Roman Tradition Examined, Text – Postscript

Roman Tradition Examined · Text – Postscript

ERRATA.

PAge 26. line 28. for Turrian read Piſanus. p. 76. l. 7. for in r. it. p. 97. l. 21. r. Presbyters. p. 93. l. 20. r. Roman. p. 94. l. 2. for or r. of. p. 107. l. 1. for Gothes r. Vandals. p. 110. l. 4. dele and. p. 115. l. 13. for Com. r. Corn. p. 123. l. 11. r. Libraries. p. 156. l. 28. r. Greatreaks.

Errata, in Roman Tradition, &c.

Page 18. l. 1. for moſt real r. Moral. p. 20. l. 5. r. Georgians. p. 29. l. 16. r. Sirmium. p. 37. l. 5. for find r. ſaid.

ROMAN TRADITION EXAMINED, As it is urged as INFALLIBLE AGAINST All Mens SENSES, REASON, the Holy SCRIPTURE, the TRADITION and Preſent JUDGMENT of the far greateſt part of the Univerſal Church, IN THE POINT OF TRANSVBSTANTIATION. In Anſwer to a Book called A Rational Diſcourſe of Tranſubstantiation.

Printed in the Year, 1676.

p. 1ROMAN TRADITION EXAMINED, &c.

AMong many Books that lately came forth, of ſomewhat the like tendency, there is one called [A Rational Diſcourſe concerning Tranſubſtantiation, in a Letter to a Perſon of Honour, from a Maſter of Arts of the Univerſity of Cambridge.] Alas, for the unhappineſs of thoſe Perſons of Honour that have ſuch Teachers and Counſellors as this! Could they have no better? or would they not? If they choſe them their miſery is juſt.

The Title Paraphraſed is [A Rational Diſcourſe againſt Senſe.] But the ſtrain of this, and abundance Written, by Men of the like ingeny, tell us convincingly, that while they diſtruſt all their Senſes, and would have all the World diſtruſt them, and deny them, they are ſo confident of their Thinking, Inventing, and Talking Faculties, that they dare ſet them in Battel againſt the Senſes of all Mankind, and cheriſh ſome hopes to get the Victory. And verily, it is a wonderful victory that ſuch Mens Tongues have got already, if all the Princes, Lords, Doctors, and all other People that go for Papiſts, do really believe Tranſubſtantiation; and if ſome be not in the right, who think that there is not one hearty and compleat Papiſt in the World, unleſs implicite Believers may be called ſuch, who believe as the Church doth, though they know not p. 2what; but that the Maſters of the Game are but the Makers or Predicants of a Faith for others, which never was their own, and that they generate but their like, even worldly diſſemblers, and convert only Mens Tongues by the power of the Sword, and not their Hearts by all their Oratory. And I muſt confeſs, that when I have heard a prophane Swearer, Curſer, Railer, Drunkard, Whoremonger, plead for Tranſubſtantiation, I have thought of peaceable Melancthon's words [You Italians maintain that Chriſt is in the Sacrament, when you believe not that he is in Heaven.]

But the devout words and confidence of this Maſter of Arts maketh me think that he believeth himſelf, and that diſſembling is not the Art that he is Maſter of; but though he be as he ſaith [Non ignara mali] yet he may be Ignarus mali, ignorant of his Error and of the Miſchief which he would do. Indeed if Men will needs believe that Night is Day, and Day is Night, we might ſatisfie our ſelves with our compaſſion for their weakneſs, without any importunate publick contradiction; but our caſe with ſuch Men as this, is ſuch as prohibiteth ſuch patient ſilence: For, the ſame Religion which teacheth them to deny the Senſes of Mankind, doth teach them to Exterminate, Burn, Excommunicate, and Damn all thoſe that will not do as they do, but will believe their Senſes; and alſo to depoſe thoſe Temporal Lords that will not exterminate ſuch from their Dominions.

Two things yet I muſt note, that make me doubt whether the Author be ſo honeſt in his dealing as I could wiſh him, and as a Man that talketh of God and Jeſus Chriſt ſhould be. 1. That he ſo blindly, or fraudulently ſtateth the Queſtion. 2. That he taketh ſo little notice of the Books and Arguments that are Written againſt his Cauſe, p. 3as if they needed no Anſwer, when we ſuppoſe that they have put the Error of Tranſubſtantiation ſo far paſt all rational doubt, that it is ſcarce poſſible for a Man that hath underſtandingly, and ſeriouſly read them, to believe it: It is but lately that a ſmall Book, on that Subject, was publiſhed by R. Baxter, Dedicated to the Duke of Lauderdale, called, [Full and eaſie ſatisfaction, which is the true Religion,] which all the Papiſts in the World can never give a rational Anſwer to; and therefore this Man dare ſcarce take notice of ſuch, leſt it ſhould bring them to the notice of his Reader. But doth he think that we muſt not know that his Book is Anſwered before it was Written, becauſe he will take no notice of it? or muſt we therefore repeat the ſame things again?

The Roman Article of Faith is, that [There is a change made of the whole ſubſtance of the Bread into the Body of Chriſt, and of the whole ſubſtance of Wine into his Blood] ſo that our Controverſie with them hath two parts. 1. Whether after Conſecration there be no longer Bread or Wine? 2. Whether that which was Bread and Wine is then turned into the very Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt? Now this Rational Diſcourſer confoundeth theſe together, and in his progreſs dealeth ſo little with the firſt part, as if he were afraid that it ſhould be taken notice of.

The Reader muſt farther note. 1. That it is none of our Controverſie [Whether the whole ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine be Relatively changed into the Repreſentative Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt Which he once had, and offered in Sacrifice for us on the Croſs, as the Lamb of God that taketh away the ſins of the World; For, this is our Doctrine:] But it is, Whether there be a phyſical change of the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine into the natural ſubſtance p. 4of the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt which is now glorified.

2. That the Controverſie is not at all of the Real Preſence of Christs glorified Body, whether it be in this or that place, or not? but whether the Bread and Wine be changed into it? For, many Proteſtants (Lutherans, and others) do profeſs that we have no certain clear Conception of the nature of a glorified Body; and conſequently as they cannot judge of the Locality and Preſence of a Spirit, ſo neither of the Locality and Preſence of a Spiritual Body: They know not whether the now prevailing Phyloſophy be not true, that Light is a Body, and Solar Light is the emanant ſubſtance of the Sun it ſelf, whoſe Center is in the Heavens: And if its very ſubſtance be ſo extenſive as to fill all the Air betwixt Heaven and Earth, (and more,) and if the Light of an hundred Candles can be all together in one Room, they are uncertain what are the Limits of Chriſts Spiritual Body, or whether it be either of a more ignoble nature than the Sun, or of leſs extent: And moſt of the Greek Fathers thought Spiritual Bodies (if not Spirits themſelves) were Fire. And as our Senſe or Reaſon cannot tell us whether or no there be now an Angel in this Room, ſo neither can either of them tell us whether Chriſts Spiritual Body be here: This therefore they leave to God that knoweth it, and will have to be no no part of the Controverſie.

1. For the firſt part, Whether there be true Bread and Wine after Conſecration, as many others have fully proved the affirmative, ſo particularly the foreſaid Author briefly hath proved it paſt all rational denyal. 1. From the Senſes of all Mankind; an Argument fortified by twenty ſubordinate convincing Arguments againſt the denyers of Senſe; where the Papiſts Anſwers are refuted. 2. He hath proved the Coutradictions of the Doctrine of p. 5Tranſubſtantiation. 3. He hath ſhewed that the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation aſſerteth one and thirty Miracles, with twenty miraculous aggravations; and hath fully proved from Scripture that theſe Miracles are fictitious. 4. He hath proved from many expreſs Texts of Scripture, that it is Bread after the Conſecration. 5. And alſo that the Scripture it ſelf doth fully teach us to expound This is my Body, as we do, and not as the Papiſts do. 6. He proveth that the very nature of a Sacrament, even as Aquinas defineth it, is inconſiſtent with Tranſubſtantiation. 7. And Laſtly, he proveth the Novelty of your Doſtrine, and that the antient Writers were againſt it; which Albertinus, Pet. Molinaeus de Novil. Papiſmi, the late Morning Lectures of the Nonconformiſts againſt Popery, and many others have proved at large. But theſe things our Diſcourſer Rationally diſſembleth, leſt if he ſhould anſwer them it would appear to be no Rational Diſcourſe. But let us hear what the Rationality is which he pretendeth to.

His Diſcourſe conſiſteth of three Aſſertions, and their pretended Proof, and a ſhort Anſwer to ſome Scraps of Objection.

His firſt Aſſertion is, that [It is poſſible to the Omnipotent Power of God, to change the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine into the ſubſtance of our bleſſed Saviour's Body and Blood.] And he ſaith, that [This his Adverſaries generally grant.] And yet, if he know what they ſay, he knoweth that they maintain that Tranſubſtantiation is a Doctrine of Contradictions, and that God cannot make two Contradictories true. They eaſily grant him that God can do every thing which belongeth to Power to do: Though we are not fond of his phraſe [Omnipotent Powers] no more than of [wiſe Wiſdom] or [ſtrong Strength] or p. 6great Greatneſs,] yet taking his meaning, we grant that Omnipotency is never ſtalled with difficulties: Though God cannot lye, nor cannot hate goodneſs, nor love ſin, nor make Contradictions true, that is not for want of Power, but becauſe he is perfect: He cannot be ignorant, or evil; and he cannot chuſe but be God.

I ſuppoſe that he taketh not Chriſt's Body, though ſpiritual, to be meerly, or properly Spirit, or (as they ſpeak) immaterial; and ſo that it is none of his meaning, that God can turn Bread into immaterial Spirit; which yet I would not have ſaid that he cannot do: But it is turning one Body into another which he calleth Poſſible. And that God can do this by Appoſition, or Union, adding one Body to another, I cannot deny: But theſe following Contradictions we take not for Poſſibilities.

1. For one Body to be turned into another pre-existent, by appoſition, (the Form of the changed Body ceaſing, but not the Matter;) and yet that the pre-existent Body ſhould not be increaſed by the appoſition, this is a Contradiction. As in Numbers, for two to be added to ten, and yet the Number be ſtill but ten, is a Contradiction: So for all the Bread that is Conſecrated to loſe only its Form, and the Matter to be changed into the Body of Chriſt, by appoſition, and yet Chriſts Body to be no bigger, is a Contradiction; unleſs ſome pre-exiſtent part of Chriſts Body vaniſh, and it be diminiſhed by loſs, as much as it receiveth by appoſition.

You ſay, that by Concoction we our ſelves turn Bread and Wine into Fleſh and Blood daily: But note, that the Form only of the Bread and Wine ceaſeth, and the Matter receiveth a new Form in us, and by appoſition increaſeth our Fleſh and Blood; and that our bulk increaſeth not alway, is becauſe ſome parts vaniſh, as others are added; p. 7and being in a continual Flux or Mutation, we have little, if any, of the ſame Fleſh and Blood this Year, that we had the laſt, or a few Years ago. And doth Chriſt's Body thus change, and receive addition and diminution? or, doth it grow bigger at the pleaſure of the Prieſt?

2. If you ſay that this is not your ordinary belief, but that the very Matter, as well as Form of the Bread and Wine ceaſeth; I add, that it is a Contradiction, that the very Matter ſhould ceaſe to be, and yet be changed into another Body. The ceaſing of Matter is Annihilation: And to ſay that it is annihilated, and yet changed into another thing, is a Contradiction: As Matter is denominated from the Form, when the Form ceaſeth, the Matter ceaſeth to be the Matter of that Form; but unleſs annihilated it is ſtill the Matter of another Form. For one Body to be annihilated, and another to take its place, is not for the one to be changed into the other. Annihilating and Tranſubſtantiating are Contradictory.

3. It is a Contradiction for Bread and Wine to be turned into Chriſt's Fleſh and Blood, and made his Body, whoſe Body is not Fleſh, or Blood; unleſs he have two Bodies, or one conſiſting of marvelous diſſimilar and heterogeneal parts. That Chriſt's Body in Heaven is not Fleſh and Blood at all, muſt be confeſt by all true Expoſitors of 1 … 15. 50. Fleſh and Blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. The Context ſheweth that it is not Sin, but natural proper Fleſh and Blood that is there meant: And who will believe that glorified Bodies are Fleſh and Blood, whoever well conſidered, 1. What Fleſh and Blood is, and for what uſe? 2. In what Region glorified Bodies dwell; and that the Inhabitants are every where Connatural to their Region. 3. That the Text ſaith They are Spiritual Bodies.

p. 8And if Chriſt's Body in Heaven be no Fleſh or Blood, and his Body on Earth be both; then either he hath two Bodies, or very heterogeneous parts of one.

4. It is a Contradiction to ſay that there are Accidents, which are not the Accidents of any Subſtance, (either of Bread, Chriſt's Body, or any thing▪ elſe:) For, Accidentis eſſe eſt in eſſe, it is relative: The foreſaid Author p. 96. hath told you, 1. For Quantity, a Pound, or Inch of nothing; a long, or broad, or thick nothing; a Pint, or Quart of nothing, are Contradictions. 2. For the Number of Wafers, or Cups of Wine, to put twenty, or forty, or an hundred nothings, is a Contradiction. 3. For Figure, a round, or ſquare nothing, is a Contradiction. 4. A ſweet nothing; a ſharp, or auſtere nothing, inſtead of Wine, is a Contradiction. So an odoriferous nothing; a rough, or ſmooth nothing; a red, or a white nothing; a nothing ſeated on the Altar more than another place, &c. all theſe are Contradictions.

5. And he hath there ſhewed you that it is a Contradiction for nothing to have real effects: for nothing really to nouriſh, and become Fleſh and Blood in him that eateth it: yea, for nothing to be eaten; for nothing to turn to real excrements; for nothing to make a Man drunk, as Wine doth: God can do all that are works of Power, but to verifie theſe Contradictories, is no work ….

6. God cannot lye, ſaith the Apoſtle, and Nature it ſelf; elſe Faith had no certainty at all, the formal Object failing. To lye, is to give falſe deceiving ſigns of the Matter, and of the Authors mind: And if God's Natural Revelation to Senſe it ſelf be falſe, yea to all Mens Senſes; doth not that make a lye as well as a falſe Word, Propheſie, or Viſion? God's Natural Revelations are known by all Men certainly to be his own, and ſo are p. 9not the Prophetical: All know that God made Mans Senſe to be the Natural perceiver of ſenſible Objects, that as ſenſed, they might be perceived naturally by the Intellect: And ſuppoſing the Object, Senſe, Intellect, and Medium duly qualified, if now we be deceived, Natural Revelation faileth, or is falſe, and we have no remedy: So that to make God's Natural Revelation to Senſe, and by Senſe to the Intellect, to be falſe to all the ſound Senſes in the World, is to make God, blaſphemouſly, the greateſt Lyar in the World; and this God cannot be, becauſe he is God.

