REASON AND AUTHORITY: OR THE MOTIVES OF A LATE Protestants Reconciliation TO THE Catholic Church.  
TOGETHER With Remarks upon some late Discourses AGAINST Transubstantiation.  
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, For his Household and Chapel, 1687.   

Reason and Authority, OR THE MOTIVES OF A LATE Protestants Reconciliation TO THE Catholic Church.  
THAT I may pay my due Respects to the Church of England, to which I am indebted for a considerable part of my Education; I think it just to publish those Motives which obliged me to take my leave of Her: And if it shall appear, that I have not rashly quitted her Communion, but have used herein the utmost strength, and dictates of my most Impartial Reason; I hope She will excuse me, if I have followed that light, which She herself so pressingly recommends.  
I shall therefore (most Reverend Fathers) communicate my Motives to you, in a short, but plain Method; and if my Brevity in this, shall not sufficiently express the strength of my Arguments; censure not from thence the Faith which I profess: For having perused many Excellent Authors, which have treated more particularly, and fully of it; I purposely avoided a long Repetition of those things, which you may find more largely, and better handled in the Originals themselves. I have been guided (I hope) by the grace of God, and reason, reducing things almost to Demonstration; I have no Charm, nor Conjuration upon me, that I know of, but shall be always ready to follow the strongest Evidence, of common Reason. I will not trouble you with all those circumstances which made me doubt; but only tell you, in short, that by reading, and discoursing with Catholic Men, and Authors, I did really doubt concerning the truth of my Protestant profession.  
One main Reason of my Diffidence was, this, That I did not find in the Church of England, a lawful Authority, sufficient to oblige my reason, and conscience to submit to her Decrees, in matters of Faith, necessary to Salvation. 
Pag. 133.  For Dr. Stillingfleet tells me, All men ought to be left to Judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws, because each Member of this Society, is bound to take care of his Soul, and of all things that tend thereto. And Dr. 
Pag. 48, 49.  Ferne, in his Case between the two Churches, says further, That in matters proposed by my Superiors, as God's Word, and of Faith, I am not tied to believe it such, till they manifest it to me to be so; and not that I am obliged to believe it such, unless I can manifest it to be contrary; because my Faith can rest on no humane Authority, but only on God's Word, and Divine Revelation.  
This is your constant Doctrine, as to our faith, or internal assent, as may be proved by many of your best Authors; and indeed, the Justice of your Reformation cannot consist with stricter Principles; for how can you bind our Consciences, by a late usurped Authority, (I speak as to declaring Articles of faith, not of discipline) when you would not submit your own to the greatest Authority, under which our Ancestors were born; and which was incomparably, the most lawful, the most esteemed, the most certain, and most universal, that ever appeared in the Christian Church since the Apostles? And accordingly Mr. Chillingworth (of the just Authority of Councils, and Synods) says, Any thing besides Scripture, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of It, well may Protestants hold it, as matter of Opinion, but as matter of Faith, and Religion, neither can they, with coherence to their own ground believe it themselves, nor require the Belief of it, of others, without high, and most Schismatical presumption. Now these plain, irrefragable and indubitable consequences, must need be plain to every man, who is not mad, or a fool; and so need no Authority: But in all those which are less plain (and such must be the Points controverted between Catholics, and yourselves) I have my liberty: for I am fully assured (from the same hand) that God doth not, and that therefore Man ought not to require any more of any Man, than this, to believe the Scripture to be God's Word, to endeavour to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it.  
Having therefore (worthy Fathers) been taught English, and Latin, in your Grammar Schools, and keeping the Holy Bible with me, which contains all things necessary to Salvation, and to which (according to your Instructions) I must at last appeal; I resolved to give you no further trouble in this matter; especially, since (as I said) you could not teach me infallibly; nor impose your Interpretations, by virtue of any legal Authority, which might ultimately conclude my Reason, and secure my Conscience.  
Finding, that I was not only at liberty, but advised also by yourselves, to work out my own Salvation, and to stand upon my own bottom, I thought it reasonable that my Enquiry should Set out from the very beginning, and examine whether there was a God; and indeed I found some learned men, even among the greatest Philosophers, speaking very doubtfully concerning this matter, if not denying it. 'Twas not only the Fool had said in his heart, there is no God; but hear what Cardan Writes of our famous Aristotle; 
L. 3. de Sap.  Aristoteles (says he) tam callidè mundi ortum, & animae praemia, & Deos, & Daemons sustulit, ut hae● omnia apertè quidem diceret, argui tamen non posset. And the great Pontif Cotta to Velleius, upon the same Question concerning a God, Credo (inquit) si in concione quaeratur: But in private it seems, he was very easy in his Belief. I will not mention Epicure, and Lucretius, their names are grown generally too scandalous; but if you examine Anaxagoras, Anacharsis, Protagoras, Euripides, Diagoras and many others, whose reputations carry no small Authority along with them, you will observe such a suspension of mind concerning a Deity, that if they were afraid, positively to deny; so neither would they confidently affirm.  
Next (supposing a Deity) whether the World was governed by God? The Epicureans totally deny it; nullam omninò habere humanarum rerum procurationem Deos: which Ennius also plainly professeth in these words, 
Ego Deûm genus semper esse dixi; & dicam Coelitum,  
Sed Eos non curare Opinor, quid agat humanum genus.  Which opinion Grotius takes care to confute in his Cap. de poenis. l. 2. And no wonder if the Heathens denied a Point, full of so many difficulties, since the Royal Prophet himself was almost stumbled at it. My feet (says he) were almost gone, my steps had well nigh slipped.  
Then the Souls Immortality (a very considerable Point) seemed so hard to Reason; especially when I found it disputed in some Set philosophical Discourses, and its Mortality proved, almost to a physical Demonstration; and besides, that the Christian Doctrine concerning it, had not been determined above two hundred years in any Council; that truly, Fathers, my reason (notwithstanding the best assistance I could procure) was put to a great plunge; I will not tell you how I got off from these, and many other such like difficulties; but proceed, and acquaint you how I ventured upon the Bible.  
When I examined the first Chap. of Genesis, I observed that many great Men were scandalised at Mose's Philosophy; and yet upon the Truth of his History, concerning the Creation, and fall of Adam, depends the greatest Mystery of our Salvation. I proceeded further, and found some strange Mistakes, and (for aught I could see) irreconcilable Errors in that History; insomuch, that many Learned men (well read in the Hebrew Language and History of the Jews), positively affirm, by very strong Arguments, That the Penteteuch, or five Books of Moses (such as they appear to us) were so far from being writ by Moses himself, that they were writ (say they) by Esdras the Scribe, many hundred of years after the death of Moses.  
Indeed (Reverend Fathers) when I heard this, I began hearty to wish that God Almighty, in his Providence, and Goodness to mankind, (infinitely fallen from that knowledge, in which our first Parent was happily created) would have pleased (as some reparation for so great a loss) to have left us some unerring Authority, and Sovereign Guide, who might have conducted all that truly sought the way, to that blessed Paradise, from whence long since we had been banished.  
With great pains, I broke through many rubs (how successfully I cannot say) and came to the New Testament: Here I hoped that my Reason would find an easier passage through those Divine Authors, as being of a later date, and the last Testament of our blessed Saviour. I began with the first Chapter of St. Matthew and found the Genealogy of Jesus, deduced through Joseph his reputed Father, from David, out of whose Royal Root, the long expected Messiah was to Spring. Would not a Man reasonably believe, that the holy Evangelist, to prove Jesus to be the Messiah, who was to be the Son of David, made him rather appear the Son of Joseph, than the Son of God? But if he was not the Son of Joseph, neither doth it appear from thence that he was the Son of David. Nay, more, when I would have proceeded further, I found, that of the New Testament; the 2 Epistle of Peter; 2 and 3 of John; the Epistle to the Hebrews; the Epistles of James, Judas, and the Revelations maintained to be Apocryphal by Chemnitius, Luther's great Scholar; and many important Texts, left out, or something added, or different Translations by your first great Protestant Reformers. And that some of these were not received, even by the Orthodox, into their Canon, till ne'er Two hundred years after the death of our Saviour.  
However, I passed this by; and, to be short, I read over the New Testament, (such as we have fit) with great attention. But truly, Father's, either your Reasons, and the Reason of every particular Christian, is infinitely above my poor Judgement; or else you must not tell me, that every Christian, upon a sincere perusal of this holy Book, would certainly have composed the Creed of St. Athanasius, such as you receive, and profess in your Common-Prayer Books.  
But, before I examined every particular Point of Faith contained in that sacred Writ; I resolved to consider what Religion was in general, and in particular, the Christian; In that, what Faith was, and how esteemed, when compared with Obedience and good Works under the Gospel, and opposed to Works under the Law: of Faith; what were the great, and necessary Articles. Then I presumed to look into the great mystery of the Incarnation, and blessed design of our Saviour, in submitting to the indignities of humane life, and shameful death of the Cross; and I extended the great benefits of his Passion as universally, as I judged He himself intended them. Next, I ventured to examine with my Reason the great Doctrines of the Trinity, Consubstantiality, Transubstantiation, Predestination and , and many other main Points of Divinity: and, as a help to my Reason, I diligently perused your learned Comments upon particular Texts, and Chapters; as also the Comments of Catholics, Lutherans, Socinians, Calvinists, Zuinglians; and I did not totally neglect the Censure of the Jews, and Heathens concerning the whole History in General.  
When I had done all this, I began to make up my account, and drew a Scheme of Divinity, in which (abstracting from all Authority) I received, and rejected what seemed most agreeable to my Reason: But I must ingenuously confess, that this was not done without some kind of force upon my Judgement, in general; for methoughts, the Authority of General Councils, Ancient Fathers, and the most universal concurrence of learned Men, aught to sway a private Reason, although it were not scientificè, or intuitively convinced of every particular Point which they had determined. However, being taught by yourselves to suspect General Councils; to Judge the Works of the Fathers, whether they were genuine, or supposititious; and of the truest, to interpret them according to our own private Opinions, or condemn them, as erroneous, when they differed from our Sentiments; I stuck close to my Reason, finished my Scheme, and my Reason subscribed to it.  
When this was done, I compared it with your Thirty nine Articles; with the Catechisms of Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Socinians, and observed, that in the whole, I disagreed from them All, even in Doctrines (commonly reputed) absolutely necessary to Salvation. But yet, this my confused Babel of Religion, was built up with some particular Points, taken from all the Heretics, and Professors of Christianity, even from Ebion, and Cerinthus to Naylor and Muggleton.  
Now I thought myself sufficiently stocked to set up for a Heresiarch, and a New Light in the Church; but when I seriously considered, how grievously our poor Nation was already torn and divided with such Sects, and Schisms, to the great disturbance of our temporal Peace, and Happiness, and scandal to Christianity; I resolved to keep my Reasons to myself, and censured in my heart that great Liberty, and Supreme Authority in these matters, which you yourselves, and (as you say) God Almighty had been pleased to allow us. You may blame my Reason for all this, and extol your own, who (it may be) have interpreted Scripture otherwise; but I had learned Men to back me, possibly as learned (though not so lucky) as yourselves, and we thought we had as strong Reasons to condemn you, as you to accuse us.  
I returned then to a Second, and a Third more diligent perusal of my Scheme; and though I still found every particular Point corresponding with my Reason, yet altogether, I soon perceived (by what I had read) that the whole Christian World of all Sorts and Sects universally condemned it.  
I profess, Fathers, I was strangely stumbled at this consideration, and my Reason began strongly to insinuate, that possibly, and very probably I might be all this while in the wrong; for I had learned, that Aristotle, Aristides, St. Augustin, Grotius and many excellent Scholars, counted it more Madness (insolentissimae Insaniae est) to contradict the Judgement of All, or the Most, or the most Wise; and of the most wise, All, or Most, or the most Excellent; for (says one of them) as in matter of Fact, we ought to believe the most, and most proper, and credible Witnesses; so in matters of Opinion, we are obliged to submit to the most, and most Excellent Authors; Now sure, these praestantissimi Auctores, are those who writ with best Authority, and have Commission from the Highest Powers, so to do.  
Yet, notwithstanding all this, I followed my own private Reason, in my particular Points; until a stronger Reason, I mean, the joint and common Reason of Mankind, and my Conscience too, daily dictating that my Judgement in particular Cases, might fail; that all, had not equal strength; that God therefore had not left the World without Government; nor given us Laws without lawful Judges and Interpreters; that these Judges ought to be obeyed: These, I say, and such like considerations, interrupted the quiet of my life, until at last my united Reason made its last effort, and fully and totally convinced me, that if any such Authority was to be found upon Earth, I ought in reason, to submit my particular Reasons to it.  
Truly, Fathers, when upon deliberate counsel, I had determined to take this most reasonable course; Give me leave to tell you, that I began to wonder how yourselves (though most learned, most reasonable, and most pious Men) could be satisfied under the conduct of your private Reasons, if there may be found any legal Supreme Judge which might ultimately, and Authoritatively guide, and direct you. Pardon me, I do not presume to measure my Reason against the meanest among yours, for I question not but yours would err much less, than mine; but yet lest your own should err at all, methinks, it were safest, and by consequence, most reasonable, to seek some Authority (if any such there be) under which you might be secured from all Error; at least, as far as humane nature is capable of it: For my part, my Reason, and Conscience forced me to take that method, and I resolved, either to find that Authority, and submit to it, or keep to my own Principles, how erroneous soever they might be esteemed by others.  
My first enquiry after this Authority, was, in the Church of England; for though you had often told me, that it was not there; yet I was more inclined to suspect your Modesty, than condemn your want of Prudence, in pretending to subsist securely without it. But when I had again examined the holy Scriptures together with the best Records and Histories concerning your legal Title to this Supreme Jurisdiction; I found indeed you had reason, and were very ingenuous in disowning, what did not of right belong unto you,: For if the Church of England enjoys this Power, by the same Rule, and for the same Reasons, Holland, Denmark, Swedeland, France, Italy, and Spain, would have the same Title to it, as yourselves; nay perhaps, Turks and Pagans: But my Reason told me (from the sad effects which we daily see) that this must needs be most contrary to the Unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  
I then recollected, how you had often told me, that the Catholic Church could never Err, but that it would always hold the purity of Faith uncorrupt. I remember then to have asked of your Reverences, where this Catholic Church was to be found; and you told me, That it was dispersed all over the Christian World. I was troubled that your answer was so wide, however, I resolved to search; and first I enquired in the Roman Church: Indeed they assured me, that I should there find what I looked for: 'Tis true, I found them all of one mind, in necessaries; but when I examined their Doctrines, I perceived (as you had often declared) that, if, yours were true; their's was much corrupt; or, if they dissembled, they must needs be under as great a condemnation: Among them, therefore, there could be no part of the Catholic Church. Then I went into the Greek Church, but found there also, the same objections and difficulties.  
In a word, I went through the Asian, and African Churches, the Denmark, Swedeland, Lutheran, and Socinian Churches; yet found nothing but Hypocrisy, or, the true Faith (according to your Standard) notoriously corrupt. I name not Holland, because among them, I saw such a Medley of Faiths, that it looked to me, as Babel might have done, when God confounded their Language; but certainly if the Catholic Doctrine had been practised in those parts where I had been; Holland surely of any Nation, would best have represented the Universal Church: But believe me, Fathers, it must then have quitted its Titles of Unity, and Holiness; except Unity can consist with Division; or Holiness with the World, the Flesh, and the Devil.  
At last, I returned to yourselves, and acquainted you how unsuccessful my Journey had been; you still replied that there was undoubtedly a Catholic Church Militant upon Earth; and that this Church did also hold the true Faith of Christ, uncorrupt; but withal, that it was not necessary it should be visible; quoting at the same time the complaint of Elijah, that he, only he was left; to whom God answered, that he had seven Thousand left in Israel (unknown to Elijah) who had not bend the knee to Baal: And that this was a Type of the Christian Church. Truly, Fathers (may it not displease you) I began to think, that you had trifled with me all this while, and pleased yourselves to send me of an April Errand; for to look for a thing which is invisible, is a kind of a foolish Message. Perceiving that you had not used me kindly, I resolved to set out once more upon my own strength, especially, since I believed with you, that there was an unerring Catholic Church; and more than you that this Church was certainly, and easily visible. This my Belief was also the more confirmed, when I had well considered the Story of Elijah; for I found, that this defection, and falling away, from the worship of the true God, was in Israel only, a rebellious Kingdom, separated from the chosen Tribe of Judah, (God knows, how like our Case in England); but in Jerusalem, God had a public Temple, a public High Priest, and public true Worshippers, and so they continued (except some little time they were punished with Captivity) until the coming of Christ.  
I made my first step (as I had done before) into the Church of Rome; and indeed, I there found, all the marks, and signs of a true Catholic Church. As  
1. Universality and Visibility. And it shall come to pass in the last days, 
Isa. 2.2.  that the Mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the top of the Mountains, and shall be exalted above the Hills. 
Micah 4.1.  And the people shall flow unto her. 
Mat. 18.17.  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the Church.  
2. Uninterrupted continuance, and Succession. This is my Covenant with them, saith the Lord, my spirit that is upon thee, 
Isa. 59.21.  and my word which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy Seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, from henceforth, and for ever. And he gave some Apostles; and some Prophets; and some Evangelists: 
Ephes. 4.11.  And some Pastors and Teachers; for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of faith, unto a perfect man, etc.  
3. Unity and Uniformity. Now I beseech you brethren, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, 
1 Cor. 1.10.  and in the same Judgement. That ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind, 
Phil. 1.27.  striving together for the faith of the gospel.  
4. Holy Fathers, and Martyrs; General Councils, and Synods; a High Priest, and a Holy Sacrifice; Undoubted Miracles and Divine Sacraments; Holy Orders, and Religious Colleges, Abstinence, and Penance, Faith and Obedience, Charity and Good Works: And in a word, fundamental Doctrines, Authoritatively imposed, and universally received throughout the whole Christian World. Be not offended, Fathers, that I speak so largely of their Doctrine, for (having well examined) I say again, that ne'er eight parts in ten among Christians, agree in those very Articles, or most of them which are controverted between yourselves, and them: And these believed from the beginning of their Conversions, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America.  
Having met with these great inducements to persuade me I had found the true Catholic Church; and believing that a visible Body could not subsist without a visible Head; I made it my next business to inquire after this Supreme Vicegerent, or Representative of the whole: And indeed methought there was no great difficulty in it. I began at the Head, (I mean) Christ Jesus; and found, 1. That he was a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: That he instituted a new Law; and gave Commissions to his Apostles to promulgate, and interpret it; and promised the assistance of his holy Spirit, to the end of all Ages.  
