the seauenth obseruation . how accidents may be without a subiect , and of their operations in that case . §. . . the seauenth obseruation may be , about the accidents or formes of bread and wyne , that do remayne by gods omnipotent power without a subiect , after the words of consecration , as they did before in the substance of bread , whervpon the more simple sort of sacramentaryes following sense , will needs argue , that the substance also of bread & wyne , do remayne after the said consecration ; and those that be more learned , do go about to proue the same by philosophicall reason , for that the nature of an accident is to be in another , as the nature of a substance is to be in yt selfe , wherof ensueth , that for so much as no accident can be in god , as in a subiect , ( neyther are they in christs body , as we also doe confesse ) they must needs be heere in their proper subiect and substances of bread and wyne : but all this is founded vpon a false ground , for albeit naturally an accident cannot be but in a subiect , yet supernaturally , and by the power of god susteyninge yt , and supplyinge the place of a naturall subiect , yt may be , as we do confesse on the contrary side by christian faith , that the humayne nature of christ in the mystery of the incarnation , hath not her proper subsistence in yt selfe ( which yet is as naturall to a substance to subsist in yt selfe , as yt is to an accident to be susteyned by another ) but is susteyned by the diuine person of christ. . and the reason of this , concerninge accidents , is , that albeit the intrinsecall nature of an accident is to be vnperfect , and to depend of another , and therby to haue an aptitude to be in another , yet the act therof may be separated by gods power , from the said nature , as a thinge posterior , and followinge from the said nature , as we haue she wed before in the naturall propriety of quantity , to haue commensuration of place ; and this to be , true that this actuall inherence of accidents , may be seuered from the essentiall aptitude thervnto , without destroing the nature of the said accident , many philosophers both christian and heathen do affirme , whose sentences you may see gathered by diuers learned men , as well of ancient as of our tymes . sundry fathers also are of opinion , that this case happened de facto in the creation of the world , when the light being made vpon the first day , as the booke of genesis recounteth , which being but a quality and accident , remayned without a subiect vnto the fourth day , when the sonne and moone weare created . and of this opinion expressely was s. basill , in his explication of the works of god in those six dayes . and the same holdeth s. iohn damascene , procopius in his commentary vpon the first chapter of genesis , and saint iustine in the explication of our faith . . this then being so , that these accidents of bread & wyne may remaine , by the power of god , in the sacrament , without their proper subiects , yt followeth to consider , what actions they can haue : and first yt is to be noted , that whatsoeuer actions , or operations are proper to them , as accidents , when they were in their proper subiects of bread and wyne , before consecration , the same they may haue afterwards , when they conteyne the body and bloud of christ , without inherence therein , for that god supplyeth all by his power , which their said subiects or substances did performe , when they were present . so as the effects , for example , that the accidents of wine & bread did worke in our senses before , by mouinge our sight by their colours to see , our tast by their sauour , and other like effects : the same do they performe also afterwards : so as , for example sake , by drinkinge much consecrated wyne , though there be no substance of wyne therin , but only the proper accidents of wyne , as heat , smell , and other qualityes and proprietyes of wyne ; may a man be incensed , or distempered , as much as yf the substance of wyne were there in deed , for these are the proper actions and operations of the said accidents themselues ; but where the concurrāce of substance is necessary to any action , as in nutrition , generation , or corruption of one substance into another , there doth god supply the matter , that is necessary to that action , when the body of christ doth cease to be there , which is , when those accidents of bread and wyne are corrupted and not otherwise : as for example , in the resurrection of our bodyes , where euery body is to receaue his owne proper flesh againe , which yt had in this life , yf some one body hauinge eaten another body , or parcell therof in this world , and conuerted the same into his proper substance ; in this case ( i say ) almighty god must needs supply otherwise , by his omnipotent power , that part and matter of substance , that wanteth in one of these two bodyes , for that els one of them should be vnperfect , and want part of his substance in the resurrection . and after the like manner we say , that when a consecrated hoast is eaten , and afterward is turned into the naturall norishment of the eater , which norishment requireth a materiall substance , god doth supply that substance in that instant , when the formes of bread and wyne perishinge , the body of christ ceaseth to be there . . and this appertayneth to the prouidence of almighty god , for supplying the defects of particular naturall causes , when any thinge fayleth , that is necessary for their naturall operations . the very same also is to be obserued in generation , and corruption , as for example , when the accidents of the consecrated host perishinge , and some other substance should happen to be engendred thereof , as wormes , or the like , there the body of christ ceaseth to be , when the said accidents do perish , and for the new generation insuinge thereof , god supplyeth fitt matter , as in the example before alleaged of the resurrection of our bodyes , wherof the one had eaten part of the other . by which obseruation yt wil be easy afterward to dissolue many cauillations , proceedinge eyther of ignorance , heresie , or both , and obiected by sacramentaryes against this mystery . the eight obseruation . about the wordes sacrament , signe , figure , type , commemoration , memory , &c. §. . . for so much as the sacramentaryes of our tyme , did forsee that they should be forced to oppose themselues , for defending their hereticall noueltye , sagainst the whole streame of scriptures , expositors , fathers , councells , reasons , practise , antiquity , and vniforme consent of the vnhole christian vvorld , they thought best to diuise certayne tearmes and distinctions , which should serue them for euasions or gappes to runne out at , when-soeuer they should be pressed by our arguments : and these their shifts do consist principally , in the fraudulent vse of these tearmes of sacrament , signe , figure , type , commemoration , memory , sacramentally , spiritually and the like . wherfore we thinke yt needfull to explane and declare in this place , the natures , vses and abuses of these words . . first then a sacrament , according to the common definition asscribed to s. augustine , is a visible signe of an inuisible grace , as in baptisme , the externall washinge by water , is the signe of the internall washing of the soule by grace : so heere also in this sacrament of the eucharist , the externall & visible signe are the consecrated formes of bread and wyne , as they conteyne the body of christ ; the internall or inuisible grace signified , is the inward nourishinge and seedinge of our soule : and this is the first and cheefe manner how this sacrament is a signe , that is to say a signe of grace , and not of christs body absent , as protestants are wont most fondly and fraudulently to inferre . . secondly these externall formes and accidents of bread and wyne , are also a signe of christs body conteyned vnder them . and in this sense is the eucharist called sometymes by the fathers , the signe of christs body , but of christs body present , as hath byn said , and not absent . thirdly this sacrament is a signe of christ his death and passion , and of the vnion of his mysticall body the church with him : for that as bread and wyne represented by these formes , are made of many grains and many grapes ; so is christs mysticall body , consistinge of many members vnited to him ; so as by all these wayes may this sacrament be called a signe , to witt , a signe of the inward grace , and norishment of the soule obtayned therby , a signe of christs true body present , a signe of christ his death , and mysticall body , and yet do none of all these figures exclude the true reall being of his body in the sacrament , but do rather suppose the same . . and the like may be said to the other words , or tearmes of figure , type , commemoration , or memory , all which , when they occurre , are to be vnderstood in some of these senses , without preiudice of the reality , or truth of our sauiours being in this sacrament , as for example , this sacrament is a forme , type , commemoration & memory of christs death on the crosse , and yet this excludeth not his reall-presence from hence . as for example , if a prince hauing gayned in proper person a great & singular victory , should institute a sollemne triumph , to be made euery yeare in memory therof , & some times should go in that triumph himselfe also , yt might be truly said , that this triumph is a figure , type , commemoration , and memory of the other victory , & of the prince , yet is the prince truly also in yt himselfe , and so may be said in like manner of this matter of the sacrament , wherin christ in differēt manner , is a figure or type of himselfe . and the like may be said of the dayly sacrifice also , which sacrifice is a commemoration or memory of the other bloudy sacrifice , once offered on the crosse , and yet conteyneth the same reall body of our sauiour , which the other did , after another manner . and by this will the reader easily discouer diuers poore shifts & fallacyes of our moderne heretiks , especially of ridley before named , who as yow haue heard him professe , was moued to leaue his ancient faith of the masse , & his practice therin , for that in some certaine places ( for sooth ) of the fathers , he found that this sacrifice ( of the masse ) is called a commemoration of christs passion ; a stronge argument , no doubt , to moue him to so great a resolution . and so much of this . . now then are to be examined the other words , sacramentally , really , and spiritually : and as for the first , the common sense , and meaninge of schoole diuines is , that diuised this word , to signifie therby a peculiar manner of christs supernaturall being in the sacrament , different from his naturall and circumscriptiue being in heauen , and from the naturall being of an angell definitiuely in a place , wherof we haue spoken before . so as , when they say that christ is sacramentally vnder the formes of bread and wyne , they do not deny his true and reall being there in flesh , the very selfe-same that is in heauen ; but he is there in another manner . and this is the chiefe proper signification of the word sacramentally amongest schoole-men , for which the word was inuented . . but in the common vse , and sense of our speach , sacramentally signifieth , that christs body is there vnder a sacrament or signe , which are the formes of bread and wyne , and not in his owne proper shape , euen as an angell , when he appeareth in a body , he may be said to appeare bodyly , for that the body is the figure or forme , vnder which he appeareth ; and conforme to this sense , we are said to receyue christ sacramentally , when we receaue him truly and really , but yet not in his proper forme , but vnder another forme , that is to say of bread and wyne , wherby the fraudulent dealing of our moderne sacramentaryes may appeare , who deceauing the people with this word sacramentally , do oppose yt to really and truly , as though when any author saith , that we receaue christ sacramentally in the eucharist , yt were to be vnderstood , that we did not receaue christs body in deed and really , but only a signe therof , and by this they endeauour to delude all the places , though neuer so euident , of holy fathers affirminge , that christs true flesh and body , the very same that was borne of the virgin mary and crucified for vs , is receaued in the sacrament , these good fellowes aunswere that yt is true , sacramentally , which we also graunt , yf sacramentally , do not exclude really , accordinge to the true signification of the word : but yf by sacramentally , they meane as they do , that only a signe is receaued of christs body in the sacrament , then is their deceyt manifest as yow see ; for that sacramentally , hath no such signification at all amonge diuines , but only is diuised amonge them for a shift . . the like fraud they vse about the word spiritually , which in the sense of holy fathers , being opposite to carnally and corporally , in their ordinary materiall signification , is by sectaryes also wrested , as though yt were contrary to the word really , so as whensoeuer they are forced to graunt christs body to be spiritually in the sacrament ( by which phrase the said ancient fathers do meane only , that he is not there after a carnall , or common manner , as he liued vpon earth ) they will haue yt vnderstood , that he is there only by faith , and not in deed really and substantially . they abuse also the signification of the foresaid wordes carnally & corporally , which hauing a double sense , the one that christs body is naturally and really in the sacrament , the other that he is there after the externall being of other bodyes , they deceytfully do take them now in one sense , and now in another , and alwayes oppose them to the word spiritually , which in the former sense are not incompatible , but may stand togeather , though not in the later . and for auoydinge of this equiuocation , diuines do wish those two words , carnally and corporally , though true in the foresaid sense , yet to be more sparingly vsed , then the other words really and substantially , that are equiualent in sense , and lesse subiect to equiuocation and mistaking . . wherfore to conclude this obseruation , all these words are to be noted , and their true vse and signification remembred by him , that will not be deluded by hereticall sleights and impostures in this high mystery , but especially are to be obserued these three , wherby our sacramentaryes do most of all deceyue the vulgar people , in their assertions and answers to our arguments , to witt , sacramentally , spiritually and by faith , as though they did exclude the reall presence of christs body in the sacrament ; which is most false , for that in the true sense we admitt them all . for example , we graunt that christ is sacramentally in this sacrament , both as sacramentally signifieth a distinct manner of christs being there , from that in heauen , and as yt signifieth his being there vnder a sacrament or signe , but yet really , we graunt also that he is there spiritually , that is to say , after a spirituall , and not corporall circumscriptiue manner , yet truly and really . we graunt further , that he is in the sacrament by faith , for that we do not see him , but apprehend him present by faith , but yet truly and really , and not in faith and beleefe only . and by this yow may perceaue our sacramentaryes manner of disputinge , iust like the arrians of old tyme , and of our dayes , who seeke to enacuate all places alleaged for the vnity and equality of christ with his father , by one only distinction of will and nature : so as when christ said for example ioan. . my father and i are one , yt is true said they , they are one in will & loue , but not in nature ; & thus they deluded all that could be brought for naturall vnity , except only the authority , and contrary beleefe of the vniuersall church , wherby at last they were ouerborne . . and the very same course held the sacramentaryes of our dayes ; for whatsoeuer plaine and perspicuous places you bring them out of antiquity , affirminge the true naturall substantiall body of our sauiour , to be in the sacrament , they will shift of all presently , by one of these three words ; yt is true , sacramentally , yt is true spiritually , and yt is true by faith only , as though these could not stand with really or truly ; and heere of shall yow haue store of examples afterward in the aunswerings of doctor perne , cranmer , ridley and latymer for the sacramentary party to our arguments , taken out of the ancient fathers . for when the said fathers do auouch , that christ our sauiours true naturall body is in the sacrament , they answere , yt is true sacramentally , and thinke they haue defended themselues manfully therby , and when in other places the same fathers do professe , that the very same flesh that was borne of the virgin mary and cruicified for vs , is there , they aunswere , yt is true spiritually and by faith , but not really . and thus they do euacuate and delude all that can be alleaged : but yf they cannot shew ( as they cannot ) any one father that tooke or vsed the words sacramentally , spiritually , or by faith , in this sense , as opposite to really and truly in this mystery , then is it euident , this to be but a shift of their owne inuention , to escape therby . and so much of this obseruation . the nynth obseruation . how christ is receaued of euill men in the sacrament , and of good men both in , and out of the same . §. . . it followeth vpon the former declaration of the words , sacrament , signe , and the rest , that we explane in this place , a certayne distinction insinuated by the ancient fathers , and touched in the councell of trent , of three sorts of receauinge and eatinge christ by this sacrament : first sacramentally alone , the second spiritually only , the third both sacramentally and spiritually togeather . an example of the first is , when euill men do receaue the sacrament vnworthily , for that these men , thought they receaue the very sacrament , to witt the true body of christ vnder the formes of bread and wyne , yet do they not receaue the true spirituall effect therof , which is grace and nourishment of their soule , and of these doth s. paul speake expressely to the corinthians , when he saith : he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily ( videlicet the sacrament ) doth eat and drinke iudgement to himselfe , not discerninge the body of our lord. and in this sense do the auncient fathers vpon this place , expound the apostle , as yow may see in the commentaryes of saint chrysostome , s. ambrose , s. anselme , and other expositors both greeke and latyn ; and s. austen in many places of his works doth expressely shew the same , alleaginge this text of the apostle for proofe therof , corpus domini ( saith he ) & sanguis domini nihilominus erat illus , quibus dicebat apostolus , &c. it was notwithstanding the body & bloud of our lord , which they tooke , to whome the apostle said ; he that eateth and drinketh vnworthily , eateth and drinketh his owne damnation . and to the same effect he saith in diuers other places , that iudas receaued the very selfe-same body of christ , that the other apostles did ; and the same affirmeth s. chrysostome in his homily intituled , of the treason of iudas ; & generally it is the vniforme opinion of all the auncient fathers , whensoeuer any occasion is giuen to speake or treat therof . . the second manner of receauing christ by this sacrament , is tearmed spiritually only ; for that without sacramentall receauinge of christs body and bloud , a man may in some case receaue the spirituall fruite or effect therof , as yf he had receaued the same really , and this eyther with relation to the sacrament , videlicet , when a man hath a desire to receaue yt actually , but cannot ; or without reference thervnto , when by faith and grace good men do communicate with christ , and participate the fruite of his passion . in which sense of spirituall communion , or eating christ , s. austen wryteth vpon s. iohns ghospell , crede & manducasti ; beleeue , and thou hast eaten . and to the same effect do our fathers often speake , when they treat of this spirituall & metaphoricall eating only without relation to the sacramet : which manner of speaches the sacramentaryes of our dayes do seeke to abuse , as though there were no other eatinge of christ in the sacrament , but by faith alone , which is furthest of from the said fathers meaninge , though sometymes they had occasion to speake in that manner . . the third member of our former diuision is , to eat christ both sacramentally and spiritually , as all good christians do , when with due preparation & disposition , they receaue both the outward sacrament and inward grace and fruite therof : by obseruation of which threefold manner of receauing , many obiections and hereticall cauillations will easily afterward be discerned . and so much for this . the tenth obseruation . touchinge indignityes and inconueniences obiected by sacramentaryes against vs , in holdinge the reall presence . §. . . as by the former obiections of naturall impossibilityes , yow haue heard this soueraigne mystery impugned , both by the learneder sort of old and new heretiks ; so do the more simple & ignorant insist & insult most , vpon certayne inconueniences , indignityes , and absurdityes , as to them do appeare . as for example , that christ in the sacrament , should be eaten with mens teeth , go into the belly , not only of men & weomen , but also of beasts yf they should deuoure yt , that yt may putrifie , be burned , cast and fall into base and vnworthy places , be troden vnder mens feet , with the like , which is a kind of argument plausible at the first sight vnto vulgar apprehensions , and such as seemed to moue principally the most part of iohn fox his artificers , and spinster-martyrs , as may appeare by their rude clamours , and grosse obiections , exprobrations , irrisions , iests and scoffes at their aunsweringe before their ordinaryes . . and heerin also they shewed their spiritt of derydinge and blaspheminge that , which they vnderstood not , to concurre with that of the pagans and iewes against the whole body of christian religion , and of auncient heretiks against the principall articles therof . of the pagans s. augustine wryteth thus : in ipsum christum non crederemus , si fides christiana cachinnum metueret paganorum : we should not beleeue in christ himselfe , yf christian faith did feare the scoffinge of pagans . s. paul also wryteth both of gentills and iewes , that the crosse of christ ( that is to say , that god should be apprehended , beaten , wounded and crucified ) was to these a scandall , and folly to the others , though vnto the elect , yt was the very wisdome , power & vertue of god himselfe . we read also in the ghospell , that the saduces amongst the iewes , scoffed at the resurrection of bodyes , by asking christ a question of a woman that had seauen husbands , whose wife she should be in the resurrection , purposinge therby to haue inferred an absurdity against the said article , to witt , that eyther seauen men should haue striued for one woman , or one woman haue byn wife of seauen men . and the marcionists infamous heretiks , that tooke the same heresie from the sadduces , as also the originists concurringe therin against the said beleefe of our resurrection , went about to disgrace the same , as both tertullian , and s. hierome do testifie , by certaine absurd indignityes , which they imagined would ensue therof , as for example that difference of sexes procreation , mydwyues , nurses , priuyes , and the like , must needs be in heauen , but the auncient fathers answered them with the words of our sauiour to the said sadduces , erratis , nescientes scripturam , & virtutem dei. yow do erre , not knowinge the scriptures , nor the power of god. . and the same aunswere was giuen by catholiks to the first sacramentaryes , that euer publikely appeared , to witt the berengarians aboue . yeares past , who obiected the very same absurdityes , that our hereriks do at this day , as testifieth guitmundus and algerus , that liued in that age and wrote against them ; they were aunswered ( i say ) that their error proceeded of not vnderstandinge the true meaning of scriptures , nor the power of god , which in the sacrament conserueth his body without all leasion , hurt , indignity , or inconuenience , whatsoeuer happeneth vnto the formes , vnder which his body is , and that it is nothing so base and vnworthy a matter , euen in our sense & comon reason , that christ our sauiour being impassible in the sacrament , should vnder another forme be said to fall on the ground , to be burned , to be eaten , &c. then in his owne proper forme , when he was passible , and sensible to ly in his mothers wombe , or to cry and weepe in the cradle , or to suffer hunger , thirst , and other humayne necessityes , and to be whipped , wounded and put to death , all which indignityes , supposing that he was the selfe-same god that created the world , might seeme more absurd , and improbable in common sense and reason , then this of the sacrament , and so they did seeme to old heretiks , who obiected and derided the same , as the forsaid marcionists , that god should be in a womans belly , and in a maunger ; and nestorius the heretike , that god should be two monethes old for example , and two cubitts bigg , and other such iests and scoffes , as yow may read of them in tertullian , theodoret , euagrius and other wryters . . wherfore to conclude this obseruation , two points are to be noted in this whole matter : first that many things that seeme to happen to christ in these cases , do not touch him indeed , but only the externall formes of bread and wyne , as when they are burned for example , do putrifie , or the like , christs body is not burned , or putrified , but ceaseth to be vnder them , when the said formes or accidents are corrupted , for that the substance of christs body , supplyinge the substance of bread , is no longer there then the substance of bread would haue byn there , yf yt had not ben conuerted into christs body , but yf bread had remayned , yt would haue ceased by any kind of corruption , as burninge , putrifyinge , or the like , and so doth christs body , though in a different sort , so that the substance of bread might , by the said corruption , be chaunged into some other substance , which christs body cannot be , but only ceasseth to be there , god supplyinge some other matter for production of that , which is brought forth of new , as in the former obseruation hath byn declared . . the other point , that those other conditions which by reason of the formes are asscribed vnto christ his body in the sacrament , as to moue from place to place , when the formes are moued , to be seene , touched , eaten with our teeth and the like , which are frequent phrases among the fathers , haue no inconuenience amonge them at all , no more for example , then when our soule is said to be moued with the motion of the body , which soule notwithstandinge of his owne nature is not moueable : so as an angell being a spiritt , may be handled , seene , or stroken in the body which he taketh to appeare in , as is euident by the whole story of tobias and other places of scripture , which angell of himselfe notwithstandinge , is not capable of such thinges ; and finally gods eternall diuinity and maiesty is present in all places & things , the most basest and horrible that can be diuised , and yet suffereth no inconuenience therby : for though he be for example in the dunghill , yet he cannot be said to haue any euill smell therby , neyther to be burned in the fire , though the formes of bread and wyne be burned therin , nor to putrifie , though he be actually present in those things that rott and putrifie . and by this may yow see the vayne calumniations of fond heretiks , against the power of almighty god , out of their senses and foolish imaginations . the eleuenth obseruation . about the nature of a sacrifice , as it is ordayned to different effectes , and how that of the crosse standeth vvith that of the masse . §. . . the eleuenth and last obseruation shal be peculiarly about the last of the three questions proposed , which is sacrifice of the masse , notinge therin two ends , offices , or effects to be considered : first that yt is ordayned ad cultum externum , to an externall worshipp of god peculiar to himselfe , in the highest degree of honour , called by the gretians latria : secondly ad propitiationem pro peccatis , for pacifyinge of gods wrath for sinnes , and albeit both these effects may be in one and the selfe-same sacrifice ( and so we hould them to be in the sacrifice of the masse , for that yt was ordayned by christ , as well for a perpetuall outward honour & worshipp to be exhibited vnto god in the christian church vnto the worlds end , as also for remission of sinnes by application of the meritt of christs bloudy sacrifice on the crosse ) yet may they be separated of their owne natures , so as a sacrifice may be ordayned only ad cultum , that is to say , for an externall worshipp only , without power to remitt sinnes : and so in a manner were the sacrifices of the ould law , which little or nothing auayled for sinnes . and againe , sacrifice may be ordeined only or principally to satisfy for sinnes , without relation therof ad cultum , to perseuere in any state of men , to be often offered by them , and such was christs on the crosse , which is not reiterated againe in the same bloudy and passible manner , as then yt was , but in another farre different sort in the masse , which is capable of both these effects , as hath byn said . , now then in the first sense , as a sacrifice is ordayned ad cultum , to an externall worship of god , yt conteyneth an outward protestation of our knowledge of gods supreme maiestie , power , and absolute dominion ouer vs , and in our subiection thervnto , which is the highest honour that can be giuen by a creature vnto the creator , and is so particular to god alone , as hath byn said , as yt cannot be imparted to any creature , without the horrible sinne of idolatry , and is so conioyned with the nature of religion yt selfe , as no true religion hath euer byn without this degree of externall honour , exhibited vnto god by his people ; and so we see that all good men in the law of nature , by gods instinct , did sacrifice vnto him , as adam , abell , noe , melchisedecke , and others , as afterwards also in the law of moyses , the same was expressely ordayned by gods owne commandement ; & the gentills did the same , though not to one true god , but to many idolls , by suggestion of the diuell , that therin emulated gods honour exhibited vnto him by sacrifice . and this for the first effect or office of sacrifice . . the second is propitiation , or pacifyinge of gods wrath for sinnes , as hath byn said . wherin for more perspicuityes sake , three degrees may be obserued . first of such sacrifices as were so weake & imperfect in themselues , touching this point of propitiation and satisfyinge for sinnes , as they profited little or nothinge , except only as they were morall good works ; and accordinge to the piety of the offerer , they might help somewhat ; but they had neyther sufficient force in themselues to remitt sinnes , neyther to apply the vertue and satisfaction of any other sacrifice , already exhibited , to the remission therof , but were only figures , and shaddowes of things to come : and such were the sacrifices of the old law of moyses . . the second degree is quite opposite to this for excellency of perfection , power and meritt , being in yt selfe of so infinite valour , as yt is sufficient not only fully to satisfie for the sinnes of all the world ; but also to giue vigour to all other sacrifices , both internall , and externall ; and this was the sacrifice of christ our sauiour on the crosse ; & betweene these two sacrifices , to witt the weaknesse and imperfection , multitude and variety of the one vnder the old law , and the singularity , excellency , force and infinite power of the other , is the large antithesis & opposition , vsed by s. paul in his . and . chapters of his epistle to the hebrewes , shewing , that as the iewes sacrifices were many in number , and of diuers sorts and infirme of themselues , & therfore offered vp in great multitudes and often ; so the sacrifice of christ for the excellency therof , and infinite force and valour , was single , & but one , and once offered for all , and not iterable for acquiringe the price of mans redemption , and perfect sufficiency for the sanctifyinge of all , though yet he affirmeth not , that yt may not be iterated in another manner , & to another effect , to witt for applyinge the sufficiency & meritt of this one sacrifice offered for all , to the vtility of particular people : for albeit christ hath satisfied for all quoad sufficientiam ( to vse the termes of schoole ) yet not quoad efficaciam , which is as much to say , as albeit christ hath redeemed all and paid the price for all , yet all are not saued therby , nor do receaue the efficacy or benefitt therof , for that they apply not to their owne vtility that which is gayned for all . . now then for applyinge this treasure vnto people in particular , our aduersaryes do confesse , that some things are necessary of our parts , as faith & baptisme , but we do ad more meanes , as ordayned by christ himselfe , and amonge other the sacrifice of the masse , not for acquiringe any new price or sufficiency of our saluation , but for applyinge the effect or efficacy of that , which already is gotten by christ our sauiour , through his passion on the crosse , & heerof resulteth a third degree of propitiatory sacrifice , that is neyther so infirme as the sacrifices of the ould law were , that remytted not sinnes , nor yet in a manner of so potent effect , as to acquire the price of our saluation , for that yt is not offered vp to that end , but only to apply the vertue of the other sacrifice already gotten , and so may be iterated , not for any defect in it selfe , but for that sinnes dayly growinge haue need of dayly application of the said sacrifice , as hath byn said . . and in this sense do all the ancient fathers , in the places before alleaged , call this sacrifice of the masse iuge sacrificium , a dayly sacrifice , and iterable , notwithstandinge that the other on the crosse could be offered but once , as s. paul proueth . and now these obseruations being premised , we shall passe to examine and aunswere the arguments of our aduersaryes , in all the former disputations brought forth . the examination of svch argvmentes as in the former disputations were alleaged by the zuinglians & caluinists , against the reall-presence of christes body in the sacrament . chap. iv. novv then to ioyne more neerly with our sacramentaryes , and to come to the vew of particular arguments , brought forth against the article of the reall-presence , yt is to be held in memory , that which before we haue noted : first , that these new doctors hauinge no one direct place eyther of scriptures , or fathers for their purpose , that expressely denyeth the said reall-presence ( as we haue for the affirmatiue ) they are forced to runne to certayne inferences , as for that christ is in heauen , he cannot be in the sacrament , & such other like of no validity , as presently yow shall see . and secondly it is to be remembred , that these arguments ( the most wherof are founded on sense and humayne reason against faith ) are ordinarily to be found both alleaged , vrged and aunswered in all our schoolmens books at large , before our sacramentaryes were borne , and consequently these men bring no new things , as worthy of a new labour . but yet for better satisfaction of them , that haue not read the said schoolmen , nor are of sufficient learning to see the solution of themselues , we shall breefely runne ouer in this place , whatsoeuer was obiected by the said sacramentaryes , of any moment in all the former disputations , or other conferences , colloquyes , or examinations , reducinge all for more perspicuityes sake vnto certaine heads or groundes in manner followinge . the first head or ground of sacramentary obiections ; for that yt seemeth impossible to them , that christes body can be in many places at once . §. . . this is the first principall ground of all the sacramentaryes vnbeleefe , and out of which they draw the greatest squadron of all their arguments and obiections , as presently yow shall see , for that yt is a point very plausible to comon-sense and humayne reason , that a naturall body naturally cannot be but in one place at once : but he that shall read our obseruations in the precedēt chapter , where we haue shewed , that not only supernaturally and by gods omnipotent power yt may be done , but that it comprehendeth not so much as any contradiction in nature it selfe ; and further shall consider , that alboit christs true and naturall body be in the sacrament at many places at once , yet not after a naturall manner , but supernaturall and miraculous , as euery where the ancient fathers do admonish vs ( and we haue alleaged many of their admonitions before ) he i say that shall consider this , will easily contemne and laughe at the vanity of so many sacramentary arguments , founded vpon this weake ground and principle only , that a naturall body cannot be in more places then one at once , which is true naturally , that is to say by the ordinary course of nature , but by the power of god , that is aboue nature , yt may be , and this without an essentiall contradiction , as i haue said , in nature yt selfe . . well then , now will i sett downe the whole squadron of arguments , which out of this false principle , or rather true principle misvnderstood , iohn fox layeth foorth with great ostentation out of peter martyr his oxford disputations , which arguments are . in number , and did seeme so insoluble vnto fox his diuinity , and philosophy , as he putteth no answere at all giuen by the catholike defendants to the same . i shall deliuer them also in dialecticall forme , as they ly in fox this once , togeather with his foolery of cytinge the moods and figures of sophistry in the margent to euery argument , a thinge knowen to euery child that beginneth logique , & consequently is ridiculous to men of learninge , though strange to the ignorant people , that may imagine great secrets to ly hidden in those words of disamis , darij , baroco , festino , bocardo , and thinke that iohn fox doth go about to coniure vs his readers , by settinge them downe : but now to the arguments themselues . . argument . . the true naturall body of christ is placed in heauen . a matth. . & . ioan. . & . act. . colloss . . the true naturall body of man can be but in one place at once , where he is . b august . ad dardanum , propter veri corporis modum , saith he , that is for the manner of a true body . ergo the true naturall body of christ can be in noe place at once , but in heauen where he is . c . argument . euery true naturall body requireth one certayne place . d christs body is a true naturall body . e ergo. christs body requireth one certayne place . f . argument . g augustine giueth not to the soule of christ to be in more places at once then one . aug. ad dardan . h ergo. much lesse yt is to be giuen to the body of christ , to be in more places at once then one . . argument . i the nature of angells is not to be in diuers places , but they are limited to occupy one certayne place at once . basil. d● spiritu sancto . cap. . k ergo. the body of christ being the true naturall body of man , cannot fill diuers places at once . . argument . whatsoeuer is in many & diuers places at once , is god. l the body of christ is not god , but a creature . ergo. the body of christ cannot be in more places togeather . m . argument . we must not so defend the diuinity of christ , as we destroy his humanity . yf we assigne more places to the body of christ , we destroy his humanity . n ergo. we must not assigne to the body of christ plurality of places . . argument . whatsoeuer thinge is circumscribed , that is to say , conteyned in the limitts of any peculiar place , cannot be dispersed into more places at once . o the body of christ is a thinge circumscribed . p ergo the body of christ is not dispersed into more places at one tyme. q . argument . euery quantity , that is euery body hauing magnitude , length , and other dimensions , is circumscribed in one peculiar place . r cyrill . de triuit . lib. . the body of christ hath his dimensions , and is a quantity . s ergo the body of christ is circumscribed . t aunswere . . these are the doughty arguments , which fox affirmeth their great patriarke peter martyr to haue alleaged against the reall-presence , out of this first philosophicall ground , that one body cannot be in many places at once ; whervnto i might aunswere in the words of s. augustine , to such kind of men , as measure gods power by their owne imagination : ecce qualibus argumentis , omnipotentiae dei , humana contradicit infirmitas , quam possidet vanitas : behould with what kind of arguments , the infirmity of man , possessed by vanity , doth contradict gods omnipotency . yf yow read the fourth and fifth obseruations sett downe in the former chapter , yow will easily see both the infirmity , and vanity of all these arguments , & how this great variety vpon one ground , are but m●ncedmeats guised in diuers sorts and fashions , by the art of fox and peter martyrs cookery , and yet are they held for great demonstrations , and stronge fortresses of the sacramentary faith , or rather infidelity , and vrged euery where by their followers . . iohn rogers vsed the same argument in his defence before the bishops , as yow may see in fox pag. . christ is corporally ( saith he ) in heauen only , ergò not in the sacrament , where he vseth an equiuocation also in the word corporally , for that we do not say , that christ is corporally in the sacrament , yf by corporally he meane not only really and substantially , but also after a corporall manner , accordinge to externall dimensions . thomas tompkins the weauer of shordich , vseth the same argument against his ordinary in like manner , to witt , that christ body cannot be in the sacrament , for that yt is in heauen . fox pag. . maister guest in his cambridge disputations against doctor glyn , leaned principally to this argument , and b. ridley , his moderator , or president of these disputations , vrged a place of s. augustine ad dardanum to the same effect . tolle spatia corporibus , & nusquam erunt take away the spaces from bodyes ( saith s. austen ) and they shal be no where . but d. glyn defendant answered him well , that s. augustine spake expressely of the naturall being of bodyes , accordinge to their ordinary externall dimensions , and not how they might be by gods supernaturall power and omnipotency . . but aboue all others , philpott did keep reuell in the conuocation house about this argument , against maister morgan , & maister harpesfield , alleaginge diuers places of scripture for the same , but little to the purpose god wooteth , as that of s. paul : christ is like vnto vs in all points , except sinne . and therfore said he , as one of our bodyes cannot be at paules , and at vvestminster togeather ; so cannot christ be in heauen , and in the sacrament . but yt was told him , that these words of s. paul , were true in s. paules sense , but yet that christs body was vnlike also vnto vs besides sinne , in diuers other points , as for example , in that he was begotten without the seed of man , and that his body was inuisible , when he would haue it soe , and that he rose out of the sepulcher the same being shutt , and diuers other like points , which our ordinary naturall bodyes haue not , though god of his omnipotency might giue the same to our bodyes also . then he alleaged the savinge of s. peter in the acts : vvhome heauen must receaue vntill the consumation of the world . wherof he would inferre a necessity of christs remayning in heauen , vntill the day of iudgement . then morgan laughed at this ( saith fox ) harpesfield stood vp , and asked him how he vnderstood that place , oportet episcopum esse vnius vxoris virum , a bishop must be the husband of one wife . and whether this be of such necessity , as he may not be without a wife , one at least ? with which demaund philpott was so entangled , as he could not well go forward , as there yow may see , and refused to aunswere maister morgan , as the prolocutor would haue had him . . well then , this is the first and principall ground and bulwarke of all sacramentary vnbeleefe in this article , that christs body cannot be by gods omnipotent power in two places at once , to witt both in heauen , and in the sacrament , which we haue shewed before in our fourth , fifth and sixt obseruations , to be a fond and temerarious position , whervnto we referre the reader to see the grounds more at large , and heere only we shall say a word or two to the former eight arguments , as they lye in order . yet first it shal be good for the reader to remember that , which we haue noted before in the story of melancthon , who saith , i had rather offer my selfe to death , then to affirme , as the zuinglians do , that christes body cannot be but in one place at once . but yet peter martyr , philpott , cranmer , and their fellowes would dye , and some of them also did dye , for the contrary , so as saints of one calendar , do heere dye for contrary opinions one to the other . but let vs answere the arguments . . to the first we say , concerning the minor proposition , that a true naturall body , naturally , and by ordinary course of nature , cannot be at one tyme , but in one place , and that meaneth s. augustine ad dardanum , but supernaturally , and by gods ommpotent power , that exceedeth nature , yt repugneth not to be in diuers places at once , yf god will haue yt so : as in our fifth obseruation is proued . to the second argument we say , that euery true naturall body requireth one certaine place by ordinary course of nature , and not otherwise . to the third , that soules and spiritts by their naturall course haue but one totall place , wherin they may be said to be , as one soule in one body , and one angell in the place , that it pleaseth to occupye , or to haue operation therin : albeit yf we respect partiall places of the same body , as head , foote , fingar and the like , the selfe-same soule is wholy in diuers places at once , which is no lesse wonderfull and incredible to our sense , then for a bodily substance , to be in two distinct places at once . and the like is in the angell , who may occupy , for example , a whole house or towne for his totall place , and yet be in euery particular and partiall place therof wholy and entyrely , which is graunted both by all philosophers and diuynes , though vulgar sense cannot apprehend yt . . to the fourth may be answered the very same , as to the former , that the being of angells in place definitiuely , is like in all respects to that of the soule . read our fourth obseruation in the precedent chapter . to the fifth argument the aunswere is easy , for we deny that whatsoeuer is in diuers places at once , is god , for that by his omnipotent power a creature may be : yt is gods priuiledge that he is euery where wholy and entyrely , ex vi naturae diuinae , by force of his diuine nature , that is to say , he is so euery-where , as he cannot be but euery where , which is not true eyther in a spiritt , or in christs body , or in any other creature whatsoeuer ; for that all creatures , as they haue limited natures , so are they limited also in place , and restrayned from vbiquity , or being euery where , which is proper and peculiar to almighty god alone : & so to speake of the body of christ in particular , yt is not euery-where ; and we detest both the eutichian vbiquitaryes , that held christs body to be euery-where , as confounded with his diuinity ; and no lesse the lutheran vbiquitaryes of our dayes , that hold christs body to be euery where , by reason of the coniunction with christs diuinity ; the catholike faith affirming only , that christs body , though naturally it be but in one place , yet by gods omnipotency it may be in more . . to the sixt argument we deny the minor , to witt , that we destroy christs humanity by grauntinge , that yt may be in diuers places at once ; for that yt repugneth not to a humayne creature , to be in more places then one by gods omnipotency : this we haue shewed more largely in our fifth obseruation . to the seauenth we deny also the minor ; that christs body in the sacrament is to be circumscribed , or circumscriptiuely there , as yt is in heauen . the differences betweene three manners of being , to witt , circumscriptiuely , definitiuely , and sacramentally , yow may see more at large declared in our fourth and fifth obseruations . to the eight and last , we say that the maior is to be vnderstood naturally , and not supernaturally by diuine power : to the minor , we aunswere , that christs body hath not externall dimensions in the sacrament , though yt haue in heauen : and in the sacrament yt hath only internall and inuisible quantity , without extension to place ; wherof yow may read more in the fourth and fifth obseruations . and this shal be sufficient for this first ground of philosophicall arguments . now will we passe to the second . the second head or ground of sacramentary argumentes , drawen from contrary qualityes or quantityes , &c. §. . . this second ground is not much different from the former , for both of them are founded on sense , and humayne reason , and heere i will not conioyne all the arguments togeather , as before i did , but set them downe seuerally , as fox recordeth them out of peter martyrs disputation . . argument . yf christ had giuen his body substantially and carnally in the supper , then was that body eyther passible or impassible . but neyther can yow say that body to be passible or impassible , which he gaue at supper : not passible for that s. austen denyeth yt psalm . . not impassible , for that christ saith : this is my body , vvhich shal be giuen for yow . ergo he did not giue his body substantially at supper . annswere . . and this same argument vsed others after peter martyr , as pilkilton against doctor glym , & alleageth the same place of s. austen , as yow may see in fox pag. . but the matter is easily answered , for that the minor or second proposition is cleerly false , for that christs body giuen in the supper , though yt were the same in substance , that was giuen on the crosse , the next day after , yet was yt deliuered at the supper in another manner , to witt in manner impassible , & vnder the formes of bread and wyne , so as according to the being , which yt hath in the sacrament , no naturall cause could exercise any action vpon yt , though being the selfe same which was to dye vpon the crosse , yt is also passible , euen as now in heauen it is visible , & in the sacrament inuisible , though one & the selfe same body , & now in both places glorious and immortall , & this meaneth expressely s. austen in the place alleaged , whose words cited by fox are : yow are not to eate this body that yow see , nor to drinke the bloud that they are to shedd who shall crucifie me . which words being spoken to them , that were scandalized at his speach about the eatinge of his body , do shew that we are in deed to eate his true flesh in the sacrament , but not after that carnall manner , which they imagined : carnaliter cogitauerunt ( saith s. austen in the same place ) & putauerunt , quod praecisurus esset dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo , & daturus ●●is . they imagined carnally , and thought that christ vvould haue cutt of certayne peeces of his body , and giuen vnto them ; which grosse imagination our sauiour refuteth by tellinge them , that they should eat his true body , but in another forme of bread and wyne . . and yet that yt is the selfe-same body & the selfe-same bloud , the same doctor and father affirmeth expressely , both in this and many other places . verè magnus dominus , &c. he is in deed a great god , that hath giuen to eat his owne body , in which he suffered so many , and great thinges for vs. and againe talkinge of his tormentors : ipsum sanguinem quem per insaniam fuderunt per gratiam biberunt . the selfe-same bloud which by fury they shee l , by grace they dronke . and yet further of the same : quousque biberent sanguinem quem fuderunt ; mercy left them not , vntill they beleeuinge him , came to drinke the bloud , which they had shedd . and finally in another place : vt eius iam sanguinem nossent bibere credentes quem fuderant saeuientes ; that comminge to beleeue in him , they might learne to drinke that bloud , which in their cruelty they shee l . and last of all , in another place explaninge his owne faith , and the beleefe of all christians in this behalfe , he saith against heretiks of his tyme ; mediatore● ▪ dei , &c. we do with faithfull hart and mouth , receaue the mediator of god and man christ iesus , giuing vnto vs his flesh to be eaten , and bloud to be dronken , though yt may seeme more horrible to eate mans flesh , then to stea the same , and to drinke mans bloud , then to snedd the same . consider heere the speach of saint augustine , whether it may agree to the eatinge of a signe of christs body or bloud ; what horror is there in that ? and thus much to this first argument . . argument . bodyes organicall without quantity , be no bodyes . a the popes doctrine maketh the body of christ in the sacrament to be without quantity . b ergo : the popes doctrine maketh the body of christ in the sacrament to be no body . aunswere . . we graunt that bodyes organicall , without all quantity are no bodyes ; but catholike doctrine doth not teach , that christs body in the sacrament , is without all quantity , but only without externall quantity , aunswering to locall extension , and commensuration of place , which repugneth not to the nature of quantity , as before is declared at large , in the fourth obseruation of the precedent chapter ; wherby yow may see both the vanity of this argument , as also the notorious folly & ignorance of fox , who by occasion of this argument of an organicall body vrged , by cranmer in oxford , against maister harpesfield when he proceeded bachler of diuinity , bringeth in a whole commedy of vayne diuises , how all the learned catholike men of that vniuersity , were astonished at the very propoundinge of this graue doubt , to witt ; vvhether christ hath his quantity , quality , forme , figure , and such like propertyes in the sacrament . all the doctors ( saith fox ) fell in a buzzinge , vncertayne what to aunswere , some thought one way , some another , and thus maister doctors could not agree . and in the margent he hath this note : the rabbyns could not agree amongst themselues : and then he prosecuteth the matter for a whole columne or page togeather , makinge doctor tressam , to say one thinge , doctor smith another , harpesfield another , vveston another , m. vvard philosophy-reader another , whose philosophicall discourse about the nature of quantity , fox not vnderstandinge , neyther the other that were present , as he affirmeth , concludeth thus : maister vvard amplified so largely his words , & so high he clymed into the heauens with duns ladder , and not with the scriptures , that yt is to be maruayled , how he could come downe againe without falling . so iohn according to his skill ; but maister vvard and the rest , that vnderstood philosophy , knew well inough what he said , and yow may easily conceaue his meaninge , as also the truth of the thinge yt selfe , by readinge my former obseruation ; for i thinke yt not conuenient to repeate the same againe heere . . argument . all thinges which may be diuided haue quantity . the body in the popes sacrament is diuided into three parts . a ergo : the body in the popes sacrament hath quantity , which is against their owne doctrine . aunswere . . we deny that it is against our doctrine , that christs body in the sacrament hath inward quantity , but only externall and locall . we deny also , that christs body is diuided into three parts in the sacrament , or into any part at all , for it is indiuisible ; only the formes of bread are diuided . and this is the ignorance of the framer of this argument , that vnderstandeth not what he saith ; for it is ridiculous to affirme , that when the consecrated host is diuided into three partes , that christs body is diuided also , which is no more true , then when a mans fingar is cutt of wherin the soule was wholy before , that she is also diuided therwith . . argument . no naturall body can receaue in yt selfe at one tyme contrary or diuers qualityes . vigil . cont . eutich . lib. . to be in one place locall , and in another place not locall , in one place with quantity , and in another place without quantity , in one place circumscript , in another place incircumscript , is for a naturall body to receaue contrary qualityes . a ergo : they cannot be said to be in christs body . aunswere . . to the first proposition of this argument , i say , that the sentence of vigilius , alleaged by fox in this place , is nothinge to his purpose : for that vigilius dealinge against the heretike eutiches , that would haue christs humanity confounded with his diuinity , saith , as fox alleageth him : these two things are diuers , and sarre vnlike , that is to say , to be conteyned in a place , and to be euery where , for the word is euery where , but the slesh is not euery-where . which sentence of vigilius maketh against iohn fox his frends , and some of his saints also the vbiquitaryes , that hold christs body to be euery where , as his diuinity is , of which heresie yow haue heard before * melancthon to be accused by coliander one of his owne sect , but catholiks do not hold this vbiquity of christs body , but that yt may be circumscribed in a certayne place , and so yt is de facto in heauen , though otherwise by gods omnipotency , the same body may be and is in diuers places ; which this sentence of vigilius nothing impugneth , and consequently is nothing to the purpose . . to the second or minor proposition , i say that fox is a simple fellow , when he calleth contrary qualityes to haue quantity locall and not locall , circumscript and vncircumscript , wheras these do appertayne to the predicaments of quantity and vbi , rather then to quality , and are not so contrary or opposite to themselues ; but that in diuers respects they may be in one , and the selfe-same thinge , as christ is locally in heauen , and not locally in the sacrament ; with visible and externall quantity in heauen , but with internall and inuisible in the sacrament . the third head or ground of sacramentary arguments , concerninge the receauinge and receauers of the sacrament . §. . . another company or squadron of arguments against the reall-presence , though lesse then the former , is framed by our sacramentaryes against the reall-presence , concerning the receauers , or manner of receauinge the same . yow shall heare them as fox layeth them downe . . argument . the wicked receaue not the body of christ. a the wicked do receaue the body of christ , yf transubstantiation be graunted . b ergo. transubstantiation is not to be graunted in the sacrament . aunswere . . do yow see a wise argument ? and why leapeth fox ( thinke yow ) from the reall presence to transubstantiation , but that he is weary of the former controuersie , for that transubstantiation hath a proper place very largely afterward , so as heere yt is wholy impertinent . and further , yf yow consider the matter rightly , yow will see that the same followeth as well of the reall-presence , as of transubstantiation ; for yf christ be truly and really in the sacrament , eyther with bread , or without bread , then whosoeuer receaueth the said sacramēt , must needs receaue also christs body . wherfore this skipp of fox from reall presence to transubstantiation was needles , and helpeth him nothinge ; besides that , the whole argument is foolish ; for that his maior or first proposition ; that wicked men receaue not the body of christ , is wholy denyed by vs , and not proued by him , but presumed ; and how fondly yt is done , shall appeare presently in our aunswere to his other arguments of this kind , and the whole matter is discussed more at large in our ninth precedent obseruation . . argument . to eat christ is for a man to haue christ dwelling and abiding in him . cyprian . de cana domini & aug. lib. de ciuit . dei . cap. . a the wicked haue not christ dwellinge in them . b ergo the wicked eat not the body of christ. aunswere . . the whole aunswere of this argument is sett downe more at large in our foresaid ninth obseruation , where yt is shewed , that there are three manners of receauinge christ sacramentally only , spiritually only , and both sacramentally and spiritually , and that euill men do receaue him ater the first manner only , that is to say , they receaue christs true body in the sacrament , but not the spirituall fruite therof , which s. paul expresseth most cleerly , when he saith ; that an euill-man , receauinge the sacrament , iudicium sibi manducat , non dijudicans corpus domini , doth eat his owne iudgement and condemnation , not discerninge , or respectinge the body of christ which he eateth . and this is the assertion of all holy fathers after him , to witt , that vvicked-men do eate the body of christ but not the fruite , and namely the two heere cited by fox to the contrary , s. cyprian and s. augustine do expressely hold the same : for that s. cyprian vpon these words of th' apostle , making an inuectiue against them that receaue christs body vnworthily , saith : antequam expiantur delicta , ante exhomologesin factam criminis , ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio , & manu sacerdotis , &c. before their sinnes be clensed , before they haue made confession of their faults , and before their conscience be purged by the sacrifice and hand of the priest ( this was the preparation to receaue worthily in s. cyprians tyme ) they do presume to receaue the body of christ. wherof the holy father inferred : spretis his omnibus atque contempt is , vis infortur corporieius & sanguini . these due preparations being contemned , violence is offered by them to the body and bloud of christ , which he would neuer haue said , yf those wicked-men had not receaued the body and bloud of christ at all , as protestants do hould . . s. augustine is frequent also and earnest in this matter : corpus domini ( saith he ) & sanguis domini , nihilominùs er at illis quibus , &c. it was no lesse the body and bloud of christ vnto those ( wicked-men ) to whome the apostle said : he that eateth vnworthily , eateth & drinketh his iudgement , then yt was to the good . and the same father in diuers places affirmeth , that aswell iudas receaued the true body of christ , as the rest of the apostles , though yt were to his owne damnation : nam & iudas proditor bonum corpus ( saith he ) & symon magus bonum baptisma ● christo accepit , sed quia bono benè non sunt vsi , mali malè vtendo deleti sunt . for that iudas the traytor also receaued the good body of christ , and symon magus the good baptisme of christ , but for that they vsed not well that which was good , they being euill-men perished accordingely . . the other places cyted in the margent , i pretermitt for breuity sake to sett downe at large , this being knowne to be the generall catholike sentence of all auncient holy fathers , concerninge iudas and other euill-men , that they receaue christ , but to their owne damnation ; and the sentence of s. paul before cyted is so cleere , and euident , as no reasonable doubt can be made therof . and when fox doth heere alleage certayne places of s. cyprian and s. augustine , affirminge that the eatinge of christ is dwellinge in him and he in vs , and that those that dwell not in him , do not eat him , yt is to be vnderstood of spirituall and fruitfull eatinge of christs body , which agreeth only to good men and not to euill , which euill do only receaue sacramentally the body and bloud of christ , as before we haue said , and more at large is doclared in our ninth obseruation ; yea the very words alleaged heere of s. augustine by simple iohn fox , that discerneth not what maketh for him , & what against him , do plainly teach vs this distinction . for that s. augustine vpon those words of christ in s. iohns ghospell ; he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my bloud , dwelleth in me , and i in him , inferreth presently these words : christ sieweth what yt is , not * sacramentally , but indeed to eat his body and drinke his bloud , vvhich is when a man so dwelleth in christ , that christ dwelleth in him . . so he . which words are euidently meant by s. augustine of the fruitfull eating of christs body to our saluation , which may be said in effect the only true eatinge therof , as he may be said truly to eat and feed of his meate , that profiteth and nourisheth therby : but he that taketh no good but rather hurt by that he eateth , may be said truly and in effect not to feed in comparison of the other that profiteth by eatinge , though he deuoure the meate sett before him ; and so yt is in the blessed sacrament , where the euill doe eat sacramento tenus , as s. augustine saith , that is sacramentally only , and without fruite ; not that they receaue not christs body , but that they receaue yt without fruite to their damnation ; which distinction is founded in the scriptures , not only out of the place of s. paul before alleaged to the corinthians , but out of christs owne words in sundry places of the ghospell , as that of s. mathew : venit filius hominis dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis . the sonne of man came to giue his life for the redemption of many , wheras indeed he gaue yt for all , but for that not all , but many should receaue fruite therby , yt is said to haue byn giuen fruitfully only for many and not all . and againe in the same euangelist : this is my bloud of the new testament that shal be shedd for many . that is to say fruitfully , and to their saluation , but sufficiently for all , and so in like manner all men good and badd , do eate christ in the sacrament , but euill-men sacramentally only , without the spirituall effect therof , but good men both spiritually and sacramentally togeather . . and to this end appertayne also those words of s. augustine , alleaged by bradford , ridley and others , that wicked-men edunt panem domini & non panem domini , they eat the lords bread , but not the bread that is the lords ; that is to say , they eat not the bread , that bringeth vnto them the true effect and fruite of the lords body , which is grace , spirit , and life euerlasting , though they eat the body it selfe , which is called the bread of our lord only in this sense , that it hath no fruite nor vitall operation , but rather the contrary . . argument . yf the wicked and infidells do receaue the body of christ , they receaue him by sense , reason , or faith . but they receaue him neyther with sense , reason , or faith , for that the body of christ is not sensible , nor the mystery is accordinge to reason , nor do infidells beleeue . ergo. wicked-men receaue in no wise the body of christ. aunswere . . this argument is as wise as the maker ; for first we do not alwayes ioyne wicked-men and infidels togeather , as he seemeth to suppose , for that an infidell ( their case in receauinge being different ) when he receaueth the sacrament , not knowinge or beleeuinge yt to be the body of christ , he receaueth yt only materially , no otherwise then doth a beast or senselesse-man , without incurringe new sinne therby : wicked-men receaue yt to their damnation , for that knowinge and beleeuinge yt to be the body of christ ( or at leastwise ought to do ) they do not discerne or receaue yt with the worthynesse of preparation , which they should do : and as for sense & reason , though christs body be not sensible , yet are the formes of bread , vnder which yt is present and receaued , sensible , for that they haue their sensible tast , coulour , smell , and other like accidents , and though the mystery yt selfe stand not vpon humayne reason , yet are there many reasons both humayne and diuyne , which may induce christians to beleeue the truth therof , euen accordinge to the rule of reason yt selfe , which reasons we call arguments of credibility : so as in this sacrament , though yt stand not vpon sense or reason , yet in receauinge therof is there fraude both in sense and reason , which is sufficient to shew the vanity of him that vrgeth it : now shall we passe to the last argument of peter marty● though drawen from another ground . . argument . the holy ghost could not come yf the body of christ were really present , for that he saith : ioan. . vnlesse i go from yow the holy ghost shall not come . but that the holy-ghost is come , yt is most certayne . ergo : yt cannot be that christ himselfe should be heere really present . aunswere . . first neyther fox , nor his martyr can deny but that the holy-ghost was also in the world , whilst christ was bodyly present , for that yt descended visibly vpon him in the forme of a doue , and after he gaue the same to his disciples sayinge : accipite spiritum sanctum ; receaue ye the holy-ghost ; wherby is manifest , that there is no repugnance , why christs bodyly presence may not stand togeather , with the presence of the holy-ghost . wherfore the meaninge of those other words ioan. . that except christ departed , the holy-ghost should not come , must needs be , that so long as christ remayned vpon earth visibly , as a doctor , teacher , & externall guide of his disciples & church ; so longe the holy-ghost should not come in such aboundance of grace , to direct the church , eyther visibly , as he did at pentecost or inuisibly , as after he did . but this impugneth nothing the presence of christ in the sacramēt , where he is inuisibly , & to feed our soules , not as a doctor to teach & preach , as in his bodily conuersation vpon earth he was ; for this he asscribeth to the holy-ghost after his ascension : ill● spiritus veritatis docebit vos omnem veritatem , that spirit of truth shall teach you all truth . . and these be all the arguments of peter martyr registred by fox , who concludeth in these words : and thus briefely we haue runne ouer all the arguments , and authorityes of peter martyr in that disputation at oxford vvith doctor tresham , chedsey and morgan , before the kings visitours aboue named , anno . so he . and for so much as he setteth downe no solution vnto these arguments ; we may imagine that he held them for insoluble : and then yf you consider how weake and vayne they haue byn , and how easy to aunswere ; yow will therby see how sure grounds , this poore apostatafriar martyr had to become a sacramentary , & to leaue his former religion , which had endured in christs church for so many ages before ; yea and to oppose himselfe against doctor luther in this point of the reall-presence , who was their prophet , and had first of all opened vnto him & others the gapp to his apostasie . and finally what good assurance a man may haue , to aduenture his soule with these companions in such a quarrell , as cranmer , ridley , latymer , rogers , hooper , and others did , who hauing byn cath. priests for many yeares , did first of all others imbrace in england these new opinions of peter martyr , which yet were so yonge and greene , as himselfe was scarsely settled in them , when he first entred in to that iland , as in his * story more particularly we haue declared . wherfore to leaue him , we shall now examine some other arguments , alleaged by others after him , especially by those that were actors in the former ten disputations at oxford , cambridge and london , which are not much fewer in number , then these alleaged already of peter martyr . the fourth sort of arguments alleaged by others after peter martyr . §. . . and of these the first shal be that of causon and higbed , in their confession to b. bonner ●nno domini . the flesh profiteth nothinge ( saith christ ) ioan. . ergo christ hath not giuen his flesh to be eaten in the sacrament ; and diuers others do obiect the same , as a great argument ; yea zuinglius himselfe calleth this argument : a brasen vvall , and a most stronge adamant , that cannot be ●oken . but the auncient fathers , tha● knew more then zuinglius , did easily breake this adamant , and brasen wall , giuinge diuers solutions therof : as first , that yf we take these words of our sauiour to be spoken properly of his flesh ; then must the sense be , that his only flesh , without his soule & diuinity , prositeth not to our saluation : and so do expound the place both s. augustine and s. cyrill , for that otherwise no man can deny , but that christs flesh with his soule and diuinity , doth profitt greatly euen in the sacrament yt selfe ; for that christ in the selfe-same chapter of saint iohn saith : he that eateth my flesh hath life euerlastinge . secondly , other fathers more to the literall sense do interpret those words : ( the flesh profiteth nothinge ) not that christs flesh doth not profitt , but that the carnall vnderstandinge of that speach of christ , about his flesh , to be eaten in the sacrament ( such as the capharnai●e had , whome he refuteth ) profiteth not to ou● saluation , but requireth a more spirituall and high vnderstandinge , to witt , that yt is to be eaten in another manner vnder the formes o● bread and wyne . and this is the exposition both of a origen , b s. cyprian , c s. chrysostome d ●heophilact , e eu●himius , and others , and is th● more playne and manifest sense of that place . . maister guest ( one of the protestant opponents ) in the first cambridge disputation against doctor glyn , vrgeth againe and again● this argument : that vvhich christ tooke , he blessed that vvhich he blessed , he brake : that vvhich he brake he gaue : but he tooke bread : ergò he gaue bread : t● which argumēt doctor glyn answered by a lik● collection out of the scripture : that which go● tooke out of adams side , vvas a ribbe ; but what he tooke that he brought and deliuered to adam for his vvise ergò he deliuered him a ribbe for his wife . which aunswere , though yt made the auditory t● laugh : yet maister perne comminge to answer● for the protestant party ; vpon the third day o● disputation , would needs vrge the same argument againe in his preface ; which maister vauisour , that disputed against him , repeating publikely , gaue the like answere about the ribb● out of genesis : vvherwith fox being angry maketh this note in the margent : an vnsauer● comparison : perhapps for that he holdeth th● ribbe for rotten , which so longe agoe was taken out of adams side : for that otherwise i d● not see what euill sauour fox can find therin but the effect of the aunswere stands in this : that as god tooke a ribbe , and made therof our mother eua : so christ tooke bread , and therof made his body , though in a different manner , the matter or substance remayninge in the one change , but not in the other . . the same guest in the same disputation maketh this other argument against the reall-presence . the body of christ is not generate , or begotten in the sacrament ; ergò , yt is not in the sacrament . whervnto doctor glyn answered : yow impugne a thinge yow know not : what call yow generation ? guest . generation is the production of accidents . glyn. a new definition of a new philosopher . thus they two , and no one word more about this argument : nor did guest reply , either in iest or earnest , but leapt presently to his former argumēt againe : that which he tooke he blessed ; that which he blessed he brake ; that vvhich he brake , he gaue , &c. wherfore to aunswere guests obiection we say : first that generation is not the production of accidents , as fondly he affirmeth , which production of accidents appertaineth rather to alteration , augmentation and locall motion , as aristotle teacheth , wheras generation is the production of a substance and not of accidents : secondly we say that christs body in the sacrament is there , not by generation nor creation , but by another miraculous operation of god , called transubstantion , which is a conuersion of the bread & wine into the true body & bloud of christ. and thus much in earnest to m. guest . . after guest there commeth maister pilkinton , as wise as the other in matter of disputation , though afterward by the creditt of his manhood therin , he gott the bishoppricke o● durham . he began thus against doctor glyn. this one thinge i desire of yow most worshippfull maister doctor , that yow will aunswere me with breuity as i shall propound and thus i reason : the body of christ that vvas broken on the crosse , is a full satisfaction for the sinnes of the vvhole vvorld . but the sacrament is not the satisfaction of the vvhole vvorld . ergo , the sacrament is not the body of christ. to this argument doctor glyn answered , that he vsed an equiuocation in the word sacrament : for that yf the word sacrament in this place , be taken for that which it conteyneth to witt the body of christ ; then is the minor proposition false ; for that the body of christ as yt was giuen on the crosse , is the satisfaction for the world : but yf he take the sacrament for the outward signes only of bread & wyne , them he graunteth both the conclusion and the whole sillogisme to be true , that the sacrament is not the body of christ. whervnto pilkinton maketh one only reply , and that most fondly , out of the same equiuocation , sayinge : that the sacrament hath not satisfied for the world , and that men may be saued without the sacrament , as many were before yt was instituted : whervnto doctor glyn very learnedly aunswered : that yf he tooke the sacrament , as before he had distinguished , for christ conteyned in the sacrament , then had the sacrament , that is to say christ therin conteyned , both satisfied for the whole world , and none were euer saued without him , for that all were saued by faith in him to come . . the same pilkinton leaping from his former argument , without takinge his leaue , falleth vpon another medium in these words : the body of christ is resiant in he auen . and the body of christ is in the sacrament . ergo : the sacrament is in heauen . this argument yow see is as good and no better , then yf we should say : the soule of a man is in the fingar . and the soule of a man is in the foote . ergo , the foote is in the fingar . but yet doctor glyn declared there further , after he had iested at the argument , that christ was in one sort in heauen , and after another sort in the sacrament ; in heauen locally , visibly & circumscriptiuely , but in the sacrament inuisibly and sacramentally : which differences being not found in the soule , being in the foote and fingar , maketh our argument more heard to answere , then that of pilkinton . . there followeth a third argument of pilkinton thus : in the body of christ there be no accidents of bread . but in the sacrament there be accidents of bread . ergo : the sacrament is not the body of christ. heere yow see is the same fond equiuocation and doubtfull sense of the word sacramen● before expounded , and poore pilkinton can not gett out of yt : for yf he take the word sacrament , for the only body of christ conteyned therin , then is the minor proposition false ; for that the sacrament in this sense hath no accidents of bread in yt . but yf he take the sacrament for externall signes , then we graunt both his minor and conclusion to be true , and nothinge against vs , to witt , that the sacrament in this sense is not the body of christ , though comonly in our sense the saerament comprehendeth both the one and the other . . but further maister pilkinton had a fourth argument , & with that he was briefly dispatched : he proposed the same in these words . vvhersoeuer christ is , there be his ministers also , for so he promiseth . but christ , as yow hould is in the sacrament ; ergo : his ministers are there also : this argument is worthy of maister pilkinton and his ministers , for yt proueth by like consequence , that they should haue byn in pilatt● pallace with him , and on the crosse. and y● may be argued also , that for so much as they are n● with him now in heauen , ergo : he is not there . wherfore the meaninge of that place in s. iohn ghospell : vvhere i am there shall my minister be ; ( h● saith not vvheresoeuer as maister pilkinton puttet● yt downe ) is to be vnderstood of the participation of christs glory in the next life , a● himselfe expoundeth in the . of s. iohn , wher● he saith to his father , that he will haue the● to be with him , to see his glory . and in the meane space we see how these fellowes , that glory so much of scripture , do abuse the true sense of scripture , in euery thinge they handle . and thus much do i find obiected against the reall-presence in the cambridge disputations . . there ensueth another disputation houlden in the conuocation-house , in the beginninge of q. maryes raigne , which in our former order or catalogue of disputations is the seauenth ; wherin maeister phillips deane of rochester , did argue against the reall presence in this sort . christ saith , yow shall haue poore people with yow . but me yow shall not haue . ergo. christ is not present in the sacrament . whervnto doctor vveston prolocutor in that conference answered , that christ is not present in that manner of bodyly presence , as then he was , so that good people may vse works of deuotion and piety towards himselfe , as then s. mary magdalen did , in whose defence he spoke those words : but phillips not contenting himselfe with this answere , alleaged a longe discourse out of s. augustine in his commentary vpon s. iohns ghospell where the holy father saith ; that christ is present vvith vs in maiestie , prouidence , grace , and loue now , but not in corpotall presence . whervnto answered d. vvatson afterward b. of lincolne , expoundinge that place by another of the same father vpon the same euangelist , where he saith : that christ is not now present after that mortall condition , which then hirras , &c. which nothinge letteth his being after another manner in the sacrament . nay s. augustine in the very same treatise , not ten lynes before the words alleaged by m. philipps , hath these words : habes christum praesentem , peraltaris cibum & potum . thou hast christ present in this life , by the foode and drinke of the altar : which is another distinct way of presence from those two , named by him in the former place , of grace and corporall conuersation . and y● may seeme that this philipps was not only satisfied by this answere , for that he replied not ; but further also was conuerted vpon this conference , or disputation in the conuocation-house , or very soone after : for that fox affirmeth that he cōtinued deane of rochester , all q. maryes dayes , which no doubt he should not haue done , yf he had not subscribed , as all the rest did , to this article of the reall-presence . . next after philips deane of rochester , stepped vp philpott archdeacon of vvinchester with great vehemency , and tooke vpon him to pioue , that christ in his last snpper did not eat his owne body by this argument : that sor so much as remission of sinnes was promised vnto the receauinge of christs body , and that christ did not receaue remission of sinnes , ergò , christ did not receaue his owne body . whervnto maister more-man who , extempore was appointed to answere him , and doctor vveston the prolocutor , gaue this answere ; that as well he might proue that christ was not baptized , for that he receaued no remission of sinnes therin : but as he receaued that sacramé● for our instruction and imitation only ; so did he this other . wherabout though philpot made agreat styrre , as not content with the aunswere ; yet could he reply nothing of any moment , and so ended that dayes disputation . the next day he returned againe , and would haue made a longe declamation against the reall presence , but being restrayned he fell into such a rage and passion , as twise the prolocutor said , he was fitter for bedlam , then for disputation . . after philpott , stood vp maister cheney archdeacon of hereford , another of the six which did contradict the masse and reall presence in the conuocation-house , who was after made b. of glocester , being that tyme perhapps inclyned to zuinglianisme , though afterward he turned , and became a lutheran and so lyued and died in the late queenes dayes . there is extant to this man an eloquent epistle in latyn of f. edmund campian , who vnhappily had byn made deacon by him , but now being made a catholike , exhorted the bishopp to leaue that whole ministry : this mans argument against the reall presence , being taken out of the common obiections of catholike wryters and schoole-men , was this , that for so much as it is cleare by experience , that by eatinge consecrated hosts for example , a man may be nourished , and that neyther christs body nor the accidents and formes alone , can be said to norish ergo besides these two there must be some other substance , that nourisheth , which seemeth can be no other but bread : and the like argument may be made of consecrated wyne that also nourisheth . and further in like manner he argued , concerninge consecrated bread burned to ashes , demaundinge wherof , that is to say , of what substance these ashes were made , for so much as we hould no substance of bread to be therin : and fox would make vs beleeue , that all the catholiks there present could not aunswere that doubt , and amongest others he saith of doctor harpesfield : then vvas maister harpesfield called in to see vvhat he could say in the matter , vvho tould a fayre tale of the omnipotency of almighty god. but fox vnderstood not what doctor harpesfield said in that behalfe , as may easily appeare by his fond relatinge therof : we haue sett downe the aunswere to these and like obiections , before in the . and . obseruations , and yt consisteth in this ; that in these naturall actions , and substantiall changes of nutrition and generation , wherin not only accidents are altered , but new substances also are produced , & consequently according to nature that operation doth require not only accidents , but also substantiall matter wherof to be produced ; god by his omnipotency doth supply that matter , which is necessary to the new production of that substance , eyther by nutrition or generation . . and albeit the vnbeleefe of heretiks doth not reach to comprehend and acknowledge , that god should do a myracle or action aboue nature euery tyme that this happeneth out , yet can they not deny yt in other things : as for example , that euery tyme , when any children are begotten throughout the world , god immediatly createth new soules for them , which needs must be thousands euery day , yet none of our sectaryes will deny or scoffe at this , or hold yt for absurd , the like may be said of all the supernaturall effectes & benefites which god bestoeth dayly & hourly vpon vs in the sacraments or otherwise . . there remayne only some few places out of the fathers to be explaned , which were obiected in this article , partly by maister grindall against doctor glyn , and partly also by peter martyr in the end of his oxford-disputation , but related by fox in the question of transubstantiation , & not of the reall-presence , though properly they appertayne to this , as now yow will see . the first place is out of tertullian against marcion the heretike , where he hath these words ( saith fox ) : this is my body , that is to say , this is the signe of my body . whervnto i answere , that fox dealeth heere like a fox in cytinge these words so cuttedly , for that tertullian in this very place ( as in many others ) doth most effectually , not only say , but proue also , that bread is turned into christs true body after the words of consecration ; and so do the magdeburgians affirme expressely of him : his words are these : christ takinge bread , and distributinge the same vnto his disciples , made yt his body ; sayinge this is my body , that is the figure of my body , and immediatly followeth : figura autem non fuisset , nisi veritatis esset corpus : but yt had not byn the figure of christs body . yf his body had not byn a true body or truly their present . in which words tertullian affirmeth two things , yf yow marke him ; first that christ made bread his true body ; & then that bread had byn a figure of his body in the old testament , which could not be , yf his body were not a true body , but a phantasticall body as marcion did wickedly teach : for that a phantasticall body hath no figure . and this much for the true literall sense of tertullian in this place ; who goinge about to shew that christ did fullfill all the figures of the old testament ( & consequently was sonne of the god of the old testament , which marcionists did deny ) fullfilled also the figure wherin bread presignified his true body to come , by makinge bread his body : sayinge , this bread that was the figure of my body , in the old testament , is now my true body in the new , and so doth the truth succeed the figure . and this to be the true literall sense and scope of tertullian in this place ( as before i haue said ) euery man may see plainly , that will read the place . . the other places are taken out of diuers other fathers , who some tymes do call the sacrament , a figure or signe , representation , or similitude of christs body , death , passion , & bloud , as s. augustine in psalm . . christ gaue a figure of his body , and lib. cont . adamant . cap. . he did not doubt to say this is my body , when he gaue a figure of his body . and s. hierome : christ represented vnto vs his body . and s. ambrose lib. . de sacram. cap. . as thou hast receaued the similitude of his death , so drinkest thou the similitude of his pretious bloud : these places i say , and some other the like , that may be obiected , are to be vnderstood in the like sense , as those places of saint paul are , wherin christ is called by him a figure , figura substantiae patris : a figure of the substance of his father . heb. . and againe ; imago dei. an image of god. colloss . . and further yet ; habitu inuentus vt homo . appearinge in the likenes of a man. philipp . . all which places , as they do not take from christ , that he was the true substance of his father or true god , or true man in deed ( though out of euery one of these places some particular heresies haue byn framed by auncient heretiks , against his diuinity or humanity ) so do not the forsaid phrases , sometymes vsed by the auncient fathers , callinge the sacrament a figure , signe , representation or similitude of christs body , exclude the truth or reality therof , for that there is as well , signum & figura rei praesentis quam absentis , a signe or figure of things present , as well as of things absent , as for an example , a firkyn of wyne hanged vp for a signe at a tauerne dore , that there is wyne to be sould , is both a sygne of wyne , and yet conteyneth and exhibiteth the thinge yt selfe : and so yt is in the sacrament , which by his nature being a signe , figure , or representation , doth both represent and exhibitt , signifieth and conteyneth the body of our sauiour . . and as it should be an hereticall cauill to argue out of the said places of s. paul , as the old heretiks did , that christ is called a figure of the substance of his father , and the image of god , or the similitude of man : ergo , he is not of the reall substance with his father , nor really god , nor truly man : so is it as hereticall to argue as our sacramentaryes do ; that tertullian , augustine , & some other fathers do sometymes call the sacrament a similitude , figure , signe or remembrance of christs body , his death and passion , as in deed yt is ; ( for that otherwise yt should not be a sacrament ) ergo : yt is not his true body , that is conteyned therin , especially seing the same fathers , do in the selfe-same places , whence these obiections are deduced , expressely & cleerly expound themselues , affirming christs true reall body to be in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wyne : as for example saint ambrose heere obiected in the fourth booke de sacramentis cap. . doth expressely and at large proue the reall-presence , as exactly as any catholike can wryte at this day : sayinge : that before the words of consecration , yt is bread , but after yt is the body of christ. and againe . before the vvords of christ be vttered , the chalice is full of vvyne and water , but when the words of christ haue vvrought their effect , then is made that bloud which redeemed the people . and yet further . christ iesus doth testifie vnto vs , that vve receaue his body & bloud , and shall we doubt of his testimony ? which words being so plaine and euident for the truth of catholike beleefe , lett the reader consider , how vaine and fond a thing yt is for the protestants to obiect out of the selfe-same place , that vve receaue the similitude of his death , and drinke the similitude of his pretious bloud , for that we deny not , but the body of christ in the sacrament is a representation and similitude of his death on the crosse , and that the bloud which we drinke in the sacrament , vnder the forme of wine , is a representation and similitude of the sheddinge of christs bloud in his passion . but this letteth not , but that it is the selfe-same body & bloud , though yt be receaued in a different manner , as it letteth not , but that christ is true god , though he be said , to be the image of god , as before yow haue heard . . there remayneth then only to be aunswered , that speach of s. augustine obiected in these disputations . quid paras dentes & ventrem ? crede & manducasti : why dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly ? beleeue and thou hast eaten . whervnto i answere , that this speach of s. augustine and some other like , that are found in him , and some other fathers , of the spirituall eatinge of christ by faith , do not exclude the reall presence , as we haue shewed before in our nynth obseruation . it is spoken against them , that come with a base and grosse imagination to receaue this diuine foode , as if yt were a corporall refection , and not spirituall ; wheras indeed faith & charity are those vertues , that giue the life vnto this eatinge : faith in beleeuinge christs words to be true , as s. ambrose in the place before cyted saith , and therby assuringe our selues , christs true body to be there : and charity in preparing our selues worthily , by examinations of our conscience , that we do not receaue our owne damnation , as s. paul doth threat . and this is the true spirituall eatinge of christs body by faith , but yet truly and really , as the said fathers do expound vnto vs , whose sentences more at large yow shall see examined in the chapter followinge . . these then being all in effect , or at least wayes the most principall arguments , that i find obiected by our english sacramentaryes in the forsaid ten disputations , against the article of christs true & reall being in the sacrament , you may consider with admiration and pitty , how feeble grounds those vnfortunate men had , that vvere first dealers in that affaire , wheron to change their faith and religion , from that of the christian world , from tyme out of mynd before them : and to enter into a new sect and labyrinth of opinions contradicted amonge themselues , and accursed by him that was their first guide to lead them into new pathes , to witt , luther himselfe , and yet to stand so obstinately & with such immoueable pertinacy therin ; as to offer their bodyes to temporall fire , and their soules to the euident perill of eternall damnation for the same ; but this is the ordinary enchauntement of heresie founded on pride , selfe iudgement , and selfe-will , as both by holy scriptures and auncient fathers we are admonished . . one thinge also is greatly heere to be noted by the carefull reader , vpon consideration of these arguments to and fro , how vncertayne a thing yt is for particular men , whether learned or vnlearned ( but especially the ignorant ) to ground themselues & their faith vpon their owne or other mens disputations , which with euery little shew of reason to and fro , may alter theire iudgement or apprehension , and in how miserable a case christian men were , yf their faith ( wherof dependeth their saluation or damnation ) should hange vpon such vncertayne meanes as these are , & that god had left no other more sure or certaine way then this for men to be resolued of the truth , as we see he hath , by his visible church , that cannot erre ; yet thought we good to examine this way of disputatiōs also , and the arguments therof vsed by protestants against the truth . but now followeth a larger & more important examen , of the catholike arguments alleaged by our men against them , in this article of the reall-presence . and what kind of aunswers they framed to the same , wherby thou wilt be greatly confirmed ( good reader ) yf i be not much deceaued , in the opinion of their weaknesse , and vntruth of their cause . vvhat catholike argvments vvere alleaged in these disputations for the reall-presence ; and how they were aunswered or shifted of by the protestants . chap. v. as i haue briefly touched in the former chapter , the reasons and arguments alleaged for the sacramentary opinions , against the reall-presence ; so now i do not deeme yt amisse , to runne ouer in like manner , some of the catholike arguments that were alleaged against them , though neyther tyme nor place will permitt to recyte them all , which the discreett reader may easily imagine by the grounds and heads therof , sett downe in the second chapter of this treatise , though many & waighty they were or might be . wherfore to speake breifely somewhat therof , and for more breuity and perspicuity , to draw the matter to some kind of order and methode : yow must note , that of these ten disputations , only foure were in tyme of catholike gouernement , as before i signified , that is to say ; the six-dayes conference in the conuocation-house , in the beginninge of q. maryes raigne , & the three-dayes seuerall disputation at oxford with cranmer , ridley , and latymer , some monethes after . and as for the first in the conuocation-house , the protestants only did dispute , for three continuall dayes togeather , to witt , phillips , haddon , cheyney , elmour , and philpott , and seuerall catholike men were appointed to aunswere them . and when in the end the protestants were required to aunswere according to promise , in their turnes , the catholike opponents for other three dayes , they refused yt all , sauing philpott , vpon certayne conditions to be heard yet further , but doctor vveston the prolocutor reiected him , as a man fitter to be sent to bedlam ( saith fox ) then to be admitted to disputation , &c. for that he both was vnlearned , and a very madd man in deed . wherfore out of this disputation , little or nothinge is offered about this article of reall-presence , for that the catholike party disputed not at all . . and as for the other three dayes disputation in oxford , the last , which was with latymer , was very little , for that he fledd disputation , as there yow shall see ; and the few arguments that were made against him , were rather in proofe of the sacrifice of the masse : so as most arguments were alleaged in the former two-dayes conflict against cranmer and ridley , which presently we shall examine , though vnder k. edward also , one day of the cambridge disputations was allowed to catholike opponents , to propose their argumēts , doctor madew being defendant for the protestants , and doctor glyn , maister langdall , & maister sedg-wicke opponents for the catholiks : to as out of these foure disputations , we shall note breifely some catholike arguments , that were alleaged , aduertisinge the reader first to consider with some attention the points ensuinge . . first that we haue nothinge of these disputations , their arguments or aunswers , but only such as pleaseth iohn fox to deliuer and impart with vs , which most euidently do appeare to be mangled and vnperfect in many places , without head or foote , coherence or consequence , which must proceed eyther of purpose to make matters obscure , and therby to bring the reader into doubt and confusion , or of lacke of good information ; and that the former is more credible then the second , may be gliessed by the variety of impertinent notes in the margent , scoffes , and iests in the text yt selfe , often tymes putt in to deface the catholike party , and to giue creditt to his sectaryes : and consequently what faith may be giuen to his narrations ( but only where they make against himselfe ) is easy to be seene , especially in that himselfe cōfesseth , that ridley wrote in prison his owne disputations after they were past , & the same we may presume of the rest , and then no man can doubt , but that they would putt downe their owne parts to their vttermost aduantage , or at least-wise with the smallest losse , that they could diuise . . secondly yt is to be considered of the precedent reader , that must aduenture his soule euerlastingely by takinge one part or other in this controuersie heere in hand , how much yt may import him to stand attent to the places and authorityes , alleaged out of scriptures & fathers for the truth , & to consider them well , reading them ouer againe , and againe & weighing the true meaning & sense of the wryter , and not how sleightly or cunningly they are , or may be shifted of by any witty wrangler , for so much as this may be done with any wrytinge or euidence neuer so manifest , yf the defendant will list to cauill , & the reader be so inconsiderate or carelesse of his owne perill , as to be delighted or abused therwith . . thirdly in the allegation of fathers testimonyes , which heere are to ensue , yt is to be weighed , not only what they say , but also how they say , what phrases and speaches they vse , and to what end , and whether yf they had byn of the protestants religion , they would haue vsed those phrases or no , more then protestant wryters do themselues at this day , especially so ordinarily and commonly as the said fathers do , they being men both learned , wise , and religious , that well knew how to vtter their owne mynds & meaning , what is proper & improper speach , & withall not being ignorāt , how great inconueniences must ensue of improper speaches in matters of faith , where men are bound to speake precisely and warily : and on the other side is ●o be considered also , yf they were of contrary opinions to the protestants , and of that faith which we affirme them to be in this point of the reall presence , what more effectuall speaches could they haue vsed to expresse yt , then they do , callinge yt the true body , the reall body , the naturall body of our sauiour , the same body that he tooke of the blessed virgin , and gaue vpon the crosse , the body vvherby he is vnited vnto vs in humanity ; and denyinge it expressely to be bread after the vvords of consecration , though yt seeme to be bread to our eyes & tast , and that we must not trust our senses therin , but yeld to gods omnipotency , and beleeue , that as he hath vvrought infinite other miracles , so hath he done this ; that we must adore yt , vvith the highest adoration ; and other like phrases , which neyther protestants can abide , or euer do vse in their wrytinges ; nor could the fathers , yf they had byn expressely of our religion ( as we say they were ) diuise words more significant , proper , or effectuall to expresse the truth of our catholike faith , then yf of purpose they had studyed for yt , as no doubt they did ; so as yf the auncient fathers did vnderstand what they spake , and that they spake as they meant ; then are the protestants in a pittifull plight , whose saluation or damnation dependeth in this , whether we must vnderstand them , s. paul , and christ himselfe literally , as they spake , or by a figure only ; so as yf they vsed no figure , then is the sacramentary opinion to be held for heresie . . fourthly is to be considered also in this matter , as els-where we haue noted , that when any one of these auncient fathers , in what age soeuer , is found to vse these effectuall words , for vttering his meaning about this high mystery of christs being present in the sacrament , he is to be vnderstood to expresse not only his owne iudgement , and beleefe therin , but the iudgement also and beleefe of the whole church of christendome in that age , for so much as any doctor , neither then nor after , did note him for error , or ●emerity in speakinge & wrytinge as he did , which no doubt would haue happened , as in all other occasions of errors or heresies yt did , yf his speach had bin vnsound , vnproper , or dangerous ; so as when we find but one father vncontroulled in these assertions , we are iustly to presume , that we heare the whole age and christian church of his tyme speake togeather , and much more when we see diuers fathers agree in the selfe-same manner of speach , and vtteringe their meaninge . and whosoeuer is carefull of his soule in these dangerous tymes of controuersies , ought to be mindfull of this obseruation , and so shall we passe to the disputations themselues . out of the first cambridge-disputation in k. edvvardes dayes , wherin the defendantes were d. madevv , and b. ridley highe comissioner . . iunij . . §. . . albeit in this disputation matters were but sleightly handled , and no argument vrged to any important issue , by reason of the often interruptions of the cambridge-proctors and sleights vsed by ridley himselfe ; yet do i find that doctor glyn , being a very learned man indeed , did touch diuers matters of moment ▪ though he prosecuted not the same , yf fox his relation be true , and much lesse receaued he any substantiall solution therof . as for example , in the beginninge he made a very effectuall discourse how this diuine sacrament conteyninge christs reall body , was not only prefigured by diuers figures in the old testament , as namely the paschall-lambe , the manr● and shew-bread ( which signifyed the great importa●ce and moment therof when yt should be performed ) but also was so peculiarly and diligently promised by our sauiour , in the six of s. iohn , comparinge yt with the said figures and shewing how much yt was to exceed the same , and namely the manna that came from heauen , and finally expoundinge yt to be hi● owne flesh which he would giue vs to eate in fullfillinge those figures : panis quem ego dabo ca●o mea est , the bread that i will giue you shal be my flesh , and that truly and indeed : caro enim ●uea verè est cibus ; for my flesh is truly meate , &c. . this promise then , and this prefiguration was not ( quoth he ) performed by christ , but in his last supper when he tooke bread and de●iuered it sayinge : this is my body : which performance , yf yt must aunswere eyther to christs promise in the ghospell , or to the figures in the old testament , must needs be more then bread , for that otherwise yt should not be better then the manna , that was bread from heauen , which christ in s. iohns ghospell expressely promised , should be changed into his flesh . and yf christ in his last supper , had but giuen a figure of his true body ; then had he fullfilled the figures of th' old testament with a figure in the new , and so all had byn figures contrary to that of s. iohn : lex per moysen data est , veritas autem per iesum christum facta est . the law was giuen by moyses ( in figures ) but the truth thereof was performed by iesus christ , &c. . thus began doctor glyn , but i find no solution giuen thervnto , but that doctor madew being asked whether the sacraments of the old law , and new were all one ? he said : yea indeed & effect : doctor glyn inferred , that then they were not inferiour to vs ; for that they had bread that signified christs body as well as ours , and they by eating that bread with faith in christ to come , did eat christs body , and participate his grace therby , no lesse then we , which is a great absurdity , and contrary to the whole drift of s. paul speaking of that matter , and extollinge the dignity of this sacrament , yea cōtrary to the expresse discourse of christ himselfe , sayinge : not moyses gaue yow bread from heauen ( meaning the manna ) but my father giueth yow true bread from heauen . and to this discourse also yow shall find nothinge aunswered in effect . . from this doctor glyn passeth to shew out of s. augustine , s. ambrose , and s. basill , that the body of christ must be adored before yt be receaued ; whervnto was aunswered : that only a certayne reuerent manner of receauinge vva● therby meant , but no adoration ; but the other replyed , that the fathers spake of proper adoration ; yea s. austen went so farre therin in his books de ciuitate dei , that he affirmeth the heathens to haue esteemed the christians , to haue adored ceres and bacchus , gods of bread and wyne , by the adoration which they vsed to this sacrament of bread and wyne , which they would neuer haue suspected of the protestants , by their behauiour towards their supper of bread and wyne . whervnto another aunswere was framed , that saint augustin● meant only of adoringe christs body in hea●●n and not in the sacrament ; and this aunswere was confirmed by ridley very sollemnely , sayinge for his preface : for because i am on● that doth loue the truth , i vvill heere declare vvha● i thinke in this point , &c. i do graunt a certayne honour and adoration to be done vnto christs body , but then the fathers speake not of yt in the sacrament , but of yt in heauen , &c. neyther is there any other aunswere giuen . and yet who seeth not , that this is but a playne shift ? for when s. augustine for example saith : nemo illam carnem manducat , nisi prius adorauerit : no man eateth that flesh ( in the sacrament ) but first adoreth yt . and saint chrysostome : adora & communica , dum proseratur sacrisicium , adore and communicate , vvhilst the sacrifice is brought forth ; yt is euident by common sense , that the adoration is appointed to that body , which there presently is eaten , and not to christs body absent in heauen ; for by this kind of their adoration , we adore also our ordinary dinners , to witt by adoringe god in heauen , and sayinge grace &c. and he that shall read the place of the fathers themselues , will wonder at this impudency , for saint austen doth expound those words of the psalme adorate scabellum pedum eius , and applieth yt to his flesh in the sacrament , and s. chrysostome speaketh expressely of christs flesh , as yt is in the sacrament , and offered as a sacrifice . . and yet doth fox make doctor glyn to haue replyed neuer a word , nor so much as produced the textes themselues of the fathers named by him , but giuinge yt ouer passed to another argument , sayinge : yf yt please your good lordshipp , s. ambrose and s. augustine do say , that before the consecration yt is but bread , and after the consecration yt is called the body of christ ; wherto was aunswered : indeed yt is the very body of christ sacramentally after the consecration , vvher as before yt is nothinge but common bread , and yet after that yt is the lords bread , and thus must s. ambrose and s. augustine be vnderstood . so said the aunswerers , and doctor glyn vvas by the procters commaunded to cease , and passe to the second question ; but he obtayned by intreaty to go foreward an instance or two more , shewing out of the words of s. ambrose , that ridleyes aunswere could not be true ; for that s. ambrose said ; that after the consecration , there is not the thinge that nature did forme , but that which the blessing doth consecrate . and that yf the benediction of elias the prophett , could turne the nature of water , how much more the benediction of christ , god & man can do the same , ergò there is a greater change in the natures then of common bread , to become the lords bread . . to this reply there was no other aunswere giuen , but that s. ambrose his booke d● sacramentis was not his , & ridley affirmed that all the fathers did say so : which was a shamelesse lye in so great an auditory , nor could he bringe forth so much as one father that said so , nor alleaged he any one argument to proue yt to be so ; and yf he had , yet s. ambrose repeating● againe the very same sentence in his booke de initiandis is sufficient for the authority of the place , but glyn is made to passe away the matter with sylence , sayinge : vvell lett this passe , &c. and then goinge to other authorityes of fathers , ys ●●yped of with like shif●● ; as when he cyteth s. cyprians words : panis non effigie , sed natura mutatus , omnipotentia dei sit caro : t●e bread by consecration being changed not in shape , but in nature , is by the omnipotency of god made flesh ; they aunswere that by nature is vnderstood a naturall property or quality , and by flesh , a fleshly thinge or quality , and not the substance , so as the sense must be , that bread is changed not in outward shape , but into a naturall property of a fleshly thing , &c. and when doctor glyn replyed to ouerthrow this inuention out of s. ambrose , who affirmeth this chāge of bread to be made into the flesh , that was taken of the virgin mary , ergò yt was not only into a fleshly thinge , quality , or property , but into the true flesh of christ ; ridly gaue an aunswere , that i vnderstand not , nor himselfe i thinke , but only that he must say somwhat in so great an audience , and expectation ; or fox vnderstood yt not that setteth it downe : for these are his words : . vvhen doctor glyn vrged the sayinge of s. ambrose , that bread is changed into the body taken from the virgin mary , that is to say ( saith he ) that by the word of god , the thinge hath a being that yt had n●t before , and we do consecrate the body , that we may receaue the grace and power of the body of christ in heauen by this sacramentall body . so he . and doth any man vnderstand him ? or is his aunswere any thinge to the purpose for satisfyinge the fathers ? s. cyprian saith : that the bread by the omnipotency of god is changed in nature , and made flesh and s. ambrose saith : yt is the flesh taken from the virgin ; and ridley saith heere ; that yt hath a being , vvhich yt had not before , and that , they do consecrate a sacramentall body of christ , therby to receaue the grace and power of christs body in heauen ; but howsoeuer they do consecrate that body : ( which is a strange word for sacramentaryes to vse ) yet do they graunt that this sacramentall body is but bread ; and how then can yt be flesh , and flesh of the virgin ; were not the fathers ridiculous , yf they vsed these equiuocations , yea false and improper speaches ? . well doctor glyn goeth foreward , and alleageth s. chrysostome vpon s. mathewes ghospell , where to persuade vs the truth of christs body in the sacrament , he saith : that we must beleeue christs words in these mysteryes , and not our senses , for that our senses may be deceaued ; but christ sayinge this is my body cannot deceaue vs ; and that he made vs one body with himselfe , not through faith only , but in very deed : and further , that the miracle which he wrought in his last supper , he vvorketh dayly by his ministers , &c. whervnto ridley aunswered nothinge but these words : maister doctor , yow must vnderstand , that in that place s. chrysostome shewed , that christ deliuered vnto vs no sensible thinge in that supper . so he . which notwithstanding is euidently false , for he deliuered sensible bread & wyne , according to the protestants faith , and accordinge to outs , the formes of bread and wyne , which are also sensible : and yf there were no sensible thinge , then could there be no sacrament , which must conteyne a sensible signe . and to refu●e this shift of ridley , doctor glyn obiected theophilact , expoundinge s. chrysostome , and vsinge the same words that he did , to witt , that the bread is transelemented , and transformed . he alleageth another place or two of s. augustine togeather with s. irenaeus : to all which rochester aunswereth resolutely : vvell say what yow list ; yt is but a figuratiue speach , as s. iohn baptist was said to be elias for a property , &c. but who doth not see the absurdity of this euasion ; for so much as the meaning of christ , about elias his spiritt in s. iohn baptist , is euident , nor euer went any auncient fathers about to affirme or proue by arguments , that s. iohn baptist was truly elias in person ( himselfe expressely denyinge yt ) or that yt was meant literally , as they do of the words of christ in the sacrament : and this could not ridley but see , but that he was blinded in pride and passion , for that otherwise he would neuer haue gone about to aunswere the fathers by euident wranglinge , so contrary to their owne sense and meaninge . . after doctor glyn was putt to silence in this order , succeded maister langdale , maister sedgewicke and maister yonge , but very breefely concerninge this article of the reall-presence , not being permitted to speake more , and the most part of the tyme trifled out also , with courtesyes of speach , the one to the other ; my good lord ; good maister doctor ; pleaseth yt your good lordshipp ; liketh yt your good fathershipp ; honourable father , and the like ceremonyes , for they durst do no other , ridley being then high commissionar ; yet maister langdale vrged a place of s. chrysostome , where he bringeth christ , savinge these words : i vrould be your brother , i tooke vpon me common flesh and bloud for your sakes ; and euen by the same things that i am ioyned to yow , the very same i haue exhibited to yow againe ; meaninge in the sacrament . wherof maister langdale inferred , that seing christ tooke vpon him true naturall flesh , and not a figure of flesh only , or remembrance therof , therfore he gaue vs his true naturall flesh like man in the sacrament , and not a figure . wherto ridley aunswereth in these words and no more : vve are not ioyned by naturall flesh ; but do receaue his flesk spiritually from aboue . which aunswere is not only contrary to the expresse words and meaning of s. chrysostome in this place , but of christ himselfe also brought in heere by s. chrysostome to vtter his meaninge , as yow haue heard . i tooke vpon me common flesh for your sakes , and by the same things that i am ioyned to yow , the very same i haue exhibited vnto yow againe . where yow see that he saith , he gaue the very same in the sacrament , which he had taken vpon him for our sakes , and that by the same he was ioyned to vs againe ; and now maister ridley saith ; that vve are not ioyned to him by naturall flesh . these be contraryes , which of two shall we beleeue ? christ , and s. chrysostome expoundinge him , or ridley against them both ? . maister sedg-wicke disputed next , but hath not halfe a columne or page allowed to the settinge downe of his whole disputation ; yet he vrginge diuers reasons in that little tyme out of the scriptures , why the sacrament of the altar cannot be in the new law by a figure , but must needs be the fullfillinge of old figures , and consequently the true and reall body of christ ; he brought maister ridley within the compasse of a dozen lines , to giue two aunswers one plaine contrary to another , as his words do import : for this is the first : i do graunt yt to be christs true body and flesh , by a property of the nature assumpted to the god head , and we do really eate and drinke his flesh and bloud , after a certaine reall property . his second aunswere is in these words : it is nothinge but a figure or token of the true body of christ , as it is said of s. iohn baptist , he is elias , not that he vvas so indeed or in person , but in property and vertue he represented elias . so he . and now lett any man with iudgement examine these two aunswers : for in the first he graun●eth at least wayes a true reall property of christs flesh , assumpted to his godhead , to be in their bread , wherby we do really eate his flesh , and drinke his bloud . and in the second he saith , yt is nothinge but a figure , and consequently excludeth all reall property ; for that a figure hath no reallity or reall property , but only representeth and is a token of the body , as himselfe saith ; which is euident also by his owne example , for that s. iohn baptist had no reall property of elias in him , but only a similitude of his spiritt and vertue . and so these people , whilst they would seeme to say somewhat , do speake contradictoryes amonge themselues . . there followed maister yonge , who as breefly as the other , touched some few places of the fathers ( though they be not quoted ) where they say that our bodyes are nourished in the sacrament by christs flesh , and that truly we drinke his bloud therin , and that for auoyding the horror of drinking mans bloud , christ had condescended to our infirmityes , and giuen yt to vs vnder the formes of wyne ; and other like speaches , which in any reasonable mans sense , must needs import more then a figure of his body and bloud , or a spirituall being there only by grace , for so much as by grace he is also in baptisme and other sacraments : & finally he vrged againe the place of s. cyprian : that the bread being changed not in shape but in nature , vvas by the omnipotency of the vvord , made flesh . wherto ridley aunswered againe in these words : cyprian there doth take this vvord nature for a property of nature , and not for the naturall substance . to which euasion maister yonge replyeth ; this is a strange acception , that i haue not read in any authors before this tyme. and so with this he was glad to giue ouer ( saith fox ) and askinge pardon for that he had done , said : i