And now, I pray you what doth the Doctrine of Rarefaction and Condenſation make againſt any of this that I have ſaid? Apply it to any one of theſe Contradictions, and try whether it will prove them no Contradictions? Though your definitions of them are ridiculous, (viz. that Rarefaction is a little▪ Matter under a great Quantity, and Condenſation is a great deal of Matter under a little Quantity; and this you ſay is the ancient and commonly received Definition) yet this, were it ſo, is nothing to our buſineſs. Rarefaction maketh the Quantity of Matter no more, but only more diffuſed, or extenſive as to Space; and Space and Quantity are not all one: And Condenſation maketh not the Matter to be of leſs Quantity, but only to poſſeſs leſs Space: You ſhew how great a Philoſopher you are. But doth Rarefaction make Accidents without a Subject, or Effects without a real Cauſe; or Matter to be added to Matter without augmenting it; or the ſame Matter to be changed into other Matter, and yet ceaſe to be the ſame Matter it was; or any of the reſt.

And what if a Spirit, which is circumſcriptively in no place, may be ſaid to be definitively, or operatively, in many places at once? Will you ſay the ſame of a Body, and p. 10ſo make Body and Spirit to be the ſame? A Spirit is indiviſible, and ſo is not Matter; but yet I make not this the Controverſie. I know not how near Chriſt's Body is to a Spirit, which is called ſpiritual; but if it be material, and yet in many places at once, it muſt be by Parts; one Part in one place, and another part in another place. For a material Body not to poſſeſs its proper place according to its Quantity and Parts, is a Contradiction: And whatever you will ſay of Chriſt's Heavenly Body, ſure you will not ſay that his ſuppoſed Fleſh and Blood is not material, or a true Body: And therefore either Chriſt hath as many Bodies, or elſe as many Pieces, or Parts of one Body, as there are Conſecrated pieces of Bread, perhaps many Thouſand Miles diſtant from each other. Yet I will confeſs to you, that as if a Thouſand viſible Apples could grow on one ſpiritual, or inviſible Tree, they would be all Parts of that one Tree; ſo if you could prove, that a Thouſand material viſible Hoſts are united by appoſition to one ſpiritual inviſible Body of Chriſt as Parts, they would all be Parts of that one Body; but marvelouſly heterogeneal. But what's all this to the foreſaid Contradictions?

But you have recourſe to the Miracle of Chriſt's Incarnation, to ſalve the Objection fetcht from Senſe: But what mean you by that? Did you think that it is Miracles that we object againſt? or that every Miracle is a Contradiction, or contrary to well-qualified Senſe? What is there in Chriſt's Incarnation, Conception, or Birth, which is a Contradiction, or againſt Senſe, or Reaſon? There is indeed much that is above the reach of Reaſon without Revelation; but nothing that is against Senſe, or informed Reaſon: For, what ſhould it be? Is it impoſſible for God to impregnate a Virgin, any more than to p. 11make Eve? Or is it impoſſible for God to take a humane Nature into Union with the Divine; when as all things are ſo neerly dependant on him, that he is, as they ſay, intimior intimo noſtro? and it is harder to confute that Platoniſt, who taketh God to be the Soul of the Univerſe, and all things to be as it were his Body and Accidents, than to prove it impoſſible for him to be united to one. What elſe meant your Fanaticks, Fryar Benedict. Angl. in Regula perfect. to make it Mans perfection to believe that there is nothing but God?

And for the Doctrine of the Trinity, it is no more a Contradiction, than to hold that the Mental Nature or Spirit is informed by a Vertue or Faculty, which is One eſſentially, and Three reſpectively, as to the Acts and Objects, viz. The Facultas-vitalis-activa, Intellectiva & Volitiva; or, that the ſenſitive Soul hath a formal Faculty, which is One and Three, viz. Activa, Perceptiva, Appetitiva; or, that Fire hath a Trin-une power, Motive, Illuminative, & Calefactive. When Trinity in Unity is imprinted on all Active Natures, will you find out a Contradiction in it? If it were Three Eſſences, and yet but One Eſſence; or Three Perſons, and yet but One Perſon, in the ſame ſenſe and reſpect, it were a Contradiction. And is here any deception of our well diſpoſed Senſes, or any Lye? Becauſe God hath many Works which ſurpaſs the power of natural ſecond Cauſes, in their ordinary way of working; and becauſe he hath many which we cannot know without ſupernatural Revelation, will you thence infer that he may be the great Deceiver of the World, and may deliver Contradictions as his Truth? As if Miracles were all Lyes and Contradictions.

You ſay that Chriſt appeared to S. Mary in the ſhape of a p. 12Gardner. And what of that? Either diſtance, or want of light, or obſervation did hinder her from diſcerning his proper Viſage, and then its nothing to our Caſe; or elſe he really aſſumed a Viſage different from that which ſhe had formerly ſeen: And if ſo, here was no deception of Senſe, any more than in the apparition of an Angel; nor no more than a Masked perſon doth deceive anothers Senſe, becauſe he would not be known; nor any more than when one knoweth not his old Friend, when Age or Sickneſs hath changed him.

Pag. 4. You did with a neceſſary craft paſs over your Doctors Explications of the Myſtery, as knowing that they do but detect the Contradictions.

You here tell us of [ſome of the learnedeſt of the Engliſh Clergie (or Church) that confeſs the holy Euchariſt, after Conſccration, to be really and truly our Saviours Body, and therefore fall down before it, and adore it; and for this cauſe diſown the New Rubrick of the Common-Prayer Book, which ſaith, our Lords Body is in Heaven, and not on the Altar. Theſe Doctors will tell you that they acknowledge the thing, only they dare not be ſo bold as the Romaniſts to determine the manner. And one of the learnedeſt of them, Mr. Thorndike, asks, why cannot our Saviour appear to us in what ſhape he pleaſeth, in the ſhape of a Gardner, or if it ſo pleaſe him, in the ſhape of Bread and Wine?]

To which I anſwer, 1. That New Rubrick is but the Old reſtored: So you call our Religion New. 2. Thoſe may well paſs with you for the moſt learned, who pleaſe you beſt, while you confer Degrees. 3. Such as you teach men to refuſe Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacrament, (as one of you that is mentioned in the Life of Biſhop Hall) by thus perſwading men, that the Engliſh Clergy believe Tranſubſtantiation, and adore accordingly. p. 134. Either you ſpeak true or falſe of the learneaeſt of the Engliſh Clergie: If falſe, it is an ill ſhelter for your other Falſhoods: If true, what regard ſhould we have of the judgment of ſuch Clergy-men, as declare their Aſſent and Conſent to all things contained in and preſcribed by the Book of Common-Prayer, and Articles of Religion, and yet diſown the Rubrick, and believe Tranſubſtantiation, and adore the Euchariſt as Chriſts Body? Why do you not call ſuch the Roman Clergie, rather than the Engliſh Clergie, if they differ from you but only in a want of boldneſs to determine the manner, while they acknowledge the thing? What if a Biſhop Bramhall will have the Pope to be Principium Unitatis, and take Grotius to be of the mind of the Church of England, (who would have Rome to be the Miſtreſs Church, and the Pope the Univerſal Governour, according to the Canons of Councils, even the Council of Trent;) muſt we therefore ſtoop to ſuch mens judgment? Or might you not as well tell us, that Caſſander, or Mileterius, yea or Bellarmine, were of your mind? And whats that to us?

Your ſecond Aſſertion is [If our Saviour would have left us his ſacred Body and Blood, inſtead of all the Sacrifices of Sheep and Oxen, under the Moſaical Diſpenſations, to be offered up by Chriſtian Prieſts, and to be fed upon by the Chriſtian People, it would have been a favour worthy of his exceſſive love to mankind, by reaſon of the innumerable benefits, &c.

Anſw. 1. If he had only left us his Body and Blood, he had not deceived all mens Senſes, nor impoſed any Contradictions on our Faith.

2. If he had done ſo, his choice would have taught us to take it for a benefit, becauſe his Wiſdom is fitteſt to diſcern, and to denominate it.

p. 143. To leave us that Body which was true Fleſh and Blood, capable of breaking, ſhedding, pain, and death, is one thing; and to give us his glorified Body, is another thing: This is not capable of breaking, ſhedding, pain, or death, being a ſpiritual, immortal, incorruptible Body. Therefore indeed, the Euchariſt is Chriſts Body and Blood repreſentative, but not of ſuch a Body as he hath now glorified, but ſuch as was truly Fleſh and Blood, which he once offered; the benefits of which Sacrifice are really given us in and by the Euchariſt. But to have left us a Body to be broken and ſlain, which cannot be ſlain, and Fleſh and Blood which is not Fleſh and Blood, but ſpiritual, is a Contradiction. But if Chriſt have two Bodies, or one conſiſting of parts ſpiritual, glorified, and of real Fleſh and Blood, then indeed one part of this may be ſtill a Sacrifice.

4. But taking it (as you here do) abſtractedly from Gods Will, and as in it ſelf conſidered; what reaſon can you give us, why Chriſt's true offering of himſelf in Sacrifice once for all, ſhould not be as great a Benefit and Love-Token, as our offering him daily? The holy Scripture (Heb. 10. 14. telleth us, that [by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are ſanctified] and v. 10, 11, 12. that by the Will of God we are ſanctified through the once offering of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt: and every Prieſt ſtandeth daily miniſtring, and offering oftentimes the ſame Sacrifices, which can never take away ſins; but this Man after he had offered one Sacrifice for ſins, for ever ſate down on the right-hand of God.] But you will tell us what a benefit it would be to offer Chriſt often? Do you really break, wound, hurt, and kill him in your offering, or do you not? If not, how is it a Sacrifice? and how is he the ſlain Lamb of God that taketh away p. 15the ſins of the World? And what Sacrificing, or ſatisfactory uſe can it have, to be offered without breaking, hurt, or death? Is it a living, or dead Body of Chriſt that you offer? If a living Body unhurt, it is none of the Sacrifice the Scripture mentioneth of Chriſt: And how is it propitiatory for ſin? If it be a dead Body, was it ever alive? If not, 'tis not Chriſt's: If yea, who killeth him? And if it be his living, glorified, impaſſible Body that you offer, how unlike is that to Chriſt's offering? And why calleth he the Bread and Wine, his Body and Blood, which a glorified Body is not? It's moſt evident that Chriſt ſpeaketh of his ſuffering Body, and not of his glorified Body that cannot ſuffer: And if ſo, ſhall we tell God what a benefit it would be to us, if every Prieſt may become as the Jews, the killer of Jeſus Chriſt; that he may break his real Fleſh, and let out his real Blood? Chriſt did not this himſelf. He conſented to be killed, but he killed not himſelf. And what Man of Senſe can doubt but he ſpeaketh of a Repreſentative Body, and Blood at his laſt Supper, when his real Body was not broken, nor ſlain, nor his Blood, till after; unleſs Chriſt had two Bodies, one firſt killed by himſelf, and eaten by his Diſciples; and the other killed after by the Jews.

I marvel whether any Papiſt believe in his Conſcience, that Peter, and John, and the reſt, did believe at that Supper, that they did eat Chriſt's real Fleſh, and drink his Blood? What, they that did not underſtand before his Reſurrection that he was to dye as a Sacrifice for ſin, and riſe again, though he oft told it them? For ſo expreſly ſaith the Text, John 12. 16. Luke 18. 31, 32, 33, 34. and 24. 20, 21. If it had been believed by them, why is there no mention of any of their wonder at ſuch a Miſtery, as that their Saviour ſhould at once be in their p. 16Belly, and in their ſight? I can ſcarce believe that Man that ſaith he believeth that they believed that then they did eat Chriſt's very Fleſh and Blood. But perhaps ſome of you will take up a late ſtart Conceit, that Chriſt at his laſt Supper did not celebrate, but only institute that Sacrament: which I am aſhamed to ſtay to anſwer.

For our parts, we take it for a greater mercy that Chriſt doth reconcile us to God, and put away our ſins, by once offering himſelf in Sacrifice, inſtead of the old Sacrifices that muſt be often repeated, than if he had bid us kill, or break, or offer his real Body and Blood often. And we take it for a greater mercy that we may daily offer this Repreſentative Body and Blood, and Commemorative Sacramental Sacrifice, than to have broken the real Body of Chriſt our ſelves daily, and ſhed his Blood. But I wonder not that they that can believe, or take on them to do it in ſpite of all Mens Senſes, can do it alſo in ſpight of Scripture, Reaſon, and Conſcience.

I confeſs there is ſomething in what you ſay, p. 7. It would have been an incentive to munificence in adorning Churches with the richeſt Gold and pretious Stones, and whatever elſe that's rare and ſplendid; and alſo to enrich and magnifie the Prieſt, that can inſtrumentally make God of Bread, and Sacrifice him when he hath done; or ſet him on the Altar, or keep him in a Box. But to the entertaining of Chriſt into the heart by Faith and Love, a Repreſentative Sacrifice ſeemeth more meet for us to exerciſe: And Chriſt ſaid to Thomas, bleſſed are they that have not ſeen, and have believed.

Your third Aſſertion is, that [The Bread and Wine in the holy Euchariſt, are by the Omnipotent Power of God actually, and indeed changed into the Body and Blood of our bleſſed Saviour Jeſus Chriſt.

p. 17Anſw. This is to the purpoſe if it be but proved. But, alas, where is the Proof? Why you give us ſuch as you have, and we can expect no better from you. You ſay [This was the Univerſal Belief of the Chriſtian World in the ninth Century.] How prove you that? Very eaſily in your own conceit; ziz. ſay you [It is evident by the Teſtimony of all the Writings of that Age, and by the Univerſal Teſtimony of the tenth Age; nor do our Adverſaries deny it.]

Anſw. 1. All theſe three are falſe: Neither all the Writings of the ninth Age, nor the Univerſal Teſtimony of the tenth, ſaith it; and your Adverſaries do deny it.

2. But was there not ſome ſorry neceſſity that put you to begin your Proof ſo low as nine, or ten hundred Years after Chriſt? Methinks you ſhould have feared, leſt this have opened all the deceit.

3. Your Adverſaries challenge you to name one Book that ever ſo much as named Tranſubſtantiation, before one Stephanus Aeduenſis after the Year 1100, which was neither in the ninth, nor tenth Century, and yet you have not done it to this day; and yet go on to talk at this rate. And they challenge you to name one General Council that ever determined for either Name or Thing, (that the Bread and Wine are changed into the very Body and Blood of Chriſt, and are no longer true Bread and Wine) before the Council at the Laterane in Rome, under Innoc. 3. Anno, 1215. which ſure was neither the ninth, nor tenth Century. Can you give us no earlier proof that ever any Conncil mentioned it (when Councils are your Religion) and yet deceitfully talk with confidence as you do?

4. But ſuppoſe the twelfth Century, or thirteenth, had p. 18been the tenth; let us hear your Inference. You ſay, [Then it muſt neceſſarily be taught in the first Age by the Apoſtles, to their firſt Converts over all the World; and conſequently be moſt certainly true: For it cannot be doubted but that the firſt Converts did underſtand what was taught them, believe and eſteem it as highly neceſſary to them and their Children.]—Then none can doubt but that they could and would and did teach the very ſame Doctrine which they ſo highly esteemed, &c.

Anſw. Thus ſome over-wiſe Perſons can ſit in their Cloſets, and tell from moſt real Cauſes, what, no doubt, was done in all Ages of the World: And why can you not as infallibly propheſie from ſuch Cauſes, what will be done, and ſo get the reputation of a wiſe Man indeed? As one that would infallibly foretel that his Party ſhould conquer in a certain Battel, becauſe they were Men that loved themſelves and their Country, and therefore would not wilfully deſtroy, or deſert both; and therefore would not run away: For they know that more are killed when they flye, than when they ſtand to it; and if they do not run, the Enemy will, as ordinary Experience ſheweth; ergo they muſt needs conquer. But when he was asked why all the ſame things might not be ſaid of the Enemies, and when he ſhortly heard, de facto, that the Enemy had got the day, his great Argument was unanſwerably confuted. But let us come to the tryal.