Next, that of these, he appointed one to be Chief (I mean) St. Peter: so reputed, and unanimously esteemed by the Fathers in the Eldest times of Christianity; the Fathers so understood, by many among yourselves; and not to be disputed without manifest injury, and violence to their plain Writings; and so received by the whole Catholic Church. His Succession, for many years, delivered to us by St. Augustin, and brought down even to our present Age, and Pope. These, worthy Fathers, are pregnant Arguments of a lawful Authority. I wished you could have shown me such another in your own Church.  
I next looked into this Ecclesiastical Government (as far as it concerned me) and found, that all Points of Faith were determined in General Councils, which represent the Catholic Church assembled, and in which our Saviour promised his holy Spirit should ever assist. That they were always as General as the Circumstances of Times, and Places would permit; or the weight of the Matters to be debated, required; and free and indisputable, when secured from violence and force; that their Decrees were then made with deliberation, and according to the received Doctrines of the Apostles, and their Successors, preserved in the Writings of Fathers; or constant Apostolical Tradition, kept inviolable in the Church: And when thus made, that they were obligatory to bind our Consciences, and conclude our private Reasons.  
I examined further, whether this Vicegerent, and Successor of St. Peter was received, as such, in these General Councils, or Catholic Church; and found his Authority owned, and confirmed by them, and that he was many hundred of years in the peaceable possession of it; no man upon Earth pretending a Superiority; or, if any did, that he was thereupon condemned, as an Intruder, or Usurper.  
Hence, I concluded (as the nature, and necessary Laws of Government required) that the Pope himself, or General Council, or Both united, could not possibly grant this Supreme Authority, to any other Mortal Man, or Men, to hold independently of him, or them; because this must constitute another Supreme independent Head of the same Body, which is monstrous; or a Head without a Body, which is ridiculous; or else there would be two distinct Heads, and two Bodies, which is directly contrary to the Unity, and Essence of Christ's Church, as frustrating, or obstructing the main End, and design of Christ, (that is) of preventing Heresies, or condemning them when they arise; for par in parem, non habet Imperium: Two equal Sovereign Authorities have no Jurisdiction one over the other: Besides, this Vicegerent, is but a Trustee, or Fidei commissarius: and can have no greater Power, than what is given him by his Principal, or Fidei Commissor; now this is a personal Trust, and cannot be alienated, or divided; because he holds not this Power in his own right, as a Property, or in pleno Jure Proprietatis; he hath only the administration of it, in trust for another: So neither can he alienate the Patrimonium Ecclesiae; or St. Peter's Patrimony; all Contracts therefore, in these Cases, would be fraudulent: Tanquam facti de re alienâ, and the Grantees, become malae fidei possessores, or unjust Possessors, of what they could not lawfully purchase.  
Lastly, all Sovereign Power, in the same Government, is Indivisible, and can only be delegagated, in the Executive part, for the administration of Justice, but accountable still to the Head, from whence it derives.  
The Equal privileges therefore, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, granted to the Patriarch of Constantinople; prove nothing against this Supremacy of St. Peter's Successor: For First, They were only honorary, in consideration, that Constantinople was become the Seat of the Empire. Secondly, Patriarchal, or quatenus Patriarcha, but not quatenus Caput Ecclesiae, or as Head of the Universal Church: And lastly, it is particularly expressed in the same Canon, that these Honours, or Privileges should be held, and enjoyed, post Pontificem Romanum, after the Bishop of Rome; and it appears de facto, that (during the Third General Council held at Ephesus, and allowed by Protestants) Pope Celestine the First, did, by his substitute Cyril, authoritatively, depose, and Excommunicate Nestorius, than Patriarch of Constantinople.  
And Pope Victor who lived Anno Dom. 198. Excommunicated the Bishops of Asia, for their keeping of Easter, contrary to the Institutions of St. Peter, and St. Paul, though tolerated therein by St. John. Nor could Ambition, or Avarice in those days of Persecution, move the Supreme Heads of the Church to exercise such Jurisdiction; for they got little by being Eminent and Conspicuous, but Martyrdom, and so it happened to this Pope Victor, who died a Martyr, Anno Dom. 203.  
Now, Fathers, besides these great Marks of the true Catholic Church, I perceived also, that, (according to the Command, and Institution of our Saviour) his Vicegerent here, did send out his Disciples Preaching, and Baptising through all Nations; Insomuch, that since Gregory the Great (before whose time you tell us, that this Holy Church began to fall) there have been converted to the Christian Faith (otherwise called the Roman Catholic Faith) near Thirty great Kingdoms, or Provinces (among which, Our Saxon Ancestors, help to make up the number) besides infinite multitudes in the East, and West Indies. And, so much pains should be taken, in obedience to our Saviour's commands, and promise of his assistance; so much blood of holy Martyrs spilt; and all this, to bring Heathens, and Pagans from the worship of their false Gods, into another Idolatrous, and damnably corrupted Religion, may possibly to your Reasons, appear consistent with the Mercy and Goodness of Almighty God; but pray excuse me, if I tell you, that to my Reason, it seems altogether repugnant; but this is matter of Opinion.  
Having got thus far, toward that Sovereign Ecclesiastical Authority in Matters of Faith, absolutely necessary to Salvation; and believing, according to the strongest Evidences of Sense, and Reason, that it must be in the Church of Rome, or, no where; which last Opinion must dissolve that whole Fabric, against which our Saviour promised the gates of Hell should not prevail; I resolved to make yet one step further; and inquire, Whether this Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church, could have so far forfeited her great Privileges, and Prerogatives, by the practice of damnable Doctrines, and pernicious Errors (of which yourselves, and others have most greivously accused her) as to render her, not only unworthy of the name, and Title to which She pretends; but also to make her Communion most unsafe, and desperately dangerous to all honest, and pious Christians.  
I confess, Fathers, when I considered what some of yourselves had often told me, and what I found in many of your Eminent Authors, concerning the late Innovation of those Doctrines controverted between the two Churches; I began to have hard thoughts of the present Roman Catholic Communion: Much more, when enquiring, how late these Doctrines were introduced into the Church, you generally told me, that they were not imposed upon the Faithful, before the Council of Trent, which hath not been ended much above an Hundred and twenty three years: But when I compared the date of your Reformation, with that, of this Council; I plainly perceived, that the protesting against these Errors was begun, and well nigh perfected, before these Errors were (as you say) then imposed: which, (though it seemed somewhat strange, and might have passed with others for a reasonable Answer to this Objection of Novelty) yet I resolved to peruse the Councils themselves, and (de point en point) note the time, when these Doctrines were in Council Established.  
1. I began with the Pope's Supremacy, which I found confirmed in the Council of Chalcedon Act. 16. (one of the first four General Councils owned by Protestant's) above Twelve Hundred years since, Six Hundred and thirty Fathers present, and about the year of our Lord 451. and relation had to the first Council of Nice. Can. 6. This Supremacy also allowed, professed, and taught by the most Ancient Fathers after the Apostles, and confessed so to have been by Melancton, Luther, Bucer, Bilson, Dr. Cooper, Bunny, Fulk, Middleton, Osiander, the Centurists, and many others too long to mention.  
2. Those Books which you call Apocrypha, were taken into the Canon of the Old Testament, in the Third Council of Carthage, Signed by St. Augustin (Baruch only not named, because an Appendix to Jeremiah whose Secretary he was) Can. 47.  
3. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Sixth Council of Constantinople, a Thousand years, since, Can. 32. And also in the Ninth Council of the Apostles, Decreed, That a Bishop, etc. shall communicate when Sacrifice is made.  
4. Veneration, and worship of Saints Relics (according to Apostolical Tradition) as also of Martyrs, and holy Images, in the Second Council of Nice, Three Hundred and Fifty Fathers present, Act. 3. Anno Dom. 780. See more in Act 7. With the general Concurrences of Ancient Fathers.  
5. Communion under one kind sufficient in the Council of Constance, Sess. 13. and practised in the Church Twelve Hundred years since.  
6. Purgatory, and many more, too long to relate, in the Council of Florence, and believed in the Primitive times.  
7. And lastly, the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, confirmed in the great Council of Lateran, in which near Thirteen Hundred Fathers assisted: And in Seven or Eight other Councils, before that of Trent; and all the controverted Points, particularly, and by name, declared by some of yourselves, to have been brought into England, by Augustin the Monk, above a Thousand years since.  
Indeed, Fathers, when I had diligently examined this Truth, and found it most Evident, beyond the possibility of any just or reasonable Contradiction; I was much scandalised at the disingenuity of your Writers, who, whilst they accuse others of Fallacy, Imposture, and Impudence, dare advance so great, and demonstrable a Falsehood in Matter of Fact, that nothing but Ignorance can excuse them; so they expose themselves to the greatest Censure of rashness, and indiscretion, as uncharitable, and unjust to those whom they call their Enemies; as also unsafe, and abusing the Credulity of their Friends.  
It will not consist with the Brevity here intended, to speak fully of every particular Point in dispute between us. I shall content myself therefore to affirm (as I do) that there are but few of them, which have not been tolerated, and practised (more or less) by some Eminent Members of the Reformed Churches; and which have not undeniable Authority, and Antiquity to support them. I shall fix therefore upon two only; and consider how far they may bear, and appear reasonable to an Impartial Reader.  
1. The Authority, and Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.  
2. The Doctrine of Transubstanpiation.  
For the two firsts I think them so necessarily involved one within the other, that, in proving one, we prove both; for if the Supreme lawful. Ecclesiastical Authority resides in the Church of Rome, as representing in its General Councils the Catholic Church assembled; then we have the promise of our Saviour, that his holy Spirit shall ever assist them, and guide them into all Truth. This I believe not only with a Popish, but with a Protestant Faith; for you have always told me (and I think you do not now deny it) that the Catholic Church cannot err in Fundamentals, or hold the Faith corrupt; the difficulty only lies in finding the Chatholic Church, which, (to avoid some unlucky consequences that might disturb your quiet) you prudently tell us, Is not certainly to be found.  
It remains therefore, that we find this Supreme lawful Authority which represents the visible Catholic Church. I have given you my Judgement already: And that you may not believe I have erred through Popish Affectation, I will produce also for my Justification the sound Judgement of your best Reformers. Luther tells us, I do not deny but that the Bishop of Rome is, 
Resp. tread. propos.  hath been, and aught to be first of all; I believe he is above all other Bishops, it is not lawful to deny his Supremacy. Melancton (the Phoenix of learning) says, That the Bishop of Rome is above all the Church, 
Epist. ad Card. Belay.  that it is his Office to Judge in Controversies, to govern, to watch over the Priests, to keep all Nations in Conformity, and Unity of Doctrines. Somaisius. The Pope of Rome hath been, without controversy, the first Metropolitan of Italy, and not only in Italy, nor only in the West, but in all the: World. The other Metropolitans have been Chief in their respective Districts; but the Pope of Rome, 
Tract. ad Sermondum.  (hath been Metropolitan, and Primate, not only of some particular Diocese, but of All. Grotius (for whom I have a great respect, and think him a very learned Man) says the same thing, and proves this Supremacy belongs to the Pope de Jure divino: 
Annot. Sup. Nou. Test.  This also inferred from Episcopal Government by Jacob Cartwright; Husse, Beza, and many others.  
Now, Fathers, you cannot say, but these Eminent Protestants were Men of great Learning, and that they had searched, and understood Scripture and History, as well as yourselves; and if my Judgement concurs with them in this Point (as I profess it doth) then have I found that lawful Supreme Authority which I searched; and where this Authority is, there is Infallibility: Or if you can show me Infallibility elsewhere, there also I am sure I will believe a sufficient Authority. The differences between them I cannot easily discern: Infallibility is from God, and therefore we believe what is dictated thereby, as from God: Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority is also from God, and therefore we obey what it commands us, as the Ordinance of God. Infallibility concludes our Reasons, and binds our Consciences; Supreme Church Authority binds also our Consciences, and Supersedes all private Reason. Infallibility is above all humane Authority: The highest Church Authority can have no such Authority upon Earth above it. Infallibility establisheth and supports Authority. Authority declares, and makes manifest the Infallibility. Infallibility, and the Promises of Christ fail when Authority is destroyed: Authority lives not, when Infallibility ceaseth. In a word, were there no Infallibility (as I believe there is) I would still submit my Reason, and regulate my Conscience, according to the Decrees of the Supreme, lawful Ecclesiastical Authority: This is my Belief, pray blame me not, I am humble, and have read Scripture, and upon my word, I am Sincere. You may believe otherwise, I presume not to Judge you.  
After all this (worthy Fathers) I must not forget to tell you, that I still lay under some Difficulties, before I could throughly assent to this Authority (now believed) in the Church of Rome: For you had often told me, that She had fallen from her Primitive Purity, and separated herself from that One Holy Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Answ. to Prot. Queries p. 10. Declared also to be Antichristian, and the true Church Latent and Invisible, by that famous Napper to King James, Brocard, Fulk, Sebast. Francus, Hospinian, and many others.  
Now, good Fathers, if She was once a pure, and uncorrupted Church, I presume She remains so still; for, give me leave to tell you, I do not well see, how She can separate from herself, for Mr. Chillingworth (an Eminent Author among you) looked upon it, as a thing ridiculous, if not impossible: for, says he, In the Case of the Church of England p. 174. We have not forsaken, but only reform another part of it (the Catholic Church) which part, we ourselves are, and I suppose, you will not go about to persuade us, that we have forsaken ourselves, or our own Communion. Nor yet can She separate from the Catholic Church; for the same Learned person tells us immediately after. And if you urge that we joined ourselves to no other part, therefore were separated from the whole; I say it follows not, inasmuch as ourselves were a part of it, and still continued so, and therefore can no more separate from the whole, than from ourselves.  
But next, supposing a part may separate from itself, or from the whole, pray be plain with me, worthy Fathers, and tell me, where that part, or that whole remained, from whence the Church of Rome separated? For Separation, first supposes the Existence of the thing, from which Separation is made; and is a deadly fault and foretold by the Apostles, as a mischief which would happen in the last days. Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the Apostles, of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you, that there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts; these be they who Separated themselves, sensual, 
Judas v. 17, 18, 19  having not the Spirit. Let us consider one another to provoke unto love, and to good works, 
Heb. 10.24.  not forgetting the assembling ourselves together, and so much the more, 
Act. 20.30.  as ye see the day approaching. Also of yourselves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Now the Church of Rome was not only visible, but a very Eminent Church; St. Paul tells us, 
Rom. 1.  That her Faith is spoken of throughout the whole World: And certainly, that pure Church fr●m which She Separated, must needs be by so much the more Eminent, as Her Apostasy was notorious, which forsook her. Tell me therefore where that pure Church remained, that we may retrieve the true Christian Doctrine? If she Separated from herself, than (besides Mr. Chill. answer) I add, these Contradictions must be received as Truths: The Church of Rome was at the same time, Orthodox, and Heterodox; pure and corrupt: sound, but yet rotten: Or if you can distinguish them, show me the Orthodox, Pure, and Sound part, which was left by the Heterodox, corrupt, and rotten Church of Rome; declare the time when the Separation was made, and where both were to be found? These are plain Questions, and I must have a plain Answer, if it can be had.  
If you say She Separated from the Catholic Church; then tell me where that Catholic Church remained from which She Separated, and where She may be found; for in good faith, Fathers, my Salvation is highly concerned in this Question and I must be satisfied. If you tell me She is invisible (as others have done) you plainly abuse me; for I have long since learned from yourselves, as a Maxim in Philosophy, that de non apparentibus, & non existentibus eadem est ratio. It is the same thing not at all to be, as not at all to appear. Besides, excuse me, if I take the word of our Saviour, and his Apostles, and all the Prophets in a hundred plain Texts (I presume) not unknown to yourselves, rather than your word in this Case. I profess therefore, though my Reason is not able to cope with yours; yet I'll sooner suffer myself to be knocked down with a true Protestant flail, than with such a Protestant Answer.  
If you say the Catholic Church fell, and was corrupt in Faith and Manners; then I answer, that Christ failed of his Promise, and so good night to Christianity: If you say the Catholic Church did not fall, but kept the Unity of Faith Entire, and Uncorrupt, than I reply again, show me where, and how I may find her? And from this reasonable, and important Request, you shall never beat me whilst I live.  
If you think fit to persuade me, that the Church of Rome separated from the Church of England, and that the Church of England is, and ever hath been a part (at least) of the Catholic Church which always preserved the Faith entire, and uncorrupt; make it appear to me, Fathers, and I most hearty promise to become the most humble and obedient Subject that ever lived under any Government. But I foresee many Difficulties which I fear will prove invincible; as first, It is evident, that you separated from the Church of Rome, and that within these few years; and to prove that she separated from you, will be (I doubt) no easy Task, nor have I yet seen it done. Next, That you were involved in the same pernicious Errors with her, ever since Augustin the Monk, above a Thousand years since: If my Computation be false, blame your own Authors, and rectify my Judgement.  
Now, how you should rise a pure Church, after having been buried so many Hundred years in a corrupt Church, I do not easily understand. I have heard indeed of some Rivers, that have fallen into the Earth; and risen up again, many Miles off; and of others, which for many Miles in the Sea, have still retained the natural sweetness of their own fresh Waters: If these comparisons may hold in Religion, yet how will you make them quadrate with the constant, visibility, and Demonstration, in one case, and the Succession of the Original Stream in the other, if you say that that the Catholic Church was invisible, or totally fell?  
If you pretend to derive your Authority from the Church of Rome, when She was in her Purity and Perfection; let me tell you, here will be a very long Prescription against you; and I know not how your Jus postliminium can take place in this case: But if it would, you must be restored by an Act of the same Supreme Authority: you owned her; you held of her; you received your Doctrine, and your Orders from her: Besides (as hath been said) She could by no means grant away her Authority independent from her; show me that lawful Authority which restored you, and I submit: Show me your extraordinary Calling by those Marks appointed, and practised in such Cases, both under the Old and New Law, even to our own Century (I mean) undoubted Miracles, and I acquiesce.  
If you tell me, no time can prescribe against Divine Truth; nor is Authority necessary to reform an Error: In a general Sense, I grant both. But the Question here, is, concerning Truth, and Error themselves. No body doubts, but that a certain Divine Truth is to be received, and a certain Error to be avoided; but we are now seeking for that Authority which shall declare this Truth, and set forth this Error. Error or Sin, is the breach of a Law, for without the Law, 
Rom. 7.  Sin is dead: whence St. Paul says, That he had not known Lust, except the Law had said, thou shalt not covet. Now, as Sin supposes a Law, so Law requires an Authority: And as the one, so the other must be visible. And to show that this Authority is absolutely necessary, we find our Saviour giving it to his Apostles, and themselves exercising, and recommending it to others; so S. Paul advises Titus, 
Titus 2.15.  To speak, exhort, and rebuke with Authority.  