am contented , and do most humbly beseech your good lordshipp to pardon me of my great , rudenesse , &c. belike this rudenesse was for that he had said , that vt was a strange acception of s. cyprians words , to take change in nature , for change into a property of nature , and flesh for a fleshely thinge or quality , as before yovv haue heard , and that this should aunswere s. cyprians intention : for lett vs heare the application : bread ( in the sacrament ) being changed not in shape but in nature ( saith s. cyprian ) by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh ; that is to say , as ridley will haue yt bread , being changed not in shape , but in a property of nature , is made a fleshely thinge , or fleshely quality : what is this ? or what sense can it haue ? what property of fleshely nature doth your communion bread receaue ? or what reall property of bread doth it leese by this change mencyoned by s. cyprian ? we say , ( to witt s. cyprian ) that our bread retayning the outward shape , doth leese his naturall substance , and becommeth christs flesh , what naturall property of bread doth yours leese ? and againe . what fleshely thinge or quality doth yt receaue by the omnipotency of the word in consecration ? and is not this ridiculous , or doth ridley vnderstand this his riddle ? but lett vs passe to the next disputation vnder q. mary , where we shall see matters handled otherwise , and arguments followed to better effect and issue . out of the first oxford-disputation in the beginninge of q maryes raigne , wherin d. cranmer , late archbishopp of canterbury , was defendant for the protestant party , vpon the . of aprill anno . §. . . when as the doctors were sett in the diuinity schoole , and foure appointed , to be exceptores argumentorum ( saith fox ) sett at a table in the middest therof , togeather with foure other notaryes sittinge with them , and certayne other appointed for iudges ( another manner of indifferency , then was vsed in king edwards dayes vnder b. ridley , in that disputation at cambridge ) doctor cranmer was brought in , and placed before them all to answere , and defend his sacramentary opinion , giuen vp the day before in wrytinge , concerninge the article of the reall presence . fox according to his custome noteth diuers graue circumstances , as amonge others , that the beedle had prouided drinke , and offered the aunswerer , but he refused vvith thanks . he telleth in like manner , that doctor vveston the prolocutor offered him diuers courtesyes for his body , yf he should need , which i omitt for that they are homely : against which doctor vveston notwithstanding he afterwards stormeth , and maketh a great inuectiue for his rudenes , and in particular for that he had ( as fox saith ) his theseus by him , that is to say a cuppe of wyne at his elbow , whervnto fox ascribeth the gayninge of the victory , sayinge ; yt vvas no maruayle though he gott the victory in this disputation , he disputinge as he did , non sine suo theseo , that is not without his ●plingcupp . so fox . and yet further , that he holding the said cuppe at one tyme in his hand , and hearinge an argument made by another that liked him , said : vrge hoc , nam ho● facit pro nobis : vrge this , vrge this , for this maketh for vs. thus pleased it iohn fox to be pleasant with doctor vveston ; but when yow shall see , as presently yow shall , how he vrged iohn fox his three martyrs , and rammes of his flocke ( for so els-where he calleth them ) in these disputations , not with the cuppe , but with substantiall , graue , and learned arguments , yow will not maruaile that he is so angry with him : for in very deed he brought them alwayes to the greatest exigents of any other , and more then all the rest togeather : now then lett vs passe to the disputation . . doctor chadsay was the first that disputed against cranmer , beginninge with the institution of christs sacrament , recorded by s. mathew , marke , and luke , shewinge out of them by diuers plaine clauses and circumstances , that christ in his last supper , gaue vnto his disciples , not bread , but his true naturall body , which was giuen the next day on the crosse , to all which cranmer aunswered thus : yf yow vnderstand by the body naturall , organicum , that is hauing such proportion of members , as he had liuinge heere , then i aunsivere negatiuely . by which aunswere we may perceaue , that this great doctor , who had wrytten a great booke against the reall-presence , by which latymer amongst others was made a sacramentary , and stood therein vnto death vpon the creditt of this booke ( as after yow shall heare him often professe ) vnderstandeth not the very state of the question betweene vs , for that we hould not christs body in the sacrament to be organicall , in that manner as cranmer heere imagineth , with externall dimensions & proportions of members as he liued vpon earth , though truly organicall , in another manner , without extension to place , as in our fourth and fifth obseruations before sett downe we haue declared ; so as he erringe in the very grounds and first principles of the controuersie , yow may imagine how he will proceed in the rest . . it was obiected vnto him next after this , that as a wise-man lyinge on his death-bedd , and hauing care that his heyres after his departure do liue in quiett , and not contend about his testament , doth not vse tropes and figures , but cleare and plaine speach in the said testament ; so must we presume of christ , & for the confirmation of this , doctor vveston alleaged a place out of s. augustine , de vnitate ecclesiae vrginge this very same similitude ; that yf the last words of any graue or honest man lyinge on his death-bedd , are to be beleeued , much more the last words of our sauiour christ in his supper , to which argument i find no effectuall aunswere giuen at all , but only that cranmer saith : that he vvhich speaketh by tropes and figures , doth not lie ; but he aunswereth not to the other inconuenience , that his heyres may fall out about his testament , the one vnderstandinge them literally , the other figuratiuely , as we & they do the words of christ about this sacrament . . next to this is brought in a large testimony of s. chrysostome , out of his homily vnto the people of antioch , which beginneth : necessarium est , dilectissimi , mysteriorum discere miracu●um , quid tandem sit , & quare sit datum , & quae rei ●tilitas , &c. it is necessary , most dearely beloued , to know this myracle of mysteryes , what yt is , and why yt was giuen , and what profitt cometh to vs therby , &c. and then s. chrysostome declareth at large , how christ most myraculously aboue all humaine power , giueth his body to be handled and eaten by vs ●n the sacrament ; so as we fasten our teeth in his flesh , and that he did more then euer any parents did , who many tymes giue their children to others to be fed , but christ feedeth vs with his owne flesh , and with that very flesh by which he is our brother , and vnited vnto vs in flesh . out of which discourse d. vveston ●rged , that for so much as christ is made our brother and kins-man , by his true , naturall & organicall flesh ; erge he gaue the same his true naturall and organicall flesh to vs to be eaten in the sacrament . wherto cranmer aunswered : i graunt the consequence , and the consequent : which is contrary to that he said a little before , ( yf yow marke yt ) that his organicall body was not there . . but doctor vveston went further , that seing he graunted this , then did yt follow also , that his true organicall flesh was receaued in our mouth , which s. chrysostome calleth our teeth . but this cranmer denyed , and said , he vvas eaten only by faith : whervpon vveston came on him againe sayinge , that for so much as he gaue vs the selfe-same flesh to eate in the sacrament ( and this with our teeth , as s. chrysostome saith ) wherby he became our brother & kins-man , yt must needs import a reall eatinge : wherto cramner aunswered : i graunt he tooke and gaue ( in the sacrament ) the same true naturall and organicall flesh , vvherin he suffered , but feedeth vs spiritually , and his flesh is receaued spiritually . this was his aunswere , and this he repeateth often , and from this he could not be drawne : and heere now yow see , the practise of that shift , wherof we haue spoken before in our eyght and nynth obseruation , whereby these willfull people , vnder the tearmes of spiritually and sacramentally , do delude them selues , & their readers , as though they said somewhat to auoid catholike arguments , taken out of auncient fathers plaine and perspicuous authorityes , wheras indeed they say nothinge in substance at all , but do turne and wynd and hide themselues vnder the sound of different words without sense . for yf yt be true as cranmer heere graunted , that christ gaue his true naturall and organicall flesh to be eaten ●n the sacrament , and that with our teeth or corporall mouth , as s. chrysostome saith , how can yt be denyed , but that we eat his flesh really , and not spiritually only , yf spiritually be opposite to really , as in cranmers sense yt is , which vnderstandeth , spiritually and figuratiuely to be all one : but in our sense spiritually standeth with really , for that we hould christs body to be receaued really and substantially in the sacrament , but yet after a spirituall manner , different from that which the capharnaits did imagine of a grosse carnall eatinge of christs flesh , as other flesh is accustomed to be eaten , wherfore to imagine that christs true naturall or organicall flesh is eaten truly in the sacrament , and yet only absent , by faith , spiritually and in a figure , is to speake contradicto●yes with one breath . . diuers other texts and testimonyes of 〈◊〉 . chrysostome were alleaged by doctor vveston ●o confute this ideacall fiction of doctor cranner , as that for example homilia . in cap. . ●atth . where he saith amonge other thinges : ●eniat tibi in mentem , &c. lett yt come into thy remembrance with what honour thou art honoured , ( in the sacrament ) what table hou dost inioy , for that we are nourished herin with the selfe-same thinge , which the ●ngells do behould and tremble at , &c. vvho shall speake the powers of thy lord ? vvho shall declare forth all his praises ? vvhat pastor hath euer nourished his sheepe vvith his owne flesh , &c. christ feedeth vs vvith his owne body , and conioyneth & vniteth vs to him therby . and againe vpon the . psalme : pro ●bo carne propria nos pascit , pro potu sanguinem suum nobis propinat . in steed of meat , he feedeth vs with his owne flesh , and in steed of drinke he giueth vnto vs to drinke his owne bloud . and againe , homil . . in matth. non side tantum , sed reipsa nos corpus suum effecit , &c. not only by faith , but in deed he hath made vs his body . and finally for that yt was denyed expressely , saint chrysostome to meane that we receaued christs body , with our corporall mouth , doctor vveston vrged these words of saint chrysostome : non vulgarem honorem consecutum est os nostrum excipiens corpus dominicum . our month hath gotten no small honour in that yt receaueth the body of our lord. . but all this will not serue , for still cranmer aunswered by his former sleight thus : vvith our mouth , vve receaue the body of christ , and teare it vvith our teeth , that is to say the sacrament of the body of christ. do yow see the euasion ? and what may not be shifted of in this order , doth any minister in england vse to speake thus o● his communion-bread , as s. chrysostome in the place alleaged of the sacrament , after the words of consecration ? or do any of the auncient fathers wryte so reuerently of the water of baptisme , which they would haue done , and ought to haue done , yf christs body be no otherwise present in this sacrament , then the holy-ghost is in that water , as cranmer oftentymes affirmeth , and namely some few lynes after the foresaid places alleaged ? but doctor vveston seing him to decline all the forsaid authorityes by this ordinary shift , of the words spiritually and sacramentally , vrged him by another way out of the same chrysostome , concerninge the honour due to christs body vpon earth , quod summo honore dignum est id tibi in terra ostendo , &c. i do shew thee vpon earth , that which is worthy of highest honour , not angells , not archangells , nor the highest heauens , but i shew vnto thee the lord of all these things himselfe . consider how thou dost not only behould heere on earth , that which is the greatest and highest of all things , but dost touch the same also , & not only touchest him , but dost eat the same , and hauinge receaued him , returnest home . . thus s. chrysostome . out of which place doctor vveston vrged him eagerly , excludinge all figures , and eatinge of christs body absent by faith ; for that s. chrysostome saith not only ostendo tibi , i do shew vnto thee , that which is worthy of highest honour aboue angells , and archangells , but ostendo tibi in terra , i shew yt to thee heere vpon earth , which signifieth the presence of a substance , wherto this highest honour is to be done , and that this thinge is seene , touched , & eaten , in the church , which cannot be a figure , nor the sacramentall bread , for that highest honour is not due to them ; nor can vt be christ absent only in heauen , for s. chrysostome saith , i snew it thee heere on earth , &c. to all which pressinges . when doctor cranmer had no other thing in effect to aunswere , but these phrases often repeated ; that it is to be vnderstood sacramentally , and , i aunswere that it is true sacramentally , &c. the hearers fell to cry out , and hisse at him , clappinge their hands saith fox ) and callinge him , indoctum , imperitum , impudentem , vnlearned , vnskillfull & impudent . and fox to help out cranmer in this matter , besides all other excuses , maketh this learned glosse in the margent vpon s. chrysostomes words : ostendo tibi in terra , &c. i do shew vnto thee vpon earth , what is worthiest of highest honour , to witt , christs body . the body of christ ( saith fox ) is shewed forth vnto vs heere on earth diuers vvayes , as in readinge scriptures , hearinge sermons , and sacraments , and yet neyther scriptures , nor sermons , nor sacraments are to be worshipped , &c. so he , which is as iust as germans lippes . and i would aske● this poore glossist , what maketh this note to the purpose of s. chrysostome ? for neyther doth he speake of the different wayes , wherby christs body may be shewed forth vpon earth , but saith that himselfe did shew yt in the sacrament vpon the altar , to all that would see it . nor doth he say that the meanes or wayes , wherby christs body is shewed , are worthy greatest honour or worshipp , but that the thinge that is shewed forth , is worthy of highest honour . and how then standeth fox his glosse with this sense , or whervnto serueth it , but only to shew these wreched-mens obstinacy , that one way or other will breake through , when they are hedged in by the fathers authorityes most plaine and manifest . . after this assault giuen by doctor vveston , the first opponent doctor chadsey returned to deale with cranmer againe , & by issue of talke , came to vrge these words of tertullian ; caro corpore & sanguine christi vescitur , vt animade deo saginetur . our flesh is fedd with the body and bloud of christ , to the end that our soule may be fatted with god ; which is as much to say , that our mouth doth eate the body of christ , and our mynd therby receaueth the spirituall fruite therof . out of which words d. vveston ●vrged , that seing our flesh eateth the body of christ ( which cannot eat , but by the mouth ) christs body is really eaten and receaued by our mouth , which so often by cranmer hath byn denyed , but now his words are : vnto tertullian i aunswere , that he calleth that the flesh , vvhich is the sacrament . of which aunswere i cannot vnderstand what meaninge yt hath , except fox do er●e in settinge yt downe ; for yf the flesh be the sacrament , then must the sacrament feed on the body and bloud of christ , accordinge to tertullian which is absurd . but ● suspect that cranmers meaninge was , that the body of christ was called the sacrament , for so he expoundeth himselfe afterward , when he saith : the flesh liueth by the bread , but the soule is inwardly fedd br christ : so as when tertullian saith ; our flesh is fedd by christs body and bloud , he would haue him to meane , that our flesh eateth the sacramentall bread and wyne , that signifieth or figureth christs body and bloud , & our soule feedeth on the true body of christ by faith : but both doctor chadsey & doctor vveston refuted this shift presently by the words immediatly ensuinge in tertullian : non possunt ergo separari in mercede , quas opera coniungit : our body and soule cannot be separated in the reward , whome the same worke doth conioyne togeather ; and he meaneth euidently by the same worke or operation , the same eatinge of christs body . wherfore yf the one , that is the soule , doth eat christs true body , as cranmer confesseth , then the other , which is our flesh , eateth also the same body as tertullian saith ; and for that doctor vveston liked well this argument out of tertullian , and said to doctor chadsey , sticke to those words of tertullian , as fox affirmeth , yt is like that the foresaid tale of vrge , vrge , feigned of him was meant at this tyme. but yf yt were , the reader may easily see that he had more to vrge against his aduersary , than a port at his elbow ; and so shall yow see by that which is to ensue ; wherfore lett vs passe yet somewhat further in this combatt . . doctor cranmer hauinge breathed a little vpon the former sharp on-sett of chadsey and vveston , one doctor tressam began very grauely and moderately to vrge a new argument and discourse , which seemed very important , and after yt was vrged , did more straine and presse the defendant , then any thinge before disputed . the argument was founded vpon a place of s. hilary , in his eight booke de trinitate against the arrians , which both for the great at authority and antiquity of the father , and cleernes of his words and reason , seemed to all there present to conuince ; nor could doctor cranmer any way handsomely ridd himselfe of this place , but by his ordinary shiftinge interpretation , as ptesently shal be seene . doctor tressam his discourse was this , that wheras the like controuersie for diuers points , had byn betweene the old catholiks and arrians in saint billaryes tyme , as now is betweene vs and doctor cranmer , and his fellowes , the catholiks houldinge in that controuersie , the vnion of christ with his father to be in nature and substance , and the arrians in will only and affection : whatsoeuer authorityes the said catholiks alleaged out of scriptures or auncient fathers , for the naturall vnion betweene christ and his father ; i and my father are one . such other places : the arrians shifted of by sayinge : that is true in vvill , but not in nature , yt is true in loue and affection , but not in substance ; euen as our sacramentaryes do now , when we alleage neuer so cleere authorityes , for the true reall nature and substantiall presence of christ in the sacrament , and therby of his reall vnion also with vs by eatinge the same ; they delude all with sayinge only ; yt is true by grace and not by nature ; yt is true by faith , but no● in substance ; yt is true figuratiuely and sacramentally , but not really ; yt is true in a signe , by a trope ; after a certaine manner of speach ; yt is true spiritually , and by a naturall property , but not indeed substantially : and such aunswers ; but all these shifts ( saith doctor tressam ) did s. hilary cutt of so longe agoe , for that he proueth the true naturall coniunction of christ with his father , by our true naturall coniunction with him , by eatinge his flesh in the sacrament ; so as except we deny the true essentiall , reall and substantiall vnity of christ with his father , we cannot accordinge to s. hilary deny the true , reall and substantiall vnity of vs with christ , by receauing his true naturall flesh in the sacrament . . the place of s. hilary is in his . booke of the blessed trinity against the arrians , as hath byn said , where he expoundeth these words of christ in s. iohns ghospell : as the liuing father sent me , so do i also liue by the father , and be that eateth my flesh , shall also liue throw me : vpon which words of our sauiour s. hilary saith : this truly is the cause of our life , that vve haue christ dwellinge by his flesh in vs , that are fleshye , vvhich also by him shall liue in such sort , a● he liueth by his father . of which was inferred , that christ dwelled in vs in flesh by the sacrament , and not only in spiritt . for better declaration wherof d. tressam , before the allegation of these words , alleageth a larger discourse of the same s. hilary , against the said arrians vpon this point in these words : i demaund of them now ( saith hillary ) who will needs haue the vnity of will only betweene the father , and the sonne , vvhether christ be now in vs truly by nature , or only by the agreement of vvilles ? yf the vvord be incarnate in very deed , and vve receaue at the lords table the vvord made flesh , how then is he to be thought not to dwell in vs naturally , &c. out of which words of s. hilary doctor tressam vrged , that christs flesh was not only imparted vnto vs in faith and spiritt , but also really and naturally , according to s. hilary , and that as his coniunction was naturall with his father , and not in will and loue only : so is his coniunction with vs in flesh truly naturall , substantiall , and reall , and not only in spiritt and faith . for more confirmation wherof , doctor tressam alleaged also the words of martyn bucer , their late protestant-reader in cambridge , who wryteth that according to the holy fathers meaning christ dwelleth in vs ( by the body giuen in the sacrament ) not only by faith and loue , as absent , but naturally , corporally , and carnally , &c. to which authority of bucer doctor cranmer gaue no other answere but this iest . i know that maister bucer ( saith he ) was a learned man , but your faith is in good case which leaneth vpon bucer , &c. . but he could not so easily shake of the autority of hilary , but was hardly pressed therwith , as yow may see readinge ouer the place yt selfe of this disputation , as also by that his aduocate iohn eox is constrayned to make sundry large notes , and glosses in the margent to help him out : for doctor tressam vrged , that we are not only vnited to christ by faith and spiritt , but carnally also : whervnto cranmer seekinge an euasion answereth : i say that christ was communicated vnto vs not only by faith , but in very deed also , vvhen he vvas borne of the virgin. behould the shift , we talke of christ imparted to vs in the sacrament , and so doth hillary ; he answereth , that christ was imparted to vs in the incarnation ; and yet yf yow consider , our flesh was then rather imparted to him , then his to vs. and againe , turks and infidells haue as much coniunction with him by the incarnation as we , for that they are men , & the flesh that he tooke , was common to all ; so as heere yow see nothing but euasions sought for ; and doctor tressam perceauing that he could gett no more of him to the purpose , fell to pray for him ; but doctor vveston followed the argument much further , as there yow may see , for yt is ouerlonge to be alleaged heere . the principall point is , that s. hilary auoweth : that our coniunction with christ is not only by will , affection , and faith : but naturall also and reall , by eatinge his flesh in the sacrament , as himselfe is naturally vnited to his father and not only by will. and when doctor cranmer sought many holes to runne out at , vveston presseth him againe with other words of s. hilary explicatinge himselfe , which are these . . these things ( saith he ) are recited of vs to this end , because heretiks feigninge a vnity of vvill only , betweene the father , and the sonne , did vse the example of our vnity vvith god , as though we being vnited to the sonne , and by the sonne to the father only by obedience , and vvill of religion , had no propriety of the naturall coniunction by the sacrament of the body and bloud . lo heere yt is accoumpted a point of arrianisme by s. hilary , to hould that we are vnited to christ only by obedience and will of relilion , and not by propriety of naturall communion with him , by eatinge his flesh in the sacrament of his body and bloud . whervpon doctor vveston vrged often and earnestly , that not only by faith , but by the nature of his flesh in the sacrament , we are conioyned not spiritually only , and by grace , but naturally and corporally ; whervnto cranmers aunswere was in these words : i graunt that cyrill and hilary do say that christ is vnited to vs , not only by vvill , but also by nature , he is made one with vs carnally and corporally , because he tooke our nature of the virgin mary , &c. do yow see his runninge from the sacrament to the natiuity ; but heare out the end . vvest . hilary , where he saith christ communicated to vs his nature , meaneth not by his natiuity , but by the sacrament . cran. nay he communicated to vs his flesh by his natiuity . vvest . we communicated to him our flesh , when he was borne . cran. nay he communicated to vs his flesh when he was borne , & that i will shew yow out of cyrill . vvest . ergò , christ being borne gaue vs his flesh . cran. in his natiuity he made vs partakers of his flesh . vvest . wryte syrs . cranm. yea wryte . and so ended this encounter , brought ( as yow see ) to two absurdityes on cranmers side ; the one , that where s. hilary speaketh of the sacrament of the body and bloud of christ , he flyeth still to the incarnation : the other , that he saith ; christ to haue imparted his flesh to vs in the incarnation , wherin he tooke ours . wherfore doctor chadsey seing the matter in this state , interrupted them by accusing cranmer to haue corrupted this place of s. hilary , in his booke against the reall presence translatinge these words : nos verè sub mysterio carnen●corporis sui sumimus , we receaue vnder the true mystery the flesh of his body ; wheras he should haue said : vve do receaue truly vnder a mystory ( or sacrament ) the flesh of his body ; vvhich ●raud cranmer could by no other wayes auoid , but by sayinge , that his booke had vero and not verè , which iohn fox saith was a small fault ; and yet yow see yt altereth all the sense , as yf a man shauld say pistor for pastor . . the next conflict to this was betweene doctor yonge , and doctor cranmer , wherin yonge accusinge him first for denyinge of principles , and consequently , that they could hardly go forward with any fruitfull disputation , except they agreed vpon certayne grounds , he made sundry demaunds vnto him , as first , whether there were any other naturally true body of christ , but his organicall or instrumentall body ? item whether sense and reason , ought not to giue place in this mystery to faith ? further , whether christ be true in his words , & whether he mynded to do that , which he spake at his last supper ? and finally , whether his words were effectuall , and wrought any thinge or noe ? to all which doctor cranmer aunswered affirmatiuely , graunting that the said words of christ did worke the institution of the sacrament , whervnto doctor yonge replyed , that a figuratiue speach wrought nothinge , ergò yt was not a figuratiue speach when he said : ho●●st corpus meum . and albeit d. cranmer sought b● two or three struglinges to slipp from this inference , sayinge that yt was sophistry , yet both doctor yonge and doctor vveston , who came in still at his turne , said ; sticke to this argument . it is a figuratiue speach , ergo yt vvorketh nothinge , that quickely they brought doctor cranmer in plaine words to graunt , that a figuratiue speach worketh nothinge : wherof they inferred the contrary againe on the other side : a figuratiue speach ( say they ) vvorketh nothing by your confession , but the speach of christ in the supper , as yow now graunted , vvrought somewhat , to witt the institution of the sacrament , ergo the speach of christ in the supper vvas not figuratiue , which is the ouerthrow of the foundation of all sacramentall buildinge . . and heere yow must note by the way , that fox doth not crowne the head of this syllogisme with any baroco , or bocardo in the margent , as he is commonly wont to do with the rest , for that yt pleased him not . wherfore ●o leaue him , we shall passe to doctor cranmer himselfe , whose aunswere yow shall heare in his owne words : i aunswere ( saith he ) that these are meere sophismes , for speach doth not vvorke , but christ by speach doth worke the sacrament , i looke for scriptures at your hands for they are the foundation of ●isputations . so he . and yow may see by this his speach , that he was entangled , and would gladly be ridde of that he had graunted , for that both the maior and minor propositions were of his owne grauntinge , and the sillogisme good both in moode and forme , though the conclusion troubled both him and fox , and the refuge whervnto both of them do runne in this necessity , the one in the text , the other in the margent , is very fond , sayinge● that not the speach of ghrist , but christ did vvorke , as though any man would say , that a speach worketh , but by the vertue of the speaker : and consequently yf christ do worke by a figuratiue speach , then doth a figuratiue speach worke by his power and vertue , and so wa● yt fondy graunted by cranmer before , that the figuratiue speach of christ , in institutinge the sacrament ( for of that was the question ) did not worke ; and yt is a simple euasion now , to runne from christs speach to christ himselfe as though there could be a diuersity ; euery man may see these are but euasions . . but now further doctor yonge refuted largely this assertion , that christs speach worketh not out of diuers and sundry plaine testimonyes o● the fathers , which there openly he caused to be read and namely s. ambrose , as well in hi● booke de initiandis , as de sacramentis , where he handleth this matter of purpose , to proue that the speach of christ in the sacrament , to wit● hoc est corpus meum , did worke & conuert brea● and wyne into flesh and bloud , and prouet● the same by many other exāples of scriptures sermo christi ( saith he ) 〈◊〉 nihilo facere , ●nd non erat , non pot●st ea , qu● sunt in id mutare , quae ●n erant ? the speach of christ which was able to make of nothing that , which was not before , shall yt not be able to change those things that were before , into things that are not ? and to the same effect in his booke de sacramentis : ergo sermo christi hoc conficit sacramentum ; qui sermo ? nempè is , &c. therfore the speach of christ doth make this sacrament ; but what speach ? to witt , that wherby all things were created : the lord commaunded and heauen was made , the lord cōmaunded & earth was made , the lord cōmaunded & the seas were made , &c. vides ergò quàm operatorius sit sermo christi : si ergò tanta vis est in sermone domini , vt inci●●rent esse quae non erant ; quanto magis operatorius erit , ●● sint quae erant , & in aliud commutentur ? yow see therfore how working the speach of christ is ; & yf then there be so much force in the speach of our lord , as that those things which were not , tooke their beginning therby ; how much more potent is the same speach in workinge , that those things which were before , be changed into another ? and presently he addeth : the heauen was not , the sea was not , the earth was not , but heare him speake : he said the word , and they were done , he commaunded and they were ●●eated ; wherfore to answere yow i say , that it was not the body of christ before consecration , but after cōsecration , i say vnto thee , that now yt is the body of christ. so s. ambrose . . and heere now ( good reader ) i doubt not , but yow see the fond euasion of cranmer and fox his aduocate , cleerly refuted by s. ambrose ; where they say , that the speach or words of christ worke not ; but christ by the words ; as though there were a great diuersity in that point . but now lett vs see , how they will scamble ouer this authority of s. ambrose , that saith expressely , both that the speach of christ did worke potently , and worke the conuersion of bread and wyne into flesh and bloud : first fox hath this note in the margent against s. ambrose , as though he had miscompared the words of creation , with the words of the institution of the sacrament . the lord iesus ( saith fox ) vsed not heere commaundement in the sacrament , as in creation , for we read not fiat hoc corpus meum , as vve read fiat lux , &c. do yow see the mans subtile obseruation , or rather simple & sottish cauillation against so graue a father ? the words : hoc est corpus meum , this is my body , imployeth somewhat more then fiat corpus meum : lett yt be my body ; for that yt signifieth the thinge done already , which the other willeth to be done . and so for this we will leaue iohn fox to striue with s. ambrose , about the vsinge or abusinge of scriptures alleaged by him . and so much of fox . . but how doth cranmer himselfe auoyd this plaine authority of s. ambrose , thinke yow ? yow shall heare yt in his owne words , for they are very few to so large an authority . all these thinges ( saith he ) are common , i say that god doth chiefly vvorke in the sacraments . do yow see his breuity and obscurity ? but his meaning is , that wheras before he had denyed , for a shift , that christs words did worke , but only christ by his words ( a difference without a diuersity ) now seing s. ambrose so plaine to the contrary , in settinge forth the workinge of christs words , he seeketh another shift in this aunswere , which is , that albeit christs words do worke in the sacraments , yet christ chiefly ; as though any controuersy were in this , or any man had denyed yt . but what saith he to the mayne point , wherin s. ambrose affirmeth not only christs vvords to be operatoria , vvorkingewords , but that their worke is to make bread , the true and naturall body of christ after they be vttered by the priest ? nothing truly in substance doth he aunswere herevnto , but after his shifts he saith only , that yt vvas called the body of christ , as the holy-ghost vvas called the doue , and s. iohn baptist was called elias ( which are but bare signes & representations , as euery one seeth ) hay he goeth againe presently from this , which heere he had graunted , that god worketh in the sacraments : for when doctor yonge vrged him thus : yf god worke in the sacraments , he worketh in this sacrament ( of the fucharist ) cranmer aunswereth : god worketh in his faithfull , not in the sacraments . and thus he goeth forward grauntinge and denyinge , turninge and wyndinge , and yet poore miserable man he would not turne to the truth , nor had grace to acknowledge the same laid before him , but toyled himselfe in contradictions , endeauouring to shift of most euident authorityes of ancient fathers , by impertinent interpretations . as when doctor yonge vrged him with those cleere words of s. ambrose : before the words of christ be spoken , the chalice is full of wyne and water , but when the vvords of christ haue vvrought their effect , then is there made the bloud that redeemed the people . cranmer aunswered : that the words of christ wrought no otherwise in this sacramēt , then in baptisme . ambrose said ( quoth he ) that the bloud is made , that is , the sacrament of the bloud is made , fit sanguis the bloud is made , that is to say ostenditur sanguis ; the bloud is shewed forth there . . these and such like vvere cranmers sleights to ridd himselfe that day , and yet did not doctor chadsey and vveston leaue him for these starts , but followed him close with other cleere places of s. ambrose , the one expounding the other . as for example , fortè dicas , &c. perhaps yow may say , how are these things true ? i vvhich see the similitude , do not see the truth of the bloud : first of all i tould thee of the word of christ , vvhich so vvorketh , that yt can change and turne the kinds ordayned of nature , &c. and againe in another place . ergo didicisti , &c. therfore thou hast learned that of bread is made the body of christ , and that vvyne and vvater is putt into the cupp , but by consecration of the heauenly vvord it is made bloud . sed fortè dices speciem sanguinis non videri , sed habet similitudinem : but perhaps yow will say , that the shape or forme of bloud is not seene ; but yet it hath the similitude . so s. ambrose , and for that he saith , as yow see , that albeit the bloud after consecration , hath not the shew or forme of true bloud ; yet hath yt similitude , ( for that the forme of wyne commeth neerest to the likenesse of bloud ) heerof cranmer layinge hands , could not be drawne from affirminge that s. ambrose meaninge is , that it is not true naturall bloud after the consecration , but beareth a similitude only , representation , or ●ipe therof , which is quite contrary to s. ambrose his whole drift and discourse , yf yow consider yt out of passion . . after these bickerings about s. ambrose , were vrged against him , by the two doctors , chadsey and vveston , diuers other fathers , as iustinus martyr aboue . hundred yeares gone , whoe in his apology for christians writeth : that as by the word of god , iesus christ our sauiour being made flesh , had both flesh , and bloud for our saluation : so are ●e taught , that the meate consecrated by the vvord of prayer instituted by him ( vvherby our bloud and flesh are nourished by communion ) is the flesh and bloud of the same iesus , that was made flesh . out of which place they vrged ; that as christ is truly and really incarnate , so is he truly and really in the sacrament , accordinge to s. iustinus , and that our flesh and bloud is nourished by that communion , and consequently in saint iustinus tyme , yt was not held that christs body was receaued only by faith . . the words of saint irenaeus were vrged in like manner , he being another martyr of the same age with s. iustine , who wryteth thus : eum calicem , qui est ex creatura , suum corpus confirmauit , ex quo nostra auget corpora , &c. this is the cupp , which being a creature , he confirmed to be his body , by which he encreaseth our bodyes , when both the cupp mixed & the bread broken , hath ioyned to yt the word of god , yt is made the eucharist of the body & bloud of christ , of which the substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth . by which words the said doctors proued , that the flesh and bloud of christ was otherwise held by s. irenaeus to be in the sacrament , and receaued by vs , than only by faith , seing our bodyes also are nourished therwith ; yea the very substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth therby , as his words are . to all which cranmer had no other aunswere , but his old shift , that the sacrament of the body and bloud , vvas called the flesh and bloud of christ though really yt be not . and from this he could not be drawne : and so finally the tyme drawinge late , they vrged him there publikely with certayne falsityes , vsed in his booke against the reall presence , and besides those that had byn obiected before , as for example . doctor chadsey obiected a manifest corruption in translatinge the foresaid place of s. iustine , which cranmer excused no otherwise , but that he translated not iustine word for word , but only gaue the meaninge ; but the other , as also doctor harpesfield , shewed that he peruerted the whole meaninge , and so yt is euident to him that readeth iustine . . doctor vveston obiected a place corrupted in emissenus by putting in the word spiritualibus , cranmer aunswered , that yt was so in the decrees , doctor vveston replyed , that he had left out diuers lynes of purpose , vvhich made against him in emissenus for the reall presence , cranmer aunswereth : this booke hath not that . vveston obiected another place falsified , where for honora corpus dei tui , honour the body of thy god , to witt of christ , cranmer had translated yt thus : honour him vvhich is thy god. wherto he answered , that he did it not without a weighty cause , that men should not thinke that god had a body . doctor vveston obiected also , that alleaginge a sentence out of scotus , he had left out a clause , that made much to the purpose in the matter handled , to witt secundum apparentiam , as may appeare . cranmer answered iestingly : that is a great offence i promise yow . another place in like manner was obiected , as peruerted by him in scotus words , as also one or two in s. thomas , aquinas , wherto i find no aunswere ; but disputation is broken vp with this cry of the auditory , in fauour of the catholike party , vicit veritas , the truth hath had the victory ; and with this we shall also end this first disputation against cranmer , hauinge byn forced to be longer then we purposed at the beginninge , & therfore we shal be so much the shorter , yf it may be , in that which ensueth with ridley and latymer . out of the disputation with d. ridley in the same dininity-schoole at oxford , the next day after cranmer , to witt , the . of aprill . §. . . the next day followinge ( saith fox ) was brought forth doctor ridley to defend in the same questions of the r●all presence , transubstantiation , and sacrifice ; against whome doctor smith was the first and principall opponent , for which cause fox , before he beginneth to relate the combatt , maketh a particular inuectiue against him , for that he had byn vnconstant in religion , the simple fellow not consideringe that yf yt had byn true ; yet that the same might be obiected with much more reason , against these his cheefe champions , cranmer , ridley and latymer , that had byn catholike priests for many yeares togeather ; but fox his great anger against doctor smith was , ●on that he pressed hardly b. ridley in his disputation , and so did doctor vveston also , as after yow shall see , for that vpon all occasions he came in with vrge hoc , vrge hoc ; but for the rest ridley vvas most courteously vsed by them both and offered to haue his opinions taken in wrytinge , and that he should haue space till saturday after to consider of them , and that vvhat bookes soeuer he vvould demaund , should be deliuered to him , and that he might choose any two of the whole company to be his seuerall notaryes , and he tooke maister iohn iewell afterward made b. of salisbury by q. elizabeth , and maister gilbert monson , that had byn notaryes vnto b. cranmer the day before . , but the greatest difference , and difficulty fell out , for that ridley hauing brought thither with him his opinion , and large explication thereof already wrytten , would needs read the same openly to the whole auditory , which was penned in such bitter , spitefull & blasphemous termes , with such abhominable scoffes , and raylinge contemptuous speach , against the sacred mysteryes , and the vse therof , as the commissionars were often-tymes forced to interrupt him , and commaund him to sylence , or to begin disputation , neyther wherof would he do , but with an obstinate face go foreward in readinge his declarations , whervpon , doctor vveston callinge vnto him said , as fox relateth : yow vtter blasphemyes vvith an impudent face . wherfore finally they made him breake of , promisinge that they would read & ponder all themselues , not being conuenient to infect mens eares with publike readinge therof , but that he might defend the fame , as occasion should be offered in his answers and disputations . . the first argument brought against him by doctor smith was , for ouerthrowinge that principall foundation of the sacramentary heresie● christs body is inheauen , ergò yt is not in the sacrament . wherof yow haue heard often before , for that both peter martyr alleaged yt , as a cheefe fortresse of their faith , though philipp melancthon , that is a calendar-saint togeather with peter martyr , as before yow haue heard , did say , that he had rather offer himselfe vp to death , then to affirme vvith the sacramentaryes , that christs body cannot be but in one place at once . and this was a principall ground also of iohn lambert , burned for sacramentary opinions vnder k. henry the eyght , against whome doctor cranmer , then archbishopp of canterbury , was the first and cheefest disputer after the king , and specially tooke vpon him to confute this reason of lambert as vayne and false , and contrary to scripture , as before yow haue heard in the story of lambert . and the same reasons , and arguments , which cranmer vsed against lambert out of the scriptures , doth doctor smith vse now against ridley , to witt that christ appeared corporally and really on earth , after his assension , to s. paul and others , ergò , his being in heauen is no l●t to his reall presence in the sacrament . the antecedent he proued out of the acts of the apostles , and s. paules epistles , where yt is shewed , that christ appeared vnto him after his assension ; but ridley did not aunswere this argument , as lambert , and other sacramentaryes before him had done , denyinge that christ appeared corporally and really vpon earth , but rather that his voyce was heard from heauen , but he said , that christ left heauen for a tyme , and came downe . i do not ( saith he ) so straitly tye christ vp to heauen , that he may not come into earth at his pleasure , howbeit i do affirme , that yt is not possible for him to be in earth and heauen at one tyme. so hee , whervnto doctor smith replyed : ergò yt is lawfull for christ to be heere present on earth vvhen he will. ridley . yea when he will yt is lawfull . smith . ergò his ascendinge to heauen , doth not restrayne his reall presence in the sacrament . ridley . i do not gainsay , but that yt is lawfull for him to appeare on earth , when he will , but proue yow that he will. . lo heere another starting hole : but yet first yow see the great sacramentary bullwarke , so much stood vpon by others , that christ is in heauen at the right hand of god , and that the heauens must receaue him , vntill the day of iudgement , and consequently cannot be vpon earth or in the sacrament ; is quite forsaken by ridley , grauntinge that this argument proueth nothinge : he is ascended to heauen , ergò , he is not on earth ; for he may leaue heauen and come downe , accordinge to ridley . yea ridleyes owne principall ground is forsaken by him , for that among his fiue principall grounds and headsprings ( for so he calleth them ) sett downe by him in his cambridge disputation , * vvhy he did inclyne to this sentence and iudgement , ( for then he was but inclininge ) the last was ( yf yow remember ) the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith , he ascended into heauen , which now yow see may stand without this doctrine . secondly , wheras he denyeth that christ will depart from heauen at any tyme , sayinge : proue yow yf he vvill , yet very soone after being pressed by doctor smith out of the scriptures , that christ after his assension vvas seene visibly , really , and corporally vpon earth , he answered in these words : i graunt the antecedent ; ( that is christ did appeare on earth ) . smith . do you graunt the antecedent ? ridley . yea i graunt the antecedent , because i know that there be certayne ancient fathers of that opinion . heere yow see that ridley , by grauntinge this antecedent , to witt , that christ after his assension , did appeare really and corporally vpon earth , eyther doth contradict himselfe , when he denyed before , that christ would euer come out of heauen ( notwithstandinge he could ) or els he must graunt , that christ appeared vpon earth against his will , or without his owne will , which were a greater absurdity , then any of the other . . and furthermore he contradicteth himselfe againe , in that he said a little before , that christ may leaue heauen , and come downe into earth vvhen he vvill : for being asked by doctor smith this question : doth christ so sitt at the right hand of his father , that he doth neuer foresake the same ? ridley answereth in these words : yf yow vnderstand his sitting to be after a corporall manner of sitting , so is he alwayes permanent in heauen : which yf yt be true , then is that false which before he said , that christs body is not so tyed to heauen , but that he may come downe into the earth vvhen he vvill . and much more false is yt , that christ did really and corporally appeare vpon earth to saint paul , and others as a little before he graunted : so as by these yow may see the briars wherinto ridley was driuen about this argument . . the third point to be noted in these inconstant speaches of ridley , is , that yt is not possible for christs body to be in heauen and earth at one tyme ; and yet when we vrge them with impiety for laying impossibilityes to gods omnipotency , they will presently runne to that answere , as ridley also afterward doth : that they dispute not what god can do , but what he vvill do . wherfore to returne to our disputation ; when doctor vveston heard him talke of this impossibility , & that christ yf he would appeare in earth , must leaue heauen , he tooke vpon him to conuince this falsity , out of two authorityes , the one of s. chrysostome , the other of s. bernard . s , chrysostome his place , is vpon the epistle to the hebrues , talkinge of the dayly externall sacrifice of christians , offered throughout the world in many churches at once , saith thus ; vna est haec oblatio , non multae , &c. this oblation we offer is one and not many ; and how is it one and not many , which being once offered vp in sancto sanctorum ( to witt , vpon the crosse ) notwithstandinge is offered by vs dayly ? this sacrifice ( which dayly we offer ) is a paterne of that ( once offered on the crosse ) and alwayes we offer the selfe-same , not offeringe now one lambe , and to morrow another , but alwayes the selfe-same ; wherfore heere is but one sacrifice , for that otherwayes by this meanes , yf there be many sacrifices in many places , there should be many christs , which is not so , but one christ in all places ; qui & hic plenius , & illic plenus , vnum corpus , which christ is fully heere , and fully there , being but one body , &c. . out of which place doctor vveston did vrge b. ridley very straitly , who first , would seeme to make light of the place , sayinge : these things make nothinge against me : but vveston vrged : how say yow then , one christ is in all places , heere fully , and there fully . ridley . one christ is in all places , but not one body is in all places , &c. and this euasion pleaseth so much iohn fox , as he wryteth in the margent , one christ , but not one body in all places , as though christ could be separated from his body , or as though s. chrysostome did not expressely talke of one body : heere christ fully , and there christ fully one body ; and the very next words of chrysostome immediatly followinge are these ; euen as then christ offered in many places , is one body , and not many bodyes , so is the sacrifice also but one . but lett vs heare doctor vveston vrge the same : weston . one body saith chrysostome . ridley . but not after the maner of bodily substance he is in all places ; not by circumscription of places : for hic & illic , heere and there in chrysostome do assigne no place as augustine saith : sursum est dominus , & vbique est veritas domini . the lord is aboue , but the truth of the lord is in all places . weston . yow cannot so escape , saint chrysostome saith , not the verity of christ is one , but one christ is in all places both heere and there . ridley . one sacrifice is in all places , because of the vnity of him , vvhome the sacrifice doth signifie , not that the sacrifices be all one and the same . . marke now heere gentle reader , what yt is to dispute with these people , that seeke after nothinge but shifts & holes to runne out at , or stipp away ? consider how many they be vpon this only place . for first when ridley was pressed with s. chrysostomes authority , as yow haue heard , prouinge euidently , that christ could be at one tyme in diuers places , his first shift was , that yt maketh nothinge against him ; and then , that albeit christ be in many places , yet his body cannot be in many places , as though christ were in any place without his body : and then againe yt being shewed , that s. chrysostome speaketh expressely of christs body , the next shift was , that his body is not there after the ordinary manner of bodily presence , to witt , by circumscription of place , which is quite from the purpose , for that we hould this also , as before you haue heard in the fifth & sixt obseruations , to witt , that christ is not circumscriptiuely in the sacrament . and further yt is another absurd shift , or rather ignorance in ridley ( and may be the fift or sixt about this matter ) to affirme as heere he doth , that christs body is not by circumscription euery-where , or in all places : for we hould also , not only , that which he saith , by circumscriptiō , but that no wayes , either circumscriptiuely , or definitiuely , or sacramentally is christs body euery-where , but only in many distinct places , by gods omnipotent will. the other of vb●quity being a property of gods diuinity only to be in euery place at one tyme , as before we haue shewed . and lastly to follow ridley and his riddles no further about this matter , the words of s , augustine are foolishely alleaged by him ; that the lord is aboue , but the truth of the lord is in all places : for as doctor vveston well noteth and telleth him , vve talke not heere , how the lords truth is eueryvvhere , but whether christs body be in diuers places or noe : for christs truth is euerywhere , where his faith grace or power is , but not his body . and albeit his truth admitt not the circumstances or proprietyes of places sursum and deorsum , yet his body doth : which ridley considered not , when he brought this example , but only desyred to say some-what , though neuer so much from the purpose . . and the like shiftes he sheweth in his last answere about this place of s. chrysostome , when doctor vveston vrginge , that one christ and one body is in all places whersoeuer his sacrifices are offered , he aunswereth not to the words of saint chrysostome at all , but saith only at randome , that one sacrifice is in all places ( s. chrysostome saith one body ) because of the vnity of him vvhome the sacrifice doth signifie , which is as much to say in his sense , as the sacrifice being but a signe or signification of christ that is one , is multiplyed in diuers places . and what great miracle is this i pray yow , to multiply many figures in diuers places of one thinge , who may not do so ? and yet saint chrysostome s●●teth yt downe for a wonderfull strange and admirable matter , that one christ the selfe-same lambe , one body , fully heere and fully there , should be offered at one tyme in many places , which miracle in doctor ridleyes sense is both easy and no miracle at all , and so much about this place of saint chrysostome . . the second authority out of s. bernard is in these words : vnde hoc nobis pijssime iesu , &c. how cometh this vnto vs , ô most pious iesu , that we seely wormes creepinge on the face of the earth , that are but dust and ashes , should deserue to haue thee present in our hands , & before our eyes , who sitteth both whole and full at the right hand of the father , and who in the moment of one houre , from the risinge of the sunne , vnto the goinge downe thereof , art present one and the selfe-same in many and diuers places , &c. to this place d. ridley gaue diuers answers : first ( saith he ) these words of bernard make nothing for yow at all . this is very confidently spoken as yow see , no lesse then to the place of s. chrysostome before ; and i beleeue he will not stand longe vnto yt : for yf saint bernard doth meane as he saith , he must needs make much for vs in the words now recyted , wherin i referre me to the iudgement of the reader . wherfore maister ridley not trustinge much to this answere , passeth to his second sayinge : i know that bernard vvas in such a tyme , that in this matter he may vvorthily be suspected . so he . and yet least he might seeme to leese some creditt in reiectinge s. bernard , he hath a third answere thus : notwithstanding ( saith he ) i will so expound him rather then reiect him , that 〈◊〉 shall make nothinge for yow at all . lo heere his last cast ; and this he learned of his maister caluyn , not so much to reiect in words the fathers , as luther did , but rather by false and crafty interpretation , sleightly to auoyd them , which indeed is not humility but double impiety ; and more impious to the fathers themselues , then to be vtterly denyed , for by this meanes they are made coadiutors of heretiks : lett vs heare then s. bernard expounded by ridley to his purpose : s. bernard ( quoth he ) saith , that we haue christ in a mystery , in a sacrament , vnder a veyle or couer ; in the meane tyme heere now he saith , that the verity of christ is euery-vvhere . so he . and is not ridley ridiculous heere ? let the reader compare s. bernards words before alleaged , with this exposition of ridley , and he will say that the commentary hitteth as right the text , as the blynd-fold-man doth hitt the hennes head on the ground , when his face is another way from her . and thus much of doctor ridleye● three aunswers to this place of saint bernard . . after this doctor smith vrged him againe vvith another place of s. chrysostome , where he makinge a comparison , betweene elias the prophett and christ , saith , that elias left his cloake to elizeus with his double spiritt , when he went vp to heauen ; but christ did much more miraculously , for that he left vs his flesh in the sacrament , and yet tooke the same vp with him : helias quidem melotcm discipulo reliquit ; filius autem dei ascendens , suam nobis carnem dimisit ; helias quidem exutus , christus autem & nobis reliquit , & ipsam habens ascendit . elias indeed at his departure , left his cloke or hearcloth vnto his disciple elizeus ; but the sonne of god ascendinge vp to heauen left his owne flesh vnto vs : elias left his cloake , but christ both left vnto his his flesh & yet carryed the same with him . which plaine place when ridley went about to delude , as he had done other former places , by sayinge that chrysostomes meaninge was , that he left his flesh vpon earth not really and substantially , but to be receaued after a spirituall communication , by grace , addinge this example : as we also ( quoth he ) by hearing the ghospell , and by faith : so as by this aunswere we haue christs flesh no otherwise present by meanes of the sacrament , then we haue him present by hearinge the ghospell , or by beleeuinge in him , which is to euacuate wholy the speach & comparison of s. chrysostome . wherfore to ouerthrow this shift , doctor smith alleaged another plaine place of the same chrysostome in confirmation of this where he saith : o miraculum ! ô dei benignitatem ! qui sur sum sedet , tempore sacrificis hominum mantbus continetur , &c. o miracle ! o goodnesse of god! that he which sitteth aboue , is conteyned in mens hands in the tyme of the sacrifice . but all this would not serue , for he auo●ded this as he had done the other , sayinge : he that sitteth there ( to witt in heauen ) is heere present in mystery and by grace , and is holden of the godly , &c. and finally though there were diuers boutes in this matter , yet could nothinge be gotten more . . but to this sense , doctor smith , doctor seton , doctor harpesfield and doctor vveston , vrged him much about the place , asking him where was the miracle , yf christ left his flesh heere only in mystery and by faith ; how could the comparison stand betweene helias and christ ? for christ must do more then elias ; elias left his mantle and could not carry yt vp with him , christ not only left his flesh , but carryed vp the same , ergò he left the same that he carryed vp , &c. but he carryed vp his true and naturall flesh , ergò he left the same ; to all which he aunswered againe : he tooke vp his flesh vvith him to heauen , and left heere the communion of his flesh on earth . with which shiftinge aunswere doctor vveston being moued , began after his fashion to vrge the matter earnestly sayinge : yow vnderstand in the first place his flesh for very true flesh , and in the second place for grace and communion of his flesh , i will make yt euident how blockish and grosse your aunswere is : as elias left his cloke ( saith s. chrysostome ) so the sonne of god left his flesh ; but elias left his true substantiall cloke , ergò christ left his true substantiall flesh : and heerin he spake in english. ridly . i am glad yow speake in english , and surely i vvould vvish all the vvorld might vnderstand your reasons and my answers : reliquit nobis carnem , christ left vnto vs his flesh . this yow vnderstand of flesh , and i vnderstand of grace : he carryed his flesh to heauen , and left behind him the communion of his flesh vnto vs. weston . yee iudges vvhat thinke yow of this , aunswere iudges . iudges . it is a ridiculous , and very fond aunswere . ridley . vvell i vvill take your vvords patiently for christs sake . . and this was the end of the controuersy about this place of s. chrysostome , to witt , that we must take grace for flesh , and when christ is said to haue left his flesh heere with vs , we must vnderstand his grace : yet doctor vveston alleaged also another place out of the same father , where he saith : spargimur , &c. vve are sprinkeled vvith the very selfe-same bloud , that christ carryed vp vvith him , &c. whervnto ridley answered after his fashion : yt is the same bloud , but spiritually receaued . then vrged he sain● bernards words againe ; the selfe-same christ is present vvholy in diuers places , euen from the vvest to the east , from the north to the south , &c. wherto ridley aunswered ; that god accordinge to his maiestie and prouidence , as s. augustine saith , is euery-where with the faithfull , and so must bernard be expounded . do yow see this exposition ? read saint bernards words before sett downe , and yow shall see , that he speaketh of christ , as sittinge in heauen , and yet present vvholy in the priests hands , &c. and not of his maiestie & prouidence , wherby he is euery-where , as before hath byn declared : so as this is not to expound , but to confound the fathers , and i thinke verily that ridley was much troubled , when he gaue such impertinent aunswers and expositions . . and with this would i passe ouer this whole strife about saint chrysostomes places of elias , but that i must let yow know , that there had byn some yeares before , a great styrre and altercation in the conuocation-house about the same , for that philpott hearinge that place alleaged against him , as his fashion was , vaunted wounderfully , that this being the papists cheefe and principall foundation , he would so beat them from yt , and ( as fox addeth ) giue such a plucke at yt , as yt should neuer sorue their turne more : and when yt came to the triall , he said that he had two wayes to beate them from it : the first was , that christ goinge vp to heauen carryed his owne flesh with him , and e●t the same behind him , in that he left vs behind him , that are flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones . this is the first blow and plucke , wherby yow see , that christs progatiue is plucked also ; for helias as well as he left his flesh behind him in this sense , for he was of our flesh : and philpott also left his flesh behind him in vs , though his owne were burned in smith-field . and finally s. chrysostome speaketh expressely of the sacrament of the altar , sayinge : that therein christ left his flesh , but he did not leaue all mankynd in that sacrament ; wherefore this first plucke is to small purpose . but lett vs see his second . . the second is , that christ ( saith he ) lest his flesh in the mysteryes , that is sacramentally ; and that this mysticall flesh , christ leaueth as well in the sacrament of baptisme , as in the sacramentall bread & wine . so he . wherin ( yf yow marke ) he giueth not only the ordinary old plucke of other sacramentaryes , to the verity of christs flesh , makinge that mysticall , which s. chrysostome speaketh expressely of the naturall flesh left by him , and therby plucketh out of ioint all saint chrysostomes whole meaninge and discourse , but giueth a new plucke also to the whole sacrament of the eucharist , affirminge christs flesh to be as much in baptisme , as in the other , & consequently that both saint chrysostome , and other fathers , do in vayne trouble themselues , with so much extollinge the excellency of the eucharist for hauinge christs flesh in yt , for that the water of baptisme hath the same , & so yow see the whole sacrament plucked vp by these pluckes of philpott , and yet ( saith fox ) that he did s●rewdly shake our reall presence , by giuinge such a plucke to one of our cheefe foundations . yow see how one of these men do flatter the other . . next to this entred one maister vvard to dispute that had byn philpotts reader , and seing d. ridley to haue doubted so much in grauntinge and denyinge christs body to haue appeared vpon earth , as in the former disputations of doctor smith , yow haue partly heard , though much be omitted for breuityes sake , he began to vrge him againe in that point , alleaginge against him the authority of a catechisme sett forth by himselfe , in the name of the whole conuocation-house in k. edwards dayes , where the selfe-same point is graunted , which heere he denyed ; but ridley for two or three abouts , would not yeld that the catechisme was his , though the iudges said that cranmer had confessed the matter the day before , and maister vvard auouched to his face , that he being bishop of london , & in his ruffe , compelled him to subscribe thervnto ; yet at length he confessed , that both he and cranmer had approued the same vnder their hands , & that the place alleaged against him , might easily be expounded without any incōuenience ; and so they slydd away from that matter , and a place of theophilact came in question , where he wryteth , that christ in the institution of the sacrament of the altar non dixit , hoc est figura corporis mei , sed hoc est corpus meum : he said not , that this is the figure of my body , but this is my body : which authority ridley wiped of by sayinge his meaninge to be , that yt was not only a figure of his body . wherevnto doctor vveston replyd , that this only was one lye put in by him , for that theophilact had no such word , nor could yt stand with his sense , for that he did not make the opposition betweene figure , and only , but betweene the body and figure , sayinge ; yt vvas his body , and not a figure of his body . and for proofe of this , another place of theophilact was alleaged vpon saint iohn , where his words are : quoniam infirmi sumus , &c. for that vve are infirme , and abhorre to eate raw-flesh especially the flesh of man , therefore yt appeared bread , but is flesh : what can be more plaine , and perspicuous then this ? and yet do i not find any annswere to haue byn giuen by doctor ridley to this place , but that he passed to another matter , to expound the word transelemented vsed by theophilact . and i passe ouer diuers other places , as that of tertullian , acceptum panem corpus suum illud fecit : he takinge bread made yt his body ; and that of iustinus martyr , sayinge : that christs flesh in the sacrament , is the same that vvas taken of the blessed virgin . and that of s. augustine vpon the psalme ; that he gaue vs to eat the selfe same flesh , wherin he vvalked vpon earth . all which places being obiected before to cranmer , and read both then & now out of the authors themselues , by doctor vveston that had the books by him , were no otherwise aunswered heere , then by the same shifts which cranmer had auoyded them before , yt appearinge euidently that they had agreed vpon certayne distinctions , and common euasions , wherby to delude all the fathers authorityes that might be brought against them , though they were neuer so cleere or pregnant for the purpose . . it followeth , that by order of disputation the turne came to doctor glyn to dispute against doctor ridley , who made ( saith fox ) a very contumelious preface against him , vvhich ridley tooke the more to heart , for that he had allwayes taken him to be his frend . and albeit fox doth not sett downe the same preface , yet by doctor glyns entrance to his argument , a man may see , that the cheefe point was in reprehendinge him , for deludinge and shiftinge of both scriptures and fathers so shamfully , as he had heard him do , for he saith : i see that yow euade or shift away all scriptures & fathers . and ridley answered : this is a greeuous contumely , that yow call me a shifter , &c. and finally doctor glyn endeauored to draw him to yeld to the catholike church , which being the piller of truth , could not be thought to haue fallen to such idolatry , as for many ages to haue worshipped erroneously bread and wyne , for the flesh and bloud of christ in the eucharist , and for proofe therof he alleaged saint augustine against faustin the manichec , where he saith , that this vse of adoring christs body in the sacrament , was so auncient and publike , as some pagans did thinke that christians did adore ceres and bacchu● the gods of bread and wyne . he alleaged also erasmus authority , who affirmeth that this worshipping , and adoration of the sacrament of the altar , was in vse before the tyme of s. augustins and s. cyprian ; which is not so in the sacrament of baptisme , though ridley affirme there is as much the flesh of christ , as in the other , and consequently , there is some speciall cause in the eucharist aboue other sacraments . to which two authorityes i find nothinge aunswered particularly ; ( as neyther to erasmus ) but to the thing it selfe ridley aunswered : vve do handle the signes reuerently , &c. and againe : there is a deceyt in this word adoramus , we adore , for vve vvorshipp the symbolls , vvhen reuerently vve handle them : vve vvorshipp vvhersoeuer vve perccaue benefitts . whervnto doctor glyn aunswered : so i might fall downe before the bench heere , and worshipp christ therin , &c. for a bench also is a beneficiall creature to them that sitt on yt . but for all this no further satisfaction could be had , but that all the adoe which the fathers do make , about the highest honour in earth to be giuen to the sacrament of the altar , comes to no more by these mens interpretations ; but that the signes of bread and vvyne must be reuerently handled , & christ absent must be vvorshipped therein , as in other thinges , vvherin vve perceaue or receaue his benefitts : vvhich indeed are all his creatures made & ordayned for our profitt , for by them all , we perceaue & receaue christs benefitts : so as all these great admirations of the fathers , about the honour , worshipp & adoration due to this sacrament , come to no more in effect , but that vve must reuerence christ therin , as in other his beneficiall creatures , and vvorshipp the symboll of bread and wyne , as much as you do the water in baptisme : vvhich yet neuer any of the fathers said was to be adored by vs ( as they do of the eucharist ) though baptisme be a most necessary and profitable sacrament . . then disputed one doctor curtopp , alleaginge a place out of s. chrysostome , affirminge : that which is in the cupp , or chalice , to be the same bloud ( after the words of consecration ) that flowed from the side of christ , wherof he inferred , that true and naturall bloud did flow from the side of christ , ergò true and naturall bloud was in the chalice . to this ridley answered in effect after his ould fashion , that yt was true bloud , that is to say , the sacrament of his bloud . curtopp . the sacrament of the bloud is not the bloud . ridley . the sacrament of the bloud , is the bloud , and that is attributed to the sacrament , vvhich is spoken of the thing of the sacrament . at which aunswere d. vveston being moued , as yt seemed , argued in english ( saith fox ) thus : that vvhich is in the chalice is the same that flowed out of christs ▪ side , but there came out very true bloud , ergò there is very true bloud in the chalice . ridley . the bloud of christ is in the chalice in deed , but not in the reall presence , but by grace and in a sacrament . weston . that is very vvell ; then vve haue bloud in the chalice . ridley . yt is true , but by grace , and in a sacrament ; and heere the people hissed at him , ( saith fox ) wherat ridley said : o my maisters i take this for no iudgement , i will stand to gods iudgement . this was his last refuge and further then this , nothinge could be had at his hands . . there rose vp after this doctor vvatson , who after a long altercation with ridley , whether after consecration the sacrament might be called true bread : ridley alleaged this place of s. paul. the bread which we breake , is yt not a communication of the body of christ ? as though yt had made for him . but vvatson brought s. chrysostomes expositiō : quare non dixit participationē &c. vvherfore did not s. paul say heere , that yt is the participation ( of christs body ) but the communication ? because he would signify some greater matter , & that he vvould declare a great conuenience betwene the same , for that vve do not communicate by participation only & receauing , but by co-vniting or vnion ; for euen as the body is co-vnited to christ ; so also are we by the same bread conioyned and vnited to him . out of which place of s. chrysostome , yt appeareth euidently , that his bele●fe was ; that as his body and flesh was really vnited to his person , so are we vnto him in flesh , by eatinge the same in the sacrament , which is another manner of vnion then by faith and generall only . but to this lett vs heare ridleyes aunswere in his owne words : ridleye . let chrysostome haue his manner of speakinge , and his sentence , yf yt be true , i reiect yt not , but lett yt not be preiudiciall to me , to name yt bread . so he . and thus was s. chrysostome shifted of , neyther admitted , nor fully reiected ; but if he spake truly , then was he to be credited , which was a courteous kind of reiection ; for ridley would haue the reader beleeue , that he spake not truly . and so much for him . . and so when nothinge more could be gotten by doctor vvatson from maister ridley in this argument , doctor smith stepped in to him againe , and vrged a place of s. augustine vpon the thirty and third psalme : ferebatur in manibus suis , &c. he was carryed in his owne hands , applyed by s. austen to christ : his words are : hoc quo modo fieri possit in homine , quis intelligat ? who can vnderstand how this can be done by a man ? for that no man is borne by his owne hands , but by other mens hands , neyther can vve find how this was fullfilled literally in k. dauid , but by christ we find it fullfilled , for that christ was borne in his owne hands , when he said this is my body , for he did become that body in his owne hands , &c. and againe in another sermon vpon the same place , he repeateth againe the very same thinge sayinge : how vvas christ borne in his owne hands ? for that vvhen he did commend vnto vs his body and bloud , he tooke into his hands that vvhich the faithfull knew , and so he bare himselfe after a certayne manner , vvhen he said this is my body . out of which places appeareth euidently , that s. augustine beleeued , that christ after the words of consecration vttered , did beare his owne body in his hands , and that this in his iudgement was so miraculous a thinge , as neyther king dauid , nor any other mortall man could do yt , but only christ , which yet is not so in a figure ( for euery man may beare a figure of his owne body in his hands ) and furthermore yt is cleere by these authorityes , and by those words ( nôrunt fideles ) that this was the beleefe by all faithfull people of s. austens tyme. which argument being much vrged against maister ridley , both by doctor smith and others , he sought to declyne the force therof dyuers-wayes , as saying first ; that s. augustine vvent from others in this exposition , ( but yet named none ) and then , that this place of scripture vvas read otherwise of other men , accordinge to the hebrew text , & other like euasions , which yet proue not ( as yow see ) but that saint austen was of this opinion and beleefe himselfe , ( which is the question in this place ) and after all this he passed to his ordinary refuge , that christ bare himselfe sacramentally only , and not othervvise ; layinge hands , for some shew of reason , vpon the word quodammodò vsed in the second place by s. austen , that is , after a certayne manner . and when it was replied to him , that s. austen vsed that word , to shew the different manner of his being in the sacrament , and out of the sacrament , but that otherwayes all parts and circumstances of s. austens speach do shew , that he beleeued christ to haue holden really , and truly his owne body and flesh in his hands , they could gett no other aunswere from him but this : he did beare himselfe , but in a sacrament . wherat men maruaylinge , doctor smith said : yow are holden fast , nor are ye able to escape out of this labyrinth . and then began doctor tressam to pray for him with a sollemne prayer , which being ended he said : yf there were an arrian heere that had this subtile witt , that yow haue , he might soone shift of the scriptures , and fathers as yow doe . wherat doctor vveston , seeming vnwilling that tyme should be spent in prayinge and not in disputinge , said : eyther dispute , or hould your peace i pray yow . and with this they passed to another disputation , vvhether euill men do receaue the true body of christ or not : but s. austens authority of bearinge himselfe in his hands , gatt no other solution , but that christ bare himselfe in his hands , that is the figure or representation of himselfe , which neither dauid , nor other mortall man could do : at which absurdity most of the audience did laugh . . but concerninge the other questions , vvhether eu●ll men do receaue christ , doctor tressam brought two or three places out of s. austen concerninge iudas , that he eat the true body of christ , as the other apostles did , and then againe of wicked men in generall : quia aliquis non ad salutem manducat , non ideò non est corpus : because some do not eate to saluation , yt followeth not therfore , that yt is not his body : but to all this maister ridley aunswered by his former shift , that yt is the body to them , that is , the sacrament of the body . do yow see the fond euasion ? there was no doubt or question whether euill-men did eat the sacrament , or externall forme , ( for euery man doth eat that , when they receaue ) but the question was and is of the true body : and therfore when saint austen speaketh of this body , yt is madnes to vnderstand yt of any other thinge , then the reall body . but lett vs heare what was replyed : doctor vveston said : i bringe theophilact against yow : iudas ( saith he ) gustauit carnem domini : iudas did eate or tast the flesh of christ. ridley . that is the sacrament of the lords flesh . doctor vvatson replyed out of the councell of nice : exaltata mente fideliter credamus , iacere in illa sacramensa agnum dei tollentem peccata mundi , a sacerdotibus sacrificatum . let vs faithfully beleeue with an exalted mynd , that there lyeth in the holy table the lambe of god , that taketh away the sinnes of the world , which is sacrificed by the priests . ridley . that councell vvas collected out of auncient fathers , and is to me of great authority , &c. the vvords make for me : the lambe of god is in heauen accordinge to the verity of the body , and heere he is with vs in a mystery accordinge to his power , not corporally . watson . but the lambe of god lyeth on the table . ridley . yt is a figuratiue speach , for in our mynd vve vnderstand him vvhich is in heauen . watson . but he lyeth there , the greeke vvord is keÎta . ridley . he lyeth there , that is , he is there present , not corporally , but he lyeth there in his operation , &c. and by this yow may see , to what purpose yt was to dispute with this man ; for that god by his power and operation is euery where , and in euery creature . and yf christ be no otherwise heere , but by his power and operation , as in baptisme , what an impertinency is this of the councell of nice , to vse so many and significant words , that vve must faithfully beleeue vvith a high mynd and courage , against sense and reason , that the lambe of god lyeth on the table sacrificed by priests , and the like ; is there any protestant that speaketh thus ▪ or can the like words be verified in the protestants communion , of signes , figures , representations and symbolls ? . lastly to skipp ouer diuers other things , doctor vveston pressed him with two other places of s. chrysostome , so cleere , as nothinge can be spoken more cleerer . the first is in these words : vve vvorshipp the selfe● same body in the e●charist vvhich the vvise men did vvorshipp in the manger . and then againe : vve haue not heere the lord in the manger , but on the altar ; heere a vvoman holdeth him not in her hands , but a priest. these are the words . let vs heare his answere . ridley . i graunt the priest holdeth the same thinge , but after another manner . she did hold the naturall body , the priest holdeth the mystery of the body . so hee . and fox wryteth in the margent . the s●me thinge , but the manner diuerse . but who seeth not , that our contention is about the thing , and not the manner ; for we teach also that the manner of christs being in the sacrament , is different from the manner of his being in heauen , but the thinge really is all one . and so yf ridley do graunt the same thinge to be holden by the priest hands , which the blessed virgin held in her hands , as heere yow see him graunt in words , then the controuersie betweene vs and him is ended . but presently he leapeth from his graunt againe , sayinge she did hold the naturall body , and the priest holdeth the mystery of the body , which are different things , and not only different manners of holdinge . wherefore doctor vveston repeatinge againe this argument out of s. chrysostome to the multitude in english ( saith iohn fox ) and consideringe the manner of ridleyes aunsweringe , and that nothinge more could be had of him , he dissolued the disputation in these words : videtis praefracti hominis animunt , gloriosum , vafrum , inconstantem , &c. yow see the stubborne , vauntinge , deceytfull , and inconstant mynd of this man. and with this encomion departed doctor ridley to his prison againe , and the other doctors each man to their owne lodginges . out of the disputations with m. hugh latimer , togeather with the conclusion of the whole triall in this article . §. . . vpon the third day being wednesday the . of aprill , was brought forth maister hugh latymer to aunswere as the former had done , but the disputation was much more shorter then the other , and in english , for maister latymer ( saith fox ) alleaged that he vvas out of vse vvith latyn , and vnfitt for that place . he gaue vp his confession about the three articles in wrytinge , after the imitation of cranmer and ridley , full of scoffes and bitter taunts , as his veyne was , and rested most vpon the masse , and the foure marrow-bones therof ( for so blasphemously he called them ) which were ( forsooth ) consecration , transubstantiation , oblation , and adoration , of all which yow haue heard the ancient fathers speaches before , how different they are from these of latymer , as was also their spiritt . . the first entrance to talke betwene maister latymer , and the doctors was , for that he sayinge in his wrytinge , that nothinge was to be receaued concerning the sacramēt , which was not expressely sett downe in the institution of christ , doctor vveston inferred , that then weomen must not receaue the communion , for that no expresse mention is made in scripture of their receauinge ; and when latymer aunswered , that s. paul said : probet autem seipsum homo , which signifieth said he both men and weomen , yt was replyed , that in greeke yt was anthropos that was proper to man , &c. then doctor vveston asked him , how longe he had byn of this opinion ? he said about some seauen yeares ( he being more then seauenty of age ) and that my l. of canterburyes booke had specially confirmed his iudgement therin . and yf ( quoth he ) i could remember all therin conteyned , i vvould not feare to aunswere any man in this matter . so he . and many tymes after he ran still to this booke of cranmer . my lord of canterburyes booke ( saith he to an argument of doctor cartwright ) handleth this very vvell , and by him could i aunswere yow , yf i had him . and againe in another place to another argument . the solution of this ( saith he ) is in my lord of canterbury his booke . and yet further to another . i remember i haue read this in my lord of canterburyes booke . wherto doctor tressam aunswered , that there are in that booke six hundred lyes , but latymer replyed nothinge , &c. . then said doctor vveston : yow vvere once a lutheran . latimer . no i vvas a papist , for i could neuer perceaue how luther could desend his opinion , vvithout transubstantiation . the tygurines once did vvryte a booke against luther , and i oft desired god that he might liue so longe as to make them aunswere . so he , wherby is seene , that he fauoured luther more then the tygurines at that tyme , for that he would haue had them aunswered . but doctor vveston said further : luther in his booke de priuata missa , testifieth that the diuell reasoned vvith him , and persuaded him that the masse vvas not good , vvherby yt appeareth that luther said masse , and the diuell dissuaded him from yt . latimer . i do not take in hand heere to desend luthers sayings or doings : ys he vvere heere , he vvould desend himselfe vvell inough i trow . so latymer , leauinge luther to himselfe , but fox will needs defend him with this marginall note sayinge : in that booke , the diuell doth not dissuade him so much from sayinge masse , as to bring him to desperation for sayinge masse , such temptations many tymes happen to good men . . and will yow consider the grauity and verity of this note ; first he saith that the diuell did not so much dissuade him from sayinge masse , as to bringe him to desperation : then somewhat he did dissuade him , though not so much as to the other ; which i beleeue , for that the one was his damnation , and his leauinge of masse was but the way to yt . secondly yf the diuell did endeauour to bringe luther to desperation for sayinge of masse , he must needs persuade him first , that the masse was naught , as yf he would draw a man to desperation for vsing almes deeds , he must first persuade him , that almes-deeds are naught and wicked , and as wise a man as he should shew himselfe , that at the diuells persuasion will beleeue that almes-deeds were naught , and leaue the same ; so were luther & latymer as wise to beleeue this suggestion of the diuell against the masse . and where fox saith , that such temptations of the diuell do happen many tymes to good-men . i graunt yt , but not that euer any good man did yeld therevnto , or iudge a thinge euill , for that the diuell did say yt was naught , but rather to the contrary , his impugnation of yt is alwayes a signe , that the thing is good and pleasinge to almighty god , whose aduersary the diuell is ; yea the greater his impugnation is , the better must we presume the thing to be , and consequently when he would make the masse to seeme so heynous a thinge to luther , as that he should be damned for sayinge the same , yt is a good proofe that the masse is an excellent thing , & displeaseth the diuell , and that luther and his followers leauing to say masse , do please much the diuell in followinge his suggestion therin , as good and obedient children , to so holy a ghostly father , and so to him we leaue them . . there followeth , that albeit latymer was loath to dispute , yet some few arguments were cast forth against him , but all in english , for so he would haue yt . and first maister doctor tressam alleaged an authority of saint hilary , affirminge a naturall vnity to be in vs with christ by eatinge his flesh . which place , for that yt was alleaged before against his fellowes , i will not stand much vpon yt , but only note this mans euasion : latymer . i can not speake latyn so longe , &c. but as for the words ( saith he ) of hilary , i thinke they make not so much for yow : but he that should answere the doctors , had not neede to be in my case , but should haue them in a readyness , and know their purpose : melancthon saith , that yf the doctors had forseene , that they should haue byn so taken in this controuersie , they vvould haue vvrytten more plainly . this was his answere , and more then this yow shall not find , and in this , there is a notable imposture of an old deceauer , for that melancthon being of opposite opinion to him in this article , and wrytinge a whole worke of the doctors sentences for proofe of the reall-presence , against the sacramentaryes , as in his * life we haue shewed , what he speaketh of this mystakinge the fathers and doctors , he speaketh expressely of the sacramentaryes , and not of those that defend the reall-presence , which he also , being a lutheran , defended , and affirmeth plainly that all the fathers are of the same opinion , though yf they had foreseene , that such heretiks , as are the sacramentaryes , would haue risen vp , and haue wrested their words and meaning ( as yow haue heard both cranmer , ridley , and latymer to haue done ) they would haue spoken more plainly in the controuersie , though hardly they could haue spoken more cleerly against them . and by this first entrance , yow may marke the plaine dealinge of old father latymer . . doctor seaton vice-chauncelour of cambridge , seing these sleights of the old fellow , beginneth thus with him : i know your learninge vvoll inough , and how subtile yow be : i will vse a few vvords vvith yow out of s. cyprian , vvho saith , that the old testament doth forbidd the drinkinge of bloud , and the new testament doth commaund the drinkinge of bloud . out of which words he framed this argument . that yt vvas true and reall bloud , vvhich the old testament forbadd to drinke , ergò yt is true and reall bloud vvhich the new testament commaundeth to drinke ; for that otherwise the antithesis or opposition of the two testamēts in this point can not hold , yf the one forbidd the true drinking of true and reall bloud , and the other commaundeth the figuratiue drinking of spirituall bloud by faith , for that these things are opposite , and that the iewes also in the old ●estament did drinke christs bloud by faith , &c. to which argument latymer aunswered nothinge in effect , but this ; vve do tast true bloud , but spiritually , and this is inough . and then proueth he the same by those words of s. augustine before aunswered by vs ; crede & manducusti ; beleeue , & thou hast eaten , as though the words credere and edere , were all one in the scriptures . whervpon doctor vveston recyted a story that passed betwene maister hooper and b. gardener ; for when hooper would needs hould , that to cate was to beleue , and that an altar signified christ in the scriptures , b. gardener inferred , ergò , when s. paul saith to the hebrewes , that vve haue an altar , vvherof the ieuwes must not eat : the sense is , vve haue christ ; in whome the iewes must not beleeue . and after this he retourne● to presse latymer strongly againe vpon this place of s. cyprian ; sayinge : that is comusaunded in the new testament , vvhich is forbidden in the ould , but true bloud vvas forbidden in the old , ergò true bloud also is commaunded to be drunken in the new . whervnto latymer aunsweringe twise , vttered two contraryes : for first his words are : it is true as touchinge the matter ; but not as touchinge the manner of the thinge , where he graunteth ( as yow see ) that true bloud is meant in both testament , but the manner of drinkinge is different , which also we graunt & teach : but heare his second aunswere vpon the other instance . . weston . the old testament doth forbidd the tastinge of bloud , but the new doth commaund yt . latymer . it is true , not as touchinge the thinge , but as touchinge the manner therof . before he said : yt is true touchinge the matter , but not touchinge the manner ; now he saith ; yt is true touching the manner and not touchinge the thinge : so as yf the thinge and matter be all one , as yt is , he speaketh contraryes . whervpon doctor vveston opened the whole argument to the people in english , and the absurdity of his answere , but latymer replyed againe and againe ; that true bloud vvas commaunded spiritually to be dronken in the new testament . whervnto one doctor pye replyed , and obiected , that yt was not forbidden to be dronken spiritually in the old law : for that ( saith he ) they drinke spiritually christs bloud in the old law , ergò , the drinkinge therof in the new must be more then only spirituall . to this latymer aunswered , the substance of bloud is dronken , but not in one manner . so as heere yow see , he graunteth also the substance of bloud to be dronken , though in a different manner from that of the old testament . but being pressed by the said doctor pye , that we require not the same manner of drinkinge bloud in the new law , which was forbidden in the old ; but only that yt is as really and truly bloud , as the other was ; his finall aunswere and resolution is this , it is the same thinge , but not the same manner , i haue no more to say . heere then is his last detertermination , and consider i pray yow the substance therof ; yf yt be the same thinge , then must yt needs be really and truly bloud ; for this is the thinge or matter wherof the question is , for that otherwayes we know that the bloud forbidden in the old testament , is meant the bloud of beasts , and the bloud commaunded in the new , is meant of the bloud of christ ; so as in this , latymer cannot graunt them to be one thinge , but only in the reallity and truth of bloud , that is , as the one is true and reall bloud of beasts : so is the other true and reall bloud of christ ; which yf he graunt ( as heere in words he doth ) then cannot the different manner of drinkinge the same alter the substance of the thinge yt selfe ; or yf yt do , then is yt false , that yt is the same thinge ; and so euery way is ould latymer taken , but lett vs passe foreward . . doctor vveston to confirme the reallity of christs bloud , receaued in the sacrament , alleaged another place of s. chrysostome , where talkinge of iudas he saith , christus ei sangninem quem vendidit offerebat . christ gaue him ( in the sacrament , to witt , to iudas ) the bloud which he had sould . can any thinge be playner spoken . latymer answered : he gaue to iudas his bloud , in a sacrament , and by this thinketh he hath said some what to the purpose , wheras indeed he saith nothinge . for we say also , that he gaue him his bloud in a sacrament , as we say , that we giue wyne in a cuppe , but this excludeth not the reality of the bloud , no more then the giuinge in a cupp , or vnder a veyle , taketh away the true reality of the wyne ; yet is this the common hole for sacramentaryes to runne out at , when they are pressed ; for both they and we do agree , that christs bloud is giuen in the sacrament vnder a signe sacramentally , and the like phrases ; but the difference betweene vs is , that we by this do not exclude the truth & reality of the thing therin conteyned , as they do , & therby delude both themselues and others , speakinge in such sort , as they cannot be vnderstood , but only that a man may easily vnderstand , that they seeke therby euasions , and wayes to slipp out at . . i passe ouer diuers other authorityes of fathers alleaged by the doctors , as those words of s. cyrill : per communionem corporis christi , habitat in nobis christus corporaliter . by the communion of christs body , he dwelleth in vs corporally , ergò , not spiritually only and by faith . latymer aunswered ; first that ( corporally ) hath another vnderstandinge , then yow do grossely take yt . and then being pressed againe , he said : the solution of this is in my lord of canterburyes booke . so he . but fox not contented , ( as it seemeth ) with this aunswere , putteth downe a larger , though without an author , wherby we may conceaue yt to be his owne . corporally ( saith he ) is to be taken heere in the same sense , that s. paul saith , the fullnes of diuinity to duuell corporally in christ , that is , not lighty , nor accidentally , but perfectly & substantially , &c. which answere yf fox will stand vnto we are agreed ; for we require no more but that christ by the communion of his body in the sacrament , doth dwell perfectly and substantially in vs , for that importeth also really , as the fullnesse of diuinity is really in christ incarnate , and not by vnion only of will , as the arrians said , and as our sacramentaryes do talke of christs vnion only by faith in vs. and lett the reader note by the way iohn fox his witt , & deepe diuinity , who knowinge not what he saith , graunteth by this example more then we require ; for he graunteth the same substantiall vnity to be betweene christ and our soule , which is betweene christs diuinity , and his humanity ; which is false ; ours being accidentall and separable ; the other substantiall & inseparable , for that yt is hypostaticall . but these thinges iohn had not learned , and so we pardon him , and do returne to latymer againe , who being vrged hardly by doctor smith about saint cyrills words ; that christ by communion of his body in the sacrament dwelleth corporally in vs , ergò , not only spiritually by faith ; he aunswered : i say both that he dwelleth in vs spiritually , and corporally , spiritually by faith , and corporally by takinge our flesh vpon him ; for i remember that i haue read this in my lord of canterburyes booke . heere now yow see another shift different from that of fox , authorised by my l. of canterburyes booke , but shaken of by s. cyrills booke , which saith expressely as yow haue heard , that christ dwelleth in vs corporally by the communion of his body in the sacrament , and talketh not of the incarnation . . wherfore doctor vveston seing that more could not be had of latymer in this point , he passed to another matter , which was to deale with him about the sacrifice of che masse . in scoffinge against which , latymers grace , or disgrace rather and sinne , did principally consist ; and so alleaginge many auncient fathers authorityes against him for this purpose , and reading the places at length , hauing the books there present , latymer was quickly dryuen to a non-plus , as may appeare by fox his owne narration , though he setteth yt downe like a fox indeed , suppressinge all the particulars of the said places , but only the names of the authors , and the first words of the texts , and not them also in all . and then toucheth he the aunswers of latymer , and the catholike doctors replyes so brokenly and confusedly , as may easily shew that he would declyne the tempest of that combatt from latymers shoulders , and not haue the matter vnderstood , insinuatinge only some . or . authorityes alleaged for proofe of the propitiatory sacrifice , wheras more then . or . score might haue byn cyted to that effect . and finally though latymer muttered out two or three particular aunswers heere and there , sayinge ; that s. chrysostome had emphaticall locutions , and the like ; yet his last rest was sett vpon this ; that the doctors might be deceaued in some points , though not in all things : wherof fox well allowinge , maketh this scoffinge comment in the margent , doctores legendi sunt cum venia ; the doctors are to be read with pardon , which can haue no other sense , but that eyther we must pardon them when they speake not truth , or we must aske pardon of them , not to beleeue them when we mislike them ; for other sense i cannot make of this comentary . . doctor cole replyed ; is it not a shame for an old man to lye ? yow say yow are of the old fathers faith . latymer . i am of their faith vvhen they say well , i referre my selfe to my lord of caterburyes booke wholy herin doctor smith . then yow are not of s. chrysostomes faith , nor s. augustines faith . latymer . i haue said , vvhen they say vvell , and bring scriptures for them , i am of their faith , and further augustine requireth not to be beleeued , &c. weston . forty yeares gone , vvhether could yow haue gone to haue found your doctrine ? latym . the more cause we haue to thanke god now , that hath sent the light into the vvorld . weston . the light ? ney light and lewd preachers , &c. remember vvhat they haue bin , that haue bin the beginners of your doctrine , none but a few flyinge apostataes , runninge out of germany , &c. remember vvhat they haue bin , that haue sett forth the same in this realme , a sort of flyinge braines , and light heads , which vvere neuer constant in any one thinge , vvhich vvas well seene in the often alteringe of their communion-booke , and turninge their table one day vvest , and another day east , they gott them a tankerd , and one saith i drinke and am thankefull , the more ioy of thee , saith another , &c. yow neuer agreed vvith the ●igurynes of germanie , or vvith your selues , your stubburnesse is of vaine glory , and vve all see by your owne confession , how little cause yow haue to be stubburne , your learninge is in feoffers hold , the queenes grace is mercifull , if yow vvill returne . latymer . yow shall haue no hope in me to returne . and thus ended that disputation . . and heere iohn fox is very angry with doctor vveston for this speach , and for reuenge therof , maketh this note in the margent : blasphemous lyes of doctor vveston sittinge in the chaire of pestilence , and then presently he maketh the narration of him , which before we haue related about vrge hoc , vrge hoc , and in the margent he hath this other notandum , vrge hoc quod vveston , vvith his beere-pott in his hand : which notwithstandinge is more modest , then yf yt had byn a wyne-pott . and i maruayle much why the wisdome of fox should obiect this beer-pott so often & eagerly against doctor vveston , seeing his owne great chaire , which is yet kept for a relique of his holines in london by the sisters , hath two places made on both sides therof , the one for the candlesticke , the other for the ale-pott and nutmegges , which father fox is said to haue loued well , and so do his wrytings also shew , & yet no catholike man i thinke hath euer obiected the same vnto him before this , as he doth the beer-pott to doctor vveston . but these are trifles . lett vs passe to more serious considerations . the conclusion , with some considerations theron . §. . . by the re-view then of these three dayes disputations , a coniecture may be made , how matters did passe then , and how they stand at this day betwixt vs and protestants in these articles of controuersie : yow haue heard before the great vaunts that doctor ridley made in his disputations at cambridge vnder k. edward , how euidently forsooth and apparently the truth stood with him and his fellowes , & this vpon siue principall grounds and head-springs as he calleth them ; vvhich are the maiestie and verity of scriptures ; the most certaine testimony of the ancient fathers ; the definition of a sacrament ; the ab●ominable heresie of eutiches , and the most sure beleese of the article of our faith ; he ascended vp to heauen . b. cranmer also after that againe in the beginninge of q. maryes raigne , settinge forth a certayne vauntinge schedell , which fox called a purgation of thomas archbishopp cranmer , hath this chalenge therin : i vvith peter martyr ( saith he ) and other foure or fiue vvhich i shall choose , vvill by gods grace take vpon vs to desend all the doctrine and religion , sett ●orth by our soueraigne lord k. edward the sixth to be more pure , and accordinge to gods word , then any other that hath bin vsed in england these thousand yeares , so that gods vvord may be iudge , and that the reasons and proofes of both parts may be sett out in vvrytinge , to the entent as well , that all the world may examine and iudge theron , as that no man shall start backe from his vvryting● . . thus he . and now yow haue seene more or lesse by the former disputation , how he , & his fellow ridley were able to performe their bragges , and though yow haue seene them brought to the exigents , which before hath appeared : yet yf yow will beleeue them or iohn fox their chronicler , settinge forth their acts and monuments , they were so farre of from being conquered , as the aduerse part was rather putt to the foyle , for that they could say nothinge in effect against them . and for example , fox wryteth of doctor vveston ( who most of all other vrged them with many good arguments as yow haue heard ) that not only he had his theseus there by him to help him out ( to witt his beere-pott ) but moreouer that he said neuer a true word , nor made neuer a true conclusion almost in that disputation . which how true or false yt is , the reader himselfe may be iudge , that hath pervsed ouer the same in this our review : and the very like in effect wryteth b cranmer in a certayne letter of his to the councell , vpon the . of aprill . immediatly after the disputation ended , complayninge greatly of the disorder & iniquity therin vsed , which yet by that we haue examined before out of their owne words , i meane set downe in fox , his penne being bent wholy to their fauour , there could not be great iniquity or inequality , the combatt consistinge in discussinge authorityes of auncient fathers ; but yt is the nature of this people as alwayes to be contentious , so euer to be clamourous , and neuer satisfied except they haue their will , but especially to wryte and speake both contemptuously and partially : yow shall heare how malster ridley relateth the euent of this disputation ; for that hauinge sett downe his owne disputations and aunswers in the prison , and this with the greatest aduantage , yow must imagine that he could diuise , after much gall vttered in the preface therof against this disputation , concludeth the same with these passionate words , as they are in fox . . thus vvas ended the most glorious disputation of the most holy fathers , sacrificers , doctors and maisters , vvho fought most manfully for their god and gods , for their faith and felicity , for their countrey and kitchen , for their beuty and belly , vvith triumphant applauses and famous of the vvhole vniuersity . so hee . and by this yow may know the man , and how much his words are to be credited ; yow hauing considered what hath byn laid downe before , by fox his owne report , touching the substance of the disputation and authorityes of fathers , alleaged and examined and shifted of , though in the forme of scholasticall disputation and vrging arguments , yt may be there were some disorders ; yet that maketh not so much to the purpose , how arguments were vrged against them , as how they were aunswered by them ; and yet could not the disorder be so great , as it was vnder ridley himselfe in the cambridge-disputation , as is most euident to the reader by fox his owne relation , who as before i haue noted , is alwayes to be presumed to relate the worst for vs , and the best for himselfe in all these actions . . wherfore yt is not a little to be considered , what was the difference in substance or substantiall proofes , brought forth in the cambridge protestant-disputations vnder k. edward , and these oxford catholike-disputations vnder q. mary ; and whether doctor ridley that was moderator of those , or doctor vveston prolocutor in these , did best vrge or solue arguments against their aduersaryes ; for that this consideration and comparison only , will giue a great light to discerne also the difference of the causes therin defended . one thinge also more is greatly in my opinion to be weighed in this matter , which is , that the said auncient fathers hauinge to persuade so high and hard a mystery as this is , that christs true and naturall flesh and bloud , are really vnder the formes of bread and wyne , by vertue of the priests consecration , they were forced to vse all the manner of most significant speaches , which they could diuise to expresse the same , and to beate yt into the peoples heads and mynds , though contrary to their senses and common reason , and therby to fly from the opposite heresie and infidelity of our sacramentaryes ; lurkinge naturally in the harts of flesh and bloud , and of sensuall people ; but synce that tyme by sathans incytation , broached and brought forth publikely into the world . for meetinge wherwith the holy prouidence of almighty god was , that the forsaid fathers should by all sorts of most significant speaches & phrases , as hath byn said , so cleerly lay open their meanings in this matter , as no reasonable man can doubt therof , and not only this , but also that they should vse certaine exaggerations the better to explane themselues , such as they are wont to do in other controuersies also , when they would vehemently oppose themselues against any error or heresie , as by the examples of saint augustine against the pelagians in behalfe of grace , and against the manichees in the defence of free-will . and of s. hierome against iouinian for the priuiledge of virginity aboue marriage . and other like questions , wherin the said fathers , to make themselues the better vnderstood , do vse sometymes such exaggeratiue speaches , as they may seeme to inclyne somewhat to the other extreme , which indeed they do not , but do shew therby their feruour in defence of the truth , and hatred of the heresie which they impugne . . and the like may be obserued in this article of the reall-presence , of christs sacred body in the sacrament of the altar , which being a mystery of most high importance , and hardest to be beleeued , as aboue humayne sense and reason , and therfore called by them : the myracle of mysteryes : yt was necessary for them , i say to vse as many effectuall wayes , as they possible could for persuadinge the said truth vnto the people , and for preuenting the distrustfull cogitations and suggestions both of humayne infirmity , and diabolicall infidelity against the receaued faith and truth of this article ; and so they did , not only vsinge most cleere , plaine , effectuall and significant manner of expounding themselues , and their meaninge , but many such exaggerations also , as must needs make vs see the desire they had , to be rightly and fully vnderstood therein . for better consideration of which point ( being of singular moment as hath byn said ) the reader shall haue a little patience , whilst i detayne my selfe somewhat longer , then i meant to haue done , in layinge forth the same before him . . and first of all , concerninge the effectuall speaches for vtteringe the truth of their beleefe in this article , yow haue heard much in the former disputation , and heere we shall repeat some points againe , which in effect are , that wheras the said fathers founded themselues ordinaryly vpon those speaches of our sauiour : this is my body vvhich shal be giuen for yow : my flesh is truly meate , and my bloud is truly drinke . the bread vvhich i shall giue yow is my flesh for the life of the vvorld , and other like sentences of our sauiour ; the fathers do not only vrge all the circumstances heere specified or signified , to proue yt to be the true naturall and substantiall body of christ ( as that yt was to be giuen for vs the next day , after christs words were spoken , that yt was to be giuen for the life of the whole world , & that yt was truly meate , and truly christs flesh ) but do adde also diuers other circumstances of much efficacy to confirme the same , affirminge the same more in particular ; that it is the very same body which was borne of the blessed virgin , the very same body that suffered on the crosse , corpus affixum , verberatum , crucifixum , cruentatum , lanceae vulneratum ( saith s. chrysostome ) the selfe-same body , that was nayled , beaten , crucisied , blouded , wounded with a speare , is receaued by vs in the sacrament . whervnto s. austen addeth this particularity , that yt is the selfe-same body that walked heere amonge vs vpon earth . as he vvalked heere in flesh ( saith he ) amonge vs ; so the very selfe same flesh doth he giue to be eaten , and therfore no man eateth , that flesh ; but first adoreth at ; and hisichius addeth ; that he gaue the selfe-same body , vvherof the angell gabriell said to the virgin mary , that it should be conceaued of the holy ghost . and yet further ; yt is the same body ( saith s. chrysostome ) that the magi , or learned men did adore in the manger . but thou dost see him ( saith he ) not in the manger , but in the altar , not in the armes of a vvoman , but in the hands of a priest. the very same flesh ( saith s. austen againe ) that sate at the table in the last supper , and vvashed his disciples seet ; the very same ( i say ) did christ giue with his owne hands to his disciples , vvhen he said ; take eate , this is my body , &c. and so did he beare himselfe in his owne hands , vvhich vvas prophesied of dauid , but fulfilled only by christ in that supper . . these are the particularityes vsed by the fathers for declaring what body they meane ; and can there be any more effectuall speaches then these ? but yet harken further . thou must know and hold for most certaine ( saith s. cyrill ) that this vvhich seemeth to be bread , is not bread but christs body , though the tast doth iudge it bread . and againe the same father : vnder the forme or shew of bread , is giuen to thee the body of christ , & vnder the forme or snape of wine , is giuen to thee the bloud of christ , &c. and s. chrysostome to the same effect : vve must not beleeue our senses eaysie to be beguiled , &c. vve must simply , and vvithout all ambyguity beleeue the vvords of christ sayinge : this is my body , &c. o how many say now adayes , i vvould see him , i vvould behould his visage , his vestments , &c. but he doth more then this , for he giueth himselfe not only to be seene , but to be touched also , handled and eaten by thee . nor only do the fathers affirme so asseuerantly , that yt is the true naturall body of christ , though yt appeare bread in forme and shape , and that we must not beleeue our senses heerin ; but do deny expressely that yt is bread after the words of consecration , wherof yow heard longe discourses before out of s. ambrose in his books de sacramentis , and de initiandis . before the words of consecration , it is bread ( saith he ) but after consecration , de pane sit caro christi , of bread yt is made the flesh of christ ; and note the word ( fit ) yt is made . and againe . before the words of christ be vttered ( in the consecration ) the chalice is full of vvine and vvater ; but vvhen the vvords of christ haue vvrought their effect , ibi sanguis efficitur qui redemit plebem , there is made the bloud that redeemed the people . and marke in like manner the word efficitur , is made , and consider whether any thinge can be spoken more plainly . . but yet the fathers cease not heere , but do passe much further to inculcate the truth of this matter , reprehending sharply all doubt , suspition or ambiguity , which the weaknesse of our flesh or infection of heresie may suggest in this matter . s. cyrill reasoneth thus : vvheras christ hath said of the bread , this is my body , vvho vvill dare to doubt therof ? and vvheras he hath said of the wine , this is my bloud , vvho vvill doubt or say yt is not his bloud ? he once turned vvater into vvine in cana of galiley by his only will which wine is like vnto bloud , and shall vve not thinke him vvorthy to be beleeued , vvhen he saith , that he hath changed vvine into his bloud ? so he . and s. ambrose to the same effect . our lord iesus christ doth iestifie vnto vs , that we do receaue his body and bloud , and may we doubt of his creditt or testimony ? and the other saint cyrill of alexandria saith to the same effect ; that in this mystery we should not so much as aske quomodo how yt can be done ? iudaicum enim verbum est ( saith he ) & aeterm supplicij causa : for ye is a iewish word , and cause of euerlastinge torment . and before them both saint hilary left wrytten this exhortation : these things ▪ saith he ) that are wrytten , lett vs read , and those things that vve reade lett vs vnderstand , and so vve shall perfectly performe the duty of true saith ; for that these points vvhich vve affirme of the naturall verity of christs being in vs. exceptive learne them of christ himselfe , we affirme them wickedly and foolishly , &c. vvherfore , vvheras he saith my s●e●h is truly meat , and my bloud is truly drinke , there is no place left to vs of doubting concerning the truth of christs body & bloud , for that both by the affirmation of christ himselfe , and by our owne beleefe , there is ( in the sacrament ) the flesh truly and the bloud truly of our sauiour . . so great s. hilary : and eusebiu● emissenus bringeth in christ our sauiour speakinge in these words : for so much as my flesh is truly meat , and my bloud is truly drinke , leit all doubt fullnes of in fideli●y depart ; for so much as he vvho is the author of the gift , is vvittnesse also of the truth therof . and s. leo to the same effect : nothinge at all is to be doubted of the truth of christ● body , and bloud in the sacrament , &c. and those do in vaine aunswere amen ( when they receaue yt ) if they dispute against that vvhich is affirmed . and finally s. ep●p●anius concludeth thus : he that beleeueth it not to be the very body of christ in the sacrament , is fallen from grace and saluation . . and by this we may see the earnestnesse of the fathers in vrginge the beleefe of christs true flesh , and bloud in the sacrament ; but they cease not heere , but do preuent and exclude all shifts of sacramentaryes , which by gods holy spiritt they forsaw , euen in those auncient dayes , affirminge that not by faith only , or in ●igure , or image , or spiritually alone christs flesh is to be eaten by vs ; but really , substantially , and corporally : not only by faith ( saith s. chrys●stome ) but in very deed he maketh vs his body , reducing vs as yt were into one masse or substance vvith himselfe . and saint cyrill : not only by saith and charity are we spiritually conioyned to christ ( by his flesh in the sacrament ) but corporally also by communication of the same flesh . and s. chrysostome againe : not only by loue , but in very deed are we conuerted into his flesh by eatinge the same . and saint cyrill againe : vve receauinge in the sacrament corporally and substantially the sonne of god vnited naturally to his father , we are clarified & glorified therby , and made partakers of his supreme nature . thus they . whervnto for more explication addeth theophilact : vvhen christ said : this is my body ; he shewed that it vvas his very body in deed , and not any figure correspondent thervnto , for he said not ; this is the figure of my body ; but , this is my body ; by vvhich vvords the bread is transformed by an vnspeakable operation , though to vs it seeme still bread . and againe in another place . behould that the bread vvhich is eaten by vs in the mysteryes , is not only a figuration of christs flesh , but the very flesh indeed , for christ said not , that the bread vvhich i shall giue yow , is the figure of my flesh , but my very flesh indeed , for that the bread is transformed by * secrett vvords into the flesh . and another father more auncient then he , aboue twelue hundred yeares past , handlinge those words of christ this is my body , saith : it is not the figure of christs body and bloud ; vt quidam stupida mente nugati sunt ; as some blockish mynds haue trifled ; but it is truly the very body and bloud of our sauiour indeed . and finally the whole generall councell of nice the second , aboue . yeares past , hath these words : do yow read , as longe as yow vvill , yow shall neuer find christ or his apostles , or the fathers to haue called the vnhloudy sacrifice of christ offered by the priest , an image ( or representation ) but the very body and bloud of christ it selfe . and could the auncient fathers speake more effectually , properly or cleerly then this ? . and yet he that will examine and weigh their sayings , a man exactly shall find them to speake , in a certaine manner more effectually : for that they did study , ( as we haue said ) how to vtter their meaninge with emphasie . s. hilary vseth this kind of argument : yf the word of god were truly made flesh , then do we truly receaue his flesh in the lords supper , and therby he is to be steemed to dwell in vs naturally : s. cyrill proueth , not only a spirituall , but a naturall and bodily vnion to be betweene vs and christ , by eatinge his flesh in the sacrament . theodorete doth proue that christ tooke flesh of the blessed virgin , and ascended vp with the same , and holdeth the same there , by that he giueth to vs his true flesh in the sacrament ; for that otherwayes he could not giue vs his true flesh to eate , yf his owne flesh were not true , seeing that he gaue the same that he carryed vp , and retayneth in heauen . s. irenaeus , s. iustine , & s. chrysostome do proue not only this , but the resurrection also of our bodyes by the truth of christs flesh in the sacracrament , for that our flesh ioyninge with his flesh which is immortall , ours shal be immortall also . and the same saint irenaeus also doth proue further , that the great god of the ould testament , creator of heauen and earth , was christs father ; for proofe wherof he alleageth this reason ; that christ in the sacrament did fullfill the figures of the old testament , & that in particular , wherin bread was a figure of his flesh , which he fulfilled ( saith irenaeus ) makinge yt his flesh indeed . . i passe ouer many other formes of speaches no lesse effectuall ; which doe easily declare the fathers mynds and meaninges in this point , as that of optatus mileuitanus , who accused the donatists of sacriledge & horrible wickednesse , for hauinge broken downe catholike altars , wheron the body , and bloud of christ had byn borne : vvhat is so sacrilegious ( saith he ) as to breake downe , scrape and remoue the altars of god , on vvhich your selues haue sometymes offered , and the members of christ haue byn borne , &c. vvhat is an altar , but the seate of the body and bloud of christ ? and this monstrous villany of yours is doubled , for that yow haue broken also the chalices , vvhich did beare the bloud of christ himselfe . so he . and is there any protestant , that will speake thus at this day ? or doth not this reprehension agree fully to protestants , that haue broken downe more altars , and chalices , then euer the donatists did ? saint leo the first saith : that the truth of christs true body and bloud in the sacrament , was so notorious in his dayes ; vt nec ab insantium linguis taceretur . that very infants did professe the same . and in the same sermon he saith : that the body of christ is so receaued by vs in the sacrament ; vt in carnem ipsius , qui caro nostra factus est , transeamus , that we should passe into his flesh , who by his incarnation is made our flesh . saint chrysostome in many places of his works , doth vse such deuout , re●orent and significant speaches of that , which is conteyned in the sacrament vnder the formes of bread , & wyne after consecration , as no doubt can be of his meaninge , whereof yow haue heard diuers points before in the disputations , as that it deserued the highest honour in earth ; that he did shew it lyinge vpon the altar , that the angells descended at the tyme of consecration , and did adore christ there present vvith tremblinge and seare , and durst not looke vpon him for the maiestie of his presence . and other such speaches , which is conforme to that before cyted in the disputation out of the councell of nice : credamus iaecere in illa mensa sacra , agnum det à sacerdotibus sacri●icatum . let vs beleeue to lye on that holy table , the lambe of god sacrificed by priests . and is there any protestant that will speake thus ? . but aboue all the rest are those speaches , which before i said to tend to a certeyne exaggeration , as that , our flesh is turned into his flesh by receauinge the blessed sacrament : that our flesh is nourished by his ; and that of two fleshes there is made but one flesh ; whervnto do appertayne not only those former phrases , which already yow haue heard of the naturall and corporall vnity ; which the fathers do so often inculcate to be betweene christ and vs , by eatinge his flesh in the sacrament , & that we are brought therby into one masse , or substance of flesh with him ; but many other like significant manners for vtteringe their mynds , as that of s. chrysostome : he nourisheth vs vvith his owne body , and doth ioyne and conglutinate our flesh to his . and againe : that by his body ( giuen vs in the sacrament ) se nobis commiscuit , & in vnum nobiscum redegit . he hath mixt himselfe to vs , and brought himselfe and vs into one body and flesh . and yet further : he doth permitt himselfe not only to be handled by vs , but also to be eaten , and our teeth to be fastened vpon his flesh , and vs to be filled with the same flesh ; which is the greatest point of loue ( saith saint chrysostome ) that possible can be imagined . so he . and conforme to this s. cyrill of alexandriae vttereth himselfe after another sort , for he vseth the example of leuen , which saint paul doth touch in his epistle to the corinthians , when he saith ; that a little leuen doth leuen a whole bach ; euen so ( saith s. cyrill ) the flesh of christ ioyned to our flesh , doth leuen or pearse through it , and conuert it into it selfe . and in another place he vseth this similitude ; that as vvhen yow take a peece of vvax melted at the fire , and do droppe the same vpon another peece of vvax , these two vvaxes are made one ; so by the communication of christs body and bloud vnto vs , he is in vs and we in him . . another auncient father also vpon the point of . yeares gone had this similitude : as wine ( saith he ) is mixed vvith him that drinketh the same , in such sort , as the wine is in him , and he in the wine : so is the bloud of christ mixed also vvith him that drinketh the same in the sacrament . and s. irenaeus , tertullian , & s. iustinus martyr , all of them elder then this man , do vse commonly this phrase of nourishinge , and feedinge our flesh by the flesh of christ. how do they affirme ( saith s. irenaeus against certayne heretiks that denied the resurrection ) that our flesh shall come to corruption , and not receaue life againe , vvhich is nourished by the body and bloud of christ ? and againe . ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia . of which body and bloud of christ , the substance of our flesh is encreased and consisteth . and tertullian , caro , corpore & sanguine christi vescitur , &c. our flesh doth feed on the body and bloud of christ. and marke that he saith the flesh , and not only the soule . and iustine in his second apology to the emperour antoninus talkinge of the sacrament , saith , it is , cibus quo sanguis carnesque nostrae aluntur . the meat wherwith our bloud and flesh is fedd ; and to this manner of speach appertayne those sayings of s. chrysostome : altare meum cruentum sanguine , my altar that is made redd with bloud . where he speaketh in the person of christ. and againe to him that had receaued the sacrament , dignus es habitus qui eius carnes lingua tangeres : thou are made worthy to touch with thy tongue the flesh of christ : and yet further in another place : thou seest christ sacrificed in the altar , the priest attendinge to his sacrifice , and powring out prayers ; the multitude of people receauinge the sacrament , praetioso illo sanguine intingi & rubefieri . to be died and made read with that pretious bloud . all which speaches and many more , that for breuity i pretermitt , though they tend to a certayne exaggeration ( as hath byn said ) yet do they plainly declare the sense , iudgement and beleefe of the fathers in this article , and so albeit literally , and in rigour , they be not in all respects verified : yet need we no better arguments to certifie vs of the fathers meaninges then these , to witt , how farre they were of , from the protestants opinions in this mystery . . and truly yf we would now put downe heere on the contrary side the prorestants assertions , and their cold manner of speaches in this behalfe , and compare them with this vehemency of the fathers ; we should presently see a wonderfull difference . i will touch some few only conteyned in this booke . first they say ( and yt is a common refuge of cranmer and the rest in this disputation as you haue heard ) that their communion-bread is christs true body , as s. iohn baptist was true elias . item . that yt is christs body , as the doue was the holy-ghost . item . that the body of christ is eaten in the sacrament of the altar , no otherwise then yt is in baptisme . item . that infants when they be baptized do eate the body of christ also . item . that christs body is in the sacracrament , as when two or three are gathered togeather in his name . item . that the body of christ is eaten in the sacrament , as yt is eaten , when wee read scriptures , or heare sermons . item . that the breakinge of christs body is nothinge but the breaking of the scriptures to the people . and these are the common phrases of all lightly . for i lett passe many particular assertions of some , much more cold and contemptible then these , wherby yow may easily se● the difference of estimation , reuerence , respect , and beleefe betweene them and the auncient fathers . . and on the other side , he that will consider the great care and warynesse , which the said fathers did vse in speakinge properly and exactly , as well in other mysteryes & articles of our faith , as in this , shall easily see , that they could not fall into such excesse of speach , with open reprehension & contradiction of others , yf their meaninge had not byn euident , and the doctrine catholike and generally receaued , which they endeauoured to inculcate by these speaches ; for so much as we are taught by all antiquity , that there was such exact rigour vsed in this behalfe in those dayes , that a word or sillable could not be spoken amisse , without present note or checke . and s. hierome saith : that sometymes for one only vvord heretiks haue byn cast out of the church . and saint basill being intreated and vrged by a gouernour of constantius the arrian emperour , to accomodate himselfe in manner of speach only about two words : homiousion , and homousion ( which are not , said the gouernour , found in scripture ) he answered him noe : & that for one sillable he vvould offer his life , yf it vvere need . and the like exactnesse did the anciēt fathers , of the coūcell of ephesus , shew afterwards in standinge so resolutely for the word deipara , mother of god against nestorius , & refusing the vse of the other word christipara , mother of christ , though the one & the other of the words refused , to witt , homiousion & christipara in their senses are true ; but for that some hereticall meaninge might lurke therin , they were refused . . and to conclude , yf antiquity was so carefull and vigilant , to exclude dangerous & incommodious speaches in other articles , how much more would yt haue byn in this also of the reall presence , yf the said fathers speaches before rehearsed had not byn true , as in the protestants sense they cannot be , but must needs tend to most dangerous error of misbeleefe and idolatry ? and consequently there is no doubt , but that they would haue byn reproued by other fathers , yf the protestants opinions had byn then receaued for truth . and this shall suffice for this chapter . of the tvvo other articles abovt transubstantiation , and the sacrament , what passed in this disputation . chap. vi. havinge handled more largely , then was purposed at the beginninge , so much as apperteyneth to the first article of the reall-presence , as the ground and foundation of the other two ; i meane to be very breefe concerninge the rest , as well for that in the oxforddisputations there was scarse any thinge handled therof ; but only some demonstrations out of the fathers alleaged to latymer ( which he as yow haue heard could not aunswere ) about the third and last point ; as also for that whatsoeuer was treated therof in the disputations at cambridge , and in the conuocation house , especially about transubstantiation , hath byn aunswered for the most part in our former treatise about the reall presence . and albeit it was some art of the sacramentaryes , in the beginninge of these controuersies vnder k. edward , to runne from the discussion of the principall point , as more cleerly against them , vnto the question of transubstantiation , for that might seeme to yeld them some more shew of matter or obiections to cauill at , as before we haue declared : yet when the matter commeth to examination , they haue as little for them in this as in the other , or rather lesse , for that the other , to witt , the reall-presence , or being of christ really and substantially present in the sacrament , hauinge byn so euidently proued against them , as before yow haue seene ; this other of transubstantiation , being but modus essen●i , the manner how christ is there , little importeth them ; nay themselues do graunt , that yf christ be there really present , yt cannot be denyed but that he is there also by transubstantiation of bread into his body : for so father latymer , yf yow remember , affirmed before in his disputations , when he was said once to haue byn a lutheran ( which lutherans do hould both christs body and bread to be togeather in the sacrament ) he aunswered , i say , that he could neuer perceaue , how luther could defend his opinion without transubstantiation , & that the tygurynes , being also sacramentaryes , did write a booke against him in this behalfe , prouinge belike that in grauntinge the reall presence , as he did ; he must needs graunt transubstantiation also , wherin they had great reason : for that in truth the imagination of luther , and lutherans , that christs body and bread doe stand togeather , vnder the same formes and accidents , and be receaued togeather being so different substances , is a most grosse and fond imagination ; so as the lutherans graunting the one , & denying the other , are condemned of absurdity euen by the zuinglians themselues , as yow see , and as we say also iustly . . and on the other side we say in like manner , as before hath byn noted , that the zuinglians and caluinists , and other sacramentaryes denyinge wholy the said reall presence , do in vayne wrangle about transubstantiation . for as he that should deny ( for example sake ) that any substance of gould were in a purse , or any substance of wyne in a barrell , should in vaine dispute whether the gold were there alone , or togeather with some baser metall , as siluer , tynne , or copper , or whether the wyne were there alone , or in company of water ; so in this controuersie yt is an idle disputation for sacramentaryes to discusse , whether the substance of christs reall flesh be alone in the sacrament , or togeather with the substance of bread , for so much as they deny yt to be there at all . . yet notwithstanding , for that their cheefe altercation is about this point , as by their disputations may appeare , i shall breefely examine their grounds , vvhich , accordinge to b. ridleyes ostentation vttered in cambridge out of the diuinity chayre , vnder king edward the sixt , as before yow haue heard , are fiue in number sett forth in these vauntinge words : the principall grounds or rather head-springs of this matter are specially fiue . first , the authority , maiestie , & verity of holy scriptures : the second : the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient catholike fathers : the third , the definition of a sacrament : the fourth , the abhominable heresie of eutiches , that may ensue of transubstantiation . the fifth : the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith : he ascended into heauen . and then a little after he concludeth thus : these be the reasons vvhich persuade me to en●lyne to this sentence and iudgement . . heere yow see the principall grounds , or rather head springs , that persuaded ridley to inclyne , or rather declyne , for yet he seemed not fully setled in this article of beleefe . and albeit these grounds may seeme to conteyne somewhat , in shew and sound of words : yet when the substance thereof commeth to be examined , they are found to be idle , and puffed vp with words indeed . for first what authority , maiesty and verity of scriptures doth this man bring forth ; trow you , for confirmation of this his vaunt ? truly nothing in effect , or of any shew or probability , but only that yt is called bread and wyne in the scripture , after the words of consecration : for which purpose he hauinge alleaged the words of christ : i will not drinke heerafter of this fruite of the vyne , vntill i do drinke yt new vvith yow in the kingdome of my father : he inferreth that the fruite of the vyne is wyne , which we graunt vnto him , & do hould is called wyne by him after the consecration , as his flesh after the words of consecration is called bread by s. * paul , s. luke , and other apostles , affirming yt notwithstanding to be his owne true body and flesh , but retayninge the name of bread , for that yt was made of bread , and was bread before , as the serpent was called the rodd of aaron , for that yt was made of that rodd , and not because yt was not a true serpent afterwards , though yt were still called a rodd , and to signifie this , that bread conuerted into christs flesh is not really bread afterward , but the true flesh of christ , though yt retayne the former name of bread , yt is not simply called bread but with some addition ; as bread of life : bread of heauen , this bread , and the like . and finally christ himselfe doth expound what bread yt is in s. iohns ghospell when he saith : the bread that i shall giue yow , is my flesh for the life of the vvorld . . heere then yow see , that ridleyes text of scripture ; i vvill not drinke hereafter of the fruite of the vyne , vntill i drinke yt new vvith yow in the kingdome of my father ; doth not proue that yt was materiall wine which he dronke , for that he should then drinke materiall wyne also in heauen : and yet assoone as ridley had brought forth this place , as though he had done a great feate , and fully performed his promise , for proofe of the authority , maiesty , and verity of scripture , he beginneth presently to excuse himselfe , for that he hath no more store , sayinge . there be not many places of scripture , that do confirme this thinge ; neyther is yt greatly materiall , for yt is inough yf there be any one plaine testimony for the same . lo whervnto this vaunt of the authority , maiesty , and verity of holy scriptures is come , to witt , to one place , vnderstood and interpreted after his owne meaninge alone , against the vnderstandinge of all antiquity . and though he go about afterwards to scrape togeather diuers other parings of scripture , nothinge at all to the purpose , as , yow shall not breake any bone of his : do yow this in my remembrance : labour for the meate that perisheth not : this is the worke of god , that they beleeue in him whome he hath sent : he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud , dwelleth in me and i in him ; and some other like places : yet as yow see by his owne confession , they are not plaine places , and consequently his vauntinge of authority , maiesty and verity of scriptures , commeth to iust nothinge indeed , but only to words and wynde . lett vs see what he bringeth for his other foure grounds and headsprings . . the second is , the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient catholike fathers . this we shall examine afterwards when we haue considered of the other three , yet may yow marke by the way , that he vseth heere also the superlatiue degree , of most certayne testimonyes , which certainty of testimonyes yow shall find afterward , to be like his maiesty of scriptures , already alleaged . wherfore let vs see his third ground . the third ground ( saith he ) is the nature of the sacrament , which consisteth in three things : vnity , nutrition and conuersion . and then he explaneth himselfe thus : that as in bread one loafe is made of many graynes , so signifieth this sacrament , that we are all one mysticall body in christ. and againe . as bread nourisheth our body ; so doth the body of christ nourish our soule . and thirdly . as bread is turned into our substance , so are vve turned into christs substance . all vvhich three effects cannot be signified ( saith he ) by this sacrament , yf there be transubstantiation , and no nature of bread left , and therfore there can be no transubstantiation . . this is maister ridleyes deepe diuinity about the nature of this sacrament : but yf yow reade that which we haue noted before in our eyght obseruation , concerninge the true definition and nature of a sacrament in deed ; yow will see that this was great simplicity in him ( though accordinge to his hereticall groūd , that the sacramēts doe not giue grace ) to leaue out the principall effect signified in the sacrament , which is grace , for that a sacrament is defined : a visible signe of inuisible grace receaued therby . this sacrament also is a signe of christs body there present vnder the formes of bread and wyne : yet deny we not but that these other three effects also of vnity , nutrition and conuersion may be signified therby , as in like manner the death and passion of our sauiour , wherof this sacrament is a memoriall and commemoration : neyther doth the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of christ , lett or take away these significations , for so much as to make this sacrament , there is taken bread and wyne , which naturally doth signifie these effects of vnion , nutrition , and conuersion , which ridley heere mentioneth , though yt be not necessary , that the substance of the said bread and wyne should still remayne , but only there formes and accidents , which do signifie and are signes to our senses , as much as yf the substances themselues of bread and wyne were present . as for example the brasen serpent , did as much represent , and was a signe of christ in respect of the analogie betwene christ and a true serpent , as yf he had had the substance of à true serpent , whereof he had but only the forme and shape ; and so are the outward formes of bread and wyne , after the words of consecration , sufficient to represent vnto vs the analogy that is betweene feedinge the body , and feedinge the soule , vnity of graines , and vnity of christs mysticall body which is his church . . and thus much of ridleyes third ground which impugneth transubstantiation ; which ground ( as yow see ) is so weake and feeble , as he that shall build theron , is like to come to a miserable ruyne of his owne saluation . but much more ridiculous is his fourth ground , vttered in these words : the fourth ground ( saith he ) is the abhominable heresie of eutiches , that may ensue of transubstantiation . thus he saith in his position , but lett vs heare him afterward in his probation , which is not much larger then his proposition , for thus he wryteth : they vvhich say that christ is carnally present in the eucharist , do take from him the verity of mans nature . eutiches graunted the diuyne nature in christ , but his humayne nature he denyed . and is not this a goodly proofe of so great a charge ? nay is not this a goodly ground and head-springe of proofes ? consider i pray yow how these matters do hange togeather . eutiches heresy was , as yow may see in the letters of saint leo the first , and in the councell of calcedon ; that christs flesh being ioyned to his diuinity was turned into the same , and so not two distinct natures remayned , but one only made of them both . and how doth this heresie i pray yow , follow of our doctrine of transuostantiation ! eutiches said that the diuine and humayne natures in christ were confounded togeather , and of two made but one : we say that they remayne distinct , and do condemne eutiches for his opinion , and by our church he was first accursed and anathematized for the same : eutiches said , christs humayne nature was turned into his diuine ; we say only that bread and wyne is turned into christs flesh and bloud : what likenesse hath this with eutiches heresie ? but ( saith ridley ) vve do take from christ the verity of mans nature . this is a fiction and foolish calumniation , as before yow haue heard , and consequently deserueth no further refutation . . the fifth ground , is ( saith he ) the most sure beleefe of the article of our faith : he ascended into heauen . this ground yf yow remember hath byn ouerthrowne before , and abandoned by ridley himselfe in his oxford-disputation , where he graunted ; that he did not so straitly tye christ vp in heauen ( to vse his owne words ) but that he may come downe on earth at his pleasure . and againe in another place of the said disputation : vvhat letteth but that christ yf yt please him , and vvhen yt pleaseth him , may be in heauen and in earth ? &c. and yet further to doctor smith that asked him this question : doth he so sitt at the right hand of his father , that he doth neuer foresake the same ? ridley aunswered : nay i do not bynd christ in heauen so straitly . by which aunsweres yow see , that this whole principall ground and head-springe of ridleyes arguments against transubstantiation , is quite ouerthrowne . for yf christ in flesh after his ascension may be also on earth when he will , as ridley heere graunteth , then is it not against the article of our creed ( he ascended into heauen , ) to beleeue , that not withstandinge his ascension , he may be also on earth in the sacrament . and albeit ridley do cyte heere certayne places of s. augustine , that do seeme to say : that christ after his ascension is no more conuersant amonge vs vpon earth ; yet that is not to be vnderstood of his being in the sacrament , which is a spirituall manner of being , but of his corporall manner of conuersation , as he liued visibly among his disciples before his ascension . and this is sufficient for discussion of this fifth ground , wherof the cheefe particulars haue byn handled in diuers places before . . now then will we returne to his second ground againe , of the most certayne testimonyes of the auncient catholike fathers . and first he alleagath saint dionysius areopagita , for that in some places of his works he callerh yt bread and the like of saint ignatius to the philadelphians , which we deny not , for s. paul also calleth yt so , as before we haue shewed : but yet such bread , as in the same place he declareth to be the true body of christ , sayinge : that he vvhich receaueth yt vnworthily , shal be guilty of the body and bloud of christ , addinge for his reason non dijudicans corpus domini , for not discerninge the body of our lord there present . and so s. ignatius in the very selfe-same place saith : that yt is the flesh and bloud of christ , as yow may read in that epistle . . after these he citeth irenaeus whose words are : eucharistia ex duabus rebus constans , terrena & calesti , which ridley translateth thus : sacramentall bread consistinge of two natures earthly and heauenly : but by maister ridleyes leaue eucharistia in this place is fraudulently translated by him sacramentall bread , except he meane as we do , and as irenaeus did , that yt was the body of christ , but called bread for that yt was made of bread : for that irenaeus in the very same place , wryting against heretiks asketh this question : quomodo constabit eis , eum panem in quo gratiae actae sint , corpus esse domini sui ? how shall yt be made euident to these heretiks , that this bread , in which thanks haue byn giuen , is the body of their lord ? wherto he aunswered , and proueth the same by diuers arguments : so as no place of any father could haue byn alleaged more against himselfe , then this is by ridley . and as for that he saith , that the eucharist consisteth of two natures , earth-ly and heauenly , he meaneth euidently , by the heauenly nature , the true body of christ , and by the earthly nature , the externall symbolls , formes , and accidents . and so much of him . . and the selfe-same thinge do meane both theoderete and gelasius , heere also by him alleaged , as vsinge the like phrases ; that the natures of bread and wyne do remayne , which they vnderstand of the externall symbolls , formes and accidents . for as for the reall presence , they do both of them affirme yt in the same places by ridley alleaged . and so this shall suffice for this place , there being nothing els worthy aunsweringe . and now yf yow consider , what variety of plaine and perspicuous authorityes haue byn alleaged by vs before , both out of the disputations and otherwise , for confirmation of the catholil beleefe of the reall presence and transubstantiation , yow will easily see what broken wares these bee , which protestants bringe forth to the contrary , and how fondly this second ground of ridleyes proofes is intituled by him ; the most certaine testimonyes of the auncient catholike fathers : vvho after my iudgement ( saith he ) do sufficiently declare this matter . and i will not greatly stand against him , for that the mans iudgement being peruerted by heresie , faction and ambition of those tymes , any thinge would seeme sufficient to him to draw him to that byas , whervnto himselfe inclyned . and thus much of this article . about the third article of the sacrifice of the masse . §. . . for that there was little or nothinge disputed of this third article , eyther in cambridge , oxford , or london , except only a little against latymer , as presently we shall see , i haue thought best to betake me only to ridleyes determination in this matter : he beginneth the same thus : now in the later conclusion , concerninge the sacrifice , because yt dependeth vpon the first ( to witt of the reall-presence ) i will in few vvords declare vvhat i thinke ; for yf we once agree in that , the vvhole controuersie in the other vvill soone be at an end . marke heere good reader that ridley confesseth this controuersie of the sacrifice to depend of the reall-presence , which reall-presence being so substantially proued before , as yow haue heard , little doubt can be made of this ; yet will ridley tell vs what he thinketh ( a goodly ground for vs to hange our soules on ) which is , that there is no sacrifice at all , but that of christ vpon the crosse , and he will tell vs also his grounds for so thinkinge : two things ( saith he ) there be , vvhich do persuade me , to vvitt , certayne places of scripture , and certayne testimonyes of the fathers . so he . and as for scriptures , he alleageth no one , but out of the epistle to the hebrues ; that christ entred once for all into the holy-place , and obtayned for vs eternall redemption . and againe . that christ vvas once offered to take away the sinnes of many . and yet further : that with one offeringe he made perfect for euer those that are sanctified . and hauinge cyted these places , he maketh this conclusion . these scriptures do persuade me to beleeue , that there is no other oblation of christ ( albeit i am not ignorant there are many sacrifices ) but that vvhich vvas once made vpon the crosse. . heere now yow may see the force of a passionate iudgement , and how little doth suffice to persuade a man to any heresie , that is inclined thervnto of himselfe . i would aske of ridley heere , how chaunceth yt that s. chrysostome , s. basill , s. ambrose , s. cyrill , s. hierome , s. augustine and other fathers cyted before so aboundantly , and perspicuously affirming the dayly sacrifice of the masse , and distin guishing betweene cruentum & incruentum sacrificium , he bloudy sacrifice of christ on the crosse once offered vp for all ; and the selfe-same sacrifice dayly reiterated , and offered againe in many places throughout the world , after an vnbloudy manner : how these fathers , i say , had not byn persuaded , as ridley was , by these places of scripture to deny the sacrifice of the masses had they not read ( thinke yow ) the epistle to the hebrewes ; or did they not vnderstand yt as well as ridley ? and how then was ridley persuaded , and not they ? there reason is , that , which he touched before , when he said : after my iudgement , &c. for that he followed his owne iudgement , blynded by his owne affection in this point against the masse , and they followed not their owne iudgement , but the vniuersall iudgement and beleefe of the catholike church in their dayes , and so must ridley giue vs leaue to follow them , rather then him . . as for his second motiue of certayne testimonyes of the fathers , yt is so weake and broken a thinge , as he dareth not come forth with yt , but only quoteth certayne places of saint augustine , wherby he saith that the christians keepe a memoriall of the sacrifice past ; and that fulgentius in his booke de fide calleth the same a commemoration . and these be all the fathers , and their authorityes which he alleageth for his second motiue : wherby yow may see , that he was moued by a little against the masse : for we deny not but that the sacrifice of the masse is a commemoration also of the death , passion , and sacrifice of christ vpon the crosse , and he that in steed of these impertinent citations out of s. austen nothing at all to the purpose , would lay downe on the contrary side , all the cleere , euident , and effectuall places , sentences , discourses and asseuerations , which this holy father hath in profe and confirmation of the visible externall sacrifice of the masse , wherin christs sacred body , the same that was offered on the crosse , is offered againe dayly both for quicke and dead by christian catholike priests on the altar , might make a whole treatise therof , and i remitt the reader to hieronymus torrensis his collection , called confessio augustiniana , where throughout a . or . paragraphes , he doth set downe large authorityes , most plaine and euident out of the said fathers works . and yt is inough for vs at this tyme , that latymer being pressed in his disputations with diuers of these authorityes answeted : i am not a shamed to acknowledge my ignorance , and these testimonyes are more then i can beare away , and after againe , being further pressed with the most euident authorityes of s. augustine , and s. chrysostome in particular , affirminge that the sacrifice of the masse is propitiatory both for quicke and dead , he aunswered : the doctors might be deceaued in some points , though not in all things : i beleeue them when they say vvell . and yet further : i am of their saith vvhen they say vvell . i referre my selfe to my l. of canterburyes booke vvholy heerin , and yet againe . i haue said vvhen they say vvell and bringe the scriptures for them , i am of their faith . and further . augustine requireth not to be beleeued . so he . and by this yow may see , what accompt they make both of s. augustine and other fathers , notwithstandinge for a shew , sometymes they will cyte some places out of them little to the purpose , but being witting in their owne consciences , that really and substantially they make against them , they shift them of finally in this order as yow haue heard , and will beleeue and teach only as pleaseth themselues , which is the peculiar pride and willfullnes of heresie , from which god deliuer vs. and with this i end this whole treatise . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e anno domini . euseb. l. . hist. c. . hier. de vir . illust. in caio . bed. l. . hist. c. . & const. presbyt . in vita s. lupi episc . see the acts of this disputatiō in possid . l. de vita aug. c. . aug. epist. . s. austens disputation with foelix manichaeus s. ausren his disputation with the donatists . breuic . collat . primi diei . aug. in breuic . epist. ad gaudent . acta apud aug. ep . . & l. . retract . c. . & possidon . in vita aug. c. . possid . ib. cap. . s. augustines disputatiōs vvith the atrians . aug. epist. . . . . . photius in bibliotheca . anastasius hoc anno . beda l. . h●st . cap. . publike disputation refused by s. ambros. vpon iust causes . ambros. epist. . vvhere is extant also the booke sent by ambrose to valentinian . paul. in vita ambrosij . the comparison betwene cath & hereticall disputations . disputatiō fitter in some to moue doubts & examine the truth , then to resolue the same . aug. l. de moribus ecclesiae contra manicheos . aug. confess . lib. . cap. . & lib. . c. . . . vvhat force disputatiō hath in resoluing matters of faith . act. . the manner of proceeding vnder the apostles . the wāt which sectaryes haue to determyne matters by cicero in paradox . the willfullnes of foxtan vnlearned sectaryes in disputation . * mensi●us ian mars . sept & noucmb . the story of a mani hean woman that disputed with a bishopp . mareus in vita s. porphirij . the cause of the edition of these disputations . notes for div a -e first disputation of peter martyr at oxford . . fox pag. . fox pag. . & . see statue . booke an . . edvv. . cap. . fox pag. . zuinallanisue admitted . . * sup. decemb . . see doctor saunders l. . de sehi , m. a●gl . . cor. . the dissemblinge of peter martyr & bucer . luth. lib. cont sacrament . & alibi sap● . three questions to be disputed at oxford . see the defence of the relaciō of 〈◊〉 his disputation vvith b. pe●on of eureux tom part . or our three conuernons , tvvo similitudes to expresse the vayne vvtāgling of sacramētaryes about transubstantiatiō . fraudulēt dealing of protestāts , in disputation . fox pag. . . fraud . see aftervvard c. . fox pag. ibid. . fraud . sand l●b . . de schism . angl. d. saunders relation of this disputation at oxford . the secōd disputation held by d. ridley in cambridge . triflinge disputations of our first protestants . fox pag. . fox pag. . fox noteth the disagreement of his ovvne men . ridleyes fond aunsvveringe . fox pag. . the . disputation at cambridge anno domini . d. perne confesseth the corporall presence of christ in the sacrament . fox pag. . fond arguments of sacramentaryes . albanus langlandus in confut . determ . nicol. ridley . the partiall dealinge of protestāts in their disputations . psalm . . the . disputation at cambridge . . fox pag. . d. pearne speaketh doubtfully & doubly about the sacramēt . the fond manner of this disputation . fox pag. . contradiction in fox his vvords . m. vauesour commended . zuinglius and oecolampadius doubtfull of their doctrine at the beginninge . fox pag. . the . disputation or determination at cambridge by m. ridley . fox pag. . ridley his entrance to his determination . diuers cōsideratiōs about the vncertainty of protestants beliefe . fiue pretended heades of ridleyes determination . ridleyes resolution about the sacrifice of the masse . fox pag. . hebr. . & . the miserable proceeding of ridley . the sixt disputatiō at cambridge by bucer . martyn bucer in great distresse . * mense decemb. cap. . fox pag. & . the questions of bucers disputatio . hovv scriptures are sufficient to saluation . a case representinge the heretiks of our dayes about cryinge for scriptures alone . matt. . tim . marc. vlt. matt. . the secōd paradox of martyn bucer . matt● . . . tim. . marc. vlt. matth. . the third paradox of martyn bucer . exod. . ezech. . hier. in comment . in cap. . ezech. dan. . act. . aug. l. de pradestinat . sanct cap . & lib. . de baptis c. . & l. . c. . fox pag. . an altercation betvveene custome & verity . au● . epist. . ad ia●uer . custome and verity cannot be at odds in the christian church . the . disputation in the cōnocation house armo . fox pag. . m. doctor vveston prolocutor . fox ibid. six only of all the cōuocation house refused to subscribe . m. cheiney . d. moreman . m. elmour m. philpot. fox pag. . iohn philpotis vaūt in the cōuocation house . fox ibid. three disputatiōs in oxford against cranmer , ridley and latymer . fox pag. ● . fox ibid. the indifferēt dealinge of cath. in their disputation the foolish reprehentiō vsed by cranmer & fox . fox pag. . fox pag. . the protestāt ministers excuse them solues frō disputation . the disputation of k. henry vvi●h lambert . * sup ●●p . di● . octob. a pretended disputation in the beginninge of q. elizabethes raigne anno . the great inequality & iniuryes offered in this pretēded disputation . fox page . three questions to small purpose . fox pag. . diuers frauds . . . fox pag. . col . . num . . . three indignityes o●●ered vnto the bishops . d. col● . an ostentation of the protestant side . fox pag. . open inequality . altercatiō of the bishops vvith syr nicolas bacon . the resolute speach of d. vvatson b. of lincolne . another altercatiō vvith the l. keeper . stovv anno domini . the issue of this disputation vvith the bishops . fox pag. . the inference vpō these disputatiōs . ten councells examined & confirmed the doctrine of the reall presence . laufrane . contra berengarium . * vvald . tom . . de sacram. cap. . notes for div a -e see the booke of statutes an . & . edou . . hovv disorderly catholike religion vvas ouerthrovvne in k. edvvards dayes . the entrance of q. mary . the state of the cōtrouersie in three questions . aug. l. . de baptis . e. . l. e. . & . & l. c. . * sup. cap. praeced . anno . the names of cōsubstantiality , of mother of god , and transubstanriatiō , determined after one manner . the state of the question for the protestants . motiues that drevv in nevv religion . sup. cap. . aug. tom . . aug. lib. de vtil . cred . tom . . cap. . aug. ibid. cap. . hovv a man may knovv the catholike church . aug. de vera rel . c. . & serm . . de temp . & lib. . cont . gaudent . denat . c. . groundes about the reall presence . demonstrations out of the scripture . three figures of christs flesh in bread . three other signes of christs flesh . colloss . . heb. . an inference vpō the former figures . hier. in 〈…〉 . proofes out of the nevv testament . io. . matth. . marc. . lu● . . . cor. . s. paules confirmation of the reall presence . the secōd ground about authorityes of fathers . see claud. de xanctes repet . & bellarm. l. de euchar. tom . and others . the first reason of the fathers . the secōd reason of fathers . the third reason . the . reason . chrysost. hom . . ad popul . ant●och . * de sancto phylogonio . . in ioan. cap. . & . & l. . cap. . the fifth reason . lib. . cent . haer●s ● . . ibidem . hom. . in matth. the sixth reason . diuers euident reasons togeather . the seanenth reason . aug. ●●ne . . ● . ps . ●● . chrysost. hom . . in epist. ad ephes. theodor. in . dialog . chrysost. hom . ad popul . antioch . & hom . . in ep . ad ephes. & lib. . de sacerdotio . the third ground of coūcells . theodoretus in . dial. the . ground of the churthes consent . miracles . hebr. . zuing. l. de vt sacramentaria . vveighty considerations . fathers authorityes reduced to tvvo heads . first head . catech. . mystag . lib. de sancto baptismo non ●ōge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . hom. . de pasc. de sacram. cap. . hem de euchar ●n ence● . . head . ambros. l. de ijs qui ●●trantur cap. . ambros. ibid. cyprian . de cena domini . cyrill . catech . mystag . . hom. . in matth. serm. de corp . domini . lanfrant . l. de corp . domini guit. l. . de corp . domini & ansel ep de corp . domini . the consent of the vniuer sall church . canon . . & . the greatnesse of the lateran councell . the state of the question . aug. l. . de baptis . c. . lib. . cop . . & . & l. . c. . the search of catholiks vnder k. edvv. for the groūds of the masse . about the name of masse . a l. . ep . . b serm. . & . de sēp & serm . . in domin . . post . pentecost . c ep. ad d●oscor & . ad episc . germ d . ep . & l. . c. . e lib. hist. uandal . f lib. . de cant . ps . ord . g can. . h in . conc. can . . & . ca. . i can. . k can. . l can. . m can . ambros. ibid. aug. ibid. the description of a true externall and visible sacrifice . an exāple of an hereticall fraude about fastinge . the excellency of the christian and externall sacrifice . aug. l. . de ciuit . cap. . lib. . cont . aduers. leg . & prophet . cap. . dan. . & . malach. . the opposition of the prophesie of malachie . circumstances that proue the sacrifice of the masse to haue byn fore prophesied . ioan. . & . ioseph . lib. . de antiquitat . iudaic. c. . the explication of the place of s. iohn ca. . about sacrifice . matth. . marc. . luc. . . cor. . proofe of the sacrifie by christs institution . iren. lib. . adu . haeres . cap. . a most cleere place of s. irenaeus for the dayly sacrifice . iren. ibid. iustin. dial . triph. a l. . const. apost . c. . & l . c. . & . b l. de eccl. hier. cap. . c epist. ad burdegal . cap . d ep . . deeret . ad orthodox . act. . that the apostles did sacrifice . litourgounion . cypr. lib . epist. . ambros. com . ent . in cap. . ad hebr. aug. l. . contr . faust. manich. cap. . diuers heads of fathers authorityes . . . . . . a optat. l. . cont . par●● . b tertull. l. de pen●te●t . c ambros. l. . ep . . . luther reiecteth all fathers about the masse . lib. de messa & l. deaurogand . miss . & lib. contr . angliae hegem . import●● considerations . . . . . . . . . the comparison of priests that offered or impugned the sacrifice of the masse . . . notes for div a -e tvvo things diligently to be noted . cy●ill . catech . . mystag . prope enitium . ambr . . do sacram. cap. . ambr. l. de myster imitiand . c. . chrysost. hom ● . in matth. epiph. in ancoras . circa medium . epiph. ibia . eusibius emiss serm . de pasehat . chrysost. hom . . & . in matth. greger . hom . . in euang . aug. tract . . in ioan. chrysost. in serm . ad pop. antioch . chrysost. l. . de sacerd . cypr. serm . de cana dominj . hilar. lib. . de trinit . ioan. . ambr. l. . de sacram. cap. . ephrem . lib. de natura de● minimè scrutan da cap. . august . op . ad volutian . aug. ibid. ibidem . cyrill . alex. l. . in ioan. cap. . luc. ● . marc. . luc. . d. tho. . part . q. . art . . vvaldens . tom . . cap. . & . calu. lib. . institut . cap. . §. . calu. ibid. three vvayes or manners of being in place . . . . hovv a body may be definitiuely in place . cap. . nazianzorat . . quae est quarta de theolog. matth. . luc. . marc. . the third condition or propriety of quantity . ioan. . math. . mare . . ephes. . se s. aug. ep . . ad volus . & l . de ciuit. dei cap. . & chrysost. euth●m cyrill . &c in cowmentavijs . shrysost . lib. . de sacerdotie . chrysost. hom . . in ep . ad hebr . nissen . orat . de paschate . hugo de sa victor . l. . do sacram. p. . cap. . tvvo difficultyes solued . the first difficulty about vnity . aug. ep . . ad volus. the secōd difficulty about quantity . diuers articles beleeued by protestāts are more hard then this . naturall examples inducing vs to this manner of being of christes body in diuers places . aug. ep . ●● ad volus. examples of the being of christs body in diuers places it once . act. . & . egesipp . l. . de excidio hierosol . ambr. orat . cont . auxentium athan. in vita anton. greg. lib. . dial . c . paul. ep . ad macarium . ioan. dia● . l. . de vita greg. c. . mare . . hovv christ is in heauen and in the sacramēt after a different manner . note this example . vli supra . aristot. . metiph . ●ext . . see auer● . in cpitom . metaphys . tract . . aui●ēbron . l. font . vitae tract . . vvaldensis tom . . cap. . basil. he . . & . de oper . sex die●um damascen . l. . cap. . of the actiuity of accidents being seperated from their substance . the vvord sacramēt explicated . the other vvords of tipe figure &c. explicated . note this example . tvvo significatiōs of the vvord sacramentally and both against the sacramentaryes . . . vvhat the vvord spiritually signifieth in this mystery . our heretiks cauill like to that of the arrians . concil . tr● dent . sess . . can●● . d. them. . part q. . art . . . cor. . aug. l. . de ●apt . cap. . aug. epist. . & in psalm . . aug. tract . . in ioan. aug. ep . . q. ● . . cor. . matth. . tertul l. de resur . caro . ●●ter . in ep . ad pamachi●m . matth. . guitmundus lib . & algerus leb . cont . berengarium . tert lib. do carn . christs & theod. l. . haeret . faehul . & euagr. l. . hist. c. . notethese tvvo examples . the first effect of sacrifice . the secōd effect of sacrifice vvith . degrees therof . notes for div a -e tvvo thinges to be considered . di - a it is graunted . sa - b it is true naturally . mis. c but ye may be supernaturally . da - d that is by course of nature . ri - e true. j. f true naturally . g it is true according ●● the ordinary nature of a soule . h the one and the other may be by gods omnipotēcy . i true according to their ordinary course of nature . k christ in the sacramēt filleth no place . ba - l this is falle for fox his soule vvas in his foote and head , and yet not god. ro - co . m naturally . fe - sti - n this is false . no. fe - o this graunted . sti - p it is true de facto in heauē , but not in the sacramēt . no. q true as it is circuscribed . da - r true naturally but not supernaturally . ri - s true , though a body is 〈…〉 quātity , but a substance that hath quantity . j. t non soquitur . aug. l. de ciuit. d●● cap. ● phil● of his styire in the conuocation house about this argument . fox pag. . . tim. melancth . epistola ad mart●●um 〈◊〉 . to the first argument . to the second . to the third . to the fourth . to the fifth . to the sixt . to the seauenth . to the eyght . ba - ro - co . s. augustines sentence of drinkinge christs bloud . aug. in exposit . isalm . . in psalm . ● . tract . . in ioan. de vtil●t paenit . c. . lib. . contra aduers. leg . & proph . c. . fe - a vvithou● all quantity . ri - b not vvithout all quantity . ● . fox pa● . . a comicall diuise of iohn fox . fox ibid. da - ri - a false & foolish . j. ee - ri - a false , nor are these properly qualityes . ● . * su●ra m●●se decembri . fe - a it is denyed . ●i - b and the like follovveth of the reall presence vvithout transubstantiatiō . son . ca - a true , fruitfully . ●es - b fruītefully they h●ue not . tres . . cor. . cypr. sor●● . de lapsis . aug ● cont . fulgent . donatist . cap . lib. . cont . pet●lian . cap . & in psalm . . & serm . de verbis domini & . de adulter . con●●g c. . & trast . . in ioan. aug. l ● ▪ de cu●t . des cap. . ican . . * non sacrament ▪ tenus . matth. . math. ibid. box pag. . ●a - ●● - ●● . bo - see this argument vrged by causton , higbed , and other foxian mar●yrs pag. . &c. car - do ▪ ioan. . ioan. . . fox pag. ● . * me●s● decem●r . first obiection . fox pag. . zuingl . l. da ver● & fals . religcap . de euchar . the au●svvere . aug. & cyril . in ioan. ioan. . a lib. . in ●p . ad rom. cap ● . b serm. de caena dom. c on●●es d ●●hunc e locum . loan . m. guests argument against the reall presence . fox pag. . col . . num . . g●n . . d. perne . fox pa● . . col . . num . . guests second argument . fox pag. . lib. primo generat . & lib. . phys. pilkinton● second argument . pilkintons third argument . pilkintons fourth argument . ioan. . ioan. . m. philips his argument . fox pag. . matth. . iean . . aug. tract . . in loan , tract . in lea●o aug. ibid. pag. . in margine . fox pag. . . ●l . num . . phil●otts first argument . fox pag. . & . the aunsvvere to m. cheneyes argument about mitrition & generatiō . certayne places of fathers explaned . fox pag. . col . . tert. lib. ▪ cont . marcion . c. . magd. c●nt . . cap. . ould hetetikes haue framed some particular heresies out of the fathers by their misvnderstandinge their meaning . ambr. l. . de sacra●● . cap. . s. ambrose expoundeth himselfe against the protestāts . aug. tract . . in ioan. the conclusion of this chapter . the miserable case of sectaryes , vvith out any sure ground to icane vnto . notes for div a -e disputation in the conuocatiō house . fox pag. . col . . num . . philpott . first point to be obserued . the secōd point to be obserued . the third point considerable . the . point of note . d. gly●●e his first discourse . ioan. . ibidem . ioan. . the ievves equall to vs by the sacramentary doctrine . ioan. . fox pag. . adoratiō of the sacrament . aug in psalm . . chrysost. hom . . ad pop antioch . psalm . ● . s. ambrose and s. austen handsomely shifted of . d. glyns reply . fox pag. . a strange shiftinge of the authorityes of fathers . fox pa● . ● col . ● . num . . fox pag. . s. chrysostome shifted of . matth. . hovv s. iohn baptist vvas elyas . ioan. . langdale disputeth fox pag. . col . . num . . fox ibid. m. sedgewicke his disputat●●n . m. ridley his ovvne contradiction . fox ibid. m. yonges disputation . the confutation of ● after ridi●yes euasion about saint cyprian . fox pag. . fox pag. . matth. ● . marc . luc. . fox pag. . col . . num . . ● . chadsoys first argument . sup. cap. . the secōd argumēt . fox pag. . aug . ●● vnitat . ecil . cap. . . argument . chrysost. hom . . ad pop. anti●ch . fox pag. col . num . . . argument or reply . in psal. . chrysost. hom . . in matth. fox pag. . chrysost. hom . . in . cor. . fox pag. . col . . 〈◊〉 . . . argument . chrysost. hom . . d. vveston doth vrg● eagerly . vrgo hec , vrgo h●c . fox pag. . . argument . d. chadsey . tertull. l. de res●●●ct carne● . c. . cranmers shifting of tertulli●● . tert. ibid. fox pag. . . argument out of s. hilary . d. tressa● . io●n . . fox pag. . hilar. l. . do trunt . bucer . l. cont . abrincensem fox pag. . hilar. ibid. fox ibid. d. yonge disputeth . fox pag. . col . . num . . fox angry vvith a syllogisme . amb. de e● qui initiantur . ambr. l. . de sacram. cap. . s. ambrose most cleere against cranmer and f●x . s. ambrose corrected by fox . hovv cranmer shifteth of saint ambrose . fox pag. col . . num . ● . ambr. l. . de sacram. cap. . ambr. l. . de sacram. cap. . the testimony of s. iustine examined . iustin. apol. . iren. lib. . cap. . cont . haeres . diuers corruptiōs obiected to cranmer . fox pag. ● . d. smith opponent . tvvo notaryes chosen . fox pag. . fox pag. . the first argument about christs being in many places . see of melancthon supra mens● decomb . act. . & . fox pag. . col . . num . . matth. . act. . coloss. . * fox pag ▪ . fox pag. . col . . 〈◊〉 . . chrysost. hom . . in ●p . ad hebr. an obseruation of ridleyes shifts vpō one place only of s. chrysostome . bern. s●r●● , de cana d●●● . fox pag. . another place of s. chrysostome vrged about elias . chrysost. hom . . ad pop. an●●ch . chrysost. l. . de . sac●rdoti● . chrysost. hom . . ad pop. antioch . fox pag. . col . , num . . tvvo pluckes of philpott praysed by fox . the absurdityes of philpott . fox pag. . m. vvard disputeth . fox pag. . theoph. comment . in . matth. theoph. in ●ap . . ioan. tert. lib. . cont . marcion . iust. mart. in ap●l . . aug. in psalm . . d. glyns argument about vvorshippinge the sacramēt . fox pag. . aug. cont . faust. manich l. . cap. . erasm. in ep . ad frat . infer . g●r●● . d. curtopp argued . chrysost. hom . . in . cor. . fox pag. . d. vvatson disputeth . . cor. . chrysost. in . cor. . fox pag. . . reg. . aug. in psalm . ▪ contion . . aug. ibid. cont . . ●● fox pag. . d. tressam disputeth . aug. lib ● . cont d●nat . cap. ● . fox ibid. num . . concil nico● primum tit . de diuina m●nsa , &c. vlt●m . editionis . fox ibid. fox pag. . chrysost. hom . . in . ad cor. fox pag. . ridloy in vvords vvil seeme to agree . fox pag. . latymers . morrovv . bones of the masse . fox pag. . latymer foundeth himselfe on cranmers booke . l●●h . l. de inissa priua●a fol. . contigit fox pag. . iohn fox excuseth the diuell and accuseth luther . the diuells impugningo of the masse as euill , proueth yt to be god. * mens● decembri . fox pag. . d. seatons argument cypr. de can. dom. fox pag. . aug. tract . . in ioan. heb. . s. cyprians place vrged by d. vveston . fox pag. . col . . num . . fox ibid. num . . d. pye disputeth . chrysost. serm . de prodit . iudae . cyrill . l. ▪ in cap. . ioan. fox pag. . the last colloquiū ▪ vvith latymer . 〈◊〉 ibid. fox pag. . the vaūts of ridley & cranmer hovv vvell performed . fox pag. . fox pag. . ibid. pag. . impudency of fox . fox pag. . d ridleyes passionate speach of the disputation . fox pag. . the fathers effectuall speaches to persuade the reall-presence . chrysost hom . . ad pop. antioch . & ●lij . matth. . luc. . ioan. . chrysost. hom . . in . cor. aug. in psalm . . h●sich . in cap. . leui● . chrysost. hom . . in . ad cor. aug. in psalm . . contion . . & . cyrill . hi●vos cathec . . mystagog . chrysost. hom . . ad top. antioch . ambr. l. . de sacram. cap. . & l. de initiand . all doubts about this matter condemned . cyrill hier. catech . mystagog . . ambr. l. . de sacordot . cap . cyril . alex. l. . ●nc . . ioan. hilar. l. . de trinit . cont . arrian . euseb. emissenus . hom de s●●ch . leo serm . . de 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . ep●ph . in an●●r . chrysost. in ●om . . in cap. . matth. cyril . alex. l. . in cap. 〈◊〉 . chrysost. ●b . cyril . alex. ib. l. . in ioan. c , . theophil . alex. in cap. . mare . idem in ca. ● . ioan. * arcanis verb● . magnesl . . ad th●ostinem . conc. ni●en . . act . emphaticall & effectuall speaches of the fathers . hilar. lib. . de trints . cy●●l . l. . in ioan. ● . theod. dial . . ●nconfus . iren. lib. . cont . hares . cap. . iustin apol . . ad an. tonin piu● imp. chrysost. hom . & . ad top . antioch . optat. l. . contra donatist . chalice-breakers . lee serm . . de pas . chate . chrysost. hom . . ad pop. antioch . & hom . . d● virbis i sa●a & hom . . de inc●mprahens . dei natura . exaggeratiue speaches of the fathers to vtter their minds the more cleerly . chrysost. hom . . ad pop. antioch . & hom . . in loan . cyrill . alex lib. . in loan . cap. . . cor. . idem . l. . in loan . cap. . marcus anac●oreta in . ad cor. iren. lib. . cont hares . cap. . ibid. lib. . cap. . tert. lib. de resurrect . carnis . chrysost. hom . . in . cor. . hom. . in c. . ad cor. ibid. l. . d● sacerdot . . . . . . . . the great vvarynesse of the fathers in speakinge of articles of faith . hier. lib. . apol. cont . ruffin , theodore● ▪ lib. . hist. c. . & . concil . ephes. act . . & . notes for div a -e reall presence cannot be graunted vvithout transubstantiation according to latymer . fox pag. . ridleyes fiue grounds against transubstantiation at cambridge . anno . fox pag. . . . . . . fox ibid. the first ground examined . matth. . marc. . * . cor. . exod. . ioan. . fox pag. . impertinēt places alleaged against transubstantiation . exod . . cor . ioan. . ridleyes secōd groūd of fathers . ridleyes . ground . the nature of a sacramēt . sap. cap. . §. . fox pag. . exod. . ridleyes . ground about eutiches his heresie . leo ep . . ad theedos . conci● . cal●●d . sess . . ridleyes . ground cōcerning christs assension . fox pag. . & . the discussion of the fathers authorityes alleaged by ridley . dionys. areop . in eccles. hictarch . . cor. . ignat. in epist. ad philadelph . iren. lib. . cont . haeres . cap. . theod. dia● . . gelas. ● . de duabus natur● . fox pag. . fox pag. . fox ibid. heb. . heb. . the difference betvveene ridley and the anciēt fathers in their persuasions . aug. ep . . & l . . . & l. . co●r faust. manich. c● . & . torrens . in confess august l. b. . cap. . fox pag. . fox pag. . the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker, or, a vindication of the protestant's answer, to the seeker's request williams, john, ?- . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing w estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker, or, a vindication of the protestant's answer, to the seeker's request williams, john, ?- . [ ], p. printed and are to be sold by randal taylor ..., london : . reproduction of original in huntington library. attributed to john williams. cf. nuc pre- . the "protestant's answer" is robert nelson's transubstantiation contrary to scripture. table of contents: p. [ ]-[ ] errata: p. . created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng n. n. -- catholic letter to the seeker. nelson, robert, - . -- transubstantiation contrary to scripture. catholic church -- controversial literature. transubstantiation. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - aptara keyed and coded from proquest page images - jonathan blaney sampled and proofread - jonathan blaney text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker : or , a vindication of the protestant's answer , to the seeker's request . imprimatur , liber cui titulus , [ the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker , &c. ] h. maurice rr. in christo p. d. wilhelmo archiep. cant. à sacris . maii . . london , printed and are to be sold by randal taylor , near stationers-hall , m.dclxxxviii . the contents . the matter in debate stated p. . the sum of the protestant answer p. . transubstantiation confest by many of the church of rome not to be proved by scripture , pag. . joh. . . consider'd , p. . not for transubstantiation , by the confession of several in the church of rome , ibid. it 's also proved by several arguments . as that place had no special reference to the sacrament , p. . eating the flesh then spoken of , may be out of the sacrament as well as in it , ibid. proved to concern those present as well as others . p. . the sense of eating the flesh of christ proved to be figurative , p. . of figurative speeches , p. . particularly here , p. , &c. of christ's being a vine , &c. p. . the words , this is my body , considered , p. . of the word this , p. . of christ's being in the sacrament after a spiritual manner , ibid. the texts produced by protestants for it , p. . . the letter of scripture for the protestant doctrine , p. . ( . ) where it 's call'd bread , and the fruit of the vine . ( . ) the body of christ had the natural properties of a body , p. . ( . ) the body of christ is in heaven , and circumscribed , p. . ( . ) that christ's body is glorified , and so not a sacrifice , p. . . the words which are figurative , are for us , such are these , this is my body , ibid. the protestant's answer to the catholick letter to the seeker , &c. here 's a catholick letter to the seeker , or a reply to the protestant answer to the seeker . but what 's become of the seeker himself , for this four months past ? what of the declaration he was in the conclusion to make for the catholick faith of rome , which we are now told of ? that according to the method , it seems agreed on , he may , after sentence pass'd in this case , proceed to the infallibility of the church , or other points of faith in difference betwixt them and the church of england ; as our author intimates there a little too early . the seeker had indeed given reason enough to judg on which side he was to be satisfied : that tho seemingly he was sent out like the dove , to try where he might find rest for the sole of his foot , yet we may see beforehand , what was the ark he was to return to ; and that they were as sure of him , as they are of a convert before they offer a conference . where 's now the resolution he was to come to ? has the protestant answer to the seekers request , broke these measures , and forced them to think of another expedient ? our author cannot altogether dissemble it . it seems the seeker was to put certain ties upon his answerers , to which his friend on the side of the church of rome submitted , and it was humbly conceived the protestant answerer would have done so too , as our author signifies , p. . but he being a lover of liberty more than courtship ; and of truth , and reason more than both , took upon himself , as its thought , too much authority , when together with his answer to the seekers request , he wrote a reply to the catholick answer to the seekers request . this is a course our author complains of , and perhaps he has some reason for it . but what has he to accuse the protestant answerer of ? that he has evaded the question . as how ? of this he gives a threefold instance . . that he has used the word transubstantiation . of this our author thus complains , p. . and . i do not find the word transubstantiation , so much as mentioned in either your request , or my answer . wherefore , how sincere the gentleman has been in this particular , let the world judg . a material point ! who would not think now , that the word transubstantiation was abominated by him , and as little used in their church , as it is in ours ? it 's fit therefore to know our authors mind in it . of this he saith , it 's a word devised by the church to express the conversion that 's made in the sacrauent , — and which mysterious change the holy catholick [ the roman ] church doth properly call transubstantiation , p. , and . now , where is the fault ? where the insincerity ? the insincerity they may take to themselves ; but the fault is , that when they thought by the use of the phrase , real presence , common to both them and us , and by the forbearance of the word transubstantiation , which is peculiar to themselves , that they might have imposed upon the unwary reader , the protestant answerer used the word transubstantiation for their real presence , and so their design is discover'd , and in part defeated . . he saith , the protestant answerer evaded the question , when instead of speaking to the real presence , he betook himself to transubstantiation , p. . now , who would not think upon this charge , that his real presence and transubstantiation , are as inconsistent as truth and falshood ? here indeed he has put a question , which i confess i should have been ready to ask ; what 's this to the purpose ? is not the real presence and transubstantiation all as one ? p. . and i should be as ready to ask again , if they are all as one , how was the question evaded , when instead of speaking to the real presence , the answerer betook himself to transubstantiation ? in this , he thus acutely answers . no truly , they are not all as one , as you may think . for there is a great deal of difference betwixt a man , and the name by which he is distinguished . — 't is one thing to prove the real presence , and being of christs body and blood in the sacrament ; and another to shew , why this change is by the church call'd transubstantiation ; tho whoever believes the one , can't in truth deny the other . that is , the real presence and transubstantiation , are not all as one , because they are all as one : and the answerer has evaded the question , by using the one for the other , because whoever believes the one , can't in truth deny the other . . but he has not yet concluded the charge . for saith he , whereas the controversy is not about the word , the answerer has altogether banter'd at the word transubstantiation , and not spoken to the substance , p. . so before , the arians with as much reason might have objected against the word consubstantial ( which was devised against them ) as the protestant answerer has done , where p. . he says , that it 's enough for them to shew that transubstantiation is not taught in scripture , tho the being of christs body and blood in the sacrament is , — p. . if our author's skill in reasoning be no better than it appears to be in ecclesiastical history , his adversary has no great reason to fear him . that the word consubstantial was used against the arians , i acknowledg ; but that it was devised against them ( as our author saith ) is spoken at adventure . for the contrary is evident that it was in use long before in the christian church . so saith eusebius , we have known certain learned and famous bishops and writers among the ancients , who reasoning upon the divinity of the father and son , have used the word consubstantial , or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . but to return to the charge ; where is this controversy managed in the answer about this unscriptural word transubstantiation , which the protestant answerer altogether banter'd at ? he has found it out in somewhat that is not there ; i shall here set down the words of the answer , with his , and let 's see how they agree , cath. letter , p. . protestant answerer , p. . he [ the protestant answerer ] says , that 't is enough for them to shew that transubstantiation is not taught in scripture , tho the being of christs body and blood in the sacrament is . 't is enough for us to shew , that transubstantiation is not taught in scripture , and that those that pretend 't is there , cannot shew it ; nay , that the literal sense concludes not for it ; and that our notion of the real presence , is agreeable to it . where this author is guilty of a double perversion . first , that he translates what is spoken of transubstantiation in the notion , to the word ( when there is not a syllable that looks , that way ) and then , that he would represent the real presence in the protestant , that is a spiritual , sense , to be an acknowledgment of the being of christs body and blood in the sacrament , in their way . but after our author has for some pages entertain'd himself in managing this imaginary dispute against his adversary , yet in confutation of himself he finds out another sort of matter that he is obliged to consider , and if he can , to confute . the protestant answer consists of two parts . in the first , are considered the texts produced in the catholick answer to the seeker , to prove their real presence , which i hope i may now call transubstantiation . in the second , there is given a catalogue of such texts , as maintain the protestant doctrine of christs spiritual presence , and in confutation of the corporal presence held in the church of rome . and now let us view our author's undertaking , and see how he has quitted himself in both of these . part i. sect. we are to consider in the first place , how our author has vindicated his own answer to the seekers request , and what reply there is made to the objections and arguments directed against his pretended proofs from scripture . in the entrance upon this matter , the protestant answerer suggested , that the seeker had put an unreasonable task upon his catholick priests , to prove their real presence , or transubstantiation , by the express text , and plain word of god ; since persons of the greatest note ; for quality and learning , in their church , have freely given it up , and granted it to be a vain attempt . such as scotus and biel , among the schoolmen , and the cardinals , alliaco , fisher , cajetan and bellarmin . what saith our author to this ? first , saith he , supposing it was so as these authors say , that there is not one place of scripture so express , that without the determination of the church , it would evidently compel a man to receive transubstantiation . — yet the same might as well be said of the consubstantiality of the son , p. . will our author venture to say , there is no more from scripture to prove the consubstantiality of the son , than there is to prove transubstantiation ? or hath he any heart to say it , after the publishing the doctrine of the trinity and transubstantiation compared , and as long as that book lies unanswered ? but let that be as it will. what , saith he , is this to the being , or not being of the body and blood of christ in the sacrament ? had be produced scotus , bellarmin , &c. to disprove the real presence , it had been something , tho not to your purpose . for the request was to satisfie you by scripture only , and not by citing our modern divines , &c. but by the express text , &c. but i think it was to the purpose to shew that some of the most eminent in their church declare it is not to be proved in that way , and i think to declare it cannot be proved , is little better than to disprove it . at last our author is content to yield up scotus , one of his modern divines , and bellarmin ; and he adds , if what they have said in that matter , will do the gentleman a kindness , he shall have it not only from them , but all the faithful . if so , i fear our author then will be left alone ; for if all the faithful are of the same mind with scotus and bellarmin ; then his undertaking to prove transubstantiation by the express texts of scripture , will be a fruitless attempt . but we go too far , for that 's to be understood with a reserve , viz. scripture without the determination of the church is not so express , &c. this premised , our author cheerfully proceeds , that altho the scripture were never so plain , we would yet submit to the determination of the church , for the true sense and meaning thereof . so that tho he pleads scripture , and would fain find out somewhat that looks like an express text ; yet he doth it not , nor would be understood , that he thereby renounced the determination of the church . for whether the scripture be plain for it or not , is not the foot this matter rests upon ; and altho it were never so plain , yet the church is to give it the true meaning ; and whatever meaning the church gives it , that is the true meaning ; and so , if the church had determined against transubstantiation , as it has determined for it , there would have been still express texts , and the case had been alike resolved . sect . ii. at last we are come to the main seat of the controversie , p. . the catholick answerer had produced two places of scripture as his plain texts for transubstantiation ; the first is , joh. . . here the protestant answerer interposed , and first directed the seeker , where he might find about thirty writers of the roman church , who reject that text as not serving to our author's purpose , pag. . and then proceeds to shew for what reasons they and we do so reject it . arg. . as it had no special reference to the sacrament ; and that for two reasons : . because this discourse of our saviour was delivered above a year before , ver . . to this first our author replies , that the fourth verse , [ the passover , a feast of the jews , was nigh ] is no rule to shew the sacrament was not instituted above a year after . for , saith he , that this word nigh should signifie above a year after , is such a figure as never was : and so gravely repairs to his concordance to prove the word nigh is not by express and plain scripture to be taken for above a year after . certainly there was never more need of express and plain scripture , when men cannot look a chapter or two before them . for would any one that was conversant in the gospels , think that st. john here , and st. luke . . must needs speak of the same passover , because st. luke hath the same word , now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh , which is call'd the passover . i see our author wants here a little information . let him therefore turn to chap. . v. , & . and he will find a feast of tabernacles ; and go on to chap. . . and he will find another passover . now i hope i need not acquaint him that these two feasts of the tabernacles and passover were kept in different months , and that the same passover could not be before and after the feast of tabernacles ; and consequently , it must be a year betwixt the passover , joh. . . and that joh. . . and as much above a year betwixt our saviour's discourse , joh. . and the passover , as that was before the approaching passover that was said to be nigh . . the protestant answerer proceeded to shew that this discourse of our saviour had no special reference to the sacrament , because the eating the flesh , and drinking the blood here spoken of , might be out of the sacrament as well as in it , and at that present as well as a year after . this he proved from vers. , , , . in all which the present time is still spoken of , except ye eat . he that eateth . — my flesh is meat . to this our author replies : to say , that the flesh of christ may be eaten out of the sacrament , and even before it was instituted , &c. is indeed such a figure , as none but himself can unriddle , p. . i answer , but to say ( as he doth ) that christ would give us bread to eat in the sacrament , which should be the very same flesh which he would , and afterwards did give for the life of the world , that is , that he should give it before it was given , is a figure i doubt our author himself cannot unriddle ; who saith again , that before he gave it , 't was impossible for them to eat it ; but he gave it not , till he gave it on the cross. ( ) but to say that the flesh of christ here spoken of ( an exposition our author left out ) might be eaten out of the sacrament , as well as in it , is no riddle , if it be true . and it is true if our saviour spoke here of his flesh that might be , and was then to be eaten , at the same time as he spoke it , by all those that were then his present auditors ; as the answerer proved from verses , , &c. to this our author opposes vers . . the bread which i will give is my flesh , &c. where , saith he , christ promised , and told them before that be would ( in the future tense ) give them bread to eat , which should be the very same flesh , which he would , and afterwards did , give for the life of the world . whence he infers , if the bread which he in the sacrament gives us to eat , saying , take , eat , this is my body , be not that bread which he promised he would give us to eat , pray ask your protestant answerer , where , when , and how did christ give us bread to eat , which should be his flesh , if this be not ? pag. . what is a little out of its place , in our author , i have here laid together , that i may give it its full force : to this i answer : . i readily own with our author , that the words , i will give , contain a promise , but then we differ about the time when they were fulfilled . he saith , they refer to his last supper , when he took bread , &c. under the forms of bread and wine . but now if i am examined upon the where , the when , and the how , i should refer it to the cross ; and that because of the following words , the bread which i will give is my flesh , which i will give for the life of the world . for he gave not his flesh for the life of the world in the sacrament ▪ but after the institution of that , on the cross ; not under the forms of bread and wine , but in his own proper form , and visible to the spectators . the reason of his mistake seems to be , that he reads the future tense after this manner , our saviour told them that he would give them bread to eat , which should be his flesh. where he is guilty of two over-sights . first , that he applies that to the future which is spoken of the present , for he reads it should be his flesh , as if it was first bread , and then was to be flesh , to put the better colour upon their doctrine of transubstantiation ; whereas our saviour saith , the bread is my flesh , which is directly against it ; and if it signifies any thing of that nature , would rather prove that his flesh should be bread. for it 's not said , the bread which i will give shall be my flesh , but rather that which is my flesh , i will give to be bread. . he alters the terms of the text , for the words are , which i will give for the life of the world ; and he reads them , which i will give them to eat : as if the promise refer'd only to the bread which they should eat ; and not to the flesh which was to be given for the world . so that we see what 's like to become of his question , he prays his seeker to ask his protestant answerer , viz. where , when and how did christ give us bread to eat which should be his flesh , if this be it not in the sacrament ? for he must frame his question anew , if he would have it to the purpose ; and must read st. john again ( notwithstanding what he saith he has done on this occasion , pag . ) and whatever he found before , i am apt to think after this little light given to him , he will not find those words in this chapter , he would give them bread to eat , which should be his flesh. and if he reads the protestant answer again , he will find no occasion for those words , where , &c. if this be it not ? for the answerer did not except the sacrament , and say the eating the flesh , and drinking the blood here spoken of , could not be in the sacrament , but that it might be out of the sacrament as well as in it ; intimating thereby that it was not to be understood in a sense peculiar to the sacrament , but in a sense common to that and other offices of religion ; and that eating and drinking were ( as he shew'd ) but other words for coming and believing . . but our author has a further reserve , and offers at a peculiar exposition of those phrases , i suppose it's ( in his phrase . p. . ) his private meaning ● v. , &c. except ye eat , — he that eateth . not , saith he , that he did then give , or that they did then eat his flesh , and drink his blood , which they could not do before he took it , blessed it , brake it , and gave it . for at that time when he spake this , he only told them he would give it , and the eve before his passion , he performed it . and from that time i suppose the obligation bears force , ver . . except ye eat , &c. i will suppose that the present doth not here exclude the future , and that he that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood hath eternal life , will always hold true , and what all ages as well as those then present would partake of ; but methinks it 's very hard to make the present exclude it self , and to tell us that they did not , and could not then eat the flesh of christ , when our saviour saith they might and ought , as is evident from what follows . let us go to the thing to be eaten , and it 's represented in the present tense , v. . this is the bread. v. . i am the bread. v. . is my flesh. v. . my flesh is meat . let us go to the act , and in correspondence to the object , it 's also in the present , v. . if any man eat . thus the jews understood it , v. . how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? and accordingly our saviour answers , v. . except ye eat , &c. ye have no life in you . he speaks it to those present , ye ; and then applies it universally , v. . whoso eateth my flesh , &c. let us go to the thing signified by eating and drinking , and it 's after the same manner , v. . he that cometh , and he that believeth , v. , , , . i shall conclude this with what was said in the protestant answer . if christ's flesh here spoken of , might be eaten , and his blood drank out of the sacrament , then it could not here be understood of that flesh and blood which our author saith the bread and wine are converted into in the sacrament ; nor , i may add , of carnal eating his flesh , and drinking his blood. our author resents this ill , for he saith , as to his carnal eating , we beg his pardon , if he means as we eat beef , and other meats . for that we truly and really receive the body and blood of christ ( to use his own words ) after an heavenly and spiritual manner ; we should agree , did we not differ in this , that they receive it in figure and fancy only , and we receive it in substance and truth , pag. . here i acknowledg i intended no hurt in the world , but thought i had exprest my self innocently enough . for when i had read in the catholick answer , that in the ▪ eucharist is truly , really , and substantially contained under the forms of bread and wine , the true body and blood of our lord jesus in the very substance wherein he was born of the virgin , and wherein he lived and died for us , with this difference only , that he was visible to the eye of flesh then , and invisible to the same now . i thought the word carnal was expressive of the thing , and indeed i find no great reason to alter it : for , . had i said metaphorically and figuratively , that by no means would suit what is corporal . and besides , i learn too from our author , pag. . that that is a deceitful , fictious manner . . had i said corporal , i see little distance betwixt that and carnal ; for as body and flesh is all one , so is corporal and carnal . . had i chosen the word spiritual , that 's a kind of contradiction , if applied to a body ; for spiritual eating of a body is little better than bodily eating of a spirit . and when a real presence by faith would not content them , if we deny a real presence by sense , seeker , pag. . i had as much reason to believe a spiritual eating would be no more allowed than a spiritual presence . . had i express'd it by heavenly , when it was somewhat eaten and drank corporally , and that what we took with the mouth was the very body of christ , it could not be sufficiently expressive of it . it was further urged , arg. . upon mature consideration of the whole , it appear'd to the protestant answerer , that the sense of eating the flesh of christ in this place must be figurative , and signifies no other than coming to christ , and believing in him ; which sure is out of the sacrament , as well as in it . and this indeed he proved from the promiscuous use of the words in that chapter ; but this our author conceals from his reader , that he might not too apparently contradict what he had said , pag. . that he says ( by no authority but his own ) that the sense of eating the flesh , must be figurative ; and right or wrong they are figurative , upon his own bare word , without scripture . but as the protestant answerer argued from the words and phrases of the chapter , so from the current of our saviour's discourse , that it could not be properly and literally understood . ( . ) because then all that properly eat the flesh of christ , would according to our saviour's promise , v. . have eternal life ; whoso eateth , &c. to this our author answers , very truel but with a qualification that recalls what he had granted . for it 's to be understood , saith he , of worthy receivers . but this is by no means consistent with our saviour's reasoning , which if the flesh to be eat , and the eating of it were to be understood properly , will necessarily infer the salvation of all such as thus eat after this manner ; as well unworthy as ●●worthy . since all that eat his flesh , and drink his blood , in the sense there meant , are the persons to whom eternal life is promised ; but if properly eating his flesh be the sense of our saviour's expressions there us'd , then we know what follows . . the protestant answerer urged further , that if the words eating the flesh , and drinking the blood , be properly to be understood , then the receiving the sacrament in both kinds will be necessary to salvation ; it being affirmed , v. . except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , and drink his blood , ye have no life in you ; and he shewed that for this reason , amongst others , cardinal cajetan would not admit that this discourse of our saviour belong'd to the eucharist . what saith our author to this ? truly nothing . as to this , saith he , of both kinds , it doth not properly relate either to your request , or my answer . a reply that may be made in any case . he goes on , and besides , i do not see where the necessity lies of defining the sacrament in both kinds to one that believes ▪ it in neither . that is , as much as to say , i beg his pardon , i will not vouchsafe an answer to such an one as he is ; but however , methinks he might have said somewhat , if it had been only for the satisfaction of the distressed seeker , to whom he writes his letter ; to let him see that there is no consequence in this argument . it puzled cardinal cajetan , a man of sense and sagacity ; and surely the seeker may then be led away by the error of it , and it may put off his declaration for the catholick faith four months longer . but there is no danger , it was not necessary to one that doth not believe ; but he declares he is ready to satisfie his seeker , that is , one that doth believe , as we may conceive . i know not whether this may not have put our author a little out of humour , for he cannot but abhor , he saith , to see men mould gods word into what form they please , and make every thing a figure , that doth not square with their fancy . is it because our saviour spake some things by way of parable , that all he said was such ? or that he never spake otherwise ? how comes it that mean capacities are ( by the church of st. martin's ) left to themselves , to judg of the true sense of scripture , according to d. t. who tells you in his true account of a conference , that a man after using all christian means , and the help of all ministerial guides possible , must at last judg for himself . — a special assertion indeed ! which if true , what need of teachers ? &c. pag. ▪ but how doth he mould the word of god into what form he pleases , that understands that figuratively which was figuratively spoken ? and to whom doth our author speak when he thus expostulates , is it because our saviour spake some things by way of parable , that all he said was such ? had he no other way to get clear of his adversary , but to fix this upon him ? and had he no other way to meet with those that plead for the perspicuity of scripture , but to tell the world , that they own our saviour never spake otherwise than in parables ? how mean and ridiculous is this ? but however this was a fair occasion as he thought to make a special remarque upon the doctrine taught by the church of st. martin's . now here the protestant answerer is more immediately concerned as a parishioner ( though one of the mean capacities there taught ) and would fain see how our author would manage himself in a debate upon that argument ; especially when after his exclamation against it , he himself is forced to acknowledg the reasonableness of it . for if a man must not at last judg for himself ; or if so , that there will be no need of teachers ; then it 's in vain to send answers and letters to a seeker , and to propose texts to his examination : and yet in this special way doth our author proceed from the beginning to the end of his letter . he leaves it to his seeker to pass sentence upon what has been said by either party , pag. . whether , saith he , this hath any reference , be you the judg. pag. , . he desires him to consult the words , and see whether those texts do imply , &c. pag. . seriously to distinguish and peruse the texts , pag. . so that it seems this special assertion ought to be one of his own , who teaches his seeker so far , after the same way as mean capacities are taught by the church at st. martin ' s. to come to a close of this argument ; the protestant answerer the better to represent his adversaries weakness in decrying figures and parables , shewed him how this discourse of our saviour so abounded in them , that there were no less than twenty expressions of that kind in it ; and accordingly drew out several of them for our author to try his skill upon , and to resolve them without a figure , pag. . first , saith he , let the catholick answerer tell me without a figure , what is that meat which endures to everlasting life ? here our author labours hard to prove that the meat in v. . is the bread and flesh , v. . and concludes , which flesh , without a figure , i humbly conceive is that meat which endureth unto everlasting life . but i as humbly conceive he has not reach'd the point ; for granting the meat , the bread , and the flesh to be one and the same , yet how is the flesh of christ bread and meat without a metaphor , when it 's only spiritually and not corporally eaten , as he saith , and when neither capable of digestion , nor we of nourishment by it ? again , if this be eaten only in the sacrament , how can it under the form of bread endure to everlasting life , or how can it be meat that thus endures , when it is not to be eaten in heaven , and all sacraments and institutions cease ? the other questions were . how the son was sealed by the father ? how jesus is bread , and the bread that came down from heaven ? how the bread and the flesh of christ could be the same ? v. . and if the same , how it could come from heaven , when he was of the seed of david , according to the flesh ? how one of his church can talk of a literal sense of , [ except ye drink his blood ] , which denies the cup to the laity ? to all these our author returns a general answer , as to his , how the son was sealed by the father , and the rest of his how 's ? they are such jewish expressions , as that all christian pretenders ought to be ashamed of them . so the jews said , v. . how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? so jewish it is to question god , how he could do it ? how this ? how that ? and so he runs on to the creation , and incarnation , &c. i am a little at a loss here , to what cause our authors mistake is to be assign'd ? surely he could not but understand that the how relates not to the manner , how these things be ? but , how these things could be thus applied to our saviour without a figure ? i am afraid that he saw the difficulty , and so slipt away from it ; for else , why should he answer directly to the first query , which would more plausibly bear it ; and indirectly and fraudulently to the rest ? and yet , as if he had to a demonstration proved what he had undertaken , and effectually confuted his adversary , he will still have the words express and plain , without a figure . for thus he concludes , p. . if these express and plain words of christ be a figure , where he says as plain , as plain can be , that he would give us bread to eat , which should be his flesh , [ but which i have shewed before , he did not say . ] i say , if these words are figurative , and must not be properly understood , i see no reasen , why the whole bible should not be a figure too . for if ever christ was plain in any thing , 't was in this ; especially in a point , wherein there was never more occasion to expound , if a figure , than when the jews ( to whom he came ) murmured and said , how can this man give us his flesh to eat ? and when some of the disciples said it was an hard saying , and thereupon walked no more with him . he that , in cases of less moment always explain'd his parables , should yet be dark and figurative in this of that importance , and which he well foresaw , occasions our differences at this day ; it would be contrary to his wisdom and goodness . but so far was christ from this , that he confirms it , v. . with a verily , verily , except ye eat the flesh , &c. i have transcribed this the more at large , because it contains some things very peculiar , and is indeed the utmost force of what he hath for his defence . i answer to this . . in general , it 's manifest , that our saviour is not literally plain ; since it 's acknowledg'd that his discourse is figurative , from ver . . to ver . . and is it not strange , that when he had so long discours'd after that manner , that yet in one verse , he should mean literally , and which if literally understood , would be so manifest a contradiction to the sense and reason of mankind , that if he had literally said he was bread , he could not have more astonished them , than when he said , except ye eat the flesh of the son of man , &c. if properly and literally to be understood . . whereas he saith our saviour always explain'd his parables ; that is too largely spoken . for even those , which he chuses out of mark . , , , were not expounded to the multitude ; and if his argument signify any thing , must therefore be properly understood by them . but why did not he propound the case in dispute , and give us a like instance in figurative and metaphorical expressions ; such as our saviour uses in this chapter ? for , are sealing , hungring , &c. to be understood properly , because it 's not said , that they are to be understood figuratively ▪ nay , are eating his flesh , and drinking his blood , to be understood properly ? then certainly , the capernaits were in the right , that thought our saviour spoke of carnal eating , which yet our author will not allow . . he saith , there was never more occasion to expound , if a figure , than when the jews murmured , and some of his disciples went away ; and what he saw , occasions our differences . ( . ) as for the murmuring of the jews , there was no such occasion for our saviour's expounding it ; for thus also they murmured , because that christ said , i am the bread that came down from heaven , v. . and yet , tho he took notice of it , ver . . he thought not himself concerned to explain his meaning , where there might be more reason for their mistake , than there could be in this . indeed our saviour look'd upon them as an obstinate and intractable sort of people , and so did purposely conceal himself often , as was observed before , mark . and this we are not without some light in , in the case before us . for this discourse of his , was in the synagogue , v. . and they were the same people that before were offended and cavilled , ver . , . and therefore our saviour left them in the dark , tho afterwards , when his disciples murmured , v. , , . he tells them , it was spiritually to be understood . ( . ) as for those disciples , it doth not appear , that they walked no more with him , because they were offended at his saying , ( for that he explain'd it to them ) but because he gave an intimation that he discovered their insincerity , v. . there are some of you that believe not ; and it follows , from that time many of his disciples went back , &c. ( . ) neither was there any such occasion for our saviour's expounding himself from our differences ; if he had meant it properly , i grant there could never be more occasion , because it 's a doctrine so contrary to the sense and reason of mankind ; but when it 's not so explain'd , the sense and reason of mankind may be thought a sufficient security against mistake . and there might be as much reason for our saviour to expound himself , when he saith , he is bread , a door , a vine , a rock . but all this while , our author supposes our saviour not to have explain'd himself . i grant it , he did not do it on their side ; but i think he has done it to all attentive and unprejudiced minds ; if they will either consult the foregoing part of this discourse , where he speaks of himself , under the allusions of bread and flesh , v. , , , . and of believing in him under the the metaphors of coming and eating , v. , , , , , , . or if they consult the conclusion , v. . where he tells his offended disciples , it 's the spirit that quickneth , &c. as if he had said , the eating my flesh , and drinking my blood , which i propound to you , is not as those cavilling jews did misconstrue it ; and as you , i perceive , mistake ; for in that flesh , i am to ascend into heaven ; but it 's the heeding and obeying my precepts , the receiving my doctrine , and believing in me as your redeemer , that i require , and you are to regard . and indeed , thus st. peter understood him , who concludes almost in the same words , lord , to whom shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal life . and we believe , &c. v. , . . he saith , that christ was so far from meaning otherwise than plainly , as he spake , that to the murmuring jews he confirms it , v. . with a verily , verily , i say unto you , except , &c. whereas in parables be explained himself to them . that is , our saviour meant plainly , because he did not explain himself . but , saith he , he confirmed it . what did he confirm ? did he confirm the literal sense ? that he did not before give , and so could not confirm . or doth the repetition of it without explication shew it to be the literal sense ? that he contends for . but then by parity of reason our saviour meant properly , when he said , i am the door . for it 's there said in confirmation of what was before : verily , verily , i say unto you , i am the door , joh. . , . but why did our saviour repeat it ? without doubt to shew that he spoke it not inconsiderately ; and if i add , to explain what he before said , it 's not without somewhat in the text to countenance it . for before he spoke of himself under the notion of flesh , v. , . but then of flesh and blood , to intimate both the violence and manner of his death ; which he did usually speak with more caution and reserve about . if we reflect upon what has been said , we see how unwarily ( i am loth to add more ) our author delivers himself , when he saith , if these words are figurative , i see no reason why the whole bible should not be a figure too . and if ever christ was plain in any thing , it was in this . and , which i cannot recite without some indignation ; should he explain himself in matters of less weight , and yet be dark in this great concern , is what would be contrary to his wisdom and goodness , p. , . so that there shall be no sense or perspicuity in scripture , nor wisdom and goodness in our saviour , if their doctrine be not his , and he be not of the same mind with them . indeed after all our author's confidence in this matter , and his questioning all things , if this be questioned : he determines that which the greatest authority in his church , the council of trent , would not determine . for when it had been sharply debated for and against these words being understood of the eucharist , it was at last agreed for the satisfaction of both sides , neither to affirm nor deny it , and to yield to those that deni'd it , that they had fathers and doctors on their side . and thus the council concludes ; however that discourse ( of our saviour's , joh. . ) be understood according to the divers interpretations of the holy fathers and doctors , sess . c. . here our author takes a great leap from pag. . of the answer , to pag. . but because it 's not amiss , i shall follow him : the protestant answerer put it to them to give as plain letter of scripture to prove christ was neither a door , rock , nor vine , as he could that he was all three : or that all christians are not turn'd into christ's natural body , when it 's said ephes. . . we are members of his body . this he did to shew that the phrases , eating the flesh , and , this is my body , were not of themselves sufficient to enforce us to take them in a proper sense ; since it 's no more plainly said , except ye eat the flesh , &c. and , this is my body ; than it 's said , i am the door , the vine , &c. now what course doth our author take to assoil this ? let 's see , saith he , whether the parity 'twixt i am the door , the vine , &c. be the same with , the bread is my flesh , and , this is my body , without ever explaining a syllable to the contrary . here he is a little too forward . for he is to remember that the thing requir'd is to give as plain scripture to prove that christ was neither a door , nor vine , &c. as there is for it . he knows who said it , i will prove the catholick doctrine of the real presence , and i defie the world to prove the contrary . cath. answ. to the seeker , pag. . and that declares again , it 's impossible to bring one text out of the whole bible to prove that the body and blood of christ is not in the sacrament , cath. letter , pag. . if now he so expects , then it may be so expected from him , that he should prove the negative , and that by as plain a text he should shew christ is not a door or vine , as we can shew that he is . i must confess i put him upon a ridiculous task , but who can help it , it 's in his own way . but to leave this trifling , let us return to see his parity ; though i doubt we shan't much better our selves . as for the door , he saith , the text tells us it was a parable , joh. . . this parable spake jesus . wherefore if the protestant answerer would be so kind , as to produce plain scripture for this of the sacrament's being a figure , as i have done for the door 's being a parable , he 'l certainly gain a proselyte of me . as for gaining him a proselyte by plain scripture , i have reason to despair , who declares beforehand that though the scripture were never so plain , he would yet submit to thi determination of the church , pag. . but where is this plain scripture for the door 's being a parable ? he points to the verse . but what was the parable he spoke ? it 's in the verses foregoing about a door , i grant ; but not of christ's being the door ; for that follows after , ver. . then said jesus unto them again , verily , verily , i am the door . so that if he keeps to his own way without explaining a syllable , he is where he was , and christ may be as properly a door , as we may properly eat the flesh of christ. he goes on : in like manner of the vine , christ saith , joh. . . i am the true vine , and my father is the husbandman , as mat. . . when he likened the kingdom of heaven to an housholder ; and so goes on explaining the same , ver . . as the branch cannot , &c. which if you read the chapter , you 'l find to be more plain . i perceive he is very serious , and i am of his mind , if the seeker read on , he would find it plain , that christ is not properly a vine , and so say i , if he reads joh. . he would find it as plain , that eating the flesh of christ is not properly to be understood . but if words will oblige us without attending the sense , and we must take them as we find them without explaining a syllable , then i say still it 's as plainly said , i am the true vine , as my flesh is meat indeed ; and according to our author's way of exposition , this can be no parable . for , saith he , you 'l find in all cases christ spake not by parables without telling them it was so , pag. . but here it 's not so said ; for as before , so after the words , v. . as the branch , &c. he saith , v. . i am the vine . he goes on : in like manner of the rcck , that he was the corner-stone , upon which the foundation was laid , &c. but how doth he prove christ was not properly a rock according to his own way ? because , saith he , he is a corner-stone , and a foundation , which is just as if he had been asked , how he would prove , without explaining a syllable , christ is not properly a corner-stone , or a foundation ; and he should say , because he is a rock . but what saith he to the last instance , to prove as plainly , christians are not turned into christ's natural body , when it 's said we are members of his body , ephes. . ? to this an answer is to be expected . well , after all his windings and turnings , his parities , and without explainings , and his reading , and his in like manners , and his rules for understanding parables , the words are as plain and express that christ is a door , a vine , a rock , and we are members of christ's body , as they are that we eat the flesh of christ ; and if one be properly to be understood , there is as much reason from the meer words for the like understanding the other . after this digression , our author undertakes the last argument of the protestant answerer , viz. arg. . here is nothing of the conversion of the bread into the body of christ ; but rather the contrary ; for if the words are literally to be understood , then they would rather infer the conversion of christ's flesh and blood into bread and wine , when he saith , i am the bread of life , v. . my flesh is meat ( or bread ) indeed . as to the first , which is the conversion of the bread into the body of christ , and the chief thing proposed to him , he hath silently past it over ; perhaps he saw here also no necessity of defining or proving it to one that believes it not . but to make up this defect he gives his adversary a grave reprimend , that when he had just before said , that these words had no special reference to the sacrament , he should now so apply them , by an odd way of shufflng . and why did he not as sharply admonish him for offering to shew that the words might infer the conversion of christ's flesh into bread ? for both alike belonged to him . our author it seems apprehended not all this was argumentum ad hominem . but how doth he clear the point , and shew they infer no such conversion ? first he saith , for proof whereof , [ that christ's flesh is not turn'd into bread ] let us go to the words of conversion , this is my body . but , methinks , it would have better became him to have first proved the conversion of the bread into flesh from these words . as for st. john , he grants that had the words been , my flesh is bread indeed , as his adversary would fain have them , then he would have something on his side . but if that be the sense of it , and the words bread and meat are used by our saviour promiscuously ; then it 's so far acknowledged . and for that i shall refer our author to v. , . but he will not allow v. . to look that way , nor indeed will i. but yet they will as soon prove christ turned into bread , as the words the bread that i will give is my flesh , will prove the bread turn'd into his flesh ; which they so little do , that they rather would imply the contrary , if understood literally , as i have shewed pag. but he concludes , rather than differ , i 'le joyn in opinion with the protestant answerer , and these other divines , and with him and them submit to the determination of the church . but where is this the opinion of the protestant answerer ? surely our author is like him in aristotle , that where ever he went , fancied he saw himself . but what need is there to go to the church in this case ? for i hope he will think sense and reason sufficient to instruct men whether those words will prove that christ was turned into bread : and we think sense and reason as sufficient to inform them whether the words of our saviour will prove that bread was turn'd into christ's flesh. i now thought this matter had been at an end , when the protestant answerer past from this argument to the second text. but our author has not yet done with him . for he tells us , there is one argument yet , on which the gentleman seems much to depend ( pag. . ) when he says , since if christ be not , but where he intirely is , then ( says he ) he must be eaten intirely , &c. from whence he concludes the not being of christ's body in the sacrament , because ( as he conceives ) he is not there intire , for reasons ( not scripture ) of his own , p. . bless me ! thought i , where am i now ? in the land of oberon ? what shall i say ? he quotes pag. . i hastily turn'd thither , and there i was satisfied my memory had not yet forsaken me . the case is thus , the answerer , as is before observed , to shew the absurdity of our author's appealing to the mere letter , put several queries to him out of this chapter , which he desired him to resolve in his own way , without going to figures . the last of which was this , how he can literally interpret , ver . . [ he that eateth me ] that holds in the eucharist is contained the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of our lord jesus christ. — since if christ be not but where he intirely is , then he must be eaten intirely . this question amongst others was there drop'd by our author ; and the reason is apparent , for he must either have acknowledged that the words he that eateth me , must be understood figuratively and spiritually , and not corporally : or else that the soul and divinity of christ must be eaten with his body : or that the soul and divinity of christ are not in the eucharist with his body . the case , i confess , is hard to one that has somewhat else to respect than truth ; and therefore it became him to be silent . but why he should now bring it on the stage under another guise , i can't imagin , when thus to resume it , and pervert it , must as much expose his insincerity as the omission of it before , did his inability to answer it . the reader will see that the argument and the conclusion are none of the answerer's ; for that proposition , where ever christ is , there he intirely is , is a principle of our author's , and which is there made use of against him that profess'd to believe with the same faith he believes a god , that in the eucharist is truly and substantially contained the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of our lord jesus christ , cath. answ. to seeker , p. . and where our author found the conclusion . i know not , for there is nothing in the protestant answer like to this , that from thence concludes the not being of christ's body in the sacrament , because he is not there intire . however it may not be amiss to see how our author relieves himself : saith he ; to which , i answer and grant , that christ is not , but where he is intire . and whether christ who is perfect god , may not be intire in the sacrament , and in many places at one and the same time , is the query ? which if fully resolved , will overthr●w all his reasoning ware besides ? well , how will he prove christ intirely in the sacrament ? that is , the true body of christ with the soul and divinity . that was forgot before , and so is not to be remembred ; but if it may be accepted for a full and intire answer , he will prove his body may be intire in many places at one and the same time . what he saith of that , belongs to another place , and shall there be considered , p. . but what is this to his soul and divinity ; and to the literal sense of he that eateth me , and the argument the answerer prest upon him ? he will be able to answer it , when he can prove his proposition , that christ is not , but where he is intire ; for then his body must be omnipresent as well as his divinity , which after all the may be 's , and his attempts to prove it possible for christ's body to be in many places at one and the same time , i suppose he will have no allowance to publish , if he should have the imprudence to maintain . sect . iii. we are at length come to his second text to prove his real presence , viz. this is my body . here the protestant answerer shew'd how absurd the direction of the seeker was , that his answerers should produce their texts , without troubling themselves to tell the meaning on 't , because he was certain that the doctrine of transubstantiation could never be the literal meaning of those words . as for example , saith he , where is there one word , that the [ this ] whatever it means , is the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of christ , in the self-same substance wherein he was born of the virgin ? where that this true body and blood is truly , really and substantially contained under the forms of bread and wine ? where that the bread and wine are upon consecration turned into the true body and blood of christ ? let us see how our author replies to this , p. . let us note his where 's . where , says he , is there one word ? where that this true body and blood ? where that the bread and wine are upon consecration , turn'd into the true body and blood of christ , &c. which truly , are where 's indeed ? but what 's become of the soul and divinity of christ ? what of the self-same substance wherein he was born of the virgin ? what of the true body , truly , really , and substantially contain'd under the forms of bread and wine ? which are what he profess'd firmly and truly to believe by the same faith he believes a god ? and where ( to add another where ) will he find these literally in the words , this is my body ? he tells us one would think that so many where 's were not without a wherefore . and because the gentleman desires to know the where , he shall also know the when. certainly now to the confutation of scotus and biel , &c. and the confusion of all hereticks , we shall have a plain discovery , and that in so many words we shall find the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of christ , &c. for this go we to his when jesus took bread , &c. and said , this is my body , mat. . . then it was , saith he , and , here it is by power of these words of god , this is my body , that the bread is turned into the body of christ. this is indeed a submission to the seeker 's direction to produce the words without a meaning , and it is so because it is so ; this is my body , doth turn the bread into the body , because there are the words , this is my body . i hope the reader is satisfied , for in truth i am . the next thing proposed by the prot. answerer was , what the meaning is of this , in , this is my body ? if , saith he , it be bread , then the bread is in the literal sense , the substance of christ's body , and so overthrows the change to be made in transubstantiation . if by this , is not meant the bread , then the bread could never be turned into the body of christ by vertue of the words , this is my body . our author readily answers , ask the question , what ? and our saviour will resolve you , mat. . . this is ( what ? ) my body , he did not say , after he had blessed it , say , take , eat , this is bread , but my body ; than which , nothing can be more plain , than that it was his body . and to make all sure , he seriously proves it , because it 's not hic , but hoc est panis . it 's well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the greek is of the same gender with panis . but let us admit of this learned criticism ( though by the way let me observe for our author's instruction , when the article relates to the sentence , it 's to be put in the neuter gender ) the difficulty put , yet remains ; for if the this relates to body , then the sense is , this body is my body . but saith he , let us suppose this to refer to bread , it yet follows that it is his body . but it follows also , as the answerer argued , that then the bread is the substance of christ's body , according to the letter ; and so could not be turned into it . so that our author has left the difficulty as he found it . but because the answerer here said , we have not faith to believe that reason the scripture hath not taught , he very subtilly argues after this manner : from whence , saith he , i gather , that notwithstanding all his arguments to disprove the real presence , yet he hath not faith ( though face ) to deny it . for that pag. . he tells you that besides their positive articles , they have a great many negative ones , [ and the answerer tells you , for which we are beholden to the corruptions and innovations of the church of rome ] &c. for that he hath not faith to believe , what the scripture hath not taught , that in the eucharist is not contain'd the body of christ. the gentleman therefore can have no faith to deny it . a very quaint argument ; which i shall dismiss with a parallel instance . he that hath not faith to believe that which the scripture hath not taught , hath not faith to deny that to be of faith which the scripture doth not teach : and therefore because mahometism is not taught in scripture , he hath not faith to deny it . but this spirit of acuteness doth not last long , for having labour'd to find inconsistencies in the doctrine of the church of england as set down in the answer , he blunders without end . he allows what our church saith , that the body of christ is eaten in the sacrament after an heavenly and spiritual manner ; but he adds , but this we believe to be a true and real manner , not a deceitful , figurative , or fictitious manner . — if you grant it after a spiritual manner , you must grant it there after a true manner . if christ be there in spirit , he is also there in truth ; and if there in spirit and truth , all my arguments are granted . i think not ; for the church of england saith , it 's only after an heavenly and spiritual manner . so that though they do agree , where christ is in spirit , he is there in truth ; yet i doubt me the word only alters the case , for he may be there in spirit and in truth , and yet not be corporally there . and i question whether any thing less will satisfie our author ; and so it appears ; for , saith he , christ is there after such an intire , real and substantial manner , as we believe , or he is in no manner there at all , p. , . part ii. sect. . having thus considered the texts produced by the catholick answer to the seeker , and shew'd how little they serve their cause ; i shall proceed to the second part , and that is to vindicate the texts produced in the protestant answer , from the exceptions of our author . here our author sets his texts against those of the protestant ; but it would have done well if he had first set down what it is he should prove on his own side , viz. that in the eucharist is truly , really and substantially contained , under the forms of bread and wine , the true body and blood , together with the soul and divinity of christ in the same substance wherein he was born of the virgin , and wherein he lived and died for us ; and this by the conversion of the whole bread into the body , and the wine into the blood of christ. if this had been done , how meanly would it have look'd ▪ though he brought his texts to prove it ? and surely he could not then have had the confidence to have said , as he now doth , i doubt not but it appears that the texts brought on the catholick [ roman ] side are abundantly plain and sufficient for the being of christ's body in the sacrament , as thus set down . and it would doubtless have been some gratification to his reader , if he had given us a paraphrase as his adversary had done , according to these his sentiments . but here he saith that the answerer pretends not to prove by these texts that the body and blood of christ are not in the sacrament , p. why so ? because it 's one of their negative articles , and to require plain and express words of scripture to prove such a thing is not there taught , is , says he , to demand a proof , the thing is not capable of . — as if suppose there was not express words of scripture to confute arianism , therefore that could not be confuted by scripture . it 's enough that what is not in scripture is no article of faith ; it 's enough that there are such propositions in scripture as are sufficient to refute it , though there should not be express words . but however if he will take it in the words of our article , and if it may be to his content , we shall find it positively said that transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of scripture . and we have our author acknowledging that his adversary undertakes to shew that the protestants have the letter of scripture for them , meaning ( as he saith ) that in the sacrament is not contained the body of christ , p. . and now let us try whether the answerer did not give them more than his bare word for it ; in the use he made of his own quotations . as he observed from thence . sect . ii. . that it 's no contradiction to our saviour's manner of speaking , to interpret these words figuratively , since our author after all his exclamations of giving christ the lie , is forced ( tho here he slips over it ) elsewhere to acknowledg that the cup , yea and the word bread , is so used , p. . . that in many instances the letter of scripture is for us : as , arg. . that there is no substantial change in the elements , but they remain the same bread and wine after consecration as before . so it 's five times call'd bread , cor. . , &c. and the whole solemnity is call'd breaking of bread , act. . . to this our author replies several ways , as , by the word bread , saith he , is meant the communion of the body of christ , as by the word cup is signified the communion of the blood of christ , p. . but to this i answer , . that if the words bread and cup are not to be understood literally , but with a thereby is meant , and thereby is signified , then there is no more reason from the bare words to understand , this is my body literally : and that it may be as well interpreted , this is the representation , and sign of my body , as this bread is the communion of my body . . from hence it follows , that if the bread be the communion of the body of christ , as the cup is the communion of the blood of christ , then the bread is no more changed than the cup ; but as the cup remains the cup , so the bread remains the bread in the communion . . if the bread be the communion of the body of christ , then the communion of the body of christ is in the communion of the bread ; and so the bread is still bread. . our author has not touched the point , which was to shew the letter of