1. I will better argue from your Medium, againſt you: The far greateſt part of Chriſtians in the World are againſt Tranſubſtantiation at this day; therefore ſo were their Fore-fathers, and their Fore-fathers, till you come up to the Apoſtles.

That it is ſo at this day requireth no better Proof than to have more knowledge in the ſtate of the World, or p. 19more honeſty in reporting it than you have. Pag. 16. you ſay [The whole World formerly, in a manner, Pagan, except a handful of Jews is now become Chriſtian.] Reader, Is this Man like to tell you what all the Chriſtian World held, in former Ages, from ſuch a Medium as their latter Belief, that can no better tell what the Chriſtian World is? Look over the Globe, or Map of the World, and let this Man tell you which be the Countries that are Chriſtian; and then take the Meaſure there of their Proportion your ſelf. Or to ſave you the labour, read any credible Author that reporteth it. Brierwood in his Enquiries, one of the beſt, tells us, after the naming of the ſeveral Countries of each Religion, that if you divide the Known World into Thirty Parts, nineteen are Pagan Idolaters, ſix are Mahometans, and ſive are Chriſtians of all ſorts: But this Man is not aſhamed to ſay, that, except a handful of Jews, the whole World in a manner Pagan, is now become Christian. All the Pagans of Africa, and America, and Aſia, and all the Mahometans are nothing to him; even five ſixth parts of the Known World. And, alas, how little probability is there that the terrae incognitae, the vaſt unknown Regions, ſhould be Chriſtian: ſure if they were governed by the Pope, he would know them. He that can Tranſubſtantiate all the Pagans, and Mahometans on Earth, into Chriſtians; and make Men believe that five parts of ſix of Mankind are now of a Religion which they partly know not, and partly abhor, may not diſpair hence to prove Tranſuſtantiation. But how many of this ſixth part of the World are Papiſts? A Biſhop Bromhall ſaith, that about the fifth part of the Chriſtians of the World are Papiſts: Others think about a fourth part, not meaſuring by the largeneſs of their Dominions (for few in the King of Spain's p. 20Weſt-Indies are Chriſtians) but by the Number of Profeſſors. But the moſt that ever I knew any underſtanding impartial reckoner allow them, is to be the third part of Chriſtians; comparing them with the Abaſines, Copties, Syrians, Armenians, Gregorians, the Greek-Church, and Muſcovites, and all the Proteſtants, &c. And when the Empire of Abaſtia was greater by many Kingdoms, and the Kingdom of Nubia was not revolted, and many great Countries of the Greek Religion were not yet turned Mahometans, the Papiſts were proportionably much leſs a part than now. And though moſt of theſe will ſay, as we do, that the Bread and Wine are Chriſt's Fleſh & Blood (not which is in Glory, but which was Sacrificed for us on Earth) yet few, if any, of all theſe do hold real Tranſubſtantiation. If he ſay the contrary of them, Travellers, and Authors enow of their own can confute him: (How ſhamefully they have changed the Aethiopick Liturgie, as to their ſenſe, by the altering of one word Biſhop Uller hath ſhewed from the true Copies; and by ſuch tricks they can, by a Printer, make all the World Papiſts: and I would the Pope had no other ſort of Subjects to uphold his Monarchy, than ſuch as are ſo made.)

I appeal now to any impartial reaſon, whether I may not better argue againſt Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe two or three parts of the Chriſtian World are againſt it, than he can argue for it, becauſe a third or fourth part are now for it, or were ſo in the twelfth, or the tenth Century.

But perhaps he will ſay, that they are of the ſame Religion that they ever were, but ſo are not the Proteſtants. I anſwer, 1. The Proteſtants will not undertake that none of their Anceſtors from the beginning were in this, or other points, erroneous: If the Papiſts will, it is ſuitable to their other undertakings: But that we are of the ſame p. 21Religion which all true Chriſtians were of from the beginning, the ſame Baptiſm, the ſame Creed, the ſame Lords-Prayer and Decalogue, and the ſame Scriptures, owned, ſhew: and the Lords-Supper Adminiſtred in the ſame words as Chriſt and his Apoſtles and the ancient Churches did. 2. But if the Proteſtants had not been of the ſame Faith with their Anceſtors, what's that to the reſt that are more than all the Papiſts? It's notable to read in their Godignus de rebus Abaſſinorum, how an old Woman (the Emperors Mother) confuted, or baſſled the Learned papiſt that came with Oviedo to pervert them to the Pope, by pleading the Tradition of their Fore-fathers, that had delivered them their Religion, and never told them of the Pope. And how tenacious the Greeks are of their Religion as received from their Fathers, their very ſtiffneſs againſt the Roman Inſertion of [Filio que ] into the Creed, ſufficiently ſheweth. 3. But that really the Papiſts are Innovators, and have changed the old Religion in this Point, as we have oft fully proved out of Antiquity, ſo we need no other Proof than the expreſs words of Scripture; which (to paſs by the reſt) in one Chapter in the three next Verſes 1 Cor. 11. 26, 27, 28.) doth three times call it [Bread] after Conſecration. And I never met with a Writer ſo impudeut as dare deny but their leaving out the Cup to the Laity in the Lords-Supper is a change from the antient Practice of the Church. And yet will this Medium ſerve our Rational Diſcourſer; The preſent Church leaveth out the Cup, ergo ſo did their Fore-fathers, and ſo did the Apoſtles? And let him tell me, with the Face of a Man, if he can, whether he think in his Conſcience that our Anceſtors, or the firſt Converts of the Apoſtles, were not more likely to underſtand and remember whether the Bread and Cup p. 22were both delivered by the Apoſtles, or the Bread alone, than to underſtand and remember in what ſenſe it was that the Bread and Wine was called Chriſt's Body and Blood.

In ſum, 1. We believe that all true Chriſtians have the ſame Religion which was firſt received from the Apoſtles. 2. We are ſure that they kept not all the ſame Purity, and Integrity of that Religion; As ſome fell quite away to Paganiſm, and Mahumataniſm, and ſome to Arrianiſme, and other Hereſies; ſo ſome that fell not ſo far, fell to leſſer Errors. 3. And we do undertake to prove, contrary to this Diſcourſer, that the generality of the Churches for many Ages, and the moſt of the Chriſtian World to this day, held not, and hold not Tranſubſtantiation.

II. I farther uſe his own Argument againſt him; At this day, the greateſt part of the Church, by far, and in the fourth Century, that which they themſelves call the Univerſal Church, denyed the Pope's Primacy (much more his Soveraignty) to be of Divine Inſtitution: Therefore ſo did the firſt Converts of the Apoſtles. If the Conſequence be good in your Caſe, it is much more in this. 1. You falſly feign all the Church to have been for Tranſubſtantiation, but I ſhall undeniably prove what I urge them for, as being againſt the Divine Inſtitution of the Roman Primacy. 2. And this is a Point likelier to be commonly underſtood and remembred, than the meaning of the words [Body and Blood.] I prove the Antecedent.

1. That moſt Chriſtians now are againſt it, is a matter of Fact commonly known: Two or three parts of the Chriſtian World being no Subjects of the Pope at all, viz. Thoſe before mentioned. 2. That in the fourth and fifth Century the Church was of this judgment, appeareth p. 23by the moſt expreſs words of one of the four Great General Councils, even that at Calcedon, which ſaith, [Definitiones ſanctorum Patrum ſequentes ubi que & Regulam, & que nunc relecta ſunt 150 Deo amantiſſimorum Epiſcoporum, qui Congregati ſunt ſub piae memoriae Imperatore majore Theodoſio in Regia Civitate Conſtantinop. nova Roma, Cognoſcentes & nos eadem definivimus de privilegio ejuſdem ſanctiſſ. Conſtantinop. Eccleſiae, novae Romae: Etenim ſedi ſenioris Romae, propter Imperium Civitatis illius, Patres conſequenter privilegia reddiderunt: & eadem intentione promoti 150 Deo amantiſſ. Epiſcopi aequa ſanctiſſimae ſedi novae Romae privilegia tribuerunt, rationabiliter judicantes Imperio & ſenatu urbem ornatam aequis ſenioris Regiae Romae privilegiis frui.] that is [We following alway the definitions of the holy Fathers and the Canon, and knowing thoſe things which now have been read of the 150 Biſhops moſt beloved of God, that were Congregated under the Emperour, of pious memory, Theodoſius, the greater, in the Royal City, Conſtantinople, New Rome, have our ſelves alſo defined the ſame things concerning the Priviledges of the ſame moſt holy Church of Conſtantinople, New Rome: For, to the Seat of Old Rome, becauſe of the Empire of that City, the Fathers conſequently gave the Priviledges: And the 150 Biſhops moſt beloved of God, being moved with the ſame intention, have given equal Priviledges to the moſt holy Seat of New Rome; reaſonably judging that the City, adorned with the Empire and Senate, ſhall enjoy equal Priviledges with Old Regal Rome.]

Here you ſee, 1. That two of the four greateſt General Councils concur. 2. That they profeſs herein to follow the old Definitions, and Rule. 3. That they conclude that Romes Priviledges were given it by the Fathers. p. 244. And that becauſe of the Imperial Seat. 5. And therefore they give equal priviledges to Conſtantinople.

The Teſtimony is ſuch as nothing but impudent violence can put by: either they ſpeak true, or not: If not, then how come two of the greateſt General Councils ſo quickly to falſifie the Tradition of the Apoſtles? Did they not underſtand what their Fathers had delivered to them? or did they diſeſteem it, or forget it?

If they ſpake truth, (as they did) you ſee that Rome hath no priviledges, or primacy, from God's Inſtitution, but (like Canterbury) in our Empire by the Princes and Fathers Gift.

Which is ſo ſure, that he muſt put off common Ingenuity, that conſiderately will deny it; having not only this Teſtimony of two Grand Councils, but the continued opinion of all the Greek-Church, even before their diviſion from the Roman: For, let any Man rationally Anſwer me this Argument. [The whole Greek-Church knew that a Divine Inſtitution was to be preferred before a Humane: The whole Greek-Church knew that Conſtantinople was not by Divine, but by Humane Institution, made Patriarchal or equal with Rome, and yet were for its Patriarchate and equality, if not priority: Therefore the whole Greek-Church judged Romes Patriarchate and Primacy to be of Humane, and not of Divine Inſtitution. I have larglier proved this elſewhere.

III. I give you another Argument with your own Medium. [The Univerſal Church in the time of the Councils of Conſtance and Baſil, judged that a Pope might be a wicked Heretick, and as ſuch be depoſed; and that it is de fide, that Councils have power ſo to do: Ergo, this was the Doctrine of the Apoſtles to their Converts.] And yet the Councils at the Laterane under Leo the Tenth, and Florence, p. 25determine that the Pope is above a Council. What Self-contradictors now do you make the Apoſtles to be? How could the Councils of Baſil and Conſtance believe that Councils are above the Pope, and that he may be a fallible wicked Heretick, unleſs they had received it down from the Apoſtles? And how could the Councils at the Laterane, and Florence, judge the contrary, unleſs they had received it down from the Apoſtles? Will neither Reaſon nor Experience make you aſhamed of cheating the World by ſuch ſilly Inferences?

IV. But yet I will come nearer you: The ſame General Council at the Laterane, ſub Innoc. …. which firſt decreed for the Belief of Tranſubſtantiation, did in the very next Canon and words, decree, That all Temporal Lords ſhould exterminate from their Dominions all ſuch, as Hereticks, that denyed this Tranſubſtantiation; and if they did not exterminate them, ſhould be excommunicate by the Pope; and if yet they did it not, the Pope ſhould depoſe them,, and abſolve their Vaſſals from their Allegiance, and give their Dominions to another. Now either they had this by Tradition from their Anceſtors, and ſo from the Apoſtles, or not: If not, why ſhould you dream that the Council had the ſecond Canon from the Apoſtles, and not the third? If yea: Then, 1. We ſee what we muſt expect from your Religion: The King muſt exterminate all Proteſtants (and other Decrees ſay, Burn them) or elſe be depoſed himſelf. To exterminate us all, will be almoſt to depoſe himſelf. Kind Sir, whither ſhall we all go? or who ſhall burn ſo many? It will be a greater Incendium than that of London, or Southwark: And who ſhall be the Kings Subjects? Who ſhall Plant England anew? The French, Spaniards, or Italians? But what if in this fortunate Iſland they alſo ſhould p. 26awaken and turn Proteſtants; muſt the King be to ſeek for new Planters to be his Subjects?

As Benedictus Spinoſa, who aſſaulted the Scripture, did at once alſo aſſault all Civil Government; and taught men, that he that could get the Crown had beſt right to it; and that a Man may kill any that ſtand in the way of his deſires, and break any Vows when they are againſt thoſe deſires (which are his Intereſt,) God mercifully ſo ordering it, that he that will depoſe Chriſt, ſhall with him be permitted to depoſe all Kings and Governours; Even ſo God in mercy to preſerve Princes, in theirwits, from turning Papiſts, hath permitted the ſame Men that firſt by Council condemned common Senſe, and made God the deceiver of Senſe, and of the World, and new brought Tranſubſtantiation into the Faith, to make a Decree alſo (ſuch as never Turks, or Canniballs made) That all Men that will not renounce all their Senſes (that is, their animality, and their humanity) ſhall be exterminated; and all Princes depoſed that will have ſuch (as renounce not humanity) for their Subjects.

Several things are ſaid to this, by Men that think that if they do but open their Mouths, and ſpeak, though it be to prove that Murder is Mercy and Piety, they have conquered.

1. Say ſome, You ſee the King of France, and others, do not ſo. Anſw. 1. If they may be good Catholicks that rebell againſt the Pope and a General Council, why may not we? 2. I ſpeak not of what any of you do, but what your very Religion bindeth you to do: Are not Councils your objective Religion? By the ſame Law and Religion then that Tranſubſtantiation was firſt decreed, if it rule in England, we are all in Law exterminated, or dead Men (except the Papiſts) or elſe the King muſt be no King. p. 27Can you ſay in Conſcience that your Anceſtors had this from the Apoſtles? If you will, let Kings, that love your Tradition, take it.

2. But ſome ſay, that theſe were no Decrees of the Council, becauſe they were but propoſed in haſte by Pope Innoc. and not paſſed by the Council. This help Biſhop Taylor, Biſhop Gunning, and Biſhop Pierſon, in kindneſs, would give the Papiſts; but unthankful Men will not accept it: And therefore the Anſwerers to Biſhop Gunning and Biſhop Pierſon prove the contrary, as Mr. Dodwell hath unanſwerably done lately at large: And what ever it was in it ſelf, it was a General Council to the Papiſts, and is part of their Religion, who number it with the approved ones. And Math. Paris ſaith but this, that [many Decrees were propoſed, or brought in by the Pope, which ſome liked, and ſome diſliked] and yet the Major Vote might paſs them: See alſo Naucler, Gen. 41. an. 1215. Godefrid ad an. 1215. Platin. in Vit. Innoc. 3.