But what need Instances of this kind? Our Saviour hath left us a Law of Faith, which in some of the most necessary Points, is not clear, and self-Evident; whence the Arians of old (Men of great Learning) denied the Trinity, and Divinity of our Saviour; and they made a very considerable Body; Authority condemned them, and interpreted the Law, in those Cases, according to our present Orthodox Faith. The Socinians, and Antitriniturians rebel against it to this day, and are neither unlearned, nor inconsiderable. Luther tells us, That Christ is a Saviour of vile, and little worth, and wanted himself a Saviour, Christus ille vilis, 
In Confess. Maj. de caen. Dom.  nec magni pretij Salvator est; immo Ipse quoque Salvatore opus habet. And, that his Divinity suffered for us: 
De consil. part 2  pertinacissimè contra me pugnabant, quod Divinitas Christi pati non posset. 
Tom. 1. prop. 3.  He tells us further, That good Works are hurtful to Salvation, and that Faith doth not Justify, except it be, even, without the least good Works. Calvin also, 
bilson's Survey.  and Beza, That Christ suffered in his Soul the pains of the damned, that he prayed unadvisedly, and was disturbed in his Senses; That the Divine Substance, is (not wholly in three Persons, but) distinct really, and truly, from Everlasting, into three Persons, and that there be three Divinities, as there be three Persons. Melanct. in loco Com. c. de Christo; Beza 's Confession p. 1. Anno Dom. 1585. Calvin in Act. Serveti. Whence Neuserus (a Learned Calvinist, and chief Pastor at Heidelburg) revolting first to Arianism, and thence to Mahometanism, writ to Gerlachius (a Protestant Preacher) from Constantinople July 2. 1574. saying, None is known to me in my time made an Arian, who was not first a Calvinist; and then names several such persons: That God is the Author of Sin, moving, inclining, and forcing the Will of man to Sin, Calvin Instit. l. 1. c. 18. and l. 2. c. 4. Zuingl. Bucer, and several of our Eminent English Reformers, concur with them, in most of these blasphemous, and heretical Opinions.  
Now, Fathers, if these Instances, with many others (which I abhor to mention) be not sufficient; and weighty enough, to require a Supreme Judge to determine the right Faith, and to condemn, and silence the wrong; then look nearer (at home among yourselves) and if all cannot prevail with you to believe, That the Law wanted a Judge, and that therefore Christ was pleased, in his Wisdom, and Goodness to leave us Judges, as long as he intended his Law should be in force: Then pray excuse me, if my Reason, and Piety, and the reverend Notion which I have of a Just God, and a Merciful Saviour; totally force my Judgement and Conscience to descent from you in this particular; and let us proceed.  
If you say the Church of Rome usurped upon you; I answer, (if such a thing was) It was in Discipline only, and External Government; and that but in some particulars, with which I meddle not: If you tell me a story of the Abbot of Bangor; I answer, the particular ground of it is evidently false, and forged; and at best (all circumstances considered) of little consequence. The plain Truth is this; The Britain's received the Christian Faith, even in the days of the Apostles: But (being persecuted at home by the Romans, Picts, and Saxons,) Religion fled to the Mountains, and bordering parts of Wales. At the same time, the Church of Rome, was no less afflicted by the Heathen Emperors; and no wonder, if in these days, and circumstances, there was but little Correspondence between Rome and Wales. But when the Church (brought forth from her subterraneous Refuges, and set upon a Hill,) began to enlarge herself, and propagate the Gospel, according to the Commands of our Saviour, Go ye and Preach unto all Nations: Gregory the Great, sent Augustin the Monk into England (somewhat before the year Six Hundred,) to see how Matters went here in this long interval of silence, and distractions. In short, the Britain's known him not (and no wonder) until he had confirmed his Commission by Miracles, and such, as none yet ever denied. The great Errors which he found among them, were chief, two; Their Asiatic Error, concerning the keeping of Easter; and descent from the use of the Roman Church in the administering of Baptism: And although in some other Matters, they differed from the Church of Rome; yet Augustin promised to tolerate those, provided, they would rectify these, which the British Bishops consented to, and confessed, That it was the right way of Justice, and righteousness which Austin taught. Si his tribus mihi obtemperare vultis, ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis; ut ministerium Baptizandi juxta morem Rom. & Apost. Ecolesiae compleatis: Ut genti Anglorum, una nobiscum praedicetis Verbum Domini, Caetera, quae agitis, quamvis Moribus nostris contraria, aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus? Cum Brittones confitentur, Intellexisse se, veram esse viam Justitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus. Beda Hist. l. 2. c. 2. Hence we may observe, That the two great faults which Austin found with the Britain's, were, about Easter and Baptism; that the Britain's, at first, highly opposed this Innovation, but, that in all other Substantials, they agreed. That Austin is severely accused for bringing into England the Popish Superstition, and all other Points, by name, controverted between us at this day, is plain, from near twenty Eminent Protestant Authors, both at home and abroad. And that the British Bishops, did not except against any of these, save only Easter, and Baptism, is confessed.  
Now, after all this, can we believe that the Britain's, who earnestly contradicted Austin in these smaller Points, and were so tenacious of their own Customs, would have silently received so many, and imcomparably much greater Points of Faith, had they in like manner disagreed from him therein? Credat Judaeus Apella. The consequence which I draw from all this, is, that the same Doctrines (these two Points excepted) which Austin taught the Saxons, had been delivered to the Britain's, from the Apostles: If you understand otherwise, I shall be glad to be better informed; Or, if you can give us a better Authority than venerable Bede, you will do well to produce it. In the mean time, when we consider the great Learning, and Holiness of St. Gregory, so esteemed by all sober men; the Piety of Austin himself, and of Bede (who writes the Story) He must be a bold man, who (without better proof than I have hitherto seen) dares accuse these three great Persons, and the whole Christian World, at that time of Idolatry, and all those other damnable Crimes, then taught, of which you are pleased to say, the Church of Rome at present is guilty. If you go higher, and object a Letter of Pope Eleutherius to King Lucius, I demur.  
But, I take it for granted, that these old Arguments, are threadbare, and will not hold Water; otherwise, I would humbly advise you, to insist totally upon them; for if you can make out your Lawful, Supreme, Independent Authority, in determining Matters of Faith without Appeal; trouble not yourselves, nor abuse your Friends with Sophistical, Artificial Pamphlets; about Judges and Guides in Controversies; Reason and Sense, against Faith and Obedience; and, I know not what, to that purpose; but stick close to your Authority, make it out plain, and you carry all before you.  
In good earnest, Reverend Fathers, I see but one way how you'll evade these Difficulties which press hard upon you, and it is this; That you have an Infallible Rule, God's Holy Word, containing all things necessary to Salvation. And Mr. Chillingworth tells us p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule, as, sufficiently Perfect, so, sufficiently Intelligible, in things necessary; to all that have understanding, whether learned or unlearned. Now, if the Scripture be a Guide and a Judge, as well as a Rule, Then have you been to blame all this while that you have not told us particularly, where the Catholic Church was; for certainly, where the Bible is, and where all men that have understanding, whether learned, or unlearned, by reading it, hold all things necessary to Salvation, there the Catholic Church is, whether at Rome, or in London: and I will not believe so ill of any, who, in such Case, read the Scripture, as to imagine that they wilfully oppose a Truth, which is clear to them; and Mr. Chillingworth tells me p. 367. That Believing all that is clear to me in Scripture, I must needs believe all Fundamentals, and so I cannot incur Heresy, which is opposite to some Fundamental. In a word, wheresoever there is, or was a Bible, and a Man of understanding, whether learned, or unlearned, that read it; there was a certain number of the true Catholic Church, pure, and uncorrupt: For the same hand again tells us, p. 101. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is Faith, must also of necessity teach me what is Heresy; that which is strait, will plainly teach us what is crooked: So here is not only a Member, but (according to my understanding) the Representative of the whole Catholic Church; for here is Authority and Infallibility, and further than that, I seek not. But if the holy Bible be a certain Rule, but withal, that this Person of understanding whether learned or unlearned, be not sufficiently qualified to find out certainly all things necessary to Salvation; and of necessity to teach what Heresy is (and I confess I shrewdly suspect, that there may be many in the World, who cannot, with a wet Finger, perform all this) then are we to seek again for a Judge and an Authority; and are got no further than we were sixteen Hundred years since, when the Scripture was first acknowledged to be the Word of God.  
But to do Justice (worthy Fathers) to you, and to myself, let us further consider, these, and many other seeming Absurdities, which appear (at first sight) such surprising Doctrines, that they make a Man gape, and stare, as if he were Thunder struck, or had some strange Apparition. Why truly your great Champion (the Learned Chillingworth) brings you still off, with flying Colours; I'll give you his own Excellent words in p. 102. Where he says, For me to believe further this or that to be the true sense of some Scriptures; or to believe the true sense of them, and to avoid the false, is not necessary either to my Faith, or Salvation; for if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, how could it stand with his Wisdom, to be wanting to his own Will, and End, as to speak obscurely? Or how can it consist with his Justice to require of Men to know certainly the meaning of those words, which he himself hath not revealed? p. 18. For my Error, or Ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture, after my best endeavour used, to say, that God will damn me for such Errors, who am a lover of Him, and lover of Truth, is, to rob Man of his Comfort, and God of his Goodness, is, to make Man desperate, and God a Tyrant. But he goes on p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule, as sufficiently Perfect, so sufficiently Intelligible, in things necessary, to all who have understanding, whether learned, or unlearned; neither is any thing necessary to be believed, but what is plainly revealed; for to say, that when a place in Scripture, by reason of ambiguous Terms, lies indifferent between divers Senses, whereof one is true and the other false, that God obligeth men under pain of damnation, not to mistake through Error, and humane Frailty, is, to make God a Tyrant, and to say, that he requires of us certainly to attain that End, for the attaining whereof, we have no certain means; What an easy, compendious, and certain Rule of Faith is this?  
But before we proceed, let us consider what our Author understands by— His meaning in these places— speaking obscurely— plainly contained in Scripture— things necessary— ambiguous Terms lying indifferent between divers Senses. By all which he seems to insinuate, that there may be some ambiguous Terms in Scripture, which, because they are not plain to every Understanding, therefore not necessary to be truly understood and believed.  
Indeed had he told us, what was not ambiguous, and what not necessary, he had made our work much shorter. I shall presume therefore to reduce the Question; and affirm, that if he means any thing by all this, he must mean the whole New Testament to be ambiguous; for let him show me any one Text of Doctrine from the first of St. Matthew to the last of the Revelations (the Moral Law, and the Law of Nature only excepted) which he thinks to be the most clear; and I will produce whole Bodies of learned Christians, who dispute it, and believe contrary to one another in it. If so, than it appears demonstrably, and by matter of Fact, that all is ambiguous, and by consequence every Man is safe, in the Belief of the most opposite Doctrines, if he useth his best Endeavours (to which also he hath given a great Latitude) to understand it aright: For says he, By my best endeavour, I mean, such a measure of industry, as humane Prudence, and ordinary Discretion (my abilities and opportunities, my distractions, and hindrances, and all other things considered) marry, and a great consideration it is; shall advise me unto, in a matter of such consequence. Chill. p. 18.19.  
The whole Sense (as far as it concerns my purpose) runs thus, There are some ambiguous Terms which lie indifferent between divers Senses, whereof one is true, and the other false; but if a Man of understanding, whether learned, or unlearned, uses his best endeavour to understand them (that is, by reading Scripture) he will safely Err, or, not Err at all, or else, God is a Tyrant. That there are ambiguous Terms, is most certain; for we find many most Learned, Pious Men, differing from, and contradicting one another in most Points, generally reputed Fundamental. Secondly, That in Fundamentals, no man can safely Err, because it is of the Essence of Christ's Church, to hold the Unity of Faith, in Fundamentals, uncorrupt. And Lastly, Most Christians are inclined to believe, that God is no Tyrant. Our Author, from his own Promises, and by what hath been already said, seems evidently to draw this Conclusion; that possibly and very probably, a Man may safely Err in Fundamentals, or God must be a Tyrant. Now, for my part, when I read his excellent Works, lately, and some years since, I always drew from the same Premises a most different Consequence; that is, That since there are ambiguous Terms in Points highly Fundamental, therefore, lest we should damnably Err in these, or, more impiously think God to be a Tyrant, I concluded, that God, in his Wisdom and Goodness, had certainly left us some infallible, visible Authority, which might unerringly deliver to us, the true Sense of these ambiguous Terms.  
Now besides the strong Evidences which we have from Scripture to believe this; As for Example, when our Saviour says, Go ye into all the World, 
Mark 16.15.  and Preach the Gospel to every Creature, He that believeth, and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. As thou hast sent me into the world, 
John 17.18.  even so have I also sent them into the world. And again, 
1 Cor. 12.28.  God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, Secondarily Prophets, Thirdly Teachers, after that Miracles, than gifts of healing; helps, Governments, 
Ephes. 14.11.  diversities of Tongues: So also. And he gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. And Lastly, that this Authority was to continue to the End of the Word. All power is given unto me in Heaven, and in Earth, go ye therefore and teach all Nations, 
Mat. c. ult.  teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the End of of the World: I say besides this, and much more to this purpose, let all sober Christians witness for me, whether it be not more pious, more rational, more comfortable to ourselves, and respectful to God, to conclude as I have done; that God hath left us such an Authority (especially since such an Authority, with good Reason, offers itself to us) than to agree with our Author, That either God is a Tyrant, or, we may safely Err in Fundamentals?  
Since therefore from our Authors own Premises (notwithstanding the weight and plainness of them) I should have made so contrary a Conclusion; it may happen, that in reading the Bible, we might make as different Interpretations; and whilst he believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, Consubstantial, and Equal with the Father, as to his Divinity; I may affirm Christ to be mere Man, and only Divinely Inspired. Such things I have heard of; but it may be, worthy Fathers, you may not think this a necessary Point; then indeed, this Instance would be impertinent.  
But we must not thus leave our admirable Author; for from this his well considered Doctrine, we may observe,  
1. That according to this Rule, there can never be Schism, or Heresy in the World, until a man can divide from himself; or, a man, condemning himself, obstinately stand out against his clear Evidence of Scripture, and so sin wilfully, and without excuse; and in this last Point Bishop Bromhall and Dr. Still. unanimously concur with our Author. Now believing in Charity, that these wonders have seldom, or never happened, therefore I ought to conclude, that St. Paul mistook when he said, 
1 Cor. 11.19.  There must be Heresies among you, and St. John much to blame when he wrote his Gospel (many years after the death of our Saviour) against the Heresies of Ebion, and Cerinthus.  
2. That all Men of understanding, whether learned, or unlearned, are in the direct road to Heaven, and found Members of the true Catholic Church, provided they be lovers of God, and of Truth, and follow their own Sense of Scripture, although they differ in some of the most Fundamental Points of Faith. Now (besides the extravagancy of this Opinion in general) it seems particularly levelled against the poor Papists, because they often submit their own private Interpretations (with great reason) to the Judgement, and Interpretation of the Church: But if this be so damnable a fault in Papists, pray take care not to exact this resignation from your own Subjects; and so farewell to Authority.  
3. And Lastly, That there are some ambiguous Terms which lie indifferent between divers Senses, whereof the one is true, and the other false: This, we readily grant, for the truth of it is so manifest that there is never a Point in the Christian Faith, howsoever by you, and us esteemed Fundamental, but hath been denied by whole Bodies of Learned Men; who (as you do) made Scripture their Rule. But when you tell us, further, that the true Sense of them is not necessary to Faith, or Salvation (for if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known, why should he speak obscurely?) Then methinks, Fathers, you not only make the Apostles writ Impertinently, and to no purpose; but you have brought all sorts of Sectaries, Schismatics, and Heretics (if any such have been) and also the Turks, themselves (provided they read the Scripture) within the Pale of the Christian Church: Nay, more, you have made them in such Case, equal with the best true Members in it. And indeed if the good wishes, and prayers of our Teckelites might prevail as much on one side; as the Principles of your Champion, have capacitated the Turks on the other side; I know no reason they have to despair of seeing the Cathedral of St. Paul, Consecrated by the Mufti of Mahomet. By this time, most Reverend Fathers, I should think that you, as well as myself, should be very weary of this Learned Author. Being fixed therefore to my Authority, and the more, from the Eminent danger of his lose, and pernicious Principles, I am resolved, that nothing shall move me, except the absurd and monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation (as you are pleased to call it) may have of itself force enough to ruin, and overturn so solid a Foundation.   

REMARKS Upon some late DISCOURSES AGAINST Transubstantiation.  
I Must confess that this great Point seemed the most difficult to me, of any that are Controverted between the two Churches: and for these Reasons; First, because I did not rightly apprehend the Catholic Explication of the Natural Body of Christ in the Sacrament. Secondly, Because (from this misunderstanding of mine) I believed that the Body of Christ being in two places, at the same time, employed a contradiction, which I supposed the Omnipotency of God could not support. And lastly, because I thought the Fathers had been express against this Doctrine.  
I applied myself to the reading of Controversies; and discoursing with some Learned Men, on both sides; and found first from the Catholics, That although they Profess and Believe the Natural Body of Christ to be truly and substantially in the Sacrament; yet they tell us, That it is not there after a Natural manner, as it was upon the Earth, or upon the Cross, but after a Spiritual, Supernatural, and Unbloody manner. Secondly, That it is indeed a Contradiction to say a Body is here, and not here at the same time: but to say that the Glorified Body of Christ, may be by accident, and by the power of God, in many places, or ubi's at the same time, is so far from a Contradiction, that it gives it not a more sovereign Existence, than what we allow to Angels, or to the Soul in a Man's Body, which although it be a Substance, is yet really, substantially and at the same time, totally in the Finger of a Man, and totally in his foot, and totally in every part, and yet totally in the whole Body, tota in toto, & tota in qualibe parte.  
And Lastly, for the Fathers, I found in them, not only most plain, demonstrable, and Invincible Authorities asserting the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament after a substantial manner; but also, that those very Citations produced by Protestants to destroy this Doctrine of the Real Presence, were most of them (if not all) so fully answered, or so agreeable to the Catholic Faith, that if any of them remained still obscure, there wanted not twenty plain places to Interpret them by; But more of these hereafter.  