scripture is for us , when it calls it bread after consecration . but he saith , saint paul mentions not the words , cup and bread , but he explains them to be the body and blood of christ , cor. . . as often as ye eat this bread , ye do shew the lords death , which was not shewn , but by offering up his true and real body and blood. i answer , so we may better say he mentions not the body of christ , but he explains it , when he five times afterwards calls it bread : but how doth the shewing of the death of christ prove the bread to be his body , when it rather proves it not to be his body , because his body is not , according to them , visible , and to be shewn ? he saith further , how could they be guilty of the body and blood of the lord , v. . if the body and blood be not there ? i answer , as persons may be guilty of it out of the sacrament : thus we read heb. . . who crucifie to themselves the son of god afresh . and chap. . . who trod under foot the blood of the covenant . and so by unworthy receiving of the lords supper , in which his death was commemorated and represented , they after the same manner were by interpretation guilty of the body and blood of the lord. and this the next ver . . shews , not discerning the lords body ; which can be understood only of a spiritual discerning by faith. or rather as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies , discriminating . lastly , he adds , 't would be hard a sinner should be damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking wine ; for according to the protestant answerer , the sacrament is no more , who tells you , p. . there is no other substance distributed among the communicants , than that of bread and wine . . but if our author had gone three or four lines further , he would have found those words , pag. . the body of christ is not otherwise present than it is eaten , that is , after an heavenly and spiritual manner , in the spiritual blessings and effects of his merits and sufferings in his body , to those that believe . so that he prevaricates , when he saith , sinners are damn'd meerly for moderate eating and drinking , and that we esteem the sacrament no more . . we look upon it as a divine institution , and by virtue of that institution a means of grace ; and that by a worthy participation of it , we partake of that grace which is thereto promised , therein exhibited , and thereby conveighed , as it 's there declared , p. . and consequently the damnation threatned is to the contempt of god's ordinance , and of the sufferings of christ therein represented , and of the grace of god purchased by those sufferings , and therein to be obtained . the answerer shew'd , also as the bread , so the wine was without alteration , from mat. . . who after he had said , this is my blood , calls it the fruit of the vine . and from the order in st. mark . , . where the apostles are said to have drank of it , before our saviour said , this is my blood. this branch of the argument our author divides from the other , and casts it forward three or four pages , pag. . for it gave too much light to the other , whilst they were together . as to the former text , i will not drink of the fruit of the vine , he saith , st. luke gives the plainest order of it , chap. . . and that there it has relation to the paschal cup. i grant , that in st. luke it more immediately is joyn'd to the paschal feast , but yet in st. matthew and mark , christ is said to have spoke these words after the delivery of the cup in the lords-supper . and the least that can be observed from hence is , that it was indifferently to be applied to either ; and so it more strongly argues that it was alike to be understood [ that the wine in the eucharistical cup was the natural fruit of the vine , as that in the paschal ] as that the substance of both was one and the same , and no more change in the one than the other . but , suppose this , yet , saith he , the meaning of these words could in no wise be applied to the substance of wine proceeding from an earthly vine ; but to the substance of his blood , the fruit of the heavenly vine , for that it was to be drank new with them in his father's kingdom , which is heaven , where they neither keep taverns , nor drink wine , &c. some persons while they charge others with irreverence , themselves seem to have lost all due reverence for holy things . we will suppose , in favour of our author , that by the kingdom of god our saviour means heaven , and by the fruit of the vine , he means the substance of christ's blood ; yet how will it follow that it 's the same fruit of the vine they drink of in heaven as they drank of in the sacrament ; since the blood of christ is no more drank in heaven , than wine ; nor is the sacrament any more administred there , than the passover ? so that if by the kingdom of god , heaven is to be understood , then the phrase , till i drink it new , signifies mystically and figuratively according to the manner of scripture , which sets forth the happiness of that state by eating , mat. . . luk. . . and the excellency and perfection of it by the word new , revel . . , &c. and so the meaning is , i shall not henceforth thus eat with you ; the next festival i shall observe , will be in heaven ; there we that have now thus eat and drank together , shall partake of the felicity of that state ; and this fruit of the earthly vine shall be exchanged for rivers of heavenly pleasures , which we shall there be entertained with . the next thing observed by the answerer in proof of the substance of the wine continuing so after consecration , was from the order observed in st. mark . . where it 's said the disciples drank of the wine , before our saviour said , this is my blood. here our author thinks himself excus'd from an answer , because of an error in the press , body being put for blood. but if he turned to the text , he might see that place was quoted right , and common sense would serve to rectifie it . however he courteously offers somewhat in the mean time , by way of answer , viz. whether st. mark expresseth the words in the same order as they were spoken or no , it matters not ; seeing he has the substance of what was said , and wherein they all agree ; to wit , that it was his blood. and it 's also apparent that christ first gave thanks , and blessed it , before he gave it , &c. pag. . but doth it not matter whether st. mark expresseth the words in order ? certainly if the order he recites it in , were the order observed by our saviour , and that the apostles received the cup , and drank of the wine before the words of conversion ( as they call them ) were used , then it follows ( as the answerer argued ) that they only drank of the substance of the wine , and that the words , this is my blood , could not signifie , and much less produce a conversion of the wine into the blood of christ. this our-author was sensible of , and therefore in his answer left out the main part of it . for what tho all the evangelists agree that the words , this is my blood ; were then used by our saviour ? what though christ first gave thanks , and blessed it , before he gave it , if he did not also use the words of conversion , before he gave it ? for all the rest he might do , and yet the wine be wine still ( as they own . ) but thus it was , if st. mark is right in the order , and it seems to be the proper order , because he only speaks of the particular , that they all drank of it . but we are not to have any thing to the purpose till ( as he saith ) the bill be amended , and that i take for his best answer . arg. . the protestant answerer shewed the letter of scripture is for us , that our saviour's body had the natural and inseparable properties of a body , such as extension , circumscription , &c. p. . here our author calls in the faith of a christian , and the almighty power of god to his succour ; and looks upon the answerer as a second didymus , because he will , like him , not believe except he sees ; and worse than him , who saw but the humanity , yet believed the divinity of christ , p. . but why all this , when he believes all the scripture teaches , and reason it self justifies ? may not a man believe , unless he believes contrary to what he himself sees , and the scripture teaches ? or why is he worse than thomas , when thomas would not believe unless he saw ? but the answerer is one of those ( thanks be to god ) whom our saviour pronounced blessed , that have not seen , and yet have believed . what is there he would have him believe ? it is what was never put to thomas , for our saviour convinced him by an ocular demonstration , joh. . . reach hither thy finger , and behold , &c. as much as if he had said , the resurrection is real , for it 's a real body that is before thee ; and it 's my body , for reach hither thy finger , &c. it 's plain our saviour here thought he gave an unquestionable proof of the truth of his resurrection by shewing his body to thomas , which could not have been , had not his body had the properties of an human body , without which it could not have been a body ; or which if it had been without , thomas could not have been convinced in that way , that it was his body . but our author here undertakes to prove , that this was not the condition of our saviour's body ; or , that he could by his power separate these essential properties of a body from his body . here i must confess my self indebted to him for an answer to what he offered to this purpose before , but not to the purpose of the argument there , and here repeats . pray , saith he , how was his body to be seen , extended , finite , and circumscribed , when he pass'd through walls and doors that were close ? john . . he entred the room , the doors being shut . — how came he through ? was his body intire , extended , finite , and circumscribed with limbs , bones , and sinews ? — such is the infinite power of god , that though they were inclosed in walls every where a mile thick , 't would yet be possible for christ to enter intire through all , p. . here is one thing omitted , and that is to prove , that as the doors were shut , when they assembled , for fear of the jews ( as the evangelist saith ) so they were not opened by christ , when he came and stood in the midst of them ; till which be proved , we shall say the letter of scripture is for us , and that christ's body had flesh and bones , might be beheld and felt , and did neither come through the walls , nor indeed could do , so long as it remains true that the penetration of dimensions is impossible . but i had need to recal this ; for i am for ever silenced if what he saith be true , that the answerer argues perfidiously of christ , as if he were not god , not distinguishing betweeen his glorious body and ours ; for as god , all things are possible to him . but where is that perfidiousness , since no more is denied to christ , than is to god ? for because all things are possible to god , doth he think that it 's perfidious to say , that it 's not possible for god to be ignorant or unfaithful , or circumscrib'd , and so to exist after the manner of a body ? or doth he think it 's perfidious to say , it 's impossible to make the body of christ to have been existent in different times , and really to have been existent before it was existent , and yet not to be existent till it was ? or is it perfidious to say , it 's impossible to make the circumscribed body of christ to be omnipresent ? the last he seems to affirm by his often repeated maxim , that christ is not but where he is intire , and placing therein the difference between christ's glorious body and ours . but of that more anon . our author , as he would prove the body of christ might lose all the properties of a body , so also that it might be contained under the forms of bread and wine , that is , to all appearance it might have all the properties of those elements , and yet be none of them , but the body of christ alone . and this he reasons upon , after this manner , where is the difficulty to believe but this may be , as the holy ghost under the form of a dove , with feather , beak , wing , and all the properties of a fowl ? or in the form of tongues of fire ? both which to our eyes were but as a perfect dove , and as perfect tongues ; yet those different objects to the eye of flesh , were but one holy ghost to the eye of faith. therefore nothing can be more plain than that objects may be one thing to the eye of flesh , and another thing to the eye of faith. so in the sacrament , to our sight and tast is plain bread and wine , but to our faith ( in gods word ) it is the real and intire body and blood of christ. an instance and inference not at all to the purpose . for the question is not , whether a spiritual being may not be under the appearance of a body ? for so it was with the angels when they appeared as men , and the holy ghost when it appeared like a dove . neither is the question , whether an object may be one thing to the eye of flesh , and another to the eye of faith ? for so our saviour appear'd to be man , and yet was god as well as man. all which yet is besides the matter , for in these cases there is an invisible being under a visible representation , or an invisible being in union to a visible . but here are two objects visible in their own nature , viz. the body of christ , and bread ; and the one of these so turn'd into the other , that there are all the properties of a visible being , which is not there , viz. bread ; and none of the properties of that visible being which is there , viz. the body of christ. so that the question should be thus propos'd , whether what is an object of sense , may have all the properties of another sensible object , without being that thing which they are the properties of ; and none of the properties belonging to its own nature and being ? arg. . the protestant answerer shew'd , that the letter of scripture is for us , that the body of christ as it ascended , so is to continue in heaven till the conclusion of the world ; and so cannot be in heaven and earth at the same time . this our author calls a barren conceit ; but as barren as it is , it is true , and has scripture and reason on its side , notwithstanding what he has objected to the contrary . the first argument he offers in answer to this is , that he is a perfect and omnipotent-god . and that he may be , and yet not reconcile contradictions ( as has been just before shewed . ) he confirms it by scripture , mat. . . c. . . where two or three are gathered together in my name , there am i in the midst of them . and if there , he is there intire , or not at all , p. . & . but when christ promised to be in the midst of them , did he promise to be there corporally ? if bodily , i would fain know under what form he is there ? and if he be intire where ever he is , and yet he is every where as god , then the body of christ must be as omnipresent as his divinity ; and so there would be no need , nor indeed possibility of his descending . he adds , our saviour is not so confined in heaven , as that he cannot also be upon earth ; for we read that he descended and overthrew saul in the way to damascus , and spoke to him , act. . . and he may be actually present without being seen , for the men with saul saw no man , v. . by all which it 's plain , that christ may be in earth , and in many places at the same time , as well as in heaven . but to this i answer , ( . ) it 's not certain that the apostle saw , or that christ appeared to his fleshly eye . for elsewhere he is said to see him in a trance , act. . . and here v. . to fall on the earth ; and so god is said to be seen , when yet there was no similitude , exod. . . deut. . . ( . ) if he was seen bodily , yet it 's not said , as our author would have it , that he descended , and was bodily present . but it might be as with st. stephen , who looked up to heaven , and saw jesus standing on the right hand of god , act. . . and so here v. . it 's said , that there shined round about ( st. paul ) a light from heaven . ( . ) much less is there so much as any intimation of what our author saith , that christ was bodily in heaven and the earth at the same time . for if he was in in the one , it 's certain he was not bodily in the other . and this our author unwittingly acknowledges , when he saith christ descended and overthrew saul . so vigilius tapsitanus , when the body of christ was in the earth , it was not in heaven ; and now because it is in heaven , 't is not in the earth . arg. . the answerer argued on , that the letter is for us , that christ was but once offered as a propitiatory sacrifice , &c. that his body is glorified and so not to be offer'd , heb. . , &c. but to this our author has made no reply . sect . iii. from hence the prot. answerer proceeded to shew , that as the letter of scripture is for us , so are the words which are figurative , as in those , this is my body , p. . the method was here orderly and distinct , but our author runs one into another . i shall gather up what he saith as well as i can . the arguments by which the answerer proved those words to be figurative , are as followeth . arg. . from the word this , which if to be understood of the bread , bellarmine grants , then the word body must be figuratively understood . and that it was the bread , at least in conjunction with the other acts relating to it , the answerer shew'd , which our author le ts pass . arg. . the answerer argues , if the words are to be understood literally and properly , when these words were said by our saviour , then the body would be broken , before it was broken . to this our author answers , ( . ) p. . though his natural body be there , yet the manner of it's being is spiritual and sacramental , and the manner of its breaking follows the manner of its being ; his body is there broken in the sign , not the substance . i answer , that to speak of a body's being after the manner of a spirit , is as much as to say on the contrary , a spirit exists after the manner of a body : that is , that body may be a spirit , and a spirit a body . . if the body be in the manner of its being only spiritual and sacramental , and the breaking in the manner of its breaking be only spiritually , then why not the body be only spiritual and sacramental ? or why should we any more profess our selves jews or infidels ( as he would have it ) to doubt , whether , nay to affirm , what christ said was improper and metaphorical , when we say , this is my body is to be understood figuratively and spiritually , than it 's to say ( as he doth ) it 's broken spiritually ; since , as the answerer observ'd it 's as well said , this is broken , as this is my body : and our author saith , the manner of its being and breaking , are spiritual and sacramental , mystical and representative ? . but this is besides the case ; for the question is not about the manner of breaking , but how christ could say , this is broken ( if not figuratively understood ) before it was broken . but to this we are to expect an answer . but he adds ▪ ( . ) moreover these words [ which is broken ] do prove ( as the holy catholick church always did , and ever will hold ) it to be a true , proper sacrifice ; for the being broken , explains the nature of a sacrifice , which imports the destruction of the thing offered , if corruptible and liable to destruction : but the body of christ being incorruptible and immortal , can't be really hurt , therefore the manner of breaking , is only mystical and representative . setting aside that what he saith concerning the catholick church , is spoken gratis , i answer , if the nature of a sacrifice imports the destruction of the thing offered , if corruptible and liable to destruction , then the body of christ must have been destroy'd ( if a proper sacrifice ) before it was destroy'd ; for the body of christ ( when christ spoke these words , this is my body ) was certainly liable to destruction . and so he has fastned the objection , instead of answering it . ( . ) he concludes , if this manner of breaking , pleases not the gentleman ( as in truth it doth not , and he has now given his reasons for it ) let us see whether the body of christ were not otherwise broke before he instituted the sacrament . now his body was pierced , and blood spilt at his circumcision , followed by unspeakable pains , restless labours , &c. what his agony in the garden ? what his being crowned with thorns and bloody whipping at the pillar ? — wherefore with truth our saviour might have said of his body [ which is broke ] without supposing any thing improper or untrue . . what doth our author mean when he saith he would see , whether the body of christ were not otherwise broken before he instituted the sacrament : and instances in his agony in the garden , his crowning with thorns , and whipping ? doth he think these were before the sacrament ? . if this was the meaning of our saviour , when he said , this is my body which is broken , that he was circumcised , and in an agony , &c. then where is the sacrifice , which he saith , imparts the destruction of the thing ? which these things were neither literally nor mystically . arg. . the answerer urged , that jesus himself then took the bread , &c. when he said , this is my body , and yet jesus had at that time a body which was not broken , &c. no not so much as mystically . so that the same body was whole and broken . here our author is silent . arg. . he argued from the words , do this in remembrance of me , which supposes absence ; and therefore an institution set up in remembrance , and yet in which the body was to be actually present , is to suppose the body to be absent and present at the same time . to this he answers . . that those words no way relate to the laity , who only receive the sacrament , but to the priests , who consecrate and administer , for it 's no where said , this eat , this take , this receive , but , this do. a. . if this be so , then there is no command to the people to receive . . to whom did the apostle write his epistle , but to laity as well as priests . . surely he did not read cor. . . where the apostle saith , take , eat , this is my body . this do ; what ? but , take , eat ; so v. . this do ye , as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me . this do : what ? but , drink this . but after all , what is this to the argument ? for whether these words were spoke to the laity or priests , relates not to the case ; but the question is , whether remembrance of persons , is in its true notion consistent with presence ? to this he answers , the seeker unanswerably observed , that the remembrance of its being , doth no way make it cease to be . a wise observation ! but what then ? doth it not suppose the absence of the thing ? this he saith is a weak piece of sophistry , as if , saith he , my remembrance of your being with me , when present , did any wise suppose your absence from me . but i thought , with the rest of mankind , that remembrance and sight are as distinct in their notion , as absence and presence ; and that i may as well see what is absent , as remember what is present : what is present we see and know , but what is unseen and absent , we remember . after all , we see that the author has left no rule to direct a true seeker to , no guide to direct him , no arguments to settle his wavering mind ; and if there be not a better rule , guide , or arguments than he has offered toward his conviction , there is no help for it , but the seeker must live and dye a seeker . it 's impossible to convince a man that has sense and reason , that he must not use them , and that whatever use they may be of in temporal matters , they ought to be of none in religion : and he that will undertake this difficult task , must either prove he doth not contradict himself when he will shew and refer him to the letter of scripture , and wish him to use his eyes to see it , and his reason to judg of it ; or else he must prove that both parts of a contradiction may be true . and having brought our author hither , i may safely leave him , and conclude his argument , together . finis . errata . pag. . lin . . for seeker pag. . [ seeker pag. . ] with braces . p. . l. . for whe r. where . advertisement . transubstantiation contrary to scripture ; or the protestant's answer to the seeker's request . an apology for the pulpits ; being in answer to a late book , intituled , good advice to the pulpits . together with an appendix , containing a defence of dr. tenison's sermon about alms ; in a letter to the author of this apology . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e cath. letter to a seeker , p. . and . eccl. hist. l. . c. . part. . sect. . sect. . sect. . part . sect. . sect. . an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes on the said dialogue. sherlock, william, ?- . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing s estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes on the said dialogue. sherlock, william, ?- . [ ], p. printed for thomas bassett ..., london : . reproduction of original in huntington library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -- controversial literature. trinity -- early works to . transubstantiation. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images - mona logarbo sampled and proofread - mona logarbo text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion an answer to a late dialogue between a new catholick convert and a protestant , to prove the mystery of the trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation . by way of short notes on the said dialogue . licensed december th . . london , printed for thomas bassett at the george near st. dunstan's church in fleet-street . . a dialogue between a new catholick convert , and a protestant . concerning the doctrines of the trinity and transubstantiation . ( a ) this new catholick convert begins well , for the first thing he learns , is to believe the trinity to be a groundless , absurd , and unreasonable doctrine ; and then to believe whatever the church teaches , if it be not more absurd than the doctrine of the trinity ; this is a great improvement of faith , which we protestants can never attain to , for we cannot perswade our understandings or our faith to digest absurdities : but let us hear their dialogue . a. you cannot imagine how much i am overjoy'd to see you . i have been big with discourse these three days for want of utterance . you may remember , when we talk'd together last , ( b ) we parted in a dispute concerning transubstantiation and the holy trinity , of their equal reasonableness and authority . i must confess i was not at that time so thorowly arm'd with reasons to shew you the parallel : but since i have given my self a little leisure to consider of it , and i am perswaded i shall be able to give you satisfaction . ( b ) this is a little mistake , if we may guess at their last discourse by this dialogue ; for the design is not to prove , that transubstantiation and the holy trinity have equal reasonableness and authority , but that neither of them are reasonable , or have any authority . now though we may allow them to make as bold with transubstantiation as they please , yet we cannot but be sensible of that dishonour which is done to common christianity , by exposing the most sacred and venerable mystery of it to the scorn and derision of infidels and hereticks . for sure they cannot think it any great credit to the doctrine of the trinity ; that it cannot be proved , either by tradition , scripture , or reason , b. sir , you know i am always glad of any opportunity to gain your good company , but especially upon so good an occasion . i 'le assure you , i am not , nor ever was , an enemy to catholick communion ; and if i had not too just a cause , i should never suffer my self in that which without reasonable grounds might be call'd a wilful schism . a. i have no reason to doubt your integrity , and therefore shall not question that : i shall only desire the liberty to press my old argument , ( c ) that you would rely on the authority of the church . i must confess , you have often question'd the doing of it ; but i am sure , when you shall consider there are mysteries as well as doctrines in the christian religion , and when you know that ( d ) mysteries are not to be fathom'd by natural reason , you must needs conclude , that in some cases your ( e ) safest way is to trust tradition . now certainly no one can give us so good an account of that , as the church . ( c ) this opens the scene , and shews the whole design of this dialogue , to bring men to rely on the authority of the church ; and it is worth the while to consider , what a notable way this is . the new convert perswades his protestant friend to fling away sense , and reason , and scripture , and his own private judgment , and to rely wholly on the authority of the church ; for when these are out of the way , we may believe the church in any thing . no , saies the protestant , i can't believe that which is unreasonable and absurd , whoever tells it me . convert , don't you believe the doctrine of the trinity ? protest . yes , very heartily . convert . why then transubstantiation it self , which you protestants make such a noise about , is not more unreasonable , and has as good foundation in tradition and scripture , as the doctrine of the trinity . protest . say you so , my friend , then why must i believe the trinity ? conv. because the church teaches it , and for the same reason you must believe transubstantiation . protest . hold there , sir ! what if i will believe neither ? then i hope i need not rely upon the authority of the church . conv. but you confess you must believe the trinity . protest . yes , if it be founded on scripture and tradition , and do not contradict the reason of mankind , as i have thought hitherto ; but if you can perswade me otherwise , i will believe it no longer ; unless you can tell me for what reason i must believe that , which i have no reason to believe . wretched men ! who care not what becomes of christian religion , if they can but establish the authority of their church ! nay , care not how much they dishonour the church itself ; for it is no great commendation of church-authority in matters of faith , that the only use of it is to make men believe without reason , or in contradiction to it . for it seems , were the christian faith reasonable , there were no need of relying on the churches authority , at least they would want one of the best arguments to prove it . ( d ) there are some mysteries above reason , none contrary to it , as transubstantiation is . ( e ) the universal tradition of the church , in conjunction with scripture , i grant is a very good foundation for our faith ; but what shall we do , when there is no certain tradition , as he proves there is not for the doctrine of the trinity ; for though we should allow , that the safest way is to receive these traditions from the church , yet we cannot receive them from her , if she have them not ; and she cannot have them , if there be none ; and we must conclude there are none , if they be not visible . for the churches word ; whatever authority it have , is not tradition . b. but , sir , to be short , what relation has this to the present parallel of the trinity and transubstantiation ? the authority of the church is another point as disputable as that . a. very much : for as ( f ) these two doctrines have equal ground from scripture , reason , and tradition ; so ' is there the same obligation of your receiving one , as well as the other . and indeed i have since wonder'd at my own profession , ( g ) while a protestant , to think how blind and partial i was : but i must confess , because we are in a dispute , it is better laying by such aggravating circumstances ; and indeed i cannot but be sensible what prejudices such discourses always make , and therefore i shall speak nothing more of that nature . ( f ) that is none at all , as he attempts to prove ; and if the trinity have no better then transubstantiation it has none , and then let him show how we are obliged to believe either , as i observed before . ( g ) for what ? for not believing transubstantiation as well as the trinity ? did he then , while a protestant , believe the doctrine of the trinity to be as unreasonable , and to have no better foundation in scripture and tradition then transubstantiation ? for otherwise he was not partial in believing one and rejecting the other , and if he did , he never understood his religion , and then no wonder that he takes sanctuary in a church which requires no use of his understanding . b. but to return to the main point ; i must tell you , i do not think them equally grounded on scripture , reason , or tradition ; and indeed you may remember that was the old point in dispute with us . a. ( b ) well , sir , to shew you your error , i shall begin with the several particulars in their order ; and so , first , as to the tradition of transubstantiation . now 't is evident that has been deliver'd with less interruption than that of the holy trinity : that mystery was question'd in the very infancy of the church ; nay , not only so , but the arians prevail'd much against it about the beginning of the fourth age. on the other side , transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet a long time ; and when it came to debate , there was no such opposition as that of arius , to call in question the authority of its tradition ; the church receiv'd it unanimously , and in that sense continu'd , till rash reason attempted to fathom the unlimited miracles and mysteries of god. ( h ) here is a great mixture of confidence and fallacy : confidence is asserting what is false , that transubstantiation has been delivered with less interruption than that of the holy trinity : for none of the ancient fathers make the least mention of it , neither the name nor the thing was known for many hunder'd years after christ. he himself modestly grants , that the fathers are not half so express in the doctrine of transubstantiation , as they are in the mystery of the holy trinity : and when he grants half , you may safely conclude they say nothing of it : but the fallacy consists in attributing this silence of the fathers about transubstantiation to the unquestionableness of the tradition , when it was wholly owing to the ignorance of the doctrine : it was not opposed in those days , because they never heard of transubstantiation , not because it was universally believed ; which is a reason indeed , why it should not be opposed , but not why it should never be mentioned . whereas from that opposition . arius and his followers made to the doctrine of the trinity , in the beginning of the fourth century , and that great alarum it gave immediately to the christian church ; it is evident that it was the received faith at and before that time ; for otherwise arius would not have opposed it , nor catholick bishops so zealously have defended it . b. but the fathers are not half so express in the doctrin of transubstantiation , as they are in the mystery of the holy trinity . a. that 's true , and there 's very good reason for it : transubstantiation has not been a doctrine so long in dispute , and 't is not customary for men to argue unquestionable truths . and whereas you may think that transubstantiation has of late receiv'd such shrewd repulses by your books , i 'le assure you , you forget how much the true catholick zeal destroys the seeds of heresies . do you think that so many bishops , not only of the eastern , but of the western church also , could be arians , and yet suppose that that opinion wanted ( i ) as plausible a pretence of tradition ? certainly if you consider that , you cannot think to establish the doctrine of the trinity by tradition more than transubstantiation ; especially considering the strong footsteps of that : sect even in the fathers now extant . i would cite you some of them , but that they are not so much to my main design , and indeed my aim is brevity . ( i ) arius did not set up upon tradition , but upon a pretence of scripture and reason , and if arianism had had so good a pretence to tradition , it is strange it should have been thought so new and surpizing a doctrine at that time . it was never heard of before arius , and that is proof enough that it was no tradition of the church , though afterwards they endeavoured to force some expressions in the writings of the antient fathers as well as of the scriptures , to countenance that heresie ▪ b. well , sir , 't is true , we cannot so well plead tradition to what you have urg'd ; and especially when i call to mind , ( k ) that arianism was confirm'd by a general council : but we alledge an higher ground ; we stand upon the authority of the scriptures , and indeed that is the true thuchtone of all doctrine . ( k ) i hope he does not mean the council of nice , which was the first general council ; and assembled on purpose to establish the catholick faith in this point , and to condemn arius , a●d does the church of rome own any for a general council , which confirmed arianism ? the council of syrmium indeed , where liberius bishop of rome subcribe● the arian confession , may bid fair for it , if a council of eastern and western bishops confirmed by the pope , may pass for a general council ; but what then becomes of the infallibility of popes , and councils , and tradition ? this is a desperate man , who will not spare the church of rome her self , nor general councils if they stand in his way , rather than allow any tradition for the doctrine of the trinity . a. 't is true , if you will follow the catholick church , ( l ) and take the scriptures literally , you may discover the mystery of the holy trinity in them ; but if you once yield to figurative allusions and interpretations , the arians will be as much too hard for you , as you imagin your selves to be for the catholick church . ( m ) in short , both doctrines will be at a loss , and both equally require the authority of the church to support them . ( l ) if the trinity can be prov'd by scripture , that is all we desire , for i am sure transubstantiation cannot ; and as for literal or figurative expositions of scripture , neither of them must be always used , but as the subject matter and circumstances of the place require . ( m ) i thought the christian church had been built upon the faith of the holy trinity , not that supported by the authority of the church , unless the church can support her own foundation ; if there can be no christian church without baptism in the name of the father , the son , and the holy ghost , that is , without professing the faith and worship of the ever blessed trinity ; this doctrine must be believ'd before there can be any church , on whose authority we must believe it ; and therefore he has chose the unfittest doctrine to build on church authority that he could have thought on . b. o no , surely the doctrine of the holy trinity is more express in scriptures than so . a. to satisfie you that what i say is truth , because i may represent the parallel the clearer , ( n ) i will personate an arian , that sect so often condemn'd by the ancient church , and you shall see his plea against the trinity is as fair as yours against transubstantiation . and because this is the main parallel , i shall be somewhat the longer , that i may give you the greater satisfaction . ( n ) an excellent part for a roman catholick to act . we read that the devil sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light , but never that an angel of light transformed himself into a devil . to dispute seriously , and in good earnest against the scripture proofs of the trinity , as he here does , though with no great understanding , i should think little better then blasphemy ; it is what would have never been endured in the primitive church , and which i think no christians of any communion ought to endure ; for this is not the concernment of any particular church , but of common christianity . but though he can personate an arian so well , he should consider how he can dispute against him . he yields him all the scripture proofs for the trinity , as not sufficient without the authority of the church ; the arian thanks him for giving the scripture on his side , and is contented he should make the best he can of his church authority , and so continues an arian still . b. i shall be very glad to hear what you can speak to the matter . a. ( o ) first then , i say , 't is highly unreasonable to interpret that text , john . . that there be three in heaven that bear record , and those three are one ; as likewise john . . i and my father are one , literally ; for if we do , we not only oppose sense and reason , but we make construction directly against the very scripture , john . , , , , , , , . and john . , , . cor. . . and what can be urg'd more against us in respect of transubstantiation ? b. very right , sir , that interpretation carries a forcible reasonableness , but the doctrine of the trinity do's not wholly depend upon those two proofs . a. right , it do's not ; but i can give you further demonstration in this parellel . a principal ground of the trinity is because the son is so often call'd god in scripture , as john . , . rom. . . &c. now if we did not comply with the catholick church , and make a literal construction in this case likewise , how strangely should we be confounded by those texts ( ) where this godhead in christ is declar'd to be no more than lordship , and subordinate to the father , as heb. . . . cor. . , . cor. . , . rev. . . and john . , . b. but , sir , our saviour forgave sins too . a. that 's true , but ( ) only by a deputed authority . you see when the sons of zebbedee petition'd him , he could not grant the final accomplishment of our spiritual warfare , that was the father's prerogative , matth. c . . and tho' he is to be our judge , yet he knows not the time , mark. . . tim. . . b. i must confess , these things a little surprize me ; but however , i cannot think these neither the only grounds that support that mystery of the trinity . a. no , you are in the right ; there is one strong proof more ; the making of all things visible and invisible is attributed to the son , and that expresly , john. . heb. . and particularly , col. . , , , . but yet for all that , if we do not adhere with the catholick church to the literal interpretation , we are at a loss there too : for , first , 't is plain by the rest of scripture , ( ) that the son is not our only maker , as appears by our creation attributed to the father ; and then if we compare those texts to heb. . , , . cor. . . eph. . . eph. . , . cor. . , . we cannot reasonably attribute more to the son , than his being god's instrument in the creation . b. but are these the true and only grounds of the doctrine of that holy mystery ? a. yes verily ; for , ( ) that we are baptiz'd in the name of the father , son , and holy ghost , is no argument . that were as reasonable , if understood of christ and the holy ghost , as our spiritual governours , as under the supposal of their being co-equal with the father , cor. . . cor. . , . ( o ) i do not think this a proper place , nor a just occasion to enter into the dispute of the trinity . what he here alledges , has been answered a hundred times over , both by the ancient fathers and modern writers , both romanist and protestants ; and if he dare say , when he has taken off his arian vizard , that they are not well , and sufficiently answered , i will be bound to defend catholick christianity against this new kind of liberian roman catholick . but it would move the indignation of any good christian , though a roman-catholick , to see so sacred a mystery made the subject of wit and criticism , and little better then drollery , ( ) that christ cannot be god , because he is lord , as if he could not be god and lord too ; that he is not the second person in the trinity , because he is not the first , and therefore as a son , especially as a mediator subordinate to his father . ( ) that he forgives sins only as priests do by a deputed authority . ( ) that he did not make the world , because the father made it , and therefore he is but gods instrument in the creation ; as if in creation , which is the immediate effect of divine and almighty power , there could be any created instrument . ( ) that we may be baptized into the name of the son and holy ghost , as spiritual governours , when the ancient church thought this form of baptism to be the foundation of the creed , and there is no other difference expressed in the form between baptising in the name of the father , and of the son and holy ghost , but the order of persons . b. but surely , sir , the arians should have other grounds to establish their opinions , besides those , or else your parellel with transubstantiation will not be so demonstrable as you conceive . pray inform me a little further , i have a mighty desire to understand a little better their fundamental principles . a. to satisfie you , i shall . ( p ) first , they alledge christ represented under the law altogether as an angel ; for eminency call'd the angel of the presence , isa. . . eccl. . . gen. . . num. . . exod. . , , . refer'd to cor. . , , . further , they collect him to be a created being , from col. . . rev. . . psal. . . isa. . . ecclus. . , . ecclus. . . sa● . . , . ( q ) and they interpret that scripture , thou art my son , this day have i begotten thee , by acts . . and pet. . . as to ( r ) the h●ly ghost , they prove a vast distance between him a●d the son , by john . , , , . and john . . besides , they say , he is no where call'd god ; and urge for the probability of their opinion , rev. . . rev. . . cor. . . for as there is an universal tempting evil power , so we may reasonably conclude , there may be a good assisting power , without any necessity of his being god. and further , where-ever in the scriptures there is made any mention of the three persons , there is always declar'd an express gradation ; as cor. . , , . cor. . . gift and communion from the fellowship of the holy ghost , grace and administration from the lordship and kingship of christ , and love and operation from the father , the supreme god , the original fountain , according to ephes. . , , . ( p ) that christ is called in the old testament the angel of the presence , i grant , but affirm also , that the angel of the presence was no created angel , but the lord jehovah , who spake to moses in the bush , as the ancient fathers grant . ( q ) to be the first born of every creature , does not prove that he is a creature , but that he was begotten of god before any creatures were made , that is , before the creation of the world , and that signifies an eternal generation ; for nothing was before the creation of the world , but that which is eternal and uncreated , as is sufficiently intimated in this very text , col. . , . and then it is no injury to the eternal generation of christ ; though we grant that he was begotten again at his resurrection from the dead . ( r ) as for the holy spirit , he is indeed called the spirit of christ , and is said to be sent by christ , as he is by his father ; but this proves only that he is the third person in the trinity , and in the aeconomy of mans salvation , acts as a vicarious power to christ the redeemer . but his very office to inspire and sanctifie , and dwell in the whole christian church , and every christian proves him to be god ; not only because the christian church and christians are his temple , but because no created spirit can dwell in all christians . for what this convert alledges of an universal tempting evil power , is no better than manichism , or to assert an evil god. for an universal power is god ; and did one devil tempt and poss●ss all bad men , as one and the same holy spirit dwells in all good men , he would b● an omnipresent and infinite devil , which is what the manichees call an evil god , and sure this is not the doctrine of the church of rome , which is a sign that our author is but a new convert . b. i must confess , sir , these opinions seem to make it necessary for us in that doctrine too , to trust to the authority of the catholick church , and i shall take time to consider a little upon them : but pray , sir , what say you to the reasons of the two doctrines ▪ a. really , ( s ) sir , i must tell you , i think that parellel much the easiest . 't is strange new arithmetick to a man , to tell him , three distinct persons are one and the same individual nature , and then to call such a one the most pure and simple being ; and that especially when they are declar'd to have various intellectual powers , as appears by john . , , , . and mark . . tim. . . acts . . for my part , i cannot tell well how the prejudice of education could possibly digest a thing so unreasonable , were it not a divine mystery . i am sure , ( t ) to my carnal reason , there may be as well three hundred persons in the godhead , as three ; and i know not what can be said of transubstantiation , that is seemingly more absurd than that . b. i must confess , sir , i have had strange , confus'd , and surprizing thoughts of it my self ; but i always apprehended the christian church a sufficient guide . a. if you did , sir , pray consider who that catholick mother is you so obey'd ; and as you have receiv'd the trinity , so receive a doctrine equally as reasonable , and deliver'd by her , transubstantiation . i know the ingenuousness of your temper , and you promis'd me at first not to be a wilful schismatick ; and therefore i have hopes my reasons , and your consideration , will be sufficient to reduce you to catholick communion . b. sir , i shall consider of it ; but as yet you only talk'd to me at large : i shall desire one favour of you before we part ; pray state the parallel a little shorter , i shall the better remember it . a. well , sir , i shall . first , the tradition of one doctrine cannot be stronger than another , where both have been at least equally question'd . secondly , 't is as reasonable to take this is my body , literally , as it is to take these texts , i and my father are one god over all blessed for ever ; and by him all things were made , without reference to other scriptures , and a figurative interpretation . and lastly , i think to human reason 't is as equally unreasonable , and as seemingly repugnant , to say one is three , as it is to say a body is not what it appears . b. very well , i shall desire no more of you now : i 'le only takea little time to consider , and then you shall know my mind more freely . a. farewel ; and god give you his holy spirit to instruct you . ( s ) and now we are come to the main point , whether the doctrine of the trinity be as absurd and contradictious as the doctrine of transubstantiation , which god forbid it should be ▪ i am sure the arithmetick is very good ; for three persons and one nature , is no bad arithmetick . to say , that there are three persons and but one person , and but one nature , and yet three natures , had been no good arithmetick , but a plain contradiction , that three are one , and one three in the same respect , which god himself cannot make true ; but three persons and one nature is no contradiction , how incomprehensible soever it may be . he has made it a contradiction indeed by saying , that three distinct persons are one and the same individual nature ; but whoever before said , that the person is the nature , or that the divine nature is an individual nature , or a nature appropriated to one person , which is the signification of an individual nature . i suppose he had heard somewhere of individua trinitas , and this he mistook for an individual nature . these are indeed contradictions , and new invented heresies , but this is not the catholick doctrine of the trinity . ( t ) we cannot indeed comprehend how three distinct persons should subsist in one nature , for we see no example of it in nature ; for in finite creatures , one finite nature is confined to one person ; but a finite nature , i hope , is no rule for an infinite nature , and therefore an infinite nature may be common to more persons than one , though a finite nature cannot ; and it may be , it is as intelligible how three distinct persons may subsist in one infinite nature , as how three distinct faculties can be in the same finite soul ; by which comparison the ancients explain'd the doctrine of the trinity . the omnipresence , omniscience , omnipotence , eternity of god , are as much above our comprehension , as a plurality of persons in the deity ; and if men will but allow , that god is incomprehensible , this can be no objection against the doctrine of the trinity . natural reason indeed cannot discover the plurality of persons in the godhead , and therefore i can give no reason why there should be three persons , and neither more nor less ; as the plurality of persons , so the number of them depends wholly upon revelation ; and the scripture assures me , there are but three , and therefore i believe no more . and because there are no more , therefore i believe it is impious to say , that there may be as well three hundred persons in the godhead , as three . thus the doctrine of the trinity , tho it be above the comprehension of our finite minds , as every thing must be , which is infinite , yet it does not contradict any necessary principle of reason , as transubstantiation does , which is contrary to sense and reason . whether any body be bread or flesh , fall under the notice of sense , and therefore our senses must judg of it ; and all our senses tell us , that the consecrated bread and wine , is bread and wine still , not flesh and blood ; so that we have greater evidence against transubstantiation , than we can have against the trinity ; for we have the evidence of sense , that it is not flesh , but bread ; and no man can pretend to such evidence as this , that there are not three divine persons in the godhead , and this makes some difference between them . as for reason , if we cannot understand , what the properties of a body are , we can know nothing ; and therefore this is a proper object of human reason , though the trinity is not ; and if our reason discover a great many absurdities , and contradictions , and impossibilities in transubstantiation , we must confess , that it is absurd and impossible , as to take notice of some few . to say that the substance of the bread is turned into the natural flesh of christ , which suffered on the cross sixteen hundred years ago , is to say , that the body of christ is made to day , which was years ago , which is a contradiction ; for what was made years ago , cannot be made to day , unless it was years before it was made ; or was made years after it was made , and thus the same individual body must be , and not be at the same time . it is essential to the same body to be but in one place at a time , and yet all confess , that the body of christ is whole and intire in heaven , how then is the same body at the same time on the altar ? nay , on as many altars as there are in the christian world , at the same time . the body of christ in heaven has the just proportions and dimensions of a human body ; in the consecrated host it is without any extension or distinction of parts , whole and entire in the least crumb of bread : now for the same individual body to be extended , and not extended at the same time , is a contradiction ▪ and tho we could suppose that christ could bestow such a supernatural kind of existence on his body , as to subsist without extension of parts , yet how can the same body at the same time be extended and not extended , as it must be , if the same body be extended in heaven , and not extended in the host. the sacramental body of christ is cloathed with the species of bread , is it so in heaven too ? if not , how is the same body at the same time , with and without the species of bread ? the sacramental body of christ is his dead and broken body , the body of christ in heaven is a living , glorified body ; now if this be the same body , the same body must be dead and alive , broken and whole at the same time . the romanists tell us , that the consecrated bread is the whole body of christ , flesh and blood too , which must go together ; and yet that the consecrated cup is the natural blood of christ shed out of his body ; so that it seems , the same body on the altar is both broken and whole , and the same blood is in his veins , and poured out of them at the same time . now i would ask , whether christ in heaven have any blood , which is separated from his body ; if he have not , then how is the consecrated cup , which is his blood shed for us , and therefore out of his body , that natural blood which christ now has in heaven , where to be sure , he has no blood , which is out of his body , and therefore that blood , which is out of his body , cannot be his natural blood , which he now has in heaven . when our author has digested these absurdities and contradictions , i can easily furnish him with more ; and can there be a greater contempt of the ever blessed trinity , than to compare so sacred and venerable a mystery , to the most absurd doctrine , which was ever invented by men. it will be in vain to pray to god to give us his holy spirit to instruct us , till we first learn to believe our own sense and reason . the end . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e ( a ) a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation in a letter to a person of honor from a master of arts of the university of cambridge. hutchinson, william, fl. - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing h estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : , : ) a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation in a letter to a person of honor from a master of arts of the university of cambridge. hutchinson, william, fl. - . p. s.n.], [london : . written by william hutchinson. cf. wing. place of publication from wing. reproduction of original in the british library and duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng transubstantiation -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread - emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation . in a letter to a person of honor , from a master of arts of the university of cambridge . printed in the year , mdclxxvi . a rational discourse concerning transubstantiation . sir , having lately had the honor of your company , you were pleased to signifie a particular difficulty which you had , to believe the great mystery of love , and grand stumbling block of more ingenious protestants , the mystery of transubstantiation ; in which , if i could give you satisfaction , to my best remembrance , you promised me to reconcile your self to the church of rome . non ignara mali miseris succurrere disco . my own sad misfortune to have been educated in the misbelief of this sublime article of our christian faith , till the five and twentieth year of my age , makes me very tenderly compassionate both to your self and all others whom i see to be involved in the same misery . the all good and all powerful god ( who has so firmly made me to believe this strange miracle of love , that had i a thousand lives , i would most willingly , through god's assistance , lay them all down to seal it with my blood ) give your honor , and all mis-believers the like satisfaction to your and their eternal comfort . what satisfies me , i shall in the best manner i am able , candidly propose to your mature and impartial consideration . sir , my sentiment concerning the adorable eucharist , is , that it is neither less nor more than the sacred body and blood of god ; neither less nor more than whole christ. god and man , soul , body , and divinity , though for the love and service of us sinners , veiled under the vile accidents and appearances of common bread and ordinary wine . concerning which mystery my first assertion shall be . assertion . it is possible to the omnipotent power of god , to change the substance of bread and wine into the substance of our blessed saviours body and blood. and this our adversaries generally grant . whence by the way , take notice , that all such arguments , and most of them are such , as pretend to prove transubstantiation impossible , even in the judgment of our adversaries , are sophisms , and do not prove their proposers inintent : else they must confess that two contradictories may be true , and that they can , and do believe them both . to wit , that transubstantiation is both possible and impossible , and they can , and do believe as much . 't is possible that they grant , and 't is also impossible , for that their arguments attempt to prove . further. i prove transubstantiation possible , thus . what you and i can do , and every day actually do in four and twenty hours , surely god almighty can do in a moment . but you and i in four and twenty hours turn bread and wine into the substance of our bodies , by eating , drinking , and digesting of them . therefore our b. saviour in a moment , without eating and drinking , by a mere fiat , or will , that the substance of bread and wine be turned into the substance of his body and blood , can effect it . but then you will say , the substance of the bread and wine must be transferred into heaven , that it may be changed into the substance of our lord's body there . but why so ? is it not sufficient that the substance of our-lord's body in heaven , be made to be under the accidents of bread and wine here ? but how can the substance of our saviours body be in heaven under such a measure of quantity , and such accidents there , and at the same time be here on earth under a different quantity and accidents ? why , how is the substance of the same air condens'd under a lesser quantity to day , which rarified yesterday , was under a greater quantity ? for the antient and commonly received definition of rarefaction , is : a little matter under a great quantity ; and of condensation , is , a great deal of matter under a little quantity . for example : in a weather-glass , the same air rarified , fills twice as much space as did the same air condens'd , as is evident to your eye . so that the same substance of air , when it is rarified , fills the spaces a. and b. which when it was condens'd fill'd only the space a. and this without any addition of any new substance of air , only the same substance by vertue of rarefaction is under a greater quantity than it was before . and will you pawn your soul , the omnipotent god cannot by consecration make his own body be present to the spaces a and b , which before consecration was only present to the space a. now who would ever have imagin'd such doctrin as this concerning rarefaction and condensation should have been taught by an aristotle to explicate nature , and not rather have been invented by some christian philosopher , to declare the supernaturality of transubstantiation , so aptly does it agree with that hidden and holy mystery ? . none make difficulty of a spirits being in different places at once . the soul is generally acknowledged to be all in the head , and all in the foot : as almighty god is all in france , and all in england ; not one part of him here , and another there ; not one god in france , and another in england . we indeed , because we never saw the same thing in two places , but always different things in different places , are apt to imagine it impossible for the same thing at the same time to be in two different places . hence it follows , whatsoever involves not a contradiction , being possible to god almighty , let our phansie say what it will , we must follow our reason , and acknowledge almighty god can make not only a spiritual substance , but even a material one be in two places at once , unless we can shew it includes a contradiction . to be here , and not to be here , is indeed a contradiction ; but to be here and there at the same time , is no contradiction ; else neither our soul , nor god almighty himself , could be all here , and all in another place at the same time . now will any one , who is forced by his faith and reason to acknowledge a spiritual substance is actually in two places at once , pawn his eternal salvation ( as he does who purely for this difficulty continues protestant ) that god almighty cannot by all his omnipotency , make a corporeal substance be here and in heaven at the same time ? now that the bread and wine in the holy eucharist should affect our senses in the same manner as they did before their change into our b. saviours body and blood , this ought to seem no impossible wonder to a christian , who believes so many miracles in our lords incarnation , conception , and nativity of a virgin. such a miracle as this our lord wrought when he appeared to s. mary magdalen in the shape of a gardner . his face no doubt was his own true face , but it wrought upon s. mary magdalens eyes as if it had been the face of the gardiner . and here i had thought to have inserted the different ways , which different schools of catholick divines take , to explicate how this high mystery is wrought . but my design being to satisfie unbelievers as to the substance of the mystery , and not to puzle the faith of believers , by making them glare too wistly upon the manner how this divine secret is wrought , it being more safely admired , together with the mystery of the incarnation and ever blessed trinity , then curiously pried into ; i resolved to draw a veyl before it , by a profound silence of the several explications of divines , and to content my self with letting you know in general , how different doctors of different philosophical principles , according to their several philosophies , differently explicate the mystery of the h. eucharist , and defend it differently against calvinists , as they do the mystery of the b. trinity against the antitrinitarians , and of the incarnation of the eternal word against the arrians ; some by virtual distinction , others by real formal , and others otherwise . and yet all hold , that after consecration , the bread is no longer bread , but is changed into the body of our lord ; but how it is done , some say one way , some another , according to their different tenets in philosophy , still all agreeing that this change is fitly called transubstantiation , and that with good reason ; for the same remaining the same , must needs be the same , and cannot possibly be made what it was not , without some change . the bread then that it may become our savious body , must have some change wrought in it ; but in its accidents its evident there is none , they remaining the same as before , therefore the change must be in the substance . and can now the change of the substance of bread , into the substance of our b. lords body , be called by a fitter name than a substantial change , or transubstantiation ? and this some of the learnedst of the church of england would do well to reflect on ; who urged by the clearness of our saviviours own words ; this is my body , and the multitude of testimonies of the fathers of the first six hundred years , and the impossibility of such a doctrins over spreading the whole christian world , without any appearance of its beginning , and the opposition it must needs have found by reason of its strangeness both to sence and reason , and its engaging the whole church in a material , at least , idolatry , unless it had been taught the world at first by our b. lord and his apostles : i say some of the learnedst of the engglish glergy being urged by such considerations as these , confess the holy eucharist , as they begin to call it , after consecration to be really and truly our b. saviours body , and therefore fall down before it , and adore it : and for this cause disown the new rubrick of the common-prayer-book , which saies our lords body is in heaven , and not upon the altar . these doctors will tell you they acknowledge the thing , only they dare not be so bold as the romanists , to determine the manner . and one of the learnedst of them , mr. thorndike , asks ; why cannot our b. saviour appear to us in what shape he pleases ; in the shape of a gardiner , or if it so please him , in the shape of bread and wine ? these doctors , i say , would do well to reflect the church of rome has not determin'd the manner of our b. saviours bodies being in the sacrament , and therefore her divines , some explicate it one way , some another ; but only the thing it self , the manner how , being left to the dispute of her doctors . . assertion . if our b. saviour would have left us his sacred body and blood , instead of all the sacrifices of sheep and oxen , under the mosaical dispensation , to be offered up by christian priests , and to be fed upon by the christian people , it would have been a favour worthy of his excessive love to mankind , by reason of the innumerable benefits which would have accrued to us by the continual oblition and presence of so worthy a sacrifice . what an incentive would this have been to christian piety ? how would such a sacrifice as this have compell'd high and low , rich and poor , learned and unlearned , with a strange reverence to have flocked about our christian altars , where not a lamb or a beast , but the body of god , and the blood of god , and by concomitancy whole god and man , christ jesus , should have been offered up by choice persons to the almighty for the good of the world ? how would the presence of such an oblation have kept them attentive , and encreased their servor in their prayers ? when they should have been able to have said ; this before me , which i see with my eyes , is my dear redeemer , and god that was crucified for me , and is to be my judge . how earnestly should we have made all our petitions to him , and how heartily should we have thanked him for all his love ? to understand this : imagin our b. saviour should appear to you in your chamber every morning , in that very body and shape he is now in heaven ; were you assured it was he , and not an illusion , with what humility would you prostrate your self before him ? how heartily would you cry him mercy for all your sins , and earnestly recommend all the desires of your soul unto him ? and how would this high favour melt your soul into a mòst tender affection towards him ? but these would have been the happy circumstances of the whole christan world , would our omnipotent lord , out of his abundant goodness , have left us his sacred self , under the disguise of the accidents of bread and wine . the same petitions , with a like fervour , would every christian have made every holy mass , which you would have made every morning upon such an apparition as was supposed . my dear jesus , true god and man , the very same who art in heaven in all splendor and glory , art here upon the holy altar before me , veiled under the vile appearances of common bread and ordinary wine ; and all this for my sake , that to my souls health thou mightest be seen , handled , and tasted by me . nor couldst thou be hindred from this excess of love to me unworthy sinner , although thou didst foresee the revilings thou wert to endure for it from ungrateful calvinists . who for this would call thee a breadden god , and reproach thy devout adorers , as more stupid idolaters than the very pagan worshippers of sun and moon . rather then i should want the delicious comfort of thy continual presence , the happy pledge of eternally seeing thee face to face : all this , and yet greater indignities wouldst thou subject thy self unto , by one to to be reviled by his impious tongue ; by another to be trampled under his foul feet ; by a third , to be cast into some sink or jaques . o impiety , o ingratitude of finful men ! o unheard of goodness of our dearest lord , thus to abject himself for our sakes ! but what wonder , if when he was in a passible mortal body he would permit himself by wicked miscreants to be torn with cruel whips , to be bespatterd with filthy spittle , and to be made black and blew with ignominious buffets ; what wonder now , when he is become immortal and impassible , and can suffer no more defilement from the basest ordures , than do the bright sun beams from the foulest mud when they shine upon it , that he should permit himself to be eaten by mice or doggs , or suffer other viler indignities , if sacrilegious sinners will permit or cause them ? moreover , such a presence of our great lord , what an incitement would it have been to pious munificence in adorning our christian churches with the richest gold and most precious stones , or what ever else that 's rare and splendid , which nature or art does afford , making them little heavens for lustre and glory , and thereby exciting in the hearts of all that should enter them a due reverence to the almighty , whom we worship ? if solomon so adorned his temple , where only a sheep , or a calf , or a little incense was offered to the creator of all things ; what glory could have been thought too rich for our christian churches , where an oblation , worthy of the great god , should every day have been sacrificed unto him ; the lamb of god that takes away the sins of the world ; the god-man christ jesus . in fine , what vertue should not our dear saviour have given us example of , by such a charitable humiliation of himself ? obedience , to come down from heaven to earth at the voice of every christian priest , though never so simple for his understanding , or never so wicked for his life and manners . charity , humility , patience , contempt of the judgments or sayings of men , &c. . assertion . the bread and wine in the holy eucharist , are by the omnipotent power of god actually , and in deed changed into the body and blood of our b. saviour jesus christ : which i prove thus . this was the universal belief of the christian world in the nineth century after our b. saviour , as is evident by the testimony of all the writings of that age , and by the universal testimony of the tenth age , who profess in all christian countrys to have received this faith from their immediate ancestors . nor do our adversaries deny it , and therefore appeal to the first six hundred years , in which they say the christian doctrine remained incorrupt . but if the doctrine of the real mutation of bread and wine in the holy eucharist into our b. saviours body and blood was generally believed in the nineth age , it must necessarily be taught in the first age by the apostles , to their first converts over all the world , and consequently be most certainly true . for it cannot be doubted but that the first converts of the h. apostles , did not only understand what the apostles taught them concerning this great mystery , but also did throughly believe it , and highly esteem it ( as they did all other doctrines and practices taught them by the same their first maffers ) as not only of exceeding profit above all the things of this life , but also as highly necessary to them and their children to bring them to eternal bliss . which being so , none can doubt but that the same first disciples , both could and would , and actually did teach the very same doctrine which they so highly esteemed , as to embrace it with the bazard of their lives , to their children and successors . and this they taught them not as an invention of their own , but as a doctrine taught them by the apostles of jesus christ , who confirmed their mission from the infallible god by evident miracles . in like manner it cannot be doubted but these taught their children also concerning this mystery what they had been taught by their fathers , and not as the invention of their fathers , but as a doctrine taught their fathers by the undoubted messengers of heaven , the holy apostles . the like may be said of all the intervening generations for the first six hundred years , which our adversaries do not deny , ( though it be all one to the force of this argument , to grant so much only for the first four hundred years ) . now if transubstantiation was not taught for the first six hundred years , but the contrary ; whatsoever age , be it the seventh , eighth , or nineth , would begin to teach the doctrine of the real presence of our lord● body in the sacrament ; they could not possibly have the impudence to tell their children the bread and wine in the eucharist were turned into the true body and blood of our saviour ; and thus they had been taught by their fathers and grandfathers uninterruptedly from the apostles . this , i say , it is impossible they could have the impudence to assert , when every one must needs know his father and grand-father had believed and taught him otherwise . what must they pretend then , to impose upon their children this new and strange mysterious doctrine ? they must tell them their fathers and grand-fathers , and other ancesters , for some hundreds of years had been in an error , and had forsaken the doctrine taught by the apostles , and their first converts as to this mystery , and confirm their assertion by the clear words of holy scripture , take and eat , this is my body , &c. and by other testimonies out of the writers of the first or second century . but no history makes mention of any such manner of bringing in the doctrine of transubstantiation in the seventh , eighth , or other century : therefore it was never so brought in , but was always believed ; nor indeed could it ever in any century be brought in by the church of christ , whose custom has ever been , not only in the seventh and eighth , but in every other century before & after , alwaies to teach , and to pretend to teach her children , not doctrins devised or found out by herself by reading the holy scriptures or other means , but what was taught her by her fore . elders uninterruptedly from the apostles : and still when hereticks , or beginners of any new doctrin , in any age , pretended scriptures for them , she opposed : we have been taught otherwise by our ancesters , and to understand those scriptures in another sense than you understand them . which way of teaching a bringer in of a new doctrine , its evident could not use . for if he did not begin to teach his child otherwise than he was taught by his father he should teach no new or other doctrine . but if he did begin to teach his child otherwise than his father taught him , he could not at the same time tell his child , thus he was taught by his father , and so upward from the apostles , when both his own conscience , and all his neighbours would testifie the contrary . calvin , for example , could not tell his child that he was taught by his father to deny transubstantiation . no more could the first teacher of transubstantiation in the seventh or other century , had it been a novelty tell his child he was so taught to believe by his father , but must have pretended to have more light than his father and ancesters , as our adversaries did when they began to deny it . hence it is evident transubstantiation was not begun in the seventh or other century , but was alwaies believed since the apostles , seeing that in the nineth century christians universally believed , that in the holy eucharist the bread and wine were changed into the body and blood of our saviour ; and as such adored them , and embraced this doctrine of the real presence , not as a doctrine newly found out by themselves , or their immediate fore-fathers by reading the holy scriptures or other means , but as taught them by their fore-fathers uninterruptedly from the apostles ; and seeing likewise this has ever been the way of the catholick church to teach and pretend to teach posterity not new doctrines of her own , but what she had learnt from her ancestors . hence s. vincent lerinensis , twelve hundred years ago , in his golden treatise against the profane innovations of heresies , upon those words of s. paul. siquis , &c. if any one evangelize to you , besides what you have received , let him be anathema . sed forsitan , &c. but perhaps those things were commanded the galatians only . then those things also which follow in the same epistle , were commanded the galatians only . be not desirous of vain-glory , provoking one another , envying one another . or perhaps was it then commanded , if anyone announce , besides what has been announced , let him be anathema●ized ; but now it is not commanded . therefore , and that also which he there saies : but i say , walk in the spirit , and do not perfect the desires of the flesh , was then only commanded , but is not now commanded . but if it be impious and pernicious to believe so , it necessarily follows , that as these things are to be observed by all ages , so those things also which are established concerning not changing the faith , are commanded to all ages . wherefore it was never lawful , it is not now lawful , nor ever shall be lawful to christian catholicks to announce any thing besides what they have received — let him cry and cry again , and to all , and alwaies , and every where let him cry by his epistle that vessel of election , that master of the gentils ; that trumpet of the apostles , that preacher of the world , conscious to the secrets of heaven let him cry ; if any one preach a new doctrine let him be anathematiz'd . and on the contrary side , let certain froggs , and cynifes and flies that are to perish ; such as are the pelagians reclame and this to gatholiks ; we , say they , being authors , we being heads , we being expositors , condemn what ye did hold , hold what ye did condemn , reject the ancient faith , the institutions of your fathers , the depositions of your ancestors , and receive ; but what ? i have a horror to mention them , for they are such proud things , &c. but may not general councils at least presume to reach new doctrines ? hear the same s. vincent , chap. . hoc semper neque quicquam praeterea , &c. the catholick church excited by the novelties of hereticks , by the decrees of her councils even did this , and not thing more than this , what she had received by tradition only ; this she consigned to posterity by writing , comprehending a great , sum of things in a few letters , and for the most part for the light of understanding , signing the not new sense of faith with the propriety of a new name . take notice that the christian church using this means to preserve the faith first received , its impossible she should ever lose or change it . for if fathers from the beginning had resolved to teach their children what they had learnt , or even thought they had learnt from their parents , as to the point of the real prefence or other doctrine , its impossible they should teach another doctrine . for should they teach another doctrine , it must happen , either because they were ignorant what was taught them by their parents , which is impossible , not only to whole nations , but even to the inhabitants of one small town , or else , because , though they knew what was taught by their parents , yet they would teach otherwise than they had been taught ; but then they must forsake their first resolution of teaching their children what they thought they had learnt from their fathers , contrary to the supposition . but on the other side let us suppose a book fully written , as to all points to be believed by christians , by the first teachers of christianity . let them together , with this book , give charge to their 〈◊〉 converts , neither to add to it , nor to diminish it , and to believe as in their consciences they shall think that book shall teach them . though generation after generation be never so faithful to such a charge , yet they may in after ages come to lose or change their faith because the book may seem to one generation to bear one sense , and to another generation to bear another : especially if the mysteries , to be believed be very sublime , and the book obscure in many places , and admit of divers senses when it speaks of those mysterie● . for example , these words , this is my body , may seem to one age to bear this sense , this is a sign of my body ; and ●o another , this is really and truly my body . but no ten families who have been taught by their parents , either to believe our saviours body is in the euecharist , or that it is not there , can possibly mistake what their immediate fathers taught them , and frequently inculcated to them , as to this point , both by themselves and choice persons ordained on purpose for this end to teach what they learnt from their immediate masters and fathers . nothing can make a change here , but a resolution to go contrary to what they know was taught them by their parents . wherefore seeing god almighty is resolved not to teach every age by immediate infallible missionants from himself , but to send inspired ambassadors to one particular generation only , and to leave that generation to teach their children successively till the day of judgment , what they learnt from the immediate infallible messengers of heaven : and seeing also a book , with a charge not to change or alter it , and with a charge also to follow what should seem to every generation to be the sense of it , and supposing every generation faithful to such a charge , would not have been a sufficient means to keep the first divine faith from corruption , we may safely conclude the almighty has not taken that way to teach the world . but seeing oral teaching by inspired pastors at first , with a charge to every generation to follow what they thought was taught them by their immediate parents and teachers , provided every generation were true to this charge , would have kept the first faith inviolate , we may also conclude the almighty has taken this way . especially finding a congregation of so vast a spread in being , who pretends to have made use of this means to preserve her first faith , taught her ancestors many hundred years ago ; nor can she be evinced by any history or tradition , or any thing but mere sayings and ungrou●●●d surmises , to have lost or changed her first belief . and if you 〈◊〉 make use of a book to guide you in your faith , as the catholick church also does , you must resolve to interpret it , ( if you will be sure not to mistake ) as she does ; that is , in that sense in which it was understood by your fathers , and not in that sense it shall seem to bear to you , if contrary to the sense it seemed to bear to your ancestors . pardon sir , this long digression , i hope it will conduce to your more full satisfaction . and take notice , that wheresoever transubstantiation is believed , the believers of it profess to have been so taught by their fore-fathers uninterruptedly from the apostles : & wheresoever this mystery is denied , the deniers of it do not profess to have been taught to deny it by their fathers uninterruptedly from the apostles , but only by their ancestors for about a hundred and fifty years ; and that their ancestors about the year fifteen hundred , had more light than their progenitors for about a thousand years , who were all in darkness , and had left the right faith taught by the apostles , and for the first fix hundred years of christianity . an evident conviction this , that the denial of transubstantiation is a novelty , and the asserting of it the antient verity . for had transubstantiation been a new doctrin , and never heard of before the seventh or eighth age , the assertors of it must have been forced to plead for it , after the manner its opposers plead against it ; by saying their fore fathers only for so long , for example , for eight hundred years had believed it ; but in the year eight hundred , their ancestors had more light than their fore-fathers , and they by reading the holy scriptures and fathers of the first century , came to understand that our saviours true body was in the holy eucharist , and that their immediate progenitors for five or six hundred years , had left the first apostolical doctrin as to this mystery . if you remember , i supposed from the confession of our adversaries , that the christian doctrin remained pure and incorrupt for some centuries of years , after its first planting ; which i now shall endeavor to prove . and indeed whosoever maturely considers the genius and temper of the christian doctors and bishops , for the first centuries after our saviour , will find it impossible for all the power of hell to impose a novelty upon them , especially such an one as would make them all idolaters . for they were not like the seeming zelots of our age , pretenders to new lights , but their profession was not to correct antiquity , not to deliver to posterity doctrine of their own devising , but carefully to keep what they had received from their fore-fathers , and faithfully to teach their children what they had been taught by their fathers : and their great answer to introducers of new doctrirs or practices , was , nihil nouandum nisi quod traditum est : we must innovate nothing , but stick close to what has been delivered to us by our fore-fathers . as for pretenders to discover new truths by reading of the holy scriptures , it s easily conceivable how such persons may be imposed upon by subtil sophisters , and made to believe erroneous doctrins ; to wit , by bad and new interpretations of good and antient scriptures . but on the other fide , how shall a teacher of novelties deceive a christian country , which is resolved to hold fast whatsoever doctrin was taught them by their immedate progenitors , who received the same doctrin by an uninterrupted delivery from father to son , from the apostles ? let him pretend scriptures , and bring a thousand places out of the law , psalms , prophets , and apostles ; what will the reply be ? the scriptures you alledge we reverence , and have ever been taught to reverence them as divine ; but we have been taught to interpret and understand them in another manner and sense than you alledge them . let him pretend authority of doctors , as learned as origen , as holy as cyprian ; nay , if he will , of a whole provincial council , as numerous as that in africa , which determin'd rebaptization of persons baptized by hereticks ; they reply , we must not innovate , we must hold to what was taught us by our ancestors . what means then to make persons thus disposed to leave their an●ient faith , and admit of a novelty ? you must prove to them , that you and they , and other christians in several countrys , have been taught so to believe by your immediate predecessors , and uninterruptedly from father to son , from the apostles : but then you cease to be a teacher of novelties , contrary to the supposition . now that such was the disposition of the primitive centuries of christianity , hear s. vincent lerinensis , who lived in the fifth age ; who testifies , that often asking of very many his contemporaries , famous for their sanctity and learning , how he might be able to discern the truth of the catholick paith from the falsity of heretical prayity , he always received this answer in a manner from them all : that if he desired to remain sound in his faith , he must fortifie it ; first with the authority of the divine law , and then with the tradition of the catholick church . that is , as he explicates himself afterwards , he must examin what has always , all over the christian church , and by all christian doctors , or in a manner by all ▪ been believed , and hold to that against all novelty ; though defended by private doctors , never so holy , or never so learned , or producing never so many scriptures for themselves , if interpreted after a new manner . but saies the same s. vincent , chap ▪ . here perhaps some body may ask , seeing the canon of the scriptures is perfect , and is it self sufficient , and more than sufficient for all things , what need is there to add to it the authority of the ecclesiastical , or churches understanding of it ? because the holy scripture , by reason of its depth , is not by all taken in one and the same sense . — for photinus expounds it one way , sabellius another , donatus another , arrius another . and ch . . he tells us how the third general council held in his days at ephesus , proceeding according to this rule , condemn'd nestorius . for the fathers of that christian synod , in number about having consulted the sentiment of their predecessors , the eminent doctors of the oriental and western churches , s. peter of alexandria , s. athan●sius , s. theophilus , s. gregory nazianzen , s. basil , s. gregory n●ssen , s. felix , s. julius , s. cyprian , concerning their controversie in debate , they resolved to hold their doctrin , to follow their counsel , to believe their testimony , to obey their judgment . quae tandem , &c what were at length ( saies s. vincent ) the voices and votes of them all , but that what was antiently delivered should be kept , what was of late invented should be exploded ? after which we admired and proclamed the great humility and sanctity of that council . in which so many priests , in a manner as to the greater part , were so many metropolitans , and of so great erudition and learning , as they were almost all able to dispute of dogms . to whom , when their gathering together in one , seemed to add a confidence of daring , and decreeing something from themselves , yet notwithstanding they would presume nothing , arrogate nothing at all to themselves , but took all possible heed lest they should deliver to their posterity what themselves had not received from their fathers ; and not only well disposed the matter for the present , but also gave example to them that were to come after them , to wit , that they should reverence the dogms of sacred antiquity , and condemn ( adinventa ) the additional inventions of profane novelty . this then was not an age wherein to introduce new doctrins into the church , nor any other before s. vincent . for he tells us , chap. . mos iste , &c. that custome has always flourished in the church , and by how much any one hath been more religious , the more readily has he opposed new inventions . we have hereof plenty of examples every where . the same s. vincent witnesses , that in the third age , the assertors of rebaptization wanted neither wit nor eloquence , nor number , nor verisimilitude of truth , nor oracles of the divine law , but understood in a bad and new manner . chap. , and . how came they then to lose their cause ? s. stephen and his collegues reclamed , nihil novandum , &c. nothing is to be innovated besides what has been delivered to us . agrippinus , bishop of carthage , holding rebaptization against the rule of the universal church , against the sense of all his fellow priests , against the custom and institutions of his ancestors ; and hereby ( as s. vincent observes ) giving a form of sacriledge to all hereticks , this overthrew him . had now the doctrin of the real presence been an idolatrous novelty , its manifest no introducer of it could have perswaded it to a christian church thus principled as the doctors of these times were . they would all unanimously have reclamed ; nothing must be innovated , besides what has been delivered to us by our ancestors . moreover , that the christian doctrin remained pure and incorrupt for some centuries of years , after its first planting , is further evinced by considering the state of the christian church for the first . years ; to wit , that it was severely persecuted all the world over . now can any reasonable man imagin , that they who were continually exposing their lives for their religion , would if they could agree together , so notoriously to change it , as to make themselves most gross idolaters by adoring bread and wine , as the true body and blood of their creator and god. nor can it be imagin'd when the centuries of the persecuted state of the church were ended , that the christians now in a full liberty of professing and practising their faith , would all on the sudden so notoriously change that faith which had been delivered them by their fore-fathers , who had seal'd it with their blood . and this none can doubt of , who reflects how tenacious all man kind is of that religion they were bred up in . in so much , as let any one consult the whole world , and he shall never find so much as one nation or country , to have changed their religion without a great deal of ●oise and difficulty , and a considerable length of time ; and so as posterity could for many ages give an account of such a change , how and by what means it happened , so as to satisfie any rational demander of an account of such a change , without flying to imperceptible mutations , by little and little , but when or by whom no account is to be given : the usual refuge of our adversaries , when we demand of them how not one country , but all the christian countrys in the world , came to believe so universally this strange doctrin of the change of bread and wine into our b. saviours body and blood . the whole world formerly in a manner pagan , except a handful of jews , is now become christians ; we give an account of it . twelve men dividing the world amongst them by stupendious miracles a holy life and glorious death , converted great numbers of several nations to the christian faith ; and these taught it their children under sharp persecutions for some three hundred years ; and after that , through the favour of emperors and kings , converted to be christians , it made that spread we now see . arrianism over-ran a great part of the christian world , and we are able to give an account how , and by what means , without recurring to imperceptible growing by little and little . arrius first broach'd that heresie , and by the favour of emperors ; it got a great footing in christendom . in like manner had the strange doctrin of transubstantiation been a novel invention ; 't is not possible , but at first teaching , it must needs have been opposed , and could not have so over-spread the christian world in the nineth century , as its evident to any one versed in ecclesiastical history it did , without great preaching of its first abettors , and strange favour of christian princes . that the whole christian world , for the first six hundred years , should be wholly ignorant of this strange mysterious doctrin , and so hard to be believed ; and that in the nineth century it should be generally believed , and not as a new doctrin neither , which was pretended by that age to have been found out by vertue of greater light , by reading the holy scriptures , &c. but as a doctrin they had been taught from their fore-fathers by an immemorable tradition , is harder to believe than the mystery it self to any judicious considerer ; how difficultly , as i hinted above , we are perswaded to leave the doctrins we have been taught by our parents from our child-hood . in confirmation of this , let but any one consider the state of our own country . about the year we generally believed and adored the bread and wine in the h. eucharist , as our b. saviours true body and blood . now 't is confess'd , we , a hundred for one , believe the contrary . but how was this new faith bred in us ? by stopping the mouthes of all the preachers of the antient mysterious doctrin , and by persecuting with severe laws , all professors of that antient faith. and yet you see even all this diligence has not been able to root out the antient belief universally neither . much-less was what has been done , been effected so without noise ; but all our chronicles mention how our new belief was wrought . and can any one think that not one kingdom , but all the kingdoms of the christian world , could be brought so universally to change their faith without any mention in any history , how and by whom this strange change was wrought ? especially if he reflect how hardly human nature does believe strange things which neither sense nor reason can give any evidence of : and on the contrary , how easily and gladly we relinquish beliefs which have been imposed upon us , when we have , as we think , the evidence both of sense and reason for our change . all which notwithstanding , you see how that after a years labour , neither eloquence of false teachers , nor force of civil powers , has been able so wholly to pervert our nation as to the belief of that high mystery of the real presence , but even still there remain a considerable number retainers of the antient belief . and can you think that not in a much greater space of time , to wit , betwixt the sixth and nineth century all the christian world could be perswaded to admit so strange a doctrin to nature and reason ; and yet no man by vertue of history or tradition should be able to give any account what orators prevailed with the world to relinquish the belief of their ancestors , or what power of civil magistrates forced them to it ? especially seeing there have not wanted ecclesiastical historigraphers who have made mention of matters of far less note than such a change of faith must needs have made . but what place will there remain for doubting , that this high mystery was always believed , if not only all writers be silent as to any change , but also the seventh and eighth age ; yea , the most primitive times do positively attest this very mystery by the pens of the chiefest champions of the christian church , who have left us any memorials of their learning and piety in their deservedly admired works ? i shall faithfully recount their words ; be your own judge what their sentiment was . in the first place then , glorious saint , and great doctor s. augustin , tell us your faith concerning the holy eucharist ; is it bakers bread , or the body of our lord and god ? i remember , saies the holy doctor in his . ser. de verbis domini , when i treated of the sacraments , i told you that before the words of christ , that which is offered up is called bread , but when the words of christ shall have been pronounced , now it is no longer called bread , but the body of christ. and explicating those words of the royal prophet , psal. . v. . exalt ye our lord god , and adore his foot-stool , for it is holy . now what is this foot-stool of god ? why saies this great doctor , the earth is his foot-stool . but how is the earth holy , and to be adored by us ? the saint goes on and tells us how : our lord took earth of the earth , because flesh is of the earth ; and he took flesh of the flesh of mary . and because he walked here in flesh , and gave to us that very flesh to be eaten by us to our salvation ; but no body eats that flesh , unless he shall first have adored it . and indeed what could we expect that s. austin should teach and believe concerning this divine sacrament , but what he had been taught by his father and instructor in christ , the glorious st. ambrose . and what was that ? hear his words , lib. . de sacramentis . thou wilt perhaps say nnto me , my bread is ordinary bread ; but that bread is bread before the sacramental words ; but when consecration has been made of bread , it is made the flesh of christ. but how can bread be the body of christ ? by consecration : consecration ; by what and whose words is it perfected ? by the words of our lord jesus . for all other things which are said , praise is given to god : by prayer supplication is made for the people , for kings , for the rest . when the time is come that the venerable sacrament is to be made , now the priest does not use his own words , but the words of christ ; therefore the word of christ makes this sacrament . but what word of christ ? that word by which all things were made . our lord commanded and heaven was made ; our lord commanded and the earth was made : our lord commanded , and the seas were made : our lord commanded , and every creature was produced . doest thou see then how operative the word of christ is ? if then there be so great force in the word of our lord jesus , that it could make things which were not begin to be ; how much rather is it operative , that those things which were , should be and be charged into another thing ? heaven was not , the sea was not , the earth was not ; but hear him saying : he said the word , and they were made ; he commanded , and they were created . that therefore i may answer thee ; the body of christ was not before consecration ; b● after consecration , i say unto thee , that now the body of christ is . he said it , and it was made : he commanded , and it was created . and in chap. . of the same book . before the words of christ , the chalice is full of wine and water ; but when the words of christ have bad their operation , then it is made the blood which redeemed the people . see then in how many kinds of things the word of christ is able to change all things . moreover our lord jesus himself testifies unto us , that we receive his body and blood ; ought we then to doubt of his testification ? add to s. austin and s. ambrose , the learned s. hierom in his epistle ad heliodorum . far be it from me , saies the saint , that i should speak amiss of those who succeeding the apostles , do make the body of christ with their sacred mouth . and in his . epistle to enagrius . by whose prayers the body and blood of christ is made . take notice that these three holy fathers lived not four hundred years after our b. saviours death . s. cyprian yet nearer the apostles age , does no less clearly nor fully attest the same verity , in his serm. de caena domini . that bread which our lord gave to his disciples , being changed not in shape , but in its nature , by the omnipotency of the word was made flesh. and in his book , de lapsis ; reprehending such as were angry with the priests of god , who refused to admit them to the holy communion of the b. sacrament , after they had polluted themselves with the profane sacrifices of heathen idolaters , expresses their sin in these words . he that has fall'n from his faith , threatens them that have stood firm . sacrilegious w●etch , he is angry with the priests of god , that he is not prosently admitted with defiled hands to receive the body of our lord , or to drink his blood with his defiled mouth . and this was the very doctrin of his learned master tertullian , who yet nearer approached the holy apostles , lib. de resur . cur . the flesh is fed with the body and blood of christ , that the soul may be made fat with god. and in his book de idololatria , he complains of the prosaneness of some christians , who made no scruple to day to be working in their shops , making idolatrous statues for the heathens , and yet to morrow would presume to come into the christian congregations , and receive the sacred mysteries of our lords body and blood , and communicate them to others . his words are these ; to touch the body of our lord with those hands which give bodies to devils . nor is this all ; their crime would be less , did they only receive from the hands of others what they contaminate and pollute ; but moreover they deliver to others what they have polluted . makers of idols are admitted into the ecclesiastical hierarchy . o impiety ! once the jews laid profane hands on christ ; these daily violate his body : o hands deserving to be cut off ! but shall we desire a greek father or two , to give us their sense concerning our present controversie . s. crysost . ho. . ad . pop . antioch . because the word saies , this is my body , let us assent and believe . and a little after , how many are there now adaies that say , o that i could see his figure , his garments , his shooes ? lo thou seest himself , thou touchest him , thou eatest him . thou desirest to see his garments , but he give thee not only to see , but also to eat and touch , and take himself into thee . and a little after , consider what an indignation thou hast against the traytor judas , and against those that crucified him : therefore consider lest thou also beest not guilty of the body and blood of christ. they killed his most holy body ; and thou receivest it with a polluted soul after so many benefits . for he was not satisfied to be made man , to be buffetted and crucified : but moreover , he does mix himself with us , and makes us his body , not only by faith , but in very deed . and ho. . in ep. . ad corin. christ has given us his body , both that we might have it and might eat it , which is the greatest sign of love . wherefore job chap. . that he might show the love of his servants to him , said they oftentimes of their execeeding great love to him , would say concerning him , who will give us of his flesh , that we might be filled with it . even so christ has given us his flesh , that we might feed upon it , thereby to allure us to love him very much . this body the sages adored in the manger . — thou seest it not in the manger , but npon the altar ; not a woman holding it in her arms , but a priest present . — nor do i show thee angels , nor arch-angels , nor heaven , nor the heaven of heavens , but the very lord of all these things . — nor doest thou only see him , but touch him ; not only touch him , but eat him ; and having received him , returns to thy home . and hom. ad pop . antioch . and . in math. let us every where believe god , and not oppose him , although that which he saies seem absurd to our sense and thoughts ; let his speech overcome both our sense and our reason ; which let us do in all things , and especially in the mysteries , not only regarding those things which lie before us , but also holding fast to his words . for we cannot be deceived by his words , but our sense is most easily deceived : those cannot be false , this is deceived very often . because therefore he has said this is my body , let us make no doubt but believe , and see it with the yes of our understanding . and in his . ho. in ep. ad ephes let us think that him that sits above , who is adored by the angels , 't is him that we tast , that we feed upon . and ho. . ad pop . antioc . elias left his disciple his mantle , but the son of god ascending , left us his flesh. but elias indeed put off his mantle , but christ both left us his flesh , and retaining it , ascended with it . let us not therefore be dishartened , nor lament , nor fear the difficulty of the times . for he that has not refused to shed his blood for us , and has communicated to us both his flesh and blood , will not refuse to do any thing for our salvation . hear another greek doctor , s. cyril of jerusalem , in his catechistical discourses , which are the plainest declarations of the mysteries of our holy faith. catech. . mys. seeing then christ himself so affirms and says concerning the bread , this is my body who after this can dare to doubt of it ? and the same also affirming and saying , this is my blood , who i say can doubt of it , and say it is not his blood . he changed water into wine in cana of galilee , by his sole will , and shall he not be worthy whom we may believe , that he changed wine into his blood ? for if being invited to a corporeal wedding , he wrought a stupendious miracle , shall we not confess him much rather to have given his body and blood to the children of the bridegroom ? wherefore with all assurance let us take the body and blood of christ ; for under the appearance of bread , is given to thee his body ; and under the appearance of wine , is given his blood ; that having received the body and blood of christ , thou maiest be made partaker together with him of his body and blood. so shall we be christophers , such as carry christ in them , when we shall have received his body and blood into our members ; and so as s. peter saies , shall be made partakers of the divine nature . — do not therefore look upon it as bare bread and bare wine ; for it is the body and blood of christ , according to the words of our lord himself . for although thy sense suggest this to thee , yet let faith confirm thee ; do not judge of the thing by thy tast , but rather from faith hold for certain , so that thou hast no doubt that the body and blood are given to thee . knowing and accounting for most certain , that this bread which is seen by us is not bread , although our tast judge it to be bread , but that it is the body of christ. and the wine , which is seen by us , although it may seem wine to our sense of tasting , that yet it is not wine but the blood of christ. can the holy council of trent have plainer words than these , or fuller to our present purpose . add the testimony of s. justin martyr , who lived yet nearer the age of the apostles , in his apology for the christians to antoninus the emperor , in which he gives him an account of the christian faith ; and where certainly he would not make it more mysterious than it was , nor more hard to be believed , according to any part of it , then the truth and common belief of christians forced him ; but rather would moderate the mysteriousness of it , than encrease it . hear him then giving an account of the holy eucharist . this meat is called by us the eucharist , because no body may partake of it , but he who believes those things to be true which we say , and lives so as christ has taught us . for we do not take these things as common and ordinary bread , but as by the word of god , our saviour jesus christ was made man , and had flesh and blood for our salvation ; so we have been taught that this meat , which is consecrated by the prayers of that speech we received from him , is the flesh and blood of jesus christ , who was made man. for the apostles in their commentaries , which are called gospels , have delivered that christ so commanded , and that having taken bread , when he had given thanks , he said , do this in memory of me , this is my body ; and having taken the cup , when we had given thanks , he said also , this is my blood , and gave it to them only . mark how this holy father saies , that what we have received concerning the holy eucharist , is , that it is both the flesh and blood of jesus christ , who was made man. now would any man in his wits have given such an account of the christian faith to an unbelieving heathen , with a desire to convert him , and to recommend our holy faith to him , had the blessed eucharist been a mere sign of the flesh and blood of christ. this he would easily have understood to be very feasable , whereas the other strangely shocks both his sense and reason . for other testimonies out of these and other holy fathers , i refer you to our books of controversie on this subject , which are full of them . and who now that has the least grain of humility and modesty , would not blush to accuse so many and so grave doctors of christ's church of idolatry and damnable error ? and here sir , you must give me leave to bespeak our adversaries in the words of s. augustin , directed by him to jul●an the pelagian , after a like citation , about another matter , of these very holy fathers by me now cited , as to a good part of them . tu qui tam crebro , &c. thou sadly deluded calvinist , that doest so often object to us catholick christians the crime of idolatry for adoring the holy eucharist ; if thou beest awake , see what and what kind of men , and how glorious defenders of the christian faith , thou darest to be spatter under our names , with so execrable a crimination . go now and object to us the crime of idolatry , dissemble and feign thy self not to know what they say in this point ; over-look them as it were , and attack us only , as not knowing that under our name they are reviled ; and confidently insult over so many and so great doctors of the church of christ , who after a most saintly life , and having beaten down the errors of their times , most gloriously went out of this life before you and your camerades bubled up . doest thou see with what kind of men we sustain thy reproaches ; doest thou see with whom we have the same common cause , which without any sober consideration thou calumniates and endeavours to expugn ? doest thou see , proud calvinist , how pernicious it is unto thy self , to object so horrible a crime of idolatry to such men as these , and how glorious it is to us to sustain the charge of any crime , together with such doctors ? or if thou doest see , see , and hold thy peace , and let so many catholick tongues silence thy calvinistical tongue , and submit thy brazen forehead to the venerable mines of so many grave fathers . the russian polemus to compleat his wilde ramble , would needs early in the morning , half drunk with his night-revels , go to the school of the grave sophist xenocrates , to affront him and his scholars . but he was no sooner entred the school of that sober platonist , but the very fight of the modest and grave comportment of the philosopher and his scholars did so strike my young gallant , that he was quite out of countenance ; and asham'd of himself , he pull'd off his drunken bayes , and compos'd himself to modesty , and became his convert , whom he came on purpose to deride and scoff at . such force had the grave countenances of a sober platonist and his school to comp●●at a rude russian . finding my presuptuous calvinist drunk with pride and self-conceit , i could think of no better means to reduce him to sobriety , then to bring him , not into the school of a sober ethnick philosopher , but into a grave assembly of the most memorable bishops and doctors of the school of christ. to whom certainly so much a greater reverence and respect is due , by how much their doctor and master christ , is greater then xenocrates 's master and doctor plato . i desire now my conceited calvinist , that thou wouldst think it worth thy while , to eye , to look upon so many and so grave prelates of the catholick church ; and imagin them to look as it were upon thee , and mildly and gently to say unto thee : itanè nos fili juliane , &c. is it so indeed son stilling fleet , are we 〈◊〉 idolaters ? what answer wouldst thou give them . with what face wouldst thou look upon them ? what arguments would occur to thee ? wouldst thou dare , wouldst thou have the face to produce such wodden daggers as thou art ever and anon drawing upon us ? or rather would not such pittiful weapons fall out of thy hand , at the presence of so great doctors , and such grave prelates of gods church ? wouldst thou have the forehead to tell the great s. augustin our b. lord said , do this in remembrance of me ; the words which i speak unto you are spirit and life ; i am a door , i am a true vine , &c. as if that great doctor and his venerable fellows could be ignorant of such petty cavils as those . tautumne apud te , &c. can a calvin , or a stillingfleet have so much authority with any person of sobriety , that he should for their regards , not only for sake so many and so great doctors and defenders of the christian faith , from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof ; but also dare to call them i dolaters and abertors of damnable errors ? i desire my conceited calvinist , would but consider into what an assembly i have brought him . 