3. Others ſay, that theſe were but Decrees of Practice and Diſcipline, and not de fide; and therefore the Pope is not here Infallible, nor his Council neither. But Men that will not take a ſound of Words for their Eſtates, Lives, and Souls, may ſoon anſwer this. 1. That though there be many things to be believed, that are not to be done; yet there is nothing to be done but what we muſt firſt believe that it may, or muſt be done. When it is ſaid, Thou ſhalt love God and thy Neighbour; it is included, that, Thou muſt believe it thy Duty to love God and thy Neighbour: So he that ſaith [Hereticks ſhall be exterminated, and Temporal Lords that will not do it ſhall be depoſed, and their Dominions given to others] doth include, that [To do ſo is a Duty, or Lawful at leaſt.] Sure it is not confeſſedly decreed that the Pope ſhall ſin, p. 28or that Temporal Lords ſhall be depoſed by him for any thing but ſin, in their Aſſertion.

2. If you grant that a Pope and General Council are Fallible about Duty and Sin, even in depoſing Princes, and diſſolving their Subjects Oaths of fidelity, how ſhall we know that they are Infallible in matters of Faith? He that is deceived in ſaying, Thou muſt obey the Ten Commandments, may be deceived in ſaying, Thou ſhalt believe the Creed: If we cannot be ſure by the Churches Propoſal that God is to be loved; how ſhall we that way be ſure that he is to be believed, and that the Scripture is his Word. And if the Pope may excommunicate and depoſe Princes, and change Dominions by errour; how can I be ſure that he may not ſay by errour, that this Bread is no Bread, and this Wine is no Wine.

3. Is it only matter of Faith, and not matter of Fact that you have by ſure Tradition? Is not matter of Fact (as Chriſt's Birth, Death, Reſurrection, and Aſcention) alſo matter of Faith? And is not this in queſtion a matter of Fact, viz. Whether, de facto, the Apoſtles told the firſt Converts, that Bread after Conſecration was no Bread, and that this was the meaning of Chriſt's words [This is my Body] which you aſſert? And it's matter of Practice that Men muſt receive it in this ſenſe. But if the Council may be deceived in this, and make ſuch Laws for ruining Princes and Nations, which yet they were never taught by their Fore-fathers; why may not the ſame Men ſay [Bread is no Bread] without being taught it by their Fore-fathers.

4. Will you give it us under your hand, that this Council and Pope did err in this, and are not to be obeyed, that Princes may have ſo much notice of your truſtineſs? But what Council hath ever ſince declared that p. 29this Pope and Council erred in this; name it me if you can? No, they will be guilty of no ſuch Contradictions as ſhall ſignifie repentance and amendment.

5. In the mean time, is not the Pope and his Council by this Decree, declared Enemies to all Proteſtant Princes, and People? What can any proclaimed Hoſtility do more, than thus by your higheſt power to Decree Extermination of all the People, and Depoſition of their Lords? And is not he to be taken and uſed as a Publick Profeſſed Enemy, who ſo profeſſeth himſelf? Are you not all virtually in continual Arms againſt us, who make the Decrees of ſuch Councils your Religion?

V. And why might not an Arrian have argued as you do, when they had their General Councils, and the World groaned to find it ſelf turned Arrian, faith a Father? Might they not at Ariminum and Firmium have ſaid, How can we believe it, unleſs our Fathers had it from the Apoſtles? And I ſuppoſe you know (elſe Sondius will tell you) that the Arrians pretend as confidently to Tradition as the Papiſts do. And your own Dionyſ. Petavius hath cited ſo great a Number of the antienteſt Fathers and Writers, who ſpeak words too plainly ſavouring of, or favouring Arrianiſm, as will tell any Man that their pretenſe is not without ſuch a colour of proof, as is as plauſible as any you can bring for the Tradition of Tranſubſtantiation at the leaſt.

VI. I pray you tell us which way was Tranſubſtantiation delivered down from the Apoſtles? By Writing, or without-book, by Word alone? If by Writing, are not thoſe Writings yet extant? And cannot we read them as well as you? You tell us that all the Writings of the ninth, or tenth Age ſhew it (which is falſe.) But if the Writings of the firſt eight hundred years ſhewed not the p. 30ſame thing to them, how did they know it? If by bare words, can you make your ſelf believe that bare words, and Memory, will as ſurely convey down from Age to Age, the Myſteries of Faith, as Written Records will do? Do you not daily find, that if Men are but to repeat a Sermon, yea a few Sentences, how apt they are to alter, or omit, or add ſome words which alter the whole ſenſe? I ſeldom hear a Sermon reported, but ſomewhat of it is miſ-reported! yea, we can ſearce have a matter of Fact reported without great diverſity and miſ-reports; which makes the common reports of Perſons, and Things, in City and Country, to be ſo full of falſhood, and uncertainty. Mens Memories are ſlippery, and the alteration of a word, may make the matter another thing. Send but your Servant to do a meſſage, or buſineſs for you, by bare word and memory; and at another time Write him down all that he ſhall ſay, or do; and try which way will occaſion more miſtake! Why do you keep your Bonds, Bills, Covenants, Leaſes, Deeds, and Teſtaments in Writing elſe, and do not truſt them to Mens Memories? Why are our Laws Written, and Court Records kept, if Memory will keep them better? Had we no Books, or Records, one Lawyer would ſay one thing, and another, another thing; and there would be nothing but uncertainty and confuſion. Why do ſo many Preachers uſe Sermon Notes? Why do you cauſe all your Maſs, even the Hoc eſt Corpus meum to be read out of a Book, and truſt not your Maſs-Prieſts to repeat them by Memory? Beſides, that Men Write more deliberately, and accurately, than uſually they ſpeak; and their ſenſe is eaſilier tryed, and reviewed. Where Mens Life and Death lyeth on it, Phyſicians will hardly truſt their Memories with all their Remedies, nor ſend one to the Apothecaries without p. 31a written Bill, leſt the miſtake of a Word, or Doſe, prove Death.

VII. And I ask you farther, Is all the reſt of your Religion delivered only, or moſt certainly, by word of Mouth and Memory, or rather by Books? Are not the Decrees of all your approved General Councils for Faith and Practice your Religion? And are not theſe written in Books? Have Caranza, Crab, Surius, Nicolinus, Binius, the great and many Volumns of the French Edition, and all the reſt, been all written in vain? Do all your Lay-Papiſts, or all your Prieſts, or any of them carry all theſe in their Memories to a word? Or are they there as ſure as in your Books? Doth Verbal Tradition now deliver down your Religion? Nay, do you not Write your very Confeſſions and Creeds? If all your Books were burnt, would not your Religion be greatly changed, while much of the Decrees of Councils would be forgotten? and O what contention and confuſion about them would there be?

VIII. But if all your Religion was ſo currantly delivered by word of Mouth by Fathers to their Children, what made the ancient Doctors paſs by the ſame things in their Writings? when their Writings were purpoſely to tell their Readers what was the Chriſtian Religion, and the reaſons of it; would they leave out that in their deliberate Writings, which every Child was taught by his Parents?

IX. But what mean you to talk of all Parents delivering it to their Children? Do you mean all Prieſts, or all Laymen? If Prieſts had Children, it's like they were Married; And had you then the Celibate of Prieſts by Tradition from the Apoſtles? If you mean Lay-men, would you make Men believe any Story you tell them, contrary to the experienc of their daily Converſe? Do we not ſee p. 32that the far greateſt part of Men, both among Papiſts, Greeks, and Proteſtants, have too little ſenſe, or underſtanding of Religion, to be accurate keepers of the ſenſe of Scripture? Try your own followers in Ireland, Spain, Italy, yea, or France, whether the generality of the Common People teach their Children, or underſtand themſelves, what a Sacrament is; though your Induſtry may teach them to Cant out ſuch words as you would have them ſay in oppoſition to the Proteſtants. When we have much ado to get moſt of the Vulgar to endure to be Catechiſed themſelves, and to underſtand the very Creed, and Principles of Chriſtianity; do you ſuppoſe them competent preſervers of the myſterious ſenſe of ſuch words as we are Controverting?

X. And if Tradition without Writing be ſo ſure, how cometh Tradition to be ſo contrary? The Millenaries pretended to Tradition from St. John? Moſt of the Writers of the firſt 300 Years ſeem for them. Yet I think you will ſcarce confeſs that this was indeed the Doctrine of any Apoſtles.

XI. How long did the Opinion and Practice of Infants Communion prevail in the Church? Doth it follow therefore that they had it from the Apoſtles? Why then do you diſuſe it?

XII. The Practice of not adoring, kneeling on any Lords-day in the Year, or any Week-day between Eaſter and Whitſontide, was indeed called the Practice of the Univerſal Church, and an Apoſtolical Tradition; and was Decreed in the firſt General Council at Nice, Can. 20. If they had not this from the Apoſtles, how prove you that your Tranſubſtantiation is from them? If they had, why have you changed an Apoſtolical Univerſal Practice?

p. 33XIII. And if it was the Common Belief of the Church, why did never General Council mention it till 1215 Years after Chriſt's Birth? Was it becauſe it was commonly known? So were the Articles of Faith which they do mention: And ſure it is the Common Faith which they are to preſerve and deliver. Unleſs they were negligent or forgetful, it was becauſe no ſuch thing was then believed.

XIV. The ancient Churches profeſſed that their Creed contained all the neceſſary Articles of the Chriſtian Faith: And when Hereticks obſcured ſome of them, they put the Expoſition of them into their after Creeds. If Tranſubſtantiation then was a neceſſary Article of Faith, how came it to be left out of all the Creeds?

XV. The ſecond Council at Nice held Angels to be Corporeal, and that Images were not to be worſhipped with Latria: Yet Aquinas, and many others of you, as to the Image of Chriſt and the Croſs, diſſent from them in the latter; and the generality in the former: Had they theſe then from the Apoſtles, or not?

XVI. Doth one of your General Councils, (e. g. that at Trent,) ſignifie all the Chriſtian World? 1. When they are oft but a few Men (not fifty ſometimes) and when one County or Dioceſs with us hath more Learned Men. 2. When they are a Faction packt by the Pope, and his Agents. 3. When we know that it is uſually the Pope, Prince, or Arch-Biſhop, or Men of Power, that chuſe the Members, though moſt of the Clergy be oft for others, or have no choice. 4. When all the Papiſts that ſend to your Councils are not paſt the third part of Chriſtians, and the far greateſt part have no Delegates there. 5. When we know that a few Mens Intereſt, and Speeches in ſuch Aſſemblies uſe to carry away the p. 34moſt. 6. When we know that they uſe to differ among themſelves, and ſometime carry a Cauſe but by a few Votes: And how ſhall we be ſure that if ninety ſay one thing, and one hundred ſay the contrary, that the ninety did not as well underſtand the Tradition of their Forefathers as the hundred? 7. And when we know that Men are oft in Council born down by fears, or hopes, or fair words, and repent when they come home, as the Greeks did after the Council at Florence. 8. Yea, when we know that they ſometime fall into inhumane Fewds, yea, and fight it out to Blood; as the Caſe of Dioſcorus againſt Flavianus proveth. And is this a certain Tradition of what was delivered by the Apoſtles?

Indeed Baptiſm, the Creed, Lords-Prayer, Decalogue, and the Euchariſt have been delivered down by certain Tradition; But ſo hath not every Controverſie about them, nor in particular, the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.

XVII. Read but Pet. Molineus de Novitate Papiſmi, or but the Non-conformiſts late Morning Lectures on that Point; and you will ſee how the Papiſts have innovated in Religion, and all their Errours proved Novelties: And ſhall we think that ſuch changers have kept Tranſubſtantiation as from the Apoſtles, that could not keep one half the Sacrament it ſelf which they delivered them?

XVIII. How ſhall the ignorant know whether this Man ſay true? that moſt Books, and moſt Men were for Tranſubſtantiation in the ninth and tenth Centuries? The time is paſt, and the Men are dead: Muſt he know it by the Books of thoſe Ages, or by the Teſtimony of this Age? If by their Books, 1. How ſhall he that hath read their Index expurgatorius, and known their corrupting of Authors, be ſure that thoſe are not corrupted? or p. 35many of them as very Forgeries, as Mercators Decretals, and abundance of Spurious Writings? ſo proved by Cook, Blondell, Rivet, Uſher, and many more. Is it neceſſary to Salvation that the Vulgar (yea, or the Prieſts) have ſo much skill in Hiſtory as to know which way moſt Men went for ſo many Ages paſt▪ in the Expoſition of ſuch a Text of Scripture? What Man can tell now what mind moſt of the World are of in ſeveral Myſteries▪ and controverſies between you and us? Who can tell how to take their Votes? Much leſs can every illiterate Man know what mind moſt Men were of in former Ages; and leaſt of all to be able critically to judge of the Evidence, and what Authors are ſpurious and corrupted, and what ſound. 2. Nay, who ever put ſo much Coſmography into the Creed before you, or made it neceſſary to Salvation, to know that there is ſuch a Place as Rome in the World? 3. If Books muſt decide that Caſe for the ninth and tenth century, why not for the former alſo? And have not we all thoſe Books as well as you? And yet we are confident that they are againſt you. 4. But if it muſt be by the Teſtimony of the preſent Generation, whoſe Teſtimony muſt it be that muſt tell us what our Fore-Fathers held? Muſt it be by the Teſtimony of a Council? 1. There is no General to enquire of, nor hath been long; nor know we whether ever there will be? 2. If it muſt be by the laſt Council, 1. How ſhall the Vulgar know that it was a true General Council, any more than that of Epheſ. 2. Baſil, Conſtance, &c. 2. How know they what they did Decree? They never ſaw, or heard them. If it muſt be by the Printed Books, 1. They cannot read them. 2. They know not whether they are forged, or falſified. 3. They know not the meaning of them. If it muſt be by p. 36Reports, by whoſe Report? Father Paul Servit… maketh them a pack of Fellows that abuſe the World, under the ſhew of a General Council: He was a Papiſt. We cannot look for another Council to tell us what this Council ſaid. Muſt men take the word of particular men? Some accuſe that Council; ſome own it: Whom ſhall we believe? muſt it be every ſingle Prieſt? Then Father Paul muſt be believed againſt them: And ſome that turn from the Pope ſay more againſt them than he: And how ſhall the People know that the Prieſt ſaith true? Perhaps he knoweth the Prieſt to be a common Lyar, or perjured; at leaſt, he knoweth him not to be infallible. If the Pope be infallible, none of you ſaith that each Prieſt is ſo: And we never ſaw or heard the Pope. If you ſay that we muſt believe the Prieſts where they all conſent: How ſhall ordinary men know that, who never ſee a Council, nor many of them? If the major Vote muſt be believed: who ſhall gather the Votes, and how ſhall the People know them? In a word, I ſee no way that you have to give men any aſſurance what to believe to ſalvation, (for the generality that cannot travel over the World, nor get skill in Hiſtory and Coſmography) but only to believe that Prieſt that ſpeaketh to him; when perhaps he knoweth him to be a man that hath forfeited belief; or at leaſt is neither the Pope, Council, Church, nor pretendeth to infallibility.