Here I considered the Protestant Arguments against this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and found them generally dissatisfactory, and insufficient; chief upon this account, that they brought continually the same Objections, which though they had been answered a hundred times over by Catholics (both Ancient and Modern) yet I found no Reply tothese Answers, or at least, such as handled those which were most material; so that I perceived they danced always in a Ring, without advancing a step towards a substantial and convincing Demonstration. At last I was recommended to a late Discourse against Transubstantiation, which treating particularly of that Subject; and being wrote (as I was informed) by an Eminent Protestant Divine, I resolved to pitch upon that, and from thence take my Measures, how far I ought to receive this great Catholic Doctrine. I read it over and over with great attention, and before I speak particularly of any thing contained in it; I think it Just to give this Character of it in general, viz. that it seems to be writ without Modesty, Charity, Sincerity, or Good Manners. Without Modesty, In that a private Person, upon presumption of his own Parts, and Learning, shall dare to ridicule so great a Mystery of the Christian Religion (I speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, according to the Doctrine of Catholics, and Lutherans, excluding at present the Mode (as they term it) or Manner, Transubstantiation) and this Doctrine owned, and professed not two Hundred years since, generally through the Christian World, and at present, by at least eight parts, in ten; and amongst these some persons extremely above him in Place and Authority; and thousands (for aught we know) equal, if not above him, in Learning, Piety, and Reason; Thus I say to ridicule, and burlesque so great a Doctrine of the Christian Faith, is much more dangerous, and scandalous to the Christian Religion, than that stupid, absurd and monstrous Doctrine (as he calls it) against which he writes. For my part, I profess, if so many Men of Sense and Reason, and these improved to the height by Study and Learning, may not only be deceived in so great a Point of Religion; but mistaken even to folly, madness, nonsense, and Contradiction; I know not what will become of Christianity itself; for if these can so grossly Err, in Matters which are as equally Evident (upon all accounts) to their Sense and Reason, as to the Sense and Reason of any other; I am sure a Man is much less secure in trusting to this single Discourser, or any belonging to him; and so farewell to Both.  
But Secondly, It is without Charity, for since he hath made (as he thinks) the Catholic Doctrine so demonstrably false and absurd; all Catholics who believe it, (though never so Learned, Honest and Pious) must be either Knaves or Fools.  
Thirdly, Without Sincerity, because all his material Objections (and many more) have been Printed formerly above Seventy years since: And Lately, within these Seventeen years, by Catholics themselves; with their Substantial Answers to them. Now to have dealt sincerely, he ought to have replied to these Answers, which would have set us forward, and drawn us to some Point; and not have run round, as in a Magical Circle, without ever endeavouring to break through the infatuation of Deluded Reason.  
And next, to have dealt Sincerely, he ought not to have produced a scrap of a Sentence from a Father, and left out those immediate preceding, or succeeding Words which explicated the whole Sense. For Instance, His first is from Justin Martyr, whom he produces saying, these Words: Our Blood and Flesh are nourished, by the Conversion of that Food which we receive in the Eucharist, p. 11. But the whole Sentence runs thus; For we do not receive this as common Bread, or common Drink, but as by the Word of God. Jesus Christ our Redeemer, being made Man, had both Flesh and Blood for the sake of our Salvation; just so are we taught, that That Food over which Thanks are given by Prayers, in his own Words, and whereby our Blood, and Flesh are by a change nourished, Is the Flesh and Blood of the Incarnate Jesus: For the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them, called the Gospels, have recorded that Jesus so commanded them. This I think altogether, makes little for our Discourser; especially if he had been sincere enough to have told us, how the Fathers generally, as St. Irenaeus, Cyril, Chrysost. Greg. Nyss. and others expound the nourishment of the Body, and as shall be shown hereafter. So also he quotes Theodoret, saying, The mystical Symbols after Consecration, do not pass out of their own Nature, for they remain in their former Substance, Figure, and Appearance: And may be seen, and handled p. 19 Theodoret goes on: The mystical Signs are understood to be that which they are made, and they are believed and adored as being those very things, which they are believed. Now if they may be adored, I suppose they mean somewhat more than Signs and Figures; or else the Adoration of holy Images is more Ancient, than Protestants have hitherto allowed: And had our Discourser been Sincere, he might have told us, how the Catholics interpret all this, to be most consistent with their Faith, and confuted them if he could.  
But Fourthly, His Discourse is writ without Good Manners, for (setting aside his disrespect to a Religious Duty.) methinks when he knew so many Princes, Kings, Emperors, Bishops, Metropolitans, Patriarches, and most Learned Men of all Sorts, received this Doctrine of the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation; he ought to have forborn such words as Impudence. p. 2. Nonsense p. 24. Monster of Transubstantiation p. 25. Monstrous insupportably absurd stupidity of this Doctrine p. 33. Absurd and Senseless Doctrine, Legerdemain and Juggling Tricks of Falsehood and Imposture, Hocus Pocus, a cheat and foolish Doctrine p. 34. But here the Discourser is very angry; and indeed Fathers, I should even from hence shrewdly suspect that our Discourser is no true Son of the Church of England, for they are generally more moderate and civil; but we shall have further occasion to speak of this hereafter: In the mean time I thought fit to take thus much notice of these things; that we might consider whether such a Writer (notwithstanding all his Magisterial dashes) be probably endued with that Christian humble Temper, which we might expect from a Doctor of Christ's Church, pretending also (without other Miracles than his wonderful Reason) to reform almost the whole Christian World; but let us see whether his good Reasons will make us amends by giving us some better Satisfaction.  
Several Impertinences, and Quibbles appear in many parts of his Discourse; as for Instance: He proves in p. 4. That a Sacrament may be instituted by figurative Expressions, because a Sacrament is a Figare itself of some Invisible Grace, etc. Now I had always thought, that a Man might deliver a Sign or Figure, exhibiting some Invisible kindness in the most plain and literal Terms, that possibly could be invented; for Example, I am persuaded the Discourser might have exhibited or delivered, his Pamphlet; or Picture (which are Figures of his Mind, or Person) as a Token of his love to his Friend in a most plain literal Speech; without the necessity of a figurative Sentence, except for the sake of his Quibble: For my part, I think the delivery of a Figure, or any thing else, is best in plain words. But then the Pains he takes, and Wit that is spent, first to obtrude upon Catholics the false Belief of a Miracle (according to his acceptation of a Miracle) and then to laugh at his own Jest; together with the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle, as to make God. Pag. 31. is really such Stuff, as certainly he never designed for any other use, than to rub the itching Ears of the most illiterate among the Vulgar. I confess, Fathers, it worked no good effect upon me, nor never will (I should think) upon any sober Christian; for every body sure understands his Fallacy concerning the power (of the Priest, and his Miracles. But instead of that, had he replied to some solid Discourse of Catholics, concerning the Doctrine of the Sacrament itself, I know not how far the Authority, which my Reason had fixed in the Church of Rome, would have supported me against his Arguments.  
Having thus separated the lose Accidents of his Discourse from the more substantial part; I will now examine that as far as is necessary according to the best assistance of my impertial Reason and Understanding; and shall follow him according to his own Method.  
He supposes five Grounds or Reasons, for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the Real Presence (according to a literal Sense) which he pretends to confute: The first is from the Authority of Scripture, and (among other things as little to the purpose) he tells us p. 7. That he doth not believe any sensible Man, who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words, This is my Body, would upon reading the Institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words; but would have understood his meaning to have been,— This Bread signifies my Body, etc. And do this for a memorial of me: Where you may observe, worthy Fathers, that he excludes also the Real Presence in a literal sense (as shall be shown hereafter). He goes on: But sure it would never have entered into any Man's mind, to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand, and gave away himself from himself with his own hands. Now although I dare not pretend to interpret all Scripture (a lawful sufficient Interpreter being the thing I look for) yet, since he hath put the Case, I presume to say thus much: That if a sensible Turk, or Pagan, who had never heard of the great Mysteries of Christianity, should seriously read the New Testament; possibly he would not have understood these words, This is my Body, in a literal sense; neither do I think he would ever have established the Doctrine of the Hypostatical Union; The Consubstantiality of the Son; The Trinity; Predestination and ; with many other Mysteries of Christian Religion (especially if he were governed only by his humane Reason, as our Discourser seems to be) and yet all this while he might have had a great esteem of the moral part, and have believed Christ a Person divinely inspired: For my part, I fear I should never have overcome these Difficulties upon my own strength; and yet I believe the Trinity as firmly, as I believe there is a God. Whether the Discourser doth so or not, I cannot say: But supposing a Man already well grounded in the Christian Religion, and having heard that the Doctrine of the Real Presence, had been believed, in a literal sense, by the greatest part of most Learned, and Pious Christians through all Ages; And, that the Scriptures containing this Doctrine, were writ several years after the death of our Saviour, in which time the Sacrament had been celebrated by them; and by consequence, if the Apostles had not understood this Mystery according to a literal Sense, they had time, and reason plainly to have expounded it otherwise, and have given us warning of this difficulty (as was done to the Carnal Caphernaites) and not all three punctually agreed in the same Expressions, without any caution of a dangerous Figure in them: In such Case, I say, the Doctrine of the Real Presence, to such a Person (having laid aside all prejudices) is as clear in Scripture, as most of those other great Mysteries are; and that for these Reasons.  
First, because I cannot imagine why our Blessed Saviour should ever have made use of these Terms, This is my Body, besides many other such like Expressions, except he really intended a literal Interpretation; for what necessary relation hath a Body, and Blood, to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, more than to the Sacrament of Baptism? Why a Consecration in that Sacrament, yet none either in Baptism or others? Might not Christ (with reverence be it spoken) have said much more plainly, and yet sufficiently to the same purpose; Take this Bread, and Cup of Blessing in remembrance of that Passion of mine which is now at hand, and as often as ye take it worthily, it shall convey to your Souls, invisible Grace, and many other Benefits? Would not this have fully answered the End of Zuinglius, and our Discourser's Doctrine, concerning this Sacrament? But why doth the God of Mercy and Truth command us to eat his Body, and drink his Blood assuring us, that, except we eat his Flesh we have no life in us, if he did not really intent we should do so? But, except he be really and substantially present in the Sacrament, we can neither eat his Body, nor drink his Blood; for to take the Figure for the Substance, is idle in any Command, which positively order the Substance, if the Substance possibly can be had; and in this Case, it is impious, because he that commanded the Substance, is able to give it us; and if he did not design to give it us, we have reason to believe he would not have commanded it in such express terms: Especially, since there was no necessity, no, nor conveniency of using those words according to our Discourser's Interpretation: For if by his Body, he meant the Figure only of his Body, what good doth that Figure do us? Or how doth it satisfy the Command, or why should Bread be the Figure of his Body? Since Figures of this Figure, that is to say, the Paschal Lamb, and Manna descending from Heaven, were much more noble, and proper Representing, than the thing Represented; and yet neither was Manna nor the Lamb called his Body, as the Bread is, in the Sacrament? The Expression therefore of Justin Martyr, saying, This Passover is our Saviour, and our Refuge p. 7. Is nothing at all to the purpose, nor could the Paschal Lamb be taken really and truly for God their Saviour, or their expected Messian; because there was no such thing mentioned, or ●●●●ted in the Institution of the Passover. On the contrary, it was instituted in the plainest Manner, and most intelligible, and so free from all figurative Expressions, that there are no less than 12 Verses in explaining every Circumstance of the Action. They shall take to them every Man a Lamb, etc. Exod. c. 12. And can we believe, that the Passover, which was indeed a Figure of the Sacrament, should be expressed, and understood, in an unquestionable literal Sense; and that the Sacrament, which was the Substance of the Figure, should be instituted in such a prodigious wonderful Figure (according to our Discourser's acceptation) as to involve the greatest part of the Christian World, not only in most pernicious Mistakes, but also in the most detestable Sin of Idolatry? Sure, the imagination of it must be totally inconsistent with the Veracity, Mercy, Goodness, and the main design of our blessed Saviour. To institute a Figure literally, and the Substance figuratively, is a strange Method, and not easily supposed in the God of Truth; and Wisdom. Nay, more, our Saviour, who established a Law, and a Church to interpret it, who suffered the Indignities of humane Life, and Death of the Cross on purpose to save Sinners: He, to whom the past, and future was always present, and who knew what would happen to his Spouse the Church, after his Death, had left so great a stumbling block to the World (had he intended only a figurative Interpretation) that his Cruelty (which is most impious to imagine) would have exceeded his Mercy; especially if it be true (as I believe it is, and hope shall be able to prove) that the whole Christian World for a thousand years together after his Ascension, universally concurred in the firm Belief of a literal Sense, and practised accordingly. Good God So many reputed Saints, so many Martyrs, and so many holy Men dying in the guilt, and many of them in defence of gross Idolatry? This to me (to use the expression of our Discourser) is more than ten Thousand Demonstrations.  
He tells us indeed, that some Learned Catholic Authors have declared their Opinions, that the Doctrine which holds the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration, is neither repugnant to Reason nor Scripture. p. 5. And what then? They do not exclude the Doctrine of the Real presence in a literal sense, nor do I know that they did ever doubt of Transubstantiation: But most of them have written particularly in defence of it; and Durandus wrote a Book consisting of nine parts against Berengarius, who opposed it. Now, though this might be the private Opinion of these Men, yet there are (it may be) thousands as Learned as themselves, of another Opinion; and all this without either prejudicing, or helping the Doctrine itself.  
Our Discourser cannot think any Man so senseless to believe, that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands, and gave away himself from himself, with his own hands; and yet we find a very sensible Father, and one much esteemed by all parties (I mean S. Augustin) made no such difficulty to believe all this: For in his Comment upon these words, Et ferebatur in manibus suis; and he was carried in his own hands, he speaks thus of Christ. And can this be possible in Man? Was ever any Man carried in his own hands, etc. How this can be literally understood of David we cannot discover; 
Comm. in Ps. 33.  but in Christ we found it verified, for Christ was carried in his own hands, when giving his own very Body he said, This is my Body. But if Christ carried only the Figure of his Body, it was not only possible for David, but for any Man else to have done the same. Methinks our Discourser should have replied to this obvious Answer, when he made his Objection: And thus much for the Authority of Scripture.  
Next he tells us, that this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual Belief of the Christian Church; and for this, he produces many Authorities of the Fathers, which may be reduced to these Heads; either where they tell us, That the Elements are a Sign and Figure of Christ's Body; or that they remain in their former Substance; or that they go into the Draught, and our flesh increased by them; or that they are not to be taken according to the Letter; for all which he brings some Citations. Now altho' the Fathers have been their own best Interpreters, showing plainly in other places, how these are to be understood, agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine; yet, that it may appear more Evident, I shall instance in some other plain expressions, and leave the Balance to the Judgement of the Reader.  
First then, wheresoever it is said, that the Elements are Signs or Figures, there no more is said than what the Catholics believe and profess; nay, more, that it is a part of the Definition of a Sacrament to be a Sign, That is to say, that the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, offered in a spiritual manner, is a Figure, or Sign of the bloody Sacrifice, offered once for all upon the Cross, after a natural manner; answerable to the words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 11. Ye shall show the Lords death until he come. About the words we agree; concerning the interpretation our Discourser may dispute as long as he pleases.  
Next, That the Elements remain in their form and substance: This passage of Theodoret hath been in part answered before, where he tells us, That they are to be adored— And from thence we may conclude, that he means the nature of the Accidents; for those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which this Greek Father useth, contain every kind of Essence and Nature, as well of Accidents, as of Substances: And so again he expounds himself, saying, that we may see and touch (the said Colour and Form) which have reference only to those Accidents; and in this sense, the Elements may admit of Co-adoration with the Body of our Saviour; as when himself was Clothed upon Earth; otherwise not. And Theodoret is blamed by the Centurists, Cent. 5. c. 10. Because he affirms, That the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, after the Invocation of the Priest, are changed, and made other things than they were before: They mean not Signs I hope, for more than that they believed themselves.  
But let us hear St. Augustin, As with a faithful heart and Mouth we receive the Mediator of God and Man, Christ Jesus, who gives us his Flesh to be eaten, and his Blood to be drunk, altho' it seems to be a thing more full of horror to eat Man's flesh, than to kill it, and to drink Man's blood, than to shed it. L. 2, Contr. adv. Leg. & Proph. But sure it is not more horrible to eat Man's flesh in figure, than to kill a man in good earnest, etc. Let us hear him again, We have heard (says he) our Master, who always speaks truth, recommending to us our Ransom, his Blood; for he spoke of his Body and Blood; which Body he called Meat, and his Blood Drink. But there are some who do not believe; they said. This is a hard saying, who can hear it? 'Tis hard, but to the obstinate, that is, incredible, but to the Incredulous. L. de verb. Apost. Serm. 2. But is the Figure so hard a saying? I think not.  
Next St. Ambrose, a co-temporary, and particular Friend of St. Augustin, It may be you will say, 
De his qui Mist. Init. c. 9  why do you tell me that I receive the Body of Christ, when as I see quite another thing? We have this therefore yet to prove: How many Examples therefore do we produce to show, that it is not what Nature framed, but what the Benediction hath Consecrated, and that the force of Benediction is greater than of Nature, because by Benediction Nature herself is changed. Moses held a Rod in his hand, he cast it from him, and it became a Serpent: Where he tells of all those real Transmutations and Miracles made by Moses. After which he goes on, We see therefore that the power of Grace is far beyond that of Nature, and yet we have only mentioned hitherto the effects of Grace in the blessing of Prophets; now if the blessing of men were of so great efficacy, as to change the Nature of things, what shall we say of the Divine Consecration, where the very words of Christ our Saviour are operative? Then he speaks of the Creation of the World out of nothing, and goes on, If therefore Christ by his word, was able to make something of nothing, shall he not be thought able to change those things which are, into other things which they were not? But what need of Arguments? Let us propose his own Example, and assert the truth of this Mystery, by that of his Incarnation. When our Lord Jesus was born of Mary, was it a Natural generation, etc. This Body which we make in the Sacrament, is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do ye here require the order of Nature in the Body of Christ; when as above all Nature Christ was born of a Virgin? The true Flesh of Christ, which was crucified, which was buried. And are all these real Transmutations, and Miraculous, Supernatural Examples produced, only to prove a figurative Change, conferring some invisible Blessing? Can our Discourser understand it so, and no otherwise? Indeed I think he had best retreat to the first three Hundred years after Christ (as some others of your late Writers have done) contrary to what I had ever been taught among you; who generally extended the Purity of the Roman Doctrine as far as the first Five Hundred years, and accordingly, in my Discourses with Catholics, I always asserted, that we did receive the Roman Doctrine, until about that time: but the Truth would glare too much in our Discoursers Eyes, if he should walk in the light of those two latter Centuries, when the Church began to be freed from her Persecutions, and holy Fathers had greater liberty of Preaching, and Teaching the true Christian Faith, in its Extent. But we shall follow him as high as he pleases.  