't is an assembly of saintly doctors , not of the popular multitude : such as were not only children , but fathers of the church ; famous in their generations for learning and sanctity , who well furnished with spiritual weapons , strenuously warred against the hereticks of their days , and having happily finished the labours of their dispensation , holily went to rest in peace . nor was the doctrin , we are now disputing , any new devised opinion of theirs ; but what they learnt in the church of christ , in the time of their rudiments , that they taught the church of christ in time of their honors . that which they found in the church , that they held . that which they received from their fathers , they delivered to their children . and if my calvinist will perhaps say , he does not charge s. augustin , or s. chrysostom with the crime of idolatry , he must give me leave to tell him , nor then does he justly charge us , whom he sees in the same cause to have followed their steps . but if he will only reproach us with such a calumny , nor for any other reason , but because we think concerning the holy eucharist what they thought , hold what they held , preach what they preacht ; who does not see that he openly reviles us only , but secretly has the like judgement of them ? for what they believe , we believe ; what they teach , we teach , yield to them , and you yield to us ; acquies● in their sentiments , and you 'l cease to condemn ours . moreover this grave assembly of antient doctors , to whom we appeal , then judged concerning this our cause , when no body could say they had favor or ill will for either party . they had neither friendship nor enmity with you or us . we did not as yet appeal with you to them as judges , and our cause was decided by them . neither you nor we were known to them , and we recite their sentence given for us against you . we did not yet contest with you , and they pronouncing sentences for us , we have overcome you . or will my calvinist have the impudence to accuse ( as some do ) th●se grave doctors of blindness ? a multitude of blind men forsooth avails nothing to find out the truth ! and these were the errors and mistakes of those learned prelates . what an age are we fal'n into ? truth must be called error , and error truth , light darkness , and darkness light . s. augustin , s. ambrose , s. crysostom , s. hierom are blind , but calvin and stillingfleet see . these doctors i have called a council of , were persons of such learning and sanctity , that if a synod of bishops were gathered out of the whole world , it would be much if so many , and such doctors could be found to sit in it . neither indeed were these all at one time , but god almighty as pleases him , and as he judges to be expedient , scatters a few more excellent and faithful dispensers of his mysteries , in several ages , and distances of places . by such planters , waterers , builders , pastors , nursing fathers after the apostles , the holy church has encreased now what an imprudence , and what an impudence must it be for any to presume to accuse of the horrible crime of idolatry , so many holy , egregious , and memorable doctors of the catholick verity , and moreover together with them the whole church of christ ; to which divine family they faithfully ministring spiritual food , flourished with great glory in our lord. nay further , they who dare to oppose the manifest sentiment , not of so many platonical , aristotelieal or zenonical doctors , but of so many saints and illustrious prelates in the church of god , and these some of them singularly endowed with human litterature , and all of them eminently learned in the sacred letters , have reason not so much to fear them as him who made them profitable vessels to himself . these judges , by how much the more desirable they ought to be unto thee , if thou didst hold the catholick faith , by so much thou hast more reason to fear them , because thou opposest the catholick faith , which they ministred to little and great , and manifestly and stoutly defended against its enemies , yea against you , then not as yet born . for not only when they lived did they by their words , but also by their writings which they left to posterity , did they strenuously defend the catholick faith , that they might break in pieces your arguments . hitherto s. augustin , l. . et . . contra julianum . i thought fit to adjoyn this reflexion of s. augustin , though superabundant to the force of my argument , it being sufficient for my purpose to prove that the doctrin of the real presence was generally believed in the primitive centuries of christianity , and so much evidently follows from the authorities above cited . for though some may be so self-conceited as to confess that s. ambrose , s. crysostom , and the rest of the holy fathers , greek and latin , believed the doctrin of the real presence , but they with humble submission deemed it to be an idolatrous and damnable doctrin : yet few i think but have so much regard for th●se primitive doctors , as to allow them so much iudgement , as to know what was the belief of their several churches in their daies , and so much fidelity as to write the truth as to this particular , which is sufficient for the purport of my discourse . unless you can think that these holy fathers were of one faith , and their several flocks , who reverenced them as saints , of another . an answer to an objection . but you will say , if there be such a miraculous change wrought in the bread and wine in the holy eucharist , why does it not appear to our senses , as well as other miraculous works of our lord jesus did ? when he turn'd water into wine , it appeared such to the sight and tast of the guests at the marriage-feast . he did not barely tell them , the water was turn'd into wine , and exact their belief of his word , contrary to the evidence of all their senses , but convinced them that it was so by their very senses . why then in our present case , if he turn wine into his blood , does it not appear to our fight to be blood ? but barely to tell us , that it is his blood , and yet to let it tast and appear as it did ; how is this credible ? how is it not contrary to one , but to all the miracles that ever he wrought ? and this argument is further strengthned , for that it would hence follow , we might call in question the whole mystery of christianity . for we therefore believing in our lord jesus , as one indeed sent from god , to teach us nothing but truth , because of his miracles , and we having no assurance of his miracles but from our senses , if our senses may be mistaken , how can we tell but those who were eye-witnesses of his wonders were illuded : and water , for example , was not turned by him into wine , but only seemed wine to the tast and sight of those which were present , and indeed remained water as before . for why may not water remain water , and yet seem to my tast wine , as well as wine be changed into blood , and yet seem to my tast and sight to remain wine ? for answer to this objection , we must distinguish two sorts of miracles , with the ends for which they are wrought . some miracles are wrought by almighty god , to draw the world to the christian faith ; and these must necessarily be the object of our senses ; else it could not reasonably be expected , they should work their intended effect in them for whose sakes they are wrought . for example ; if any one will by miracle prove he is sent from god , by raising a dead man to life , or by turning water into wine ; he must make it evident to my senses , that the man who was dead is alive , and the water now wine , and not barely tell me so . else he will be derided as an impostor and impudent lyer , instead of being admired and received as a messenger from heaven , and oracle of truth . there are other miracles which are wrought by the almighty , not as a motive to induce us to receive the true faith , but to sanctifie us when we have received it , or for the necessity of working the salvation of the world . such are the miracles of the incarnation of the son of god , and all the spiritual effects wrought in the souls of christians by any of the sacraments . now these miraculous effects are not the object of our senses , nor is there any reason they should be . for the church of christ does not urge these to perswade unbelievers to acknowledge the true faith ; but only professes , that by these her members are sanctified . for example ; we say by baptism as an outward and visible sign , is wrought an invisible grace in the soul of the person baptized . though view the child as much as you please , you can by none of your senses perceive any mutation to be wrought . in like manner the church professes to believe the mystery of the incarnation of the son of god : that our lord jesus , though to outward appearance a mere man , was also true god , and yet by no sense was the hypostatical union of his soul and body to the second person of the blessed trinity , discernable . this was no doubt a great miracle , yea the miracle of miracles wrought amongst us ; but the end of its working , being not by it as a motive to draw the world to christianity , but to constitute a fit person for the working of the salvation of the world , it was not necessary it should be the object of our senses . the same lord and saviour telling us that he was god , though we could discern no characters of divinity in him by any of our senses , he saying that he was god , & proving by other miracles to our senses , that he was sent from god to teach us nothing but truth ; this was sufficient to secure our belief of his deity . in like manner , in the mystery of the holy eucharist , this miraculous change being not wrought , to allure strangers to the christian faith , but to sanctifie believers , and to work all those spiritual effects in them above-mentioned , by being received by them , and offered up in their presence for them , &c. it was not requisite this change should be the object of our senses . nay it was necessary it should not be the object of our senses . for it being wrought to the intent we should eat and drink our dear lord his body and blood , it was necessary only the substance of bread and wine , should be turned into the substance of our lords flesh and blood , the accidents of bread and wine remaining ; for that otherwise we should have a horror to eat raw flesh , and drink true appearing blood . as to the confirmation of the argument , that hence it would follow we cannot trust our senses , and consequently not be certain of any miracle wrought by our saviour . to this i answer ; we may alwaies trust our senses about their own objects , and in due circumstances , and when we have not positive grounds to think , either god almighty by himself , or by an angel , or permissively by a devil , represents things otherwise then they are . the three children in the fiery furnace , might really think themselves in the midst of scorching flames , though they felt them not , because they had reason to surmise god almighty wrought a miracle ; out of those circumstances they had no reason to believe any thing to be ordinary fire , which should not burn as fire . nor must they for this , for ever after be in doubt , whether they were not environed with flames of fire or no. nor must abram , because once in a particular circumstance he mistook three angels for three men ; therefore never after believe his eyes , whether he saw a man or no , unless he first pinched him by the arm , and felt that he had flesh and blood as himself . nor must one who in the presence of a conjurer had taken pibble stones for grapes , for ever after be doubtful whether he saw grapes or no , till he tasted them . nor does it follow , s. mary magdalen could not be certain she ever saw our b. saviour , because once her senses were mistaken concerning him , taking him for the gardener . and in our present case , our b. saviour telling us that the holy eucharist is his body , we have all reason to think that by miracle he makes it to be so , whatsoever it seems to our senses . nor do catholicks therefore , out of such a circumstance , doubt of all the bread they see , whether it be not their lords body or no ? though i must tell you , even here your senses are not mistaken ; for they do perceive what they seem to perceive ; that is the accidents of bread and wine , which remain and affect them in the same manner , as when the substance under them , was the substance of bread and wine , but now is the substance of our lords body and blood . substances are not discernable by any sense ; only we conclude by a physical certitude , such a substance is under such a complex of accidents , when we have nor positive grounds that god almighty works a miracle , as here we have ; he saying expresly of this object before us , 't is his body , and 't is his blood . but if there be so much to be said for this great mystery , how comes it to pass so many have so great difficulty to believe it ? it is not because the mystery is not highly credible , but it is partly from nature and partly from education , and partly from want of a serious and frequent consideration of those arguments which strongly evince the credibility of it , and partly for want of strange desires of the happiness of the other life , and of a heart void of inordinate affections to the things of this life , pleasures , riches , and honors . 't is partly from nature i say . for 't is not more difficult to our senses to practice sobriety , temperance , chastity and fasting , then it is to our understanding to assent to truths which seem to shock our reason and senses , though proposed by never so great authority . should you have seen our b. saviour sucking his mothers breast in the stable of bethlehem , whosoever should have told you , the little infant there was god almighty , the maker of heaven and earth , nature would have found a great difficulty to believe so strange an assertion , and no less then it does now to believe that a little wafer in the hands of a priest , is the same christ both god and man , veiled under the appearance of the common accidents of bread . but had it been moreover from your infancy continually noysed in your ears , by such as you reverenced for their learning and skill in divine matters , that it was impossible for god to become man ; this would strangely have encreased your difficulty to believe a little infant , in nothing different as to outward appearance from other children , should be god. but if to all this you should add , never or very seldom , and slightly to consider the positive arguments for the belief of that mystery of the incarnation , but were ever still poring upon the difficulty , and unlikeliness and seeming impossibility of any such thing , 't is not possible you should ever come to the belief of it , though the mystery be never so true in it self , nor the arguments to prove it , never so evident and cogent . but this is the case of us generally in england , as to the mystery of the b. sacrament , and therefore no vvonder if generally it be not believed by us : but we rather wonder at their stupidity and fond credulity , who can believe any such thing . but to get a right , strong and well grounded faith concerning this high mystery , what must we do ? first reflect we are christians , and as such must necessarily believe very many strange things , unless we will renounce christianity . for example ; we must believe that there are three distinct persons , and every one of these is god ; and yet there are not three gods , but only one god. we must also believe this one god is infinitly merciful , and yet he will permit millions of souls to lament and howl amidst scorching flames for ever , though with a word he could ease them of all their pains . moreover we must believe that . years ago , one of the three divine persons was incarnat , and became a true mortal man , flesh and blood as we are ; and after . years , which he lived upon our earth , he was nailed to a cross , hands and feet , till he died ; and after three daies came to life again , and after . days ascended into heaven , where he remains to this day . these would seem strange things to believe , to one that should never have heard them before ; and yet stranger to one , that from his childhood should have been taught to laugh at such stories as mere fables and idle fictions of cheating priests , who knew them well enough to be such ; but for their own gain and interest seem'd to believe them , and with a great deal of confidence , taught them for infallible truths to the credulous multitude . which being so , reflect d y. no christian must bogle at any thing as to the belief of it , merely for the strangeness of it , and seeming unlikeliness to his senses or reason . but must consider what grounds he has to judge the strange mystery he is required to believe , was taught his fore-fathers by our b. saviour and his apostles ; and if he find he has good grounds for this , he must immediately submit his understanding , and believe it . dly . let us reflect upon the state of our own country , as it is at present , and as our annals represent it to have been ever since our first receiving of the christian faith. at present we have a considerable number of families who believe transubstantiation , and have believed it from their fore-fathers time out of mind , and they say ever since the first planting of the christian faith amongst us . we have also far greater multitudes who do not believe it , but yet so as there 's scarce one who is fifty years old , whose great grand-father did not believe it , but when his great grand-father , or his great grand-fathers ancesters began to believe it , we are able to give no acconnt . moreover two hundred years ago , in all the several shires or provinces of england we all universally , bishops , priests , and people , rich and poor , learned and unlearned believed it : and this not as a new doctrin found out by themselves by reading the holy scriptures . no. they were enemies to all novelties , and professed they must hold fast what had been taught by their fore-elders , and interpret scripture in the sense their fore-elders had done . now how is it possible they should come to believe such a strange doctrin , unless it had been taught them from their fore-fathers , and the first preachers of christianity in our nation ? especially they not reading the holy scriptures as we do now , nor having such store of bibles , that they might perhaps by their private reading have come to believe this hard and high mystery contrary to what had been taught them by their fore-elders . how came they to learn it then ? did they some strange morning or other , all awake of a different belief from what they had been of the evening before ? or did it come into some schollars head by studying the holy scriptures ; reading for example those words , this is my body , so often repeated in the evangelists & s. paul ; and he hereupon was convinced they had all been in an error for so many years , and by preaching and disputing perswaded others ? but how comes it to pass then , we having had historians that have mentioned far less matters , yet say not a word of any such thing ? or did the britons before s. austin the monk , believe no such thing ? how came they then not to clash about it , or if they did , how comes it to pass other differences are recorded and this is omitted ? besides if s. austin taught it our ancesters , he confirm'd the religion he taught by miracles , as all our stories testifie . and also he lived within the first years , to which dr. n. n. in one of his sermons appeals : nor did that blessed man pretend to teach us a new religion neither , newly found out at rome , but what was alwaies believed ever since s. peter . . let us consider why we are christians , and we shall find if we be so rationally and groundedly , and not merely because we were so brought up from our childhood : i say we shall find our faith to be grounded upon such principles , as if we be true to them , they will force us as strongly to believe transubstantiation as the incarnation , the real presence as the deity of our saviour . for example , i believe the man jesus christ , who lived . years ago , was also god. and why ? because he said he was so , and proved by evident miracles that he was sent to teach the world truth , and nothing but truth . and why all this ? because it could not stand with the providence of god , to suffer a deceiver to work such miracles as he wrought , teaching withal , and practising such sanctity as he did . for then the most sincere desirers to know the truth would be most subject to miss of it . but how do i know jesus christ wrought such miracles ? because i find them recorded in certain books , which several nations all over the world , have immemorially looked upon as faithful & true stories , ever since the time the miracles are said to have been wrought . now 't is not possible but the men then alive must needs certainly know whether he did work such strange miracles or no. and if they had known no such thing was wrought by him ; but that these things were at first feigned by some of his friends , and afterwards committed to writing by them , they could never contrary to the evidence of their own knovvledge , have told unanimously such notorious lyes to their posterity , and have made them believe them as they did . nor could have recommended the books vvherein they vvere recorded to their children , and have made them reverence them as unquestionable and infallibly certain histories , as they did . but hovv do i knovv that jesus christ taught that he vvas god ? vvhy certainly the apostles understood him vvhat he said concerning himself ; vvhether he vvere only a holy man like to their great moyses , or else vvere true and substantially god , and consequently to be worshipped by them as such . and no doubt but they taught their first converts vvhat they had learnt from their master jesus as to this point , and their converts their children till arrius ; the church being till then under persecution , and consequently cannot be supposed all that vvhile so notoriously to have changed their faith , they vvere every day in danger to dye for . now finding the vvhole christian world in the belief of the divinity of our saviour , and worshipping him as god , and this immemorially from their fore-fathers , and as they professed from the apostles . so as arrius never vvent about to evince them , that such or such a doctor in such an age since the apostles , had brought in the nevv doctrin of our lords divinity : and finding him also called god in the holy scriptures , and vvhole nations of christians immemorially understanding them in a proper , literal sense , and not only in the sense vvhich kings and princes are called god ; notvvithstanding all arrius his reasons drawn from the impossibility of the thing , or from scriptures understood by him after a nevv manner ; i conclude my saviour vvas true god. in like manner no doubt but our b. saviviour taught his apostles concerning the holy eucharist , whether it was only a sign of his body , or else his true body , and consequently to be adored and worshipt by them or no. and no doubt but they taught their first converts what they had learnt from their master concerning this mystery , and these their posterity the same for the first . years of the churches persecution . now finding whole christian countrys in the time of berengarius , about the year one thousand und fifty , unanimously believing the holy eucharist to be our lords true body , and adoring it as such , and this as they professed immemorially from their ancesters , from the apostles , and berengarius never undertaking to show , when or how this strange belief was wrought in the christian church , nor finding any beginning of it in any ecclesiastical history of any one country ; and finding it also called so expresly over and over our lords body , and whole countrys understanding those sacred texts in a proper sense , and not one christian province understanding them otherwise ; for all berengarius his arguments , drawn as he pretended from the impossibility of the thing , or from scriptures by him interpreted after a new manner , the wont of all misbelievers , i conclude it is our lords true body . . let us consider impartially the testimony of the present church in communion with the see of rome , which averrs the holy eucharist to be our b. saviours true body . travel in your thoughts , all over europe , asia , africa , and america , and view well the vast multitudes of roman catholicks in the present age , and by the confession of our adversaries in the ten last ages . take notice of their circumstances , of learning , study , vertue , meditation , retiredness from all secular encumbrances , as to vast multitudes of them ; the prodigies of sanctity , we profess to have appeared amongst us in several ages , like the extraordinary prophets of old amongst the jews , to awaken drowsie souls : our bennets , bernards , cuthberts , bedes , dominicks , francis's , ignatius's , &c. the miracles we undoubtedly believe in every century since the apostles ; yea , in this very age wrought amongst us . for which we have such records , as you have no way to evade , but by saying they are forged , without any further proof then your own uncharitable surmise . records of such wonders , so publick and notorious , as had they been false , the ages wherein they are said to have been wrought , could not be ignorant of it , und consequently could not unanimously have told their posterity such notorious lyes , nor have recommended the books to them , wherein they are recounted as true stories . consider moreover how this numerous congregation professes her self to be the mistriss of truth , the light of the world , fitly for this end dispersed in all countrys throughout all ages , with indefatigable industry scattering the rayes of the gospel by her missionants throughout the whole earth , fearing no encounter , but challenging the whole world to dispute of what they will , and as long as they will , of the most strange articles of her faith. and then think if it could not stand with the providence of the all good god , to permit one single person , our lord jesus , for three or four years in one small country , to alarum the world with stupendious miracles and doctrins of sanctity , unless he had been indeed a true teacher : consider i say , how it can stand with the providence of the same all good god , to permit a congregation made up of so many thousands , for so many ages , so universally spread over the earth , accompanied with no less wonders , if any credit can be given to such human testimony as never yet fail'd concerning matters of fact ; if all this while this congregation teaches damnable idolatry , and is the greatest cheat that ever appear'd in the world , and yet that the divine providence should work nothing like miracles or singular and over-topping sanctity , in those who pretend to be raised up by him extraordinarily , to discover to the deceived world this grand imposture . how can this stand with the almightys desire , that the world should not mistake the true religion ? in confirmation of what i have said above , i add these considerations . . let but any one take the pains to look into modern or antient writers of ecclesiastical history ( which he may do in a little time , and without any great labor , by looking in the index the word eucharistia , or some such head ) and he shall find , that whensoever there has been any dispute concerning this mystery , some one or few opposed it , and all the rest of the country stood up in defence of it , as of a doctrin they had immemorially been taught by their ancestors . an evident conviction , that the antient faith of that country was , that indeed the holy eucharist was our b. saviours body and blood , and the denial of this mystery was a novelty . for example , let him consult ecclesiastical historiographers , what happen'd about the year one thousand and fifty , and he shall find that one berengarius , arch-deacon of the church of angiers oppugned this mystery , but not as a new doctrin then endeavored by some bishop or other to be imposed upon the people , but as then generally believed ; a clear sign that his own opinion was a new error , and the common faith of the country was the antient christian verity . now let him in the whole history of the catholick church , greek and latin , find me but one instance in any one christian country , on the contrary , and i 'le yield him the cause . that is , any one doctor , bishop , or priest , that about such a year of our lord , in such a country , began to preach the mystery of the real presence , upon pretence of clear scripture for it , or other arguments , and that he was opposed by the whole country , as a teacher of a new strange doctrin they had never heard of before : or else that upon such a doctors appearing they presently yielded to the force of his reasons and arguments , and relinquished their former antient faith. which notwithstanding certainly must have happen'd , not only in one , but in all christian countries , were the doctrin of the real presence a new invention , and the denial of it the antient christian faith. else how came all christendom , according to the confession of our adversaries for many ages universally to believe it ? now can any one imagin , that the belief of so strange a mystery , and which in practice makes all the believers of it idolaters , unless it be true ; could be introduced both into the greek and latin church , without any opposition , or if it were opposed , that no one writer in any one country , should make mention who they were that opposed it , and how they lost their cause ? and this , though there have not wanted writers of what has happen'd in the christian church , who have made mention of far lesser accidents , in any age wherein this belief can be pretended to have been brought in ; nay , which have taken notice in several ages and countries , how certain deniers of this mystery have attempted the bringing in of their new doctrin , & by whom they were opposed , and how they were silenced . read our own chronicles about the year . concerning john wiclef , and see whether he was not opposed by all the bishops and priests of our english church as a teacher of a doctrin contrary to what they had been taught by their ancestors , when he began to teach our lord's body was not in the eucharist ? and then reflect with your self , if the doctrin of the real presence was not taught our nation , when we were first converted to christianity , how comes it to pass that all our chronicles should be silent , when or by whom we were taught this mysterious doctrin , and what assistance they had from the civil power , so unversally to impose upon our country such a strange belief ; which in all reason require ; a far greater power to make it prevail then the contrary doctrin . and yet you see where the contrary doctrin is believed , it cost no small pains and force , and time to introduce it , nor has all this neither been able to make it universal , in so much as in one christian province . make the like reflexion upon the city of rome , and consider that in the apostles daies they believed aright concerning this great mystery , and for some hundreds of years according to the concession of our adversaries . now this great and cultivated city , has memorials of what has past in it , as we have of what has past in london , and yet they make no mention of any one that ever began since their first conversion to christianity , to teach this strange doctrin and worship of the holy eucharist , but that they have immemorially from s. peter believed and adored it , as the body of their saviour and god. nor indeed can it be imagin'd how they could ever possibly change their first faith , having ever opposed all teachers of novelties , with that answer of s. stephen pope to the clergy of africa , concerning rebaptization ( never heeding all their seeming reasons , or texts of scripture understood after a new manner , as s. vincent lirinensis observes ) nihil novandum nisi quod traditum est : we must innovate nothing , but stick to the doctrin delivered to us by out ancestors . when think you should we in london be brought universally to believe the real presence , if we were resolved for ever tenaciously to adhere to the doctrin taught us by our immediat predecessors , notwithstanding whatsoever argument should be brought against us from reason or scripture ? . consider how our adversaries would triumph over us , could they find but one city in the whole world , which should prosess to have believed immemorially , since their first reception of the christian faith , as they do concerning the holy eucharist , and all their cronicles were either silent , or positively testified as much , and we were not able positively to shew when they began their faith , but should answer : their chronicles were corrupted , or antient records lost , or by little and little they left off imperceptibly believing as they were first taught . but if to all this they could produce in several ages , how such a doctor upon pretence of cleer scripture , endeavor'd to make them leave their antient faith , but they still retained it , opposing to all his seeming strong arguments , that thus they had been taught time out of mind by their ancestors , from their first conversion to christian religion , and to understand those scriptures otherwise . but if to all this , they could produce in several ages recorded miracles in confirmation of their faith , and we should have nothing to reply but that these miracles were feigned . think if they would not return upon us , that such wild answers open'd a way to atheists to deny all the miracles of moyses and our b. saviour . and then consider impartially whether this be not our case . . consider though our adversaries but very irrationally deny any miracles to have been wrought in our church , yet they cannot deny but we have records without number of notorious and most evident miracles , and such records as in civil matters no body questions . men , for example , of good judgment and honest repute attesting upon their oaths , that upon such a day , such and such miraculous events happen'd , & they were eye-witnesses of them , &c. and then reflect how it can stand with the providence of god and his desire of mankinds worshipping him according to his will , to permit even such records of miracles in a false church . for certainly a sincere desirer to find out the truth , must needs be strangely enclin'd to give credit to such records , and which moreover he should find to be credited by persons of as good judgment and integrity as himself in all christian provinces in communion with the see of rome . and indeed such records of false miracles would be as apt to deceive impartial judicious enquirers , as even the sight of false miracles themselves . for why are we so assured our senses cannot deceive us ? is it not because we never experienced them to fail us in due circumstances ? and also because if we should be necessitated by them to judge of things otherwise than they are , god almighty , who has so made our senses , would be the cause of our mistake , which were to tell a real lye ? and did tradition duely circumstantiated , ever yet fail ? and would not god almighties providence in the government of man-kind be deficient , ( it being necessary for us to know certainly not only things that are present to us , which we do by our senses ; but also things that are distant from us both in place and time , which we can only know by the report of others ) if no assured certain credit could be given to the restimony of men , though never so many in number , and of never so good repute ? especially when he obliges us to be of a religion which was taught our ancestors . years before we were born , and yet we can give no assured credit to history or immemorial testimonies of whole countrys ? moreover , we finding by the experience of the age we live in , that though fabulous stories be told and printed too , yet we easily distingnish betwixt them and true histories of the present times . for that true histories gain an universal credit amongst persons of the best understanding , and the historigraphers that write them , are commended to posterity as faithful witnesses of truth ; whereas fables and fictions , every one of ordinary capacity , looks upon them as such , nor do we give any other recommendation of them to posterity then as of fabulons romances . this we experiencing in the present age , persons of humility and solid judgment , deem the like to have happen'd in the daies of their fore-fathers ; and consequently give another kind of credit to stories , how strange so ever recounted by a s. bernard , a venerable bede , or a s. bonaventure , then they do to the fictions of a don quixot , a guy of warwick , &c. and he that will consult what has happen'd in the world , will find mens eyes and other senses to have been as often mistaken , as he will find whole towns and countries to have confidently told a lye to their posterity , which they evidently knew to be a lye. and this the atheists of our days would do well to reflect on , when they so senselesly call in question the history of moyses or book of exodus , concerning the wonders wrought by almighty god in aegypt . and dr. n. n. too , must one day give a sad account for all his drollery , as merry as he makes himself with the history of lorretto , and other stories registred by persons of noted sanctity and integrity . and would he reflect a little on the difficulty of making whole countrys believe a lye , contrary to the evidence of their senses ; he would find it a greater miracle that the whole territory of lorretto should so immemorially believe so great a lye , as he would make his reader think they do , then the wonder it self he sacrilegiously scoffs at : to wit , the translation of the house , in which our b. lord was conceived by his holy mother at nazareth , out of the holy land , first into dalmatia , and then afterwards into italy . let the dr. cause a house to be built in a night , in s. james's park , and then tell the citizens of london , it was brought thither by angels out of a forreign country , and see if he can make them so universally to believe it , as they shall , no body contradicting , make their posterity believe as much ; and i perswade my self he may with the same ease , bring such a house from geneva or new-england in a night , as make the numerous multitude believe such a notorious lye. o england , england , dear native soyl , at length open thine eyes , and acknowledge the illimited goodness of the divine majesty to be such , that not contenting himself with giving us prodigies of sanctity for the first planters of christianity , and with confirming their sublime and holy doctrins with evident signs and wonders , he is ever now and then awakening the drowsie world with a s. dominick , a s. francis , or a s. xauerius , and ceases not by undeniable miracles to confirm the languishing faith of tepid christians . the sight of present miracles strangely strengthens our faith of wonders past and done long since . and believe it , 't is a next disposition to antichristianism and atheism , freely to give our selves the liberty to scoff at all miracles , though attested by never so grave authors , except such as are recorded in the four gospels : and to laugh at all lives of christian saints as ridiculous , but those of the twelve apostles ; though to an impartial considerer , one egg does not more resemble another , then do the persons we so freely deride , express the first followers of our dear redeemer , in their holy and divine conversations . . consider the force of s. austins argument to prove the truth of christianity . the world has actually submitted to christianity , as to a religion taught from heaven . from whence the saint argues thus . the world believed the high mysterious doctrins of christianity , either upon miracles wrought by the first teachers of them , or without miracles . if upon miracles , then you who doubt have reason also to believe them . or if the world submitted their faith to believe such strange mysteries , without any miracles , this is the greatest miracle of all , that such vast multitudes , and innumerable of these , of ripe judgement and quick understanding , should believe such strange things upon the authority of the proposer without a miracle . apply this to our present mystery . two hundred years ago the whole christian world believed the h. eucharist to be our b. saviours body , and adored it as such . hereupon i argue . these vast multitudes , and many of them of great learning and judgement , began to believe this strange mystery , either for miracles wrought by the first teachers of it , or without miracles . if upon miracles then you ought to believe it also : if without miracles , this is the greatest miracle of all that such vast multitudes , and these innumerable of them , well cultivated with learning , besides their natural ripeness of judgment , and sharpness of wit , should believe so strange a mystery , without any miracles wrought by those who first demanded their belief of it . finally consider with your self how many millions there are who believe this mystery , and would sooner part with their life then their faith of it , and these , if you have the least grain of humility , such , as you have reason to think them of as good learning , wit , and judgment as your self : add , as good christians as your self , for either piety to god , or charity to their indigent neighbor , or mortification to themselves . imagin you saw all these , as holy and as wise as your self in the several christian countrys of the whole world , all upon their knees , adoring a seeming wafer-cake , as their creator and god ; bishops , priests , doctors of divinity in vast numbers , kings and princes , men and women of all degrees and condition . and can you now think , all these people to be in their wits , and not have some strong reasons and arguments which induce them to such a faith and such a practice ? had you and i been in the stable of bethlehem in the night of our lord's nativity , and s. joseph should have told us that the little infant we saw there sucking his mothers breast , was the maker of heaven and earth ; we should no doubt have found great difficulty to believe him . but should we have staied there a while , and have seen the shepherds come in , and fall down upon their knees before him , by the admonition as they pretended of an angel that had appeared to them , as they were keeping watch over their flocks ; this doubtless would a little have enclined us to think , that at least there was something extraordinary in the new born babe . but had we staied till the comeing of the three kings , and seen them in like-manner fall down before him , making him rich presents upon the admonition , as they said , of a miraculous star which had appeared to them in their own country ; such circumstances as these , would sure have strangely urged us to the belief of that wonder of wonders . and to make use of a homebred example . who would have taken our gracious soverain charles the second , for the king of great brittain , france , and ireland , that should have seen him under the disguise of a sheepherd , sea-man , or other habit he was forced to assume , to secure his royal person ? but could you and i have peeped into this private chamber , and seen his small retinue all bare before him , and some one of them upon his knees presenting him with a cup of beer or wine : should we not think you have begun to suspect : surely this person , however and for whatsoever reasons he may disguise himself , is of another quality then his outward garb represents him to be ? nor do i less perswade my self , did you and i see the many thousands all over the world , as well of the grecian as roman church , who upon their knees with an assured faith , devoutly adore a consecrated wafer as their creator and god , if we have any , respect to reason and man-kind , and do not imagin all the world to be fools except our selves : such a prospect as this , would make us suspect in the secret of our hearts : surely under this disguise of a contemptible wafer , there is veiled some hidden majesty or other , who forces the highest adoration from such vast multitudes of all nations , and many of them so sharp-witted , and of such solid judgements , and such impartial enquirers after truth , and of so good and holy lives . say then , and we have reason to say it heartily , and without the least scruple or doubt . 't was the same out gracious soverain , who lay hid in a common oak at white-ladys , under the disguise of a peasants weed , who sits now at westminster in his princely throne invested in his royal robes . and 't is the same christ jesus our only saviour and god , who under the humble disguise of common bread and wine , is immolated here below every day upon our christian altars , who in transcendent splendor and glory , sits at the right hand of his eternal father in the heavens . sir , i have done my part , the almighty do the rest , and make you a happy child of his holy church . but sir , i beseech you give me leave to add a postscript to my fellow collegians . my dearest companions , whom with my soul i wish the same happiness with my self , both in this life and the other . i beseech you , before you be engaged in the world , and hindred from an industrious impartial enquiry after truth , by the cares of a family , and fears of wanting a competent subsistance , do your selves and your country that right , as to consider with as little passion and prejudice as you can , these my scattered thoughts ; and do not rashly conclude against transubstantiation until you have fully heard what its affertors , as well as what its deniers have to say for themselves . i was once as you are , and many suspicions of the truth of the roman catholick faith came into my mind , but still i was hindred from examining of it , with this one thought : if i turn papist , i must believe transubstantiation , but i know that 's an impossibility , and this made me sit down contented with the religion in which i was educated . but afterwards making it my business more in good earnest to save my soul , and setting my self impartially to examin what was the belief of the primitive times concerning this mystery , and finding mostclear testimonies for the real presence in the most renowned . primitive christian doctors , i was much amazed , having been always taught they were of a contrary faith. i read the citations to a clergy-man of my acquaintance , i demand of him what he thought their belief was , who in those words expressed their faith ? he told me , no doubt but they believed as the church of rome believes . i consult the authors themselves , read the context before and after the said citations , i am still more and more convinced , s. augustin , chrysostom , cyril , &c. believed as the church of rome now believes . hereupon i resolve not to venture my soul upon a point of philosophy , for example , whether god almighty by all his omnipotency can make a body be in two places at once or no ? i believe two mysteries already , both which puzzle and shock my reason as much as transubstantiation , to wit , the b. trinity and the incarnation of the son of god , why may not i believe a third as well ; especially when i have the same arguments for one as the other : clear scriptures , the immemorial belief of all nations ever since the apostle , &c. and indeed , if god almighty will oblige me to believe what was taught sixteen hundred years before i was born , how should he expect i should come to the knowledge of this , but by such books as were written in those times , and near those times , and by the testimony of all christian countrys what has been immemorially believed by them ever since they were christians ? now if it be too long a journey to go over all christendom , to ask of them , what is , and what alwaies has been their paith as to transubstantiation , and how they have always understood the holy scriptures that speak of that mystery go but to the royal exchange in london , and there you may meet with persons , which at least have been in all or most christian countrys , and ask of them what the belief and practice of christendom is , and you will find they all believe and adore the b. sacrament , and have done so , as they say , immemorially ever since they were christians , as roman-catholicks do in england ; or else if they do for so me numbers amongst them believe and practice otherwise , 't is only since such a time above , &c. and then reflect how by such an argument you prove , as you think , efficaciously against an antiscripturist , that the books of the old and new testament are infallible , and you securely believe every particular story in them , though never so strange ; in like manner the change of saturday-sabbath into sunday , against the sibbatarians ; and fasting in lent as apostolical with bishop gunning against non-conformists . and indeed it is impossible such an universal effect should ever be without a proportionate universal cause . that so many several christian countrys should immemorially abstain from certain meats on fridays every week , and in lent every year , or adore a consecrated piece of bread as their creator and god , unless they had been either first taught so to do by the first planters of christianity ; or by some preachers since ; or had agreed so to do in some general council by their representatives , is impossible . should we ever think you , even in the single city of london , have fall'n by little and little to have shut up our shops , on the anniversary of the death of our gracious soverain charles the first , unless we had been commanded so to do by some universal authority , ecclesiastical or civil ? take notice , by this argument is also proved all other points of catholick practice , or faith , as purgatory , prayer for the dead , &c. but especially such as nature has a difficulty to believe or do . that one man should kill himself is no wonder , but that all the inhabitants of a populous city should kill themselves , would be such a wonder as never yet happen'd in nature . against all that has been said , i doubt not but you will be apt to reply . we acknowledge for divers ages , our own and other christian countrys believed the holy eucharist to be really and substantially our b. saviours true body & blood , & adored it as such , but yet we cannot believe that either s. peter and paul at rome , or s. joseph of arimathia in our own country taught any such doctrin , but that imperceptibly by little and little the whole christian world changed the faith that was first planted by the apostles , as particular men grow gray , and whole countries change their languages imperceptibly . for answer to this reply , let us not discourse in generals , but consider and devise with our selves how possibly such a thing might practically happen . for example , let us take the city of rome into our consideration . it s confessed by all , that the inhabitants of that cultivated city , priests and people universally do believe , and have for many generations believed , a consecrated wafer to be jesus christ , god and man , veiled with the outward appearance or species of common bread : now we are to enquire , how they came to this strange faith ? say then ; rome by little and little began to believe this mystery , first one and then another , till at length the whole city was of that belief . but how ? without a teacher , and all in the same year , or in what length of time ? that one man , or some few in a populous city , should of themselves fall to the belief of such a strange mystery , contrary to what has been believed by their ancestors , might be granted ; but that the whole city learned and unlearned , priest and people , should so change their faith , and that for such a strange one too , without a master or a teacher , that 's wholly incredible : or if some bishop or priest of rome since the apostles , had perswaded the people to believe the strange doctrin of transubstantiation , how comes it to pass , seeing the belief of the doctrin is still retained , that the authors name is not retained with singular honor and reverence by the believers of it , as the names of calvin and luther are by calvinists and lutherans ; and the names of the first preachers of christianity by the several christian countrys they converted ? besides , whosoever priest or layman should have begun to preach such a strange and incredible doctrin to nature , must needs have met with great opposition from all sorts of persons ; from good men , because his doctrin tended to make them all gross idolaters , and worshippers of a piece of bread as god ; from bad men , because his doctrin strangely shocked their sense and reason , which nature and vitious followers of nature would by no means endure . now if opposition were made at the first introducing of this new faith , how comes it to pass , all , both roman and other histories are silent as to any such thing ? should i by way of prophesie tell you , that the great city of london , within these . years , shall as universally , as does now the city of rome believe and adore the holy eucharist as jesus christ himself , and this so imperceptibly , that neither they , nor neighbouring citys or countrys shall perceive it , till the whole city be quite changed : nay . years hence , when they shall be charged with idolatry and innovation for such their belief and practice , they shall profess that they have always so believed and practised ever since they were christians . and all this , though they shall for these . years have priests and bishops , whose office it shall be to teach the quite contrary doctrin , and these priests shall be such zealous retainers of the doctrin they now believe , that when in the compass of this . years to come , there shall rise up teachers of new doctrins , deniers of the divinity of our saviour , and the eternity of the torments of impenitent sinners , &c. and shall alledge strong human reasons and seeming scriptures for themselves , these priests shall oppose , we must innovate nothing , we must stick to the belief our ancestors were of in the year . then god almighty testified from heaven , by evident miracles , the truth of our fore-elders faith , and then we had charge not to change our faith , though on angel from heaven should accuse us of mistake , and therefore you must pardon us if we adhere to this faith. add. there shall not want frequent assemblies of the wisest and best learned in the city , and they shall meet on purpose to enquire whether the faith and practice of the year . be kept , and yet they shall never take notice of so gross and notorious a change , as the believing and adoring a piece of bread as god , till the whole city be in such a belief and practice , but other mistakes that some particular men were bringing in , they shall observe and correct . nay . years hence , there shall rise up a certain priest , who shall accuse all the priests and people of the city for believing otherwise th●n their ancestors did in , but yet shall not be able by vertue of any history or oral tradition , to shew how , or by whom they were perswaded to that strange faith they shall then be of ; and yet there shall not want historiographers neither , who shall take notice of other notorious changes that shall happen both in church and state in those . years . think now seriously with your selves , how impossible it is for any such thing to happen in nature , and examin impartially whether the deniers of transubstantiation be not forced to affirm the like incredible wonder to have happen'd not in one city alone , but in many cities and whole countrys . but the wonder would be yet greater , if there were not one believer of transubstantiation in the year . in the city of london , nor never had been one since the first planting of christianity , neither there , nor in any other neighbouring city or country : and yet all this must be solved by deniers of transubstantiation to be apostolical doctrin . for , place your self in what age of christianity you please , and suppose the known cities and countries of christendom to believe universally concerning the holy eucharist as the citizens of london generally do now . take for example the year . after our b. lord ( though our adversaries pretend to be willing to be judged by the doctors of the first . ) add to . a decursion of . or . years ; and then see what faith the christian world is of , and you 'l find they universally believe and adore the holy eucharist as rome does at this present . joyn now your selves with berengarius in the year one thousand and fifty or thereabouts , and see what account you can give , how all your fellow clergy and laity came so to have changed and 〈…〉 from what it was in the fifth century ? for you ●●●ll not think the several councils gathered against that denier of the real presence , the bishops in them , then first began to believe the real presence , and that when they returned to their several diocesses they taught them a strange new doctrin , which they by inspiration had newly learnt when they were assembled together ; but they only gave in their verdicts what immemorially had been believed in their several countrys they came from , as to that mystery . as if , for example , a synod of all the bishops in england should meet in the year . to examin concerning the quakers , whether they preached false and antichristian doctrin or no , in denying baptism and all other sacraments ; and they should conclude against those innovators ; would you infer thence , the church of england only in the year . and never before , reverenced baptism or any other sacrament of christ ? and yet this is just our case , when our adversaries will have the belief and adoration of the b. sacrament to have not been heard of before the councils that condemned berengarius . as to your instances of a man growing gray , and whole countrys imperceptibly changing their language ; is it possible think you for any mans whole head by little and little to grow gray , and neither he nor any other should take notice of it , till he were as white as snow , and this , though he and others were charged to take notice of every hair that should grow gray , and to pluck it out immediatly , and he and others should frequently consult whether any such change were made in his head or no ? say the same concerning a whole countrys changing their language by little and little . impose a severe penalty against any one that in writing or speech should introduce a new word , and appoint officers to take notice of all such new coyned words , and let these officers have frequent consults to this purpose . add a menace of death both to overseers and people , if any such alteration through their neglect of their duty should happen . and then think how it could be possible for a whole country by little and little imperceptibly to change its language ? the like change and menace gave jesus christ to the pastors of his church not to change their faith. and yet after all this can not one country , but the whole christian world have so changed their faith , as they became imperceptibly most stupid idolaters ? to conclude , if you examin the matter well , you will find , you must either resolve to believe the strange doctrin of transubstantiation , or else something far more incredible . soli christo gloria . the council of trent examin'd and disprov'd by catholick tradition in the main points in controversie between us and the church of rome with a particular account of the times and occasions of introducing them : part : to which a preface is prefixed concerning the true sense of the council of trent and the notion of transubstantiation. stillingfleet, edward, - . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a wing s estc r ocm this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) the council of trent examin'd and disprov'd by catholick tradition in the main points in controversie between us and the church of rome with a particular account of the times and occasions of introducing them : part : to which a preface is prefixed concerning the true sense of the council of trent and the notion of transubstantiation. stillingfleet, edward, - . the second edition corrected; with an appendix in answer to some late passages of j.w. of the society of jesus, concerning the prohibiting of scripture in vulgar languages. [ ], xxiii, [ ], p. printed for h. mortlock ..., london : . includes bibliographical references. advertisement: p. [ ]. reproduction of original in duke university library. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng catholic church -- controversial literature. council of trent ( - ) transubstantiation. - tcp assigned for keying and markup - apex covantage keyed and coded from proquest page images - emma (leeson) huber sampled and proofread - emma (leeson) huber text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion the council of trent examin'd and disprov'd by catholick tradition . in the main points in controversie between us and the church of rome ; with a particular account of the times and occasions of introducing them ; part i. to which a preface is prefixed concerning the true sense of the council of trent and the notion of transubstantiation . the second edition corrected . with an appendix in answer to some late passages of j. w. of the society of jesus , concerning the prohibiting of scripture in vulgar languages . london , printed for h. mortlock at the phoenix in s. pauls church-yard , . the preface . there is it seems a train in controversies , as well as in thoughts ; one thing still giving a start to another ; conferences produce letters ; letters , books ; and one discourse gives occasion for another . for this follows the former as a necessary pursuit of the same argument against tradition . i. s. in his last letter , had vouched the authority of the council of trent proceeding upon tradition , and he instanced in three points , transubstantiation , sacramental confession and extreme unction . the examination of this i thought fit to reserve for a discourse by it self ; wherein , instead of confining my self to those three particulars , i intend to go through the most material points there established , and to prove from the most authentick testimonies , that there was no true catholick tradition for any of them . and if i can make good what i have undertaken , i shall make the council of trent it self the great instance against the infallibility of tradition . this is a new undertaking ; which the impetuousness of our adversaries setting up tradition for the ground of their faith , hath brought me to . but besides the shewing that really they have not tradition on their side ; i have endeavoured to trace the several steps and to set down the times and occasions of introducing those points which have caused that unhappy breach in the christian world , whose sad effects we daily see and lament , but have little hopes to see remied , till these new points be discarded and scripture interpreted by truely catholick tradition , be made the standard of christian communion . i do not pretend , that all these points came in at one time or in the same manner ; for some errours and corruptions came in far more early ; some had the favour of the church of rome in a higher degree ; some were more generally received in the practice of the church in later times , than others ; and some were merely school points before the council of trent , but as far as the thomists and scotists could be made to agree there against the reformers , these passed for articles of faith. for , this was one of the great arts of that council to draw up their decrees in such terms , as should leave room enough for eternal wranglings among themselves , provided they agreed in doing the business effectually against the hereticks , as they are pleased to call them . i therefore forbear to urge these as points of faith , which have been freely debated among themselves since the council of trent , without any censure . we have enough in the plain decrees and canons of that council , without medling with any school-points . and so i cannot be charged with misrepresenting . the great debate of late hath been about the true exposition of the points there defined ; and for my part , i am content to yield to any just and reasonable methods of giving the true sense of them . and such i conceive these to be , i. where the council of trent makes use of words in a strict and limited sense , there it is unreasonable to understand them in a large and improper sense . as for instance , sess. . c. . it decrees that justified persons do verè promerere ; truely merit eternal life ; and can. . there is an anathema against him who denies true merit in the good works of justified persons , both as to increase of grace and eternal life . there is no one conversant in ancient writers , but knows that there was a large and improper sense of the word merit ; but how is it impossible to apply that sense , where such care is taken , that it may be understood in a strict and limited sense ? if the council had left the word in its general sense , there might have been reason to have given the fairest interpretation to it ; but when it is certainly known , that there had been a difference of opinions in the church of rome about true and proper merit , and that which was not ( however it were called , ) and the council declares for the former , no man of understanding can believe that onely the improper sense was meant by it . as in the point of the eucharist when the council declares that the words of christ , this is my body , are truely and properly to be understood ; would it not be thought strange for any one to say , that the council notwithstanding might mean that christ's words may be figuratively understood ? and we must take the true notion of merit not from any large expressions of the ancients , but from the conditions of true and proper merit among themselves . but of this at large afterwards . so as to the notion of sacraments ; every one knows how largely that word was taken in ancient writers ; but it would be absurd to understand the council of trent in that sense , when sess. . can. . de sacramentis , it denounces an anathema not merely against him that denies seven sacraments ; but against him that doth not hold every one of them to be truely and properly a sacrament . and in the creed of pius iv. one article is , that there are seven true and proper sacraments how vain a thing then were it for any to expound the sacraments in a large and improper sense ? ii. where the council of trent hath not declared it self , but it is fully done in the catechism made by its appointment , we ought to look on that , as the true sense of the council . as in the case of the sacraments ; the council never declares what it means by true and proper sacraments ; but the catechism makes large and full amends for this defect . for after it hath mention'd the use of the word in profane and sacred writers , it sets down the sense of it according to their divines for a sensible sign which conveys the grace which it signifies . and after a large explication of the nature of signs , it gives this description of a true and proper sacrament , that it is a sensible thing , which by divine institution not only hath the force of signifying but of causing grace . and to shew the authority of this catechism for explicating the doctrine of the sacraments we need only to look into sess. . c. . de reform . where it is required that the people be instructed in the sacraments according to ●it . it is supposed that the catechism was appointed to be made in the th ses●ion at the instigation of carolus borromaeus , ( since canonized ) but it was not finished while the council sate , and therefore sess. . it was refer'd to the judgment and authority of the pope . i confess therefore it hath not a conciliar authority stamped upon it , but it hath a sort of transfused infallibility , as far as they could convey it ; and as much as a council hath , when it borrows it from the popes confirmation . it was near two tears hammering at trent , viz. from . of feb. . to decemb. . when the council rose ; afterwards , it was preparing at rome three years longer , and then presented to the pope to be approved , and published by his authority , after it had been carefully review'd by cardinal sirlet , borromeo , and others ; and hath since been universally received in the roman church ; so that we can have no more authentick exposition of the sense of the council of trent , than what is contained in that cat●chism . iii. where the council of trent declares a thing in general to be lawfull and due , but doth not express the manner of it , that is to be understood from the generally receiv'd and allowed practices at that time . for , otherwise the council must be charged with great unfaithfulness in not setting down and correcting publick and notorious abuses , when it mention'd the things themselves and some abuses about them . as in the th session , concerning purgatory , invocation of saints , worship of images and relicks , it goes no farther than that the sound doctrine be taught , that saints are to be invocated , images and relicks to be worship'd ; but never defines what that sound doctrine is , what bounds are to be set in the worship of saints , images and relicks , which it is unlawfull to exceed . so that in this case , we have no other way to judge of the meaning of the council , but by comparing the publick and allow'd practices of the church with the general decrees of the council . and we have this farther reason for it , that we are told by the latest expositors of it , that the sense of the church in speculative points , is to be taken from publick practices . for , thus one of them expresses himself , moreover , even her speculative doctrines are so mixed with practical ceremonies , which represent them to the vulgar , and instruct even the meanest capacities in the abstrusest doctrines , that it seems ever impossible to make an alteration in her doctrine without abrogating her ceremonies , or changing her constant practices . iv. where the decrees of the council , are not sufficiently clear , there we must take in the canons to make the sense more plain . this rule i take from the council it self , which in the th session , just before the canons saith , that those are added , that all may know not only what they are to hold and follow , but what they are to shun and avoid . as in the famous instance of transubstantiation ; suppose , that the words of the decree do not determine expresly the modus ; yet it is impossible for any one to doubt of it who looks into the canon , which denounces an anathema against him , not only that denies transubstantiation , but that asserts the substance of bread and wine to remain after consecration . therefore he that asserts transubstantiation according to the council of trent , must hold it in such a manner , as thereby to understand that the substance of bread and wine doth not remain . otherwise he is under an anathema by the express canon of the council . therefore it is so far from being a fatal oversight , ( as a late author expresses it , ) to say that the council of trent hath determin'd the modus of the real presence , that no man who is not resolved to oversee it can be of another opinion . and herein the divines of the church of rome do agree with us , viz. that the particular modus is not only determin'd by the council , but that it is a matter of faith to all persons of the communion of that church . as not only appears from the d canon , but from the very decree it self , sess. . ch . . the holy synod declares , that by consecration of the bread and wine , there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of christ , and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood , which conversion is fitly and properly by the holy catholick church called transubstantiation . in which words the council doth plainly express the modus of the real presence to be , not by a presence of christ's body together with the substance of the bread , as the lutherans held , but by a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body , &c. and since there were different manners of understanding this real presence , if the council did not espouse one so , as to reject the other as heretical ; then it is impossible to make the lutheran doctrine to be declared to be heretical , i. e , unless the council did determine the modus of the real presence . for , if it did not , then notwithstanding the decrees and canons of the council of trent , persons are at liberty to believe either transubstantiation or consubstantiation , which i think no roman catholick will allow . but. it is said , that the meaning of the decree is , that the real presence is not to be understood after a natural , but a sacramental manner ; but doth it not plainly tell us , how that sacramental manner is to be understood , viz. by a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the whole substance of the body , &c. and if other ways be possible , and all others be rejected , then this particular modus must be determin'd . i grant , that the council doth not say , there is an annihilation of the elements ; and i know no necessity of using that term , for that which is supposed to be turned into another thing cannot properly be said to be annihilated ( which is the reducing it to nothing ) but the council doth assert a total conversion of one substance into another , and where that is , that substance must wholly cease to be what it was ; and so , there can be no substance of the elements remaining after consecration . for , as aquinas observes , quod convertitur in aliquid factâ conversione non manet . if then the substance of the elements doth not remain after consecration , by virtue of this total conversion , then the council of trent by its decree hath plainly determin'd the modus of the real presence , so as to exclude any such manner , as doth suppose , the substance to remain , whether it be by impanation or consubstantiation , or any other way . what if rupertus thought the bread might become the real body of christ by an union of the word to it ? all that can be infer'd is , that the modus was not then so determin'd , as to oblige all persons to hold it . but what is this to the council of trent ? can any one hold the substance to remain , and not to remain at the same time ? for , he that holds with rupertus must allow the substance to remain ; he that believes a total conversion must deny it . and he that can believe both these at once , may believe what he pleases . but the council only declares the sacramental presence to be after an ineffable manner . i say , it determines it to be by a total conversion of one substance into another ; which may well be said to be ineffable , since what cannot be understood can never be expressed . our dispute is not about the use of the word , transubstantiation , for i think it proper enough to express the sense of the council of trent ; but as the word consubstantial did exclude all other modes how christ might be the son of god , and determin'd the faith of the church to that manne● ; so doth the sense of transubstantiation , as determin'd by the council of trent , limit the manner of the real presence , to such a conversion of the substance of the elements into the substance of christ's body and blood , as doth imply no substance to remain after consecration . it is to no purpose to tell us , the council uses only the word species and not accidents ; for whatever they are called , the council denounces its anathema against those who hold the substance to remain after consecration ; and denies the total conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and bloud of christ. if the substance be not there , the modus is to purpose determin'd . and whatever remains , call it what you will , it is not the substance ; and that is sufficient to shew , that the council of trent hath clearly determin'd the modus of the real presence . v. we must distinguish the school points left undetermin'd by the council of trent , from those which are made articles of faith. we never pretend , that it left no school-disputes about the points there determin'd ; but we say it went too far in making some school-points to be points of faith , when it had been more for the peace of christendom to have left them to the schools still . thus in the point of transubstantiation , the elder school-men tell us , there were different ways of explaining the real presence ; and that those , which supposed the substance to remain , were more agreeable to reason and scripture than the other ; and some were of opinion , that the modus was no matter of faith then . but after the point of the real presence came to be warmly contested in the time of berengarius , it rose by degrees higher and higher , till at last the particular modus came to be determin'd with an anathema by the council of trent . when berengarius , a. d. . was forced to recant by nicolaus d , with the assistance of . bishops ; no more was required of him , than to hold that the bread and wine after consecration ; are not only the sacrament , but the true body and bloud of christ , and that it is sensibly handled and broke by the priests hands , and eaten by the communicants . here is no denying the substance of bread to remain ; and joh. parisiensis observes , that the words cannot be defended but by an assumption of the bread ; for , saith he , if the body of christ be truely and sensibly handled and eaten , this cannot be understood of christ's glorious body in heaven , but it must be of the bread really made the body of christ after consecration . the sense which the canonists put upon the words of this recantation is absurd , viz. that they are to be understood of the species ; for berengarius his opinion related to the substance of christ's body which he denied to be in the sacrament . and what would it have signified for him to have said that christ was sensibly broken and eaten under the species of bread and wine ? i. e. that his body was not sensibly broken and eaten but the species were . it had signified something , if he had said , there was no substance of bread and wine left but only the species . but all the design of this recantation was to make him assert the sacrament to be made the true and real body of christ in as strong a manner , as the pope and his brethren could think of . and although the canonists think , if strictly taken , it implies greater heresie than that of berengarius ; yet by their favour , this form was only thought fit to be put into the canon-law , as the standard of the faith of the roman church then ; and the following abjuration of berengarius was only kept in the register of gregory the seventh's epistles . for about twenty years after by order of gregory vii . berengarius was brought to another abjuration , but by no means after the same form with the former . for by this he was required to declare , that the bread and wine are substantially converted into the true and proper flesh and bloud of christ , and after censecration are the true body of christ born of the virgin and sacrificed upon the cross , and that sits at the right hand of the father ; and the true bloud of christ which was shed out of his side , not only as a sacramental sign , but in propriety of nature and reality of substance . this was indeed a pretty bold assertion of the substantial presence . and so much the bolder , if the commentary on s. matthew be hildebrand's . for there he saith , the manner of the conversion is uncertain . but as far as i can judge , by substantial conversion he did not then mean , as the council of trent doth , a total conversion of one substance into another , so as that nothing of the former substance remains ; but that there was a change by consecration not by making the body of christ of the substance of the bread , but by its passing into that body of christ which was born of the virgin. for , upon comparing the two forms , there we shall find lies the main difference . pope nicolaus went no farther than to the true body of christ ; which it might be as well by assumption , as conversion ; gregory vii . went farther and thought it necessary to add that the change was into the substance of that body which was born of the virgin , &c. and so this second form excludes a true body merely by assumption , and asserts the change to be into the substance of christ's body in heaven ; but it doth not determine , that nothing of the substance of the elements doth remain . for when he puts that kind of substantial conversion which leaves nothing but the accidents , and the body of christ to be under them , which belonged to the substance of the elements ; he declares this matter to be uncertain . which shews , that however a change was owned into the substance of christ's body , yet such a total conversion , as is determined by the council of trent , was not then made an article of faith. but from this supposition made by hildebrand it appears , that the dectrine of substance and accidents was then well known ; and therefore the introducing aristotle's philosophy from the arabians afterwards could make no alteration in this matter . for the words of hildebrand are as plain as to the difference of substance and accidents , as of any of the school-men ; and that the accidents of the bread and wine might be separated from the substance of them ; but this was not then made a matter of faith ; as it was afterwards . but the case was remarkably alter'd , after the lateran council under innocent iii. for transubstantiation being admitted there among the articles of faith ; and so entred in the canon-law in the very beginning of the decretals ; this did not merely become a school-term , but by the inquisitors of that time , it was accounted heresie to deny it . it may be sufficiently proved by the school-men and canonists , that a difference of opinions , as to the modus did still continue , ( but that belongs to a more proper place ) and joh. parisiensis declares ( p. ) that the lateran council in his opinion did not make transubstantiation a point of faith ; or at least that substance was not to be taken for the matter , but the suppositum ; but the inquisitors went more briskly to work and made it downright ●●●●esie to assert , that the substance of the elements did remain after consecration . of this , we have full evidence in the register of courtney arch-bishop of canterbury , ( which is no invisible manuscript . ) for there we read f. . that he called a select convecation of bishops , divines and canonists , may . a. d. . to declare some propositions to be heretical , and s●me to be erroneous and contrary to the determination of the church . among the first , these two are set down in the first place , . that the material substance of the bread and wine doth remain in the sacrament of the altar after consecration . . that the accidents do not remain without their subject in that sacrament after consecration . after this the arch-bishop sent forth his mandate to all his suffragans not only to prohibit the preaching of that doctrine , but to inquire after those who did it . and june . robert rygge chancellour of oxford and thomas brightwall appeared before him and were examined upon these propositions ; which they declared to be heretical : who thereupon required the publication of them as such in the university ; and the proceeding against those who were suspected to favour them . the ground the arch-bishop went upon , was , that these had been already condemned by the church , and therefore ex abundanti , they declared them to be so condemned ; as appears by the monition given to robert rygge himself as too much suspected to favour the contrary doctrine ; as well as nicholas hereford , philip reppyndon d. d. and john ashton b. d. against these the arch-bishop proceeded as inquisitor haereticae pravitatis per totam suam provinciam , as it is in the record ; who appearing desired a copy of the several propositions , and then they were required to give in their judgment upon them . ashton refused , but the other promised , which they performed soon after ; and to these two propositions , their answers were , to the first that as far as it was contrary to the decretal , firmiter credimus , it was heresie . to the second that as far as it was contrary to the decretal , cum marthoe , it was heresie . these answers were judged insufficient , because they did not declare what that sense was and the arch-bishop put this question to them , whether the same numerical material bread which before consecration was set upon the altar , did remain in its proper substance and nature after consecration , but they would give no other answer at that time . but afterwards reppyndon abjured , and was made bishop of lincoln . from hence it appears , that it was then thought that the modus was so far determin'd by the lateran council , that the contrary doctrine was declared not merely erroneous in faith , but heretical . in the first convocation held by th. arundel arch-bishop of canterbury a. d. , a complaint was brought , that several divines and others of the university of oxford held some heretical and erroneous opinions ; the first whereof was , that the substance of bread doth remain after confecration ; and doth not cease to be bread ; which is there affirmed to be heresie , speaking of material bread. the second , that the court of rome in the can. ego berengarius , had determined that the sacrament of the eucharist is naturally true bread. it is very hard to say , how this came to be then accounted heretical doctrine , when no less a man than durandus in the same age affirms , that the canonists grant that the opinion of the ceasing of the substance was grounded on the can. firmiter credimus , i. e. on the lateran council ; but that of the remaining of the substance on that , ego , berengarius . but however it passed for heretical , or at least very erroneous doctrine here ; but the main heresie was to hold , that the substance remained . for a. d. . ( as appears by the register p. . f. . ) william sawtre alias chatris a parochial priest in london , was summoned before the same arch-bishop in convocation upon an information of heresie ; and one of the main articles against him was that he held the substance of the bread to remain in the sacrament of the altar after consecration ; and that it doth not cease to be bread. sawtre answered , that he believed , that after consecration the bread did remain with the body of christ ; but it doth not cease to be simply bread , but it remains holy and true the bread of life and body of christ. the arch bishop examined him chiefly upon this article ; and because he did not answer home to the point , he was condemned for a heretick , and was the first who was burned for heresie in england . and yet his answer was , that he could not understand the matter ; then the arch-bishop asked him , if he would stand to the churches determination ; he said , he would so far as it was not contrary to the will of god. upon which he was declared an heretick and delivered over to the secular power . in the same convocation john purvey made an abjuration of heresie , and the first he renounced was that after consecration in the sacrament of the altar , there neither is , nor can be an accident without a subject , and that the same substance and nature of bread remained which was before . in the examination of william thorp by thomas arundel , arch-bishop of canterbury a. d. . ( which is not in the register being defective , but the account is preserved from his own copy ) the arch-bishop declared , that the church had now determined , that there abideth no substance of bread after consecration in the sacrament of the altar . and that if he believed otherwise he did not believe as the church believed . thorp quoted s. augustin and fulgentius to prove that the substance remained ; and the very mass on christmas day . the arch-bishop still pressed him with the churches determination . thorp said this was a school-nicety whether accidents could be without a subject ; no , said the arch-bishop , it is the faith of the church i go upon . thorp replyed , it was not so for a thousand years after christ. in the examination of the lord cobham a. d. . by the same arch-bishop we find that he owned the real presence of christ's body as firmly as his accusers ; but he was condemned for heresie , because he held the substance of bread to remain . for the arch-bishop declared this to be the sense of the church ; that after consecration , remaineth no material bread or wine which were before , they being turned into christ's very body and bloud . the original words of the arch-bishop as they are in the register , are these . the faith and the determination of holy church touching the blestfull sacrament of the auter is this , that after the sacramental words ben said by a prest in his masse , the material bred that was before is turned into christ's veray body . and the material wyn that was before is turned into christ veray blode , and so there leweth in the auter , no material brede ne material wyn the wich wer ther byfore the saying of the sacramental words . and the bishops afterwards stood up and said ; it is manifest heresie to say that it is bread after the sacramental words be spoken ; because it was against the determination of holy church . but to make all sure , not many years after , may th . a. d. . the council of constance session . declared the two propositions before mentioned to be heretical ; viz. to hold that the substance doth remain after consecration , and that the accidents do not remain without a subject . let any impartial reader now judge , whether it be any fatal oversight to assert , that the modus of the real presence was determin'd by the council of trent , when there were so many leading determinations to it , which were generally owned and received in the church of rome . but there were other disputes remaining in the schools relating to this matter ; which we do not pretend were ever determin'd by the council of trent . as , ( . ) whether the words of consecration are to be understood in a speculative or practical sense ? for , the scotists say , in the former sense , they do by no means prove transubstantiation ; since it may be truly said this is my body , though the substance of bread do remain ; and that they are to be understood in a practical sense , i. e. for converting the bread into the body , is not to be deduced ex vi verborum , from the mere force of the words , but from the sense of the church which hath so understood them . which in plain terms is to say , it cannot be proved from scripture , but from the sense of the church ; and so scotus doth acknowledge , but then he adds , that we are to judge this to be the sense of scripture , because the church hath declared it . which he doth not think was done before the council of lateran . so that , this council must be believed to have had as infallible a spirit in giving this sense of scripture as there was in the writing of it ; since it is not drawn from the words , but added to them . on the other side , the thomists insist on the force of the words themselves ; for , if , say they , from the words be infer'd that there is a real presence of the substance of christ's body , then it follows thence , that there is no substance of the bread remaining ; for a substance cannot be where it was not before , but it must either change its place , or another must be turned into it ; as fire in a house must either be brought thither , or some other thing must be turned into fire ; but , say they , the body of christ cannot be brought from heaven thither , for then it must leave the place it had there ; and must pass through all the bodies between ; and it is impossible for the same body to be locally present in several places ; and therefore the body of christ cannot otherwise be really and substantially present , but by the conversion of the substance of the bread into it . ( . ) in what manner the body of christ is made to be present in the sacrament ? the scotists say , it is impossible to conceive it otherwise than by bringing it from the place where it already is ; the thomists say that is impossible , since that body must be divided from it self by so many other bodies interposing . the former is said to be an adductive conversion , the latter a productive ; but then here lies another difficulty , how there can be a productive conversion of a thing already in being . but my business is not to give an account of these school-disputes ; but to shew how different they were from the point of tranfubslantiation ; and that both these disputing parties did agree that the modus of the real presence was defined to be by changing the substance of the elements into the body and blood of christ ; but they still warmly disputed about the modus of that modus ; viz. how a body already in being could be present in so many places without leaving that place where it was already . and no man who hath ever look'd into these school disputes can ever imagine that they disputed about the truth of the doctrine of transubstantiation , but only about the manner of explaining it . wherein they do effectually overthrow each others notions without being able to establish their own ; as the elector of cologn truly observed of their debates about this matter in the council of trent . vi. where the sense of words hath been changed by the introducing new doctrine , there the words ought to be understood according to the doctrine at that time received . of this we have two remarkable instances in the council of trent ; the first is about indulgences , which that council in its last session never went about to define ; but made use of the old word , and so declares both scripture and antiquity for the use of them . but there had been a mighty change in the doctrine about them , since the word was used in the christian church . no doubt there was a power in the church to relax canonical penances in extraordinary cases ; but what could that signifie when the canonical discipline was laid aside , and a new method of dealing with penitents was taken up , and another trade driven with respect to purgatory pains ? for here was a new thing carried on under an old name . and that hath been the great artifice of the roman church ; where it hath evidently gone off from the old doctrines , yet to retain the old names , that the unwary might still think , the things were the same , because the names were . as in the present case , we deny not the use of indulgences in the primitive church ; as the word was used for relaxations of the canonical discipline ; but we utterly deny it as to the pains of purgatory . and that this was the sense then receiv'd in the church of rome , appears from the papal constitutions of bon face the th , clemens the th , and leo the th . but of these more hereafter . the other instance is in the word species used by the council of trent , sess. . can. . where an anathema is denounced against him that denies the conversion of the whole substance of the elements into the body and blood of christ , the species of bread and wine only remaining . now a controversie hath been started in the church of rome , what is to be understood by species , whether real accidents or only appearances . some of the church of rome who have had a tast of the new philosophy , reject any real accidents , and yet declare transubstantiation to be a matter of faith , and go about to explain the notion of it in another manner . among these one emanuel maignan , a professor of divinity at tholouse , hath at large undertaken this matter . the method he takes is this . ( . ) he grants , that nothing remains of the bread after consecration , but that whereby it was an object of sense ; because that which is really the being of one thing cannot be the being of another . and he confesses that the modus as to the not being of the substance after consecration , is determin'd by the councils of constance and trent . ( . ) he asserts , that real accidents , supposing them separable from the substance , are not that whereby the elements are made the objects of sense ; because they do not make the conjunction between the object and the faculty . ( . ) since he denies , that accidents have any real being distinct from the substance they are in , he grants , that it is as much a matter of faith , that there are no real accidents after consecration , as that there is no real substance ; and he brings the authorities of the councils of lateran , florence and trent to prove it . ( . ) as the substance did by divine concourse so act upon the senses before , as to make it be an object of sense ; so after consecration , god by his immediate act makes the same appearances , although the substance be gone . and this , he saith , is the effect of this miraculous conversion , which is concealed from our senses , by god's immediate causing the very same appearances , which came before from the substance . which appearances , he saith , are the species mention'd by the council of trent ; and other elder councils and fathers . against this new hypothesis , a famous jesuit , theophilus raynaudus , opposed himself with great vehemency ; and urged these arguments against it . ( . ) that it overthrows the very nature of a sacrament , leaving no external visible sign ; but a perpetual illusion of the senses , in such a manner , that the error of one cannot be corrected by another . ( . ) that it overthrows the design of the sacrament , which is to be true and proper food . my flesh is meat indeed , &c. john . which , he saith , is to be understood of the sacrament , as well as of the body of christ , and therefore cannot agree with an imaginary appearance . ( . ) it is not consistent with the accidents which befall the sacramental species , as to be trod under foot , to be cast into indecent places , to be devoured by brutes , to be putrified , &c. if the body of christ withdraws , there must be something beyond mere appearances . ( . ) he makes this doctrine to be heretical , because the council of constance condemned it as an heretical proposition , to affirm , that in the eucharist accidents do not remain without their subject ; and because the council of trent uses the word species in the sense then generally received , and so it signified the same with accidents . which , saith he , farther appears , because the council speaks of the species remaining ; but if there be no real accidents , the species doth not remain in the object ; but a new appearance is produced . and it seems most reasonable to interpret the language of the council according to the general sense wherein the words were understood at that time . vii . what things were disputed and opposed by some in the council , without being censured for it , although they were afterwards decreed by a major party , yet cannot be said to have been there received by a catholick tradition . because matters of faith which have been universally received in the church , can never be supposed to be contested in a council without censure ; but if it appears that there were heats and warm debates among the parties in the council it self , and both think they speak the sense of the catholick church ; then we must either allow that there was then no known catholick tradition about those matters , or that the divines of the church of rome assembled in council did not understand what it was . and what happens to be decreed by a majority , can never be concluded from thence to have been the tradition before , because there was a different sense of others concerning it . and since in a division , a single person may make a majority , it will be very hard to believe , that he carries infallibility and catholick tradition along with him . but i think it reasonable in the enquiry after catholick tradition to take notice of the different opinions in the council ; and among the school-men before it ; and not only to observe , what was the sense of the roman church , but of the eastern churches too ; and where the matter requires it , to go through the several ages of the church up to the apostolical times ; that i may effectually prove , that in the main points in controversie between us , which are established by the council of trent , there cannot be produced any catholick and apostolical tradition for them . the contents . some postulata about catholick tradition , page . i. point examined about traditions being a rule of faith equal with scriptures , . the sense of the council of trent concerning it , . no. catholick tradition for it shew'd from the differences about it in the council , . from the divines of the roman church for some ages before the council , . the testimonies of the canon law against it , . of the ancient offices of the roman church , . of the fathers , . the first step of traditions being set up as a rule by the second council of nice , . not receiv'd as a rule of faith till after the council of lateran under innocent iii. . the occasion of it set down from new points of faith there determin'd , . never established for a rule till the council of trent , . ii. about the canon of scripture defined by the council of trent , . the sense of the council , ibid. the difference there about it , . a constant tradition against it in the eastern church . . no catholick tradition for it in the western church , . the several steps as to the alteration of the canon set down , . the different meaning of apocryphal writings , . iii. about the free use of the scripture in the vulgar language prohibited by the council of trent , . the sense of the council , ibid. no catholick tradition about this proved from the writers of the roman church , . the general consent of the catholick church against it proved from the ancient translations into valgar languages , . the first occasion of the scriptures being in an unknown language , . the first prohibition by gregory vii . . continued by the inquisition after innocent iii. . iv. about the merit of good works , . the sense of true merit cleared from the divines of the church of rome , ibid. no catholick tradition for it proved from ancient offices , . from provincial councils and eminent divines in several ages before the council of trent , . the several steps how the doctrine of merit came in , . v. of the number of sacraments , . an appeal to tradition for . years for seven sacraments examin'd and disprov'd , . as to chrism , . as to drders , . as to penance , . as to extreme-unction , . as to patrimony , . the sense of the greek church about the seven sacraments , . the sense of other eastern churches , . when the number of seven sacraments came first in , . the particular occasions of them , . vi. of auricular confession , . no catholick tradition confessed by their own writers , . > the several steps and occasions of introducing it , at large set down , . the difference between the ancient discipline and modern confession , . of voluntary confession , . of the penitentiaries office , . publick discipline not taken away at constantinople when the penitentiary was removed , . proved from s. chrysostom , . publick penance for publick sins , . private confession came in upon the decay of the ancient discipline , . the council of trent examined and disproved , &c. there are two things designed by me in this treatise , . to shew that there is no such thing as universal tradition for the main points in controversie between us and the church of rome , as they are determined by the council of trent . . to give an account by what steps and degrees , and on what occasion those doctrines and practices came into the church . but before i come to particulars , i shall lay down some reasonable postulata . . that a catholick tradition must be universally received among the sound members of the catholick church . . that the force of tradition lies in the certainty of conveyance of matters of faith from the apostolical times . for no new doctrines being pretended to , there can be no matter of faith in any age of the church , but what was so in the precedent and so up to the apostles times . . that it is impossible to suppose the divines of the catholick church to be ignorant , what was in their own time received for catholick tradition . for , if it be so hard for others to mistake it , it will be much more so for those whose business is to enquire into , and to deliver matters of faith. these things premised , i now enter upon the points themselves ; and i begin with , i. traditions being a rule of faith equal with scriptures . this is declared by the council of trent , as the groundwork of their proceedings . the words are sess. . that the council receives traditions both as to faith and manners , either delivered by christ himself with his own mouth , or dictated by the holy ghost , and preserved in the catholick church by a continual succession with equal piety of affection and reverence as the proofs of holy scripture . where the council first supposes there are such traditions from christ and the holy ghost distinct from scripture which relate to faith ; and then it declares equal respect and veneration due to them . no one questions but the word of christ and dictates of the holy ghost deserve equal respect , howsoever conveyed to us ; but the point is , whether there was a catholick tradition before this time for an unwritten word , as a foundation of faith , together with the written word . . it is therefore impertinent here to talk of a tradition before the written word ; for our debate is concerning both being joined together to make a perfect rule of faith : and yet this is one of the common pleas on behalf of tradition . . it is likewise impertinent to talk of that tradition whereby we do receive the written word . for the council first supposes the written word to be received and embraced as the word of god , before it mentions the unwritten word ; and therefore , it cannot be understood concerning that tradition whereby we receive the scriptures . and the council affirms , that the truth of the gospel is contained partly in books that are written , and partly in unwritten traditions . by the truth of the gospel they cannot mean the scriptures being the word of god , but that the word was contained partly in scripture and partly in tradition ; and it is therefore impertinent to urge the tradition for scripture to prove tradition to be part of the rule of faith , as it is here owned by the council of trent . . the council doth not here speak of a traditionary sense of scripture , but of a distinct rule of faith from the scripture . for of that it speaks afterwards in the decree about the use of the scripture ; where it saith , no man ought to interpret scripture against the sense of the church to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and meaning of scripture , nor against the unanimous consent of the fathers . whereby it is evident , the council is not to be understood of any consequences drawn out of scripture concerning things not expresly contained in it ; but it clearly means an unwritten word distinct from the written , and not contained in it , which , together with that , makes up a complete rule of faith. this being the true sense of the council , i now shew that there was no catholick tradition for it . which i shall prove by these steps : . from the proceedings of the council it self . . from the testimony of the divines of that church before the council for several centuries . . from the canon law received and allowed in the church of rome . . from the ancient offices used in that church . . from the testimony of the fathers . . from the proceedings of the council about this matter . by the postulata it appears , that the catholick tradition is such as must be known by the sound members of the church , and especially of the divines in it . but it appears by the most allowed histories of that council , this rule of faith was not so received there . for cardinal pallavicini tells us that it was warmly debated and canvassed even by the bishops themselves . the bishop of fano ( bertanus ) urged against it , that god had not given equal firmness to tradition as he had done to scripture , since several traditions had failed . but the bishop of bitonto ( mussus ) opposed him and said , though all truths were not to be equally regarded , yet every word of god ought , and traditions as well as scripture were the word of god , and the first principles of faith ; and the greater part of the council followed him . it seems then there was a division in the council about it ; but how could that be if there were a catholick tradition about this rule of faith ? could the bishops of the catholick church , when assembled in council to determine matters of faith , be no better agreed about the rule of faith ; and yet must we believe there was at that time a known catholick tradition about it , and that it was impossible they should err about such a tradition ? nay farther , the same authour tells us , that although this bishop had gained the greatest part of the council to him , yet his own heart misgave him , and in the next congregation himself proposed , that instead of equal it might be put a like veneration ; and yet we must believe there was a catholick tradition for an equal veneration to scripture and tradition . but the bishop of chioza , ( naclantus ) he saith , inveighed more bitterly against this equality , and in the face of the council charged the doctrine with impiety ; and he would not allow any divine inspiration to tradition , but that they were to be considered onely as laws of the church . it 's true , he saith he professed to consent to the decree afterwards , but withall he tells us , that he was brought under the inquisition not long after , upon suspicion of heresie ; which shews they were not well satisfied with his submission . we are extremely beholden to cardinal pallavicini for his information in these matters , which are past over too jejunely by f. paul. . i proceed to the testimony of the divines of the roman church before the council of trent . it is observed by some of them , that when the fathers appealed to the tradition of the church in any controverted point of faith , they made their appeal to those who wrote before the controversie was started ; as s. augustin did against the pelagians , &c. this is a reasonable method of proceeding , in case tradition be a rule of faith : and therefore must be so even in this point , whether tradition be such a rule or not . for the divines who wrote before could not be ignorant of the rule of faith they received among themselves . gabriel biel lived in the latter end of the th century , and he affirms , that the scripture alone teaches all things necessary to salvation ; and he instances in the things to be done and to be avoided , to be loved and to be despised , to be believed and to be hoped for . and again , that the will of god is to be understood by the scriptures , and by them alone we know the whole will of god. if the whole will of god were to be known by the scripture , how could part of it be preserved in an unwritten tradition ? and if this were then part of the rule of faith , how could such a man , who was professour of divinity at tubing be ignorant of it ? i know he saith he took the main of his book from the lectures of eggelingus , in the cathedral church at mentz ; but this adds greater strength to the argument , since it appears hereby that this doctrine was not confined to the schools , but openly delivered in one of the most famous churches of germany . cajetan died not above years before the council , who agrees with this doctrine of biel or eggelingus ( and he was accounted the oracle of his time for divinity ) for he affirms that the scripture gives such a perfection to a man of god ( or one that devoutly serves him ) that thereby he is accomplished for every good work ; how can this be , if there be another rule of faith quite distinct from the written word ? bellarmin indeed grants , that all things which are simply necessary to the salvation of all , are plainly contained in scripture , by which he yields , that the scripture alone is the rule of faith as to necessary points ; and he calls the scripture the certain and stable rule of faith , yea the most certain and most secure rule . if there be then any other , it must be less certain and about points not necessary to salvation ; i. e. it must be a rule where there is no need of a rule . for if mens salvation be sufficiently provided for , by the written rule ; and the divine revelation , be in order to mens salvation , what need any other revelation to the church , besides what is written ? he asserts farther , that nothing is de fide , but what god hath revealed to the prophets and apostles , or is deduced from thence . this he brings to prove that whatsoever was received as a matter of faith in the church , which is not found in scripture must have come from an apostolical tradition . but if it be necessary to salvation , according to his own concession it must be written ; and if it be not , how comes it to be received as a matter of faith ? unless it be first proved , that it is necessary to salvation to receive an unwritten rule of faith , as well as a written ? for , either it must be necessary on its own account , and then he saith it must be written ; and if not , then it can be no otherwise necessary than because it is to be believed on the account of a rule , which makes it necessary . and consequently that rule must be first proved to be a necessary article of faith : which bellarmin hath no where done ; but onely sets down rules about knowing true apostolical traditions from others in matters of faith , wherein he wisely supposes that which he was to prove . and the true occasion of setting up this new rule of faith is intimated by bellarmin himself in his first rule of judging true apostolical traditions . which is , when the church believes any thing as a doctrine of faith which is not in scripture , then saith he , we must judge it to be an apostolical tradition . why so ? otherwise the church must have erred in taking that for a matter of faith which was not . and this is the great secret about this new rule of faith ; they saw plainly several things were imposed on the faith of christians , which could not be proved from scripture ; and they must not yield they had once mistaken , and therefore this new , additional less certain rule for unnecessary points must be advanced , although they wanted tradition among themselves to prove tradition a rule of faith , which i shall now farther make appear from their own school divines before the council of trent . we are to observe among them what those are which they strictly call theological truths , and by them we shall judge , what they made the rule of faith. for , they do not make a bare revelation to any person a sufficient ground for faith ; but they say * the revelation must be publick , and designed for the general benefit of the church ; and so aquinas determines † that our faith rests onely upon the revelations made to the prophets and apostles ; and theological truths are such as are immediately deduced from the principles of faith , i. e. from publick divine revelations owned and received by the church . the modern school men , ‖ who follow the council of trent make theological truths to be deduced from the unwritten as well as the written word ; or else they would not speak consonantly to their own doctrine . and therefore if those before them deduce theological truths onely from the written word , then it will follow that they did not hold the unwritten word to be a rule of faith. marsilius ab inghen was first professor of divinity of heidelberg ( at the latter end of the th century saith bellarmin , but trithemius saith the th ) and he determines , that a theological proposition is that which is positively asserted in scripture or deduced from thence by good consequence ; and that a theological truth strictly taken is the truth of an article of faith , or something expressed in the bible , or deduced from thence . he mentions apostolical traditions afterwards , and joins them with ecclesiastical histories and martyrologies . so far was he from supposing them to be part of the rule of faith. in the beginning of the th century lived petrus de alliaco , one as famous for his skill in divinity , as for his dignity in the church , he saith , that theological discourse is founded on scripture , and a theological proof must be drawn from thence ; that theological principles are the truths contained in the canon of scripture ; and conclusions are such as are drawn out of what is contained in scripture . so that he not onely makes the scripture the foundation of faith , but of all sorts of true reasoning about it . he knew nothing of cardinal palavicini's two first principles of faith. to the same purpose speaks gregorius ariminensis , about the middle of the th century he saith , all theological discourse is grounded on scripture and the consequences from it ; which he not onely proves from testimony , but ex communi omnium conceptione , from the general consent of christians . for , saith he , all are agreed that then a thing is proved theologically , when it is proved from the words of scripture . so that here we have plain tradition , against traditions being a distinct rule of faith , and this delivered by the general of an order in the church of rome . he affirms that the principles of theology , are no other than the truths contained in the canon of scripture ; and that the resolution of all theological discourse is into them ; and that there can be no theological conclusion , but what is drawn from scripture . in the former part of that century lived darandus , he gives a threesold sense of theology . . for a habit whereby we assent to those things which are contained in scripture , as they are there delivered . . for a habit whereby those things are ●efended and declared which are delivered in scripture . . for a habit of those things which are deduced out of articles of faith ; and so it is all one with the holy scripture . and in another place he affirms , that all truth is contained in the holy scripture at large ; but for the people's conveniency the necessary points are summed up in the apostles creed . in his preface before his book on the sentences he highly commends the scriptures for their dignity , their usefulness , their certainty , their depth ; and after all concludes , that in matters of faith men ought to speak agreeably to the scriptures ; and whosoever doth not , breaks the rule of the scriptures , which he calls the measure of our faith. what tradition did appear then for another rule of faith in the th century ? but before i proceed higher i shall shew the consent of others with these school divines in the three last centuries before the council of trent . in the middle of the th lived nicholaus panormitanus , one of mighty reputation for his skill in the canon law. in the ch. significâsti prima . . de electione , debating the authority of pope and council , he saith , if the pope hath better reason his authority is greater than the councils ; and if any private person in matters of faith hath better reason out of scripture than the pope , his saying is to be preferred above the pope's . which words do plainly shew , that the scripture was then looked on as the onely rule of faith ; or else no man's grounding himself on scripture could make his doctrine to be preferred before the pope's ; who might alledge tradition against him , and if that were an equal rule of faith , the doctrine of one rule could not be preferred before the other . at the same time lived tostatus the famous bishop of avila , one of infinite industry and great judgment , and therefore could not be mistaken in the rule of faith. in his preface on genesis he saith , that there must be a rule for our understandings to be regulated by , and that rule must be most certain ; that divine faith is the most certain ; and that is contained in scripture , and therefore we must regulate our understandings thereby . and this he makes to be the measure of truth and falshood . if he knew any other rule of faith besides the scriptures , he would have mentioned it in this place ; and not have directed men onely to them , as the exact measure of truth and falshood . in the beginning of this century thomas walden ( confessor to our henry th , saith trithemius , ) disputed sharply against wickliff ; but he durst not set up the churches authority or tradition equal with the scriptures . for when he mentions tradition after scriptures , he utterly disclaims any such thought as that of equality between them ; but he desires a due distance may be kept between canonical scripture and ecclesiastical authority or tradition . in the first place he saith , we ought to believe the holy scriptures ; then the definitions and customs of the catholick church ; but he more fully explains himself in another place , where he plainly asserts , that nothing else is to be received by such faith as the scripture and christ's symbolical church ; but for all other authorities , the lowest degree is that of catholick tradition , the next of the bishops , especially of the apostolical churches , and the roman in the first place ; and above all these he places that of a general council ; but when he hath so done , he saith , all these authorities are to be regarded but as the instructions of elders , and admonitions of fathers . so that the chief opposers of wickliff had not yet found out this new rule of faith. much about the same time lived joh. gerson , whom cardinal zabarella declared , in the council of constance , to be the greatest divine of his time , and therefore could not be ignorant of the true rule of faith. he agrees with panormitan in this , that if a man be well skilled in scriptures , his doctrine deserves more to be regarded than the pope's declaration ; for , saith he , the gospel is more to be believed than the pope , and if such a one teaches a doctrine to be contained in scripture , which the pope either knows not or mistakes , it is plain whose judgment is to be preferred . nay , he goes farther , that if in a general council he finds the majority incline to that part which is contrary to scripture , he is bound to oppose it , and he instances in hilary . and he shews , that since the canon of scripture received by the church , no authority of the church is to be equalled to it . he allows a judgment of discretion in private persons , and a certainty of the literal sense of scripture attainable thereby . he makes the scripture the onely standing infallible rule of faith for the whole church to the end of the world . and whatever doctrine is not agreeable thereto , is to be rejected either as heretical , suspicious , or impertinent to religion . if the council of trent had gone by this rule , we had never heard of the creed of pius iv. in the beginning of the th century lived nicolaus de lyra , who parallels the scriptures in matters of faith with first-principles in sciences ; for as other truths are tried in them by their reduction to first-principles , so in matters of faith by their reduction to canonical scriptures , which are of divine revelation , which is impossible to be false . if he had known any other principles which would have made faith impossible to be false , he would never have spoken thus of scripture alone . but to return to the school divines . about the same time lived joh. duns scotus , the head of a school , famous for subtilty ; he affirms , that the holy scripture doth sufficiently contain all matters necessary to salvation ; because by it we know what we are to believe , hope for , and practise . and after he hath enlarged upon them , he concludes in these words , patet quod scriptura sacra sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori . if this be understood onely of points simply necessary , then however it proves , that all such things necessary to salvation are therein contained ; and no man is bound to enquire after unnecessary points . how then can it be necessary to embrace another rule of faith , when all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contained in scripture ? but thomas aquinas is more express in this matter ; for he saith , that those things which depend on the will of god , and are above any desert of ours , can be known no otherways by us , than as they are delivered in scriptures by the will of god , which is made known to us . this is so remarkable a passage , that suarez could not let it escape without corrupting it ; for instead of scripture he makes him to speak of divine revelation in general , viz. under scripture he comprehends all ; that is , under the written word he means the unwritten . if he had meant so , he was able to have expressed his own mind more plainly ; and cajetan apprehended no such meaning in his words , but this is a matter of so great consequence , that i shall prove from other passages in him , that he asserted the same doctrine , viz. that the scripture was the onely rule of faith. . he makes no proofs of matters of faith to be sufficient but such