But ſuppoſe that the perſon be ſo learned, as to be verſed in the Councils, How ſhall he know by them what the former Ages held? 1. What Councils be they that he muſt believe, and how ſhall he be ſure of it? Is it the Councils aforeſaid of Epheſ. 2. Baſil, Conſtance, and ſuch other? Theſe you reject, and many more. 2. Do any Councils tell him by Decrees, which former Councils p. 37were currant, and which not? Sure they do not; no, not the laſt at Trent: So that it is not, de fide, with your ſelves, which are the true Councils, and which not. 3. How doth a later Council know which former Councils were true? Not becauſe they find ſo themſelves; for then all would be true: If it be by any Characters, what be they, and why may we not know them? 4. How do Councils know which way moſt Writers went, or what they wrote? As it cannot be expected that the Biſhops that met at Trent ſhould remember by Tradition what all the Chriſtians in the world ſaid or thought in every Age; ſo neither were all Writers words known to them without Book, by verbal Tradition. I pray you tell me truly, whether ever any General Council took that way to prove what Juſtin, Tertullian, Cyprian, Baſil, Gregories, Hierom, Auguſtine, Chryſoſtom, &c. ſaid and held, by ſhewing that they had it by Tradition from other Councils Decrees, or their Fathers telling them ſo, rather than by looking into the Writings of the Authors themſelves? And your own Doctors commonly tell us what the Fathers held, by citing the Fathers words, and not by telling us, that either Councils, or their Fathers, or Mothers, or Nurſes told them what they ſaid or held, [except in the common Eſſentials of Chriſtianity, the Sacramental Covenant, Creed, Lords-Prayer, Decalogue, and that the Scripture is Gods Word] which all Chriſtians acknowledge are delivered to us, as by two hands, viz. by verbal and practical Tradition, and by the Scripture it ſelf.

But if it be the Preſent Church real, (that is, the conſent of Chriſtians) which muſt tell us what was held in the former Ages (which for ought I find is it that you flye to;) though the ignorant cannot try this, all knowing p. 38men can tell that this way you are utterly condemned: For at this day, as is ſaid before, at leaſt two third parts of the Chriſtian World are againſt your very Papacy it ſelf; and believe the ancient Churches to have been againſt it: So that Tradition doth depoſe the Pope. So that you have no way left, but to ſay, It is our own judgment or Tradition alone that we will ſtand to.

So much to your dull cheat, about your pretended Univerſal Tradition.

Pag. 11. You notably ſay, [Suppoſe a Book fully written as to all points to be believed by Chriſtians, by the firſt Teachers of Chriſtianity: Let them together with this Book give charge to their firſt Converts, not to add to it, or diminiſh it, and to believe as in their Conſciences they ſhall think that Book ſhall teach them. Though Generation after Generation be never ſo faithful to ſuch a Charge, yet they may in after Ages come to loſe or change their Faith, becauſe the Book may ſeem to one Generation to bear one ſenſe, and to another Generation to bear another—As theſe words, This is my Body, may ſeem to one Age to bear this ſenſe, This is the Sign of my Body, &c.]

1. But you muſt ſuppoſe alſo, that they that will learn this Book muſt have Teachers: Elſe how will they ſo much as read it? We are for Teachers as well as you, though not for Judges that may judge in partem utra…libet. The Paſtors may teach the People that there is a God, a Chriſt, a Life to come; but cannot judge that there is none. And Teachers make known that ſame Evidence of Truth to the Learner, by which they received it themſelves; but do not ſay, you muſt believe that there is a God, a Chriſt, a Heaven, meerly becauſe weſay ſo.

2. And you muſt put into your Suppoſition, that (as is ſaid) the Eſſentials are delivered both ways, by Writing and by word of mouth.

p. 393. And now ſuppoſe, that the Apoſtles had put the ſame expoſitory words of [This is my Body] into a Book, which they ſpake by word of mouth? Had that been the leſs intelligible becauſe they were in the Book? Or the harder to be remembred? Or could that Age have delivered to the next any more, as from the Apoſtles, than what they received? And if that be the ſame written as ſpoken, ſure writing maketh it not the leſs or worſe? If it do, all your Religion is in danger, now it is written in your Volumns of Councils. Have you more yet thats neceſſary, beſides all thoſe Volumns, which you whiſper or deliver by word of mouth? If not, you profeſs your Religion unſafe, becauſe you have written it.

4. And indeed you here profeſs, that the fidelity of ſucceſſive Generation cannot preſerve Religion, by preſerving and delivering any Books. And if ſo, then your preſervation of Fathers, and written Councils, and Decretals, is no ſufficient Tradition of the ſenſe of [This is my Body.] Could you ſhew us your ſenſe in them, it is an inſufficient Tradition; for one may take your Councils in one ſenſe, and another in another.

5. But do you indeed think that any Perſon or Country is ſecured from changing their Religion by your verbal way? Why then did the Reformers when they were of your way forſake it? Why did the Greek Churches diſown you? Nay, why did ſo many ancient Churches apoſtatize to Mahometaniſm? Was it for want of Verbal Tradition? Had they not the ſame as you? Sure no Law will ſecure it ſelf from being broken by ſinners, and no Tradition is enough to prevent Apoſtaſie. But why the ſame words ſhould be leſs ſufficient written by the Apoſtles, than ſpoken by them; or why Gods Writings ſhould not be as ſure and clear in things of neceſſity, as your p. 40Councils; or why your Councils ſhould be inſufficient, becauſe written, no impartial man can tell.

But you ſay further, [But no ten Families who have been taught by their Parents, either to believe that our Saviours Body is in the Euchariſt, or that it is not there, (you ſhould have ſaid, in what ſenſe it is there) can poſſibly miſtake, &c.]

Dreams may ſeem ſomething to men that are aſleep: If God had written the ſame words that my Mother ſpake to me, why could not I have as well underſtood them? Doth my Mother, or Father, or Prieſt ſpeak ſo much more wiſely than God? Sure not, if the words were the ſame. But alas, can you keep us from knowing, that you and we have ten thouſand and ten thouſand Families near together, where the Parents never talk much to their Children about any ſuch matters, nor catechize them, nor themſelves underſtand them: When we ask many of the ignorant Papiſts, whether they believe that there is no true Bread and Wine at all after conſecration, they tell us that they do hold that there is, though yet Chriſts Body and Blood be there; which is but the Lutherans Conſubſtantiation: And do you not know what Durandus taught in this? and yet they that chide him excuſe him from Hereſie. And had Durandus never heard what ten Parents teach their Children?

You preſently ſtab your Papacy to the heart, when you ſay [Seeing God Almighty is reſolved not to teach every Age by immediate infallible Miſſionants from himſelf, but to ſend inſpired Ambaſſadors to one particular generation only, and to leave that generation to teach their Children ſucceſſively till the day of judgement, what they learnt, &c. Thus much is juſt the Proteſtant Religion. But then what's become of the inſpired Infallibility of your Church? who p. 41though they underſtood not the matter when they came to the Council, (or though the Pope were an unlearned Lad) yet preſently can infallibly expound Scripture, and deſide Controverſies. As you praiſe Mr. Thorndike, you might have accepted of the kindneſs of one Mr. Warley of Cambridge, in a Book lately dedicated to the Lord Chancellor, called, The Natural Fanatick, who will allow the Church and Councils a higher way of certain determination, than by Reaſon; and will tell you how doubtful its left to Reaſon, whether there be a God, or the Soul be immortal, and will curb men that will ſet their Reaſon againſt Councils or the Church. But to remember and rehearſe only the words that the Apoſtles delivered, is a work that Reaſon may perform, without any inſpired infallibility.

But if Tradition by immediate Parents, yea and Paſtors be ſo ſure, the Abaſſines, the Greeks, and many others, are ſure that the Papacy is an Uſurpation: And ſo were the old Britains, and the Scots, a little before Beda's time, who would neither conform to the Church of Rome, nor ſo much as eat with them.

Pag. 42. You ſay [If God Almighty will oblige me to believe what was taught 1600 years before I was born, how ſhould he expect I ſhould come to the knowledge of this, but by ſuch Books as were written in thoſe times, and near thoſe times, and by the teſtimony of all Chriſtian Countries, what hath been immemorially believed by them, ever ſince they were Chriſtians.]

Anſw. Well contradicted: This is our very Religion: We ſtand to Vincent. Lernienſ. Rule, Quod ſemper, ubique, ab omnibus. But, 1. Here then Books be not made ſo unſerviceable as before. 2. God Almighty obligeth us firſt to believe his own Book before any others: And p. 42how ſhall we more certainly know what Chriſt did and commanded, than by thoſe that purpoſely Wrote ſo many Goſpels, or Hiſtories of it, that we might believe and have Life by his Name. Sure the four Evangeliſts and the Apoſtles Wrote what they Wrote (even to the ignorant) to be underſtood and read. 3. We alſo know by the Books written near thoſe times what then was received by the Churches. And your Councils cannot know it (nor your Pope neither) by any other means than are known to others: for their extraordinary Inſpiration we never ſaw cauſe to believe. 4. And I remember no one thing at all, which I do not receive, which hath the Teſtimony of all Chriſtian Countries that it hath immemorially been believed by them ever ſince they were Chriſtians; nor ſhall I reject ſuch when you prove it. But that is, becauſe, de facto, I think there is no errour that hath ſuch a kind of Teſtimony; and not becauſe I think it impoſſible: For as your part of the World is deceived, e. g. to think that the Roman Supremacy was inſtituted by God, contrary to the judgment of all the Greek Church, and of the two forementioned General Councils at Conſtantinople and Calcedon; ſo I know not but it had been poſſible to have brought all Countries to the ſame deceit, or to have believed that Chriſt's Blood might be denyed the People in the Sacrament, as a thing received by Tradition.

We believe that the true Church infallibly believeth what ever it believeth upon true Divine Revelation, and that it can never fall from the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity; that is, that Chriſt will ſtill have a true Church in the World till the end. But we know that in many things we offend all, and if every Mans Will and Life is imperfect and culpable, then ſo is every Mans judgment; p. 43and there is no Man living without many errours, who hath the Exerciſe of Reaſon; and the Church is Compoſed of ſuch erring Individuals: And why it is not poſſible for them all to have thought that ſome of their errours came down from the Apoſtles (as the Millinaries thought) I cannot tell. But whatever is truly proved to be delivered by the Apoſtles as the Will of Chriſt, by Writing, or Word, we will readily receive: And the Eſſentials of Chriſtianity we believe, and can prove to have been both ways ſo delivered; and ſome things more, (as the Lords-day, &c).

But you ſay, pag. 15. Can any imagine that they who expoſed their Lives for their Religion, would, if they could, agree together, ſo notoriouſly to change it, as to make themſelves moſt groſs Idolaters, by adoring Bread and Wine, as the true Body and Blood of their Creator, and God? ] Anſw. No, but we may well imagine that good Fathers may have bad Children, and that Children are not born with a Church-hiſtory, or Councils written in their minds; and that worldly Clergymen may deceive, and be deceived; and that even pious Men might concur in the deceit: that is, That the name of Chriſt's Body and Blood being juſtly from the beginning applyed to the Euchariſt, as the Clergy grew formal, ceremonious, ſelfiſh, and worldly, they neglected the explication of the ſenſe and ſpiritual part of the Sacrament; and grew to over-magnifie the external ſigns in a way that tended to that advantage and honour to themſelves, which for want of Learning and Grace they could not by their worth attain: That the ninth and tenth Ages which you chuſe for inſtance were as a Night of darkneſs, having few Learned Men, in which he that was but skilled in Greek and Hebrew was taken p. 44for a Conjurer, or a Heretick, other of your own Writers beſides Bellarmine do acquaint you. That the Popes were ſome Boys, many Murderers, Simoniſts, and moſt horrid, wicked, and ignorant Men, many by one Woman brought in, and poyſoned after; and that for forty Years there were divers Popes at once contending for their ſeveral Titles, almoſt all Hiſtories agree; That hence the World was filled with Treaſons, Rebellions, Perjuries, and all wickedneſs, how many Hiſtorians teſtifie; when the Pope hath been judged by a Council for a Heretick, and Adulterer, deflowering Women at his Doors. And is it incredible that ſuch Men ſhould degenerate from their Fore-fathers? Or ſhall a Fryar now come out of a Cell, and tell the World, that becauſe, the firſt Biſhops of Rome were holy Martyrs, it was not poſſible for Pope John to be ſuch a blaſphemous filthy Villain; nor for Pope Eugenius to be damned as a Heretick and wicked Man by a General Council, and yet continue Pope after depoſition: or for Sergius to uſe Formoſus as he did? I ſpeak not of rarities, or doubtful things: The Popes greateſt flatterers lament them. Baronius ad an. 912 ſaith [What then was the Face of the holy Roman Church? How exceeding filthy, when the moſt potent, and yet the moſt ſordid Whores did Rule at Rome? by whoſe pleaſure Sees were changed, Biſhops were given, and which is a thing horrid to be heard, and not to be ſpoken, their Lovers (or Mates) were thruſt into Peter's Chair, being falſe Popes, who are not to be written in the Catalogue of the Roman Popes, but only for the marking out of ſuch times: And what kind of Cardinals, Prieſts and Deacons think you we muſt imagine theſe Monſters did chuſe, when nothing is ſo rooted in Nature, as for every thing to beget his like?] 1. Is not here a Succeſſion fit to prove p. 45the Church of Rome to be the true Church? O happy Succeſſion! 2. And is it impoſſible that ſuch Men as theſe ſhould err? and ſuch Biſhops, Prieſts, and Deacons ſhould change one word that was delivered orally from their Fathers? Is not here a ſure Foundation for a Man to build his Faith and Salvation on?

Genebrard another furious Papiſt (li. 4. Sect. 10.) ſaith [In this one thing this Age was unhappy, that for near an hundred and fifty Years, about fifty Popes did wholly fall away from the vertue of their Anceſtors, being rather irregular and Apostatical, than Apoſtolical.] Apoſtates make an Apoſtolical Succeſſion of Infallible wicked Men. Reader, did not our Rational Diſcourſer wiſely chuſe the ninth and tenth Ages for his ground-work? Theſe are the very Ages whoſe Teſtimony he appealeth to.

Pope Adrian (after) himſelf, (de Sacram. Confirm. Art. 4. ſaith, that there have many Popes of Rome been Hereticks. And as I ſaid, Pope John 13 alias 12 was in Council Convict of Raviſhing Maids, Wives, and Widdows, at the Apoſtolick Doors, and of committing many Murders, and he drank a health to the Devil; and at Dice called for help to Jupiter and Venus, and at laſt was killed in the Act of Adultery.

Saith their Platina [He was from his Youth a Man contaminated with all diſhoneſty, and filthineſs; and if he had any time to ſpare from his Luſts, he ſpent it in hunting, and not in praying.—He ſaith, he was a moſt wicked man, or rather a Monſter.—And ſaith, [that the Life of this wicked Man being judged in a Council of Italian Biſhops, for fear of them he fled, and lived like a wild Beast in the Woods.]

Pope John 23 was accuſed and depoſed by the General Council at Conſtance, upon about ſeventy Articles, p. 46which you may ſee in Binnius in about thirteen Columns, viz. of Murders, Adulteries, Witchcraft, Simony, a Heretick, obſtinately maintained that there is no Life after this; called commonly, The Devil incarnate; ſaid the Soul was extinst with the Body, as a Beaſts; denyed the Reſurrection, &c. And for theſe the Council depoſed him.

So the great Council at Baſil depoſed Eugenius the 4th as [a Rebel againſt the holy Canons, a notorious diſturber and ſcandalizer of the Peace and Unity of the Church; a Simoniſt; a perjured wretch; incorigible; a Schiſmatick, and an obſtinate Heretick] Yet is their Churches Succeſſion continued from this condemned Heretick, who ſtaid in ſpight of the Council that depoſed him.