We produce next St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the Age before St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, his words are these: Do not then consider it as bare Bread, or bare Wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the word of our Saviour himself: For tho' sense should suggest this to thee, yet let thy Faith so confirm this, as that thou judge not the matter from the Taste: And again, Ho Sciens, etc. This knowing, and accounting it as most certain, that this Bread which we see is not Bread, tho' our Taste do tell us that it is Bread; but it is the Body of Christ; and the Wine which we behold, tho' it seem Wine to our sense of Taste, yet it is not Wine, but the Blood of Christ: Catech. 4. This was spoke after a Catechistical manner, in which, high Metaphors and Figures are not generally very frequent; he was besides, esteemed by all as a learned Person, and of this Book, none ever doubted.  
We come now to the third Age, in which S. Cyprian, treating of our Lord's Supper, says, The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, is changed, not in outward appearance, but in Substance, and by the Omnipotency of the Word, It is made Flesh. And as in the person of Christ the Humanity did appear, and the Divinity lay hid; so in the visible Sacrament, the Divine Essence hath ineffably infused itself. Serm. de coena Dom. This is so clear a passage, that some of the Sacramentaries, for want of a better Answer, pretend it was not writ by St. Cyprian, altho' at the same time they are forced to confess that it is of great Antiquity, and had a Learned Author: But something must be said, and Confidence goes a great way.  
I have already spoken of Justin Martyr in the second Age; and come now to the first Age, even in the days of the Apostles; let us hear then the holy Martyr S. 
Epist. ad Smyrnaeos.  Ignatius the Disciple of S. John, who speaking of the Heretics of his time, says thus, They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our Sins, and which the Father in his Mercy raised again from the dead. A strange concurrence through all Ages of most extraordinary Tropes and Figures. I name not St. Andrew, because the Authority is suspected: Nor is it necessary to multiply Testimonies of the Fathers (which we might have done) because they are in truth but like dead Weights on both sides, until we shall have put life into them by such reasonable Interpretations, as (reconciling them first to themselves) may make them plainly speak forth the Catholic Doctrine, which I refer to the Conclusion.  
But what do Protestants think of all these Fathers? Why truly they blame them All, and tell us, that they were mistaken. Dr. Humphrey says, Gregory and Austin brought Transubstantiation into the English Church, (Jesuit. part 2. p. 627) The Centurists charge S. chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Eusebius, For not writing well of Transubstantiation Peter Martyr, for the same reason blames S. Cyril, Vrsinus, S. Cyprian. The Learned Melancton writes thus upon this Subject (L. 3. Ep. Zuing, & Oecol. f. 132.) There is no care (says he) that hath more troubled my mind, than this of the Eucharist: And not only myself have weighed what might be said on either side; but I have also sought out the Judgement of old Writers touching the same: And when I have laid all together, I find no good reason, that may satisfy a Conscience, departing from the propriety of Christ's words, This is my Body. Many other Testimonies of Learned Protestants, I omit at present for Brevity sake. In the mean time, I suppose all these may be sufficient to balance the Substance of Theodoret, even when you have made the most of it, that in reason you ought; or else my Reason and Sense are much more deceived in this Case, than in that of the Sacrament.  
But come we to the Third Point, That the Elements go into the draught, and our flesh increased by them. Hear what St. chrysostom says, Do you see Bread? Do you see Wine? Do these go into the draught like other common meat? Far be it from thee to imagine it. Hom. do Euchar. in Encoen. When our Discourser hath reconciled his passage of Origen, with this of S. chrysostom; let him then read any Catholic Author, and he will tell him how he shall understand the Authority which he hath here produced; of which more hereafter.  
Now for the increase of the flesh, I find this Explication in St. Greg. Nyssen. Orat. Catech. c. 36. and 37. Even as a little Leaven doth make the whole Mass like itself; so that Body which is made Immortal by God, entering into our Body, doth transfer, and change it into its self. And after, That Body is joined with the Bodies of the faithful, that by the Coujunction with the same Immortal Body, Man may be made partaker of Immortality. So S. Cyril of Alexandria, As a spark of fire lighting upon Hay or Straw, doth presently inflame it all; so the Word of God joined to our corruptible Nature by means of the Eucharist, doth make it all to rise Immortal, and glorious. The same may be seen in Iraen. l. 8. contr. Haer c. 34. And many others, who understand the increase of the Flesh, to be a raising of the Flesh towards a state of Immortality, and disposing it towards a happy Resurrection; according to that of S. John c. 6. He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath life Everlasting, and I will raise him up at the last day. But if these Interepretations should not happen to please you, I shall then recommend you to a late Catholic Author, and leave you to himself, or his Excellent Treatise, The Defence for the Adoration of the Body and Blood of our Lord, p. 14. For further satisfaction, his words are these, ' This External Sign, or Symbol, they (the Catholics) affirm to be all That of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any Sense. And tho' after Consecration, the Substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain, yet is Substance here taken in such a sense, as that neither the hardness, nor softness, nor the frangibility, nor the savour, nor the odour, nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread, nor nothing visible, nor tangible, or otherwise perceptible by any sense, are involved in it. All which at last we shall endeavour to explain.  
The last Head is, That the words of Consecration are not to be taken in a literal Sense: To prove this our Discourser brings several kill Testimonies, as he calls them; but I know not whom they hurt, except the Caphernaites; for all Catholics own both the Authorities, and the Doctrine contained in them, as absolutely necessary to the true and Orthodox understanding their Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament. That is to say, That the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, is not there after a Natural and Corporeal manner, as it was upon the Cross, that is, specifically, and according to the outward Form, and local Existence; but spiritually, supernaturally, and without Circumscription, that is, external Commensuration of, or Co-extension with Place. And if Pascasius meant otherwise of the Sacrament, than what is here expressed, than Rabanus Maurus did well to oppose him with all his might, as another Anonymus did (if not the same Rabanus) in a Tract extant in Codice Gemblacens. Cosnobij cum Heregeri Opusculo. But that this good Archbishop did so understand him, is plain for these two Reasons. First, because he hath always been acknowledged an Orthodox Bishop among all Catholics; and next, because his own words have, with good reason, confirmed Catholics in this their Opinion of him; and they are these, Who, says he, would ever believe that Bread could be turned into Flesh, or Wine into Blood, except our Saviour himself had said it, who Created Bread and Wine, and made all things out of Nothing, but it is easier to make one thing out of another, than all things out of Nothing. L. 7. de Sacris ordin. ad Theatmanum c. 10.  
Now after all these Authorities from the Fathers, and a Hundred more which might be produced, to show that they believed the Real Presence, together with the agreeable concurrent sense of them all, running through their whole Works, besides their constant practice of Adoration, and Belief of an unbloody Sacrifice; and many Learned Protestants confessing, that they did so believe: After all this, I suppose I need not inquire of our Discourser, when this Doctrine of the Real Presence came into the World, for I am convinced that it was in the very days of the Apostles themselves; or, to use the words of Sebastianus Francus, and Hospinian (too Eminent Protestants) jam tum primo illo tempore, & viventibus adhuc Apostolis, etc.  
But because our Discourser hath made use of the name of the good Archbishop of Mentz to countenance and support his false Chronology, it is Just that I take off this scandalous imputation from Rabanus Maurus. Now, although his own words before recited, are more than sufficient to clear this Excellent Person; yet at present I shall only make use of our Discourser's own computation to destroy the probability of his unreasonable Supposition, which he calls a plain Testimony.  
He tells us, 
P. 21.  That in the Second Council of Nice, Anno Dom. 787. The Sacrament was declared to be properly the Body and Blood of Christ, and that thence this Opinion got footing among the Greeks: And that in the year 818. Pascasius first broached this Doctrine in the Latin Church, insinuating, that until that time, this Doctrine was not received among the Latins; and, that thereupon, Rabanus Maurus in the year 847 wrote against this Pascasius for introducing this new Error. Thus far the Story is very well laid; but here are these hard difficulties to be digested before we can give it that credit which he expects: First, it is certain, that Peter Arch-Presbyter of the Roman Church, and Peter the Monk, were present in the said Council in behalf of Pope Adrian. That the said Pope wrote Letters to the Emperor Constantius, and also to Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople, which were received by the said Council: And lastly, that the Pope's Supremacy was confirmed in this very Council in these words, Quod Ecclesia Romana sit Caput omnium Ecclesiarum, Act 2.  
Now from this Council to Rabanus Maurus, there was an Interval of 60 years; from the Council to Pascasius, of one and Thirty years; and can we believe, that this Doctrine of the Real Presence, which was declared in this Council, in the presence of the Pope's Legates, and confirmed by the Pope himself, should be one and Thirty years a getting over from Nice into the Latin Church? Or that so Learned a Man as Rabanus (and so esteemed by our Discourser) should be ignorant sixty years after this Council was held, That this Doctrine had been there declared? And so grossly mistake Pascasius for the first broacher of it? Truly for my part, altho' Rabanus had not explained himself concerning his Faith, according to those expressions before related, yet would I not easily have believed that he could have been so ignorant of the Transaction of this Council, or would have accused Pascasius of introducing so gross an Error into the Latin Church, when he knew that he writ no otherwise, than as had been Thirty years before, determined in a General Council: It is plain therefore that Rabanus quarrelled with some Expressions of Pascasius, as importing the Erroneous sense before mentioned.  
Our Discourser, being confident that he hath found out the date of Transubstantiation, falls a little foul upon Mr. Arnauld, because he cannot believe that such a Doctrine should have been imposed upon the Christian World, and yet so universally received, except there had been some extraordinary, if not an universal Opposition; and indeed our Discourser (of all mankind) ought to have believed so too; for if every man should have had as ill an Opinion of it, as himself, its establishment had been impossible. But that he might find a fit parallel for Mr. Arnauld, he takes a long Journey to Vienna, the rather (I suppose) that he might pay his respects to the King of France, and his Army as he returned home again; for he tells us, That by the like Demonstration (as Mr. Arnauld's) one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom, because if he had, the most Christian King, who had the greatest Army in Christendom, in a readiness, would certainly have employed it against him.  
Now our Discourser, without crossing the Seas, might have given as proper an instance, even from his own Doors; for who could easily imagine that the Real, Substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the holy Sacrament, should have been believed and professed by the Church of England, in the days of King James the First; and yet, that in the Reign of King James the Second, the figurative Doctrine, in exclusion of the Real Presence, should be so firmly, and peaceably established among us, as that not so much as one single Church of England Man (at least that I have heard of) though highly dignified by honourable and profitable Employments, in, and by the said Church of England, should write one word in Vindication of their ancient Church: Nor one small Pamphlet, to oppose the Innovation of these usurping Sacramentories? But these things, worthy Fathers, concern you more than me; and lest you should quite forget that there ever had been any such Doctrine professed by your Church of England, I shall humbly take the liberty, by and by, to refresh your memories.  
Much more might be said, to show, from what lose Conjectures, our Discourser would prove the Innovation of the Doctrine of the Real Presence; and that it entered not into the Latin Church before the Eighth Century. But since I design nothing of Answer, more than to satisfy you (worthy Fathers) and myself, that I have not rushly rejected the Authority of so Learned a Person, as our Discourser seems to be, without good reason and due consideration, this which is already said, is (I suppose) sufficient for that purpose.  
I come now to (what he calls) the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is, The infallible Authority of the present Church to make, and declare new Articles of Faith. First, there is a great difference between making an Article of Faith, and declaring and Article of Faith. I know no power upon Earth that can do the first; but certainly the second is within the Jurisdiction of the lawful Church Governors, or otherwise, General Councils would be very insignificant Assemblies. Now if Transubstantiation should prove to be no more than the true Faith concerning the blessed Sacrament, declared, or explained; then our Discourser hath no reason to quarrel with Church Authority, or fear any Inconveniences should happen from the Exercise of such a Power.  
First, I have sufficiently shown (at least in my Opinion) that the Doctrine of the Real Presence, that is, of the Natural Body of Christ substantially, truly, and literally existing in the Sacrament (tho' not after a Corporal, and Natural manner,) to have been the constant Doctrine of the Catholic Church, from the Apostles to the great Council of Lateran; when, in the presence of the Ambassadors of the Greek, and Roman Emperors; as also of the Kings of Jerusalem, England, France, Spain, and Cyprus, this word Transubstantiation was agreed upon by near Thirteen Hundred Fathers, to be a proper Explicative Term of the Apostolical Doctrine; and belief of the Real Presence, or change of the Bread and Wine, into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; of this enough hath been said. But because our Discourser is pleased to call the Doctrine of the Real Presence barbarous, and impious, p. 35. I have thought fit to add to the rest, the Testimonies of Bishop Andrews, and the Learned Casaubon in the name of King James the First, and the Church of England, and some others of the most Learned Fathers and Professors of the true English Church.  
I will begin with Bishop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. The Cardinal (says he) cannot be ignorant, except wilfully, that Christ said, This is my Body; but not after this manner, This is my Body. We agree in the object, and differ only in the manner, Concerning the Hoc est, or this is. We firmly believe that it is: Concerning the after this manner (i.e. by the Bread Transubstantiated into the Body) of the manner how it is done, as by, or in, or with, or under, or through, there is not a word concerning it. We believe the true Presence, no less than yourselves, but we dare not confidently define any thing concerning the manner of this Presence, nor are we over curious to inquire into it, etc. Again ib. c. 8. p. 194. Speaking of the Conjunction of Christ's Body with the Symbols, he says, There is that Conjunction between the visible Sacrament, and the Invisible Thing of the Sacrament, as between the Divinity and Humanity of Christ; where, except you would savour of Eutychianism, the Humanity is not transubstantiated into the Divinity: And a little further, The King hath established it, that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and to be truly there adored: And, we, with Ambrose adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries. Some possibly may be ingenious enough to interpret all this to signify a mere figurative Presence, as they have done many clear passages of the Fathers, but they must interpret for themselves, not for me.  
But let us hear what Is. Casaubon writes to Cardinal Perron by the King's Command, concerning the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, who saying, that the Contest was not about the Truth but only the Manner of the thing, returns this reply, p. 50. His Majesty wonders, since your Eminence confesseth that you do not so solicitously require, that Transubstantiation should be believed, as that we should not doubt concerning the Truth of the Real Presence: That the Church of England should not long since have satisfied you in that particular, which hath so often professed to believe it, in her public Writings. And then for Explication of the Doctrine of the Church of England, recites the forementioned words of Bishop Andrews, Quod Cardinalem non latet. Come we next to Mr. Hooker. Eccl. Polit. l. 5. Sect. 67. p. 357. Wherefore should the World continue still distracted, and rend with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no Controversy, saving only about the subject where Christ is? Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this; but whether, when the Sacrament is administered, Christ be whole within Man only, or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very Consecrated Elements themselves. Again, p. 360. All three Opinions do thus far accordin one: That these holy Mysteries received in due manner, do instrumentally both make us partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood, which were given for the Life of the World; and besides also impart unto us, even in a true and real, tho' Mystical Manner, the very Person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect and entire.  
Next we offer the Testimony of Bishop Ridley quoted by Archbishop Laud, set down in Fox, p. 1598. You (says he, the Transubstantialists) and I agree in this, That in the Sacrament is the very true, and Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into Heaven, which sits on the right hand of God the Father, etc. only we differ in Modo, in the way and manner of being there—  
Dr. Tailor, who hath written one of the last on this Subject, is very clear and particular concerning this Real Presence, Sect. 1. N. 11. p. 18. It is enquired (says he) whether, when we say we believe Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament, we mean, that Body, that Flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was Crucified, Dead, and Buried? I answer, I know none else that he had, or hath; there is but one Body of Christ, Natural and Glorified: But he that faith that Body is Glorified which was Crucified, says it is the same Body, but not after the same manner; and so it is in the Sacrament, we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth, for there is no other Body, no other Blood of Christ: But tho' it is the same we eat, and drink, yet it is in another manner. And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines, or any of the Fathers deny, that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that was Crucified, to be eaten in the Sacrament; As Bertram, as St. Heirom, as Clemens Alexand. expressly affirm; The meaning is easy, They intent that it is not eaten in a natural sense, etc. That Body which was Crucified, is not that Body that is eaten in the Sacrament, is true, if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it, in the same manner of being: But that Body which was Crucified, the same Body we do eat (is also true) if the intention be to speak of the same thing, in several Manners of being, and Operating. Some also, may turn all this into a mere figurative sense, excluding the Corpus Domini, or Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament; and it may be they may think that this Doctor himself (from some other of his expressions) may have given them just reason so to do. I shall then only observe these two things; First, that concerning this Real Presence, a Catholic could not have written more justly, nor more plainly than the Doctor hath done in what hath been above recited: And Secondly, That if after all this, the Doctor should mean no more than a Spiritual efficacy or virtue, excluding the Corpus Domini, or Substantial Presence of Christ's Natural Body, (tho' indeed after a Spiritual manner, as we confess;) then doth the Doctor's Opinion seem as contradictory to itself, and as incomprehensible to me, as the great Mystery of Transubstantiation itself, or as if he had written in Characters totally unintelligible.  
But let us now hear Bishop Forbes de Eucharist. L. 2. c. 2. Sect. 9 The sober Protestants doubt not but that Christ is to be adored in the Sacrament; for in the taking of the Eucharist, Christ is to be adored with Divine Worship, because his Living and Glorious Body is present, by an unexpressible Miracle, to the Worthy Receiver; and this Adoration, is not due or performed, to the Bread, or Wine, or the taking, or eating; but to the very Body of Christ immediately exhibited to us in the taking of the Eucharist. And again. L. 3. c. 1. Sect. 10. The holy Fathers often tell us, That the very Body of Christ is Offered, and Sacrificed in the Eucharist, as appears by almost innumerable passages; but not that all the properties of a Sacrifice are properly, and really observed; but it is done by a Commemoration, and Representation of that, which being once offered in that only Sacrifice of the Cross, Christ our High Priest, did thereby consummate all other Sacrifices; and by pious Supplications, by which the Ministers of the Church (for the sake of the perpetual Oblation of that one Sacrifice, assisting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, and present after an unexpressible manner on the holy Table) most humbly pray God the Father, that he would please to grant, that the Virtue and Grace of this perpetual Victim may become profitable and efficacious to his Church, for helping all the necessities, both of the body and Soul.  
The Archbishop of Spalleto says much the same thing in his Rep. Eccles. L. 7. c. 11. Only he will not admit the Body of Christ to be corporally in the Bread, or under the Bread; but to be taken with the Bread; Sumitur cum Pane, Christi Corpus real, illi communioni realiter praesens.  
Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy, L. 3. c. 3. Says thus, That which I have already said, is enough to Evidence the Mystical, and Spiritual Presence of the Flesh, and Blood of Christ in the Elements, as the Sacrament of the Same, before any Man can suppose that Spiritual Presence of them to his Soul, which the eating and drinking Christ's Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth. And ibid. c. 2. where it follows, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords Body; Unless a man discern the Lords Body where it is not, of necessity it must there be, where it is discerned to be. And l. 3. c. 5. Having maintained that the Elements are really changed, from ordinary Bread and Wine, into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament, and that in virtue of the Consecration, not by the Faith of him that receives; I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this Truth; namely, that the Elements so consecrated, are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them, etc. And then, p. 46. he further collecteth thus: And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory, and impetratory both, it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, is also both propitiatory and impetratory. You may consult Archbishop Laud, Bishop Montague, Bishop Bilson, and many other Learned Protestants, too long to be here recited for further satisfaction in this Matter.  
Now, worthy Fathers, what would you advise me to do in this Case? would you have me follow the Judgements of these Learned and Pious Men, who wrote, not only their private Opinions, but, some of them, in the Name of the King, and whole Church of England? Or would you have me believe our Discourser, and some others of our late Sacramentary Pamphleteers? If the first, than Transubstantiation will not appear so absurd, ridiculous, senseless and foolish a Doctrine as he hath styled it, which I hope to prove hereafter. If the second, then to use the Argument and Words of our Discourser, p. 30. Christanity would become a most uncertain and endless thing; for if we may thus change our Faith in such high and fundamental Doctrines as these are, I know not what security we have that we shall not in time change our Faith in other necessaries, and at length lose it all.  
But to pin up the Basket (as we say) I shall conclude with the Testimonies of Calvin and Beza, men to whom the Church of England is obliged for a great part of her Reformation. Calvin upon 1 Cor. 11.24. (Take, eat, this is my Body) says thus, Nor doth Christ only offer to us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection, but that Body itself in which he suffered and risen again. And again, Instit. l. 4. c. 17. Being made partakers of his Substance, we perceive also the virtue of it in the Communication of all good things. I know no other Substance he had spiritual or corporal, but that which was born of the Blessed Virgin. And of the Lutherans he says: If they so explain their meaning, that whilst the Bread is delivered there is annexed to it the exhibition of his Body, because the Truth is inseparable from its Sign, I should not much oppose them.  
And to strengthen this Assertion of Calvin, I shall add the Confession of Beza, and others of the same Sect, related by Hospinian Hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251. We confess that in the Cup of our Lord, not only all the Benefits of Christ, but the very substance of the Son of man; I say, that very Flesh, and that very Blood which he poured out for us, not only significatively, symbolically, typically, or figuratively, as a remembrance of one absent; but truly and certainly represented, exhibited, and offered, not as naked Symbols, but as having (from God himself promising and offering) the very thing itself, truly and certainly joined to them. Now the manner by which the thing itself, (i.e. the very Body, and the very Blood of our Lord) is joined with the Symbols, we say it is Symbolical, or Sacramental; But we call it a Sacramental manner, not that it is only Figurative, but that it truly and certainly represents under the Species of visible Things, that which God exhibits, and offers with the Symbols, that is (as I said before) the very Body and Blood of Christ. And then he tells us, That he differs with others concerning the manner of the Presence only, but for the very Thing and Presence itself he retains and defends it.  
And now, Reverend Fathers, I must acquaint you, that whilst I was transcribing this very last Paragraph, I was informed, that there was an Answer, lately published, to Two Discourses printed at Oxford, which contained in them the Testimonies of these Learned Protestants before mentioned. I stopped my Pen, bought the Book, and read it over with great care. I shall not at present speak any thing more of it in particular, than what relates to this very Subject; but in general give me leave to tell you, that me thoughts this Answerer might very well have spared his Apology at last, p. 125. for not having insisted more largely upon some points, since I have not seen Twenty two Sheets written with so much magisterial Confidence, and (in my judgement) with so little Substance, even among all the Pamphlets that have come out on both sides, from the Death of the late King to this present day; but I leave the further examination to the Conclusion of this Discourse.  
First, we thank him for his plainness in delivering his opinion concerning the Real Presence (which is the subject Matter in Debate) and by which he tells us, is meant no more than invisible Power and Grace, in exclusion of the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body, even after a spiritual manner: Whether the Church of England will thank him for it, I know not: I am sure I was otherwise instructed, and believed otherwise, whilst in your Communion.  
But let us hear what he says to these Testimonies. He endeavours to elude their most plain indubitable sense, and grammatical construction, (even according to the common Reason and Understanding of all Mankind) these several ways.  
First, he tell us that Becanus says, the Calvinists deny the Body and Blood of Christ, to be truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist. Not (I hope) according to that sense, which our Answerer would make Calvin, and others give of those, and such like expressions. But sure our Answerer might have collected among his other Protestant Relics, an account of a rigider sort of Calvinists, who reformed even upon Calvin himself, and yet retained the name of Calvinists. But what doth Calvin himself say (as this Answerer recites out of Hospinian) Why, that Christ is our Food, because by the incomprehensible Virtue of the holy Spirit he inspires his Life into us, that he may communicate it to us, no less than the Vital Juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree, etc. No less than so? then sure it is as substantial a Communication of Christ's Natural Body after a spiritual manner, as the Oxford Discourser in that place pretends to; for if Calvin and this Answerer do not believe that the Vital Juice of a Tree is a Substance, (tho' whilst a Juice, more spiritual) and that the very Substance of the Tree, is substantially nourished and increased thereby; I fear they will both prove as bad Philosophers as Divines.  
But before I proceed any further, I must inform, or mind our Answerer, that tho' Catholics believe Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament, yet they deny it to be there bodily, i.e. Modo Corporeo; and tho' his Flesh be there, yet not Fleshly; nor yet doth his Natural Body leave the highest Heavens: These premised (because we shall have occasion to make these distinctions) I come to next to Beza.  
His words (as recited by the Answerer) are these: We do not say, that in the Eucharist there is only a Commemoration of the Death of our Lord Jesus Christ; nor do we say that in it we are made partakers only of the Fruits of his Death and Passion; but we join the Ground with the Fruits, affirming with St. Paul, that the Bread which by God's appointment we break, is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us; the Cup which we drink, the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us; and that, in the very same Substance, which he received in the Womb of the Virgin, and which he carried up with him into the Heavens. And afterwards: For this honour we allow to God, that tho' the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven, and not elsewhere, and we on Earth, and not elsewhere; yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood, after a spiritual manner (i.e. modo spirituali) and by the means of Faith. 
P. 50.  I am afraid (Fathers) this Answerer plays booty with you; for if this be a confutation of what was before alleged from Beza, I profess I shall never quarrel with him about it, nor desire any other hand than Beza's (even in this very passage) to express my Belief of the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament. What a strange Answerer is this? sure he thinks, because Catholics submit their Sense and Reason in some things to Divine Revelation, and the Authority of the Church, therefore they have not Reason enough to judge in other Cases, that three and one make four, as well as two and two.  
Next, he brings in Cranmer and Ridley (when he was among his Geneva Brethren, I suppose) and he might as well have named himself, and his Eminent Discourser, against Transubstantiation: And what if these two first were of the same opinion concerning the Real Presence with these two last? It only proves, that one at London contradicted himself at Geneva; and the other, Men ten times more learned than himself. Our Answerer (that he may take breath) before he comes to our English Divines  (for I perceive he finds that he is like to have a tough piece of work on't) charges the Oxford Author with disingenuity, chief in favour of Doctor Burnet's History of the Reformation. Alas, I am apt to believe (tho' I know neither the Discourser nor this Answerer, not so much as by Name, but only by their Works) I am apt (I say) to believe, that this Discourser is much better acquainted with Church History, than the Doctor, and applies it with much more Sincerity and Truth, than he hath done. I confess (were I worthy to advise) I should counsel this Answerer to flesh himself first upon some Authors of a lower Classis, for I doubt he is here overmatched, and hath got (as we say) a Bear by the Tooth: What the Learned Historian means by the Wisdom of that time, 
P. 58.  in leaving a liberty for different speculations, as to the manner of the Presence; I cannot understand; except that they did in that time generally believe the Real Presence (as hath been before expressed) but would not certainly determine the manner, that is (as Bishop Andrews hath said before) whether it was per, or in, or cum, or sub, or trans; but if there be no such Real Presence in any manner, I know not what this Liberty of Speculations signifies, as to the manner, when the thing is not really after any manner; and if not (as our Answerer seems all along to affirm) this then might indeed be great Wisdom, or humane Policy, not too rudely to choke the tender Ears of their late established Reformation: But how it can consist with true Piety, and a Church pretending to reform Errors, we shall best find by this consideration.  
If Men had liberty to believe that Christ was really present after any manner, it follows necessarily, that Christ was adorable there, where he was so present. But if the Church, in its Wisdom, did certainly know, that Christ was not really present after any Manner; then the Church, in its Wisdom, gave Men liberty to be Idolaters; for our Answerer hath been pleased to deliver us his Opinion, from Doctor Taylor, p. 69. who there says, That to give Divine worship to a Non Ens, must needs be Idolatry. For Idolum nihil est in mundo, saith St. Paul, and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens, for it is not true, there is no such thing; he is there by his Diviner Power and Blessing, etc. but for any other presence, it is Idolum. And that the practice of the Learneder part of the Church of England, nay, of the whole Church of England itself (if we will believe the Articles of Henry the Eighth, in the beginning of the Reformation, or King James in the strength of the Reformation) was accordingly Idolatrous; I am most abundantly satisfied; until some stronger Pen than our Answerers, shall fully confute, what is already extant to that purpose. In the mean time (leaving the Matter of Fact to the Doctor's Conscience) we will follow our Answerer.  
He is come now to Bishop Jewel, who tells us, p. 60. That Christ's Body and Blood, indeed, and verily is given unto us; that we verily eat it, that we verily drink it, etc. yet we say not either that the substance of Bread and Wine is done away, (that is, Transubstantiation, which is not our Dispute) or that Christ's Body is let down from Heaven, or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament: If by really he means fleshly, I subscribe to all this (as to the Real Presence.) He goes on: That spiritually (i. e. modo spirituali), and with the mouth of our Faith, we eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood, even as verily as his Body was verily broken, and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross. If the Bishop was not an Eutychian, then certainly his Body was verily, that is, substantially and truly broken upon the Cross. Thus far then, we punctually agree: But the Bishop explains himself: The Bread (he tells us) is an earthly thing, and therefore a Figure, as Baptism in Water is also a Figure. 'Tis confessed: Now lest we should think that by this Figure the Bishop intended to exclude the substance; he adds immediately, But the Body of Christ, that thereby is represented, and is there offered to our Faith (most true) is the thing (i. e. the Body of Christ) itself, and not the Figure. As much of this as the Answerer pleases, we have reason to be thankful to him for it.  
But he now comes to Answer for the venerable Mr. Hooker. You have heard what hath been offered from the Discourser. The Answerer tells us from Mr. Hooker p. 61. That the parts of the Sacrament are the Body and Blood of Christ, because they are causes instrumental, upon the receipt whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth: And that the Real Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood, is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament: All this is most consistent with the Protestant Notion of the Real Presence here contended for.  
Next Bishop Andrews comes upon the Stage; and first the Answerer tells us (as from himself only) that this Bishop insinuates, 
P. 62.  That the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, was much the same as in Baptism; the very Allusion which the Holy Fathers were wont to make, to express his Presence by, in this holy Sacrament. That the Bishop and the Holy Fathers might mean, that Christ is present in the Sacrament, as in Baptism, Catholics do not deny; for they also constantly affirm the same thing, as much as either: But if our Answerer pretends to persuade us, that either the Bishop, or Fathers, or Catholics, mean him only so present, as to exclude the presence also of his natural Body in the Sacrament; that remains to be proved, which hath not been done by himself, nor any Man yet, that I have met with; let him therefore learn to understand the Catholic Faith, before he writes such magisterial Impertinences against it: But let us hear the Bishop himself; who, telling us, That the Sacrament of Christ's Body is not meant of his glorified Body, but of his Body when it was Offered, Rend, and Slain, and Sacrificed for us; he goes on, We are (says he) in this action, not only carried up to Christ (sursum corda); but we are also carried back to Christ, as he was at the very instant, and in the very act of his offering. So, and no otherwise doth this Text teach: So, and no otherwise do we represent him. By the Incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit, not he alone, but he, as at the very act of his Offering is made present to us, and we incorporate into his death and invested in the benefits of it. Our Answerer (to do him Justice) is modest enough in this place to say, he thinks the Real Presence cannot be otherwise meant than, either figuratively in the Elements, or Spiritually, in the Souls of those who worthily receive him: But I think, that had this Learned Bishop believed the manner (as they call it) of the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, No man could have written more Orthodoxly of it, than this Bishop here hath done. 
P. 64.  The Answerer includes the Opinions of Casaubon and the Archbishop of Spalleto, in the sense of this passage of Bishop Andrews; but why not in that produced by the Discourser? However if it will gratify him, I willingly so accept them. He makes Archbishop Laud to sing much after the same Tune: He says little to Bishop Hall, Montague, and Bilson, because he hath not their works by him; but how he will excuse their pacific design as he calls it, we shall consider by and by. Bishop Forbe's Charitable undertaking, has made him too favourable to many corruptions of the Church of Rome, p. 65.  
And now he tells us but of two of all the Divines left to prove this new Fancy, which the Discourser would set up for the Doctrine of the Church of England; one, is Doctor Taylor, whom he makes say a great deal more, than I am willing to Transcribe, for I am very weary of the Employment; and besides, all signifies no more (at most) than to prove Doctor Taylor contradicts himself; or is otherwise (as I hinted before) the most unintelligible Writer that ever put Pen to Paper: The truth to me seems to be this; the Doctor in some places meant very plainly that which he as plainly wrote; in others that he was over cautious (considering the times, and circumstances in which he lived) to write more plainly that which he truly meant. However, upon the Balance of the whole, I take him to have been much rather a Defender, than an Opposer of the Real Presence we speak of. And now we are got to Mr. Thorndyke, where I cannot but smile at the confidence of our Answerer, who is not ashamed to say (notwithstanding his own pretended confutation is a strong confirmation of that Real Presence asserted by the Discourser;) that he fears his Cause will be desperate except Mr. 
P. 69.  Thorndyke can support it. Well, what says Mr. Thorndyke? The Answerer tells us, first of a certain Answer to one T. G. in which he seems to say, That if the Church (I suppose he means the English Church) did ever pray the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements, under the Accidents of them (which is plain Transubstantiation) than he is contented to call this the Sacramental Presence of them in the Eucharist: What is this to the purpose? He than tells us, 
P. 70.  that Mr. Thorndyke had a particular Notion in this Matter, and a long Story, in which he seems to deny Transubstantiation: We do not affirm it of him. And at last a great way off in p. 90. he puts Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalleto into a Sack together, and makes them as errand Knaves in a reconciling way, as his Protestant Minister, whom just before he mentions; but with this difference, the Protestant Minister, only dissembled his own Opinion, that is, concealed it; but these two great Men have strenuously defended the Real Presence; and, not by consequence, but positively, an Adoration due; when as our Answerer would persuade us that they did not believe the Real Presence; but did believe the Adoration of it to be Idolatry. That a pacific design, and a charitable undertaking might engage some Men to relax somewhat of Ceremonies, or Discipline, I neither wonder at, nor censure; but that there should be any justifiable cause to oblige Men wittingly and willingly to profess and teach Idolatry, is, I confess, beyond my understanding. I shrewdly suspect that our Answerer, from his rare Historical Relics, may have imbibed some of Monsieur De Marolle's Principles, and from thence think damnable Hypocrisy in Religion, no great Sin; otherwise I cannot imagine how, with Charity, he can suppose it in these two great Men, who (I am persuaded) were they alive, would spit in his Face for so scandalous an Imputation, unworthy either of a Christian, or a Gentleman.  
His last stroke, 
P. 90.  is at the Learned Mr. Thorndyke, whom he leaves to shift for himself, with this Brand upon him, as deep as he can make it, That his Notion of the Real Presence, was widely different both from theirs, and ours, (and by consequence from the Truth); but give me leave to tell you Sir, had you been worthy to have carried Mr. Thorndykes Papers after him (at least as far as I may judge by these twenty two Sheets) you would have writ much less, and yet much more to the purpose.  
Thus, Reverend Fathers, I have given you a Taste of this fresh Author, I fear it hath not proved a boccone Saporito; but it was necessary in Vindication of my Testimonies, and by Consequence, of that Learned Oxford Discourser, upon whose Authority I produced them. Begging your pardon then for this Digression, I return to my first Discourser.  
If it be true, that the Doctrine of the Real Presence, in a literal Sense, was believed from the Primitive Times to this great Council of Lateran; let us consider whether this Council exceeded its just Authority, or introduced any Erroneous Doctrine into the Christian Church: For the clearer understanding of this Matter, we are to note, that one Berengarius about the year 1060. (besides other Errors) maintained, that the Eucharist was not truly and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, but only a Figure and Shadow of them; and that the Bread and Wine upon the Altar, were not Substantially converted into the real Flesh and Blood of Christ, by the Mystery of holy Prayer, and the words of our Redeemer. Upon this; several Learned Men employed their Pens against this new and strange false Doctrine, as Adelmannus Bishop of Brixia, formerly Schoolfellow of Berengarius; Hugo Lingonensis, Epis. Durandus, beforementioned; Lantfrancus, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, who, among other things, hath these words, This Faith (speaking of the Real Presence according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation) the Church (which being spread over the whole World, is called Catholic) now holds, and hath held from the Primitive Times. But you (saith be to Berengarius) believe that the Bread and Wine of our Lord's Table, remain unchanged, as to their Substance after Consecration, etc. If this be true, which you believe and maintain concerning the Body of Christ; then that is false which is believed and taught of it by the Church over the whole World; for as many as own the name of Christians, and are really such, do profess, that, in the Sacrament they receive, the true Flesh of Christ, and his true Blood; the same, which he took of the Virgin. Most wonderfully strange, that so absurd a Doctrine should have spread so universally in so short a time as our Discourser is pleased to allow it. Guitmundus, Rupertus, Algerus, and other Learned Men writ against him to the same effect: And moreover, this his Doctrine was condemned as false, and himself as an Innovator, in no less than Eight Councils and Synods before that of Lateran; which miserable Synods (as the Answerer proudly calls them) may be supposed to have had as much Learning, and Honesty, and I am sure, much more Authority, than Twenty two such Sheets as his, tho' stamped with an Imprimatur before them.  
Now let us observe; This Monstrous, Absurd, Barbarous, and Impious Doctrine of Transubstantiation (as our Discourser calls it) in somewhat more than two Hundred years, was so throughly established all over the Christian World; that these Learned Authors, and the Fathers of these Eight Councils, assembled in several Kingdoms, were so totally ignorant, that their own Doctrine had its date from the Council of Nice, or that the Opinion of Berengarius had been ever before publicly professed, that they make no scruple of alleging, the Antiquity, Universality, and Constant Practice of their own Doctrine, as a most convincing and unanswerable Argument against his; Interroga Graecos, Armenios', (says Lantfranc) seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque homines, uno ore hanc fidem (i. e. Transubst.) se testabuntur habere.  