as are deduced from scripture ; and all other arguments from authority to be onely probable ; nay although such persons had particular revelations . how can this be consistent with another rule of faith distinct from scripture ? for if he had owned any such , he must have deduced necessary arguments from thence , as well as from canonical scriptures . but if all other authorities be onely probable , then they cannot make any thing necessary to be believed . . he affirms , that to those who receive the scriptures we are to prove nothing but by the scriptures , as matter of faith. for by authorities he means nothing but the scriptures ; as appears by the former place , and by what follows , where he mentions the canon of scripture expresly . . he asserts that the articles of the creed are all contained in scripture , and are drawn out of scripture , and put together by the church onely for the ease of the people . from hence it nenessarily follows that the reason of believing the articles of the creed , is to be taken from the written word and not from any unwritten tradition . for else he needed not to have been so carefull to shew , that they were all taken out of scripture . . he distinguisheth the matters of faith in scripture , some to be believed for themselves , which he calls prima credibilia ; these he saith every one is bound explicitly to believe ; but for other things he is bound onely implicitly , or in a preparation of mind , to believe whatever is contained in scripture ; and then onely is he bound to believe explicitly when it is made clear to him to be contained in the doctrine of faith. which words must imply the scripture to be the onely rule of faith ; for otherwise implicit faith , must relate to whatever is proved to be an unwritten word . from all this it appears that aquinas knew nothing of a traditional rule of faith ; although he lived after the lateran council a. d. . being born about nine years after it . and bonaventure , who died the same year with him , affirms , that nothing was to besaid , ( about matters of faith ) but what is made clear out of the holy scriptures . not long after them lived henricus gandavensis ; and he delivers these things which are very material to our purpose . . that the reason why we believe the guides of the church since the apostles , who work no miracles , is , because they preach nothing but what they have left in their most certain writings , which are delivered down to us pure and uncorrupt by an universal consent of all that succeeded to our times . where we see he makes the scriptures to be the onely certain rule , and that we are to judge of all other doctrines by them . . that truth is more certainly preserved in scripture than in the church ; because that is fixed and immutable , and men are variable , so that multitudes of them may depart from the faith , either through errour or malice ; but the true church will always remain in some righteous persons . how then can tradition be a rule of faith equal with scriptures , which depends upon the testimony of persons who are so very fallible ? i might carry this way of testimony on higher still , as when richardus de s. victore saith , in the thirteenth century , that every truth is suspected by him , which is not confirmed by holy scripture ; but in stead of that i shall now proceed to the canon law , as having more authority than particular testimonies . . as to the canon law collected by gratian , i do not insist upon its confirmation by eugenius , but upon its universal reception in the church of rome . and from thence i shall evidently prove that tradition was not allowed to be a rule of faith equal with the scriptures . dist. . c. , , , , , , . the authority and infallibility of the holy scripture is asserted above all other writings whatsoever ; for all other writings are to be examined , and men are to judge of them as they see cause . now bellarmin tells us , that the unwritten word is so called , not that it always continues unwritten , but that it was so by the first authour of it . so that the unwritten word doth not depend on mere oral tradition , according to him , but it may be found in the writers of the church ; but the canon law expresly excludes all other writings , let them contain what they will , from being admitted to any competition with canonical scripture ; and therefore according to that , no part of the rule of faith was contained in any other than canonical scriptures . dist. . c. relatum , a man is supposed to have an entire and firm rule of faith in the scriptures . caus. . q. . c. nec sufficere , the scriptures are said to be the onely rule both of faith and life . and the gloss on the canon law there owns the scripture to be the rule for matters of faith ; but very pleasantly applies it to the clergy , and thinks images enough for the laity . caus. . q. . c. non afferentes . the scriptures are acknowledged to be the true balance ; and that we are not so much to weigh what we find there , as to own what we find there already weighed . which must imply the scripture alone to be that measure we are to trust to . dist. . c. , , , , , . it is there said , that custome must yield to truth and reason , when that is discovered , and that for this reason , because christ said , i am truth and not custome . now , if tradition be an infallible rule of faith , custome ought always to be presumed to have truth and reason of its side . for , if we can once suppose a custome to prevail in the church against truth and reason , it is impossible that tradition should be infallible ; for what is that but ancient custome ? caus. . q. . c. . si is qui proeest . if any one commands what god hath forbidden , or forbids what god hath commanded , he is to be accursed of all that love god. and if he requires any thing besides the will of god , or what god hath evidently required in scripture , he is to be looked on as a false witness of god , and a sacrilegious person . how can this be , if there be another infallible way of conveying the will of god besides the scriptures ? caus. . q. . c. . c. quid autem . in matters of doubt it is said that men are to fly to the written word for satisfaction , and that it is folly not to doe it . it is true , mens own fancies are opposed to scripture , but against mens fancies no other rule is mentioned but that of the written word . joh. . extravag . c. quia quorundam . tit. . makes his appeal to scripture in the controversie then on foot about use and property ; dicunt nobis ubi legunt , &c. and he shews that if it were a matter of faith , it must be contained in scripture , either expresly or by reduction ; otherwise the scripture would be no certain rule ; and by consequence , the articles of faith which are proved by scripture , would be rendred doubtfull and uncertain . the glosser there saith , whence comes this consequence ? and refers to another place ; where he makes it out thus ; that faith can onely be proved by the scripture , and therefore if the authority of that be destroy'd , faith would be taken away . the roman editors for an antidote refer to cardinal turrecremata , who doth indeed speak of catholick truths , which are not to be found in the canon of scripture ; and he quotes a passage in the canon law for it under the name of alex. . c. cum marthoe extrav . de celebr . missae . but in truth it is innoc. . decretal . l. . tit. . and yet this will not prove what he aims at ; for the question was about the authour of the words added in the eucharist to those of christ's institution ; and he pleads that many of christ's words and actions are omitted by the evangelists , which the apostles afterwards set down ; and he instances in saint paul , as to those words of christ , it is more blessed to give than to receive ; and elsewhere . but what is all this to catholick truths not being contained in scripture either in words or by consequence ? the cardinal was here very much to seek , when he had nothing but such a testimony as this to produce in so weighty and so new a doctrine . the best argument he produces is , a horrible blunder of gratian's , where s. augustin seems to reckon the decretal epistles equal with the scriptures , dist. . c. in canonicis ; which the roman correctors were ashamed of , and consess that s. augustin speaks onely of canonical epistles in scripture . so hard must they strain , who among christians would set up any other rule equal with the written word . . i proceed to prove this from the ancient offices of the roman church . in the office produced by morinus out of the vatican ms. which he saith was very ancient ; the bishop before his consecration was asked , if he would accommodate all his prudence , to the best of his skill , to the sense of holy scripture ? resp. yes , i will with all my heart consent , and obey it in all things . inter. wilt thou teach the people by word and example , the things which thou learnest out of holy scriptures ? resp. i will. and then immediately follows the examen about manners . in another old office of s. victor's , there are the same questions in the same manner . and so in another of the church of rouen lately produced by mabillon , which he saith was about william the conquerour's time , there is not a word about traditions ; which crept into the ordo romanus , and from thence hath been continued in the roman pontificals . but it is observable , that the ordo romanus owns that the examen was originally taken out of the gallican offices , ( although it does not appear in those imperfect ones lately published at rome by th●masius ) and therefore we may justly suspect that the additional questions about traditions were the roman interpolations , after it came to be used in that pontifical . and the first office in morinus was the true ancient gallican office. but if tradition had been then owned as a rule of faith , it ought no more to have been omitted in the ancient offices than in the modern . and the ancient writers about ecclesiastical offices speak very agreeably to the most ancient offices about this matter . amalarius saith the gospel is the fountain of wisedom ; and that the preachers ought to prove the evangelical truth out of the sacred books . isidore , that we ought to think nothing ( as to matters of faith ) but what is contained in the two testaments . rabanus maurus , that the knowledge of the scriptures is the foundation and perfection of prudence , that truth and wisedom are to be tried by them ; and the perfect instruction of life is contained in them . our venerable bede agrees with them , when he saith , that the true teachers take out of the scriptures of the old and new testament that which they preach : and therefore have their minds imploy'd in finding out the true meaning of them . . i now come to the fathers ; wherein i am in great measure prevented by a late discourse , wherein it is at large shewed that the fathers made use of no other rule but the scriptures for deciding controversies ; therefore i shall take another method , which is to shew that those who do speak most advantageously of tradition , did not intend to set up another rule of faith distinct from scripture . and here i shall pass over all those testimonies of fathers which speak either of tradition before the canon of scripture , or to those who did not receive it , or of the tradition of scripture it self , or of some rites and customs of the church , as wholly impertinent . and when these are cut off , there remain scarce any to be considered , besides that of vincentius lerinensis , and one testimony of s. basil. i begin with vincentius lerinensis , who by some is thought so great a favourer of tradition ; but he saith not a word of it as a rule of faith distinct from scripture ; for he asserts the canon of scripture to be sufficient of it self for all things . how can that be , if tradition be a rule of faith distinct from it ? he makes indeed catholick tradition the best interpreter of scripture ; and we have no reason to decline it in the points in dispute between us , if vincentius his rules be follow'd . . if antiquity , universality and consent be joyned . . if the difference be observed between old errours and new ones . for , saith he , when they had length of time , truth is more easily concealed , by those who are concerned to suppress it . and in those cases we have no other way to deal with them , but by scripture and ancient councils . and this is the rule we profess to hold to . but to suppose any one part of the church to assume to it self the title of catholick , and then to determine what is to be held for catholick tradition by all members of the catholick church , is a thing in it self unreasonable , and leaves that part under an impossibility of being reclaimed . for in case the corrupt part be judge , we may be sure no corruptions will be ever owned . vincentius grants that arianism had once extremely the advantage in point of universality , and had many councils of its side ; if now the prevailing party be to judge of catholick tradition , and all are bound to submit to its decrees without farther examination , as the authour of the guide in controversies saith upon these rules of vincentius ; then i say all men were then bound to declare themselves arians . for if the guides of the present church are to be trusted and relied upon for the doctrine of the apostolical church downwards ; how was it possible for any members of the church then to oppose arianism , and to reform the church after its prevalency ? to say it was condemned by a former council , doth by no means clear the difficulty ; for the present guides must be trusted , whether they were rightly condemned or not ; and nothing can be more certain , than that they would be sure to condemn those who condemned them . but vincentius saith , every true lover of christ preferred the ancient faith before the novel betraying of it ; but then he must chuse this ancient faith against the judgment of the present guides of the church . and therefore that , according to vincentius , can be no infallible rule of faith. but whether the present universality dissents from antiquity , whose judgment should be sooner taken than its own ? saith the same authour , this had been an excellent argument in the mouth of ursacius or valens at the council of ariminum ; and i do not see what answer the guide in controversies could have made . but both are parties , and is not the councils judgment to be taken rather than a few opposers ? so that , for all that i can find by these principles , arianism having the greater number , had hard luck not to be established as the catholick faith. but if in that case , particular persons were to judge between the new and the old faith , then the same reason will still hold , unless the guides of the church have obtained a new patent of infallibility since that time . the great question among us , is , where the true ancient faith is ; and how we may come to find it out ? we are willing to follow the ancient rules in this matter . the scripture is allowed to be an infallible rule on all hands ; and i am proving that tradition was not allowed in the ancient church as distinct from it . but the present question is , how far tradition is to be allowed in giving the sense of scripture between us . vincentius saith , we ought to follow it when there is antiquity , universality and consent : this we are willing to be tryed by . but here comes another question , who is to be judge of these ? the present guides of the catholick church ? to what purpose then are all those rules ? will they condemn themselves ? or , as the guide admirably saith , if the present universality be its own judge , when can we think it will witness its departure from the true faith ? and if it will not , what a case is the church in , under such a pretended universality ? the utmost use i can suppose then , vincentius his rules can be of to us now , is in that case which he puts when corruptions and errours have had time to take root and fasten themselves ; and that is , by an appeal to scripture and ancient councils . but because of the charge of innovation upon us , we are content to be tried by his second rule . by the consent of the fathers of greatest reputation , who are agreed on all hands to have lived and died in the communion of the catholick church : and what they delivered freely , constantly and unanimously , let that be taken for the undoubted and certain rule in judging between us . but if the present guides must come in to be judges here again , then all our labour is lost , and vincentius his rules signifie just nothing , the testimony of s. basil is by mr. white magnified above the rest , and that out of his book de spiritu sancto above all others , to prove that the certainty of faith depends on tradition ; and not merely on scripture . the force of it is said to lye in this , that the practice of the church , in saying , with the holy spirit , though not found in scripture is to determine the sense of the article of faith about the divinity of the holy ghost . but to clear this place , we are to observe , . that s. basil doth not insist on tradition for the proof of the article of faith , for he expresly disowns it in that book ; it is not enough , saith he , that we have it by tradition from our fathers ; for our fathers had it from the will of god in scripture , as appears by those testimonies i have set down already , which they took for their foundations . nothing can be plainer than that s. basil made scripture alone the foundation of faith as to this point . and no one upon all occasions speaks more expresly than he doth as to the sufficiency of scripture for a rule of faith ; and he was too great , and too wise a man to contradict himself . . that there were different forms of speech used in the church concerning the holy ghost , some taken out of scripture , and others received by tradition from the fathers . when he proves the divinity of the holy ghost he appeals to scripture , and declares , that he would neither think nor speak otherwise than he found there . but it was objected that the form s. basil used was not found in scripture ; he answers , that the equivalent is there found ; and that there were some things received by tradition , which had the same force towards piety . and if we take away all unwritten customs , we shall doe wrong to the gospel , and leave a bare name to the publick preaching . and from thence he insists on some traditionary rites , as the sign of the cross , praying towards the east , &c. his business is to shew that to the greater solemnity of christian worship several customs were observed in the church , which are not to be found in scripture . and if other ancient customs were received which are not commanded in scripture , he sees no reason that they should find such fault with this . and this is the whole force of s. basil's reasoning , which can never be stretched to the setting up tradition as a rule of faith distinct from scripture . having thus shewed that there was no catholick tradition for this new rule of faith , i am now to give an account how it came into the church . the first step that was made towards it , was by the second council of nice . for , although the emperour in the synodical epistle proposed to them the true ancient mehod of judging in councils , by the books of scripture placed on a throne in the middle of the council ; yet they found , they could by no means doe their business that way , and therefore as bellarmin observes , they set up tradition in the th and th sessions , and pronounced anathema's against those who rejected unwritten traditions . but although there were then almost as little pretence for tradition as scripture in the matter of images ; yet there having been a practice among them , to set up and to worship images , ( which richerius thinks came first into the church from the reverence shewed to the emperours statues ) they thought this the securest way to advance that , which they could never defend by scripture . but this prevailed very little in the western church , as is well known by the rejection of that synod ; however pope hadrian joined with them , and produced a wretched tradition about sylvester and constantine to justifie their proceedings ; as appears by the acts of that council . and from the time that images were received at rome , the force of tradition was magnified ; and by degrees it came to be made use of to justifie other practices , for which they had nothing else to plead . hitherto tradition was made use of for matters of practice , and the scripture was generally received as the rule of faith ; but some of the schoolmen found it impossible to defend some doctrines held in the church of rome by mere scripture , and therefore they were forced to call in the help of tradition . the most remarkable of these was scotus , who although in his prologue he asserted , as is said already , that the scripture did sufficiently contain all things necessary to salvation ; yet when he came to particular points , he found scripture alone would never doe their business . and especially as to the sacraments of the church , about which he saw the church of rome then held many things which could never be proved from thence . and this was the true occasion of traditions being taken in for a partial rule . for after the council of lateran had declared several things to be of faith , which were in no former creeds , as scotus confesses , and they were bound to defend them as points of faith , the men of wit and subtilty , such as scotus was , were very hard put to it , to find out ways to prove those to have been old points of faith , which they knew to be very new . then they betook themselves to two things , which would serve for a colour to blind the common people ; and those were , . that it was true , these things were not in scripture ; but christ said to his disciples , i have many things to say unto you , &c. and among those many things they were to believe these new doctrines to be some . . when this would not serve , then they told them , though these doctrines were not explicitly in scripture , yet they were implicitly there ; and the church had authority to fetch them out of those dark places , and to set them in a better light . and thus scotus helped himself out in that dark point of transubstantiation . first he attempts to make it out by tradition , but finding that would not doe the business effectually , he runs to the authority of the church , especially in the business of sacraments , and we are to suppose , saith he , that the church doth expound the scripture with the same spirit which indited them . this was a brave supposition indeed , but he offers no proof of it . if we allow scotus to have been the introducer of tradition , as to some points of faith , yet i have made it appear , that his doctrine was not received in the schools . but after the council of constance had declared several propositions to be heretical , which could not be condemned by scripture , there was found a necessity of holding , that there were catholick truths not contained in scripture . the first proposition there condemned was , that the substance of bread and wine remain in the sacrament of the altar : the second , that the accidents do not remain without their subject : now how could such as these be condemned by scripture ? but although onely some were said to be heretical , yet all were said to be against catholick truth . but where is this catholick truth to be found ? cardinal cusanus thought of a current sense of scripture , according to the churches occasions ; so that though the churches practice should be directly contrary , yet the scripture was to be understood as the church practised . this was a very plain and effectual way , if it had not been too gross ; and therefore it was thought much better by cardinal turrecremata , to found catholick verities on unwritten tradition , as well as on scripture . after this , leo x. in his famous bull against luther , exurge domine , made a farther step ; for proposition condemned therein , is that it is certain that it is not in the power of the church or pope to appoint new articles of faith. it seems then the pope or church have a power to constitute new articles of faith ; and then neither scripture nor tradition can be the certain rule of faith , but the present church or pope . this had put an end to the business , if it would have taken ; but the world being wiser , and the errours and corruptions complained of not being to be defended 〈◊〉 scripture , tradition was pitched upon as a secure way ; and accordingly several attempts were made towards the setting of it up , by some provincial councils before that of trent . so in the council of sens , . can. . it is declared to be a pernicious errour to receive nothing but what is deduced from scripture , because christ delivered many things to his apostles which were never written . but not one thing is alledged as a matter of faith so conveyed ; but onely some rites about sacraments and prayer ; and yet he is declared a heretick as well as schismatick , who rejects them . indeed the apostles creed is mentioned , but not as to the articles contained in it , but as to the authours of it . but what is there in all this that makes a man guilty of heresie ? jod . clicthoveus , a doctor of paris , the next year wrote an explication and defence of this council , but he mistakes the point ; for he runs upon it as if it were , whether all things to be believed and observed in the church , were to be expresly set down in scripture ? whereas a just consequence out of it is sufficient . and the greatest strength of what he saith to the purpose , is , that the other opinion was condemned in the council of constance . and from no better a tradition than this did the council of trent declare the unwritten word to be a rule of faith equal with the scriptures . ii. about the canon of scripture , defined by the council of trent . this is declared by the council of trent , sess. . and therein the books of tobias , judith , wisedom of solomon , ecclesiasticus , maccabees and baruch are received for canonical , with the twenty two books in the hebrew canon , and an anathema is denounced against those who do not . and presently it adds , that hereby the world might see what authorities the council proceeded on for con●●rming matters of faith as well as reforming manners . now to shew that there was no catholick tradition for the ground of this decree , we are to observe , . that these canonical books are not so called in a large sense for such as have been used or read in the church ; but in the strict sense for such as are a good foundation to build matters of faith upon . . that these books were not so received by all even in the council of trent . for what is received by virtue of a catholick tradition , must be universally received by the members of it . but that so it was not appears by the account given by both the historians . f. paul saith , that in the congregation there were two different opinions of those who were for a particular catalogue ; one was to distinguish the books into three parts , the other to make all the books of equal authority ; and that this latter was carried by the greater number . now if this were a catholick tradition , how was it possible for the fathers of the council to divide about it ? and cardinal pallavicini himself saith , that bertanus and seripandus propounded the putting the books into several classes , some to be read for piety , and others to confirm doctrines of faith ; and that cardinal seripando wrote a most learned book to that purpose . what! against a catholick tradition ? it seems , he was far from believing it to be so . and he confesses , that when they came to the anathema , the legats and twenty fathers were for it ; madrucci and fourteen were against it , because some catholicks were of another opinion . then certainly , they knew no catholick tradition for it . among these cardinal cajetan is mention'd , who was , saith pallavicini , severely rebuked for it by melchior canus ; but what is that to the tradition of the church ? canus doth indeed appeal to the council of carthage , innocentius i. and the council of florence ; but this doth not make up a catholick tradition against cajetan ; who declares that he follows s. jerom , who cast those books out of the canon with respect to faith. and he answers the arguments brought on the other side , by this distinction , that they are canonical for edification , but not for faith. if therefore canus would have confuted cajetan he ought to have proved that they were owned for canonical in the latter sense . cajetan in his epistle to clemens vii . before the historical books , owns the great obligation of the church to s. jerom for distinguishing canonical and apocryphal books ; and saith , that he hath freed it from the reproach of the jews , who said the christians made canonical books of the old testament which they knew nothing of . and this was an argument of great consequence ; but canus takes no notice of it , and it fully answers his objection , that men could not know what books were truly canonical , viz. such as were of divine inspiration , and so received by the jews . catharinus saith , in answer to cajetan , that the jews had one canon , and the church another . but how comes the canon to be received as of divine inspiration which was not so received among the jews ? this were to resolve all into the churches inspiration and not into tradition . bellarmin grants , that the church can by no means make a book canonical which is not so , but onely declare what is canonical , and that , not at pleasure ; but from ancient testimonies , from similitude of style with books uncontroverted , and the general sense and taste of christian people . now the case here relates to books not first written to christians , but among the jews , from whom we receive the oracles of god committed to them . and if the jews never believed these books to contain the oracles of god in them , how can the christian church embrace them for such , unless it assumes a power to make , and not merely to declare canonical books ? for he grants we have no testimony of the jews for them . but catharinus himself cannot deny that s. jerom saith , that although the church reads those books , yet it doth not receive them for canonical scriptures . and he makes a pitisull answer to it . for he confesses , that the church taken for the body of the faithfull did not receive them ; but as taken for the governours it did . but others grant that they did receive them no more than the people ; and as to the other , the cause of tradition is plainly given us . and in truth he resolves all at last into the opinion of the popes innocentius , gelasius and eugenius . but we are obliged to him for letting us know the secret of so much zeal for these apocryphal books , viz. that they are of great force against the hereticks , for purgatory is no where so expresly mention'd as in the maccabees . if it had not been for this , s. jerom and cajetan might have escaped censure , and the jewish canon had been sufficient . but to shew , that there hath been no catholick tradition about the tridentine canon , i shall prove these two things : . that there hath been a constant tradition against it in the eastern church . . that there never was a constant tradition for it in the western church . . that there hath been a constant tradition against it in the eastern church , which received the jewish canon , without the books declared canonical by the council of trent . we have very early evidence of this in the testimony of melito , bishop of sardis , who lived not long after the middle of the d . century , and made it his business to enquire into this matter , and he delivers but books of the old testament . the same is done by origen in the next , who took infinite pains , as eusebius saith , in searching after the copies of the old testament . and these testimonies are preserved by eusebius in the following century : and himself declares , that there was no sacred book among the jews from the time of zorobabel ; which cuts off the books canonized by the council of trent . in the same age we have the testimonies of athanasius , st. cyril of jerusalem , epiphanius , s. basil , s. gregory nazianzene , amphilochius and s. chrysostom : it is not to be imagined that a tradition should be better attested in one age than this was , by so considerable men in different churches , who give in the testimony of all those churches they belonged to . and yet besides these we have in that age a concurrent testimony of a council of bishops at laodicea , from several provinces of asia ; and which is yet more , this canon of theirs was received into the code of the catholick church ; and so owned by the council of chalcedon , which by its first canon gives authority to it . and justinian allows the force of laws to the canons which were either made or confirmed by the four general councils . but it is the point of tradition i am upon ; and there●ore justinian's novel may at least be a s●rong evidence of that in the th century : in the th , leontius gives his own testimony , and that of theodorus . in the th , damascen expresly owns the hebrew canon of books , and excludes by name some of the books made canonical at trent . in the th we have the test●mony of nicephorus , patriarch of constantinople , if he be the authour of the laterculus , at the end of his chr●nography ; but if he be not , he must be an authour of that age , being translated by anastasius bibliothecarius . in the th . balsamon and zonaras refer to the council of laodicea , and the greek fathers . in the th . nicephorus calisthus reckons but books of the old testament . and in this age , we have the clear testimony of metrophanes , ( afterwards patriarch of alexandria ) who saith , there are but canonical books of the old testament ; but the rest , i. e. tobit , judith , wisedom , ecclesiasticus , baruch and machabees are usefull , and therefore not wholly to be rejected , but the church never received them for canonical and authentical , as appears by many testimonies , as , among others , of gregory the divine , amphilochius and damascen : and therefore we never prove matters of faith out of them . . let us now compare this tradition with that of the western church for the new canon of trent . it cannot be denied , that innocentius i. and gelasius did enlarge the canon , and took in the apocryphal books ( unless we call in question the writings under their names ; ) but granting them genuine , i shall shew that there is no comparison between this tradition and that of the eastern church , and therefore there could be no possible reason for the council of trent to make a decree for this tradition , and to anathematize all who did not submit to it . for , . this tradition was not universally received at that time . innocentius his epistle is supposed to be written a. d. . was the western church agreed before or after about this matter ? this epistle was written to eruperius , a gallican bishop , ( to whom st. jerom dedicated his commentaries on zechariah , ) but now it unluckily falls out , that the tradition of the gallican church was contrary to this ; as appears by s. hilary , ( who could not be ignorant of it , being a famous bishop of that church ) and he tells us , there were but canonical books of the old testament . i confess he saith , some were for adding tobit and judith , but it is very observable that he saith , that the other account is most agreeable to ancient tradition , which is a mighty argument against innocentius , who brings no tradition to justifie his canon . when st. augustin produced a place out of the book of wisedom , the divines of marseilles rejected it ; because the book was not canonical : therefore in that time innocent's canon was by no means received in the gallican church ; for by it this book was made canonical . but s. jerom , who had as much learning as pope innocent , vehemently opposed this new canon more than once or ten times ; and not onely speaks of the jewish canon , but of the canon of the church . the church , saith he , reads the books of tobit , judith and machabees , but the church doth not receive them among canonical scriptures . what church doth he mean ? not the synagogue certainly . pope innocent saith , those books are to be received into the canon ; s. jerom saith , the church doth not receive them , but that they are to be cast out ; where is the certainty of tradition to be found ? if innocent were in the right , s. jerom was foully mistaken , and in plain terms belied the church . but how is this consistent with the saintship of st. jerom ? or with common discretion if the church did receive those books for canonical ? for every one could have disproved him . and it required no great judgment or deep learning to know what books were received , and what not . if s. jerom were so mistaken ( which it is very hard to believe ) how came ruffinus not to observe his errours and opposition to the church ? nay , how came ruffinus himself to fall into the very same prodigious mistake ? for he not onely rejects the controverted books out of the canon , but saith , he follow'd the ancient tradition therein . what account can be given of this matter ? if innocent's tradition were right , these men were under a gross delusion ; and yet they were learned and knowing persons , and more than ordinarily conversant in the doctrines and traditions of the church . . this opinion was not received as a tradition of the church afterwards . for , if it had been , how could gregory i. reject the book of machabees out of the canon , when two of his predecessours took it in ? it is somewhat hard , to suppose one pope to contradict two of his predecessours about the canon of scripture ; yet i see not how to avoid it ; nor how it is consistent with the constancy of tradition , much less with the pretence to infallibility . he did not merely doubt , as canus would have it thought , but he plainly excludes them out of the canon . catharinus thinks he follow'd s. jerom. what then ? doth this exclude his contradicting his predecessours ? or was s. jerom's judgment above the pope's ? but it was not s. gregory alone who contradicted the former popes canon ; for it was not received either in italy , spain , france , germany or england ; and yet no doubt it was a very catholick tradition . not in italy ; for there cassiodore , a learned and devout man in the next century to them , gives an account of the canon of scripture , and he takes not any notice either of innocent or gelasius . he first sets down the order of scripture according to s. jerom ; and then according to s. augustin ; and in the last place , according to the old translation and the lxx . and where himself speaks of the apocryphal books before , he follows s. jerom 's opinion , that they were written rather for manners than dactrine . he confesses there was a difference about the canon ; but he goes about to excuse it . but what need that if there were a catholick tradition then in the church concerning it , and that inforced by two popes ? but it may yet seem stranger , that even in italy , one canonized for a saint by clemens vii . should follow s. jerom's opinion in this matter , viz. s. antoninus , bishop of florence . who speaking of ecclestasticus received into the canon of the two popes , he saith , it is onely received by the church to be read , and is not authentick to prove any thing in matters of faith. he that writes notes upon him , saith , that he follows s. jerom , and must be understood of the eastern church ; for the western church always receiv'd these books into the canon . but he speaks not one word of the eastern church ; and by the church he could understand nothing but what he accounted the catholick church . canus allows antoninus to have rejected these books ; but he thinks the matter not so clear , but then they might doubt concerning it . then there was no such evidence of tradition to convince men . but antoninus hath preserved the judgment of a greater man concerning these books even thomas aquinas , who in . dae . he saith , denied these books to have such authority as to prove any matter of faith by them : which is directly contrary to the council of trent . if this passage be not now to be found in him , we know whom to blame for it . if antoninus saw it there , we hope his word may be taken for it . in spain , we have for the hebrew canon the testimonies of paulus burgensis , tostatus , and cardinal ximines . in france , of victorinus , agobardus , radulphus flaviacensis , petrus cluniacensis , hugo de s. victore , and richard de s. victore , lyra and others . in germany , of rabanus maurus , strabus , rupertus , hermannus contractus and others . in england , of bede , alcvin , sarisburiensis , ockam , waldensis and others . whom i barely mention , because their testimonies are at large in bishop cosins his scholastical history of the canon of scripture , and no man hath yet had the hardiness to undertake that book . these i think are sufficient to shew there was no catholick tradition for the decree of the council of trent about the canon of scripture . i now proceed to shew on what pretences and colours it came in , and by what degrees and steps it advanced . . the first step was , the esteem which some of the fathers expressed of these books in quoting of passages out of them . we do not deny that the fathers did frequently cite them : even those who expresly rejected them from being canonical , and not as ordinary books , but as such as were usefull to the church , wherein many wise sayings and good actions are recorded . but the many quotations the fathers do make out of them is the onely plausible pretence which those of the church of rome have to defend the putting them into the canon , as appears by bellarmin and others . the book of tobit , they tell us , is mentioned by s. cyprian , s. ambrose , st. basil , and st. augustin . of judith by st. jerom who mentions a tradition that it was allowed in the council of nice ; but certainly s. jerom never believed it , when he declares it to be apocryphal , and not sufficient to prove any matter of faith. the book of wisedom by s. cyprian , s. cyril and s. augustin . ecclesiasticus by clemens alexandrinus , s. cyprian , epiphanius , s. ambrose and s. augustin . the machabees by tertullian , cyprian , clemens alexandrinus , origen , eusebius , s. ambrose , s. augustin . but all these testimonies onely prove that they thought something in those books worth alledging , but not that they judged the books themselves canonical . and better arguments from their citations might be brought for the books of the sibylls than for any of these . we are not then to judge of their opinion of canonical books by bare citations , but by their declared judgments about them . . the next step was , when they came to be read in churches ; but about this there was no certain rule . for the councils of laodicea and carthage differed chiefly upon this point . the former decreed , that none but canonical scripture should be read under the name of holy writings ; and sets down the names of the canonical books then to be read , ( and so leaves out the apocalypse . ) the latter from their being read , inferr'd their being canonical ; for it agrees with the other , that none but canonical should be read , and because these were read , it reckons them up with the canonical books ; for so the canon concludes , we have received from our fathers that these books are to be read in churches . but the council of carthage was not peremptory in this matter ; but desired it might be referred to boniface and other bishops beyond the seas : which shews that here was no decree absolutely made , nor any certainty of tradition ; for then to what purpose should they send to other churches to advise about it ? . when they came to be distinguished from apocryphal writings . whence those who do not consider the reason of it , conclude them to have been canonical . but sometimes apocryphal signified such books as were not in the canon of faith , as in the authours before mentioned ; sometimes such books which were not allowed to be used among christians . this distinction we have in ruffinus , who saith there are three sorts of books ; canonical , as the of the old testament ; ecclesiastical , of which sort he reckons wisedom , ecclesiasticus , tobit , judith and machabees , and these he saith were permitted to be read in churches , but no argument could be brought out of them for matter of faith , apocryphal are such which by no means were permitted to be read . and thus innocentius his words may well be understood : for he concludes with saying , that other writings were not onely to be rejected , but to be condemned . and so his meaning is to distinguish them from such counterfeit divine writings as were then abroad . for these were not to be wholly rejected , and in that large sense he admits them into the canon , taking ecclesiastical writings which were read in churches into that number . and in this sense s. augustin used the word apocryphal , when the book of enoch is so called by him , and such other counterfeit writings under the names of the prophets and apostles ; but elsewhere he distinguishes between the canonical books of salomon , and those which bear his name ; which he saith the more learned know not to be his , but the western church had of old owned their authority . but in the case of the book of enoch , he appeals to the canon , which was kept in the jewish temple ; and so falls in with s. jerom ; and he confesses it is hard to justifie the authority of those which are not in the hebrew canon . of the machabees he saith , it is distinguished from the writings called canonical ; but it is received by the church as such . what! to confirm matters of faith ? no. but for the glorious sufferings therein recorded ; and elsewhere he saith , it is usefull , if it be soberly read . s. augustin knew very well that all books were not received alike ; and that many were received in some parts of the western church from the old translation out of the lxx , which were not received in the eastern ; and therefore in his books of christian doctrine he gives rules in judging of canonical books ; to follow the authority of the greatest number of catholick churches , especially the apostolical ; and that those which were received by all , should be preferred before those which were onely received by some . but he very well knew , that the hebrew canon was universally received , and that the controverted books were not ; and therefore , according to his rule , these could never be of equal authority with the other . . when the roman church declared that it received the controverted books into the canon . this is said to have been done by gelasius , with his synod of lxx bishops , ( and yet it is hard to understand how gregory so soon after should contradict it . ) the title of it in the old ms. produced by chiffletius , and by him attributed to hormisdas , is , the order of the old testament which the holy catholick roman church receives and honours is this . but whether by gelasius , or hormisdas , i cannot understand , why such a decree as this should not be put into the old roman code of canons , if it had been then made . that there was such a one appears by the copies of it in the vatican , mentioned by the roman correctors of gratian , and by mention of it by the canon si romanorum , dist. . and de libellis , dist. . and by the latter we understand what canons of councils and decrees of popes are in it , among whom are both gelasius and hormisdas . this they agree to be the same with that published by wendelstin at mentz , . the epistle of innocentius to exuperius with the canon is there published ; but not the other ; and so is the canon of the council of carthage ; but that of laodicea is cut off ; and so they are in that published by dionysius exiguus and quesnell , ( justellus his ancient copy was imperfect there , ) but both these canons being in the roman code , are an argument to me , that the controverted books were received by the roman church at that time ; but in such a manner , that s. jerom's prologues still stood in the vulgar latin bible , with the commentaries of lyra , and additions of burgensis , which were stiff for the hebrew canon ; and s. jerom's authority prevailed more than the pope's , as appears fully by what hath been already produced . . to advance the authority of these books one step higher , eugenius iv. declared them to be part of the canon in the instruction given to the armenians . which the roman writers pretend to have been done in the council of florence : but naclantus bishop of chioza , in the council of trent , as pallavicini saith , denied that any such decree was made by the council of florence ; because the last session of it ended . and that decree was signed feb. . . to this the legat replied , that this was a mistake occasioned by abraham cretensis , who published the latin version of it , onely till the greeks departure ; but the council continued three years longer , as appeared by the extracts of augustinus patricius , since published in the tomes of the councils . but he never mentions the canon of scripture ; however , because cervinus affirms that he saw the original signed by the pope and cardinals , we have no reason to dispute it . but then it appears how very little it signified , when antoninus the bishop of florence opposed it , and cardinal ximenes and cardinal cajetan slighted it , and all who embraced the council of basil looked on eugenius his decree as void ; and after all , that very decree onely joins the apocryphal books in the same canon , as the council of carthage had done ; but it was reserved as the peculiar honour of the council of trent to declare that matters of faith might be proved out of them , as well as out of any canonical scriptures . iii. about the free use of the scripture in the vulgar language , prohibited by the council of trent . to understand the sense of the council of trent in this matter , we must consider ; . that it declares the vulgar latin to be authentick ; i. e. that no man under any pretence shall dare to presume to reject it . suppose the pretence be that it differs from the original ; no matter for that , he must not reject that which the council hath declared authentick , i. e. among the latin editions . but suppose a man finds other latin translations truer in some parts , because they agree more with the original text , may he therein reject the vulgar latin ? by no means , if he thinks himself bound to adhere to the council of trent . but the council supposes it to agree with the original . and we must believe the council therein . this is indeed the meaning of the council as far as i can judge . but what catholick tradition was there for this ? tes for a thousand years after gregory 's time . but this is not antiquity enough to found a catholick tradition upon . if there were no more than a thousand from gregory , there were six hundred past before him ; so that there must be a more ancient tradition in the church , wherein this version was not authentick ; and how came it then to be authentick by virtue of tradition ? here then tradition must be given up ; and the council of trent must have some other ground to go upon . for i think the traditionary men will not maintain the vulgar latin to have been always authentick . . that it referred the making the index of prohibited books to the pope ; and in the th rule of that index , all persons are forbidden the use of the scripture in the vulgar tongue , without a particular licence , and whosoever presumes to doe it without a faculty , unless he first gives up his bible , he is not to receive absolution . my business is now to enquire what catholick tradition the pope and council went upon in this prohibition . but as to the testimony of fathers , i am prevented by some late discourses on this subject . in stead thereof therefore i shall , . shew from their own writers , that there could be no catholick tradition for such a prohibition . . prove the general consent of the catholick church from publick acts , as to the free use of the scripture . thomas aquinas grants that the scripture was proposed to all , and in such a manner that the most rude might understand it . therefore there was no prohibition of such persons reading it . cajetan there uses two arguments for the scriptures using metaphors and similitudes . . because god provides for all . . because the scripture is tendred to all . and the common people are not capable of understanding spiritual things without such helps . if the scripture were intended for all , how comes a prohibition of the use of it ? sixtus senensis grants , that in former times the scripture was translated into the vulgar languages , and the people did commonly reade it , to their great benefit . then a prohibition of it must alter the churches practical tradition . alphonsus à castro yields to erasmus , that the scriptures were of old translated into the vulgar tongues , and that the fathers , such as s. chrysostom , and s. jerom , persuaded people to the reading them . but the case is altered now , when such mischief comes by the reading the scriptures . and yet the tradition of the church continues the same , and is impossible to be changed . azorius puts the case fairly ; he grants that the scriptures were at first written and published in the common language ; that s. chrysostom admits all to reade the scriptures ; and that the people did so then ; but they do not now . but he saith , the people then understood greek and latin , and now they do not . if it were their own language they might well understand it ; but why should not the scripture now be in a language they may understand ? for greek and latin did not make the common people one jot wiser or better ; and yet this man calls it a heresie now to say , the scriptures ought to be translated into vulgar languages . how much is the faith of the church changed ? . i am now to prove the general consent of the catholick church in this matter from publick acts , i. e. that all parts of it have agreed in translations of scripture into vulgar languages without any such prohibition . if there had been any such thing in the primitive church , it would have held against the latin translation it self . for i hope none will say it was the original , however authentick it be made by the council of trent . how then came the originals to be turned into the common language ? ( as i suppose latin will be allow'd to have been the common language of the roman empire . ) there is no objection can now be made against any modern translations , but would have held against the first latin version . who the authour of it was is utterly unknown ; and both s. augustin and s. jerom say , there was a great variety among the old translations , and every one translated as he thought fit . so that there was no restraint laid upon translating into the common language . and unless latin were an infallible guide to those that understood it , the people were as liable to be deceived in it , as either in english or french. but it was not onely thus in the roman empire , but whereever a people were converted to christianity in all thè elder times , the scripture was turned into their language . the ecclesiastical historians mention the conversion of the goths , and upon that , the translation of the bible into their language by ulphilas their bishop . walafridus strabo adds to this , that besides the bible , they had all publick offices of religion performed in their own language . how soon the churches in persia were planted , it is impossible for us now to know ; but in the ms. ecclesiastical history of abulpharagius ( in the hands of dr. loftus ) it is said , that a disciple of thaddaeus preached the gospel in persia , assyria and the parts thereabouts ; and that by another disciple of his churches were settled there in his time ; and that he came to seleucia , the metropolis of the persians , and there established a church , where he continued fifteen years . and from him there was a succession of the patriarchs of seleucia , which continues still in the east ; for upon destruction thereof by almansor , they removed first to bagdad , and after that to mozal over against ninive , where their residence hath been since ; and this patriarch had universal jurisdiction over the eastern churches as far as the east indies , as appears by morinus his books of ordinations in the east , and the proceedings with the christians of st. thomas in the very end of the last century . but we are certain from the greek historians , that in constantine's time the christians in persia were so numerous that he wrote to the king of persia on their behalf . eusebius saith that constantine was informed , that the churches were much increased there , and great multitudes were brought into christ's flock ; and constantine himself in his letter to sapores saith , the christians flourished in the best parts of persia ; and he hoped they might continue so to doe . but after constantine's death a terrible persecution befell them , wherein sozomen saith , the names of martyrs were preserved , besides an innumerable multitude of unknown persons . the sharpest part of the persecution fell upon the bishops and presbyters ; especially in adiabene , which was almost wholly christian , which ammianus marcellinus saith was the same with assyria , wherein were ninive , ecbatane , arbela , gaugamela , babylon ( or seleucia ) and ctesiphon , of which sozomen saith , symeon was then archbishop . and he names above twenty bishops who suffered besides , and one mareabdes a chorepiscopus , with of his clergy . after the time of sapores several sharp persecutions fell upon those churches in the times of vararanes and isdigerdes , of which the greek historians take notice , and one of them , saith theodoret , lasted thirty years . this i mention to shew what mean thoughts those have of the catholick church who consine it to the roman communion . theodoret and s. chrysostom both affirm that the persians had the scriptures then in their own language ; and sozomen saith , that symeon archbishop of seleucia , and ctesiphon before his own martyrdom , incouraged the rest to suffer out of the holy scriptures . which supposes them well acquainted with the language of it , and it is not very likely they should be either with the hebrew , greek or latin ; but the other testimonies make it clear that it was in their own tongue . the anonymous writer of s. chrysostom's life affirms , that while he staid in armenia , he caused the new testament to be translated into the armenian tongue for the benefit of those churches . and this tradition is allow'd by several learned men in the church of rome . but the armenians themselves say , the whole bible was translated into the armenian language by moses grammaticus , david and mampraeus , three learned men of their own , in the time of their patriarch isaac , about s. chrysostom 's time . theodoret , in the place already cited , mentions the armenian translation , as a thing well known ; and he was near enough to understand the truth of it . jacobus de vitriaco , a roman cardinal , saith , that the armenians in his time had the scriptures read to them in their own language . the syriack version for the use of those in the eastern parts who understood not hebrew or greek , is allowed by all learned men to have been very ancient . i mean the old simple version out of the originals , and not that out of the lxx . of the old testament . as to the new , the tradition of the eastern people is , that it was done either in the apostles times or very near them . abraham ecchellensis shews , from the syriack writers , that the compleat translation of the bible was made in the time of abgarus , king of edessa , by the means of thaddaeus and the other apostles ; and as to the time of thaddaeus , gregorius malatiensis confirms it . postellus quotes an ancient tradition ( which my adversaries ought to regard ) that s. mark himself translated not only his own gospel , but all the books of the ne● testament into the vulgar syriack . it is sufficient to my purpose , to shew that there was such an ancient translation ; which is owned by s. chrysostom , s. ambrose , s. augustin , diodorus and theodoret : which makes me wonder at cardinal bellarmin's affirming with so much confidence , that none of the fathers speak of the syriack version , when theodoret alone mentions it so often in his commentaries . although the greeks in egypt might very well understand the greek of the old and new testament , ( especially if that which is called the lxx . were done by the alexandrian jews , as some imagine ) yet those who knew no other than the old egyptian language could not make use of it . and therefore a coptick translation was made for them ; which kircher thinks to have been years old . and he withal observes , that their ancient liturgies were in the coptick language . that it might not be susp●cted that kircher imposed upon the world , he gives a particular account of the books he had seen in the vatican library and elsewhere in the coptick tongue . the pentateuch in three tomes , distinguished into paragraphs by lines . the four gospels by themselves . s. paul's epistles and three canonical epistles with the acts in another volume . the apocalypse by it self ; and the psalter . the liturgy of s. mark with other daily prayers . the liturgy of s. gregory , with the prayers of s. cyril in the coptick language ; and a liturgy of s. basil , with gregory and cyril , with several other rituals , missals and prayers , all in the same tongue . all these , he saith , are in the vatican library . and in that of the maronites college , he saith , is an old coptick martyrology about years standing , by which he finds , that the chief imployment of the old egyptian monks was to translate the bible out of hebrew , chaldee and greek into the coptick tongue . morinus saith , that in the oratorian lbrary at paris , they had the coptick gospels brought from constantinople by monsr . de sancy . petrus à valle , a nobleman of rome , and a great traveller , saith he had several parts of scripture in the coptick language ; which were turned into arabick , when the old coptick grew into disuse . petraeus had in the eastern parts a coptick psalter , with an arabick version , which he designed to publish . the congregation de propaganda fide at rome had several coptick mss. sent to them out of egypt , among the rest the coptick book of ordination transloatd and printed by kircher ; and since reprinted by morinus . seguier the late chancellour of france had in his library , the consecration of a patriarch in coptick and arabick , and several translations of the bible , and prayers in both languages . the aethiopick translation bears date with the conversion of the nation , according to their own tradition , which some make to be in the apostolical times , and others in the time of constantine ; and their publick offices are performed in their own tongue . the chancellour seguier had not only many parts of the bible , but prayers and offices in the aethiopick tongue . i shall add but one thing more to this purpose , which is taken from the want of antiquity in the arabick versions ; which is confessed by the learned criticks on all sides . and even this tends to prove my design . for when the saracen empire prevailed , the people grew more acquainted with the arabick than with the ancient syriack or coptick ; and therefore the scripture was then translated into arabick ; ( as vasaeus saith it was done in spain after the moors came thither by a bishop of sevil ) and this was the true reason why the arabick versions have no greater antiquity . for gabriel sionita observes that the arabick is become the most vulgar language in the eastern parts . and because it was so in syria as well as egypt , therefore there are different arabick versions ; the one called codex antiochenus , and the other alexandrinus . thus i have proved that there was a catholick tradition directly contrary to that established by order of the council of trent . and now i proceed to give an account of the methods and steps by which this decree came to its ripeness . . the first step was the declension and corruption of the latin tongue in the western church . it is observed by polybius , that from the time of the first league between the romans and carthaginians , the latin tongue was so much changed even in rome it self that very few could understand the words of it . and festus in latine loqui saith , that the language was so alter'd , that scarce any part of it remained entire . scaliger thinks these words were added to festus by paulus diaconus ; which seems much more probable , since he lived in the time of charlemagn . at which time we may easily suppose the latin tongue to have been very much corrupted by the writers , and not so easie to be understood any where by the common people in sudden discourse , as it had been before . which appears evident by the latin sermons made to the people in the several provinces in the roman empire ; as in africa by s. augustin and fulgentius ; in italy by petrus chrysologus , laurentius novariensis , gaudentius brixiensis , ennodius ticinensis : in spain by isidore , ildephonsus and others : in gaul by caesarius , eucherius , eligius , and several others , whose latin sermons to the people are still extant . in the council of tours , in the time of charlemagn , particular care is taken that the homilies should be translated by their bishops either into the rustick roman or the german , that the people might the easier understand them . these homilies were either those which charlemagn caused to be taken out of the fathers , and applied to the several lessons through the year , as sigebert observes , or of their own composing ; however they were to be turned by the bishops either into rustick roman , or german , as served best to the capacities of the people . for the franks then either retained the original german , or used the rustick roman ; but this latter so much prevailed over the other , that in the solemn oaths between lewis and charles upon parting the dominions of france and germany , set down in nithardus , the rustick roman was become the vulgar language of france , and these were but the grandchildren of charlemagn . marquardus freherus thinks that onely the princes and great men retained the german , but the generality then spake the rustick roman ; as appears by the oath of the people ; which begins thus . si lod●igs sacrament que son fradre carlo jurat conservat , & carlus meo serdra de suo part non los tanit , si jo returnar non licit pois , ne io , ne neuls cui eo returnar nil pois , in nulla adjudha contra lodwig nun li iver . by which we may see what a mixture of latin there was in the vulgar language then used by the franks , and how easie it was for the people then to understand the publick offices being constant ; but the sermons not being so , there was greater necessity to turn them into that corruptor rustick roman , which was thoroughly understood by them . in spain the latin was less corrupted before the gothick and arabick or moorish words were taken into it . lucius mariness saith , that had it not been for the mixture of those words , the spaniards had spoken as good latin as the romans did in the time of tully : and he saith , that to his time he had seen epistles written in spanish , wherein all the nouns and verbs were good latin. in italy the affinity of the vulgar prevailing language and the latin continued so great , that the difference seemed for some hundred years , no more than of the learned and common greek , or of the english and scotch ; and so no necessity was then apprehended of translating the correct tongue into a corrupt dialect of it . but where there was a plain difference of language there was some care even then taken , that the people might understand what they heard , as appears by these things : . alcuinus gives an account why one day was called sabbatum in lectionibus , when there were but six lessons , and he saith , it was because they were read both in greek and latin , they not understanding each others languages . not because the greek was a holy tongue , but quia aderant graeci , quibus ignota er at lingua latina ; which shews that the church then thought it a reasonable cause to have the scripture in such a language , which might be understood by the people . the same reason is given by amalarius . . in the german churches there were ancient translations of scripture into their own language . b. rhenanus attributes a translation of the gospels to waldo bishop of freising , assoon as the franks received christianity , and he saith , it was the immortal honours of the franks , to have the scripture so soon translated into their own language ; which , saith he , is of late opposed by some divines : so little did he know of an universal tradition against it . goldastus mentions the translation in rhime by ottfridus wissenburgensis , published by achilles gassarus , the psalter of notkerus , rudolphus ab eems his paraphrase of the old testament . andreas du chesn hath published a preface before an old saxon book , wherein it is said , that ludovicus pius did take care that all the people should read the scripture in their own tongue , and gave it in charge to a saxon to translate both old and new testament into the german language ; which , saith he , was performed very elegantly . . in the saxon churches here , it was not to be expected that the scripture should be translated , till there were persons learned both in the saxon and the other languages . bede , in his epistle to egbert , puts him upon instructing the common people in their own language , especially in the creed and lord's prayer ; and to further so good a work , bede himself translated the gospel of st. john into the saxon tongue , as cuthbert saith in the epistle about his death , in the life of bede , before his saxon history . it appears by the old canons of churches , and the epistles of aelfric , saith mr. lisle , that there was an old saxon canon for the priest to say unto the people the sense of the gospel in english ; and aelfric saith of himself , that he had translated the pentateuch , and some of the historical books . the new testament was translated by several hands ; and an ancient saxon translation hath been lately published with the gothick gospels . and there were old saxon glosses upon the gospels ; of aldred , farmen and owen . the last work of k. alfred was the translating the psalter ; and if the ms. history of ely deserves credit , he translated both the old and new testament . . it is not denied either by bellarmin or baronius , that the slavonians in the th century had a permission upon their conversion to christianity , to enjoy the bible , and to have publick offices performed in their own language . but they tell us , it was because they were then children in the faith , and to be indulged ; ( but methinks children were the most in danger to be seduced ; ) or there were not priests enough to officiate in latin at first : but this was no reason then given , as appears by the pope's own letter published by baronius , wherein he gives god thanks for the invention of letters among them by constantine a philosopher ; and he expresly saith , that god had not confined his honour to three languages , but all people and languages were to praise him ; and he saith , god himself in scripture had so commanded ; and he quotes st. paul's words for it . one would wonder those great men should no better consider the popes own reasons ; but give others for him , which he never thought of . it is true , he adds , that he would have the gospel read first in latin , and then in salvonian , and if they pleased he would have the mass said in latin ; but the slavonians continued their custom , and the pope was willing enough to let them enjoy it , for his own convenience as well as theirs . for there was a secret in this matter , which is not fully understood . aventinus , saith , that methodius invented their i etters , and translated the scriptures into the slavonian tongue , and persuaded the people to reject the latin service ; but this i see no ground for . but the truth of the matter was , the slavonians were converted by the means of methodius and cyril , ( otherwise called constantine ) two greek bishops , and the christian religion was settled among them by their means , and they translated the scriptures and offices of worship into their own language . the pope had not forgotten the business of the bulgarians , and he could not tell but this might end in subjection to another patriarchal see ; and therefore he en●eavours to get methodius and cyril to rome , and having gained them , he sends a sweetning letter to the prince , and makes the concession before mentioned . for he could not but remember how very lately the greeks had gained the bulgarians from him ; and lest the slavonians should follow them , he was content to let them have what they desired , and had already established among themselves , without his permission . all this appears from the account of this matter given by constantinus porphyrogenetus , compared with diocleas his regnum slavorum , and lucius his dalmatian history . it is sufficient for my purpose , that diocleas owns that constantine ( to whom andreas dandalus , d. of venice , in his m s history cited by lucius , saith , the pope gave the name of cyril ) did translate the bible into the slavonian tongue , for the benefit of the people , and the publick offices out of greek , according to their custom . and the chancellour seguier had in his library both the new testament and l●turgies in the slavonian language , and in cyril's character ; and many of the greek fathers commentaries on scripture in that tongue , but not one of the latin. . the next step was , when gregory . prohibited the translation of the latin offices in the slavonian tongue . and this he did to the king of bohemia himself , after a peremptory manner ; but he saith , it was the request of the nobility , that they might have divine offices in the slavonian tongue , which he could by no means yield to . what was the matter ? how comes the case to be so much altered from what it was in his predecessor's time ? the true reason was , the bohemian churches were then brought into greater subjection to the roman see , after the consecration of dithmarus saxo to be their archbishop ; and now they must own their subjection , as the roman provinces were wont to do , by receiving the language . but as his predecessour had found scripture for it , for gregory pretends he had found reason against it , viz. the scripture was obscure , and apt to be misunderstood and despised . what! more than in the time of methodius and cyril ? if they pleaded primitive practice , he plainly answers , that the church is grown wiser , and hath corrected many things that were then allowed . this is indeed to the purpose ; and therefore by the authority of s. peter , he forbids him to suffer any such thing , and charges him to oppose it with all his might . but after all , it is entred in the canon law de officio jud. ord. l. . tit. . c. quoniam . as a decree of innocent . in the lateran council , that where there were people of different languages , the bishop was to provide persons fit to officiate in those several languages . why so ? if there were a prohibition of using any but the latin tongue . but this was for the greeks , and theirs was an holy tongue . that is not said ; nor if it were would it signifie any thing ; for doth any imaginary holiness of the tongue sanctifie ignorant devotion ? but the canon supposes them to have the same faith. then the meaning is , that no man must examin his religion by the scripture , but if he rseolves beforehand to believe as the church believes , then he may have the scriptures or prayers in what language he pleases . but even this is not permitted in the roman church . for , . after the inquisition was set up by the authority of innocent . in the lateran council , no lay persons were permitted to have the books of the old and new testament , but the psalter , or breviary , or hours , they might have ; but by no means in the vulgar language . this is called by d'achery and labbe the council of tholouse , but in truth it was nothing else but an order of the inquisition , as will appear to any one that reads it . and the inquisition ought to have the honour of it , both in france and spain . which prohibition hath been so gratefull to some divines of the church of rome , that cochlaeus calls it pious , just , reasonable , wholsom and necessary ; andradius thinks the taking of it away would be destructive to faith ; ledesma saith , the true catholicks do not desire it , and bad ought not to be gratified with it . petrus sutor , a carthusian doctour , calls the translating scripture into the vulgar languages , a rash , useless and dangerous thing ; and he gives the true reason of it , viz. that the people will be apt to murmur when they see things required as from the apostles , which they cannot find a word of in scripture . and when all is said on this subject that can be , by men of more art , this is the plainest and honestest reason for such a prohibition ; but i hope i have made it appear it is not built on any catholick tradition . iv. of the merit of good works . the council of trent sess. . c. . declares , that the good works of justified persons do truly deserve eternal life ; and can. ● . an anathema is denounced against him that denies them to be meritorious , or that a justified person by them doth not truly merit increase of grace , and happiness , and eternal life . the council hath not thought fit to declare what it means by truly meriting ; but certainly it must be opposed to an improper kind of meriting , and what that is we must learn from the divines of the church of rome . . some say , that some of the fathers speak of an improper kind of merit , which is no more than the due means for the attaining of happiness as the end. so vega confesses they often use the word merit , where there is no reason for merit , either by way of congruity or condignity . therefore , where there is true merit there must be a proper reason for it . and the council of trent being designed to condemn some prevailing opinions at that time , among those they called hereticks , this assertion of true merit must be levelled against some doctrine of theirs ; but they held good works to be necessary as means to an end , and therefore this could not be the meaning of the council . suarez saith , the words of the council ought to be specially observed , which are , that there is nothing wanting in the good works of justified persons , ut vere promeruisse censeantur ; and therefore no metaphorical or improper , but that which by the sense of the church of rome was accounted true merit in opposition to what was said by those accounted hereticks must be understood thereby . . others say , that a meer congruity arising from the promise and favour of god in rewarding the acts of his grace in justified persons cannot be the proper merit intended by the council . and that for these reasons . . suarez observes that although the council avoids the terms ex condigno , yet because it still uses the words vere mereri , it implies something more than mere congruity ; and because it speaks of meriting the increase of grace , and not the first grace ; now a congruity is allowed for the first grace , which it excludes by mentioning the increase . and withal , it brings places to prove that the giving the reward must be a retribution of justice , and if so , the merit must be more than that of congruity . . because god's promise doth not give any intrinsick value to the nature of the act ; no more than his threatning doth increase the nature of guilt . if the king of persia had promised a province to him that gave him a draught of water , the act it self had been no more meritorious ; but it only shewed the munificence of the prince ; no more do god's promises of eternal life add any merit to the acts of grace , but onely set forth the infinite bounty of the promiser . . in the conference at ratisbon ( the year this decree passed ) by the emperour's order the protestant party did yield , that by virtue of god's promise the reward of eternal life was due to justified persons ; as a father promising a great reward to his son for his pains in studying , makes it become due to him , although there be no proportion between them . and if no more were meant by merit of congruity , than that it was very agreeable to the divine nature to reward the acts of his own grace with an infinite reward , they would yield this too . . cardinal pallavicini gives us the plain and true meaning of the council , viz. that a merit de congruo was allowed for works before justification ; but for works after , they all agreed , he saith , that there was a merit de condigno in them both for increase of grace and eternal glory . by merit de condigno is meant such an intrinsick value in the nature of the act as makes the reward in justice to be due to it . some call one of these , meritum secundum quid ; which is the same with de congruo ; which really deserves no reward , but receives it onely from the liberality of the giver ; and this hath not truly , say they , the notion of merit ; but that which makes the reward due is simple and true merit , when it doth not come merely from the kindness of the giver , but from respect to the worthiness of the action and the doer , and this is de condigno . let us now see what catholick tradition there was for this doctrine , and whether this were taught them by their fathers in a continued succession down from the apostles times . but that there was a change as to the sense of the church in this matter , i shall prove in the first place from an office which was allow'd in the church before , and forbidden after . it was an office with respect to dying persons , wherein are these questions . q. dost thou believe that thou shalt come to heaven , not by thy own merits , but by the virtue and merit of christ 's passion ? a. i do believe it . q. dost thou believe that christ died for our salvation , and that none can be saved by their own merits , or any other way but by the merits of his passion ? a. i do believe it . now when the indices expurgatorii were made in pursuance to the order of the council of trent , this passage was no longer endured . for , in the roman index the ordo baptizandi , wherein this question was , is forbidden till it were corrected . but the spanish indices explain the mystery ; that of cardinal quiroga saith expresly , those questions and answers must be blotted out ; and the like we find in the index of soto major and san●oval . what now is the reason , that such questions and answers were no longer permitted , if the churches tradition continued still the same ? was not this a way to know the tradition of the church by the offices used in it ? this was no private office then first used , but although the prohibition mentions one impression at venice ( as though there had been no more ) i have one before me , printed by gryphius at venice two years before that ; and long before with the praeceptorium of lyra , a. d. . where the question to the dying person is in these words , si credit se merito passionis christi & non propriis ad gloriam pervenire ? et respondeat , credo . and the same questions and answers i have in a sacerdotale romanum printed by nicolinus at venice . cardinal hosius says that he had seen these questions and answers in the sacerdotale romanum and in the hortulus animae ; and that they were believed to be first prescribed by anselm , archbishop of canterbury . on what account now , come these things to be prohibited and expunged , if the churches doctrine and tradition about this matter , be still the very same ? no doubt it was believed that the council of trent had now so far declared the sense of the church another way , that such questions and a●s●●rs were no longer to be endured . but before the council of trent the canons of colen against hermannus their bishop , when he published his reformation , declare , that god's giving eternal life up on good works is ex gratuita dignatione suae clementiae , from the favour which god vouchsafes to them . which to my apprehension is inconsistent with the notion of true merit in the works themselves ; for if there be any condignity in them , it cannot be mere grace and favour in god to reward them . the same canons in their enchiridion some years before , when they joyned with their bishop , call it stupidity to think that good works are rewarded with eternal life for any dignity in the works themselves . and if there be no dignity in them , there can be no true merit ; as the council of trent determines with an anathema . pope adrian vi. gives such an account of the merit of our works , that he could never imagine any condignity in them to eternal life . for , saith he , our merits are a broken reed , which pierce the hand of him that leans upon them ; they are a menstruous cloth , and our best actions mixt with impurities ; and when we have done all that we can , we are unprofitable servants . petrus de alliaco cardinal of cambray attributes no other effect to good works than of causa sine qua non ; and saith that the reward is not to be attributed to any virtue in them , but to the will of the giver . which i think overthrows any true merit . gabriel biel attributes the merit of good works not to any intrinsecal goodness in them , but to god's acceptation . which is in words to assert merit , and in truth to deny it ; for , how can there be true merit in the works , if all their value depends upon divine acceptance ? thomas walden charges wickliff with asserting the doctrine of merit and incouraging men to trust in their own righteousness , and he quotes scripture and fathers against it ; and he blames the use of the term of merit either ex congruo or ex condigno : which he saith was an invention of some late schoolmen , and was contrary to the ancient doctrine of the church . as he proves , not only from scripture and fathers , but from the ancient offices too : as in the canon of the mass , non aestimator meriti , seá veni● quaesumus largitor , &c. fer. . pass . ut qui de meritorum qualitate diffidimus , non judicium tuum sed miseric●rdiam cons●quamur . dom. . adv. ubi nulla suppetunt sufsragia meritorum , tuae nobis indulgentiae succurre praesidtis . how comes the doctrine condemned in wickliff to be established in the council of trent ? for he was blamed for asserting true merit , and the council asserts it with an anathema to those that deny it . and yet we must believe the very same tradition to have been in the church all this while . vega saith , that walden speaks against merits without grace ; but any one that reads him will find it otherwise , for he produces those passages out of the fathers against merits which do suppose divine grace , as it were easie to shew ; but friar walden thought the notion of merit inconsistent with the power and influence of divine grace necessary to our best actions . god , saith he , doth not regard merit either as to congruity or condignity , but his own grace , and will , and mercy . marsilius de ingen who lived before walden reckons up three opinions about merit ; the first of those who denied it , and of this , saith he , durandus seems to be , and one job . de everbaco . the second of those who said that our works have no merit of themselves , but as informed by d●●ine grace , and from the assistance of the holy ghost , so they do t●uly merit eternal life , and of this opinion he saith was thomas de argentina . the third was , of those who granted that true merit doth imply an equality , but then they distinguish equality , as to quantity and as to proportion , and in this latter sense they asserted an equality . and of this opinion he saith was petrus de tarantasia . but he delivers his own judgment in these conclusions . . that our works either considered in themselves or with divine grace are not meritorious of eternal life ex condigno , which he proves both from scripture and reason , viz. because . no man can make god a debtor to him ; for the more grace he hath the more he is a debtor to god. ana . he cannot merit of another by what he receives from him . and . no man can pay what he owes to god , and therefore can never merit at his hands . . no man can merit here so much grace as to keep him from falling away from grace ; much less then eternal life . . these works may be said to be meritorious of eternal life ex condigno by divine acceptation originally proceeding from the merit of christ's passion , because that makes them worthy . but this is christ's merit and not the true merit of our works . . works done by grace do merit eternal life de congruo from god's liberal disposition , whereby he hath appointed so to reward them . it beeing agreeable to him to give glory to them that love him . but this is an improper kind of merit , and can by no means support the tradition of true merit . durandus utterly denies any true merit of man towards god ; he doth not deny it in a large improper sense for such a condignity in our actions as god hath appointed in order to a reward ; which is by the grace of god in us ; but as it is taken for a free action to which a reward is in justice due ; because whatever we doe is more owing to the grace of god than to our selves ; but to make a debtor to us , we must not only pay an equivalent to what we owe , but we must go beyond it ; but to god and our parents we can never pay an equivalent , much less exceed it . and we can never merit by what god gives us , because the gift lays a greater obligation upon us . and he saith , the holding the contrary is temerarious and blasphemous . the two grounds of holding merit were , the supposing a proportion between grace and glory , and an equality between divine grace and glory in vertue , grace being as the seed of glory ; and to both these he answers . to the first , that the giving a reward upon merit is no part of distributive , but commutative justice , because it respects the relation of one thing to another , and not the mere quality of the person . to the second , that the value of an act is not considered with respect to the first mover , but to the immediate agent : and as to grace being the seed of glory , it is but a metaphorical expression , and nothing can be drawn from it . so that durandus concludes true merit with respect to god to be temerarious , blasphemous and impossible . ockam declares , that after all our good works god may without injustice deny eternal life to them who do them ; because god can be debtor to none ; and therefore whatever he doth to us , it is out of mere grace . and that there can be nothing meritorious in any act of ours , but from the grace of god freely accepting it . and therefore he must deny any true merit . gregorius ariminensis saith , that no act of ours though coming from grace to never so great a degree , is meritorious with god ex condigno of any reward either temporal or eternal ; because every such act is a gift of god ; and if it were at all meritorious , yet not as to eternal life , because there is no equivalency between them , and therefore it cannot in justice be due to it ; and consequently if god gives it , he must do it freely . but , saith he , god is said to be just , when he gives bona pro bonis , and merciful , when he gives bona pro malis ; not but that he is merciful in both , but because his mercy appears more in the latter ; and in the other , it seems like justice in a general sense from the conformity of the merit and the reward ; but in this particular retribution it is mere mercy . scotus affirms , that all the meritoriousness of our acts depends on divine acceptation in order to a reward ; and if it did depend on the intrinsick worth of the acts , god could not in justice deny the reward ; which is false ; and therefore it wholly depends on the good will and favour of god. bellarmin is aware of this , and he confesses this to be the opinion of scotus and of other old schoolmen . but how then do they hold the doctrine and tradition of true merit ? he holds that good works are properly and truly good . so do we , and yet deny merit . but he grants , that he denies that they bear any proportion to eternal life , and therefore they cannot be truly meritorious of it . bellarmin himself asserts that without the divine promise good works have a proportion to eternal life , and this he saw was necessary to defend the doctrine of the council of trent ; but then he adds , that there is no obligation on god's part to reward in such a manner without a promise . now here are two hard points , . to make it appear that there is such a meritoriousness in good works without a divine promise . . that if there were so , there is no obligation on god to reward such acts in point of justice . the former is so much harder to do from what he had proved before , c. . viz. that they are not meritorious without a promise ; and here he proves that they have no proportion to the reward , from scripture , fathers and reason ; because there is no obligation on god to do it , either from commutative or distributive justice ; and because we are god's servants . these are good arguments against himself for how can such acts then become meritorious without a promise ? if there be no proportion or equality on man's part , no justice on god's part to reward , how can they possibly be meritorious ? but this is too deep for me to comprehend . my business is tradition , and i have evidently proved that there was no tradition even in the church of rome for the true merit defined by the council of trent . it were easie to carry this point higher , by she wing that the fathers knew nothing of this doctrine , but that hath been done by many already , and it is needless in so plain a case . but i am now to give an account by what steps and occasions this doctrine came to be established . . from the common use of the word merit with the fathers and others , in another sense than it signified at first . the original signification of it is wages paid in consideration of service ; and from thence souldiers were said merere ( as budaeus observes , and thence came the word merces ) who truly deserved their pay by their labour and hazard ; but by degrees it came to signifie no more than merely to attain a thing ; which is sometimes used by good authors ; but in the declension of the latin tongue no sense of this word was more common than this , especially among ecclesiastical writers . who frequently used it in a sense wherein it was impossible to understand it in its original signification ; and it cannot imply so much as digne consequi , as in the instance brought by cassander ; when st. cyprian renders those words of st. paul , misericordiam merui , which we render , i obtained mercy ; but the council of trent allows there could be no true merit here . and st. augustin saith of those who murdered the son of god , illi veniam meruerunt qui christum occiderunt . and so the vulgar latin often uses it , gen. . . major est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear . jos. . . & non mererentur ullam clementiam . and in that sense it hath been used in the hymns and other offices of the church , as in that expression , o felix culpa quae talem ac tantum meruit habere redemptorem ! where it cannot be denied that the word is used in an improper sense . . when the school divines set themselves to explain the mysteries of theology , this plain and easie , but improper sense of merit , would not go down with som of them ; but they endeavoured to make out the notion of merit with respect to god , in its proper and original sense . the last considerable writer before the scholastick age , was st. bernard , and he pretended not to find out any such proportion between the best works and eternal life , that god should be bound in justice to bestow it as a recompence for them ; and the reason he gives is plain and strong , because those things men pretend to merit by , are themselves the gifts of god's grace , and so by them they are more bound to god , than god to them ; but besides , what are all mens merits to eternal glory ? st. bernard doth not speak of merits without grace , but with the supposition of it ; and bellarmin wisely left out the latter part , that he might seem to answer the former . hugo de sancto victore lived in the same age , who first shewed the way to school divinity , and upon the same place which st. bernard speaks of , non sunt condig nae , &c. he puts the question , how any temporal acts can merit that which is eternal ? and he denies any condignity , because there is more in the reward than there was in the merit ; but then he adds , that there may be a threefold comparison of things ; either as to themselves , as a horse for a horse , money for money ; or according to equity , either in punishments or rewards ; or by pact or agreement , as when a good summ is promised for a little work ; and this , saith he , god hath made known to mankind as to future rewards and punishments . which plainly shews , he understood nothing of the proportion between acts of grace , and an eternal happiness ; but resolved all into the favour and mercy of god. peter lombard , called the master of the sentences , saith , nothing of any condignity or proportion in our works to the reward ; but , he saith , they are themselves god 's gifts , and that the reward it self is from the grace of god , and quotes the noted saying of st. augustin , cum coronat deus merita nostra , nihil aliud coronat quam dona sua . but still this is nothing but grace and favour in god , first in enabling us to do good works , and then in rewarding them . bandinus wrote a book of the sentences much about the time p. lombard did , with so much agreement of method and expressions , that it is not known which took from the other . genebrard hath produced this passage out of him , debet , inciviliter de deo dicitur , quia nihil omnino nobis debet , nisi ex promisso . if it be so rude to say god owes any thing to his creatures but by promise , he could not imagine any condignity in good works , to which a reward is due in justice . and genebrard thinks he had reason to deny , that god can be made a debtor to us by any of our works . robertus pullus , who wrote another book of the sentences about the same time , mentioning that place , non sunt condignae , &c. he saith , because our works are not sufficient , being small and temporal , god by his mercy makes it up ; which not onely shews that god doth reward beyond our merit , but that there is no proportion between the best works and eternal glory . but by the time of gulielmus antissiodorensis , there were two parties in the church about this point ; some , he saith , denied any merit of eternal life , ex condigno , and others asserted it ; and after laying down the arguments on both sides , he concludes for the affirmative ; but in answer to the place , non sunt condignae , &c. he saith they are not ad proportionaliter merendum , but they are ad simpliciter merendum ; so that still he denied any proportion , though he held simple merit . but thomas aquinas coming after him , denies that there can be any simple merit with respect to god , because that cannot be where there is so great inequality ; and so there can be no equal justice between them , but ac●ording to a proportion ; which he afterwards explains , viz. as to the substance and freedom of our good works there is onely a congruity ; but as they proceed from divine grace , so they are meritorious of eternal life , ex condigno . this doctrine had some followers in the schools , but not many in comparison of those who opposed it , as appears by what is said already . richardus de mediavilla , though a franciscan , follows herein the doctrine of aquinas , and asserts , that by acts of free will , informed by grace , a man may merit eternal life , ex condigno , and he adds somewhat more , potest certissime ; and he uses the same answers to the objections which the other did . and nich. de orbellis follows richardus , so that aquinas his doctrine had prevailed beyond his own school . but it was as vehemently opposed by others of that fraternity , among whom cardinal hosius mentions stephanus brulifer , who maintained , that no act of grace , how good soever , was worthy of eternal life . paulus burgensis , though he is said to have been converted from being a jew , by reading aquinas , yet utterly dissented from him in this matter : for he saith , that no man can by the ordinary assistance of grace merit eternal life ex condigno , and therefore the mercy of god is most seen in heaven . however the reputation of aquinas might gain upon some , yet this was very far then from being a catholick tradition . but no council ever interposed its authority in this matter , till the council of trent , which resolved to carry the points in difference to the height , and to establish every thing that was questioned . nothing had been more easie than to have given satisfaction in this matter , considering what pighius and contarenus , and even genebrard , had yielded in it ; but there the rule was , that every thing that was disputed , must be determined first , and then defended . and so it hath happened with this decree , which , lest we should think the matter capable of softening , hath been since asserted in the highest manner . bellarmin asserts good works of themselves , and not merely by compact , to be meritorious of eternal life , so that in them there is a certain proportion and equality to eternal life . costerus saith , that in works of grace , there is an equality between the work and the reward . suarez , that they have an intrinsecal dignity , whereby they become worthy of eternal life . vasquez , that there is an equality of dignity between good works and eternal life , without which a promise could not make true merit . the rhemists say , that good works are truly and properly meritorious , and justly worthy of everlasting life ; and that thereupon heaven is the just due , and just stipend , crown or recompence , which god by his justice oweth to the persons so doing by his grace . and again , that good works are meritorious , and the very cause of salvation . so far that god should be unjust , if he rendred not heaven for the same . phil. gamachaeus , a late professour of divinity in the sorbon , speaks it roundly , that the council of trent did plainly mean to establish merit ex condigno , and that all catholicks are agreed in it . the last defender of the council of trent within these few years , saith , that there is an intrinsecal condignity in good works , whereby they bear a proportion commensurate with the glory of heaven . and without such doctrine as this , he doth not think the council of trent can be defended in this matter . if after all it be said , that this is a mere subtilty concerning the proportion an act of grace bears to the state of glory ; i answer , the more to blame they , who have made and imposed it as a matter of faith , as the council of trent hath done with an anathema , and that without any pretence from catholick tradition . but what made the council of trent so much concerned for a scholastick subtilty ? there was a deep mystery lay in this , they were wise enough to frame the decree so , as to avoid offence , and to make it appear plausible , but it was enough to the people to understand that the merit of good works was allowed , and they were to believe the priests , both as to the good works they were to do , and as to the putting them into a state of grace , to make them capable of meriting . and this was the true reason of the anathema , against those who should deny the true merit of good works . v. of the number of sacraments . the council of trent pronounces an anathema in these words , if any one saith that the sacraments of the new law were not all appointed by jesus christ our lord , or that they were more or fewer than seven , viz. baptism , confirmation , eucharist , penance , extreme unction , orders and matrimony , or that any one of these is not truly and properly a sacrament , let him be anathema . but what is it to be truly and properly a sacrament ? it had been very reasonable to have defined a sacrament first truly and properly , before such an anathema passed . but that defect may be said to be supplied by the roman catechism , published by authority of the council ; and there we are told , that a sacrament is a sensible thing , which by divine institution hath a power of causing as well as signifying holiness and righteousness . so that to a true and proper sacrament two things are necessary : . that it be of divine institution . . that it confer grace on those who partake of it . and by these we must examin the catholick tradition about the number of sacraments . bellarmin saith , that all their divines , and the whole church for years , viz. from the time of the master of the sentences , have agreed in the number of the seven sacraments . here we see is a bold appeal to tradition for years ; but although , if it were proved , it cannot be sufficient to prove an apostolical tradition ; for the fathers might for a thousand years have held the contrary ; and i do not think one clear testimony can be produced out of antiquity for that number of sacraments , truly so called ; yet i shall at present wholly wave the debate of the former times , and confine my self to bellarmin's years ; and i hope to make it appear there was no universal tradition for it within his own time . for alexander hales ( who wrote , saith possevin , his summ of divinity by order of innocent iv. and it was approved by alexander iv. with seventy divines , ) affirms , there were but four proper sacraments ; now if this were the catholick tradition then , that there were seven proper sacraments , how could this doctrine pass , and be so highly approved ? he saith farther , that christ himself only appointed two , viz. baptism and the lord's supper ; and for the rest , he saith , it may be presumed the apostles did appoint them by christ's direction , or by divine i●spiration . but how can that be , when he saith , the form even of those he calls proper sacraments , was either appointed by our lord or by the church ? how can such sacraments be of divine institution , whose very form is appointed by the church ? he puts the question himself , why christ appointed the form only of two sacraments , when all the grace of the sacraments comes from him ? he answers , because these are the principal sacraments which unite the whole man in the body of the church by faith and charity . but yet this doth not clear the difficulty , how those can be proper sacraments , whose form is not of divine institution ; as he grants in the sacrament of penance and orders , the form is of the churches appointment . and this will not only reach to this gre●t school divine , but to as many others as hold it in the churches power to appoint or alter the matter and form of some of those they call sacraments . for , however they may use the name , they can never agree with the council of trent in the nature of the seven sacraments , which supposes them to be of divine institution , as to matter and form. and so the divines of the church of rome have agreed since the council of trent . bellarmin hath a chapter on purpose to shew , that the matter and form of sacraments are so certain and determinate , that nothing can be changed in them ; and this determination must be by god himself . which , he saith , is most certain among them ; and he proves it by a substantial reason , viz. because the sacraments are the causes of grace ; and no one can give grace but god , and therefore none else can appoint the essentials of sacraments but he , and therefore he calls it sacrilege to change even the matter of sacraments . suarez asserts , that both the matter and form of sacraments are determined by christ's institution , and as they are determined by him , they are necessary to the making of sacraments . and this ( he saith ) absolutely speaking , is de pide , or an article of faith. and he proves it from the manner of christ's instituting baptism and the eucharist , and he urges the same reason , because christ only can conf●r grace by the sacraments , and therefore he must appoint the matter and form of them . cardinal lugo affirms , that christ hath appointed both matter and form of the sacraments , which he proves from the council of trent . he thinks christ might have grant●d a commission to his church to appoint sacraments , which he would make efficacious , but he reither believes that he hath done it , or that it was fitting to be done . petr●s à sancto joseph saith , that although the council of trent doth not expresly affirm the sacraments to be immediately instituted by christ ; yet it is to be so understood . and although the church may appoint sacramentalia , i. e. rites about the sacraments ; yet christ himself must appoint the sacraments themselves ; and he concludes , that no creature can have authority to make sacraments conferring grace ; and therefore he declares that christ did appoint the forms of all the sacraments himself , although we do not read them in scripture . if now it appears that some even of the church of rome before the council of trent , did think it in the churches power to appoint or alter the matter and form of some of those they called sacraments , then it will evidently follow they had not the same tradition about the seven sacraments which is there deliver'd . of chrism . the council of trent declares the matter of confirmation to be chrism , viz. a composition made of o●l of olive and balsam ; the one to signifie the clearness of conscience , the other the odour of a good fame , saith the council of florence . but where was this chrism appointed by christ ? marsilius saith from petrus aureolus , that there was a controversie between the divines and ca●●●ists about this matter ; and the latter affirmed that chris●● was not appointed by christ , but ast●●wards by th● church ; and that the pope could dispense with it ; which he could not do if it were of christ's insti●●●ion . petrus aureolus was himself a great man in the church of rome ; and after he had mentioned this difference , and named one brocardus ( or bernardus ) with other canonists for it ; he doth not affirm the contrary to be a catholick tradition ; but himself asserts the chrism not to be necessary to the sacrament of confirmation ; which he must have done if he had believed it of divine institution . gregory de valentia on the occasion of this opinion of the canonists , that confirmation might be without chrism , saith two notable things . . that they were guilty of heresie therein : for which he quotes dominicus soto . . that he thinks there were no canonists left of that mind . if not , the change was greater ; since it is certain they were of that opinion before . for guido brianson attests , that there was a difference between the divines and canonists about this matter ; for bernard the glosser and others held , that chrism was not necessary to it , because it was neither appointed by christ nor his apostles , but in some ancient councils . guil. antissiodorensis long before mentions the opinion of those who said that chrism was appointed by the church after the apostles times ; and that they confirmed only by imposition of hands ; but he doth not condemn it ; only he thinks it better to hold that the apostles used chrism , although we never read that they did it . but he doth not lay that opinion only on the canonists ; for there were divines of great note of the same . for , bonaventure saith , that the apostles made use neither of their matter nor form in their confirmation ; and his resolution is , that they were appointed by the governors of the church afterwards ; as his master alexander of hale had said besore him , who attributes the institution of both to a council of meaux . cardinal de vitriaco saith , that confirmation by imposition of hands was srom the apostles ; but by chrism from the church ; for we do not read that the apostles used it . thomas aquinas confesses there were different opinions about the institution of this sacrament ; some held that it was not instituted by christ nor his apostles , but afterwards in a certain council . but he never blames these for contradicting catholick tradition although he dislikes their opinion . cajetan on aquinas saith , that chrism with balsam was appointed by the church after the primitive times ; and yet now , this must be believed to be essential to this sacrament ; and by conink it seems to be heretical to deny it . for he affirms , that it seems to be an article of faith that confirmation must be with chrism , and no catholick , he saith , now denies it . which shews , that he believed the sense of the church not to have been always the same about it . but others speak out , as gregory de valentia , suarez , filliucius and tanner , who say absolutely , it is now a matter of faith to hold chrism to be essential to confirmation ; and that it is now not onely erroneous but heretical to deny it . their testimonies are at large produced by petrus aurelius , or the famous abbat of s. cyran . and even he grants it to be heresie since the council of trent ; but he yields that alensis , bonaventure and de vitri●co all held that opinion , which was made heresie by it . from whence it follows , that there hath been a change in the doctrine of the roman church about confirmation by chrism . for if it be heresie now to assert that which was denied without any reproach before , the tradition cannot be said to continue the same . thus we have seen there was no certain tradition for the matter of this sacrament , and as little is there for the form of it . which is , consigno te signo crucis , & confirmo te chrismate salutis in nomine patris , &c. but sirmondus produces another form out of s. ambrose , deus pater omnipotens , qui te regeneravit ex aqua & spirit● sancto , concessitque tibi peccata tua , ipse te ungat in vitam aeternam . and from thence concludes the present form not to be ancient ; and he confesses that both matter and form of this sacrament are changed . which was an ingenuous confession ; but his adversary takes this advantage from it ; that then the sacrament it self must ●e changed , if both matter and form were ; and then the church must be a very unfaithful keeper of tradition ; which i think is unanswerable . suarez proposes the objection fairly both as to the matter and form of this sacrament , that we read nothing of them in scripture , and tradition is very various about them ; but his answer is very insufficient , viz. that though it be not in scripture , yet they have them by tradition from the apostles ; now that is the very thing which sirmondus disproves , and shew that the church of rome is clearly gone off from tradition here both as to matter and form. of orders . i proceed to the sacrament of orders . it it impossible for those of the church of rome to prove this a true and proper sacrament , on their own grounds . for , they assert that such a one must have matter and form appointed by christ ; but that which they account the matter and form of orders were neither of them of christ's institution . the council of florence , they say , hath declared both ; the matter is that , by the delivery whereof the order is confer'd , as that of priesthood by the delivery of the chalice with the wine , and the paten with the bread ; and the form is , accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium in ecclesia pro vivis & mortuis . now if neither of these be owned by themselves to have been appointed by christ , then it necessarily follows , that they cannot hold this to be a true and proper sacrament . imposition of hands they grant was used by the apostles , and still continued in the christian church ; and bellarmin confesses that nothing else can be proved by scripture to be the external symbol in this sacrament . and others are forced to say , that christ hath not determined the matter and form of this sacrament particularly , but hath left a latitude in it for the church to determin it . which in my opinion is clear giving up the cause , as to this sacrament . it is observed by arcudius , that the council of trent doth not declare the particular matter and form of this sacrament , but only in general , that it is performed by words and external signs , sess. . c. . from whence he infers , that the outward sign was left to the churches determination ; and he saith , that christ did particularly appoint the matter and form of some sacraments , as of baptism , and the lord's supper , and extreme unction , but not of others ; and therefore in the sacrament of orders , he saith , christ determined no more but that it should be conveyed by some visible sign ; and so it may be either by the delivering the vessels , or by the imposition of hands , or both . but we are to consider that the council of florence was received by the council of trent ; and that it is impossible to reconcile this doctrin with the general definition of a sacrament by the roman catechism , viz. that it is a sensible thing which by the institution of christ hath a power of causing as well as signifying grace ; which implies that the external sign which conveys grace must be appointed by the authour of the sacrament it self ; or else the church must have power to annex divine grace to its own appointments . but here lies the main difficulty , the church of rome hath altered both matter and form of this sacrament from the primitive institution ; and yet it dares not disallow the ordinations made without them , as is notorious in the case of the greek church ; and therefore they have been forced to allow this latitude as to the matter and form of this sacrament ; although such an allowance doth really overthrow its being a true and proper sacrament on their own grounds . yet this doctrine hath very much prevailed of late among their chief writers . cardinal lugo confesses , that of old priesthood was conferred by imposition of hands with suitable words ; and he saw it himself so done at rome , without delivering the vessels by catholick greek bishops . he saith farther , that the fathers and councils are so plain for the conferring priesthood by imposition of hands , that no one can deny it ; but yet he must justifie the roman church in assuming new matter and form , which he doth by asserting that christ left the church at liberty as to them . nicol. ysambertus debates the point at large , and his resolution of it is , that christ determined only the general matter , but the particular sign was left to the church ; and he proves by induction that the church hath appointed the external sign in this sacrament , and as to the order of priesthood he proves that imposition of hands was of old an essential part of it , but now it is only accidental . franciscus hallier confesses the matter of this sacrament to have been different in different times . in the apostles times and many ages after , hardly any other can be found but imposition of hands , as he proves from scripture and fathers . he carries his proofs down as low as the synod of aken in the time of ludovicus pius , and the council of m●aux , a. d. . but afterwards he saith , that by the council of florence and the common opinion of their divines , the delivery of the vessels is the essential matter of this sacrament . here we find a plain change in the matter of a sacrament owned after the continuance of above years ; and yet we must believe the tradition of this church to have been always the same . which is impossible by the confession of their own writer . he cannot tell just the time when the change was made , but he concludes it was before the time of the vetus ordo romanus , which mentions the vessels . petrus a sancto joseph saith , that by christ's institution there is a latitude allowed in the matter of orders ; but he shews not where ; but he thinks , of it self it consists in the delivery of the vessels , but by the pope's permission imposition of hands may be sufficient . which is a doctrin which hath neither scripture , reason nor tradition for it . joh. morinus shews that there are five opinions in the church of rome about the matter of this sacrament . the first and most common is that it consists in the delivery of the vessels . the second , that imposition of hands together with that makes up the matter . the third , that they convey two different powers . the fourth , that unction with imposition of hands is the matter . the fifth , that imposition of hands alone is it ; and this , saith he , the whole church , greek and latin , ever owned ; but he saith , he can bring two demonstrations against the first , i. e. against the general sense of the now roman church . . from the practice of the greek church , which never used it . . from the old rituals of the latin church , which do not mention them ; and he names some above years old ; and in none of them he finds either the matter or form of this sacrament , as it is now practised in the church of rome ; nor in isidore , alcuinus , amalarius , rabanus maurus , valafridus strabo , although they wrote purposely about these things . he thinks it was first received into the publick offices in the tenth age. afterwards he saith , he wonders how it came about that any should place the essential matter of ordination only in delivery of the vessels , and exclude the imposition of hands , which alone is mentioned by scripture and fathers . and again he saith , it strikes him with astonishment that there should be such an alteration , both as to matter and form. and at last he saith , christ hath determined no particular matter and form in this sacrament . but still the difficulty returns , how this can be a true and proper sacrament , whose matter and form depend on divine institution , when they confess there was no divine institution for the matter and form in orders ? bellarmin ( as is proved before ) hath a chapter on purpose to prove that the matter and form of sacraments are so determin'd , that it is not lawful to add , diminish or alter them ; and he charges it on luther as a part of his heresie , that no certain form of words was required to sacraments : and he makes it no less than sacrilege to change the matter of them . so that all such who hold the matter and form in orders to be mutable , must either charge the church of rome with sacrilege , or deny orders to be a true and proper sacrament . of the sacrament of penance . the next new sacrament is that of penance . they are agreed , that matter and form are both necessary to a true and proper sacrament . the matter is the external or sensible sign ; and what is that in this new sacrament ? there are two things necessary to the matter of a sacrament : . that it be an external and sensible sign ; which s. augustin calls an element in that known expression , accedat verbum ad elementum , & fit sacramentum ; which bellarmin would have understood only of baptism there spoken of ; but s. augustin's meaning goes farther , as appears by his following discourse , and immediately he calls a sacrament verbum visibile ; and therefore cannot be applied to words as they are heard , for so they have nothing of a sacramental sign in them . how then can contrition make up any part of the matter of a sacrament , when it is not external ? how can confession , when it is no visible sign , nor any permanent thing as an element must be ? how can satisfaction be any part of the sacrament , which may be done when the effect of the sacrament is over in absolution ? . there must be a resemblance between the sign and the thing signified . which st. augustin is so peremptory in , that he denies there can be any sacrament where there is no resemblance . and from hence , he saith , the signs take the name of the thing signified ; as after a certain manner the sacrament of the body of christ is the body of christ. and this was looked on as so necessary , that hugo de sancto victore and peter lombard both put it into the definition of a sacrament , as suarez confesses , viz. that it is the visible appearance of invisible grace , which bears the similitude , and is the cause of it . but this is left out of the definition in the roman catechism , and suarez thinks it not necessary , for the same reason ; because it is very hard to understand the similitude between words spoken in confession , and the grace supposed to be given by absolution , any more than in the words of abrenunciation , and the grace of baptism . how can the act of the penitent signifie the grace conveyed in absolution ? for there is no effect of the sacrament till absolution , by their own confession ; and therefore the acts of the penitent being antecedent to it , and of a different nature from it , can have no such resemblance with it , as to signifie or represent it . however the councils of florence and trent have declared , that the acts of the penitent , viz. contrition , confession and satisfaction , are as the matter in the sacrament . quasi materia : what is this quasi materia ? why not , are the matter ? is not true matter necessary to a true sacrament ? if there be none true here , then this can be but quasi sacramentum , as it were a sacrament , and not truly and properly so . but if it be true matter , why is it not so declared ? but common sense hindred them , and not the difference between the matter here and in other sacraments . for in the definition of sacraments they were to regard the truth , and not the kind of matter . they are not solid and permanent matter , saith bellarmin ; not matter externally applied , saith soto ; not any substance but humane acts , saith vasquez ; but none of these clear the point . for still if it be true matter of a sacrament , why was it not so declared ? why such a term of diminution added , as all men must understand it , who compare it with the expressions about the other sacraments ? but they knew very well there was a considerable party in the church of rome , who denied the acts of the penitent to be the matter or parts of this sacrament . the council of colen ( but little before the council of trent ) excludes the acts of the penitent from any share in this sacrament : which bellarmin denies not , but blames gropperus , the supposed author of the enchiridion . but gropperus was thought fit to be a cardinal as well as bellarmin ; and certainly knew the tradition of the church if there had been any such in this matter . the council of florence , it is plain , he thought not to be a sufficient declarer of it . no more did joh. major , who after it denied this sacrament to consist of matter and form , or that the acts of the penitent were the parts of it . so did gabriel biel , who refutes the contrary opinion , and saith contrition can be no part , because it is no sensible sign ; and satisfaction may be done after it . so that he cuts off two parts in three of the matter of this pretended sacrament . guido brianson , who lived after the council of florence supposes no certain tradition in the church about this matter ; but he sets down both opinions with their reasons , and prefers that which excludes the acts of the penitent from being parts of the sacrament ; although the florentine council had declared the contrary . durandus rejects two parts in three of those declared by the two councils , and for the same reasons mentioned by biel. ockam absolutely denies all three to be parts of the sacrament . and so did scotus before him ; whose words are remarkable , de poenitentiae sacramento dico , quod illa tria nullo modo sunt partes ejus , viz. these three are by no means any part of the sacrament of penance ; and yet the council of trent not only declares that they are so , but denounces an anathema against him that denies them to be required , as the matter of the sacrament of penance . and let any one by this judge what catholick tradition it proceeded upon ; when some of the greatest divines in the church of rome were of another opinion . as to the form of this sacrament the council of trent denounces an anathema against thesewho affirm absolution to be only declarative of the remission of sins : and yet i shall prove that this was the more current doctrin , even in the church of rome , up to the master of the sentences . gabriel biel saith , the ancient doctors did commonly follow it ; but it was supposed by scotus , because it seemed to take off from the efficacy of absolution , and consequently make it no sacrament , which is a cause of grace . but after he hath set down scotus his arguments , he saith , that opinion were very desirable , if it had any foundation in scripture or fathers . and to his arguments he answers , that true contrition obtains pardon with god , before sacerdotal absolution , but not with the church ; and that contrition supposes a desire of absolution ; which will never hold to make absolution to confer the grace of remission , if the sin be really forgiven before . for what is the desire of the penitent to the force of the sacrament administred by the priest ? and he saith , they all grant , that by true and sufficient contrition the sin is forgiven without the sacrament in act , i. e. the actual receiving absolution . so that here was an universal tradition as to the power of contrition , but in the other they had different opinions . marsilius saith , that god forgives sin upon contrition authoritatively ; the priests absolution is ministerial in the court of conscience , and before the church . and those sins which god ●irst absolves from principally and authentically , the priest afterwards absolves from in right of the church , as its minister . tostatus saith , that the priests absolution follows god's . ockam , that the priests then bind and loose , when they shew men to be bound or loosed ; and for this he relies on the master of the sentences . thomas de argentina , that the power of the keys doth extend to the remission of the fault which was done before by contrition ; but it tends to the increase of grace in the person . gulielmus antissiodore , that contrition takes away the guilt and punishment of sin , as to god and conscience , but not as to the church , for a man is still bound to undergo the penance which the church enjoyns him . bonaventure , that absolution presupposes grace ; for no priest would absolve any one whom he did not presume god had absolved before . alexander hales , that where god doth not begin in absolution , the priest cannot make it up . but the master of the sentences himself most fully handles this point ; and shews from the fathers , that god alone can remit sin both as to the fault and the punishment due to it . and the power of the keys , he saith , is like the priests judgment about leprosie in the levitical law , god healed the person , and the priest declared him healed . or as our saviour first raised lazarus , then gave him to his disciples to be loosed . he is loosed before god , but not in the face of the church but by the priests judgment . another way , he saith , priests bind by enjoyning penance , and they loose by remitting it , or readmitting persons to communion upon performing it . this doctrin of peter lombard's is none of those in quibus magister nontenetur ; for we see he had followers of great name , almost to the council of trent . but it happened , that both th. aquinas and scotus agreed in opposing this doctrin ; and the franciscans and dominicans bearing greatest sway in the debates of the council of trent , what they agreed in , passed for catholick tradition . and vasquez is in the right when he saith , this doctrin was condemned by the council of trent ; and so was scotus , when he said , that it did derogate from the sacrament of penance ; for in truth it makes it but a nominal sacrament , since it hath no power of conferring grace ; which the council of trent makes necessary to a true and proper sacrament . the main point in this debate is , whether true contrition be required to absolution or not ? which scotus saw well enough and argues accordingly . for none of them deny , that where there is true contrition , there is immediately an absolution before god ; and if this be required before the priests absolution , he can have no more to do , but to pronounce or declare him absolved . but if something less than contrition do qualifie a man for absolution , and by that grace be conveyed , then the power of absolution hath a great and real effect ; for it puts a man into a state of grace which he had not been in without it . and from hence came the opinion , that attrition with absolution was sufficient ; and they do not understand the council of trent's doctrin of the sacrament of penance , who deny it , as will appear to any one that reads the th chapter of the sacrament of penance , and compares it with the , and canons about sacraments in general . it is true that contrition is there said to have the first place in the acts of the penitent ; but observe what follows : true contrition reconciles a man to god , before he receives this sacrament . what hath the priest then to do , but to declare him reconciled ? but it saith not without the desire of it . suppose not , yet the thing is done upon the desire , & therefore the priests power can be no more than declarative . and that such a desire is so necessary as without contrition avails not , is more than the council hath proved , and it is barely supposed , to maintain the necessity of going to the priest for absolution ; and so it will be no more than a precept of the church , and not a condition of remission in the sacrament of penance . but afterwards , it declares that imperfect contrition or attrition doth dispose a man for the grace of god in this sacrament ; and by the general canons , the sacraments do confer grace where men are disposed . so that the council of trent did rightly comprehend the force of the power of absolution , which it gave to the priest in the sacrament of penance . but what catholick tradition could there be for the doctrin of the council of trent in thismatter , when hadrian . so little before it declares , it was a great difficulty among the doctors , whether the keys of priesthood did extend to the remission of the fault ? and for the negative he produces pet. lombard , alex. alens . and bonaventure ; and saith , that opinion is probable , because the priests power of binding and loosing is equal ; and as they cannot bind where god doth not , for they cannot retain the sins of a true penitent ; so neither can they loose where god doth not , i. e. where there is not true contrition . but because he saith others held the contrary opinion , and had probability on their side too , therefore he would determine nothing . notwithstanding this , in a few years after , the council of trent finds no difficulty , no probability in the other opinion ; but determines as boldly , as if there had been an universal tradition their way ; whereas the contrary cannot be denied by any that are conversant in the doctrin of their schools . but it was the mighty privilege of the council of trent , to make the doctrins of thomas and scotus , when they agreed , to be articles of faith ; and to denounce anathema's against opposers , although they reached to some of the greatest divines of their own church , within bellarmin's compass of years . of extreme unction . we are now to examin another pretended sacrament , viz. of extreme unction . the council of trent declares this to be a true and proper sacrament , and denounces an anathema against him that denies it to be instituted by christ , and published by st. james ; or that it confers grace and remission of sins ; or that affirms it was appointed for bodily cures . it farther declares from the place of st. james interpreted by tradition , that the matter is oil consecrated by the bishop ; the form , that which is now used , per istam unctionem , &c. the effect , the grace of the holy ghost in purging away the remainder of sin , and strengthening the soul ; and sometimes bodily cures , when it is expedient for the health of the soul. so that the primary intention of this sacrament must respect the soul , otherwise it is granted , it could not be a true and proper sacrament . so suarez saith in this case , if the external sign be not immediately appointed for a spiritual effect , it cannot prove a true sacrament of the new law ; no not although the bodily cure were designed for the strengthning of faith. and from hence he proves , that when the apostles are said to anoint the sick , and heal them , mark . . this cannot relate to the sacrament of unction , because their cures had not of themselves an immediate respect to the soul. the same reason is used by bellarmin , sacramenta per se ad animam pertinent , ad corpus per accidens aut certe secundario . the same is affirmed by maldonat , although he differs from bellarmin about the apostles anointing with oil , which bellarmin denies to have been sacramental for this reason , but maldonat affirms it ; and answers other arguments of bellarmin , but not this . gregory de valentia carries it farther , and saith , that if the anointing with oil were only a symbol of a miraculous cure , it could be no sacrament ; for that is a medium to convey supernatural grace , and then it would last no longer than the gift of miracles . so that we have no more to do , but only to prove that by the tradition of the church st. james his anointing was to be understood with respect to bodily cures in the first place . we cannot pass over so great a man as cajetan , who wrote on that place of st. james , not long before the council of trent , and a good while after the council of florence , which relies on this place for this sacrament of unction . but cajetan saith , it doth not relate to it , because the immediate effect is the cure of the party in saint james ; but in this sacrament the direct and proper effect is remission of sins . all that catharinus hath to say against this , is , that the bodily cure is not repugnant to it ; but what is this to the purpose , when the question is , what is primarily designed in this place ? the school divines , from peter lombard , had generally received this for a sacrament ; but the canonists denied it , as appears by the gloss on c. vir autem de secund . nuptiis decret . gregor . tit. . where it is said , that this unction might be repeated , being no sacrament but only prayer over a person . the roman correctors cry out it is heresie by the council of trent ; but the glosser knew no such thing ; and if it were so only by the council of trent , then not by any catholick tradition before . for , i suppose matter of heresie must reach to the canonists , as well as the divines . but the plainest determination of this matter will be by the ancient offices of the church ; for if they respected bodily cures in the first place , then it is owned there could be no tradition for any sacrament in this unction . in the ancient ordo romanus it is called benedictio olei ad omnem languorem quocunque tempore . i desire to know whether the oil so consecrated be chiefly designed for the body or the soul. and in the office it self , this place of st. james is mentioned : and then follows , te domine peritissimum medicum imploramus , ut virtutis tuae medicinam in hoc oleum propitius infundas . and a little after ; prosit pater misericordiarum , febribus & dysenteria laborantibus , prosit paralyticis , caecis & claudis simulque vexatitiis , with abundance more ; which manifestly shews that this consecrated oil was intended primarily for the cure of diseases . in the ambrosian form , the prayer is , infunde sanctificationem tuam huic oleo , ut ab his quae unxerit membra , fugatis insidiis adversariae potestatis , susceptione praesentis olei , sancti spiritus gratia salutaris debilitatem expellat & plenam conferat sospitatem , where the effect relates to the soundness of the members anointed , and not to the sins committed by them . in the gregorian sacramentary , published by menardus , there is a prayer wherein this place of st. james is mentioned ; and presently it follows , cura quaesumus redemptor noster gratia spiritus sancti languores istius infirmi , &c. and immediately before the anointing , sana domine infirmum istum , cujus ossa turbata sunt , &c. and while he was anointing , the patient was to say , sana me domine ; and where the pain was greatest , he was to be so much more anointed , ubi plus dolor imminet amplius perungatur . while the rest were anointing , one of the priests was to pray , pristinam & immelioratam recipere merearis sanitatem ; what was this but bodily health ? and yet this was per hanc sacramenti olei unctionem : after which follows a long prayer for recovery from pains and diseases . and such there are in the several offices published by menardus , in his notes ; although the general strain of them shews that they were of latter times , when the unction was supposed to expiate the sins of the several senses . cassander produces many instances to shew , that the prayers and hymns , and the form of anointing did respect bodily health . in one he finds this form , in nomine patris , & filii , & spiritus sancti accipe sanitatem . not the health of the mind , but the body . maldonat takes notice of cassander's offices , and the expressions used in them ; but he gives no answer to the main design of them . but three things he owns the church of rome to have varied from the ancient tradition in , with respect to this sacrament . . as to the form ; the council of trent owns no other but that now used , per istam unctionem , &c. but maldonat confesses it was indicative , ego te ungo , &c. or ungo te oleo sancto , &c. and he runs to that shift , that christ did not not determin any certain form ; whereas the council of trent saith , the church understood by tradition the other to have been the form. here the council of trent makes an appeal to tradition , and is deserted in it , by one of its most zealous defenders ; and gamachaeus affirms this to be an essential change ; and he thinks the sacrament not to be valid in another form. s●arez thinks the other form not sufficient . but maldonat affirms the other form was used ; and so at that time , there was no s●crament of extreme unction , because not administred in a valid or sufficient form. and yet in the gregorian office the form is indicative , inungo te de oleo sancto , &c. so in that of ratoldus , ungo te oleo sanctificato in nomine patris , &c. in the tilian codex , inungo te in nomine patris , & filii , & spiritus sancti , oleo sancto atque sacrato , &c. in the codex remigii the general forms are indicative , ungo te oleo sancto , &c. but there being a variety of forms set down , among the rest there is one , per istam unctionem dei , &c. which afterwards came to be the standing form ; and yet the council of trent confidently appeals to tradition in this matter . which shewed how very little the divines there met were skilled in the antiquities of their own church . suarez shews his skill when he saith , the tradition of the roman church is infallible in the substance of this sacrament , and that it always used a deprecative form ; but maldonat knew better , and therefore on their own grounds their tradition was more than fallible ; since the roman church hath actually changed the form of this sacrament . . maldonat observes another change , and that is as to the season of administring it . for the council of trent saith it ought to be in exitu vitae , and therefore it is called sacramentum exeuntium , the sacrament of dying persons ; but maldonat saith , it is an abuse to give it only to such ; for , in the ancient church , they did not wait till the party were near death ; but , he saith , it was given before the eucharist , and that not once , but for seven days together , as is plain , he saith , in the ancient ms. offices ; and he quotes albertus magnus for it . so that here is another great change in the roman tradition observed and owned by him . . in not giving it now to children ; for in the ancient writers he saith , there is no exception , but it was used to all that were sick ; and he quotes cusanus for saying expresly that it was anciently administred to infants . but the reason of the change was the doctrin of the schoolmen ; for with their admirable congruities they had fitted sacraments for all sorts of sins ; as bellarmin informs us ; baptism against original sin , confirmation against infirmity , penance against actual mortal sin , eucharist against malice , orders against ignorance , matrimony against concupiscence ; and what is now left for extreme unction ? bellarmin saith , they are the remainders of sin ; and so saith the council of trent . but what remainders are there in children , who have not actually sinned , and original sin is done away already ? therefore the church of rome did wisely take away extreme unction from children ; but therein maldonat confesses it is gone off from tradition . i know alegambe would have maldonat not believed to be the author of the books of the sacraments ; but the preface before his works hath cleared this beyond contradiction from the mss. taken from his mouth with the day and year compared with the copy printed under his name . but if maldonat may be believed , the church of rome hath notoriously gone off from its own tradition as to this sacrament of extreme unction . of matrimony . the last new sacrament is that of matrimony ; which having its institution in paradise , one would wonder how it came into mens heads to call it a sacrament of the new law , instituted by christ ; especially when the grace given by it supposes mankind in a fallen condition . hower the council of trent denounces an anathema against him that saith that matrimony is not truly and properly a sacrament , one of the seven of the evangelical law , instituted by christ. that which is truly and properly a sacrament must be a cause of grace , according to the general decrees about the nature of sacraments . so that those who do not hold the latter , must deny the former . now that there was no tradition even in the roman church for this , i prove from the confession of their own most learned divines since the council of trent . vasquez confesses that durandus denies that it confers grace , and consequently that it is truly a sacrament , ( but he yields it in a large improper sense ) and that the canonists were of his opinion ; and that the master of the sentences himself asserted no more than durandus . and which adds more to this , he confesses that soto durst not condemn this opinion as heretical , because thomas , bonaventure , scotus and other schoolmen did only look on their own as the more probable opinion . but , saith he , after the decree of eugenius and the council of trent it is heretical . gregory de valentia saith the same thing , only he adds that the master of the sentences contradicts himself . so certain a deliverer was he of the churches tradition ; and wonders that soto should not find it plainly enough in the councils of florence and trent , that a true sacrament must confer grace . maldonat yields , that durandus and the canonists denied matrimony to be a proper sacrament , but he calls them catholicks imprudently erring . bella●min denies it not ; but uses a disingenuous shift about durandus , and would bring it to a logical nicity , whereas 〈◊〉 very arguments he pretends to answer , sh●w pl●●●●y that he denied this to be a true and proper sacrament . but he offers something considerable about the canonists if it will hold . . that they were but a few , and for this he quotes navarr , that the common opinion was against them ; for which he mentions the rubrick de spons . but i can find nothing like it through the whole title ; and it is not at all probable that such men as hostiensis and the glosser should be ignorant of , or oppose the common opinion . hostiensis saith plainly , that grace is not conferr'd by matrimony , and never once mentions any opinion among them against it ; and the glosser upon gratian affirms it several times , caus. . q. c. honorantur , in hoc sacramento non confertur gratia spiritus sancti sicut in aliis . the roman correctors could not bear this ; and say in the margin , immo confert ; this is plain contradicting ; but how is it proved from the canon law ? they refer to dist. . c. his igitur , v. pro beneficiis . thither upon their authority i go ; and there i find the very same thing said , and in the same words ; and it is given as a reason why symony cannot be committed in matrimony as in other sacraments , and in both places we are referr'd to q. . c. connubia , and to . q. . c. quicquid invisibilis , the former is not very favourable to the grace of matrimony ; and in the latter the gloss is yet more plain , if it be possible , nota conjugium non esse de his sacramentis quae consotationem coelestis grati● tribuunt . there the correctors fairly refer us to the council of trent , which hath decreed the contrary . but that is not to our business , but whether the canonists owned this or not . and there it follows , that other sacraments do so signifie as to convey , this barely signifies . so that i think bellarmin had as good have given up the canonists , as to make so lame a defence of them . . he saith we are not to rely on the canonists for these things , but on the divines . but durand● saith , the canonists could not be ignorant of the doctrin of the roman church ; for some of them were cardinals ; and he gives a better reason , viz. that the sense of the roman church was to be seen in the decretals . for therefore marriage was owned to be a sacrament in the large sense , because of the decret . of lucius iii. extra de haeret . c. ad abolendam ; but the schoolmen argued from probabilities and niceties in this matter , which could not satisfie a man's understanding ; as appears by durandus his arguments , and bellarmin's answers to them . . where sacraments confer grace , there must be a divine institution of something above natural reason , but there is nothing of that kind in matrimony , besides the signifying the union between christ and his church ; and therefore it is only a sacrament in a large , and not in a proper sense . in answer to this bellarmin saith , that it both signifies and causes such a love between man and wife , as there is between christ and his church . but vasquez saith , that the resemblance as to christ and his church in matrimony , doth not at all prove a promise of grace made to it . and basilius pontius approves of what vasquez saith , and confesses , that it cannot be infer'd from hence that it is a true and proper sacrament . . here is nothing external added , besides the mere contract of the persons ; but the nature of a sacrament impli●s some external and visible sign . bellarmin answers , that it is not necessary there should be in this sacrament any such extrinsecal sign ; because it lies in a mere contract . and that i think holds on the other side , that a mere contract cannot be a sacrament , from their own definition of a sacrament . . the marriage of infidels was good and valid , and their baptism adds nothing to it ; but it was no sacrament before , and therefore not after . bellarmin answers , that it becomes a sacrament after . and so there is a sacrament without either matter or form ; for there is no new marriage . . marriage was instituted in the time of innocency , and is a natural dictate of reason , and therefore no sacrament . bellarmin answers , that it was no sacrament then , because there was no need of sacramental grace . and although the marriage of adam and eve did represent the union between christ and his church ; yet it was no proper sacrament . but how doth it prove that it is a sacrament upon any other account , under the gospel ? and if that doth not imply a promise of grace , then how can it now ? so that durandus his reasons appear much stronger than bellarmin's answers . but durandus urges one thing more , which bellarmin takes no notice of , viz. that this opinion of the canonists was very well known at that time , and was never condemned as contrary to any determination of the church . now , if there had been any constant tradition even of the church of rome against it , it is impossible these canonists should have avoided censure ; their opinion being so much taken notice of by the schoolmen afterwards . jacobus almain saith , it was a controversie between the canonists and divines , whether matrimony was a sacram●nt ; not all the divines neither ; for the confesses durandus and others seemed to agree with them . what universal tradition then had the council of trent to rely upon in this matter ? when all the cano●ists , according to almain , and some of the divines , opposed it ? he sets down their different reasons ; but never alledges matter of faith , or tradition against them , but only saith , the divines hold the other opinion , because matrimony is one of the seven sacraments . but on what was the opinion of the necessity of seven sacraments grounded ? what scripture , what fathers , what tradition was there , before peter lombard , for just that number ? the sense of the greek church about seven sacraments . but before i come to that , it is fit to take notice of what bellarmin lays great weight upon , both as to the number of the sacraments in general , and this in particular ; which is , the consent of both the greek and latin church for at least years . but i have shewed there was no such consent , as is boasted of even in the latin church . as to the greek church , he saith , it is an argument of universal tradition , when they had the same tradition even in their schism . to this i answer . . we do not deny that the latter greeks , after the taking constantinople by the latins , did hold seven mysteries ; which the latins render sacraments . for after there were latin patriarchs at constantinople , and abundance of latin priests in the eastern parts , they had perpetual disputes about religion ; and the latins by degrees did gain upon them in some points ; and particularly in this of seven sacraments , for the latins thought it an advantage to their church to boast of such a number of sacraments ; and the greeks that they might not seem to come behind them , were willing to embrace the same number . the first person among them who is said to have written about them , was simeon bishop of thessalonica , whom possevin sets at a greater distance , that the tradition might seem so much elder among them ; ( for he makes him to have lived years before his time ; ) but leo allatius hath evidently proved , that he lived not two hundred years before him , ( which is a considerable difference , ) for simeon dyed but six months before the taking of thessalonica , a. d. , as he proves from joh. anagnosta , who was present at the taking it . from hence it appers how very late this tradition came into the greek church . after him gabriel severus , bishop of philadelphia , wrote about the seven sacraments , and he lived at venice in arcudius his time , who wrote since possevin ; and crusius wrote to this gabriel a. d. , and he was consecrated by jeremias a. d. . so that neither his authority , or that of je●emias , can signifie any thing as to the antiquity of this tradition among the greeks . leo allatius talks of the old as well as modern greeks , who held seven sacraments , but he produces the testimony only of those who lived since the taking of constantinople ; as job the monk , simeon , johannes palaeologus , jeremias , gabriel , cyrillus berrhoensis , parthenius , and such like : but he very craftily saith , he produces these to let us see they have not gone off from the faith of their ancestors , whereas that is the thing we would have seen , viz. the testimony of the greeks before , and not afterwards . as to the ancient greeks , he confesses they say nothing of the number . de numero apud eos altum silentium est . and how could therebe a tradition in so much silence ? but some speak of some , and others of others , but all speak of all . this is a very odd way to prove a tradition of a certain number . for then , some might believe three , others four , others five , but how can this prove that all believed just seven ? however let us see the proof . but instead of that he presently starts an objection from the pretended dionysius areopagita , viz. that where he designs to treat of all the sacraments , he never mentions penance , extreme unction , and matrimony ; and after a great deal of rambling discourse , he concludes that he did ill to leave them o●t ; and that others answers are insufficient . he shews from tertullian , ambrose and cyril that the necessary sacraments are mentioned ; but where are the rest ? and we are now enquiring after them in the ancient greek church ; but they are not to be foun● . as one may confidently affirm , when one who professed so much skill in the greek church , as leo allatius , hath no more to say for the proof of it . . those greeks who held seven sacraments , did not hold them in the sense of the council o● trent . and that for two reasons . . they do not hold them all to be of divine institution . which appears by the patriarch jeremias his answer to the tubing divines , who at first seems to write agreeably to the church of rome in this matter , ( except about extreme unction ; ) but being pressed hard by them in their reply ; he holds to the divine institution of baptism , and the eucharist , but gives up the rest , as instituted by the churches authority . which is plain giving up the cause . how then comes bellarmin to insist so much on the answer of jeremias ? the reason was , that socolovius had procured from constantinople the patriarch's first answer , and translated and printed it ; upon which great triumphs were made of the patriarch's consent with the church of rome ; but when these divines were hereby provoked to publish the whole proceedings , those of the church of rome were unwilling to be undeceived ; and so take no notice of any farther answer . since the time of jeremias , the patriarch of alexandria , ( as he was afterwards , ) metrophanes critopulus published an account of the faith of the greek church ; and he saith expresly of four of the seven , that they are mystical rites , and equivocally called sacraments . and from hence it appears how little reason leo allatius had to be angry with caucus , a latinized greek , like himself , for affirming that the modern greeks did not look on these sacraments as of divine institution ; but after he hath given him some hard words , he offers to prove his assertion for him . to which end he not only quotes that passage of the patriarch jeremias , but others of job and gregorius ; from whence he infers , that five of the sacraments were of ecclesiastical institution , and he saith nothing to take it off . so admirably hath he proved the consent of the eastern and western churches ! . they do not agree in the matter , or form , or some essential part of them , with the council of trent , and therefore can make up no tradition for the doctrin of that council about the seven sacraments . this will be made appear by going through them . . of chrism . . as to the form , arcudius shews , that gabriel of philadelphia , cabasilas and marcus ephesius , all place the form in the consecration of it ; but the church of rome makes the form to lie in the words spoken in the use of it . . as to the minister of it . among the greeks it is commonly performed by the presbyter , though the bishop be present ; but the council of tr●nt denounces an anathema against him that saith , the bishop alone is not the ordinary minister of it . . as to the character . the council of trent declares that whosoever affirms that confirmation doth not imprint an indelible character , so as it cannot be repeated is anathematized ; but arcudius shews at large , that the modern greeks make no scruple of reiterating confirmation . but catumsyritus , another latinized greek , opposes arcudius herein ; and saith , that the use of chrism among the geeeks , doth not relate to the sacrament of confirmation , but was a symbolical ceremony relating to baptism ; and for this he quotes one corydaleus a man of great note in the patriarchal church at constantinople . therefore caucus had reason to deny that the greeks receive that which the latins call the sacrament of confirmation . and if this hold , then the tradition of the seven sacraments must fail in the greek church . for they deny that they have any such thing as a sacrament of confirmation distinct from baptism . . of the sacrament of penance . . the council of trent declares absolution of the penitent to be a judicial act , and denounces an anathema against him that denies it ; but the greek church uses a deprecative form , ( as they call it , ) not pronouncing absolution by way of sentence , but by way of prayer to god. which as aquinas observes , rather shews a person to be absolved by god than by the priest , and are rather a prayer that it may be done , than a signification that it is done ; and therefore he looks on such forms as insufficient . and if it be a judicial sentence , as the council of trent determines , it can hardly be reconciled to such a form , wherein no kind of judicial sentence was ever pronounced ; as arcudius grants ; and in extreme unction , where such a form is allowed , there is , as he observes , no judicial act. but he hopes at last to bring the greeks off by a phrase used in some of their forms , i have you absolved ; but he confesses it is not in their publick offices ; and their priests for the most part use it not . which shews it to be an innovation among the latinizing greeks , if it be so observed , which catumsyritus denies , and saith , he proves it only from some forms granted by patents , which are not sacramental ; and supposing it otherwise , he saith , it is foolish , false and erroneous to suppose such a form to be valid ; because it is no judicial act. . the council of trent makes confession of all mortal sins , how secret soever , to be necessary in order to the benefit of priestly absolution in this sacrament , and denounces an anathema against those that deny it ; but the greek church grants absolution upon supposition that they have not confessed all mortal sins : as appears by the form of the patriarch of antioch , produced by arcudius , and another form of the patriarch of constantinople , in jeremias his answer . arcudius is hard put to it , when to excuse this he saith , they only pray to god to forgive them ; for this is to own that a deprecative form is insufficient , and so that there is no sacrament of penance in the greek church . . of orders . the greek and latin churches differ , both as to matter and form. the council of trent anathematiseth those who deny a visible and exeternal priesthood in the new testament ; or a power of consecrating and offering the true body and bloud of christ , and of remitting and retaining of sins . and this two-fold power the church of rome expresses by a double form , one of delivering the vessels with accipe potestatem , &c. the other of imposition of hands , with accipe spiritum sanctum . but the greek church wholly omits the former , on which the greatest weight is laid in the latin church , and many think the essential form lies in it . when the office of ordination is over , the book of the liturgy , called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is delivered to the presbyter , but without any words ; and there is no mention of it in their rituals , either printed or mss. so likewise a parcel of consecrated bread is delivered by the bishop to him afterwards . and all the form is , the divine grace advances such an one to the office of a presbyter . if we compare this with the form in the council of florence , we shall find no agreement either as to matter or form , in this sacrament , between the greek and latin churches . for there the matter is said to be that by which the order is conferred , viz. the delivery of the chalice with wine , and the paten with the bread ; and the form , receive the power of offering sacrifice for the living and the dead . and it is hardly possible to suppose these two churches should go upon the same tradition . i know what pains arcudius hath taken to reconcile them ; but as long as the decree of eugenius stands , and is received in the church of rome , it is impossible . and catumsyritus labours hard to prove , that he hath endeavoured thereby to overthrow the whole order of priesthood in the roman church . . of extreme unction . bellarmin particularly appeals to the greek church for its consent as to this sacrament ; but if he means in the modern sense as it is deliver'd by the councils of florence and trent , he is extremely mistaken . . for the former saith , it is not to be given but to such of whose death they are afraid ; and the council of trent calls it the sacrament of dying persons . but the greeks administer their sacrament of unction to persons in health as well as sickness , and once a year to all the people that will ; which arcudius saith , is not only done by the illiterate priests , but by their patriarchs and metropolitans , &c. and they look on then as a supplement to the ancient penance of the church ; for they think the partaking of the holy oil makes amends for that : but this arcudius condemns as an abuse and innovation among them . but the original intention and design of it was for the cure and recovery of sick persons ; as arcudius confesses the whole scope of the office shews ; and in the next chapter he produces the prayers to that end . and the greeks charge the latins with innovation in giving this sacrament to those persons of whose recovery they have no hope . . the council of trent requires that the oil of extreme unction be consecrated by a bishop ; and this the doctors of the roman church , saith catumsyritus , make essential to the sacrament . but in the greek church the presbyters commonly do it , as arcudius shews at large . . of matrimony . the council of trent from making this a sacrament , denounces an anathema against those who do not hold the bond indissoluble , even in the case of adultery . and bellarmin urges this as his first reason , because it is a sign of the conjunction of christ with his church . but the greek church held the contrary ; and continues so to do , as both bellarmin and arcudius confess . so that though there be allow'd a consent in the number of sacraments among the modern greeks , yet they have not an entire consent with the roman church in any one of them . the sense of other eastern churches about the seven sacraments . but to shew how late this tradition of seven sacraments came into the greek church , and how far it is from being an universal tradition , i shall now make it appear that this number of sacraments was never received in the other christian churches , although some of them were originally descended from the ancient greek church . i begin with the most eastern churches , called the christians of st. thomas in the east-indies . and we have a clear proof that there was no tradition among them about the seven sacraments . for when alexius meneses , archbishop of goa , undertook to reform them according to the roman church , ( if that may be called a reformation ) and held a council at diamper to that purpose , a. d. . he found that they had no sacrament of chrism , or penance , or extreme unction , of which they were utterly ignorant , saith jarricus from antonius goveanus , who was prior of goa , and published the whole proceedings . which book was translated out of portugese by joh. baptista a glano into french , and printed at brussels , . from whence the author of the critical history of the faith and customs of the eastern nations hath given an account of these things ; and he saith , they owned but three sacraments , baptism , eucharist and orders ; that they knew nothing of the sacrament of chrism or extreme unction , and abhorred auricular confession . but in excuse of them he saith , that they joyned confirmation with baptism , as other eastern churches did ; that the sacrament of extreme unction as it is practised in the church of rome is known only to the latin church ; but the eastern church had the unction of s. james for the cure of diseases , as the greek church had . cotovicus affirms the same of the other eastern churches called chaldean , ( who are under the same patriarch with the christians of s. thomas ) that they knew nothing of the sacraments of confirmation and extreme unction . this patriarch is the same which is commonly called the patriarch of babylon ; whose residence is at mozal ; but called of babylon , because sele●cia , after the desolation of the true babylon had the name given to it ( as it were ●asie to prove , if it were pertinent to this design ) and upon the destruction of sele●cia the patriarch removed first to bagdat and then to mozal ; whose jurisciction extends over all those eastern christians , which are called nestorian . in the abyssine churches , godignus saith positively from those who had been conversant among them , that they knew nothing of the sacraments of chrism and extreme unction ; and that all the confession they have is g●neral and rare ; and that they have no bishops under the abuna , and believe the bond of matrimony easily dissolved . so that the tradition of seven sacraments is wholly unknown to them , but as it was imposed by the roman m●ssionaries ; which imposition was so ill received there and brought such confusion and disorders among them , that they are for ever banished . in the armenian churches , joh. chernacensis a latinized armenian saith , that the armenians owned not the seven sacraments , that they knew nothing of chrism and extre●● unction . here we see a general consent as to the total ignorance of two of the seven sacraments in these churches . but clemens galanus , who had been many years a missionary among the armenians endeavours to prove that they had the tradition of the seven sacraments ; but very unsuccessfully . for he produces none of their ancient authors for it : but he names vartanus whom he sets himself to confute afterwards ; and he confesses , that he took away the sacrament of penance , and made burial of the dead to be one of his seven . but more than that , he saith , the armenian churches have forbidden extreme unction as the nestorians had done auricular confession . so that nothing like a truly catholick tradition can be produced for the number of seven sacraments either in the church of rome or elsewhere , within bellarmin's own term of years . i am now to give an account when this number of seven sacraments , came into the church , and on what occasions it was advanced to be a point of faith. the first i can find who expresly set down the number of seven sacraments , was hugo de s. victore , who lived in the twelfth century , not long before peter lombard . but that there was an innovation made by him in this matter , i shall make appear by comparing what he saith with what others had delivered who were short of the primitive fathers . rupertus tuitiensis lived much about the same time in germany that hugo did at paris , and he gives a different resolution of the question about the principal sacraments : for he names no more than baptism , the eucharist and the double gift of the holy ghost ; and , saith he , these three sacraments are necessary instruments of our salvation . but hugo saith , there are seven principal sacraments ; ( which sufficiently shews , that he thought there were other sacraments besides these ; and so he expresses his mind in another place , where he makes all symbolical signs to be sacraments , ) but the principal sacram●nts he saith , are those which convey grace . fulbertus carnotensis lived in france in the beginning of the tenth century ; and where he discourses of the sacraments he names no more than baptism and the eucharist . he calls the body and blood two sacraments , and so did rabanus maurus before him . who lived in the ninth age , and was a person of great reputation ; and he names no more sacraments than baptism , and chrism , and the eucharist ; where he proposes to treat of them ; and had as just an occasion to have mention'd the rest , as hugo had . but bellarmin saith , he handled all wherein the clergy were concerned , and therefore omitted none but matrimony . but were not they concerned to know whether it were a sacrament or not ? the question is not whether he mention'd the things , but whether he called them sacraments ; but i do not find extreme unction so much as mention'd by him in the place he refers us to . in the same ●ge , walafridus strabo , where he purposely discourseth of the sacraments names no more than rabanus maurus ; and this had been an inexcusable omission in such who treat of ecclesiastical offices ; and were to inform persons of their duties about them . and therefore i lay much more weight on such an omission in them than in any other writers . i know paschasius radbertus mentions no more than three sacraments , baptism , chrism and the eucharist ; but bellarmin and sirmondus say he mention'd them for example sake , because it was not his business to handle the number of sacraments ; but this answer will by no means serve for those who purposely treated of these matters ; and therefore an omission in them is an argument that they knew nothing of them . and this argument will go yet higher ; for in the beginning of the seventh century , isidore of sevil treated of these matters , and he names no more than baptism , chrism and the eucharist ; and he tells us , they are therefore called sacraments , because under the covering of corporeal things a secret and invisible virtue is convey'd to the pa●takers of them . and this very passage is entred into the canon law c. . q. c. multi secularium , &c. and there it passes under the name of gregory i. but the roman correctors restore it to isidore . but it may be objected , that ivo carnotensis made a collection of canons before gratian ; who handles the sacraments in his first and second part ; and he seems to make the annual chrism to be a sacrament ; for which he quotes an epistle of fabianus , who saith it ought to be consecrated every year , quia novum sacramentum est ; and this , he saith , he had by tradition from the apostles . which testimony the modern schoolmen rely upon for a sufficient proof of this apostolical tradition . but this epistle is a notorious counterfeit , and rejected by all men of any tolerable ingenuity in the church of rome . thus we trace the original of some pretended apostolical traditions into that mass of forgeries , the decretal epistles , which was sent abroad under the name of isidore . ivo produces another testimony from innocentius i. to prove that extreme unction was then owned for a kind of sacrament , and therefore ought not to be given to penitents . if this rule holds , then either matrimony was no sacrament , or penitents might not marry ; but the canonists say even excommunicated persons may marry , but one of them saith , it is a strange sacrament excommunicated persons are allow'd to partake of . but this genus est sacramenti signifies very little to those who know how largely the word sacrament was used in elder times , from iertullian downwards . but our question is not about a kind of a sacrament , but strict and proper sacraments ; and if it had been then thought so , he would not have permitted any to administer it ; unless they will say it is as necessary to salvation as baptism , which none do . it appears from hence , that there was then a custome among some in regard to s. james his words , if persons were sick , to take some of the chrism to anoint them , and to pray over them in hopes of their recovery ; but this was no sacrament of dying persons , as it is now in the church of rome . if it had been then so esteemed , s. ambrose ( or who-ever was the author of the book of sacraments ) would not have omitted it , and the other supernumeraries , when he purposely treats of sacraments ; the same holds as to s. cyril of jerusalem . and it is a poor evasion to say , that they spake only to catechumens ; for they were to be instructed in the means and instruments of salvation as they make all sacraments to be . and it is to as little purpose to say , that they do not declare there are but tw● ; for our business is to enquire for a catholick tradition for s●ven true and proper sacraments , , as the council of trent determines under an anathema . but if we compare the traditions for two and for seven together , the other will be found to have far greater advantage ; not only because the two are mention'd in the eldest writers , where the seven are not ; but because so many of the fathers agree in the tradition , that the sacraments were designed by the water and blood which came out of our saviour's side . so s. chrysostom , s. cyril of alexandria , leo magnus , but above all s. augustin who several times insists upon this ; which shews that they thought those two to be the true and proper sacraments of christianity ; however there might be other mystical rites which in a large sense might be called sacraments . as to the occasions of setting up this number of seven sacraments , they were these . . some pretty congruities which they had found out for them . the number seven they observe was in request in the levitical law , as to sacrifices and purifications . naaman was bid to wash seven times . and bellarmin in good earnest concludes that the whole scripture seemed to foretell the seven sacraments by those things . but besides , he tells us of the seven things relating to natural life which these have an analogy with ; the seven sorts of sins these are a remedy against , and the seven sorts of vertues which answer to the seven sacraments . but none of all these prove any catholick tradition . . making no difference between mystical rites continued in imitation of apostolical practices , and true and real sacraments . imposition of hands for confirmation and ordination is allowed to be a very just and reasonable imitation of them ; and as long as the miraculous power of healing diseases continued , there was a fair ground for continuing the practice mentioned by s. james ; but there was no reason afterwards to change this into quite another thing , by making it a sacrament , chiefly intended for doing away the remainders of sin. . advancing the honour of the priesthood ; by making them so necessary for the actual expiation of all sorts of sins , and in all conditions . for no sacrament is rightly administred by the council of trent without the priest ; and therefore clandestine marriages are declared void by it . and it pronounces an anathema against those who say any others than priests can administer extreme unction ; however it appears that in the time of innocentius . any might make use of the chrism when it was consecrated by a bishop ; but they are grown wiser in the church of rome since that time ; and as they have altered a ceremony of curing into a sacrament of dying , so they have taken care that none but priests shall perform that last office , that the people may believe they can neither live nor dye without them . vi. of auricular confession . the council of trent declares , that the universal church always understood that christ did institute an entire confession of sins ; and that it is received by divine right to all who sin after baptism , because our lord jesus christ before his ascension into heaven , did leave priests as his vicars , to be presidents and judges , to whom all mortal sins were to be made known , and of which they were by the power of the keys to give sentence , so as either to remit or retain them . it farther saith , that the most holy and ancient fathers by a great and unanimous consent did use this secret sacramental confession from the beginning . and it denounces anathema's , . against him that denies the sacrament of penance to be of christ's institution . . against him that denies that our saviour's words , receive ye the holy ghost , whose sins ye remit they are remitted , &c. are to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining in the sacrament of penance , as the calick church always understood them . . against him that denies confession to be a part of it , or to have divine institution , and to be necessary to salvation ; as it relates to all mortal though secret sins . thus we see the sense of the council of trent in this matter ; and i shall now make it evident there was no such catholick tradition , as is here pretended for it , by the confession of their own writers . . as to the general sense of the church . . as to the founding it on john . those sins ye remit , &c. . as to the general sense of the church . maldonat reckons up seven several opinions among themselves about confession . . of those who denied it to be of divine right , but held it to be useful in the church ; and for this he quotes rhenanus and erasmus . . of those who make it to be onely of ecclesiastical institution ; and this , saith he , is the opinion of all the canonists . . of those who thought it came in by apostolical tradition ; of which he reckons theodore archbishop of canterbury , . of some divines who held it to be instituted only by st. james . . of others who held it to be of divine right , and not instituted by the apostles , but insinuated by christ ; and for this he quotes alexander hales , and bonaventure . . of some who thought it instituted in the old testament . , of those who held it instituted by christ , but not as a precept , but by way of council ; and for this he mentions scotus and his followers . vasquez reckons up among those whose opinions are not condemned , the canonists , erasmus , bonaventure , alexander hales , and scotus , who all differed from the council of trent . suarez mentions three opinions among them . of those who said it was instituted in the law of nature . . of those who attributed it to the law of moses . of those who d●nyed any institution of it by way of precept from christ in the law of grace ; and for this he quotes hugo de sancto victore , alexandèr hales , and bonaventure , and they went upon this ground , that no such institution could be proved either by scripture or tradition . gregory de valentia confesses , some catholick authors denied the divine institution of confession ; for which he produces the canonists , and erasmus and rhenanus . but he thinks they were not guilty of heresie , because they were not obstinate ; but that is not our business , which is to shew , that by their own confession there was not a constant catholick tradition in the church about it . natalis alexander , who hath lately pretended to answer daillè , confesses , that from the ninth to the thirteenth age , many catholicks did hold , that confession to god alone was sufficient to obtain remission of sins ; and he proves it from lombard , gratian and the canonists . but he saith it was no heresie in them , the point not being yet settled by a general council . boileau in his answer to daillè cannot deny that in the time of lombard and gratian men held several ways about this matter ; but he answers with thomas upon the sentences ; that it was an opinion then , but since the council of lateran it is become a heresie . but if it were no heretical opinion then , what becomes of infallible tradition ? if the church defines by tradition , that tradition must be proved before the definition , otherwise it hath no ground to proceed upon . the council of lateran under innocent iii. ( it seems ) made it a heresie to deny this sacramental confession . within much less than a century before it , lived peter lombard and gratian. peter lombard made it his business to collect a body of divinity out of the sentences of the fathers ; and his work hath been universally esteemed in the roman church . when he comes to state this point of confession out of the fathers , i. e. to give an account of the tradition of the church about it ; he tells us in the beginning , that learned men were of different opinions ; and for what reason ? because the doctors of the church seemed to deliver not only divers but contrary things , i. e. they had no certain and constant tradition about them . and when he comes to the point of confession to god only , he quotes for it , besides scripture , s. ambrose , and s. chrysostem , and prosper , and against it s. augustine and leo , and concludes himself for the latter ; but saith not a word more to shew that the constant tradition of the church had been for this opinion . gratian puts the same question , and for confession to god alone he quotes s. ambrose , s. augustine , and prosper , besides scripture , and argues largely for it after c. convertimini , &c. then he sets down the arguments on the other side from c. . and after c. . he sums up the force of them , and again after c. . and when he hath said all on one side and on the other , he concludes after c. . that he left all to the readers judgment ; for both opinions had wise and pious defenders ; and produces that saying as out of theodore's penitential ; that some think that we ought to confess only to god , as the greeks others that we ought to do it to the priest too , as almost all the church besides ; but then he adds , that confession to god purges away sin , but that to the priest shews how they are purged , i. e. by contrition . so the gloss interprets it . bellarmin thinks that , ut groeci , was foisted into the canon , and i shall not dispute against it , provided that which answers to it , ut tota ferè sancta ecclesta , be allowed to be so too , as the roman correctors do confess . boileau hath taken another course , for he saith , this whole distinction is without ground attributed to gratian ; but how doth he prove it ? from ant. augustinus his dialogue , where a ms. is cited that this was not gratian's , but an elder author 's . and what is gotten by this ? but the other answers , it must be gratian 's , because of the citation out of the digests , and other books of civil law then lately found . if this will not do , he saith , gratian hath many errours , as the roman correctors observe . yes truly do they ; and about this point several times ; for the councils of lateran and trent have otherwise determined . but what is all this to the tradition of the church in gratian's time ? innocent iii. in the council of lateran , enjoyns strictly the practice of confession once a year , under the penalty of excommunication , and of being deprived of christian burial ; but there is not a word of the churches tradition before , for the ground of it . but finding several opinions about it , and the waldenses then opposing it , he resolves by his authority to bind all persons to it . but after this the canonists allowed no more than ecclesiastical institution for it ; as is plain by the gloss on the canon law , dist. . de poenit. tit. in poenitentia ; but the roman correctours quote against it council . trident. sess. . c. . i. e. a council some years after , must tell what the tradition then was ; but the gloss saith , the greeks had no such tradition , and therefore were not bound to confession . so that we have no evidence for any catholick tradition in this matter , before the lateran council . . but the council of trent hath gone beyond the council of lateran , and hath fixed the divine right of confession on john . whose sins ye remit , &c. and therefore i am now to shew , by the confession of their own writers , that this hath not been the traditionary sense of this place . cajetan , not long before the council first sate , in his notes on this place confesses , that no precept of sacramental confession is contained in it . but how should it be of divine right in the sense of the council of trent , if there be no command for it ? tes , by cons quence , if they will obtain remission of sins ; but this can by no means be inferred from hence , because the remission of sins by baptism is implied in it ; but none of them plead for particular confession before baptism , in order to remission ; and therefore not after , unless some command of christ made it more necessary after baptism than before , vasquez saith , that cajetan means no more , than that it cannot be proved out of this place ; but catharinus saith , that neither there nor in any other place doth cajetan allow , that auricular confession can be proved out of scripture . gabriel biel confesses , he cannot find sufficient force to conclude the necessity of confession from the power of absolution here granted ; because it may be valid upon voluntary confession of the party ; and therefore he resolves it into an unwritten tradition . guide brianson takes great pains to prove it out of this place , but at last yields , that christ's instituting such a power , doth not bind persons to confess their faults to them that have it . for the power of retaining doth not imply that no sins are retained which are not retained by the priest upon confession ; neither then doth the power of absolution imply that no sins are remitted but such as are confessed to a priest. and therefore he betakes himself as biel doth , to unwritten tradition ; and so doth nicol. de orbellis . jac. de almain debates the matter at large ; and he says only that it is a probable opinion , that this confession is of divine appointment ; but he yields , that christ's granting a power of absolution , d●th not make it a duty to confess to a priest ; and he saith , it is a false proposition , that where a power of judging is given , others are bound to submit to it ; for all that follows is , that their sentence is valid if they do submit . but the force of what the council of trent deduces from this place , lies wholly in this , as vasquez observes , that because christ hath given authority to absolve , and they cannot exercise that authority without confession , therefore confession is hereby made necessary . and he confesses , that scarce any have deduced the argumert effectually from this place . but he saith one thing very observable , that if this place be extended to remission of sins in baptism , then it can never prove the necessity of sacramental confession . and greg. de valentia as plainly owns , that the fathers did understand it of baptism ; he names s. cyprian , and s. ambrose ; but natalis alexander allows s. cyril of alexandria to have so understood it ; and that jansenius and ferus followed him ; but besides these s. augustin interprets this place as s. cyprian had done . for as s. cyprian from hence infers the power of baptizing and granting remission of sins in the guides of the church ; so s. augustin saith , the churches charity by the h●ly ghost looses the sins of those who are her members , and retains the sins of those who are not . and it may be observed , that whereas st. matthew speaks of the power of baptizing granted to the apostles ; s. john instead of that mentions this p●wer of remitting or retaining sins , and s. mark and s. luke speak of baptism ; to which the one joins s●lvation ; and the other remission of sins . and the●efore this seems to be meant by our saviour in the words of s. john ; and thus s. peter exercised this power of loosing on the converted jews , act. . . and his power of binding on simon magus , act. . . peter lombard carries s. augustin's meaning farther , to the power of priests over the sins of the members of the church ; but then he limits this power , and makes it no more than declarative ; as i have observed already ; and for this he quotes a notable passage of s. jerom , who saith , that men are apt to assume too much to themselves under pretence of this power of the keys , whereas god regards not the sentence of the priests but the life of the penitents . but natalis alexander thinks there is no binding power with respect to baptism ; was there not as to simon magus ? and as long as every year the church judged of the competency of persons for it ? when christ spake these words the church was wholly to be formed , and it was a great power lodged with the apostles and their successors to admit into the church , or to exclude from it , not as private persons , but by authority from christ himself . but then this power is vain and idle in a constituted church . by no means ; they have still a power of casting out and taking in again ; and of imposing such acts on offenders , as may give satisfaction to the church , whose honour suffers , and whose discipline is broken . but the question is , whether by christ's appointment under the gospel no known mortal sin can be pardon'd to baptized persons without confession of it to a priest ? and whether these words of our saviour do imply it ? scotus is by no means satisfied with mens reasoning out of this place , that because christ hath given such a power , therefore it is mens duty to confess their sins ; for , saith he , this only implies the usefulness and efficacy of this power if it be made use of ; as in confirmation , none think themselves damned if they do not use it though it be very useful ; and therefore he goes another way to work , viz. by joyning this precept and that of loving god and our selves together with it . but how doth this prove that a man ought to take this particular way ? truly , scotus here shews his sub●ilty . suppose there be another way that is harder , and this be found more easie , he thinks a man is bound to take the shortest and easiest way , viz. by confession and absolution . but for all this his heart did misgive him , and he could not but see , that this proved nothing , unless this way of confession were first proved to be a secure way . and therefore he puts the case , that if it be not proved by these words , it may be by s. james , confess your faults one to ano●her . no , saith he , this will not do ; for which he gives this reason , that it holds no more for confession to a priest than to any other ; therefore , after all , he is willing to resolve it into some unwritten tradition , since there was no convincing evidence for it either in this or any other place of scripture . which shew'd they ran to tradition , when they had nothing else to say . bonaventure denies that christ himself app●inted t●e confession of sins ; for which he gives this reason , lest it should prove an occasion of sinning ; ne ex verbis domini daretur aliquibus recidivandi occasio ; but afterwards he thinks the apostles appointed it , and s. james published it ; which scotus utterly denies . but to the place of s john , bonaventure saith it was not enough to have it implied in the priest's power , because it being a harder duty than absolution , it requir'd a more particular command . which was but reasonably said ; especially when bellarmin after others , urges , that it is one of the most grievous and burthensome precepts ; but his inference from it is very mean , that therefore it must have a divine command to inforce it on the people ; but bonaventure's argument is much stronger , that it ought then to have been clearly expressed . but as to the peoples yielding to it , other accounts are to be given of that afterwards . alexander hales observes , that if christ had intended a command of confession , john . it would have been expressed to those who are to confess , and not to those who are to absolve ; as he did to those who were to be baptized , john . except a man be born of water , &c. so christ would have said , except a man confess his sins , &c. and he gave the same reasons why christ did not himself institute it , which bonaventure doth , who used his very words . and now who could have imagined that the council of trent would have attempted to have made men believe that-it was the sense of the universal church that christ instituted confession in john ? when so many great divines even of the church of rome so expresly denied it ; as i have made appear from themselves . but now to give an account by what steps and degrees and on what occasions this auricular confession came into the church , these things are to be considered . . in the first ages , pu●lick , scandalous offenders after baptism , were by the discipline of the church brought to publick penance ; which was called exomologesis ; which originally signifies confession . and by this , bellarmin saith the ancients u●derstood either confession alone , or joyned with the other parts of penance ; but albaspineus shews , that it was either taken for the whole course of publick penance , or for the last and solemn act of it , when the bishop led the penitents from the entrance of the church up to the b●dy of the congregation , where they expressed their abhorrence of their faults in the most penitent manner , by their actions as well as by words . so that this was a real and publick declaration of their sorrow for their sins , and not a verbal or auricular confession of them . the same is owned by la cerda . but boileau pretends that it had not this sense till after the novatian heresie and the death of irenaeus ; and that before that time it signified confession according to the sense of the word in scripture . this seems very strange , when baronius himself confesses , that tertullian us●s it for that part of penance which is called satisfaction ; and bellarmin grants it is so used both by tertullian and irenoeus ; when he saith the woman seduced by marcus , afterwards spent her days in exmologesi . what! in continual confession of her sin ? no , but in penitential acts for it ; and so petavius understands it , both in irenoeus and tertullian , and he saith , it did not consist onely or principally in words but in actions , i. e. it was nothing of kin to auricular confession , which is a part of penance distinct from satisfaction . and to make these the same , were to confound the different parts of the sacrament of penance , as the ●ouncil of trent doth distinguish them . but besides this , there were several other circumstances . which do make an apparent difference between these penitential acts and the modern notion of confession . . the reason of them was different . for , as rigaltius observes , the penitential rigour was taken up after great numbers were admitted into the church ; and a great dishonour was brought upon christianity by the looseness or inconstancy of those who professed it . there were such in s. paul's time in the churches of corinth , and elsewhere ; but although he gives rules about such , yet he mentions no other than avoiding or excommunicating the guilty persons , and upon due sorrow and repentance receiving them in again ; but he imposes no necessity of publick or private confession in order to remission ; much less of every kind of mortal sin , though it be but the breach of the tenth commandment , as the council of trent doth ; yet this had been necessary in case he had thought , as that declares , that god will not forgive upon other terms . and so much the rather , because the evangelists had said nothing of it ; and now churches began to fill , it was absolutely necessary for him to have declared it , if it were a necessary condition of pardon for sins after baptism . but although the apostles had given no rules about it , yet the christian churches suffering so extremely by the reproaches cast upon them , they resolved , as far as it was possible , to take care to prevent any scandalous offences among them . to this end , the actions of all persons who professed themselves christians were narrowly watched ; and their faults , especially such as were scandalous , complained of ; and then if they confessed them , or they were convicted of them , a severe and rigorous discipline was to be undergone by them before they were restored to communion ; that their enemies might see how far the christians were from incouraging such enormities as they were accused of . they were charged with thyestean suppers and promiscuous mixtures ; whereas , any persons among them who were guilty of homicide or adultery were discharged their society , and for a great while not admitted upon any terms ; and afterwards , upon very rigorous and severe terms . and besides these , to preserve the purity of their religion in times of persecution , they allowed no compliance with the gentile idolatry ; and any tendency to this , was looked upon as a degree of apostasie , and censured accordingly . and about these three sorts of sins the severity of the primitive discipline was chiefly exercised ; which shews , that it proceeded upon quite different grounds from those of the council of trent about auricular confession . . the method of proceeding was very different ; for here was no toties quoties allow'd ; that men may sin , and confess , and be absolved ; and then sin the same sin again , and confess again , and receive absolution in the same manner . the primitive church knew nothing of this way of dealing with sinners upon confession . if they were admitted once to it that was all . so pamelius himself grants , and produces several testimonies of fathers for it ; and so doth albaspineus and petavius . dare any say this is the sense of the church of rome about confession , that a man cannot be received a second time to confess and be absolved from the same sin ? how then can they pretend any similitude between their confession and the ancient exomologesis ? besides , none ever received absolution from the ancient church till full satisfaction performed . but in the church of rome , absolution is given before satisfaction ; and although some have complained of this , as a great abuse ; yet they have been sharply answer'd , that it is to call in question the conduct of the church for five hundred years ; and they may as well question many other things , which depend upon the authority of the present church . . the obligation to confession is very different from what it was in the ancient exomologesis . now by the doctrine of the church of rome , a person looks on himself as bound in conscience to confess every mortal sin ; but in the ancient church none can imagine that persons were bound to undergo the exomologesis for every mortal sin , there being no penitential canons which did ever require it ; but they had respect to some particular sins , and the penance was proportion'd to them . we ought to take notice of two things with respect to the discipline of the ancient church , which will shew the different notion it had of these things from what is now current in the church of rome . . that it did not exclude those from all hopes of salvation whom it excluded from penance ; as may be seen in the illiberitan council , where many are wholly shut out from the church , whom we cannot think they thought uncapable of salvation . from whence it follows , that they did not look on confession and absolution as a necessary condition of salvation ; but now in the church of rome they allow confession to all , because they think they cannot otherwise be in a state of salvation in an ordinary way . but in the ancient church they could not look on the desire of confession as necessary , for to what purpose should they make that necessary when they denyed the thing ? but in the church of rome , they make the desire necessary , because they hold the thing it self to be so , if there be means to have it . . that the penitential canons never extended in the primitive church to all those sins which the church of rome now accounts mortal , and therefore necessary to be confessed . the council of trent saith expresly , they must confess omnia & singula peccata mortalia — etiam occulta — and an anathema is denounced against him that denies it to be necessary to remission of them . now if we consider their notion of mortal sins , we shall easily discern the vast difference between the obligation to confession by the council of trent , and by the old penitential canons . for mortal sins are not only all voluntary acts committed against the known laws of god , but against the laws of the church ; and even venial sins may become mortal by the disposition of the person , and by other circumstances , which the casuists set down at large ; now the council of trent doth expresly oblige men , not only to relate the acts themselves , but all circumstances which change the kind of sin. and this is a racking the consciences of men far beyond whatever we find in the old penitential canons ; for , petavius confesses that many sins now accounted mortal , had no penance appointed for them by the old canons ; and therefore i need not take any pains to prove it : if any one hath a mind to be satisfied , he may see it in gregory nyssen's canonical epistle , where he owns that several of those sins , for which the scripture excludes from the kingdom of heaven , have no canonical penance prescribed them by the ancient canons of the church . which shews a mighty difference from the rule of the council of trent . the most plausible place in antiquity brought for all mortal sin , is that of s. cyprian , where he saith , that some confessed their very thoughts , though they had not proceeded to actual sin . it is true , that he doth speak of some such ; but was it for sins of thought against the tenth command ? no ; but it is very plain , that he speaks of that sin which was thought to imply a renouncing christianity , and s cyprian elsewhere calls summum delictum , and the sin ag●inst the holy ghost ; viz. consenting to any act of gentile idolatry ; and yet saint cyprian had much ado to perswade those who were actually guilty to submit to due penance for it ; but they obtained tickets from the confessors , and were admitted to communion without undergoing the discipline of the church , the consequence whereof would be , that the discipline would be lost , and the church over-run with apostates ; this makes s. cyprian plead hard against such practices , and among other arguments he uses this of the great tenderness of some , who because they had entertained such thoughts of doing as others did , for their own safety , they offered to unburthen their consciences before them , and desired remedy for small wounds ; how much more ought they to confess their faults whose wounds are greater ? this is the whole force of his reasoning ; where the thought and act relate to the same sin ; and that said to be no less than denying christ , and sinning against the holy ghost . but there is no parity in the case of other sins ; which even s. cyprian calls minora delicta , being against men immediately ; and there is no intimation in him that ever the thoughts of those sins were discovered , or that persons were under any obligation by the rules of the church to do it . . private offenders were sometimes advised in those first ages for the ease of their consciences to make confession of their sins ; of which we see an instance as to the practice in one case in s. cyprian's time . and tertullian compares such persons who avoid it , to those who have such secret ulcers that they chuse rather to perish than to discover them . now in cases of this nature he advises to confession and publick penitential acts , that so they may in the judgment of the church have the secret wounds of their consciences healed . and this is that which origen doth advise to in such cases , to seek out a wise spiritual physician , and to make known his inward distemper to him , and to follow his advice and direction , as to the method of cure. now this we never oppose ; but the only question is , whether it be necessary for all persons , and for every mortal sin , to make confession of it to the priest , that it may be forgiven ; and origen never once supposes this ; for he mentions several other ways for the remission of sins after baptism , by martyrdom , by alms , by forgiving and converting others , by great love to god , and in the last place he brings in this of a laborious penance and confession . either the former ways are sufficient without this , or not ; if they are , then this is not necessary to the remission of all mortal sins ; if not , to what purpose doth he mention so many ways , when this one is sufficient without them and all those are insufficient without this ? for boileau confesses , that no mortal sins according to them can be remitted , where there is not at least the desire of this . but origen shews the different ways of obtaining remission , or else he doth not answer the difficulty ; which was that the jews had several sorts of sacrifices for the expiation of sins , to which we have none answerable under the gospel , yes , saith origen , baptism answers to one sort , martyrdom to another , alms to a third , &c. and last of all , penance to the offering baked in the frying pan. from whence it is plain , that he looked on this as one particular way proper to some cases , and not as a general method for the remission of all mortal sins . but he urges that origen quctes scripture for the confession of sins , as necessary , hom. . in psal. . but what scripture ? even the words of the psalmist , i will confess my iniquity . and was confession to a priest necessary under the law ? how then can those words prove it necessary under the gospel ? although therefore origen might think it very convenient in some cases for penitents to unload their consciences by confession to a spiritual physician , yet we find no proof of any necessity of it , as to all mortal sins . it is confessed , that publick faults , either confessed or proved , had publick penance appointed for them by the penitential canons ; but boileau , after arnauld , pleads , that even secret sins being mortal , were not thought remissible by the keys of the church , without publick penance . but this can never be proved to have been the doctrine of the ancient church , and it is unreasonable to suppose ; for then , all persons must have undergone publick penance who had any mortal sin , and it must have been frequently born by the same persons , both which are inconsistent with the ancient discipline . but they saw there was no other way to maintain the necessity of confession , but by this . for they could find none but publick penance , and that by the penitential canons was prescribed only for some particular scandalous sins ; and therefore they fansied , that persons who committed other faults , were bound to confess them privately , and to undergo publick penance for them . i do not deny , but some great penitents , for secret faults , would of their own accord submit to the publick discipline ; but this was a voluntary act in them , that by this means they might assure themselves the more of the sincerity of their own repentance ; and it being looked on as an act of humility and piety , it made it go down the better with voluntary penitents . . for the sake of such voluntary penitents in great churches , whose cases required particular and private examination and direction , there was a penitentiary appointed , whose office it was to receive their confessions , and to direct and order the method of their penance . of this we have a famous instance in the church of constantinople , in the time of nectarius , about which so much pains hath been taken for different purposes . that which seems most probable to me , is , that the penitentiary was appointed to examine and judge of such penitential causes which were brought before him , ( not being notorious , ) and to give sentence according to the canons ; but especially of voluntary confessions of persons , whose consciences were oppressed with the guilt of secret sins ; and to those he was to appoint penance without revealing their faults . where the facts were notorious and scandalous , i suppose the ancient discipline of the church ( part whereof is to be seen in the canonical epistles ) to have still continued at constantinople , as well as in other churches . but there were many private miscarriages , wherein great prudence and judgment was required , both to determine the penance , and to manage it so , that it did not break out into an open scandal . and for cases of this nature the penitentiary was appointed ; to whom all persons might resort in private cases , and open their consciences to him , and take his directions how to perform their penitential acts. so it was with that person of quality at constantinople , who gave occasion to the abolishing the office of penitentiary , both there , and in all the eastern churches . she first went to the penitentiary , as a voluntary penitent , and confessed her faults to him , and took his directions ; and while she was performing her penance in the church , the fact was committed with the deacon , which she afterwards confessed to the penitentiary . who being enraged at the deacon , in probability through his desire to have him punished , the fact came to be discovered , and the people to be highly offended : and it is not reasonable to suppose that the penitentiary put her upon a publick confession of her secret fault ; but that it came out by his means ; and therefore nectarius thought fit no longer to put such a trust into any man's hand , which through his discovery might redound to the dishonour of the church , as that did . what the effect was of abolishing this office , is the great question , whether the taking away publick or private confession . if the historians may be believed , it was the necessity of making any confession at all in secret ; for the right of receiving such confessions , was devolved upon the penitentiary ; therefore when his office was put down , where the case was not notorious , every one must be left to his own conscience ; and that both socrates and sozomen affirm was the consequence of it . if only publick confession was taken away , as some imagine , a secret confession was still continued , how was it possible for the historians to mistake the matter so grosly , by making that the consequence of it ? for , is every man left to his own conscience , where he is bound to go to confession before he partakes of the eucharist ? and why should publick penance be taken away on this occasion , where there seems to have been none ; for that person underwent to publick penance upon her former confession , for then her penance would not have been done in the church , but out of it , among the penitents . but as the former was voluntary , so was the latter too ; for here was no accuser but her self ; and for what reason should publick and solemn penance for notorious cri●●es , be taken away for the sake of the discovery of a secret confession ? whether the punishment of the deacon were the occasion of its coming out , or whatever it was , it seems evident to me , that she was not obliged to any publick consession ; because sozomen saith , the penitentiary was chosen for his gravity , silence and wisdom ; but what silence was there , if the confessions were to be made publick . and on the other side , it is impossible to conceive , that if all persons were then obliged to confess all mortal sins after baptism , that one penitentiary should be sufficient in so vast a city as that of constantinople was . therefore i think it most probable , that the case of notorious and scandalous offenders stood as it did , and so continued in s. chrysostom's time ; but this office of penitentiary relating to voluntary and secret offenders was taken away ; because a greater scandal came to the church by the discovery , when such a publick disgrace made the fact become notorious . and so this act of nectarius in taking away the penitentiary's office , and the approbation of it by other churches following the example , evidently proves , that they did not look on confession of s●●cret sins , as necessary to the remission of them . . as the taking away the penitentiary's office shewed the sense of the church at that time against the necessity of confession in order to pardon , so it did likewise in order to the partaking of the eucharist . for socrates saith , that eudaemon gave that counsel to nectarius , that he should remove the penitentiary , and give every one leave to pass j●dgment on himself in his own conscience , and so to partake of the mysteries . the same is affirmed by sozomen . which respects not the publick discipline about notorious offenders , but the private applications made by scrupulous persons and secret offenders to the penitentiary in order to a right preparation for the eucharist . and it is very probable , that it was then believed by many , that they could not be duly fitted for that sacrament , unless they had first unburthened their consciences by a voluntary confession to the penitentiary , and followed his directions . but this office being taken away , the question now is , whether it were thought necessary to confess privately to any other ? the council of trent declares , that sacramental confession is necessary to a worthy partaking of the eucharist , to every one that is conscious to himself of any mortal sin ; and whosoever holds the contrary is declared excommunicate ipso facto . but these historians plainly deny it , and they are justified by s. chrysostom , who speaks to the very case ; not about c●techumens , but such as would fit themselves for the holy eucharist . and he several times declares , that a man needs not reveal his sins to any but to god alone , in order to it . nothing can be more emphatical than what he saith to that purpose . for this cause s. paul saith , let a man examin himself , and so let him eat of that bread , and drink of that cup ; he doth not lay open the secret ulcer ; he doth not bring the accusation into a theatre ; he appoints no witnesses of thy transgressions ; pass judgment within thine own conscience , there examin thy faults , and call thy self to an account for the ●ins of thy life , where ●o●e but god is present , who sees all things ; amend thy faults , and so with a pure conscience draw near to the holy table , and partake of the sacrifice there offered . but left this should be thought one of those sudden eloquent heats which petavius saith , are hardly capable of good sense , if too strictly examined ; we find him very cooly delivering the same doctrine in his exposition of those words of s. paul. than which nothing can be more inconsistent with the doctrine and practice of the church of rome , which makes confession of our sins to a priest a necessary preparation for the eucharist . catharinus saith , that if the church had not limited the time , yet every person would be bound to confess to a priest , as often as he communicated . and although he knew no mortal sin by himself , yet he would deserve the severest censure for not confessing , because he took upon himself to be his own judge . can any thing be more contrary to s. c●rysostom than this ? boileau confesses , that s. chrysostom doth not here refer at all to confession to a priest ; then it follows , that he thought it not necessary to right participation of the holy eucharist . here he speaks not of daily examination of conscience by the faithful ; but of the solemn judgment of conscience by way of due preparation ; and so justifies the fact of nectarius in taking away the penitentiaries office . but we are not to suppose so great and so zealous a man would have done it against his conscience , as he must , if he still thought confession to a priest necessary ; and he doth not say , they need not go now to the penitentiary , but that they need not diselose their sins to any . not to a multitude , or in a theatrical manner , as some expound it ; but to none but god , which excludes the knowledge of a sin●le priest , as well as of a great number . i n●ed not insist on the other places in s. chrysostom to that purpose , since these are sufficient for my design . cassian was a disciple of s. chrysostom , and he supposes confession to god alone to be sufficient for remission of sin , where mere modesty hinders men from consessing to men . boileau answers , that he doth not speak of sacramental confession made to priests ; but of an ascetick confession among the m●nks . but he speaks of a confession to god as sufficient for remission of sins , and therefore must exclude the necessity of any other . . after the taking away the penitentiary's office , the publick discipline of the church , as to open and scandalous offenders continued for some time in the eastern as well as the western churches . no one speaks more fully to this than s. chrysostom ; which makes me wonder at those who say the publick penance was taken away by nectarius , for in his . homily on s. matthew , towards the conclusion he insists very much upon it ; and not only charges the people not to come with their sins upon them ; but he speaks to those who ministred , to deny the eucharist to open offenders . and he saith , it would be charged as a great fault upon them , if they knew such and permitted them to communicate . but how shall we knew them ? i speak not , saith he , of those who are not , but of those who are known ; and if any such did thrust themselves in , he bid them not be afraid to deny them ; and if they durst not , he tells them , they should bring them to him , and he would rather lose his life than give that sacrament to such unworthy receivers . but still he saith he speaks of open and notorious offen●ers . which shews plainly , that even s. chrysostom never thought the publick discipline was changed ; since he declares so much resolution to maintain it . and this could not be spoken by him while he was a presbyter at antioch , but after he came to the see of constantinople . there was no doubt some alteration as to the penitents , after the taking away the penitentiary ; but it was no more than his office was concerned in . the old penitential canons remained still in force and were executed , as occasion served ; as appears by the canons in trullo so long after s. chrysostom's time which refer to them . if all the publick discipline had been laid aside so long before , to what purpose do those bishops speak of them , as if they were still in force ? see canon , , , , . in the last canon indeed they leave it to those who had the power of binding and loosing to temper the severity of the canons as they should judge convenient ; but doth it hence follow , that the ancient discipline as to publick offenders was destroy'd ? s. chrysostom himself several times mentions those who were in the state of penitents and the prayer that was made for them ; to what purpose , in case the whole order of penitents was taken away ? he likewise speaks of the charge for the penitents to go out . what a mockery , were this , if there were no publick discipline then left ? and lest it should be said , that these things were said by him at antioch , before the fact of nectarius , i have shew'd already that the latter homilies on s. matthew were made by him at constantinople ; and in his liturgy there used the dismission of the penitents was continued . . while the publick discipline was kept in the several churches none were injoyned to undergo it , but open and publick offenders . the evidence being so clear in antiquity for the publick penance of those who were bound to give the church satisfaction before they receiv'd absolution from it ; there was a necessity found by some learned men of the roman communion to set up a new hypothesis , viz. that by the ancient rules of the church all persons conscious to themselves of secret si●s were bound to undergo publick penance for the remission of their sins . the occasion of the debate was this . some in the church of rome held no more necessary in case of mortal sin to prepare men for communion than confession to a priest and absolution ; others saw the fatal consequence of this , and therefore insisted on the necessity of penance ; both parties made their appeal to the ancient church ; and both were mistaken . for , on the one side , there was no such doctrine then held that confession and absolution did sufficiently prepare persons for the eucharist ; and on the other , there was no good evidence that any were enjoyned publick penance for secret faults . but in the case of such sins , the confession was left to god in secret ; and a true and hearty contrition for them was thought the best as well as most necessary preparation for the eucharist . monsr . arnauld saw well enough that without his hypothesis , it was impossible to prove the necessity of confession in the ancient church ; for he yields that the church did not use the power of the keys but in publick . on the the other hand , petavius urges , that on the same ground that they would reduce , as they pretended , the ancient discipline they must make many other alterations in the church , and so justifie the reformers . but monsr . arnauld was defective in his proofs , as petavius at large shews ; not when he proves that the penance was publick ; but that all persons under mortal sins were bound to undergo it . for petavius makes it appear , that all such as are accounted mortal si●s in the modern sense , were not then thought necessary to be expiated by publick penance ; but only such as were notorious and scandalous , and he at large answers all monsr . arnauld's arguments . notwithstanding which morinus took up monsr . arnauld's opinion , and without any colour charges it on theodore archbishop of ca●terbury , that ●e first in his penitential appointed publick penance to be onely for publick offences . but the learned editor of the abstract of theodore's penitential , hath fully vindicated him in this matter . but after these , boileau resumes the opinion of monsr . arnauld , and lays it for the foundation of his history of auricular confession . but he grants , that all the solemn and ceremonial penance imposed by the penitential canons did not extend to all kind of mortal sins , but chiefly to idolatry , adultery and homicide ; but this he insists upon , that some part of this publick penance , viz. exclusion from the communion was inflicted on persons guilty of secret mortal sins . but this will by no means do his business ; for he is to prove that no secret mortal sin could be forgiven without confession to a priest ; and that all persons were required by the ancient church in case they were conscious to themselves of any such sins , to make them known , and to undergo publick penance for them , before they could obtain remission of them . we do not deny that persons under trouble of conscience for secret sins , were from time to time advised to resort to their guides , to make known their cases to them , and to take their directions ; we do not deny that such persons might be required by such guides to withdraw themselves from joyning in the most solemn acts of publick communion till they had manifested the sincerity of their repentance , by fastin● , and prayers , and other penitential acts ; we do not deny , that some of these persons might either by advice or of their own accord joyn themselves with the publick penitents , as is well known in the case of fabiola at rome so much magnified by s. jerom ; but this is the thing we desire to see proved , that no sin whatsoever of a mortal nature ( as it is defined in the church of rome ) was then thought capable of remission by the penitential acts of the party , ( especially by true contrition ) without confession to a priest and absolution from him . and this is the true state of the case ; and i can find nothing produced by him to this purpose which deserves to be considered . . as the publick discipline declined , persons were exhorted to make private confession of their sins ; if they could not be brought to publick penance . thence in the greek church came the penitentials of johannes jejunator ( who first took upon himself the title of oecumenical patriarch in the time of mauritius to the great offence of the bishops of rome ) and of some others after him . morinus grants that there was a great alteration in the greek church about this matter ; he thinks it began with the business of the penitentiary , but after the publick discipline was disused , instead of that , he saith , came up a secret confession and penance ; which was left to the honesty , and piety of the penitent , and not required by any canonical authority among them ; and so he saith it continued from the time of nectarius to this day , as to the people . so that we have a plain confession from him , that there is no rule in the greek church requiring this secret confession of sins in order to the forgiveness of them . but it is observable concerning the modern greeks , that if persons do make confession among them , they think themselves obliged to keep to the old penitential canons , and blame joh. jejunator for receding from them ; for simeon of thessalonica saith , they had them from the fathers , and the fathers by tradition down from the apostles . but although they are therein mistaken , yet they shew how different their tradition is from that of the roman church , which thinks it self under no such obligation , but allows absolution to be granted upon confession , and a right of communion without penance performed , for which there is no colour , as to any ancient tradition either of the eastern or western church . in the western church we find the publick discipline fallen to decay in the beginning of the ninth age , and charles the great summoning several councils for putting things into as good an order as they would then bear . in the second council of cavaillon , a. d. . we find a complaint , can. . that the old canonical penance was generally disused ; and neither the ancient order of excommunicating or absolving was observed . which is a plain and ingenuous acknowledgment that they had gone off from the ancient tradition of the church ; and therefore they pray the emperor's assistance , that the publick discipline might be restored for publick offenders , and the ancient canons be brought into use again . from whence it follows , that at that time notorious offenders escaped with private confession and penance ; and even that was done by halves , can . . and some thought it not necessary to do it at all , can . . and upon this occasion , they do not declare it necessary for the remission of sins to confess even the most secret mortal sins to a priest ; but very fairly say , that both are useful ; for confession to god purgeth the sin ; and to the priest , teaches men how their sins may be purged . for god who is the author and giver of health , giveth it often by the inv●sible operation of his power , and often by the means of physicians . boileau yields , that there were some then in the roman church , who denied confession to men to be necessary , but he saith , they were adversaries and rebels . this had been a good answer , if the council had called them so ; which it doth not , but on the contrary declares , that god doth often forgive sin immediately without the priests interposition , or else the latter clause signifies nothing . and the most it saith before , is , that confession to a priest is useful in the church ; which is not the the thing disputed by us , but the necessity of it ; and his critical observations of utrumque signifie just nothing , unless he had proved that the council had before said that both were necessary , which it doth not . he doth not deny , that the opinion of the sufficiency of confession to god alone did continue in the church to the time of the council of lateran , and that it gave occasion to the canon , which enforced the necessity of confession to a priest ; but he adds , that learned and pious men may have false opinions before the judgment of the church . so that at last we find universal tradition is given up , and the necessity of auricular confession is resolved into the authority of the roman churches definition , or rather , the pope's declaration of it , either with or without the consent of the lateran council . but he saith , the fathers did not speak so exactly of the trinity before the council of nice ; nor the greek fathers of grace and predestination before s. augustin . if this be true , it is impossible to prove either of those great points merely by tradition ; for those fathers either delivered the sense of the church , or they did not ; if they delivered the sense of the church , then either the sense of the church was doubtful , or they did not understand it ; if the sense of the church were doubtful , then it is plain those doctrines could not be proved by tradition ; if the sense of the church were not doubtful , but the fathers did not understand it , then how is it possible that the churches tradition should be an infallible guide , when even the fathers of the church were mistaken about it ? but i have sufficiently proved , that not only before , but even after the council of lateran there was no universal tradition for the necessity of auricular confession . finis . a catalogue of some books printed for henry mortlock , at the phoenix in s. paul 's church-yard . a bational account of the grounds of protestant religion , being a vindication of the lord archbishop of canterbury's relation of a conference , &c. from the pretended answer by t. c. wherein the true grounds of faith are cleared , and the false discovered ; the church of england vindicated from the impu●ation of scism ; and the most important particular controversie bêtween us and those of the church of rome throughly examined : by edward stillingfleet , d. d. and dean of s. paul's , folio . the second edition . origines britiannicae : or the antiquity of the british churches ; with a preface concerning some pretended antiquities relating to britain , in vindication of the bishop of s. asaph . by edward stillingfleet d. d. dean of s. paul's , folio . the rule of faith : or an answer to the treatise of mr. j. s. entituled , sure footing , &c. by john tillorson d. d. to which is adjoyned , a reply to mr. j. s.'s third appendix . &c. by edward stillingfleet . d. d. a letter to mr. g. giving a true account of a late conference at the d. of p's . a second letter to mr. g. in answer to two letters lately published concerning the conference at the d. of p's . veteres vindicati : in an expostulary letter to mr. sclater of putney , upon his consensus veterum , &c. wherein the absurdity of his method , and the weakness of his reasons are shewn ; his false aspersions upon the church of england are wiped off , and her faith concerning the euch●rist proved to be that of the primi●ive church : together with animadversions on dean boileau's french translation of , and remarks upon bertram . an answer to the compiler of nubes testium : wherein is shewn , that antiquity ( in relation to the points in controversie set down by him ) did not for the first five hundred years believe , teach and practice as the church of rome doth at present believe , teach and practice ; together with a vindication of veteres vindicati from the late weak and disingenuous attempts of the author of transubstantiation defended by the author of the answer to mr. sclater of putney . a letter to father lewis sabran jesuit , in answer to his letter to a peer of the church of england ; wherein the postscript to the answer to the nubes testium , is vindicated , and father sabran's mistakes farther discovered . a second letter to father lewis sabran jesuit , in answer to his reply . a vindication of the principles of the author of the answer to the compiler of nubes testium in answer to a late pretended letter from a dissenter to the divines of the church of england . scripture and tradition compared , in a sermon preached at guild-hall-chapel nov. . . by edward stillingfleet d. d. dean of s. paul's , the second edition . a discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the certainty of faith , in answer to j. s. his catholick letters . by edward stillingfleet , d. d. dean of st. paul's . an historical examination of the authority of general councils , shewing the false dealing that hath been used in the publishing of them , and the difference amongst the papists themselves about their number . the second edition with corrections and alterations . an appendix , in answer to some late passages of j. w. of the society of jesus , concerning the prohibition of scripture in vulgar languages by the council of trent . since the publication of the foregoing book , i have met with a reflexion upon it made by j. w. in the preface to a treatise lately reprinted by him . wherein , he observes that a great part of the objections made against them are either grounded on mistakes , or touch points of discipline not of faith , which alone they are bound to defend . this last clause i could not but wonder at , since the new title of his book is , a defence of the doctrine and holy rites of the roman catholick church , &c. why should i w. take such needless pains to defend the rites of the church , if they are bound to defend nothing but points of faith ? i had thought the honour and authority of the church had been concerned in its commands and prohibitions , as well as in its definitions and decrees . and although it be not pretended , that the church is infallible in matters of discipline ; yet it is a strong prejudice against any pretence to infallibility in a church , if it be found to err notoriously in any thing of general concernment to the catholick church . but how comes my late book to be made an example ? as for instance , ( saith he ) i find in a book newly published , with this title , the council of trent examin'd and disprov'd by catholick tradition , that for pages together dr. st. labours to prove that there is no catholick tradition against translating scripture into vulgar languages . whereas i expresly say , that the prohibition of reading the scripture so translated without a particular license , was that which i undertook to shew could not be justified by any catholick tradition ; and that there was a general consent of the catholick church , not merely for the translations of scripture into vulgar languages , but for the free use of them by the people . which i made out by these particulars , . that where-ever the christian religion prevailed , the scripture was translated into the vulgar language for the peoples benefit . which i proved from the ancient italick versions before st. jerom's time , the gothick , persian , armenian , syriack , coptick and aethiopick translations ; without the least prohibition of the common use of them . . that where a language grew into disuse among the people there the scripture was translated into the tongue which was better understood . and for this i instanced in the arabick versions after the prevalency of the saracens in the eastern and southern parts , and after the moors coming into spain . . that even after the primitive times , christian princes and bishops did take care that the people should read the scriptures in their own language . for princes , i instanced in ludovicus pius and alfred ; for bishops , in waldo bishop of fressing , methodius and cyrill , &c. . that the pope himself in the th century did approve of it ; and for a reason common to all times and churches , viz. that all people and languages were to praise god , and that god himself had so commanded . . that gregory vii . was the first person who forbad the use of scripture and divine offices in the vulgar tongue , and was not ashamed to own that the church saw cause to alter several things from what they were in the primitive church . . that upon the setting up the inquisition by innocent iii. this prohibition took place in france and spain , and other places . . that some noted divines of the church of rome have highly commended it ; and said that the taking of it away would be pernicious and destructive to faith and devotion . . that the prohibition in the church of rome is built on the authority of the council of trent , which appointed the index to be made , in which the fourth rule forbids all persons the use of the scripture in the vulgar tongue without a particular license , and whosoever presumes to doe it is to be denied absolution . . from hence it follows , that the council of trent is evidently disproved , as to catholick tradition , for any foundation of such a prohibition . and what now saith j. w. against all this ? he would gladly know against whom i dispute . against j. s. and all such who would make the world believe the council of trent did proceed upon catholick tradition . to prove i am mistaken , he tells me in his th chap. i may find an account of several new translations of scripture into vulgar tongues , made by catholicks and approved in the roman church . then he mentions an english translation made by the rhemish and doway colleges ; and in french by the doctours of lovain ; and some others . what now follows from hence ? is it any mistake in me to say , there was such a prohibition of reading the scripture in the church of rome , and inforced by the rule made by appointment of the council of trent ? this had been indeed to the purpose if it could have been proved . i do not deny , that there have been such translations made , where it was found impossible to hinder all translations ; and the use of them have been connived at or allow'd to some particular persons , whom they were otherwise secure of . but such translations are like the galenists allowing some chymical medicines to their patients ; they declare against their use as dangerous ; but if the patient will have them , then pray take them of my apothecary , who is a very honest man and prepares mischievous medicines better than another . this is just the case of the church of rome , as to translations of scripture ; if we ask their opinion in general , whether translations be allowable or not , their answer hath been formerly very free and open , by no means ; for they are very dangerous and mischievous things . and here besides those i have already mentioned , i could produce many more to the same purpose . but alas ! these men lived before the age of mis-representing and expounding . now all is mistake on our side , and infallibility on theirs . we cannot for our hearts understand their doctrines or practices aright , although we take never so much pains and care to doe it . one would think by the present way of dealing with us , that the church of rome were like the new name on the white stone , which no man knows but he that hath it ; and so it were impossible for any else to understand it , but such as are in it . i thought my self pretty secure from mistaking , when i pitched on the council of trent for my guide . but it seems , i am mistaken here too : how so ? did not the council of trent appoint the congregation of the index at first , sess. ? did it not own that the matters of it were prepared before its dissolution ? and if there were a prohibition of the free use of the scripture in vulgar languages by the rules of the index , is not the council of trent justly chargeable with that prohibition ? especially when the title in the roman edition is regulae indicis sacrosanctoe synodi tridentinoe jussu editoe . jacob. ledesma was one of the same society with j. w. and he frankly owns the prohibition of reading the scripture , made by the rule of the index , to have been done by the authority of the council of trent . the faculty at paris in the articles sent to gregory xiii . against the translation of rene benoit ; several times own the rules of the index as done by the council of trent . quacunque authoritate transferantur in vulgarem linguam biblia & edantur , vetat idem sacrosanctum concilium ea passim sine discrimine permitti . the same ledesma goes farther , and vouches the authority of the council of trent in this matter , from the decree sess. . c. . where it forbids all the parts of the mass to be in the vulgar tongue . which could not be reasonable , if the scripture were allowed to be translated . alphonsus à castro , thinks the case so alike , that a prohibition of one amounts to a prohibition of the other too , because the greater part of the office is taken out of the scriptures , and if the scripture may be translated , he saith , it must follow that divine offices ought to be in the vulgar tongue . but to return to the index . the congregation of the index was ( as is said ) established by the council in the . session as the council it self owns in the last session ; and withall , that the rules of it were then formed , but because of the multiplicity and variety of the books , the matter of the index was referred to the pope , and to be published by his authority , as likewise the catechism , missal and breviary . so that the rules of the index have the same authority in the church of rome with the roman catechism , missal and breviary . pius iv. in his bull , when he first set forth the index a. d. . owns that it was finished by the fathers appointed by the council of trent , but it was remitted to him by the council , that it might be approved by him and published by his authority . and he strictly commands the rules of it to be observed under pain of mortal sin ; and excommunication , ipso jure . after him clement viii . in his a instructions about the rules of the index owns them to be made by the fathers of the council of trent , and the same pope is so far from renewing the power of granting licenses to read the scripture in the vulgar languages , that he declares against them . for by the th rule of the index , the ordinary and inquisitor by the advice of the parish priest or consessor might permit persons to read the bible in the vulgar language , so the translation were made by catholick authours ; and it was apprehended by some , that the new printing the rule might be giving new authority to bishops and inquisitors to grant licenses , therefore the pope declares against it ; and saith it was contrary to the command and use of the roman church and inquisition , which ought to be inviolably observed . in pursuance of this we find in the roman index of prohibited books , these words , bidlia vulgari quocunque idiomate conscripta ; i. e. all bibles in vulgar languages are prohibited . therefore i cannot understand how the giving license to persons since the declaration of clemens viii . is consistent with the duty which persons of that communion owe to the authority of the roman see , unless they can produce a revocation of the bull of clemens viii . and some latter explications of the fourth rule which take away the force of his . but instead of that , alexander vii . who published the index again , after clement viii . owns that the first index was made by authority of the council of trent : and it is observable that in his bull a. d. . he not onely prefixes the rules of the index , but the observations and instruction of clement viii . and confirms all by his apostolical authority ; and injoyns the punctual observation of the orders contained therein inviolably ; under the same pains which were expressed in the bull of pius iv. therefore as far as i can understand , the faculty of granting licenses to reade the translations of the bible is taken away as far as the pope's authority can doe it . to what purpose then are we told of some modern translations , as long as the use of them is forbidden by the pope's authority ? and no ordinaries can have authority to grant licenses against the popes solemn declaration to the contrary ; nor can any of that communion with good conscience make use of them . but i am told there are translations approved in the roman church . by whom have they been approved ? by the pope , or the congregation of the index ? i do not sind any such approbation given to any of them . but on the contrary even in france , such translations have been vehemently opposed by the bishops and divines there , as being repugnant to the sense of the roman church . and this is apparent by a book published by order of the gallican clergy , a. d. . where-in it is said that it was the common and unanimous sense and practice of all orthodox persons , that neither the scriptures nor divine offices ought to be put into vulgar languages , it being injurious to the christian church , and giving occasion of offence to the weak and unlearned . how then can we imagine that such translations should not onely be allowed but approved among them ? and besides the entire treatises there collected against them , of card. hosius , lizetius , spiritus roterus , ledesma , &c. and the fragments and testimonies of several others ; we have a particular account of the proceedings of the sorbon as to this matter . in the censure of erasmus , dec. . . the sorbon declared vulgar translations of scripture to be dangerous and pernicious . the like declaration had been made before a. d. . and that all translations of the bible , or of the parts thereof ought rather to be suppressed than tolerated . a. d. . the faculty again declared , that it did not approve any translations of scripture into the vulgar language . but j. w. instances p. . in some translations that have been approved ; as a french translation by the doctours of lovain . but in the french collection before mention'd , i find , that a. d. . dec. . a debate arose in the faculty at lovain about it ; and the faculty declared that it by no means approved of it . another is of rene benoit ; which was so far from being approved , that it was first condemned by the faculty at paris , and then sent to rome to be condemned by the pope ; which was effectually done ; and gregory xiii . directed his bull to the faculty of divinity in paris , nov. . a. d. . wherein he doth expresly forbid this translation , and reject it with an anathema . and yet this very translation of rene benoit is one of those made by catholicks and approved in the roman church ; which j. w. refers me to . one of us two must needs be under a great mistake , but to whom it belongs i leave the reader to determin . the sense of the gallican clergy in this matter doth fully appear by the representation which they sent to alexander vii . about the translation of the missal into french. which was done by voisin a doctour of the faculty , and was published at paris by the permission of cardinal de retz archbishop there , and had the approbation of some doctours of the sorbon . the rest of the bishops and clergy highly resented this matter , and assembled together to consult about it , nov. . . where they proposed two things to be considered . . the matter of right , whether such a translation were to be permitted or not . . the matter of fact , whether this were a good translation or not . the debate was adjourned to dec. . and from thence to the th on which they came to a resolution to suppress it . and a circular letter was sent to all the bishops to forbid the use of it under pain of excommunication ; and the king desired to interpose his authority in it . dec. . they agreed to send an account of the whole matter to the pope in the name of the gallican clergy ; wherein they declare their great dislike of it , as contrary to the custom of the church , and as pernicious to the souls of men. and in the body of it , they say that they look on the translations of scripture into vulgar languages as the great occasion of the northern heresies ; and quote vincentius lerinensis , saying that the scripture is the book of hereticks . and after add , that they bad sent to the pope their condemnation of all translations of scripture and divine offices into the vulgar languages . this was subscribed by the general assembly of the clergy , jan. . . the pope sent a brief in answer , which was received feb. . wherein he very tragically complains that some sons of perdition in france had to the ruine of souls , and in contempt of the churches laws and practice , arrived to that degree of madness as to translate the roman missal into french. and he charges the doing of it not onely with novelty , but disobedience , sedition , schism , &c. and declares that he abhorred and detested it ; and for ever damned , reprobated and forbad it , under pain of excommunication ; and requires all persons to deliver up their books to the several ordinaries that they might be burnt . i now desire j. w. to inform me whether we are bound to believe that in france translations of scripture into the vulgar language are allowed and approved ? i am really so unwilling to mistake , that i take the best care i can to be rightly informed . i have no design either to deceive others , or to be deceived my self ; and therefore have not trusted to second-hand evidence ; but searched and considered the authours themselves , whose testimonies i rely upon . i am certain i have fallen into no wilfull mistake , but have truly and impartially stated things according to the clearest evidence i could find ; and therefore i think it some what hard to be told , that our objections are grounded on mistakes , and especially as to this matter about the prohibition of reading scripture in the vulgar language ; for i hope i have made it appear not onely that there is such a prohibition but that it is founded on the authority of the council of trent . and if it be so , then it serves my main design , viz. to prove that it went off from catholick tradition , for if there were so many translations of old without the least prohibition , and there be since the council of trent , so severe a one , backed with the pope's authority , here must be a very great change in tradition . for that is accounted pernicious and mischievous to the souls of men , which before was accounted usefull and beneficial to them . if the physicians in one age should condemn the common reading of hippocrates and gale● as destructive to the health of mens bodies , which those of former ages extremely commended , would not any one say , there was a great change in the opinions of physicians , and that they did by no means hold to the judgment of those before them ? if the common lawyers ●hould now say littleton's tenures is a book very unfit to be read by young lawyers , that it fills their heads with seditious and dangerous principles , and therefore ought to be taken out of their hands ; would not any one say , here is a wonderfull change , for no such thing was ever apprehended before , but the book was thought very usefull and proper to instruct students in some fundamental points of the law ? when manna was rained from heaven in the wilderness for . years , and for . of them every man gathered his own share and proportion , and ate of it as he saw cause ; would it not have been thought a strange alteration among them , if after . years a sett of physicians should have risen up and told the people it was true , manna was angels food , but if they had not great care in the taking it , and used it promiscuously , it would turn them to devils ; or at least it would fill them with such distempers , as they would never be able to reach to canaan ? this might be pretended to be great care and tenderness of them , in these new physicians ; but on the other side , they would tell them , they had done very well with their eating manna for . years together ; and there had been no such distempers among them , but such as humane nature is always subject to ; that such an alteration might be of worse consequence than their common use of manna ; for so it was at first appointed and so it had continued , and they could not tell but their new physicians might be worse to them than their old distempers ; and they could never believe that could be so hurtfull which god himself had appointed for their food . the former discourse makes the application needless . but after all , it is said : this is but a point of discipline and not of faith ; and in such the church may change her measures . to that i answer , . it is more than a point of discipline , for it is changing the rule of faith with respect to the people . while the scriptures were in the hands of the people , they resolved their faith into the word of god , as it was delivered to them and understood by them . but when that is taken out of their hands and they are bid to trust to the churches testimony for matters of faith ; they have a different resolution of their faith and a different ground and reason of believing . for they cannot ground their faith upon a written rule who are uncapable of understanding it . . it is no matter of discipline to overthrow the design of publishing the scripture for the universal benefit of the church of god. and this the jansenists have well proved in defence of their translation of the new testament against the prohibitions of it . for , say they , the prohibition of reading the scripture under pain of excommunication , is it self contrary to the gospel and ought not to be obey'd . for bread and nourishment is not more necessary to preserve the life of the body , than the word of god is to uphold the life of the soul. that for men to speak of so much danger in reading the scripture is to reflect very dishonourably on the providence and groodness of god ; for it was by means of trans●ations in vulgar languages that god's word came to be kno● to the world , and the gospel was at first published in those tongues , which were most generally understood . and therefore those do manifestly oppose the design and method of providence for advancing the gospel , who decry translations of scripture , as pernicious to the souls of men. and farther , that such a prohibition , is a contempt of our lord jesus christ and a design to suppress the gospel ; and a contradiction to the will and command of god ; a contempt of the scripture , which was intended to be understood by all , a contempt both of councils and fathers , which looked on the scripture as the best judge of controversies , and who advised all believers to a continual reading of the word of god. if after all this , the council of trent could so notoriously err not onely against scripture and reason , but tradition too in such a matter of concernment to the souls of men , as this is , it will be hardly possible to persuade men , it could not as well err in any point of faith. and it renders the whole proceeding suspicious as to particular points , when the rule of faith is so industriously kept out of the hands of the people . for those who follow their instructions , are never ashamed to produce their credentials . as to what j. w. saith in his book concerning jupiter , &c. i had answered it so fully many years since , that i have reason to expect a reply to what i had there said in my own vindication , before i can think it fit to trouble the world with needless repetitions . and it were hard for me to be put to answer again to the same things , when a person will not take the pains to see whether he were not answer'd already . the end . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e third letter p. . catechism rom. part . reply to the defence of the expo●●tion , &c. p. . sess. . can. . q. . a. . regist. f. . registr . arundel p. . f. . maignan philosophia sa●ra . part . append. . notes for div a -e necnon traditiones ipsas tum ad ●idem tum ad mores pertinentes , tanquam vel ore tenns â christo vel à spiritu sancto dictatas & continuâ successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas , pari pietatis affectu ac re●erentià suscipit & veneratur . hist. concil . trident. l. . c. . n. . n. . aug. l. . c. julian . et caetera nostrae saluti necessaria , quae omnia sola docet sacra scriptura . lection . in canon . missae . haec autem in sacris scripturis discuntur , per quas solas plenam intelligere possumus dei voluntatem . ib. e●●e quo tendit utilitas divinae scripturae ad perfectionem hominis dei ( hoc est qui totum seipsum deo dat ) perfectionem inquam ta●em ut sit perfectus ad omne bonum exercendum . in . ad tim. . . dico i●●a omnia scripta esse ab apostolis quae sunt ●mnibus necessaria , & quae ipsi palam omnibus vulgò praedicaverunt . bellarm. de verbo dei. l. . c. . illud imprimis statuendum erit propheticos & apostolicos libros juxta mentem ecclesiae catholicae verum esse verbum dei & certam ac stabilem regulam fidei . id. l. . c. . at sacris scripturis quae propheticis & apostolicis literis continentur , nihil est notius , nihil certius . id. c. . quare cum sacra scriptura regula credendi certissima tutissimáque sit . ibid. l. . c. . * et quantum ad ea quae pro●onantur omnibus credenda quae per●inent ad fiaem . . . q. . prol . † . q. . a. . ‖ melch. can. l. . c. . marsil . in . lib. sentent . l. . prooem . q. . art . . pet. de alli●co in sent. l. . q. . a. . greg. arimin . q. . a. . durand . prol. q. . n. . a. . n. . l. . dist. . q. . nam in concernentibus fidem etiam dictum unius privati esset pra●erendum dicto papae si ille movere●ur melioribus rationibus novi & veteris testamenti quam papae . cùm ergo in omni veritate veritas divina sit certior & immutabilior , ergo omnes aliae debent regulari per illam , & in quantum conformantur illi sunt verae ; in quantum autem deviant ab illa , deviant à natura veritatis . sacra autem scriptura veritas divina est , ideo judicium nostrum debemus regulare per illam applicando ad eam , &c. tostatin ep. hieron . c. . p. . d. non quod in auctoritate aequantur , absit ; sed sequantur . non quidem in subsidium auctoritatis canonicae sed in admonitionem posterorum , l. . art. . c. . c. . c. . joh. gerson . exam. doctr. p. . part. . cons. . cons. . nihil audendum dicere de divinis nisi quae nobis à sacra scriptura tradita sunt . cujus ratio est , quoniam scriptura nobis tradita est tanquam regula sufficiens & infallibi●i● , pro regi●●ine totius ecclesiastici corporis & membrorum usque in finem seculi . est igitur talis ars , talis regula , vel exemplar , cui se non conformans alia doctrina , vel abjicienda est ut haereticalis , aut suspecta , aut impertinens ad religionem prorsus est habenda . exam. doctr. part. . consid. . lyra , praesat . ad lib. tobiae . scot. in sentent . prolog . q. . n. . ea enim quae ex sola dei voluntate supra omne debitum creatur● , nobis innotescere non possunt , nisi quatenus in sacra scriptura traduntur , per quam divina voluntas nobis innotescit . . q. . a. . in c. suarez , in . p. . authoritatibus autem canonicae scripturae utitur propriè ex necessitate argumentando ; autoritatibus autem aliorum doctorum ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabilitér . inni●itur enim fides nostra revelationi apostolis & prophet is factae , qui canonicos libros scripserunt , non autem revelationi si qua fuit aliis doctoribus facta . . q. . a. . ad . quae igitur fidei sunt non sunt tentanda probari nisi per autoritates his qui autoritates suscipiunt . . q. . a. . c. si autem ad veritatem eloquiorum sc. sacrorum respicit , hoc & nos canone utimur . ib. dicendum quod veritas fidei in sacra scriptura diffusè continetur — ideó fuit necessarium ut ex sententiis sacrae scripturae aliquid manifestum summariè colligeretur , quod proponeretur omnibus ad credendum ; quod quidem non est additum sacrae scripturae , sed potius ex sacra scriptura sumptum . . . q. . a. . ad primum . quantum ad prima credibilia , quae sunt articuli fidei , tenetur homo explicitè credere , sicut & tenetur habere fidem . quantum autem ad alia credibilia non tenetur homo explicitè credere , sed solùm implicitè , vel in praeparatione animi in quantum paratus est credere quicquid scriptura continet ; sed tunc solùm hujusmodi tenetur explicitè credere , quando hoc ei constiterit in doctrina fidei contineri . . . q. . a . c. et nihil nobis dicendum est , praeter ea quae nobis ex sacris eloqui● claret . bonav . in sent. dist. . art. . q. . quod autem credimus posterioribus circa quos non apparent virtutes divinae , hoc est , quia non praedicant alia quàm quae illi in scriptis certissimis reliquêrunt , quae constat per medios in nullo fuisse vitiata ex consensicne concordi in eis omnium succedentium usque ad tempora nostra . hen. gandav . sum. a●t . . q. n. . . quia veritas ipsa in scriptura immobiliter & impermutabiliter semper cuf●●ditur . — in personis autem excclesiae mutabilis est & variabil●s ut dissentire fidei possit multitudo illorum , & vel per errorem , vel per malitiam à side discedere licet ; semper ecclesia in aliquibus just●s stabit . art. . q. . n. . suspecta est mihi omnis veritas , quam non confirmat scriptu●arum auctoritas . rich. de s. victore , de praepar . animi ad contempl. part. . c. . de verbo dei l. . c. . c. . cùm enim ex divinis scripturis integram quis & firmam regulam veritatis susceperit . quibus sacris literis unica est credendi pariter & vivendi regul● praescripta . sed in han● insipientiam cadunt , qui cùm ad cognoscendam veritatem aliquo impediuntur obscuro , non ad propheticas voces , non ad apostolicas liter as , nec ad evangelicas auc●oritates , sed ad seipsos recurrunt . nec quasi hoc sacra scriptura contineat , quo negato tota scriptura sacra redditur dubia ; & per consequens articuli fidei , qui habeat per scripturam sacram probari redd●●tur dubii & incerti . extrav . joh. . cum inter gloss. per consequens . turrecrem . de ecclesia , l. . part . . c. . turrecre● . l. . c. . morin . de ordinat . sacris , p. . morin p. . mabillon a. nalect . to. . p. . amalarius de offi●i●s , l. . c. . isidor . de offic . l. . c. . rab. maur. de inst. cler. l. . c. . l. . c. . bed. in cant. l. . de tabernaculo l. . c. . vindic. of the answ. to some late papers . commonit . . c. . cùm sit perfectus scripturarum canon sibique ad omnia satis supérque sufficiat . c. . c. . of the necessity of church-guides p. . p. . p. . tabulae suf●ragial . p. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ de sp. sancto c. . de vera fide , p. . a. c. p. . c. ascet. reg. . reg . c. . de sp. san●t . c. . c. . c. . c. . richer . hist. conc. general . l. . c. . n. . scot. in l. . sent. dist. . l. . dist. . n. . n. . scripturas esse and tempus adaptatas & variè intellectas , ità ut uno tempore secundùm eurrentem universalem ritum exponerentur , mutato ritu iterum sente●tia mutaretur cusan . ad bohem. epist. . hist. of the council of tr. l. . p. . ibid. l. . c. . p. . p. . can. loc. theol. l. . c. . cajet . in eccles . fine . ad ester c. . ad fin . annot. in cajet . l. . p. . de verb. dei , l. . c. . jul. ruger . de libris canonicis , p. . p. . euseb. l. . c. . l. . c. . philocal . c. . euseb. demonstr . l. . p. . chronic. gr. p. . athanas. ep. . cyril . cabech . . epiph. de mensuris & ponder . basil. in origen . philocal . greg. nazianzen . in carm. amph. in canon . ep. apud balsam . s. chrysost. in gen. hom . . conc. laodicea , c. . no●el . . leont . de sect●s , act. . d●mascen . de ●ide , lib. . c. . niceph chro●●gr . p. . anastas . hist. p. . not. in can. . carthag . niceph. in epigram . metroph . confess . c. . p. . phil. cyprii chronic. eccles . graec. p. . hilar. prolog . in psalm . de praedest . sanctor . c. . prolog . gal. prolog . in lib. salom. ad paul. & eust. ad chromat . ruffin . in symbol . pag. , . greg. moral . in job . l. . c. . can. loc. theol . l. . c. . ad . cath. de ca●o●icis scrip. in opuscul . p. . cassiodor . de instit. divin . liter . cap. , , . c. . s. antonin . sum. hist. p. . tit. . c. . can. loc. theol . l. . c. . part. . tit. . c. . sect. , & . eur in adait . ad lyram ad c. . ester . & . tostat. in matt. pr●f . q. . . xim. praef. ad bib. comp. aug. de civ . dei , lib. . c. . l. . c. . aug. de civ . dei , l. . c. . c. gaudent . c. . de doctr. l. . c. . not. in vigil . taps . p. . hist. concil . trident. l. . c. . ● . . sum. . q. . a. . sixt. senens . biblioth . l. . n. . alphons . à castro , l. . c. . azor. instit. moral . l. . c. . aug. de doct. christian. l . c. . hier. praes . in josuam . socr. l. . c. . soz. l. . c. . nicep . l. . c. . isid. in chron. gothorum . walas . strab. de reb. ec●l . c. . euseb. de vit. const. l. . c. . c. . soz. l. . c. . c. . ammianus marcell . l. . soz. l. . c. . theod. l. . ● . . theod. de cur. graec. affect . serm. . p. . serm. . p. . chrys in joh. hom p. . vit. chrys. c. . conc. eccl. armen . cum rom. c. . p. . hist. orient . c. . abr. ecchell . not . in ebe● . jesu . greg. hist. dynast . . s. chry●ost . bom . . in joh. ambros. hex . . c. . aug. de civit. dei , l. . c. . diod. ad gen. . . theod in psal. . . in ps. . . in ps. . . in ps. . de verb. dei , l. . c. . prodr . copt . c. . p. ● . dissert . epist. . epist. . hottinger . methurgem . p. . de ordinat . sacris , p. . catal. m s s. p. . ludolph . hist. aethiop . l. . c. . gabr. sionita de arab. c. . polyb. l. . conc. turon . . c. . sigeb . ad an. . nithard . l. . freher , in exposit. foederis inter lud. & car. v. capitul . caroli calvi . tit. . marineus sicul . de rebus hisp. l. . ● . . alchuin . de divin . offic. c. . amalar. de offic. l. . c. , . ●●en●● . rer. german . p. . rer. alem. to. . p. . to. . p. . hist. franc. to. . p. . bed. epist. ad egbert , p. . saxon treatise of the old and new testament . bell. de verbo dci , l. . bar. ad an . n. . ave●●in . annal . l. . p. . ●ar . a. . n. . luci. de regno dalmatiae , l. . c. . catal. m s s. p. , . greg. regist. l. . ep. . cum primitiva ecclesia multa dissimulaverit quae à sanctis patribus postmodum sirmatachristianitate , & religione crescente , subti●● examinatione correcta sunt . labb . concil . to. . p. . cochl . c. alex. alesium , a. d. . andrad . defens . concil . trident. l. . ledesma de div. script . quavis ●ingua non leg . p. . pet. sutor de tralatione bibliae , p. . p. . vega de justif . l. . c. . suarez de grat. l. . c. n. . suarez de g●●t . l. . c. . ● . . disputat . ratisbonae an. . p. . hist. conc. trid. l. . c. . n. . rich. de media . vill. in l. . sent . dist . . art . . q. . nich. de orbellis in . sent . dist . . credis non pr●priis meritis , sed pass●●●● domini nostri jesu christi virtute & merito ad gloriam pervenire ? credo . credis quod dominus no●●er jes●s christus pro salute nost●● m●r●●us sit ; & quo●●x propriis meri●is , vel al●o in ●●●ull●s 〈◊〉 salvari nis● in merito p●ss●●nis ejus ? credo . h●● . conf●ss . petricovi , c. . p. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . . . enchirid colon . f. . . adrian . de sacr. eucbar . f. . pet de alliaco , in . l. sent. q. . art . . f. . ● . bicl in l. . sent . dis● . . art . . ●o● . . walden . de sacram. ti● . ● . c . vega i●opu●c . qu. . marfil . in l. . 〈◊〉 . ● . ● . durand . in sent . l. . di●● . . q. . n. . ockam in . s●nt . q. . ad secundum . in. l. . dist . . q. . in l. . dist . . q. . greg. arim. in l. . sent . dist . . art . . scot. in l. . sent . dist . . q . n . bell. de just. l. . c. . jos. scalig. in varr. de l. l. p. . bud . in pandect . pag. . plir● . ep . l. . . cassand . in hymn . eccl. p. . aug. in joh. tr. . n. . neque enim talia sunt hominion merita , ut propter ea vita aeterna deberetur ex jure , aut deus injuriam aliquam faceret , nisi eam donaret . nam ut taceam quod merita ●mnia dona dei sunt , & ita bomo m●gis propter ipsa deo debitor est , qu●m deus bomini , quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam ? bernard se●m . . de aunur . bellarm. de justis . l. . c. . hugo de s. ●ict . annot. elucidator in rom. lomb. sent. l. . dist . . genebrard . de trinit . l. . p. . pull . sentent . part. . c. . guliel . antis . l. . tr . . q. . de m●rito virt . . . q. . art . . art . . richard. in sent. l. . dist . . art . . q. . nich. deorb . in sent. l. . dist . . hos. confess . petrico c. . p. . p. burg. addit . ad lyram in ps. . bell. de justif . l. . c. . coster . en●●rid . p. . suarez . de grat. l. . c. . n. . vasquez in . . disp. . c. . bhemists on tim. . . on heb. . . gamach . in . . th. q. . c. . concil . . omnes catholici fatentur justos suis bonis operibus mereri gloriam de condigno . aug. reding defens . conc. trident. tr. . se●t . . ad sess . . c. . sess. . can. . c●tech . trident . part. . n. . bell. de sa●●am . l. . ● . . in quatuor quae sunt propriè dict● sacramenta novae legis est forma instituta à domino vel ab ecclesia . alex. halens . part. . q. . m. . . . memb. . a. . memb. . a. . sect . . ●ell . de sacr. l. . ● . . suarez . in . p. tb. tom. . disp. . sect . . lugo de 〈◊〉 . d●p . ● . 〈◊〉 . . p●t . à sanct. joseph . idea theol. sacr. l. . c. . conc. tri● . de confirm . can . conc. florent . decret . u●isnis . ma●●il . in s●●● . l. q. . . . aureol in . d. . q. . greg de val. tom. . q. . pun● . . gui●o brianson in . sent . q. . con● . . guil. antis . in l. . tract . . bonav . in . d. . a. . q. . alex. p. . q. . m●mb . . j●● . de vitr . hi●● . occid . c. ● . aq. p. . q. . a . resp. ad . conink de sacram. q. . a. . dab . . petr. aurel. oper. p , . p. . sirmo● , ant. . p. . p. ● . petr. a●rel . op. p. ● . suarez . to. . q. . p. th. ● . . disp. . sect . . d●●ret . uni●nis . bell. de sacr. ordinis , l. . c. . arcud . de sacram . l. . c. . l●go de sac. disp. . sect . . n. . n. . ysambert . de sacram. ordinis , disp. . art. . hallier de sacris elect. & ordinat . sect . . c. . art . . p. . petr. à sanct. joseph , idea theod. sacr. l. . c. . p. . morin . de sacris ordin . part. . ex. ercit . . c. . c. . n. . n. . c. . n. . bell. de sacram . l. . c. . aug. in joh. tr. . st. aug. ●● . ad bonifac. suarez . t●m . . in . c. q. . disp. . a. . sect . . concil flor. decr. union . concil . trid. sess. . c. . bell. de poenit . l. . c. . soto in l. . sent . d. . q. i. vasq. in . p. ● . art. . n. . enchirid. colon . f. . bell. de poenit . l. . c. . major . in . sent . dist . . q. . biel in . dist . . q. . brianson in . sent . q. . concl. . durand . in l. . dist . . q. . ockam in . sen. q. . scot. in l. . sent . dist . . q. . cancil . trid. sess. . de poenit. sacr. can. . can. . b●●l in . dist . . . . ●ot . . 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . . 〈◊〉 . ● . . 〈◊〉 . tostat. defens . part . . c. . ockam in l. . q. . a. . ad . thom. de argent . l. . dist. . a . gul. antis . l. . f. . bonavent . l. . dist . . q. . alex. halens . part . q. . memb . . art . . pet. lomb. l. . dist . . part . . vasquez in . q. . a. . dub . . . hadrian quodlib . q. . . princip . concil . trid. sess. . can. , . cap. , , . suarez in . part . disp . . sect . . n. . bell. de extr. unct. c. . makl . de sacram . extr. unct. q. . greg. de val. to. . disp. . q. punct . . cath. ●●not . in comment . cajet . l. . p. . s●●r . greg. p. . cassand . not . in hymn . p. . maldonat . de sacramen ex●r . unct. q. . gamach . de extr. u●●t . c. . suar●z in . p●r● . disp. ● . 〈◊〉 . . ●reg . sacr. p. . menard . not. p. . p. . p. . p. . suarez ibid. ● . . mald. ib. q. bell. de sacr. l. . c. . c. . conc. trid. sess. . c. . vasq. de sacr. matri● . disp. ● . c. . ● . . greg. de val. to. . disp. . punct . . mald. de sac. matrim . q. . bell. de matr. sa●r . l. . . . navar. max. c. . n. . hostiens . sum. de sacr. non iter . n. . durand . in sent . l. . dist. . q. . eell . de sacr. matr. l. . c. . vasq. da sacr. matr. disp. . ● . . basil. pont. de matr. l. . ● . . n. . almain in . dist. . q. . bell. de sacr. l. . c. . de matrim . sacr. l. . c. . possev . in appar . leo allat . de concord . l. . c. . n. . de simeon . script . p. . &c. crusii turc● groec . leo allat . de concord . l. . c. . n. . n. . n. . n. . n. . act. theolog. wirtemberg . p. . metroph . confess . eccl. orient . p. . leo allat . de concord . e●●l . occident . & orient . l. . c. . arcud . d● concord . l. . c. . c●●●il . trid. de 〈◊〉 . c●● . ● . de sa●ra● . 〈◊〉 . . 〈…〉 . 〈…〉 . concil . trid. de paenit . c. . ●an . . 〈◊〉 . 〈◊〉 . p. q. . 〈◊〉 . a● . . arcud de concord . . l. c. . p. ● . p. . catumsyritus de vera conc. proleg . p. . concil . trid. de poenit. c. . can. . arcud . p. . s●● . ● . de 〈◊〉 . or●i● . c●● . . bell. de extr. unit. l. . c. . arcud . de concord . l. . c. . p. . c. . c. . p. . con● . tri● . de extr. 〈◊〉 , c. . catumsyr . vera co●cord . tr. . p. . arcu● . l. . ● c. . conc. trid. s●ss . . can. . ●ell . de matr. l. . c. . pet. jarric . rer j●dic . to. . p. . c. . histoire critique , ch . . p. . p. . p. . p. . p. . cotov . itin. hierosol . & syr. p. . godign . de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . l. . ● . 〈◊〉 . ● . 〈◊〉 . clem. ga●an . conc. eccles. arm. cum rom. c. . p. . clem. galan . to. . p. . p. . p. . hugo de s. vict. de offi●● l. . c. . rup . tuit . de vict. verbi . l. . c. . hugo do sac. l. . part . . c. , . fulb. carnot . epist. . de inst. cler. l. . c. . rab. maur. de inst. cler. l. . c. . bell. de sacr. l. . c. . walaf . strab. de reb. e●cl . c. , , . pasch. radb . de c●rp . & sang . dom. c. . isid. orig. . . de officiis . iro decret . p. c. . ysamb. ad . q. . disp. . ● . . ivo ib. c. : alex. consil. s. chrys. in joh. hom . . s. cyril . in joh. l. . leo in epist. ad flavian . s. aug. in joh. tr. . . in ps. de ci●●it . dei , l. . c. . de symbol . c. . bell. de sacr. l. . c. . concil . trid. sess. . de poenit. c. . ib. can. . . , , . maldonat de sacr. poenit. de confess . c. . vasquez in . th. to. . q. . art . . n. . suarez in . p. th. to. . disp. . § . greg. de valent . to. . disp. . q. . punct . . nat. alex. de sacr. confess . p. . hist. confes. auric . c. . lom . sent . l. . dist . . grat. de paenit . dist. . bell. de poenit . l. . c. . hist. confess . auric . p. . vasquez ubi supr . catharin . in cajet . p. . biel in . sent . dist. . q. . a. . brianson q. . doc. . f. . de orbellis ad l. . dist. . almain in . dist. . vasquez ib. dub . . greg. de valent . de necessit . confess . c. . nat. alex. de sacr. confess . p. . cyprian ad jub . ep. . aug. in joh. tr. . s. mark. . . s. luke . . pet. lomb. l. . dist. . hieron . in matth. c. . scot. in l. . dist. . q. unica . bonav . in . dist. . q. . bell. de poen . l. . c. . alex. sum. . p. q. . num . . art . . bell. de poen . l. . c. . albasp . obs. l. . c. . la cerda . advers . sacr. c. . p. . hist. confess . auric . c. . p. . baron . ad a. d. . iren. l. . c. . petav. not. ad epiphan . p. . de la penit. publique , l. . c● . . n. . rigalt . not . in . tert. de p●n . pamel . not . . in tert. de . poenit. albasp . obs. l. . c. . petav. ad epiph . p. . append. ad epiph. c. . p. . 〈◊〉 . illiber . c. , , , &c. de poenit. can . . petav. not . ad epiph. p. . greg. nyss. epist. ad let. c. , . cypr. de lap-●is , ● . . cypr. ep. . cypr. ep. . orig. in levit . hom. . in psal. . hom. . in luc. hom. . hist. confess . auric . c. . n. . pandect . canon . vol. . socr. l. . c. . soz. l. . c. . socr. l. . c. . soz. l. . c. . concil . trid. sess. . c. . can. . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . s. chrys. to. . p. . hom. . d● poenit. h●m . . in ad corin●● . petav. not. ad epiphan . p. . cathar . c. cajetan . p. . . hist. confess . auric . p. . cassian . collat . . c. . hist. confess . auric . c. . p. . s. chrys. in matth. hom. . in ep. ad . cor. hom. . hom. in ep. ad ephes. petav. de la penitence publique , l. . ch . . p. . arn. de freq . communione , part. . c. . p. . petav. l. , c. . n. . l. . c. , &c. morin . com. de poenit. l. . c. . theod. vind. p. , &c. hist. confess● . auric . c. . joh. morin . com de poen . l. . c. , . c. . n. , . hist. confess . auric . c. . n. . c. . p. . notes for div a -e apoc. . . accedit ad hoc , locupletissimum testimonium , atque decretum ex indice librorum prohibitorum per patres à tridentina synodo delectos conscripto & authoritate sanctiss . d. nostri pii . p. m. comprobato regula . . jac. ledesma . de divin . script . quavis lingua non legend . c. . alphons . à castro de heret . punit . l. . c. . concil . trid. sess. . c. . a quod indice & regulis confectisper patres à generali synode t●identina dele●●os sanci●um est — praeter ea quae t●dentinorum patrum regul●s supradictis decreta sunt . qui sacrosancti concilii tridentini auctoritate prodierat . e quibus pateat fuisse semper communem & unanimem orthodoxorum omnium sensum ac usum ; divinos libros ac officia ecclesiastica , vernaculo idiomate neutiquam reddendi ; utpote christianae reipubl . damnosum , ac rudibus & imperit is scandali occasionem praebens . collectio auctorum version . vulg . damnant . monit . ad lector . biblia supradicta omnine prohibemus , & ab ecclesia catholicae sub anathemate rejicimus . illam omnim i●p●ob●m●● tanquan ab eccl siae consuctudine alienam , nec niji cum ingenti animarum perni●ie conjunction . dialogue . p. . . p. . dialogues in answer to t. g. part. . corpus christi: by edmund gurnay gurnay, edmund, d. . approx. kb of xml-encoded text transcribed from -bit group-iv tiff page images. text creation partnership, ann arbor, mi ; oxford (uk) : - (eebo-tcp phase ). a stc estc s this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the early english books online text creation partnership. this phase i text is available for reuse, according to the terms of creative commons . universal . the text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. early english books online. (eebo-tcp ; phase , no. a ) transcribed from: (early english books online ; image set ) images scanned from microfilm: (early english books, - ; : ) corpus christi: by edmund gurnay gurnay, edmund, d. . [ ], , [ ] p. printed by cantrell legge, printer to the vniuersitie of cambridge, [cambridge] : . a sermon on matthew xxvi, . reproduction of the original in the henry e. huntington library and art gallery. created by converting tcp files to tei p using tcp tei.xsl, tei @ oxford. re-processed by university of nebraska-lincoln and northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. eebo-tcp is a partnership between the universities of michigan and oxford and the publisher proquest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by proquest via their early english books online (eebo) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). the general aim of eebo-tcp is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic english-language title published between and available in eebo. eebo-tcp aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the text encoding initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). the eebo-tcp project was divided into two phases. the , texts created during phase of the project have been released into the public domain as of january . anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. users should be aware of the process of creating the tcp texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. text selection was based on the new cambridge bibliography of english literature (ncbel). if an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in ncbel, then their works are eligible for inclusion. selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. in general, first editions of a works in english were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably latin and welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in oxford and michigan. % (or pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet qa standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. after proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of instances per text. any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of tcp data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a tcp editor. the texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level of the tei in libraries guidelines. copies of the texts have been issued variously as sgml (tcp schema; ascii text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable xml (tcp schema; characters represented either as utf- unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless xml (tei p , characters represented either as utf- unicode or tei g elements). keying and markup guidelines are available at the text creation partnership web site . eng sermons, english -- th century. transubstantiation -- early works to . - tcp assigned for keying and markup - spi global keyed and coded from proquest page images - elspeth healey sampled and proofread - elspeth healey text and markup reviewed and edited - pfs batch review (qc) and xml conversion corpvs christi : by edmvnd gvrnay printed by cantrell legge , printer to the vniuersitie of cambridge . . ¶ to the very worshipfull , richard stubbe , esquire . * ⁎ * sir : i request you to bee god-father vnto this infant , as you haue beene sometime vnto my selfe . it is thought an abruptnesse to imprint anything without a dedication , which makes me thus bold with your name . i hope you will take it at my hands no otherwise then as a token of my thankefulnesse for your manifold and fatherly affection . in which respect i principally commend it vnto you : as also vnto your two daughters , my cosen yeluerton , and the ladie strange : i must also commend the perusall of it vnto mr. robert rudde of st. florence in southwales , and mr. henrie godly of onehouse in suffolke , my very good and learned tutors , togetherwith my singular friend mr. doctor porter of cambridge . finally , the vse and benefit of it i commmend , as vnto my christian friends the parishioners of edgfield , so also vnto as many as loue the single , gentle , and powerfull truth , especially in the text following . matth . . . this is my body . that this then is the body of our sauiour , it is without all question : yea , not onely his body , but euen himselfe ( a part beeing put for the whole ) it may be affirmed : but whether it bee his body indeed , and substance ; or onely by way of sacrament ; that is the terrible and vnappeaseable question at this day . the strife betwixt the archangell and the deuill about the body of moses , might well prefigure this strife , but exceed , it could not . and no maruell if ●he strife be so great , considering in the end that one of the two must be conuinced , both of highest impiety against god , and also of extreame folly amongst men . for whether to deny diuine honour vnto the creator , or to impart diuine honour vnto a creature , both are most impious : so againe , to affirme that to be corruptible bread , which indeed is very god ; or that to be very god , which indeed is corruptible bread ; both are extreamly foolish . you see then , reader , ●ow neerly it concernes you to be throughly aduised what part you take in so momental a cause : for if you chuse neither , then are you cōdemnable of irreligion : and if you cleane to the false , then are you culpable of impiety or idolatry , if not blaspheming . for the better directing therefore and stablishing your choice in so concerning a cause ; and whereby you may happily find a thred of expedition vnto the truth herein , wee commend vnto you the perusall of this treatise . wherein if you shall but so long indure vs vntill we haue , first laid downe the equity , conueniencie , and necessitie of the one exposition ; and then the vanitie , impiety , and deformity of the other ; we make no question , but you will more liuely imbrace the truth , and more mortally abhorre the falshood in this point , then euer you did . we then which expound this , to be his body , onely by way of sacrament , and as water in baptisme is his blood ; doe take the intent of our sauiour in this businesse to be for the ordayning and fastning a second seale vnto his new testament : that whereas now he had vndergone the condition of mans nature , and was about to finish the price of our redemption ; hee thought good not onely to haue it recorded in scriptures , and published all the world ouer what he had done for vs ( though that might haue beene thought sufficient for beleeuers , ) but also to ordaine certain visible tokens and formes of remembring his such performance : that so as his word did inwardly , these seales might outwardly , seuerally in baptisme , and ioyntly in this communion , expresse and impart vnto men the benefit of his incarnation and suffring ; and we thereby to haue both his hand and seales to our redemption . which seales also that they might the more inseparably be made one with his testament , and withall at the first blush more liuely represent the substance thereof ; he thought good to stampe and imprint them with his owne image and superscription : and therefore here in the text calleth the bread expressely his bodie , as an other scripture likewise calleth the other seale , his blood : ( the spirit , water , and blood are one : ) and all this finally the rather , that wheras the old testament had beside the same word inwardly containing it , also a couple of outward seales to giue a sensibility vnto it ; and they also both seuerally , as in the circumcision , and ioyntly as in the feast of passeouer , in like manner exhibiting the vse and benefit of it ; and finally beeing likewise cloathed and stamped with the names of the things signified ( circumcision beeing called the couenant , whereof it was but a seale , and the feast the passeouer , whereof it was but a celebration ) it might hereby come to passe , that the new testament should most perfitly resemble as well as accomplish the old ; and the olde as it did prefigure and fore-runne , so also might it imbrace , acknowledge , and giue place to the newe . now as touching our sauiours forme of speech , in calling that his bodie , which we expound to bee but a sacrament thereof ; wee further adde , that such : concisenesse of speech , is ordinary with the scipture , with our sauiour , and his apostles , and finally with all sorts of men . as for the scripture ; that euery where vseth such significant figures , and especially when it poynteth vnto our sauiour : as , when it calls him , a rocke , a stone , a lyon , a lambe , a starre , a dore , a vine , the way , the truth , the life , the resurrection , our head , our roote , our garment , our dwelling , our shepheard , our peace , &c. but aboue all , our sauiour himselfe so abounding in this kind , as that he ●orbare not in his publike morals ( when he meant to be most plaine , ) to bid men out off the offending hand , and plucke out the offending eye ; as if he expected euen from the vulgar to be otherwise vnderstood then the letter did import : and as for those of the wiser sort , he often grew angry with them for taking him at the letter ; as with nicodemus for so plaine vnderstanding his tearme of beeing borne againe ; with the disciples for their no better vnderstanding the leauen of the pharises ; and with the capernites for their like carnall vnderstanding the eating of his flesh . the apostles also , as they followed him in the steps of his life , so so did they vsually follow him in the same character of speech : in so much as paul was not nice to say plainely , the rocke was christ : as also he saith to all beleeuers , now are yee the bodie of christ , and members in particular : yea , we are the members of his body , of his flesh , and of his bones . and s. iohn forbeares not to say , that the spirit , water , and blood , these three are one : and that we are washed in his blood : both which sayings do giue as great and greater dignity vnto baptisme , if the letter should be pressed , then the calling bread his bodie , can giue to this other sacrament . and yet should not he be thought ( at least ) distempred in his wittes , that would hereupon inferre a substantiall change of that water ? though with farre lesse dishonour vnto god might such a consequence be inferred , and with farre better colour : for as much as baptisme ( if comparisons may be made in holy things ) is the sacrament of our first quickning , as this is of our nourishing ; and more noble it is of the two to make aliue , then to preserue life : baptisme againe beeing but once administred , but this often ; baptisme beeing expressely charged vpon the apostles to be administred vnto all nations , beeing also made a * ioynt-condition with faith vnto saluation , whereas this other in neither case is mentioned : and finally our sauiour himselfe openly partaking baptisme , and gracing it with miraculous opening the heauens ; whereas this , if he did at all partake it , was in priuate , and without any granted miracle . yea last of all , the fathers honouring baptisme with as high tearmes as might be ; one saying of it , the water hath the grace of christ , in it is the presence of the trinity . and an other thus ; in the sacrament of baptisme we are made bone of his bone , and flesh of his flesh . and austine thus : without doubt euery beleeuer is made a partaker of the bodie and blood of christ , when in baptisme hee is made a member of christ ▪ yea , though before the eating thereof hee depart the world . and leo , calling it the wonderfull sacrament of regeneration , saith in an other place of it ; christ gaue that to the water , which he gaue to his mother . in which sense also paulinus : the heauenly water ( saith he in his poeme ) marrieth with elementall water ; and so ( concipit vndi deum ) the water conceiueth god our sauiour . so likewise the rocke which is called ; not the body of christ , but expressely christ ; may it not farre aduance it selfe aboue this bread , if the letter be stood vpon ? especially for that the rock most miraculously , and sauiour like , did gush forth water to the refreshing a huge multitude in the wildernesse ; whereas this bread which our sauiour speakes of , made not the least shew of difference from common bread : the rocke also being but one and the same in particular , whereof it was first spoken , the rocke was christ ; whereas the bread which at this day is administred , is not that bread in particular , whereof our sauiour said , it was his bodie ; nor can attaine to that name and honour , but by the helpe of inference and figures , and that no lesse then thirty to make their exposition good , ( as dainty as they are of figures ) as a late father of our church hath obserued . againe , if the letter must be of such force ( though the letter is made to serue not to master our meanings ) why may not euery beleeuer account himselfe a member of christ indeed , and substantially according to those alleadged sayings of paul ? especially considering how the beleeuers are in scripture vsually said to be changed , conuerted , renewed , new created , &c. but neuer was it so said of this bread ? or why shall not euery beleeuer expect as well a litterall performance of that promise of christ , when he saith , behold , i stand at the doore and knocke , and willsup with him that openeth ? it beeing of the two , more conceiueable ( how thinke you ) that he should personally become our companion at supper , then the supper it selfe . to conclude ; as christs apostles , and the scriptures , so finally all sorts of men , both holy and common , doe ordinarily vse words , both beyond and beside the litterall sense : partly of necessity , when either they be driuen to borrow a word , or the hearer cannot so well vnderstand a proper word ; and partly againe for breuity sake ( when there is no likelihood to be mistaken , ) as when we call ●hat our hand , which is but our hand-writing ; that the lyon , which is but the signe or picture of the lyon ; that our will , or our deed , which is but a notifica●ion thereof ; or as ioseph said , the seauen eares are seauen yeares , when ●e meant they did signifie seauen ●eares ; and daniel saying likewise , the tree which thou sawest it is by selfe , o king ; meaning it was ●tended to decypher the kings partly also hyperbollically , when we affirme more then can be , to bring men beleeue as much as may be ; which forme of speech the scripture also does not abhorre : and partly finally to make our speech therby the more pearcing , significant , and emphaticall ; as when we say , the fields laugh , the sea roare , &c. or when we call that our heart , our ioy , our glory , or our strength , which wee glory , delight , or put confidence in . so as if our sauiour in the text did either necessarily , ( in regard of our weakenes ) or briefly , or significantly , or ( as departers vse to speake ) pathetically , or ( as founders take leaue to speake ) peculiarly , call that his body , which he meant for a pledge ; or earnest seale , signe , token , commemoration , celebration , exhibition conueyance , deed and sta●e , ses●e , testament ; or to vse one word ●orall , which is generally vsed of ●ll ; a sacrament of his bodie yet ●ould not his phrase be thought ●arsh , intricate , or vnusuall euen 〈◊〉 the eares of ordinary men : but ●nto them which haue their ●ares neuer so little touched ●ith the language of canaan , how ●n it seeme otherwise then most ●ire , sincere , and sensible ; yea , as ●itable and proper vnto the ●nse we plead for , as can be de●sed . testimonies out of the fathers prooue this sacramentall ex●sition , we might alleadge store ● as tertullian , saying thus : — cal●g the bread his bodie , to the ende ● may vnderstand that hee hath gi● bread to be a figure of his bodie . ●mens thus : the wine signifieth the ●od allegorically . origen thus : if ● take this saying [ except yee eate the flesh of the sonne of man , &c. ] according to the letter , the letter killeth ambrose thus : in the lawe was shadow , in the gospell an image , i● heauen the truth . chrysostome thus what is it to vnderstand carnally simply as the things are spoken , an● to seeke no further . hierome thus christ left bread and wine , as he th● goes a voyage leaues a gage . austin● thus : by reason of the resemblan● betwixt the sacraments and th● things , the sacraments often take th● names of the things : and elsewher● * thus , this is a perfect way to discerne whether a speach be proper a● figuratiue ; that whatsoeuer in scripture cannot stand with integritie ● manners , or veritie of faith , that r●solue thy selfe is figuratiue : wher● upon hee further inferreth , th● our sauiours phrase of eating h● flesh , was figuratiue , because acc●ding to the letter to 〈◊〉 a sinfull ● calling it also a carnall sense , to take figuratiue speaches properly , and a miserable bondage of the soule . but this kind of proofe , which proceedes vpon testimonies , in this our short intended treatise , wee purpose to be sparing in both because out of the mouth of two or three , as well as ten thousand witnesses , a truth may be established ; as also for that late writers of principall reading & learning , haue alreadie published , and still doe , intire tractates , containing the full consent of antiquitie in this point : the corruption also of editions , imperfection of translations , and vnworthinesse of authors , may make vs the lesse to set by this testimoniall proofe in matter of faith ; which finally when it was at the best , was neuer esteemed otherwise then a forraine proofe , and such at the scripture both olde and newe does rather repell vs from , then inuite vs vnto , when it saith ; say not , who shall goe vp to heauen , or beyond the seas to bring his word vnto vs. for it is very nigh● , ●en 〈◊〉 mouth , and in thy heart : which holy direction wee of these latter times may take more especially vnto our selues , for that we liue neere or neerest vnto those dayes whereof the lord thus speaketh ; behold , the da●es come when i will put my law in their inward parts — and they shall no more euery man teach his neighbour : for they shall all knowe me . they therefore which find not light enough neere hand ; and a● it were within doores ; let them , if they so thinke good , goe seeke abroad for it : but else when light so abounds in the house ( and what house is void of necessary light when the sunneshines ) then to goe into the yard for it , is but a gadding disposition , and which loues rather to gaze about then to take paines , rather slouthfull to behold the light then to make right vse of it : the best light also for man to worke by either in things heauenly or terrene , beeing the temperate and shadowed light ; that which is so open and glaring beeing a dazler and confounder , and which who so vseth himselfe vnto , may happe in the ende to be depriued of the light he hath , and be driuen to seeke out of himselfe to bee resolued in most palpable things . a notable example whereof our aduersaries haue made them●elues in the present cause . for whilest they would not be con●ent with that light which the window of our sauiours words lets in [ doe this in remembrance of me , ] but must needs be rouing and ranging abroad , passing and compassing seas and lands , tossing and ransaking all manner of writings whereby to find in this his bodie , an other manner of matter then a remembrance ; it is now at length befallen them , partly beeing confounded in their imaginations , and partly beeing peruerted in their iudgements ( thorough a skorne to bee content wit a home-growing truth after so great trauells ) that now they cannot perceiue a difference betwixt his remembrance , and his very reall presence ; betwixt the signe , and the thing ; the shell , and the kernell ; the shadow , and the substance : whereby finally by the iust iudgement of god , who suffreth men to beleeue lies which will not obey the truth , they haue not onely lost the substance by catching at the shadowe , with the dogge in the fable ; not onely smothered and ouerwhelmed the sacrament , by houering and doting vpon the outward element , as children with hugging and dandling choake their birds ; but also by conferring vpon it the same incompetible respects which their forefathers did vpon the brazen serpent , they haue in the end peruerted it vnto the like abhomination : and in stead of a faithfull remembrancer of gods infinite loue vnto man , erected vnto themselues a most execrable fore-staller of their hearts and deuotions vnto god , and so set vp the most pernicious idoll that euer was . which , christian reader , that you may more plainly acknowledge , do but a while draw neere , and as it were from the toppe of a peere with me , behold what a taile of most fowle , stupendious , and impious , or rather blasphemous consequents it drawes after it : that so you may , as ex vngue leonem , so also ex cauda draconem cognoscere , and accordingly abominari . for vpon their expounding this , in the text , to become his bodie and person indeed ; both body , soule , and diuinity , ( as the councell of trent decreeth ) really , verily , and substantially ( for els they agree with vs ; ) iudge whether these conclusions following doe not spawne and issue ; as , first , that the mediator beeing for euer returned vnto the state of glorification ; does notwithstanding ordinarily take vpon him a forme , farre inferiour vnto the forme of his humiliation ; as farre as the forme of a loafe or cake of bread , is inferiour vnto the forme of a perfect man. that when he meanes to be adored , and bodily bowed down vnto ; then especially he takes vpon him this breaden forme . that when he meanes to be adored in a breaden forme , he does not create , effigiat , or contract the same , as the holy ghost did the forme of a doue ( to point out vnto iohn baptist who was the christ : ) but wil take the forme of that bread which a little before the baker had made , and which , for ought can be perceiued , still is the same . that he which will be exalted among the heathen , and will be exalted vpon the earth : ( psal . . . ) yet will in the heathens eyes become more meane then the meanest worme , and at least seeme to them no better then a peice of bread . that he which derideth the idols of the heathen , for that they can neieher speake , nor stirre , nor saue themselues out of captiuity , ( isa . . . ) does notwithstanding present himselfe in such a forme to be worshipped , which euery liuing thing can make a prey of . that the breaden forme wherein he wil be adored , does there enter , where ( himselfe hath said it , matt. . . ) whatsoeuer entreth is cast forth into the draught . that he vnto whome it was an infinite abasement , but once to passe through the purest wombe ; does notwithstanding in his highest glory , make his ordinary passage through impure mouthes . that he is incomparably more present in the mouthes of men , then in the hearts of men : as much as the sunne is more present in his sphere , then in the eye of the beholder . that as oft as this body is rightly administred , so oft there doe concurre many miracles ; as amongst others these following : . an vtter extinquishing and nullifying , or new informing the substance of the elements : . a retaining the accidents after such substance be departed , or new informed : . an inuesting those acccidents or breaden substances , with the perfect bodie of man : . the so qualifying that body , both for shape , quantitie , and properties , as that it cannot bee outwardly discerned from a morsell of bread : . that body to be subdued vnto the iawes and digestions of the receiuer , without hauing a bone broken : . that the humane bodie which thus is eaten , is alwayes in the heauens notwithstanding : . that there beeing but one bodie for all the world , yet shall euery true beleeuer , wholly eat that particular bodie substantially : . that the appearance of all these miracles , is with-holden from sense & reason : . that as many seuerall administrations , so many seuerall performances there are of all these miracles : . finally , that the apostles , and their successors for euer , were indued with this diuinitie of power , to cause all these foresaid miracles as oft as they shall thinke good , vnto the end of the world . that he which hath so done his maruelous acts , as that they ought to bee had in remembrance , ( psal . . ) hee which will haue his works considered to the verie sparkes : ( eccl. . ) and he whose works doe not hinder one another : ( eccl. . . ) is not with standing the author of all those inglorious , obscure , and selfe-confounding miracles . that all these so strange , intricate , and ( to forbeare the qualitie of them ) so stupendious , operatious , and conditions , the mediatour does ordinarily vndergoe and performe , for no necessity of man , but this ; namely , to assure men of his incarnation , and suffering for them . that the meanes of faith are more hard to brooke , then the faith it selfe : as much as it is more hard to beleeue , that the sonne of god does vsually take vpon him the forme of a peice of bread for me , then to beleeue , that once he took the forme of a reasonable man for me . that miracles are ordinarily afforded to confirme that faith , which had nothing but heating to beget it . that greater miracles are ordinarily afforded to confirme faith , then euer were afforded vnto the first conuersion of any whomsoeuer vnto the faith . that whereas such as will not beleeue moses & the prophets , ( luk. . . ) will neither beleeue the greatest miracle : yet not withstanding must they which haue moses , and the prophets , and the gospel continually published amongst them , notwithstanding expect a continual course of the greatest miracles , toward onely the confirming their beleefe . that he which will not saue them that goe to sea , but by means , because he will not haue the workes of his wisedome to be idle : ( wis . . . ) will notwithstanding vse incredible miracles towards the producing that effect ( the strengthning of faith , ) which both , doth loose the grace the more it is supported by miracles , and also hath a speciall meanes ordained of god , for the breeding and furthering of it , namely , publike preaching : and finally , the al-sufficient and most necessarie operation of the holy ghost , promised and assigned thereunto . that whereas planting and watering are one , ( . cor. . . ) begetting and preseruing ( as generation and nutrition ) proceeding of the same causes : yet are such kind of miracles to bee expected , for the confirming and strengthening faith , which are not able in the least measure to beget faith : nothing beeing of force to conuert outwardly an vnbeleeuer vnto the faith , but that which the light of nature ( beyond which his capacitie cannot reach ) can entertaine ; whereunto these supposed miracles are most repugnant . that planting and watering beeing one ; and of the two , planting beeing the more noble : yet must the redeemer in his owne person water , whom by his ministers he daily planteth . that the sunne in the firmament so abundantly inlightning and refreshing all creatures here below , by meanes of ordinarie beames without any corporall descending ; yet must the sonne of righteousnesse , so infinitely surpassing that creature in glorie , brightnesse , state , and vertue , notwithstanding corporally and personally descend ( were it no more ) for the onely inlightening and refreshing his vineyard and plantation . that whereas kings and princes vpon earth haue this prerogatiue , to indow and possesse whome they thinke good with dignities and benefits , by the meanes of a patent , or a seale , without stirring a foote further : yet the king of kings hauing giuen his patents and seales , his couenants and testaments , yea himselfe once , & sacraments ordinarily , with his grace continually , must notwithstanding come himselfe in person , or else his gift must be of no force . that farre harder burthens are laid vpon the weakest vnder the gospel , then . vpon the strongest vnder the law , namely , to beleeue and expect those performances , which are farre lesse expectable at the hands of god , then ( the pitch of the strongest faith ) the remoouing of mountaines . that hee which will not bruise a broken reed , ( esa . . . ) but will so tenderly handle and foster it , as shall make it growe together againe ; does notwithstanding deale so extreamely with his littlest ones , as vnlesse they can beleeue that to bee their sauiour , which all the world would take to be a morsell of bread , they must looke for no saluation . that whereas the strong beleeuer moses , did doubt whether water would follow vpon his striking the rocke , ( numb . . . ) though god had expressely promised as much , and was readie to effect it : whereas also that vertuous sarah , and the blessed marie did likewise make question how those miraculous conceptions could betide them , which angels from heauen did sensibly and expresly promise them : yet notwithstanding must it be expected at the hands of the weakest beleeuers , ( when they shall see that which is confessed , and must be acknowledged for ordinarie bread ) that they presently vpon the speaking two or three words , beleeue vpon paine of damnation , that it is out-right become their very god : and that without hauing more motiues so to beleeue , then they haue to beleeue , a rocke , a lyon , a lambe , or &c. ( by which names he is as expressely called , as euer he was by the name of this bread ) to be their god. that he which appeared so glorious , and so wonderfull , when he shewed but a little of himselfe vnto some of his seruants ( moses and elias ) and that but seuerally ; yet when he meanes to make his personall approach vnto his spouse , the church , he then on the contrary puts off all his glorious apparell ; and without so much as a messenger going before him , without any noise , either of a wind , as at the descending of the holy ghost , or of a voice , loud , or soft , to giue notice of his comming , hee alwaies exhibites himselfe vnto her , thus contrarie to himselfe , in the common , senslesse , and silly forme of belly-bread , made a little before of the baker , and ( a strong motiue vnto the church , no doubt , to put all her confidence in him ) which euery worme can ouer-master . that he which in scripture ordinarily conuinceth men of idolatrie , onely vpon this , because they worship that , which their common sense can tell them is a sensles creature : does not with standing ordinarily present himselfe to bee worshipped in that forme which common sense does generally tell vs is a senslesse creature . that the euidence which our sauiour produceth to prooue himselfe to be risen from the dead , ( handle me , and see me , &c. luk. . ) is not sufficient to prooue , whether that which men handle , see , and tast , bee a peice of bread . that the only powers wherby mankind is able to discerne a man from a beast , whereby to auoid killing ; a wife from a stranger , whereby to auoid fornication ; our owne from an others , whereby to auoid stealing ; the hungry from the full , wherby to practise charity , &c. are notwithstanding generally , either so weake , or so false , as that certainely they cannot discerne a morsell of bread from the body of a man , a common creature from the creator . finally , ( to ransacke this denne of darkenes no further ) that wheras the lord thought it so great an indulgence vnto his most faithfull seruant iosuah , when he caused the sunne for a season to stand still at his prayer , as that he decreed neuer so againe to heare the voice of a man , ( iosuah , . . ) yet notwithstanding since that decree , he hath bound himselfe that at the voice , not of one man , but multitudes of men continually succeeding , should bee caused , not a creature but the creator , not to stay awhile in the heauens as that planet did , or as himselfe did when he was beheld of steuen at his martyrdome , but to leaue his throane , ( his glory at least ) and then to descend in such manner and forme , as ( did not the necessity of our confutation driue vs vnto it ) were not once to be named . these consequents , reader , how truly they follow vpon the exposition in question , for breuity sake we leaue to your selfe : onely this you know , that if but one of them all did truly follow ( beeing false ) it is enough to cōuince the principle it selfe to be according . but if they all , or most of them , doe both truely follow , and also are most false , vile , monstrous , and abominable ; then if you can discerne a lyon by his nayle , iudge this opinion to be a monster by his tayle of abominations trayling after it : yea say if it be not of the very breed of that red dragon , which with his taile drew the third part of the stars , & cast them to the earth : for surely had it strength to his length , what would it else but reach vp to the heauens , and wrestle with the starres , yea fasten vpon the throne of the highest ? or say if that beast could haue more names of blasphemy vpon his head then this hath ? for if it be * blasphemy to attribute any thing vnto god , which is not conuenient ; then what shall it be to attribute that vnto him which is as despightfull and reproachfull as can be imagined ? for what meant moses when he tooke that golden calfe , and beating it to powder , made the idolaters drinke of it ? what was his meaning ? was it to doe a honour vnto the idoll , or to ingraine the people in idolatry ? was it not in his vtmost hate and detestation of the idoll , and to shewe the people how that which they had made their god , was not able to saue it selfe out of the filthy gutter ? could there then be imagined a more abominable reproach against the highest , then once to imagine the like manner of receiuing him ? or does their adoring him , as they pretend , before they thus receiue him , helpe the matter ? so did the souldiers first crie , haile king , before they spit on him ; so did iudas first kisse him , before he betraied him ; and so their first ( like ) adoring him , and ( then with their good wills ) eating and swallowing him vp ; what ● it else but so much the more ●lasphemous mocking him , ●hen it is accompanied with ●ch abhominable entertainement ? yea , what more abominable vsage can be imagined ? ●ore dishonourable to the per●n of god ; more crosse to his ●isedome , prouidence , iustice , ●nd gouernement ; more re●ugnant vnto his goodnesse , ●entlenesse , tendernesse and ●ercie ; more obscuring , con●unding , defacing , and begoa●ng his most diuine , most ho● , most pure , and most glorious attributes , and properties ? ●magine who can ? imagine , o ●ucifer , if thou canst ? and if ●ou canst not imagine more ●bellious , more treacherous , ●ore impious , more hellish ●pposes against the state and person of thy creator ; the● ( since thy malice is incurable● and yet an excellent caldron to boyle thine owne torment ) ca● out vnto thy imps and furies t●●plie their fire-workes : for th● maine engine wherewith o● late thou hast inclosed suc● multitudes of idolaters vnt● thy kingdome begins to crac● call therefore vpon thy hang men to deuise new tortours , vp● on thy pen-men to forge new ● authors , to bowell , mangl● poison fathers , and perue● scriptures : let them face dow● all the world that all are blin● and must be blind in this myst●ry ( of darknesse thou meanest ; yea let them turne themselue● into angells of light , and become zealous pleaders of god cause : let them tell vs ( among other stuffe ) that his body i● of a peculiar nature ; for that it could walke vpon the water , could vanish out of sight , and is a glorified body : as if also the body of peter did not ( by the like miraculous suspension ) walke vpon the water ? as likewise philip vanished out of sight ; or as if glorification did take away the bodily nature ; or that he spake not of his body before it was glorified ? but principally and with most fell violence let them crie , out vpon all arguing and reasoning in this busines . and withall let them alleadge , how , god sees not as man sees , nor is affectable as man is ; that he often thinkes that precious , which man thinkes vile ; he could passe through the wombe of a woman without defilement , &c. but aboue all , let them neuer forget to tell vs of gods omnipotence , and that we infinitely robbe the same , by denying these their monstrous supposes , as if there were any thing impossible with him ? and thereupon finally let them glory in the strength of their owne faith , for that , it is so strong ( numbd , seared , and senselesse indeed ) as that with ease they can beleeue , that which their aduersaries are afraid once to imagine . and then last of all , let them close vp all with this pleasing conceit , that surely their opinion is inuincible : for why ? because ( no doubt ) it is builded vpon a rocke ; yea the most high and mighty rocke , the omnipotence of god. but , a lasse , poore , miserable , abominable fooles ! for if he be a foole that builds ( though neuer so good stuffe ) vpon a sandy foundation ; then how abominably foolish is he , that builds most rotten and most vile stuffe , vpon the most precious foundation ? as if cob-webs were any whit the stronger for beeing built in pallaces ? shall they not so much the sooner be swept away ? so this their like planting such spider-like , abominable stuffe thus at the right hand of god , so farre shall it bee from getting strength thereby , as that from thence it shall receiue most terrible confusion . the power of god , who denies it , yea wee glory in it that it is omnipotent : all things are possible vnto him ; we know it : scripture teacheth it : namely , so far forth as they carrie an honour in the performance . for else , why saies an other scripture , it is impossible that god should lie ? but to shew vs , that no kind of dishonourable actions ( whereof lying is one ) may bee ascribed vnto him : all power also to disgrace , diminish , or destroy ( finally ) either it selfe or other , beeing impotence and vnstaiednesse . before therefore they had presumed to affirme that god can doe so , or so ; they should first with feare and reuerence , haue considered whether it might stand with his glorie , so , or so , to worke . for that his power does neuer worke outwardly to the creature-ward , but as it is first beckned vnto , and cited by his glory : that beeing the ground and square of all power and possibility whatsoeuer : euen the power of sinne beeing grounded hereupon , because the glory of god is aduanced by subduing sinne : all sayings , finally , interpretations , and expositions whatsoeuer , beeing no further allowable , but so farre forth as they make for , or at least may stand with , this diuine glory . the church therefore interpreting those tearmes of face , eyes , hands , armes , wings , foote , &c. to be attributed vnto god improperly , and by way of his gracious condiscending vnto , and sympathizing with mans nature ; because beeing litterally taken , they are derogatory vnto his eternall glory , whereunto simplicity and vniformitie is of absolute necessity . are then thy supposes dishonourable vnto god ? so far then is the omnipotence from effecting them , or yeelding vnto them the least possibility of proceeding from him , as that infinitely it barres , repells and abhorres them . true indeed , time was , and wee blesse the time , when he tooke contempt vpon him ; ( so loued he the world , mans misery otherwise beeing endlesse ; ) but what of that ? is therefore honour and dishonour vnto him all one ? he passed through the wombe of a woman without defilement ; true : but was it without abasement ? where then is the merit thereof ? or he that humbleth himselfe , in that he does behold the things done in heauen and earth ; did he not infinitely more humble himselfe in descending into the heart of the earth ? or because also he was scourged and crucified without any defilement , shall that also be counted all one vnto him , that so thou mayest crucifie him , yea drinke his heart blood againe and againe ? we grant also that as he is pure god , he is not onely vnpollutable , but also vnaffectable with mans actions . but shall man therefore be carelesse of his actions ? the blasphemies of wicked men do no way hurt , or come nigh him ; shall it therefore be lawfull to blaspheame ? if thou sinnest ( saith iob ) what doest thou against him : or if thou be righteous , what giuest thou vnto him ? wilt thou therefore be indifferent whether thou sinnest or not , whether thou does well or not ? hee sees not as man sees ; well : his eternall and incomprehensible nature indeed , sees all things in a moment , and without obseruing time , place , or circumstance : but as he hath set himselfe in reference and aspect vnto his creature , especially that creature whose nature he hath assumed , he now hath determined to see , though not peruersly as wicked men , nor shallowly as all men , yet by those courses and formes of conceiuing , which he hath ingrained his creature withall : and therefore now forbeares not to say , i will goe downe , and see whether they haue done according to their crie , and if not , i will knowe : yea , now he will be affected with his creature , will be angred and pleased with it , will accept honour and euen outward respects from it : the holy baptist therfore professing himselfe not worthy to vntie the latchet of his shooes ; and the good centurion esteeming him too great to enter the roofe of his house : yea now he calls for the bending of euery knee , and the falling downe before his footestoole , with all possible praise , honour , and glorie . remember therefore , o presumptuous man , ( wormes meate , dust , and ashes , ) remember , that his reuealed law , not his incomprehensible nature , must bee thy square and gouernour . his law bids thee euery where ascribe vnto him all glorie , praise , power , and dominion ; giue him therefore that he cals for : and seeing he calls for honour , see thou offerest nothing vnto him , but that which , at least , thou thinkest to be most excellent , and most honourable : and whatsoeuer thou wouldest esteeme vile , inglorious , or contumelious , if it were offered vnto thy selfe , so farre must thou be from offring that vnto him , or supposing it by him , as thou wouldest be from blaspheming . thou reachest foorth thy hand in loue or fauour vnto some man ; he biteth it , or puts it in his mouth ; does hee honour thee in so doing ? or if thou takest such vsage for a fowle indignitie , wilt thou offer the like vnto him , vnto whome thou owest all honour , feare , dread , and reuerence vnto ? or belike when hee so calls for honour , glorie , maiestie , &c. hee meanes some other matter , or retaines some speciall notion vnder those words , which man neuer meant ? as if god speakes vnto vs in any other language but our owne ? or when he forbids murther , adulterie , stealing , &c. he meanes any thing else by such words , but as man ( the maker of words , as god is the maker of all things ) intended them to signifie ? then know , o peruerse man , that when he generally calls for honour , glorie , maiestie , wisedome , iustice , &c. to be ascribed vnto him , hee meanes nothing else but those respects and offices ( saue onely in the highest degree ) which man that made those words did first meane to vnderstand by such words ; vnlesse thou meanest to make his word of no effect , yea a very snare and intanglement vnto vs , and to speake by contraries , and so to blaspheme it as thou doest his omnipotence . but finally , were it so that these supposes did not indeed dishonour god , and so consequently might be allowed amongst things not impossible ; must they therefore of necessitie be beleeued ? because dooms day may be to morrowe , must it needs therefore so befal ? god can raise children out of stones , and humane bodies out of morsells of bread ; must it therefore so be expected ? does possibility impose necessitie ? to what purpose then is there so great labour to prooue a possibilitie of these things , which both they are infinitely shut from , and also were it graunted them , they are neuer the nearer . as little does it helpe them , but more and more condemne them , when they challenge all argument , and renounce all kind of euidence which either sense or reason offreth in this cause . for are not sense & reason the very ordinance of god , imprinted in mans nature when it was most perfect ? yea , in the estate we now are in , are they not the onely meanes whereby wee are both capable of his will , stand liable vnto his lawes , and tractable to his purposes ? does not euery word of god presuppose at least a reasonable vnderstanding , being otherwise as commendable vnto the beast ? yea , when the lord meanes most palpably to conuince men , does he not referre them to their senses ? are not not all his expostulations & messages whatsoeuer , directed vnto the conscience , whose ground is sense and science ? does he not send the vnbeleeuer to his touch , to feele the truth of his resurrection ? the ruffian to the light of nature , to see the deformitie of long haire ? and the hypocrite to the common opinion , to see the madnesse of speaking in an vnknowne tongue ? yea , does he not euerie where conuince men of the greatest sinne , euen of idolatrie , onely by this ; because they worship that which their common sense could tell them was a senslesse creature ? whereas if the power of common sense bee so blind , or so weake , or so false , as that it cannot certainely say , whether the thing it sees , handle , and tasteth bee a morsell of bread or not ; how shall it be able to say , whether that which it worshippeth be a stone or not , yea and that so infallibly , as that the worshipper thereof shall bee condemned , by the sentence of the most vpright iudge , to be an idolater thereupon ? for may not the idolater iustly plead , that howsoeuer his common sense told him it was a stocke , or a stone , yet might it indeede bee very god , as well as that which common sense affirmeth to be a morsell of bread , is notwithstanding very god ? and if it be replyed vpon him , that he might haue found scripture to warrant the person of god in the appearance of bread ; may he not readily answer againe , that there is as much scripture to warrant the person of god in the appearance of a stone , for that the same scripture calleth as expresly the same god by the name of a stone , and a rocke , whereof for ought hee knowes , his god may bee a peice ? and thus by the disabling the iudgement of common sense , shall the idolater be furnished with a faire excuse ; and may in the ende be iustified for taking a tree , and making a fire to warme himselfe with one part , does make a god of the other : as wel as they which of the same dough fill their bellies with one part , and then fall downe in adoration before the other . so as this renouncing of common sense , what is it but to cut in sunder the strings of gods prouidence ( wherewith hee leads men in and out before him , like a flocke of sheep , ) and flatly to peruert the rule , and blaspheme the proceedings of his iustice ? true indeed , the scripture often tells vs , that humane wisedome and vnderstanding is vanitie , foolishnes , yea , enmity with god ; partly because the wisedome of most men is foolishnesse indeed , and partly because in comparison with gods wisedome , the best is but foolishnesse : but principally , because vnder the dominion of vnbeleefe , malice , and concupiscence , it is abused , peruerted , and made enmity with god , as a weapon in the hand of a rebell becomes enmity against his prince : but shall we therefore from these-like respectiue , comparatiue , and abusiue speeches , proceed absolutely to frustrate and disanull the faculties themselues ? because the corruption of nature must be wrought out , must therefore nature it selfe be destroyed ? or because the light of nature must be subiect vnto the faith ( and so is a prince to his physitian , or pilot , in their elements ) shall therefore the faith cleane put out the light of nature ? does ruling ouer subiects consist in destroying subiects ? cannot my beast be subiect vnto me , vnlesse it falls downe vnder me ? or because the eye cannot heare , shall therefore the eare put out the eye ? so because sense and reason cannot lay hold of future things , shall therefore the faith deny their iudgement in present things ? yea take away these reasonable powers , and what shall become of the faith ? can it be ingrafted into the beast ? for as the naturall man is the wild oliue , vntill he shoots into the true vine ; so is the faith without effect , and must rerurne to him that gaue it , vnlesse it finds a reasonable ( though a wild ) stocke to receiue it , and finde materialls vnto it , or againe , how shall an infidell be conuerted ( though in the act of conuersion these naturall faculties most of all must be restrained ) if sense and reason be thus wholly laid aside ? for the onely meanes which grace vseth vnto mans conuersion , being preaching and miracles : take away sense , and what shall become of preaching ? how shall we heare , or how shall we read ? so againe take away reason , and what shall become of miracles ? how shal they mooue admiration and astonishment , or get acknowledgement ? in so much as it might bee a short decision of this whole cause , to retort their argument , and say ; common sense does acknowledge no substantiall change in this bread , nor any manner of miracle whatsoeuer ; therefore no such matter in this businesse may bee supposed . for all the miracles that euer we read of , not onely were acknowledged by these naturall faculties , but also were immediately directed vnto them , whereby to be conuaied vnto the heart of the natural man , toward his conuiction or conuersion . for the first intent of all miracles beeing to conuince vnbeleefe ; either in whole , as in the vnbeleeuer , or in part , as in the weake beleeuer : as for the vnbeleeuer ; nothing can possibly come at him but that which this naturall light ( beyond which he hath no capacity ) can entertaine : and as for the weake beleeuer ; considering that weakenesse of faith is ( in degree ) a want of faith , neither againe can he be outwardly wrought vpon toward the remoouing that his weakenes , but by those manner of meanes which can in some measure worke vpon vnbeleefe it selfe . so as those manner of miracles which this outward light of nature cannot acknowledge , must needs be as vaine ( and therefore not of gods working , ) as to point out the way to a traueller , and then to put out his eyes : the proper intent of all miracles beeing this ; outwardly to point vnto that supernaturall power , which inwardly grace onely does reueale . true indeed if the light of grace does affirme or reueale any thing which this light of nature cānot conceiue , or does contrary , there must it be suspended and renounced : but no such matter is there in the present businesse . for neither does the scripture , nor ( scriptures expositour ) the church ( the onely windowes of the light of grace ) affirme any substantiall change , any miracle , any con-or transubstantiation whatsoeuer to be wrought at this time . for first concerning scripture ; where does that affirme or import any such matters ? that he tooke , brake , blessed , and gaue bread , &c. all the reports of the first institution doe auouch : but that this bread was conuerted , changed , or any way in the nature thereof altred , but as all other bread is by the force of naturall digestion , no scripture makes any the least mention . it saith , this is my body ; true : and who saies otherwise ? but what meant he ? when he called peter a stone did he meane to turne him into a stone , as he did the vnbeleeuer into a pillar of salt ? he called also herode a fox , iudas a deuill , and the pharisies vipers ; himselfe also is vsually called a ●yon , lamb , stone , rocke , &c. ●s we haue noted ; cannot these sayings bee true , vnlesse they prooue so indeed ? if then the words may haue an other mea●ing , and that by the law both of common and diuine formes of ●peech ; must we needs suppose ●ese most incredible , mon●rous and impious operations , ●nely for this ende to help the words to a meaning ? yea had it ●ot beene farre better to haue ●rofessed ignorance of their meaning , then thus to con●ound and offer violence vnto god , and all his courses to●ard the filling vp of dead let●rs with a meaning ? or belike ●annot the intent of our saui●ur in this his ordinance take ●ffect , vnles these miracles , and especially his reall presence a●waies concurre ? so indeed they must say , or else nothing i● left them . but say then ; wha● was the intent of this our sau●ours ordinance ? if it was fo● his remembrance ; we know that the remembrance of a thing is not onely possibl● without the presence of it , bu● also does necessarily imply th● absence of it , and no way po●sibly can bee one and the sam● with it . so farre also is the remembrance of a thing from requiring any substantial change as that the more stable the elements and tokens are , so much the more firme and constan● remembrance shall bee cause● thereby . secondly , if our sauiours intent in this his ordinance was not onely for his remembrance , ( though to say more , what is it but to adde vnto his owne words , ) but also to giue the receiuers a full and reall possession of him and all his benefits : yet also may such a purpose be effected , not onely without any compounding or changing of natures , or this reall presence , but also without these elements or sacraments at al ; namely , by the publication of the gospell , wherein these benefits and all manner of promises , are most immediately tendred vnto the faith of the hearer . in which respect one of the fathers forbeares not to say , i take the gospell to be the body of christ , and that more truely then the sacrament : as also an other ; who so hath abundantly drunke of the apostles springs , hath alreadie receiued whole christ : and a third , the word made flesh , must be deuoured with hearing , chewed with vnderstanding , and digested by beleeuing . thirdly , if our sauiours intent was not onely to refresh his remembrance vnto vs , or to giue vs a full possession of him , but also to giue vs state and sesne of such possession ; yet neither hereunto is either his reall presence , or these miraculous supposes any way requisite : no more then they bee requisite vnto the same intent in the other sacrament of baptisme . fourthly , if the intent of this our sauiours ordinance be , not so much for our spirituall partaking him ( which is the worke of faith alone , ) nor againe onely for our visible partaking him , ( which is the intent of euery sacrament , ) but further that we may mutually and ioyntly so partake him , which is the most proper in●ent thereof ) yet as we be seue●lly made his visible mem●ers , by the sensible partaking ●aptisme , where no such pre●nce nor wonders are suppo●d : so may we be ioyntly and ●utually made his visible bo●e , by the sensible partaking ●is communion , though still ●e elements remaine simple , ●nd the same . fiftly , were it to ●e supposed , that the intent of ●is his ordinance , were to ●ue grace and faith vnto the ●ceiuer ; yet as the brazen ser●ent was neuer more then ( as ●zechias called it ) a peice of ●asse , though all that looked vpon did liue thereby : so might these ●mple elements neuer exceede ●eir naked and simple natures , ●ough as many as did eate ●ereof should get grace thereby . or finally , shall we suppo● the intent of this ordinance ● be ( as some of the aduersari● would haue it , ) for the exerci● and triall of our faith , whereb● to learne to beleeue his omn●potence , in first beleeuing h● bodily presence in so vnlike appearance ? and is this a fit e●ercise for to learne a weak fai● to beleeue , by putting vpon such manner of supposes ? h● that shall complaine of a wea● stomacke , shall he be prescribe to go eate the strongest mea● or he that can hardly stand o● his legges , shall he for his re●uery be aduised to runne race● then indeed may he that complaines of a weake faith , be w●shed vnto the exercises of th● strongest faith ; and hee th● would faine beleeue that th● sonne of god was once made man for him , let him be taught for a preparatiue to beleeue , that hee thus daily takes the forme of a peice of bread for him ; and so not only the means shall prooue incomparably more hard to brooke , then the end , most preposterously , but also that which was intended to comfort , or ( suppose ) to exercise the weake faith , shall ouerwhelme and breake the backe of the strongest faith : though ( who knowes not ) the intent of this sacrament is to refresh and nourish , not to exercise the faith ; and that the way thereunto should be by supplying new strength , and producing more plaine euidence ; not by increasing the burthen , and further perplexing the senses . last of all , what intent or benefit can there be imagined for the behoofe of man , which our sauiour cannot effect vnto vs without his bodily presence ? yea , the least miracle that euer we read of , and whereunto the omnipotence of god did least of all descend , were it but the softest voice , or the reaching forth of a hand , &c. would it not far more mooue and worke vpon the hearts of men , ( were miracles now to be expected , ) then this all-surpassing reall-presence , and most stupendious concurring operations ? wee conclude then , that no possible or imaginable intent of this our sauiours ordinance , does take any the least furtherance by these manner of supposes , but rather is vtterly oppressed and confounded thereby . for whereas the principall intent thereof , is to put vs in minde , that he tooke the forme of a man for vs : what doe these supposes , but teach the flat contrarie , namely , that hee hath left the forme of a man , and hath betaken vnto him the forme of common bread ; yea , not onely the intent of this sacrament , but euen the foundation of the christian faith is distempered ; and ( as much as in man lyes ) ouerturned hereby . for if hee that is a perfect man , seemes to be a morsell of bread ; if hee seemes to be bodily eaten , and seemes to be chewed with the teeth , when indeed hee is neither so eaten , chewed , or any way touched : shall not men hereby learne to imagine , that likewise when he was here vpon earth , he might seeme to be a man , and yet was not ; seemed to bleed , suffer , and die , and yet indeed did not ; and so the life and power of our saluation to come to nothing ? if then neither the words of our sauiour , nor any imaginable meaning of them doe inforce this reall-presence , where is the scripture that must make vs put out our eyes , and renounce all our wits for gain-saying it ? or that scripture which tells vs that wee must eate his flesh , &c. does it of necessitie bind vs to beleeue , that here it is in the forme of bread ? as if the true eating of this flesh indeed , did not consist in our onely beleeuing on him , and that before euer we tast of this sacrament ? or must we suppose , that though no scriptures expresly affirme these things , yet by inference or circumstance they may imply as much ? yea rather the cleane contrary : for had our sauiour intended , that this his ordinance should bee accompanied with these so vncouth and incredible operations , together with such deformitie of his presence , would he not haue giuen most expresse intelligence and warning thereof at the first institution ? would he haue giuen them no expectation of such wonders toward ? no caueat to heare with the right eare , and see with a single eie , as alwaies in matters of more importance then appearance , he vsed to quicken his hearers withall ? yea , had the disciples supposed any such wonders , would they haue bin so silent , without so much as asking , how can these things be ? or they which were so apt to make questions , and difficulties , and to wonder at his ordinary miracles ; yea , to be so astonished at a strange draught of fishes , could they let passe this masse of miracles vnregarded ? or if they so easily swallowed all these things , how was it that by and by after , when our sauiour did but say , yet a little while , and ye shall not see me ; and a little while and ye shall see me , &c. they were so troubled , as that they professed they knewe not what hee said ? could they conceiue immediately before , how hee could be here and there , and euery where , in all the corners of the earth bodily present , and at the same time , and yet now could not vnderstand , how a little while they should see him , and a little while not see him : and that when he told them that he went to the father ? or must wee suppose that the disciples were so fully resolued of our sauiours deity , as that therfore at this supper they made no maruell at any thing which he said or did . but had it been so , they would neuer so haue forsaken him presently after supper , and runne away from him , neither would they so slenderly haue beleeued his resurrection , as to thinke it an idle tale , when it was first reported ; especially beeing a thing farre more credible , and farre more becomming the almighty ( then the most tolerable amongst these supposes , ) and whereof he had often forewarned them , and shewed many experiments of his power therein . but be it so , that the apostles were so past all maruelling at our sauiours workes : yet could they be so vnmindfull of the weake beleefe , which future times are more and more subiect vnto , as in their epistles and gospells to leaue no mention of these wonders , concurring at euery sacrament , and beeing of such necessitie to be beleeued ? which also had they with many repetitions and inculcations put posterity in mind of , yea euen inserted into their creed , yet all would haue been little enough to haue procured vnto it the meanest degree of vnfained beleefe . or againe , how is it that they so often rehearse in the gospells the other miracles , and yet will not vouchsafe any of these once the naming ? was his turning water into wine so memorable , and yet his turning a morsell of bread into the perfect body of a man , or making them both one ( which is worse ) not worth the speaking of ? could his multiplying loaues be more wonderfull , then this multiplying humane bodies ? or was his transfiguration on the mount more meruailous , then this his transformation , or , transubstantiation , if it were not counterfeit ? or was the apostles power ouer scorpions and serpents more worthy to be recorded , then this incomparably exceeding ( supposed ) power ouer the mediatour , to cause him corporally to descend , when they and their successors should thinke good ? to conclude then , as no scripture affirmes or implies , so all circumstances are most contrary to this reall presence , and the rest of those intollerable supposes , which the light of nature is so shent for gain-saying . what then , in the second place , saith the church ? for the church hauing nothing but either from nature , as they are men ; or from scripture , as they are holy men ; it must follow , that where nature and scripture are silent , the church must needes be silent . those fathers also which tooke vpon them to write the meruells of both the testaments , for as much as they made no mention of these which are pretended , may it not be a faire argument , that the church neuer knew them ? would they haue omitted those wonders , which in regard of obscurenesse more needed , in regard of strangenesse more challenged , and in regard of ( supposed ) necessitie more required , notice and faith at the hands of men then any of the rest ? yea , hee which writ them at the full ( as all things else ) least he might be thought of forgetfulnesse to haue left out this biggest miracle , thus saith of the sacraments in an other place , that because they are knowne vnto men , and by men are wrought , they may haue honour as things appointed vnto religion , but wonder as things meruailous they cannot haue . euen thus much alone might it not bee sufficient to conclude the church to be negatiue concerning these supposes ? or must we rather goe search from age to age , the particular determination of the fathers and writers in their times about these matters ? so indeed would the aduersaries haue it : not because they thinke to help their cause thereby , but , partly because they haue no succour left , where-vnder to shelter themselues , but this pretence ; and partly for that by this kind of search , they hope to gaine time , and neuer come to an end . and yet notwithstanding euen in this kind hath the facility of our writers followed them , and discouered vnto the world how the ancient fathers neuer dreamed of these their monstrous supposes . and for a tast thereof , my selfe was purposed , christian reader , to haue noted from the first ( in time ) of note , clemens romanus , and so through ignatius , iustine martyr , ireneus , tertullian , clemens presb . alexandrinus , origen , cyprian , eusebius emissenus , eusebius caesariensis , concilium nicenum , athanasius , cyril , epiphanius , ambrose , greg nissen : chrysostome , greg. nazien . hierome , austine , fulgentius , vigilius concil . con●nt . beda , theodoret ▪ bernard , ●rtram pascha●us , r●banus m. dru h●u lumbard bonauen●ure , ius canonicum , vntill the ●imes of the first protestation , ●he elements in this sacrament were neuer esteemed to depart with their nature , nor were e●er counted more then as ●gnes , seales , tokens , figures , ●acraments , &c. of this his bo●y . but , partly for the reasons ●leadged in the beginning , i ●orbeare that labour ; and partly ●ecause this kinde of proofe , ●ough the authors were ne●er so worthy , must be answe●ed in the end as that woman of ●maria was by her country●en ; now beleeue we not for thy ●ying , for wee haue heard him our selues : there beeing a nearer and more contenting euidence , which the prouidence of god hath ordained , to stablish the heart of man , then the authority of any ( especially farre set ) whatsoeuer . but as touching the testimonies which they alleadge , we thus shortly answer : first , the authors which they vouch , so far forth as that notorious expurgatoriu● index hath had the trimming , or rather the bowelling of them , so farre wee might well returne them , as authors and sayings of their owne framing ▪ secondly , as holy and excellent tearmes and respects as any of them euer gaue to this bread ; they gaue euery way as holy and as great vnto the other sacrament of baptisme . thirdly , were it so that neuer so many made for thē , yea should angels from heauen teach vs to worship god in the shape or shew of bread , or in the likenes of any thing either in heauen or earth , we must abhor them . fourthly , were it so that some ●ate writers amongst their o●her workes haue infolded ● or rather rehearsed ) this ●heir opinion ; yet as holy aaron was ouer-borne by the multi●de , to set vp that golden ●alfe , which the people was so had vpon : so may it be ima●ined that men , well otherwise ●ffected , might in the like dread ●f a more fearce beast , then the multitude , be carried with the ●reame of the times , and yet ●etest it as aaron did , though ●o more excusable then aaron ●as . last of all ; those testimo●es which they truely alleadge out of the auncient fathers , for many hundred yeares together , immediately succeeding the first institution , are vrged and pressed of them beyond and contrary to the intent of the writer : namely , by taking those sayings according to the fulnesse and propriety of the letter , which they by way o● figure only , hyperbollically , o● comparatiuely , vsed to amplifi● and exaggerate the worthine● of this sacrament vnto the receiuer . as one saying of it thus thinke not that thou receiue bread , or wine , when thou come to these mysteries , &c. euen a neighbours will say when the● inuite one another , looke for ● good cheere &c. meaning tha● good cheere is not the inten● of their inuiting : yea some peraduenture not forbearing to sa● flatly , that the bread and the wine are conuerted into his bodie and blood , euen as monie may be said to be conuerted into land , a penny into a penny loafe , &c. an other againe saying ; the same thing which is beleeued with our faith , is receiued with our mouth : euen as the seale and the instrument , or the instrument and our act is all one . and some finally saying , in the bread , is receiued that which did hang vpon the crosse ; meaning , that nothing else is intended in the receiuing that bread , but the benefit of him that so died . these manner of phrases , and patheticall amplifications , the fathers are not scrupulous sometime to bestow vpon this bread : yet so as withall it may easily be discerned , how they neuer had therein any further intent , but partly to weane the conceit of the receiuer from regarding the belly-elements ; and partly by so attributing vnto the signe , the vertue and power of the thing , the spirit of the receiuer might the more kindly glide out of earthly shadowes and resemblances , into heauenly apprehensions and fruitions : so as from such kind of comparatiue , ardent , and hyperbolicall speeches , for any to gather positiue and absolute conclusions , beside the impiety of it , what is it else but extreame rudenesse and violence ? and as well may they conclude , that the anachims had cities fenced vp to heauen ; or that the earth did rend with the sound of musicke ; because so saith the letter of certaine scriptures : or that dauid was no man , because so ●e saith , i am a worme and no ●an : or , that paul was nothing , ●ecause he that planteth , &c. is ●othing , but god , &c. or , that we ●ust not bid a freind to din●er , because our sauiour saith , ●d not thy freinds , but the poore , 〈◊〉 : . euen all these may they ●nclude , as well as conclude ●at there is no bread in the sa●ament , because a father ●th , looke not for bread when ●ou commest thereunto : yea and 〈◊〉 well may they conclude ●m the same father , that we ●ust not thinke to receiue his ●die at this sacrament , be●use also these be his words in ● other place ; thinke not that ●n receiuest by the hand of man , ●e bodie of god , but that with ●gs thou receiuest fire from hea● , &c. yet these manner of ●ings they are which the aduersarie culls forth ; and stretc●ing them vpon his monstro● opinion , according to the v● most and hyperbolicall exte● of the letter , does thereupo● boast , that the church and f●thers are wholly of his side : a● so as one of the fathers saith ● the pharisies , that simplicem ● quendo literam occidunt fil● dei , may it most truely be sa● of them , that by their sticki● in the naked letter , they bo● ( as much as in them lies ) kil t● sonne of god , and also poiso● the good meaning of the f●thers , and all for the supporti● and maintaining their most ab●hominable idol . but , blesse be god , the church was a●waies waking , and quicke ●nough to discouer , and crie o● against such abhomination and as shee neuer failed to r●store the truth and sacraments vnto their integritie , as at any time they grewe tainted with vnwholesome compounds , or ●estered with traditions : so especially hath she in her elder ●eares , purged and redeemed ●hem euen with her blood , frō●asses of incumbrances and ●orruptions . in which busines , ●f her zeale to restore this sacrament to the first simplicitie , made her pare it to the quicke , ●nd withall peraduenture to ●ereaue it of some allowable respects , yet did shee therein no otherwise then as necessitie required : considering how prone ●ans nature is to goe a who●ng after euery fancie , and to ●ne the glorie of the inuisible god , not onely into the simili●de of a beast that eateth hay , ●ut also into the similitude of that which beasts and worme doe consume and eate . for such is the propertie of deceitful errour , when it cannot put the head forward , euen ( serpent like ) to put the taile forward when it cannot get in by mo● likely courses , to fetch about b● courses most vnlikely : when 〈◊〉 sees vs strongly prouided o● the left side , to trip vs vp ( assail● at least ) on the right side : whe● it cannot intice vs frō the lou● of good things , to make vs do● vpon the colours and shadowe of such good things : when 〈◊〉 cannot drawe vs from the lou● of scriptures , to make vs familiarly draw so neere , as to pinch presse , and tread vpon scripture : when it cannot perswad● vs that there is no such fruite i● them , then to perswade vs t● take the very leaues and lette● for the fruite of them : vnder which oftentimes if they carrie any breadth , it selfe will priuily lurke , and make them swell so fairely , and shew so goodly , as not onely the fruite shall be shadowed and sowred thereby , but also it selfe in the stead thereof most greedily gathered and intertained . as ( for a faire example ) these words of our sauiour [ this is my bodie , ] when it perceiued them to carrie more breadth and compasse then the meaning intended did require ; what does it but crowd it selfe within them , and filling them according ( indeed ) to the latitude of the letter , hath gotten it selfe to be preferred ( of the blind ) before the meaning intended ; namely , because by it the letter is more fully replenished : euen as the theife , which therefore challenged the garment , because his backe did better fit it . and this hath alwaies beene the practise of this subtile serpent , to worke both backward and forward : as yet more specially we may note in this businesse of the sacrament . for whereas at first it perswaded men to make no reckoning of it , but to resort vnto it as to an ordinarie feast , as if they had no other houses where to eate and to drinke ; and , ( as a father saith ) rather to fill their bellies , then for the mysterie : now at last , after they were beaten from such grosse prophanenes , principally by the apostles admonition , to discerne the lords bodie ( from the vse , not from the substance of bread ; ) and partly by the diligence of succeeding pastors , continually beating their conceit from minding the outward element , ( thinking it needles to put men in mind that still the outward element remained , ) what does this cunning serpent , but according to his old rule , assaile them with a most contrarie perswasion ; that when they would no longer esteeme it ( grossely ) as ordinary bread , he might make them now beleeue that it was no bread at all ; and so consequently ( for some thing it must be , ) his verie bodie indeed . euen as those barbarians did by paul , when first they iudged him to be some murtherer , and after , vpon occasion of a little miracle , would needs make him no ●esse then a god ; so this sallying ●eruersenes of man ( alwaies ●bbing or flowing in extremi●ies for want of foundation to settle vpon ) through the instigation of this crooked serpent , dealing by this sacrament ; whereas at first it esteemed it little , or no whit better then common bread , now , vpon occasion of those wholesome caueats of the fathers , will vphold it to be no lesse then verie god : first , not discerning the bodie of the lord ; now will not discerne the body of the bread : first , not discerning the spirituall ende of it ; now will not discerne the elementall beginnings of it : first resorting vnto it to fill their bellies with it ; now wil resort vnto it , as if they had no other god , to worship & adore it . which monstrous extremitie , beeing at first not perfectly discerned ; partly because it was so incredible , & partly because the first broachers of it were construed according to the fathers phrase , and as hauing no other intent in bestowing such superlatiue tearmes vpon it , but ●hereby to gaine reuerence ●nto it , and to preuent a relaps ●nto that corinthian grossenes , was therefore accordingly the ●esse gainesayed : but when the corruption plainely appeared , ●nd beganne to be authorised ; ●hen did the church double her most vehement asseuerations , and protestations against ●t : yea , they heaped vp their ●…ues for the ramming vp this gappe , which this monstrous opinion began to make , vntill the people of god might bet●er awake : which when they did ; and withall more perfectly espying what a monster made toward them , cried out vnto the lord of his goodnesse to succour them . then hee also awaked as one out of sleepe , and li● a gyant refreshed with wine , d● smite our enemies in the hinder parts , driue them home to their dennes , put them to a perpetua● shame : and finally , wringing the sword out of the beasts hand , which while the keepers slept , had made such hauocke withal ; restored it in good time vnto the true protectors & defendors of the faith. blessed be his soueraigne goodnesse and almighty mercy therefore . notwithstanding as hee which is conuerted , oweth this office of thankfulnes to strengthen others ; and who so is deliuered out of thrall , cannot performe a more acceptable sacrifice vnto his redeemer , then by furthering others vnto the like freedome : so does it concerne vs , not to take our finall ●est vnder our arbours , or inioy ● full fruition of this sweet li●erty , so long as we know any ●f the people of god elswhere ●ill to groane vnder the like ●aptiuity . for this cause , as they ●home god hath possessed with temporall power , cannot ●ore commendably extend it , ●hen toward the rescuing of ●hose which so groane and ●ffer ( the persecuting our bre●ren for the truth sake , beeing farre more iust cause of hosti●y , then the vexing our con●derats for trafficke sake : ) so ●e which rather inioy the be●efite , then haue the command ● such outward power , and are ●iuiledged to sleep ( as it were ) ● the day , in respect of bodily faires , whereby the better to ●tch in the night vnto inuisible busines ; what should we d● else but lift vp our voices , a● aduance our pens , at least , bo● for the incouraging the goo● hearted vnto perseuerance , a● also to keep the drowsie mi●ded from falling into the li●pit of darkenesse any mo● and the rather , let vs prouo● and stirre vp one another so● doe ; considering the doub● diligence of the aduersary ( a●cording to the children of th● generation , ) and how vncessa● they are ( hoping belike wh● they cannot preuaile by arg●ment , to tyre by importunit● in all kind of writings , paine and trauells , choosing , rath● then faile , with those ephesia● to support this their dia● though it be with nothing b● hourely out-cries : and shall ● then thinke it modesty or po●cy to be silent ? for what though the cause happily did not need our helpe , or that the truth were plaine enough ? what then ? does god call for thy seruice , because he needs it ? is it any thing to the almighty that thou art righteous ? is it not for thy exercise and benefite , that he puts duties and seruices vpon thee , that thou thereby mayst sweat out thy corruption , gather vp thy scattered soule , make it capable of blisse , and so waxe able to rellish heauenly things ? speake then the truth , o man , whether the truth needs it or not : speake it for thine owne good : for it is sweet : speake it , because thou hast a tongue : i beleeued ( saith the sweet psalmist ) and therefore i spake : we also beleeue ( saith the most feruent apostle ) and therefore speake : then if we all beleeue , let vs all speake , and magnifie his name together : let vs drowne the noyse of iniquity with the voice of truth and righteousnes . and if the aduersary thinkes with outcries to make great their diana of the ephesians ; let vs on the contrary be more loud , and more constant to cry , abominable is diana of the ephesians . as for faire and soft courses of argument , it is but lost vpon selfe-condemned heretikes ; as we haue more then probability to take these men to be , and that indeed they beleeue not themselues , that , which with extreame terrours and tortours they force vpon the faith of others : whether it be their pollicie ( most damnable though foolish ) that by making men swallow this monstrous opinion , they may then readily bring them to bibbe ●n all other creeping vncleane errours whatsoeuer : or whether it be their pride , as disdaining to be thought euer once to haue erred , but in sharpenes of wit to goe beyond all the world , beyond all sense and reason , yea beyond god himselfe : or whether it bee their foolish dotage vpon a few late forefathers ( aboue a thousand yeares since the first institution ) whose blind children they choose rather to be , then the right-sighted children of god : though therein also they contrary their best forefathers , which preferred the first rising of the gospel , before the old idolls of their heathen parents : or whether finally , the cause be in their siluer-smithes , and shrine-makers , those chalicers , iuglers , and wire-drawers , which finding daily as much foyson and fa● from this breaden , as those preists of bell euer found from that bourd , or those ephesia● crafts-men from their idoll ; doe set the people in the like foaming rage against all that go● about to vnmaske this thei● belly-god : whatsoeuer be the cause of this their wilfull besottednesse , there is no hope to preuaile with them by argument : all such courses are bu● lost labours , and whereby partly they gaine time , as he tha● vndertooke to make an asse to speake , and partly wind them selues from the point : choosin● with pleaders of fowle cause● to be any where rather then i● the matter , wherein they kno● they shall be grauiled and confounded . to such therefore , reader , be thou as farre from offering argument , as they will be farre from imbracing the truth , which howsoeuer in other matters they sufficiently can discerne , and with much perspicacitie afford ; yet in this businesse , they are resolued they must be blind , and will be blind : and therefore to offer them light herein , what is it els but to shew them their deadly foe to shoot at ? the strength of this their hold beeing affected and wilfull darkenesse . but as for such as haue not yet cast themselues into the nurture of these leaders , and yet do retaine a better opinion of ( falsly so called ) catholikes ; though knowledge , wisedome , temperance , iustice , grauity , and courage ( if these be the onely motiues of their affection ) haue abounded euen in pagans , heathens , philosophers , and naturall men , ( yea , and a scorne of equiuocation or treacherie against their enemies : ) yet if they haue not so vtterly renounced their owne light , as not to bee able to discerne betwixt the most distant things that are , ( the creator , and the most common creature ) such we make no question , will soone be brought to abandon the wilfull maintainers of this monstrous opinion . and as wee hope , a little the sooner , if they shall direct their consideration along , by the thred and byasse of this present treatise . the principal intent wherof , though it was for the protesting and exercising our due and necessary indignation against this idoll , which so aduanceth it selfe in the church of god , and in that very roabe which was ordained for the body of our lord ; yet , as we hope , we haue not so giuen way to our zeale , but that sufficient matter hath gone together withall , as well for the inlightning and resoluing others , as for the inflaming of our selues . notwithstanding , for as much as that spirit which requireth feruencie , does also commend vnto vs the loue of our enemies , ( and who are a christians enemies , but gods enemies , ) therefore , christian reader , according to the example of that blessed steuen , who at his last gaspe , prai●d for those which immediately before he had charged with al●aies resisting the holy ghost ; let vs also thus farre pray for our aduersaries : that so farre forth as they doe not maliciously renounce the light , nor wittingly make inquisition for the blood of those that loue the light ; they may find at the mercie of god some degree of that grace , wherewith that raging persecutor saul , was tempted into the humble professor paul : yea , lord ; they that are content to part with preferment , liberty , loue of friends , and life ( it seemes ) rather then with that ( falshood ) which they are perswaded is the truth : would no● they doe much more for the truth it selfe ? that truth the● which many contemne , ( a● least which so runne ouer , ) le● them be vouchsafed : were no● their eares bung'd vp , the● might prooue vessells farre be● ●er retentiue , then many which yet are not refused . but ●ll things shall be done in his ●e time ; to whome be ascri●ed , all honour , and glory , and ●raise ; all might , maiestie , and ●ominion ; all feare , respect , ●d subiection ; all grace , good●esse , and long suffering ; all ●art , good will , and good ●eaning ; all thanksgiuing , lo●ing kindnes , and deuotion , in ●e loue , grace , and fellowship ●f the almighty , three-in-●ne , for euer , and euer , amen . finis . notes, typically marginal, from the original text notes for div a -e iud. . . ioh. . ● . . cor . . . cor. . . ephes . . . . ioh. . . apoc. . . * mat. . . ambr. de . sacr. . . chrysost . in epist ad eph. hom. . aug. de vtil . per ● . c. . leo. ep. . serm. . de nativ . iewel art . . diui● . apoc. . . p●t . . . king. . ● . tert. cont . ma● . . . clem. pr● alex. in ped. . ● . orig. in leu. hom . . ambr. de off . c. . chrys . in ioh. hom. . hieron . in . cor. . aug. epist . . de doctrin . christ . l. . c. . ibid. cap. . deu . ● . rom. ● . . ier. . . luk. . . concil . trid. less . . can. . & can . . apoc. . . apoc. . * aquin. . . q. . a. . c. psal . . iob . . gen. . . luk. . . cor. . . . cor. . isa . . . hierom. in psal . . greg. niss . in vit . mos . tertul. de resur . king . luk. . . ioh. . ● . luk . aug in . libris . nazian . in poem . aug tom . l. . de trin . cap. . ioh . . deut. . . . king. . . chrysostom serm de e●char . . hieron . in matth lib. . cap. . . cor. . hieron in . cor. . act. . psal . . . . cor. . . psal . . . act. .