But you'll ſay, Though the Pope may ſo erre, yet General Councils cannot. Anſw. Theſe very Councils that condemned him, are now rejected by you, as is Epheſ. 2. and many others: yea accuſed as being another Church; ſaith the Learned Cardinal Cajetan in his Oration at the Council at the Laterane ſub. Leon. 10. (Bin. p. 552.) [This Novelty of Piſa (Mark Councils are Noveliſts) ſprung up at Conſtance, and vaniſhed: At Baſil it ſprung up again, and is exploded. And if you be Men it will now alſo be repreſſed as it was under Eugen. 4. for it cometh not from Heaven, nor doth it embrace the Principality of that One who is in the Church-Triumphant, and preſerveth the Church-Militant; and which the Synod of Piſa ought to embrace if it came from Heaven, and not as it doth to rely on the Government of a Multitude. The Church of the Piſans therefore doth far differ from this Church of Chriſt: For one is the Church of Believers, the other of Cavillers; One of the Houſhold of God, the other of the Erroneous: One of Chriſtian-men, the other of ſuch p. 47as fear not to tear the Coat of Chriſt; and divide the Myſtical Members of Chriſt from his Myſtical Body.

See here to what Novelty and Apoſtacy, even to be another Church: You think that General Councils have fallen, as thoſe Councils ſay the Pope hath done. O but theſe Men can corrupt nothing, becauſe the Martyrs would not have corrupted it! And yet even good Mens pious credulity, believing ignorant Mens Dreams and Viſions (ſuch as Gregories Dialogues and Beda ſhew to any rational Man) may do much to introduce Changes.

But if Changes be ſo impoſſible, becauſe Fore-fathers were pious Men and of another mind, how come the Greek-Churches to be Apoſtatized ſo far to Mahometaniſme? and why do you accuſe the Proteſtants, or Greeks of changing, if it was impoſſible (for ten Families) to do it? Sure then the Abaſſines, Syrians, Armenians, Greeks, &c. have their old Faith ſtill unchanged, if it be impoſſible. Sure never ſuch Villany was charged on their Biſhops as on your Popes. If they may change, notwithſtanding their Fore-fathers Piety, why not you?

In the laſt place I ſhould ſpeak to your Teſtimonies out of ſome Ancients. But 1. Why ſhould we put it to the tryal of Fathers, when you dare not ſtand to it, but fly to the Authority and Judgment of your preſent Church; that is, your Pope. 2. Can any Fathers ſpeak plainer than St. Paul himſelf doth, who calleth it Bread after Conſecration thrice in the three next Verſes? Or did the Fathers contradict him? If they delivered what they received, we ſee what that was. Is oral Tradition contrary to the Scripture? Is not this a certain Argument? Paul in 1 Cor. 11. ſaith oft that it is Bread after Conſecration; ergo, that Speaker, or Writer is deceived, or a p. 48Deceiver, who ſaith, that he or any other Apoſtle delivered the contrary by word of Mouth.

3. Doth this Diſcourſer mean ſincerly in talking of Tradition and the Fathers Teſtimonies, and yet never once attempt any anſwer to all thoſe Teſtimonies to the contrary, out of their plain words, which our Writers have copiouſly and often cited. How many, and many more, plain Teſtimonies of the Fathers againſt Tranſubſtantiation doth one Edmundus Albertinus give you? to which, inſtead of anſwers, a few meer▪ words, or cavils are returned: But all theſe are overlooked by this Diſcourſer.

But come, let us briefly try all his great proof of the Tradition of the Fathers.

I. He begins with excellent Auguſtine (who in a Carthage Council did help to quell the Pope's Uſurpation) And out of many great Volumns he hath found, 1. That Auſtin ſaid, that [now it is no longer called Bread, but the Body of Chriſt:] The ſame will the Presbyterians ſay: Do they not in their Directory ſay, [Take, eat, this is the Body of Chriſt▪ ] when they deliver the Sacrament? Are they therefore for Tranſubſtantiation? Is it all one to ſay, [It is not called Bread, and, It is not Bread?] If the King's Statue be made in Marble or Braſs, you may well ſay, This is not now to be called Marble and Braſs, but the King.

2. That Auſtin ſaid [that Chriſt gave us his very Fleſh to be eaten to our Salvation; but no body eateth that Fleſh, unleſs he have firſt adored it.] Anſw. Any Proteſtant will ſay the ſame. For Chriſt himſelf hath ſaid, Except ye eat the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you. Do not your own ſacrilegious Popes and Clergy expound this of ſomething elſe than the Euchariſt? when they deny the Cup to the People? If it p. 49be that Wine Conſecrated that is here meant, what bloody wretches are you to damn all your Peoples Souls, by denying them all that Blood of Chriſt, without drinking which they have no life? But it's certain by 1 Cor. 15. that Chriſt hath not Fleſh and Blood in Heaven, and therefore it is not the Heavenly Body, that, as ſuch, is here meant; but the true ſenſe of Chriſt and Auſtin is, that as the Sacrifices are eaten by ſuch, by, and for whom they are offered; ſo his Fleſh and Blood offered on the Croſs is the true Sacrifice for Sin, which muſt be eaten in its Commemorative Repreſentation orally in the Sacrament, and really in it ſelf by Faith, that the benefits of that Sacrifice may be ours. And who doth not adore that Chriſt whom we thus eat and live upon? This is the ſum of all that the Fathers ſay.

But let the Reader judge of Auſtin's mind by plainer words, De Doctr. Chriſt. cap. 7. [Let no Man look to what they are (mentioning the Bread and Wine) but to what they ſignifie: For our Lord was pleaſed to ſay, This is my Body when he gave the ſign of his Body.]

And Cont. Max. l. 3. cap. 22. [We note in the Sacraments, not what they are, but what they ſhew: For they are ſigns, which are one thing, and ſignifie another.]

And Epiſt. 23. ad Bonif. [If Sacraments had not ſome likeneſs (or reſemblance) to thoſe things whereof they are Sacraments, they could not be Sacraments at all. From this likeneſs (or reſemblance) they often take the names of what they repreſent: Therefore as the Sacrament of Chriſt's Body is in ſome ſort his Body, ſo the Sacrament of Faith is Faith alſo.]

You need no more than this of Auſtin to Interpret other Fathers, that call the Sacrament Chriſt's Body.

II. His next is Ambroſe, who ſaith that [That when Conſecration p. 50hath been made of Bread, it is made the Fleſh of Chriſt] and [Chriſt makes this Sacrament] and [the Body of Chriſt was not before Conſecration, but after, &c.] Anſw. 1. All this the Presbyterians ſay. Even as we ſay, It is not a Law till the King give the fiat, or it is not his Coin till his Authority and Stamp ſo make it; And are they therefore of your mind? 2. Ambroſe expreſly expounds his negation of ordinary Bread; no doubt it is not ordinary Bread. 3. You would deceive the Reader by hiding Ambroſe, who ſaith there, de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. [This we aſſert, how that which is Bread (mark that) can yet be the Body of Chriſt]—[And if Chriſt's Speech had ſo much that it made that to begin to be which was not; how much more is it operative that the things that were, both Be, and be changed into ſomething elſe—] And [As thou haſt drunk the ſimilitude of Death, ſo thou drinkeſt the ſimilitude of precious Blood.] So Ambroſe, and ſo the Proteſtants.

III. His next is Hierome; out of many Volumns he hath gathered thus much, that Prieſts [make the Body of Chriſt with their ſacred Mouth and Prayers.] Anſw. And any Proteſtant will ſay the like: He that ſaith [This is the Body of Chriſt] that is, Sacramentally, will ſay that, under Chriſt, his Miniſter maketh it ſuch. And is this the Tradition?

2. Let Hierome ſpeak for himſelf, Contr. Jovin. l. 2. [The Lord as a Type (or Figure) of his Blood, offered not Water, but Wine.] Are not theſe words plain, till the Pope expound them?

IV. His next is Cyprian, de Coena Dom. And, 1. Let the Reader note, that even Bellarmine de ſcript. Eccl. in Cyprian ſaith, that the Book which this Man citeth as St. Cyprians, [was neither Cyprians, nor any Learned Mans; p. 51and had neither Words nor Sentences worthy a Learned Man, but fooliſh and ridiculous Narations, and Fables.]

2. The words cited out of it are [Panis iſte quem Dominus diſcipulis porrigebat, non effigie ſed natura mutatus, omnipotentia verbi factus eſt Caro] But by [Natura] the Author plainly meaneth [the Relative Nature] and not the Subſtance. And it was not for nothing that Bellarmine contemneth him, who ever he was; for he is downright againſt Tranſubſtantiation. Cap 2. He maketh the difference between this and common Meat to be, that, Corporalis ſubſtantiae retinens ſpeciem, ſed virtutis divinae inviſibili efficientia probans ad eſſe praeſentiam: It is but the preſence of Divine Virtue that he affirms to be with the Species of corporeal ſubſtance. And plainer, cap. 3. [When the Lord had ſaid, Do this in my remembrance, This is my Body, and this my Blood] as oft as by theſe words and this faith it is done, that ſuperſubſtantial Bread and Cup, by ſolemn bleſſing hallowed, profiteth to the life and health of the whole Man; being both a Medicine and a Sacrifice, to heal our infirmities and purge our iniquities. And ſhewing the difference between the Common part of Chriſt's laſt Supper, and this Spiritual Food, he addeth, that, [when the perfideous mind of Judas touched this holy Meat, and the ſanctified Bread entred his wicked Mouth, &c.] So that he calleth it ſanctified Bread after the Conſecration.

And Cap.—telling why Chriſt calleth the ſame both Bread, Blood, Fleſh, and his Body, he ſaith, [Panis eſt eſca, &c. Bread is Meat, Blood is Life, Fleſh is Substance, his Body the Church. And cap. 4. This Sacrament Chriſt calleth ſometime his Body, ſometime Fleſh and Blood, ſometime Bread; a Portion of Life eternally, which he Communicateth according to theſe viſible things to corporal Nature. p. 52That common Bread being turned into Fleſh and Blood, procureth Life and increaſe to bodies (that is, our common Concoction turneth common Bread into our Fleſh and Blood;) Therefore the Infirmity of our Faith being helped by the uſual effect of things, by a ſenſible Argument is taught, that the effect of Life eternal is in Viſible Sacraments; and that we are united to Chriſt, non tam Corporali quam ſpirituali tranſitione, not ſo much by a Corporal as by a Spiritual Tranſition. And cap. 6. His Conjunction and ours neither mingleth Perſon, nor uniteth Subſtances; but Conſociateth Affections, and Confederateth Wills.

And the ſame Author, or another, in Cyprian's Works, de Unctione Chryſm. cap. 7. Saith [Our Lord at the Table where he laſt feaſted with his Diſciples, gave them with his own hands, Bread and Wine; but on the Croſs he gave his Body to be wounded by the hands of Souldiers, that the ſincere truth, and true ſincerity, ſecretly imprinted in the Apoſtles, might expound to the Nations how the Wine and Bread was Fleſh and Blood; and by what Reaſons the Cauſes agreed to the Effects, and divers Names and Species were reduced to one Eſſence; and the Things ſignifying, and the things ſignified were called by the ſame Names, (or known by the ſame Words) By theſe Priviledges of ſupernatural Grace, by the eating of ſanctified Bread, being refreſhed, waſhed, and anointed, &c.] Reader, here you ſee what Tradition ſaith.

Next out of Cyprian de Lapſis, he citeth words againſt them, that [with defiled hands and mouths receive the Body, and drink the Blood of the Lord.] Words which Proteſtants have more frequently than Cyprian; and are they on your ſide too?

But ſhall Cyprian have leave to ſpeak indeed? Epiſt. ad Magn. cap. 4. [When our Lord calleth his Body Bread, p. 53congeſted by the adunation of many Grains, he ſheweth the Union of the People whom he bare: and when he called his blood wine, expreſſed out of many bunches of Grapes and Kernels, and made up into one, he ſignified one Flock united, &c.]

And Epiſt. 63. Ad Caecilium de Sacram. Proving that the Sacrament ſhould not have Water alone without Wine, he ſaith cap. 2. [That the Cup which is offered in commemoration of him be offered mixt with Wine. For when Chriſt ſaith, I am the true Vine, his blood is not water, but wine. Nor can his blood, by which we are redeemed and ſanctified, be ſeen to be in the cup, if wine be not in the cup, by which Chriſt's blood is ſhewed, &c.

And c. 6. We find the cup mixt which Chriſt offered, and that it was wine which he called his blood. Whence it is apparent that the blood of Chriſt is not offered, if wine be wanting to the cup; nor is the Lords Sacrifice celebrated by due ſanctification, unleſs our Oblation and Sacrifice anſwer his Paſſion.

And cap. 9. In the wine is ſhewed the blood of Chriſt, as in the water is underſtood the People. (Is the water turned into the People?)

And cap. 10. So the cup of the Lord is not water alone, nor wine alone, but muſt both be mixed; even as the body of the Lord cannot be meal (or flower) alone, or water alone, but both muſt be united, conjoined, and be bread by compoſition ſolidated.

And cap. 12. [As oft as we offer the cup in commemoration of the Lord and his Paſſion, let us do that which is manifeſt the Lord did.] So much of Cyprian.

V. The next cited by him is Tertullian, ſaying, [The fleſh is fed with the body and blood of Chriſt, that the Soul may be made fat with God.]

p. 54Anſw. 1. The ſame we all ſay, even when we Adminiſter the Sacrament: See the like in the Engliſh Liturgy, and the Directory: Are we therefore for Tranſubſtantiation? 2. It is the Repreſentative body of Chriſt, and not real fleſh and blood: For he ſaith, that he that eateth his fleſh, and drinketh his blood, hath eternal life; and dwelleth in Chriſt, and Chriſt in him, John 6. 54, 56. But the wicked, that eat the body of Chriſt Repreſentative, have not eternal life, nor dwell in Chriſt.

Another citation from Tertullian is lib. de Idololat. [To touch the body of our Lord with thoſe hands which give bodies to Devils, &c.]

Anſw. Here is no more than we commonly ſay: This Man ſure would prove that the Liturgy and Directory are both for his opinion. Is this the Proof of Univerſal Tradition?

Reader, Tertullian calls it The body of Chriſt, and ſo do we. Will you hear him ſpeaking his own Senſe, which this Man concealeth?

Cont. Marcion, l. 3. c. 19. [Sic enim Deus in Evangelio quo que veſtro revelavit, panem corpus ſuum appellans, ut & hinc jam eum intelligas corporis ſui figuram pani dediſſe, cujus retro corpus in panem Prophetes figuravit, ipſo Domino hic ſacramentum poſtea interpretaturo.] That is [For ſo God even in your Goſpel revealed, calling bread his body, that ſo hence you may underſtand, that he gave to bread the figure of his body; whoſe body the Prophet formerly figured into bread, the Lord himſelf being afterward to interpret this Sacrament.] Here it is oft called bread, and this bread is called Chriſt's body, and the figure of the body given to bread it ſelf, as was prefigured by the Prophets before Chriſt had a body.

And Cont. Marc. l. 1. 14. [Nec panem (reprobavit) p. 55quo ipſum corpus ſuum repreſentat,] [He reprobated not bread, by which he repreſented his own very body.] Pamelius hath no ſhift, but to ſay, that by repreſenting he meaneth making preſent, ſuch deceit will ſeem to prove to them Univerſal Tradition: And he citeth many other places, as for him, out of Tertullian, which have no more but his naming the Sacrament Chriſt's body and blood, as we all do.