I profess, that if after this my most serious, and impartial Enquiry concerning the Belief of the Ancient Fathers and the Catholic Church touching the Real Presence, it should possibly be true, that they all, or generally, agreed with our Discourser, and his figurative Interpretation, excluding the Substance; I would lay aside all my Books, and conclude, once for all, That even the Doctrine of Transubstantiation itself, is more easy and rational, than the true sense of the Father's concerning it, intelligible, or attainable. And though I will not say with the Booksellers Wife at Paris, That if the Primitive Fathers believed Transubstantiation, She would no longer believe Christianity; yet I may say, if they did believe it, and were mistaken, a Christians Faith, any further than it may be productive of good Works, is the most indifferent thing in the World.  
Our Discourser tells us of one John Scotus, and Ratramnus, and I know not who, writing I know not what, against this Doctrine of the Real Presence, at least according to his Interpretation (though I know many Catholics understand some of them in a very Orthodox sense): But to me it seems as impertinent to bring two or three private persons, advancing their private Opinions, against the Concurrent Testimonies of all Authors, prior, present, and others (since they wrote) posterior to them; besides the Definitions and Decrees of General Councils; as it would be among us, to produce the Authorities of John Milton, and Junius Brutus, to prove that it was lawful among the Jews for the People, by their own Supreme Power, to murder their Kings; and that in all Governments, the People have the same Sovereign Authority, to judge, and punish, even by Death, their lawful hereditary Kings, and Governors, if they shall so think fit.  
Now, having the History of the Bible, as well as they, together with the express Command of God, and constant Testimony and Practice of Learned Men through all Ages, and public Laws, with Acts of Parliament to the contrary; these Men may write till their Hands, and Hearts ache (to use out Discourser's expression) before they shall persuade me to renounce the strongest Evidence imaginable, in favour of their private Sentiments. Whether our Discourser be of my mind, or not, I cannot tell; but if he be, I see no greater reason to believe John Scotus than John Milton.  
Come we now to the Church Authority, which so much offends him. Our indulgent Mother (according to her favourable Discipline) permitted the Doctrine of Transubstantiation (as she had done for many years, that of the Consubstantiality) to pass upward of Twelve Hundred years, without any other judicial determination of the Modus (as they call it) than such as had been Originally planted in the hearts and minds of the Faithful, and cultivated in every Age, by Pious and Learned Men, in their Sermons, Catechisms, and other Discourses, as occasion happened. But Berengarius (a Man fond of his own Notions, and valuing himself much upon his own Reason) resolved to set up for a new Light of the Church; and (among other Errors) taught the figurative acceptation of the Words of Consecration, as hath been before related.  
Upon this, he was admonished by several Pious and Learned Catholics, to retract betimes so new and pernicious a Heresy. But the Arguments of sense, procuring him a party among the Vulgar, he prosecuted his design with great vigour, until, at last, he was taken notice of by the Supreme Church-Governors; and in a Council at Rome, An. Dom. 1050. his Doctrine was condemned, and himself excommunicated: At length, having several times abjured this his Heresy, and as often returned to his Vomit, he burned the Book of Scotus, from whence he confessed to have sucked part of his Poison; renounced (for the last time) with all Sincerity, his former Opinions; and spending the residue of his days in Piety and Devotion, died in the Unity of the Roman Catholic Church, full of sorrow and repentance, Jan. 6. An. Dom. 1088. as may be seen in Membranis Taureacens. in Chronic. Clarii Floriacens. Monach. S. Petri vivi. in Will. of Malmesbury, l. 3. de gestis Reg. Angl. In Baldrico Burgaliensi Abbate, and in the Manuscript B. Martini Turonensis.  
Notwithstanding all this, the Seeds of Heresy thus sown, were not easily rooted out: And besides, some Catholics themselves (taking occasion from this Heresy) had writ-concerning this great Mystery, according as they best apprenended it; But sometimes the obscurity of their Expressions, the double sense which they admitted, and not clearly showing what they themselves believed (Misfortunes which happen to most men, who writ concerning such high Mysteries without Authority) the Governors of the Church thought fit (as the best means to obviate these Inconveniences) to call a General Council under Pope Innocent the Third, which was the greatest that ever had been since the Apostles; and therein, it was determined by near 1300 Fathers, that (according to the Doctrine of the most Ancient and Holy Fathers, Tradition of the Church, and former Councils) the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine, after Consecration, into the Substance of the Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Accidents of Bread and Wine only remaining, should thenceforward be called Transubstantiation; which had been sufficiently before expressed and explained, by that wonderful Transmutation, and Transelementation asserted by the Fathers. This our Discourser believes (with Scotus) to have been the necessary consequence of the Council of Lateran, p. 21. and so do I too: Tho' in truth this explicative Term was (I think) more particularly established (as here expressed) in the Council of Trent.  
Now, to me, the Church seems so far from being worthy of blame, for decreeing what appears almost the necessary consequence of the real Presence (I mean) Transubstantiation, that (as the Case and Circumstances then stood) the Church had been very negligent, if she had not so decreed. For it being always believed (which I think is also fully proved) That the Elements of Bread and Wine, after Consecration, were most wonderfully, and by the Omnipotence of God converted into the Body and Blood of Christ; It is clear then, that either the Accidents, or the Substance of Bread and Wine must be changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ; But the Accidents are not so changed, therefore the Substance.  
Besides, the Substance of the Body of Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament, either with the Substance of Bread, or without the Substance of Bread. If the first, than Catholics, and our Discourser are in the wrong. If the last, than Luther, and our Discourser are in the wrong: So which way our Discourser should happen to be in the right, I cannot comprehend, except Zuinglius should have been more than Athanasius, and our Discourser (the Disciple of Zuinglius) greater than St. Andrew the Apostle of our Lord. Now besides that the choice is easy in this Case, even from the Authority of one side, greater than of the other; yet whosoever shall endeavour to reconcile the Real Presence, with the Doctrine of Consubstantiation, or Impanation, will find harder difficulties in these, than of that of Transubstantiation, so much condemned. The Authorities therefore which he brings from Durandus, Erasmus, Tonstal, and some others, to show that before this Council of Lateran, Men were at liberty concerning the modus, or manner of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament, might have been some kind of Argument for a Lutheran; But how our Discourser becomes concerned in it, I see not; since quite through his Discourse, and more particularly in p. 35. he hath (with scorn) excluded Both.  
Our Discourser hath yet one Argument relating to the time, when he supposeth this Doctrine of Transubstantiation to have come into the World, which is very remarkable. He tells us, That the Iconomachi (or opposers of Images) were very zealous against the Reverence due to them, in the Synod of Constantinople, about the year 750, arguing, That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself, but the Sacrament, in which the Substance of the Bread, is the Image of his Body, we ought to make no other Image of our Lord; But in the year 787. in the Second Council of Nice these scrupulous Greeks, in thirty seven years' time, were grown so hardy in their Faith, and so extremely fond of this new Doctrine, concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, that they swallowed it immediately, and from that time were very solicitous and careful to admonish us, that the Eucharist is not the Figure or Image of the Body of our Lord, but his true Body, as appears from the seventh Synod; and he brings Bellarmin to vouch for him, p. 21, 22.  
Here we see these nice Greeks, who were so very exact and curious in smaller Matters, were contented to make so great a passage in one Council, as, from the Figure of Christ in the Sacrament, to admit of his Substance; nay, and were so pleased with it, that from thence, and that time they took care to admonish us concerning it. But the squeamish Latins (notwithstanding the Greeks had advanced so far in one single Council) were little less than three hundred years according to our Discoursers computation, licking this misshapen Monster of Transubstantiation (such is the Elegancy of his Style) into that Form, in which it is now settled in the Church of Rome. Indeed he hath been over generous to the Latins, in allowing them so considerable a time to relish and digest only the Mode of a thing, when the easse Greeks at one sitting had dispatched the thing itself, in which (according to our Discoursers Opinion) the great Barbarousness and Impiety consists. For (says he) The Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated, but only the appearance of it, by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine; for the thing, they acknowledge, is really done, and they believe, that they verily eat and drink the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ. In truth, the Latins are obliged to him in confessing them to have been so extreme cautious about the lesser part; but how he will come off with the Greeks, for being so rash and inconsiderate about the greater and principal part, must be his care, if he pleaseth.  
I am persuaded, had Bellarmin said this, to have proved that the Greeks did then, and not till then, receive the Doctrine of the Real Presence; Our Discourser, could he make any advantage of it (with good Reason) would have cast it out, as the most improbable, and ridiculous conjecture, in the World: And yet here, because he thinks it may help to favour his false account, he produceth it with as much gravity, as if he knew Catholics had less sense to see a blot, than himself, rashness to make one.  
I come now to his fourth pretended Ground of this Doctrine, that is, The necessity of such a Change in the Sacrament, to the Comfort and Benefit of those who receive it, p. 30. To this, my Answer at present, is very short. If I be satisfied, that our Saviour commanded the thing, I am convinced there was a good Reason for it, without over-curiously examining what, or why, in this Case, more than why he cured not those who touched the Hem of his Garment, without that Ceremony; or the blind; with out clay and spittle: And yet the Fathers, and many late Authors, will furnish those who are more inquisitive, with many very good Reasons, why this Change in the Sacrament, is more advantageous to the worthy Receiver, than the Figure would be, and I shall say somewhat of it myself, hereafter.  
The last pretended Ground of this Doctrine, is (as he tells us) to magnify the Power of the Priest, in being able to work so great a Miracle. Indeed, if the great Council of Lateran, did make this a Ground of introducing Transubstantiation, never did 1200 Learned Men take wronger Measures; For notwithstanding a due respect be generally paid by all good Catholics to Priests (as their Character requires) yet I will be judged by all such as have travelled abroad, Whether a Presbyterian Parson in his Conventicle, or a London Minister in his Parish, or a Calvinist Predicator in Amsterdam, who make nothing of the Sacrament; Do not yet pretend (both Males and Females) to have as much respect paid them, as ere a Priest, of equal quality, in France, Italy or Spain, who nevertheless are the Instruments by which this unexpressible Change is made? But our Discourser labours hard here, to prove that this Change is no Miracle to Sense; But, had he advised with any Catholic, he might have spared his pains, for I will engage they would have confessed it to him at the first word.  
Our Discourser having hitherto (with great success) destroyed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; yet (to make sure work) he kills it again with four deadly Objections drawn from the infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion; As, 1. The Stupidity. 2. The Real Barbarousness of this Doctrine, supposing it be true. 3. The bloody Consequences. And, 4. The danger of Idolatry, if it be not true, p. 33.  
To prove the Stupidity of this Doctrine, our Discourser produceth two Learned Heathens, Tully and Averro, wondering that any Men should be so stupid, as to pretend to eat their God. Now, that there is Stupidity in the Case, is most certain; But, whether it be in the Doctrine; Or in Tully and Averro; Or in our Discourser, who brings two Heathens Testimonies against a Mystery of the Christian Religion, I leave to Judgement. I suppose he may have heard of such an Epistle, as the first of St. Paul to the Corinthians, I would recommend to him the first Chapter, and particularly, Vers. 18.19, 20. where it is written, For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish, foolishness. Where is the wise, where is the scribe, where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? And vers. 27 God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. Now whether Averro, and our Discourser were the Wise Men, or the Foolish, here intended, I must leave again to Judgement.  
But I have not yet done with Averro, for his words cited by our Discourser, p. 34. are very observable. I have travelled (says he) over the world, and have found divers Sects; but so sottish a Sect, or Law, I never found, as is the Sect of the Christians, because with their own Teeth, they devour the God whom they worship. What ill luck it was, that this great Philosopher should not have met with the Disciples of Rabanus Maurus, or some One other of our Discoursers Predecessors in Opinion, at least, in some Corner of the World, who might have convinced him of his mistake, and reconciled him a little better to the Christian Religion! But not to have found one Christian over the whole World (near six Hundred years since, after Rabanus had writ against Pascasius) less sottish than the rest; will serve (at least) to prove a Sottishness also in this Case; but whether in those Christians, or, in our present Discourser (who hath brought so strong a Testimony, to prove the Universality of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, even of so learned a Man, who had travelled all the World over) I must once more leave to Judgement.  
But sure I am, from Averro his own Works, and the knowledge which he had of that vast difference between Bodies in their Natural, Gross, and Earthly Composition; and the pure Substances of these Bodies separated from their feceses, or accidents, by corruption, or putrefaction, distillations, digestions, and sublimations, until they become Essences, or pure Principles; I say, from his Experimental Philosophy of Common Bodies thus altered, and sublimated, he would have made no difficulty to have solved most of our Discoursers absurdities concerning this Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and yet there is no Comparison between these Common Bodies, though never so purely defoecated, and exalted, which can bear any proportion with the glorified Body of our Saviour united with his Divinity: So that I am verily persuaded, had Averro been satisfied concerning the other Mysteries of Christian Religion, and rightly informed concerning the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, he would have been as good a Christian in that Point, as Pope Innocent 3d. or Pius 4th.  
But our Discourser tells us; that the stupidity of this Doctrine breeds Atheists and Infidels: Even so the warmth of the Sun breeds Maggots, and many other Insucts, but the Matter must be first disposed to Corruption. Now although the Sun be much hotter in France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, than in England, or in Holland, yet I appeal to all Men who have any knowledge of those Kingdoms, whether there be not as many reputed Atheists in these two last Governments, where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not so publicly, nor generally professed, as in any other part of the Christian World proportionably where it is? And what indeed have been the true parents of Atheism, and Infidelity, but the devilish pride of Sense and Reason, set up against the blessed Humility of Faith and Obedience? But our Discourser in this Page gins to be very seriously idle, and impertinent; out of some respect therefore to himself, we will pass it over, and come to p. 35. where he most grievously accuseth this Sacrament of Barbarousness, upon the Supposition of the truth of this Doctrine: But sure if this Doctrine be true, than it is impossible that it should be barbarous, except our Saviour himself, who commanded it, and is there voluntarily present in it, should have instituted a barbarous Sacrament; which, whether our Discourser can believe, I know not; but sure I am, if the Doctrine be not true, it cannot be barbarous to eat him in imagination only, except our Discoursers opinion be also barbarous. He tells us, 'tis very unworthily done to our friend, and barbarous to feast upon his Flesh and Blood. I am glad to find our Discourser capable of so much Tenderness: But he might have read of very many Provinces in the East, and West Indies, who count it their greatest glory, to eat their best deceased Friends, persuading themselves, that thereby, they do (as it were) regenerate, or reanimate those to whom they were first obliged for their own lives, by transforming them thus into their own Nature, and Substance. With indignation therefore they reproach our manner of Burials as most inhuman. O pavure Gens (saith my Author) comment laissez vous manger cette chair precieuse aux Sales verse de la terre? Et que monument plus digne lui pouvez vous donner, que celuy de vos propres entrailles? And upon this consideration it was, that the renowned Artemise drank the Ashes of her dear departed Husband. The Barbarousness therefore objected by our Discourser (suppose this eating were according to his false Conceptions) proceeds from the narrowness of his own thoughts, who would judge, and measure the Civility and Reason of the whole World, according to the Customs (it may be) of his own little Province.  
But, though no Catholic thus pretended to eat the Body and Blood of Christ (for that they all know he is immortal, and uncapable of Death, or Suffering, or Corruption, or any other indignities) yet our Discourser will needs compare this eating in the holy Sacrament, to the violent hacking and slashing of our living Friends, and carnally devouring their raw Flesh, like the worst of Cannibals: What an odious and disproportionate Comparison hath he made, on purpose to deceive his Friends, and revile, and scandalise those, whom he supposes, his Enemies?  
But before I quit this Page, I must pay my respects to one main Demonstration of his, which (he says) is worth a thousand; and it is this; That the Heathens objected no such Custom to the Christians, therefore no such Doctrine believed. Now this piece of Malice might have passed undisturbed, with many others which I have not taken notice of, had he not had the confidence (I will not use his own expression, Impudence) to have provoked an Answer by producing the half Testimony of Justin Martyr in p. 11. to countenance his own Error; where, that very Father, in that very place, is making an Apology to the Heathen Emperor Antoninus, and is so far from mincing the Matter, or explaining it by a figurative Sense, That he there tells the Emperor, We are taught that the Food (speaking of the Sacrament) being Consecrated by the Prayer of the Word. Is the Flesh and Blood of Christ Jesus himself Incarnate. Illius incarnati Jesus, & Carnem, & Sanguinem esse, edocti sumus. Apol. 2. It is most prodigiously strange, and inexcusable in this holy Father, to have used this scandalous Metaphor to a Heathen Emperor (which they cautiously expressed to the Christian Catechumen) if he intended nothing more than a figurative Sense: For I will refer myself to any Man, whether it had not been more prudent, and (it may be) pious, to have softened and moderated the expression to a Heathen, though the Father had truly believed the Real Presence, than thus to have exposed himself, and laid an unnecessary stumbling-block before the Emperor, if indeed he did not believe it.  
But our Discourser (not satisfied with this) tells us a Story p. 12. That the Heathen Greeks, having taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni, urged them by violence to tell them some Secrets of the Christians; who confessed, That they had heard from their Masters, that the Divine Communion was the (Body and Blood of Christ; and, that they (i. e. the Catechumeni) thinking that it was really Flesh and Blood declared as much to the Greeks. And yet our Discourser in p. 35. will not admit, that any such thing was ever objected by the Heathens to the Christians, altho' by violence the Christians themselves confessed it. What a bold, conceited Discourser is this who whilst he manifestly confutes himself, thinks his Adversaries so impotent, as not only, not to have any defensive Arms of their own, but also not to dare to make use of his, when he so fairly offers them against his own false Arguments? His mis● application of the whole Story, from the Answer of Blandina (which he strangely mistakes) is very silly; For what Catholics ever thought that the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, was a breach of their Fast? If any had, by mistake, some such thoughts (as Tertullian seems to insinuate) the breach of their Fast must be imputed to the receipt of the Symbols, or Accidents of Bread and Wine, which indeed may nourish; but not to the Body and Blood of Christ.  
Now had not our Discourser thus demonstrably answered himself, and saved us thereby a further labour, I could have recommended him to S●. Greg. Nazian. St. Augustin, and several others of the Fathers, where he would have found these Objections made to the Christians, and their Answers to them, much after the manner of Justin Martyr. And nothing is told us more plainly in the Histories of those times, than, that the Heathens, having a confused Notion of the great Mystery of the Sacrament, did commonly accuse the Christians of eating Man's Flesh, or young Children, or sometimes their God. Sure our Discourser intended to prevent us from using this Argument ourselves, for this Objection of the Heathens hath ever been accounted a kind of Demonstration of the Antiquity of our Doctrine.  