Cont. Marc. l. 4. c. 40. He is yet plainer, ſaying [The bread which he took and diſtributed to his Diſciples, that he made his body, ſaying, This is mybody; that is, the FIGURE of my body: But it had not been the Figure of it, if he had not had a true Body. For an empty thing which is a phantaſm, can have no Figure; or if he therefore ſeigned (or made) bread to be his body, becauſe he wanted (or had not) a true body, then it was bread that he muſt deliver up for us: It made for Marcion's Vanity th… bread ſhould be Crucified. (All this is to prove againſt Marcion that Chriſt had a true body.) But why doth he call bread his body, and not a Pumpion, which Marcion hath inſtead of a heart, not underſtanding that this was the old figure of Christ's body, (N. B. had Chriſt fleſh then?) who ſaid by Jeremy [They have deviſed a Device againſt me, ſaying, Come, let us caſt wood upon his bread; that is, the Croſs upon his body—ſo alſo making his Teſtament in the mention of the Cup, &c. And that you may know the old figure of his blood in wine, Eſaias ſaith, &c. ſo now he conſecrated his blood in wine, who then figured wine in blood.]

Let any thing but ignorance and impudence judge, whether here be not over and over, bread and wine after Conſecration, being the repreſentative and figurative body and blood of Chriſt, or repreſenting and figuring them fullier, as the Prophets had partly, or darkly done before. p. 56But nothing will convince ſome that rage, and are confident.

I repeat Tertullian's reproof of the denyers of the certainty of Senſe, Lib de Annim. c. 17. [Therefore if Cauſes are freed from the infamy (of fallacy) how much more Senſe, which Cauſes freely go before, &c. What doſt thou procacious Accademick? Thou overturnest the whole State of Life; thou troubleſt the whole Order of Nature; thou blindeſt the Providence of God himſelf, as if he had made deceitful and lying Senſes the Lords of all his works, as they are to be known, inhabited, diſperſed, and enjoyed.—It is not lawful for us to call thoſe ſenſes into doubt, leſt in Christ we deliberate of the belief of them; Leſt perhaps it be ſaid that he falſly ſaw Satan caſt down from Heaven, or falſly heard his Father's Voice teſtifying of him; or was deceived when he touched Peter's Mother-in-Law; or after felt ſome other Spirit of the Oyntment, which he received as to his Burial; and ſome other reliſh of the Wine which he CONSECRATED for the MEMORIAL (or to be the Memorial) of his blood.] So much for Tertullian.

VI. He next citeth Chryſoſtome, ſaying that Chriſt [makes us his Body, not only in belief, but in very deed; and that we eat and touch his Body.] Anſw. And doth he not ſee how in citing theſe, he confuteth himſelf. 1. Chriſt doth really make Us his Body; that is, his Political and Miſtical Body: But is it We that this Man would prove Tranſubſtantiate into Chriſt's Body? I thought it had been the Bread, and not Us.

2. If we touch Chriſt's Body it muſt be his Repreſentative Body; for the Papiſts hold that we touch not the real Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt, but only certain Accidents, which now are not the Accidents of Chriſt's Body, nor of any other Subſtance.

p. 57It would be tedious to cite out of Chryſoſtome all that makes againſt them. Let theſe plain words ſerve to notifie his mind [Epiſt. ad Ceſar. The Bread is made worthy to be honoured with the Name of the Fleſh of Chriſt, by the Prieſt's Conſecration; yet the Fleſh retains the properties of its incorruptible Nature, as the Bread doth its Natural Subſtance. Before the Bread is ſanctified we call it Bread; but when it is Conſecrated by the Divine Grace, it deſerveth to be called the Lords Body, though the Subſtance of the Bread ſtill remaineth.]

Reader, This is the Tradition of the Church.

As to ſome Mens Cavil, that this Epiſtle is Spurious, it is fully confuted by Learned Men from ſufficient Teſtimony.

VII. The next cited is a word that ſeemeth, in ſound, to be for them, in Cyril (or ſome think John) of Jeruſale'ms Catechiſme. Read the words Tranſlated by himſelf; It is that Sentence which above all in the Ancients they moſt boaſt of, [viz. Do not look on it as bare bread, and bare wine; for it is the body and blood of Chriſt:—For though thy Senſe ſuggeſt this to thee, yet let Faith confirm thee: Do not judge of the thing by the taſte, but rather from Faith hold for certain, ſo that thou haſt no doubt that the body and blood are given thee; knowing and accounting for certain, that this bread which is ſeen by us, is not bread, though our taſte judge it to be bread; but that it is the body of Chriſt: And the wine which is ſeen by us is not wine, but the blood of Chriſt.]

Anſw. Here I deſire the Reader to note, 1. That this one Sentence is all that hath any Words that ſound like his Sentence (that there is no true bread and wine) of all that he bringeth to prove Univerſal Tradition. 2. That this Book called Cyri…'s Cat. Myſtagog. is queſtioned. 3. That p. 58the Auther plainly declareth himſelf againſt Tranſubſtantiation.

Which I prove, 1. The Aſſertion which he ſtateth is, that the bread and wine (for ſo he calleth them) are not [bare, or meer bread and wine] but Chriſt's body and blood; which we all aſſert: As the King's Statue in Braſs is not bare Braſs. 2. He next bids us not judge by our taſte, that it is bare bread. And after when he ſaith it is not bread and wine, and appealeth to Faith from Senſe, it is but his repeating of what he before aſſerted; meaning that though Senſe perceives nothing but bare bread and wine, yet Faith perceiveth Chriſt's body and blood; and ſo it is not to be called bread and wine, for all proper denomination is from the Form; and the Form of a Sacrament is Relative, (as of a Statue, Image, Symbol, Sign, &c.) and it is Relatively Chriſt's body and blood: So that it is but, that it's bare bread, that he denyeth; as we do.

3, Moſt fully, he tells us his mind, Cat. 3. p. 235. [For as the bread of the Euchariſt after the Invocation of the Holy Ghoſt, is no more COMMON bread, but is the body of Chriſt; ſo alſo this holy Oyntment is no more meer Oyntment, nor (if any one had rather ſo ſpeak) Common, now it is Conſecrated; but it is a Grace (or Gift) which cauſeth the preſence of Chriſt, and the Holy Ghoſt; that is, of his Divinity:] So that if you take him to aſſert the Tranſubſtantiation of bread, you muſt ſay that he takes Oil alſo to be Tranſubſtantiate into Grace, or the Holy Ghoſt. For he ſaith, that one is ſo as the other is changed. That is, they are no more meer or common bread, or Oyl.

VIII. His laſt is out of Juſtin Martyr, who ſaith [We do not take theſe things as Common and ordinary bread, &c.

p. 59Anſw. 1. There is not one word in Juſtin Martyr here that we do not own, and ſay; (nor do we deſire to worſhip God by any other Liturgy, or Order of Worſhip, than that which he deſcribeth as then the Practice of the Chriſtian Church. O that we might all unite in that deſcribed Order!

2. And if any may be yet unſatisfied what Tradition ſaith, hear Juſtin farther, Apol. 2. (Truly the firſt) [When the Preſident hath given thanks, and all the People acclaimed, thoſe that with us are called Deacons, diſtribute to every one preſent BREAD and WINE and Water, and bring them to thoſe that are abſent.] It is bread and wine when diſtributed.

And Dial. Cum Tryph. [The Offering of Flower delivered to be offered for them that were cleanſed of the Leproſie, was a Type of the BREAD of the Euchariſt, which our Lord Jeſus Chriſt commanded us to make in remembrance of his Paſſion.]

Thus you ſee to what his boaſt of Univerſal Tradition is come.

Read but Dallaeus de Cultu Latinorum, and you will ſee that there Univerſal Tradition was againſt them.

The foreſaid Author of the Dialogue, called, [Full and eaſie ſatisfaction which is the true Religion,] to theſe forementioned addeth more, which you may read, pag. 140, &c. viz. Irenaeus ſaying, [For as the bread which is of the Earth, receiving the Divine Invocation, is not now common bread, but the Euchariſt, conſiſting of two things, the Terrene and the Coeleſtial, &c. Lib. 4. c. 34.

Origen in Mat. 25. calling it [Bread, and a typical and ſymbolical body, which profiteth none but the worthy Receivers, and that according to the proportion of their Faith; which no wicked man eateth, &c.

p. 60Euſeb. Caeſar. Demonſtr. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. [Celebrating duly the Memorial of the body and blood of Chriſt—Seeing we receive the Memorial of this Sacrifice, to be perfected on the Table, by the Symbols of his body and moſt pretious blood—Lib. 8. He delivered us to uſe bread as the Symbol of his own body.

Ephr. (in Biblioth Photii, p. 415. Ed. Auguſt.) The body of Chriſt which Believers receive, loſeth not his ſenſible ſubſtance, and is not ſeparated from the intelligible grace.

And ad eos qui filii Dei, &c. [Take notice diligently, how taking bread in his hands he bleſſed it, and brake it, for a FIGURE of his immaculate Body; and he bleſſed the Cup, and gave it to his Diſciples, as a Figure of his pretious blood.

Theodoret in Dialog. de Immutab. againſt an Eutychian, who pleaded, that Bread in the Euchariſt was turned into Chriſts Body, ſaith, [The Lord who called that meat and bread, which naturally was his body, and who again called himſelf a Vine, did honour the Viſible Signs with the Names of his Body and Blood; not having changed their Nature, but added Grace to Nature.] Can any Proteſtant ſpeak plainer than this?

And Dial. 2. [The Divine Myſteries are Signs of the true Body.

And further, anſwering the Eutychian, he ſaith, [By the Net which thou haſt made art thou taken: For even after the Conſecration the myſtical Signs change not their Nature, for they remain in all their firſt SUBSTANCE, Figure, and Form, and are viſible, and to be handled as before.] This is not plain enough for a Papiſt.

Nor Gelaſius cont. Neſtor. & Eutych. [Verily the Sacrament of the body and blood of Chriſt which we take is a p. 61Divine thing, for which and by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature; and yet it ceaſeth not to be the SUBSTANCE and NATURE of bread and wine: And certainly the Image and ſimilitude of the Body and Blood of Chriſt are celebrated in the action of the Myſteries.] O dark ſayings!

[Cyril, Alex. in John 4. c. 14. [He gave to his believing Diſciples fragments of bread, ſaying, Take, eat, this is my body.]

Facundus is there cited as from Molinaeus (l. 9. c. 5. p. 404. though I have not the Author) ſaying [We call that the body and blood of Chriſt, which is the Sacrament of his body in the Conſecrated bread and cup. Not that the bread is properly his body, and the cup his blood, but becauſe they contain the Myſtery of his body and blood.]

To theſe I might add plain Teſtimonies out of moſt of the Ancients, who write on this ſubject: Such, e. g. as theſe words of Gregor. Nyſſen Orat. de Baptiſ. As the Altar naturally is but common Stone, but being conſecrated becometh a holy Table, an unſpotted Altar; ſo the bread of the Euchariſt is at firſt ordinary, but being myſteriouſly ſacrificed, it is, and is called, The body of Chriſt, and is effectual to great things: And as the Prieſt who was yeſterday a Lay-man, by the bleſſing of Ordination is made a Teacher of Godlineſs, and a Steward of the Myſteries, and though not changed in body or ſhape, yet is changed and made better as to his ſoul, by an inviſible power and grace; ſo alſo by the ſame conſequence Water, being nothing but Water of it ſelf, yet blest by the heavenly grace, reneweth man by working in him the ſpiritual regeneration.

Is Stone in the Altar, or the Prieſt ordained, or Water in Baptiſm tranſubſtantiated?

If Charles the Great was a Heretick, the Pope is greatly p. 62beholden to a Heretick. In his Epiſt. to Alcunius he ſaith, [Chriſt at his Supper did break the Bread to his Diſciples, and likewiſe gave them the Cup, in Figure of his body and blood; and ſo left to us this great Sacrament for our benefit.] This was his Tradition.

Amalarius Praef. de Offic. Eccleſ. [I am ſwayed in all that I write by the judgment of holy men and godly Fathers; yet what I judge my ſelf I ſpeak: Thoſe things which are done in the celebration of Divine Service, are done in the Sacrament of the Paſſion of our Lord, as he himſelf commanded. Therefore the Prieſt offering the bread with the wine and water in the Sacrament, doth it in the ſtead of Chriſt; and the bread and wine and water in the Sacrament repreſent the fleſh and blood of Chriſt. For Sacraments are ſomewhat to reſemble thoſe things whereof they are Sacraments. Therefore let the Prieſt be like to Chriſt, as the bread and liquors are like the body and blood of Chriſt.]

[The Sacrament of the body of Chriſt is in ſome manner the body of Chriſt: For Sacraments ſhould not be Sacraments, if in ſome things they had not the likeneſs of that whereof they are Sacraments. Now by reaſon of this mutual likeneſs, they are often called by that which they repreſent,—Sacraments have the virtue to bring us to thoſe things, of which they are Sacraments.]

Walafridus Strabo de reb. Eccl. cap. 16., ſaith, [Chriſt gave to his Diſciples the Sacrament of his body and blood in the ſubſtance of bread and wine.]

Bernard an. 1120. Serm. de Purific. Mar. ſaith, [The Body of Chriſi in the Sacrament is the food of the Soul, not of the Belly; therefore we eat him not corporally, but in the manner that Chriſt is meat, in that ſame manner we underſtand that he is eaten. And Serm. de S. Martin. p. 63The ſame Fleſh is given us to this day, but Spiritually not Corporally.]

To conclude, If the words This is my Body are to be taken literally, then ſo are the reſt; [This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood.] And then the Cup is Tranſubſtantiated into the New Teſtament.

And he that at once doth believe that Chriſt hath a Glorified Spiritual Body, that Fleſh and Blood doth not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, that the Bread and Wine ceaſe to be Bread and Wine, and are turned ſubſtantially into the very Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt, and yet that the Pope and his Clergy are not Enemies of Chriſt and Souls, who deny this Blood to the People, and give them but a half Chriſt and a half Sacrifice, when he is praiſed by all Saints for waſhing them from their ſins in his Blood; this Man and his Leaders ſeem to be Educated in ſuch an Academy, as Feſtus thought Paul had been, and to be made by Satan the Stumbling-block of the unbelieving World, to perſwade them to laugh at Chriſtianity as we do at the Fopperies of Mahomet's Alcoran; and to make all the Nations of Heathens and Infidels believe that they cannot be Chriſtians, unleſs they will be mad and ſenſeleſs too: While Senſes, Reaſon, Scripture, the Hiſtory of the Church, and Writings of the Ancients, the Tradition and Judgement of the far greateſt part of the Church, together with Charity, Humanity, and Peace, are all denyed in obedience to one Man, that, becauſe one Prince and his Clergy made him the firſt Biſhop in his Empire and Councils, feigneth himſelf to be the Univerſal Monarch of the World; and undertaketh an Apoſtleſhip and Government at the Antipodes (when his zealouſeſt Biſhops formerly ſome of them thought there was no ſuch place;) and obligeth himſelf to the care of Souls farther than p. 64Drake and Candiſh Sailed, even in abundance of unknown Lands; and (as his Agents confeſſed to the Abaſſines) where his Miſſioners have no acceſs.

The ſum of all the Hiſtory of this Matter is, The Fathers called it as we do, ſometime Chriſt's Body, and ſometime the Figure, or repreſentation of his Body, and often Bread: And from the Name, in the dark Age, the Thing grew controvated, and France was the chief Seat of the Contention: Bellarmine himſelf ſaith, that an. 820. [Paſchaſius Ratbertus, an Abbot. was the firſt Man that ſeriouſly and copiouſly Wrote of the truth of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Euchariſt againſt, Bertram,] who he thinks was one of the firſt that Wrote againſt it. Bell. de ſcript. Eccl. Johan. Pariſienſis and the Sorboniſts concluded that neither Opinion was de fide: But the Pope chanced to be on the other, and the Council of Trent hath now made it de fide. Qu. Whether the Sorboniſts knew not that Tradition which Parents teach their Children? nor any of thoſe that were againſt Rathertus?

But the Diſcourſer pretendeth in the end to Anſwer Objections: But he firſt made them himſelf ſo thin, that he might not deſpair of ſaying ſomething, which a Man deep in his Cups, or one that is little uſed to the Exerciſe of his Brain, might poſſibly take for a Rational Anſwer. But if the Reader be a Man that will be at ſo much pains to eſcape deluſion, as to Read over the Arguments againſt Tranſubſtantiation in the forementioned (little) Book of R. B. and then try whether he can here find them Anſwered; I may conjecture that he will not boaſt of the Diſcourſer's performances.

He begins the Objection with a [Why doth not this marvelous Change appear to our Senſes, as well as other marvelous works: as the Water turned into Wine, &c.]

p. 65I confeſs it is ſtrange Fleſh and Blood, that no ſenſe can perceive: But a ſpiritual Body may be out of the perception of our Senſe. But did not the Diſcourſer know, that it is another kind of Objection that we make? Not [Why doth not God ſhew us the Miracle to our Senſe?] but [whether God deceive all our Senſes and Intellect, which there perceive Bread and Wine, when there is none?] It is not, whether Senſe perceive Chriſt? but, [whether Senſe perceive Bread and Wine?] It is not, whether Senſe do privatively not perceive; but, whether it here poſitively erre, and the firſt Intellective perception of the ſenſate Object be an Errour?

But under the Coats of this firſt part, he brings in a little of the true Objection at laſt, [It would follow, that we might call in queſtion the whole Myſtery of Chriſtianity, &c.]

His Anſwer to all is, By a diſtinction of Miracles; ſome are to convince Unbelievers; ſome to ſanctifie and ſave Believers: And theſe are not to be the Object of our Senſes. He inſtanceth in Baptiſm, by which, as an outward and viſible Sign, is wrought an inviſible Grace in the Soul of the baptized; though view the Child as much as you will, you can by none of your Senſes perceive any mutation wrought.

Anſw. As your Tranſubſtantiation ſeemeth deviſed to make Infidels, ſo doth your Doctrine of Baptiſm ſeem made to make Anabaptiſts. Is it by a Miracle that Baptiſm giveth Grace to the Adult, or not? If not, will not Men rather turn Anabaptiſts, than believe that Infants can have no Grace by Baptiſm, but by Miracle; when that Sacrament was inſtituted to give Grace to the Adult without a Miracle, and Scripture mentioneth no ſuch difference of the Effects? But if it be by Miracle to the p. 66Adult, is it not alſo by Miracle, that Men receive Grace by Reading, Preaching, or other means? You'll never prove one a Miracle, and not the other. And before we come to the Diſpute between the Juſuites and ſome Fryars, the Arminians againſt ſome Calviniſts, Whether all Grace infuſed be a Miracle, we muſt beſtow more time to agree of the definition of a Miracle, than is congruous to our preſent buſineſs. Overdoing is undoing: They that will make Men believe, that all Grace and Chriſtianity is a Miracle, I doubt, do but drive men from the belief of all.

But this Diſcourſer tells us, that you ſee no change on a Child. Anſw. And is all a Miracle that is unſeen? Is God a Miracle? Are Angels and all Spirits Miracles? Is the Soul of a Man, or of a Beaſt, or the Life of a Plant a Miracle, becauſe unſeen? Then all Grace however wrought is a Miracle; yea, and every thought of a mans heart both good and evil.

Is all a Miracle that is done by God alone, without ſecond Cauſes? Then his moving the firſt created Motor were a Miracle. And yet who can ſay, that no ſecond Cauſe is uſed in the conveyance of Grace?

But if you could prove that Word and Sacraments work Grace by miracle, you would make us leſs wonder that it is no more common: And here the Prieſt cannot do this Miracle when he will, for it muſt be on a diſpoſed Subject: But your Prieſts can make Bread to be no Bread, by miracle, when they will. But S. Paul ſaith, Are all works of miracles? But how much greater Miracles your Prieſts are feigned to work, than the raiſing of Lazarus, or any ſuch like; and how your feigned Miracles are confuſed, is ſhewed fully by the foreſaid Author.

But the Queſtion, whether the Sacrament work by p. 67miracle, is one; and that, whether it be it ſelf a miracle, is another. Gods workings are ſecret to us, as the wind whoſe courſe we cannot deſcribe, Joh. 3. But is the Sacrament it ſelf a Miracle? The Word is not ſo: Baptiſm is not ſo: You feign not your Confirmation to be ſo: (though Cyril aforeſaid make the change of the Bread and of the Oyl to be alike.) And is only this one Ordinance a Miracle?

But if it were, what's that to the poſitive deception of all our Senſes?

He tells us of the Hypoſtatical Union, anſwered before: What Senſes are deceived by that? Doth Senſe judge that Chriſt was not God? Or that there is no Trinity? Or that a Virgin may not conceive? Not at all: Senſe neither tells us that it is ſo, or that it is not. Therefore to tell us of things hidden from Senſe, is impertinent. All the ſpiritual and nobleſt parts of Nature are out of the reach of our bodily Senſes: But Senſe is our only firſt perceiver of all its own proper Objects, and the Intellects firſt perception of them, is only as they are ſenſate.

But the only pertinent Anſwer given, is, [We may alway trust our Senſes about their own Objects, and in due circumſtances, and when we have not poſitive grounds to think, either God Almighty by himſelf, or by an Angel, or permiſſively by a Devil, repreſents things otherwiſe than they are.]

Anſw. When things are repreſented otherwiſe than they are, it is either in other ſenſible qualities than they have, or elſe ſomething elſe is under thoſe qualities, than what they naturally ſignifie; or elſe it is by altering the Senſe, Organ, or Medium. The firſt is a meer contradiction: To make an Object to be what it was not, is uſual; but to make it at the ſame inſtant to be what it is not, is a contradiction. Therefore by repreſenting you cannot rationally p. 68mean this; e. g. To repreſent a rough thing as ſmooth, a little thing as great, a white thing as black, by real alterations of thoſe qualities making them to be ſo.

But to make them ſeem ſo, when really they are not ſo, muſt be by the failing of the Medium, Organ, Senſe, Phantaſie, or Intellect.

1. And for the Medium, no doubt but God can ſo alter it eaſily, as to deceive all mens Senſes: And in our preſent caſe, where all the five Senſes of all the ſound men in the World, that try, are pretended to be deceived, God is able to do it, by altering the Medium of every Senſe that hath a Medium: (For whether tactus have any diſtinct from the Organ is undetermined.)

2. And the ſame is to be ſaid of the Organ, Senſe, Phantaſie, and Intellect: Quoad potentiam, no doubt but that God that can annihilate them can deprave them when he pleaſe, and make a man ſenſeleſs, deceived, doting, melancholy, or mad; either privatively, by withholding his neceſſary natural aids; or poſitively, by overcoming contraries.

But the Queſtion is not, Whether God can do this per potentiam; but, Whether he will do it, or can will to do it in ſuch caſe as ours, in conſiſtence with his Governing Wiſdom and Goodneſs, and that Truth and Conſtancy which he manifeſteth in the Government of the World. That he may and doth penally make men ſenſeleſs, mad, and dead, we doubt not; and that thoſe that would not receive the love of the Truth, that they might be ſaved, may permiſſively be given up to ſtrong deluſions to believe a Lye: That all they might be damned that believed not the truth, but had pleaſure in unrighteouſneſs, 2 Theſſ. 2. 11, 12.

p. 69But that God doth thus (not penally, but) as a bleſſing, and not upon mens forſaking him and his Truth, but while he is communicating Himſelf and his Truth to them, and to make a Deceit or Lye the ordinary Means of Truth and Holineſs, and that he ſhould do this ordinarily as the Govornour, Benefactor, and Saviour of Mankind, and ſo make Falſhood (not of his permitting, but of his own effecting) to be the ordinary way of ſaving men; all this is contradiction; contrary to his Will revealed in Nature and Scripture, and contrary to his Perfection, who needed not to Govern the World by Deceit or Lyes, as wanting neither Power, Wiſdom, or Goodneſs to do otherwiſe. Grace conſiſteth in the illumination of the Mind, which revealeth Truth, and not in the Errour or Deception of the Mind, by deceiving the Senſes. Gods Works of Nature diſcerned or perceived by our Natural Senſe and Phantaſie, and ſo by Natural Apprehenſion of the Intellect, are his firſt-way of Revelation, in which he is moſt clear and conſtant. And we are Men and Animals before we are Believers, and Faith is graffed into the Stock of Nature, and rectifieth, illuminateth, elevateth, perfecteth it, but doth not deſtroy it, deprave it, deceive men, and make them mad or ſenſeleſs.

But you tell us of many excepted Caſes, in which God may deceive our Senſes, or we may not truſt them: No doubt, we may never truſt them for that which belongs not to them, but is beyond them, (as to know whether God can aſſume Fleſh, whether he can impregnate a Virgin; whether there be Trinity in Unity: There be many things that Senſe is no Judge of, one way or other. But when there is an Object near us, duly ſcituate, which Senſe was made to perceive, (as a quantitative, ſapid, odoriferous, &c. ſubſtance) and there is [no natural defect p. 70in Medium, Organ, Senſe, Phantaſie, or Natural Intellect, to tell us of ſuch excepted Caſes, is, 1. To deface or ſlander the Providence of God, who Governeth by truth and order: 2. To make Mercy to conſiſt in the ſubverſion of Nature, and Penal Acts to be gracious. 3. To leave man utterly uncertain of every Article of Faith, yea, to bring in Scepticiſm, and leave us no certainty in the world. For if God may and do, in ſo many Caſes as you name, deceive all the Senſes and Perceptions of all men, even his faithfulleſt Servants in the World, by Himſelf, by Angels, by Devils permitted, how ſhall any man know when he doth otherwiſe? You ſay, ['till we have poſitive grounds to think theſe.] But, if God can do thus, how can you tell that he doth it not without telling us, or giving us poſitive grounds? And who knoweth what thoſe poſitive grounds are? Or that ever he read or heard a word, or ſaw a thing which you may call a ground? For if you know not firſt that the perception of Senſe, and things ſenſate is true, you know not that ever you heard any thing to ſuſpend your belief of them: Or that what you hear is true. And how will you prove againſt the Infidels, that God cannot Lye, or deceive us by a Prophet, an Angel, or a Voice from Heaven, or a Writing, if he can and do daily deceive all our Senſes, about ſuch Objects as they are made to perceive?

And what a War do you raiſe againſt the life of Faith, as if it had not difficulties enough without ſuch? If you ſhould ſet a Candle before Infidels or doubting perſons, and ſay, [If this be Light, the Goſpel is falſe,] would you be a Preacher of Chriſt or Satan? And if you ſet the Conſecrated Bread and Wine before them, and ſay, [See them, ſmell, taſte, feel them; if this be Bread and Wine the Goſpel is falſe;] would you not be the Preachers of Infidelity?

p. 71But I muſt conſider, that ſo much being ſaid already in the foreſaid Dialogue, which you give no Anſwer to, I muſt rather ſtay till that be anſwered, than repeat it here.

But, at the leaſt, you ſatisfie us, when you grant, that we muſt truſt our Senſes 'till we have poſitive grounds for the contrary; and ſo the Caſe before us is this: You ſay, [They that will be ſaved, muſt believe that God in mercy to illuminate mens minds, deceiveth all the ſound mens Senſes in the world (that try) about thoſe things which naturally are the proper Objects of Senſe, and duly qualified; and they muſt believe that there is no Bread or Wine, when all their Senſes preſent them as ſuch to the Intellect, which neceſſarily perceiveth them is ſuch as ſenſate; and they muſt believe, that to govern, illuminate, and ſanctifie us by ſuch deceit, God enableth every Prieſt, how ignorant and wicked ſoever, to verefie all the Contradictions before opened, and to work, as oft as he pleaſeth, in every Maſs above thirty Miracles, with many miraculous aggravations.] And the proof of all this is, 1. That the ſame Chriſt that ſaid [I am the Door, the true Vine, the Shepherd, a Sower, a Husbandman, the Bridegroom, and ſpake ordinarily by Parables, and ſaid in this ſame Sacrifice or Sacrament [This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood;] and in all theſe is to be underſtood parabolically; yet ſaying at the ſame time [This is my Body] is to be underſtood literally, though S. Paul over and over call it Bread.] 2. And this Expoſition is delivered to us by the Roman Pope and his Clergie, and by ſome Prieſts in the Ninth and Tenth Ages, when their own Writers ſay, that their Popes were Monſters not to be named, and the Ages were for horrid Ignorance the ſhame of the Church. And after that, 1215. a General Council Decreed it firſt, which alſo Decreed the extermination p. 72of all Chriſtians as Hereticks, that will believe man's Senſes herein, and the Excommunication and Depoſition of all Temporal Lords, that will not exterminate all ſuch Subjects, and the diſobliging their Vaſſals from their Allegiance, and giving their Dominions to others: While yet the Judgment and Tradition of the far greateſt part of the Chriſtian World is againſt them, and the Writings of the ancient Doctors of the Church; and the Pope and his Clergie dare not pretend to have received by Memory and Tradition an Expoſition of the Bible, nor do give us any proof of their pretended Tradition of this one Text, that is conſiderable, beſides their own bare word. This is the true Caſe.

POSTSCRIPT.

SInce the Writing of this I firſt ſaw Larrogues French Diſcourſe, and therein the Citation of Joh. Pariſienſis Opinion about Tranſubſtantiation, and the Sorboniſts determination, that neither Opinion was de fide, and determined: And did they not then know Tradition?

Since that I have ſeen Biſhop Couſin's Hiſtory of Tranſubſtantiation, which ſo fully proveth the Novelty of it, as againſt the Tradition and Judgment of the Church, and that by Fathers and many Councils, in all Ages till Innoc. 3. and even after Petrus Bleſenſis, and Steph. Aedunenſis (who firſt name it) and Innoc. 3. who firſt eſtabliſhed it, few believed it in moſt Countries, as their own Authors confeſs; that I repented that I had needleſly p. 73medled with the Citation of Authors, which is done by him ſo much better: And indeed ſuch unanſwerable Teſtimony is produced by him, (and that briefly in a ſmall Volumn) to prove that the conſtant Judgment of the Church hath been againſt Tranſubſtantiation, that I need not refer the doubting Reader to any other Book, nor provoke the Papiſts to try their ſtrength upon any other: (Though Hoſpinian, Uſher, Chamier, Spalatenſis, Albertinus, and abundance more, have done it beyond all reaſonable contradiction.)

FINIS.

End of the text · Richard Baxter, Roman Tradition Examined (1676)