His third Objection is, from the bloody Consequences of this Doctrine: But he gives us no particular instances, and he doth well to grow more wise 〈◊〉 last; for he hath been very unlucky in them: Since therefore he is pleased only to affirm in general, I am contented to deny in general, and so we are upon even ground.  
His last Objection is, from the danger of Idolatry, if this Doctrine be not true; and I add, the danger of our Discoursers most execrable Blasphemies if this Doctrine be true; let us therefore both consider seriously of it, since the danger on both sides is very great: However we have the Authorities of many Learned Church of England Men (as may be seen at large in the Oxford Discourser) who have acquitted us of Idolatry. Whilst our Discourser stands almost single, in the scurrilous bitterness of his rude and unmanly expressions.  
And here I thought our Discourser would have ended his dire wrath against Transubstantiation; but to be yet more secure (and with good Reason too) that it may never rise up in Judgement against him; he comes back again, and in p. 37. gives it four wounds more for the absurdity of its Doctrine; and these are performed by way of Four very considerable Questions; As First, p. 38. Whether this Doctrine doth not contradict his Senses? Secondly, Whether it can be proved by his Senses? Thirdly, Whether it be not against the certainty of his Senses? And Lastly, Whether it be not against the Evidence of his Senses? Now because to me these retailed Questions seem to import much the same thing; I will take the liberty (for the sake of a speedier Conclusion) to give my Opinion concerning them in gross.  
Before we consider the monstrous Absurdities of this Doctrine, set forth in these four great Questions; it is reasonable that we seriously think with ourselves, upon what account this Senseless Doctrine should happen to get such firm footing in the World, as to have spread (in a very short time as our Discourser supposes) over the face of the whole Christian Church: Nay more, That in all probability it might have been universally received, even at this day, had not the extraordinary Learning, Reason, Sense (and I know not what other qualifications) of John Scotus, Berengarius, Zuinglius, and our Discourser, opened the Eyes of poor blinded Christians, and shown them, how their Senses were lead Captivity Captive by the Juggling tricks, Hocus Pocus, and Cheat of this Doctrine (for so he is pleased to call) Transubstantiation p. 34.  
I name not Luther among the great Reformers, as to this Point, for he agrees with Catholics, as to the Real Presence, tho' he differs in the Modus; and with his whole heart Anathematizes and Curses the Doctrine of our Discourser (under the name of Zuinglius) and all his Adherents, 
Epist. contr. Art. jovan. Thes. 27. Tom. 2.  in these words, We censure in earnest the Zwinglians and all the Sacramentaries, for Heretics, and alienated from the Church of God. And again, Cursed be the Charity, and Concord of the Sacramentaries for ever, and ever, to all Eternity, Tom. Wittemb. fol. 381.  
Now upon the best enquiry I could make concerning the Establishment of this Doctrine, I found but Four tolerable good Reasons how it came to get so great credit among Christians. The First is, because our Blessed Saviour (who is the Fountain of Wisdom and Truth) did institute this Sacrament in such plain words, as, This is my Body, That no Proposition upon Earth can be made to us in more express and positive Terms. Secondly, Because the Apostles did believe our Saviour spoke in earnest, and really meant as he said (at least) if we will believe the aforenamed Justin Martyr, who tells us, That the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them have recorded that Jesus so commanded. Thirdly, Because all the Ancient Fathers, who have written of the Holy Eucharist, have expressed themselves so fully concerning their firm Belief of the Real Presence in a literal Sense, That I defy Zuinglius and all his Works (allowing me some Sense, or preserving that little which I have) to understand them totally in a figurative Sense. And Lastly, Because General Councils (taking notice that some vainglorious self-conceited Men, had impudently presumed to interpret those words of our Saviour contrary to the sense of the Apostles, and Primitive Fathers, and practice of the whole Christian Church) had authoritatively decreed, That the Judgement of the blessed Apostles, and holy Fathers should be followed in this Matter, that is, That the Substance of Bread and Wine, after Consecration, was converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ; and that the Heresy of these new Upstarts should be condemned, and themselves excommunicated.  
Now these Reasons, methinks, might be sufficient to show that a Doctrine thus instituted, and recommended to us, might very probably be generally received among Men, who own the Authority of the Institutor, and Fidelity of those, who, being Witnesses of the Action, have assured us of its meaning.  
Nor can I persuade myself there is any Man so prejudiced and uncharitable upon Earth (except those whose Charity Luther cursed) as to believe, That so many Learned Men, in such August and Sacred Assemblies, should solemnly, wittingly, and willingly impose upon the World so pernicious, and damnable a Doctrine, if they themselves knew, or could believe that this Doctrine was false: Except some vast, and wonderful temporal Interest should prevail with these Fathers, and Doctors (whose reputations have been high in the World) thus dangerously to expose their own Souls, and the Souls of all who belonged to them, or depended upon them, for the obtaining this supposed worldly Satisfaction.  
A learned Protestant, in his Answer to some Queries, seems to have a great respect for General Councils, but tells us, p. 3. That Men are liable to hopes and fears; and therefore we cannot depend upon them. Now hopes and fears in this place relate only to Temporal Concerns, which we will suppose Interest in its largest acceptation. But, in the name of God, what Interest is this, for which so much is thus desperately engaged? Why truly our Answerer says nothing to it; But our Discourser, who hath left no Stone unturned, but flies at all, tells us at last, p. 30. That it is to magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle. I have already hinted how much these Fathers have been all along mistaken, if this was their design. But Secondly, from the disproportion between the poorness of the reward, and inestimable price that is paid, even eternal Silvation, I might most convincingly argue the impossibility of the design, and fix it only in the mean and unworthy thoughts of our trifling Discourser. But that I may clear these holy Fathers, and Councils, beyond all further doubt or dispute; I do affirm this little design to have been so far from their thoughts, that they have constantly declared this wonderful transmutation to proceed, not from any power of the Priest, but by the sole Omnipotency of Almighty God. And because our Discourser seems to have some value for St. Augustin, I shall produce his Testimony as it is cited be Consecratione Dist. 2. c. 72. His words are these, In the Mystery of the Body of Christ performed within the holy Church, there is nothing more done by a good Priest, and nothing less by a wicked one; because what is wrought there is not by the Merit of him who Consecrates, but by the word of our Creator, and the power of the Holy Ghost; for if it were by the merit of the Priest, 'twould not at all belong to Christ, etc. If St. Augustin could have prophesied that a malicious Discourser Twelve Hundred years after his death should have proposed such a foolish Cause, to have produced so absurd a Doctrine (in the Language of our Discourser) I know not how he would have answered him more pertinently. I shall not trouble you therefore with the Authorities of Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. St. Ambr. l. de his qui mist. init. and several other Fathers, together with General Councils, particularly that of Florence, de Sacram. Euch. to the same purpose; but conclude, that the Apostles, Fathers, and Councils, having no design or prospect, of any valuable consideration, for so great a risk, as their Eternal Salvation; must have imposed this Doctrine upon mankind, either through gross Ignorance, or mere wilful, and devilish premeditated Malice: But having no manner of reason to believe the first, and from my heart detesting so cursed a thought as the last, we will next consider, what inducements they might have had (from the consideration of Spiritual advantages, arising from thence to the Christian World) to have pressed this Doctrine (believing it to be true) with the greater earnestness. And indeed the advantages are very many, and very great. As,  
First, That the Eucharist is a pledge of our Salvation. Secondly, That we are, not only by Faith, but even Corporally united with Christ. Thirdly, That, in regard of this Union, the Eucharist is a Seal to us of our Resurrection. Fourthly, That through it, we are made partakers of the Divine Nature. Fifthly, That by being thus truly, and really united with Christ, we cannot be altogether divided from such influences as proceed from Christ. Sixthly, That our Faith is increased proportionable to the difficulties which encompass this Doctrine. Seventhly, That our Hope is raised hereby to a sublimer pitch; for by the participation of the Body of our Lord, and his Presence in the blessed Eucharist, we anticipate, as it were, the Joys of Heaven, even in our mortal Bodies; 
Homil. 24.  whence St. chrysostom tells us, that, Dum in hac vita sumus, ut terra nobis coelum sit, facit hoc mysterium. Eightly, That from the Consideration of our blessed Saviour's Love, who being touched even in the Bowels of Tenderness towards us, left us at his departure, his Sacred Body to nourish our Souls and Bodies unto Life Everlasting; we also might return the purest Love and Affection toward him, and Charity toward one another, who are thus substantially united by the Communication of this Spiritual Food according to that of S. Paul, 
1 Cor. 10.  For we being many are one Bread and one Body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread. And, Ninthly, That it is a Commemoration of our Lord's Passion, a Confirmation of his Testament, and a propitiatory Sacrifice, not only for the living, but for the dead.  
These, and many more weighty Considerations of this kind together with the Testimony of the Fathers, Authority of General Councils, and universal practice of all Christians until these two last Centuries, will enable us I hope to encounter the supposed absurdities of our Discourser: We shall engage therefore this uncircumcised Philistine, (I mean) this Goliath Argument, with all its boasting train of senseless Questions. And  
First, I know not how Philosophy can be much concerned on either side; for what Philosopher will tell me, how the Divine Nature, identified in the Person of the Father, should be Communicated to the Son, without also communicating the Person? Or how the Unity, or Individuality of Nature, should be in a diversity of Persons, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance? How in the Mystery of the Incarnation God separateth from the Humanity of Christ, his manner of subsistence, inserting it in his Divinity? How the Son should be Consubstantial, and Coeternal with the Father? How something may be made out of nothing, and that something reduced again to nothing? How Eternity, which is instans durationis non fluens, an instant of duration, may be demonstrated to subsist without respect to time past, or time to come? How God Almighty, who is one simple, and indivisible Being, should be at once substantially present in all places, and things? A Mystery so inexplicable, that it forced St. Augustin to say, Miratur hoc Mens humana, & quia non capit, fortasse non credit. Nay more, how our Soul, which is the Light of our Bodies in this our Pilgrimage upon Earth, can be totally in the Head, and totally in the Feet, and totally at the same time in the whole Body, and in every part of it; Or how the Needle, which is our Common Guide through the paths of the deep, should point always towards the North; or if sometimes it varies, whence should proceed its variation? When Philosophy hath explained all these, with many more hitherto invincible Difficulties, I make no doubt, but She will then free also Transubstantiation from the Calumny of our Discoursers monstrous Absurdities.  
In the mean time, that we may the better deal with them, we shall divide them into such as seem to appear so, First to Reason, and Secondly to Sense.  
For the First, our Discourser seems to have been modest, since of a thousand insinuated; he is pleased to name but two, First, the gross contradiction of the same Body being in so many several places at once; And Secondly of our Saviour's giving away himself with his own hands, and yet keeping himself to himself, p. 37. The latter hath received a particular Answer from S. Augustin in his Comment upon Psal. 33. as hath been already shown, and I shall not presume to mend it. Nor, will this Fathers own quodammodo, in another place; or that of Bedes upon the same Psal. 33. help him in the least; for all Catholics willingly accept the word and most justly interpret it to be modo Spirituali, which manner they all profess and teach.  
But for the First, which as much concerns the Real Presence (a Doctrine owned by Bishop Andrews, and the Church of England, and at present by all Lutherans) as Transubstantiation believed by Catholics, I shall speak of That, and the rest of his Questions about Sense (which are common Objections in all Protestant Authors against this Subject) when I come to the Conclusion, to which I hasten.  
Our Discourser hath one Argument more to countenance the Novelty of Transubstantiation, which, being more particularly urged by himself than some others, I shall endeavour to give a reasonable Answer to it, and so take my leave of him, until we meet again in the Conclusion, backed with the Objections of some other late Authors, which are common to them all.  
He tells us, p. 26. That the first-rise of this Doctrine was about the beginning of the Ninth Age, though it did not take firm root until towards the end of the Eleventh; And this time (he says) was the most likely of all others, it being by the consent of their own Historians, the most dark and dismal time, that ever happened to the Christian Church both for Ignorance, and Superstition and Vice. And then illustrates all this by the Parable of the Tares, which he conceives the Enemy might have sown in so dark and long a night. The Conjecture is very plausible until it be well considered, and then (I am persuaded) his Argument will not only vanish, but be turned against himself (as many others have been) with no small advantage to our Cause.  
I readily grant, that some part of the time assigned by him for the introducing of this Doctrine, was dismal enough, upon those three accounts mentioned by him: But I also affirm, That such a Doctrine could never have met men in Circumstances more contrary and averse to its establishment, than to be thus overwhelmed with Ignorance, Superstition and Vice. And first for Ignorance, It is Evident to all Mankind (and therefore the more strongly Objected against us by our Discourser, and all Protestants) That Transubstantiation is a Doctrine which highly contradicts our Common Senses. Now as such, the abuses of it, must needs have been, First, most notoriously visible to the most Vulgar and illiterate, for they (seldom looking further into things than the Common appearances) would certainly have taken the first, and strongest Alarm, upon the Proposition only, of so new, and insupportably senseless a Doctrine (as our Discourser calls it) if they had not from Age to Age, sucked it in with their first nourishment, and seen it so universally received, that they no more considered the consequences of it, than they did those of some other Mysteries of their Religion, which they equally alike received as matter of Faith from the Authority and veracity of their Spiritual Guides, and Governors.  
But when as Berengarius (about the Tenth Century) was bold enough to teach, and write against it, showing the strong difficulties which he thought encompassed it; we then see a Party of the Vulgar coming in to him apace, whilst nevertheless, the Learned, 
Disc. of the Holy Euch. p. 31.  from many parts of the World, judiciously and strenuously opposed him. The same thing may be observed from the Waldenses, whose Ringleader Waldo, a most illiterate Merchant of Lions (as all Historians confess) procured also a miserable Crew, who, from their poverty were ignominiously called, the poor Men of Lions; and their Posterity fixed themselves among the Barbarous and ignorant Mountancers, about, and upon the Alps, who have remained obstinate Opposers of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, even unto this present Age. The last Instance I shall give, is of the Wicklissists, 
Ibid.  who following in a great measure the Doctrines of Berengarius, and some other Heresies, had got together two Hundred Thousand of the Rabble, who with Rebellious Arms in their Hands, had well nigh reduced the King himself to the last extremities: However his Heresies were condemned by the learneder part of the Universities, as far as the Circumstances of those distracted times would permit, and the interest which (upon some other account) Wickliff himself had gotten in the Duke of Lancaster, and some other Persons of Quality. The same might be said of the Hussites, 
Ibid.  and many more too long to mention, who became irreconcilable Enemies to this Doctrine. Whence it is most Evident, even by undeniable matter of Fact, that the Establishment of Transubstantiation; could hope for no advantage from an ignorant Age; since the ignorant have been the first, and greatest Opposers of it, and the most Learned Men, generally its Defenders.  
Neither Secondly, can a vicious Generation possibly be favourers of this Doctrine: For, whether it be true, or false, yet whilst it is believed to be true, it is certainly the greatest promoter of Piety, and Devotion, of any Article (it may be) in the Christian Religion: For when we consider, That Christ was not only pleased once to die, but to become also a daily Sacrifice for us, and to offer his very Body to us, for the nourishment of our Souls and Bodies unto Everlasting Life; How is it possible that Men should be less sensible of Gods great Goodness towards us, and our own unexpressible Love and Duty towards him, believing this Doctrine to be true, than not believing it at all? Vice therefore could have no hand, either in the contriving, or settling so pious, so venerable, and so comfortable a Doctrine.  
Lastly, let us consider whether Superstition could probably have introduced this supposed damnable Error. I cannot deny that Superstition is itself an Error, yet totally inconsistent with what we call formal Vice; for it is rather an Erroneous excess in Devotion, and is the effect of an unreasonable fear; at least, if we will believe Mr. Hobbs, who thus distinguisheth it from Atheism. Superstitio (says he) à metu sine recta ratione: Atheismus à rationis opinione sine metu proficiscitur: So that although it be an Error, yet it is such a one, as is accompanied with fear; whereas Vice proceeds from a want of that due fear, which we ought to have of God's Justice, and the punishment due from thence to our Sins: And by consequence Superstition and Vice can never meet (according to our Discoursers acceptation of Vice) together in this place.  
Thus I have endeavoured to show, by the plain, natural consequences of Ignorance, Superstition and Vice, that they could not have given any encouragement to impose a Doctrine, which hath ever been the Subject of the most Learned Pens, in magnifying, or explaining its Mystery; and in its Practice, one of the greatest advancers of a virtuous, and a holy Life.  
But having already frankly confessed, that Ignorance and Vice reigned more powerfully during some part of those Centuries, than (it may be) in any others since, or before; let us now (complying with our Discoursers Historical account concerning the temper of those times) examine what real effect they might have had upon this great Article of Faith, Transubstantiation.  
Let us then Suppose (what I hope is sufficiently proved) that this Doctrine had been implicitly believed from the Apostles days: It is then confessed by our Discourser, that about the Eighth and Ninth Century, some Men began to write copiously for, and against it, and also down to the Eleventh and Twelfth. And here, whilst we truly lament, so must we justly apply the Vice, and Ignorance of those unhappy times, to the great scandals, and difficulties under which that Apostolic Doctrine lies, even in our own Age.  
The Vices of some, and affected Novelty of others, might probably have induced some well meaning Men to write concerning this great Mystery; but whilst nothing had been Authoritatively determined concerning (what they call) the Modus, or manner of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament; some, by endeavouring to explain it, made the Text (by their private Notions) become ten times more obscure than before: Other good Men, building still upon the first false Foundation (I mean Comment) and endeavouring to maintain a ground which was not firm at Bottom, The Council of Trent most judiciously, and (if I may say) divinely Decreed (what some call the Modus) Transubstantiation; and that in such admirable terms, and words, that I am convinced the Divine Wisdom in the thing determined, exceeded the Natural Knowledge of the persons determining: But no sooner were the Canons established, and this Council dissolved; but some Men (in Opposition to these Heresies which have disturbed the Church ever since) fell to work again in explaining these holy Mysteries; but nothing having been explicitly decreed in this Council, more than what had been always implicitly believed before; they generally kept to former Notions, and instead of reconciling this Divine Truth to Sense, to Reason, and to the Word of God, have made it almost incompatible with all three; whilst nevertheless the Doctrine itself remains inviolably true, and against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail. Thus we see how Vice and Ignorance may have accidentally introduced an erroneous Explication, but could not possibly have admitted the Doctrine itself (much less the Comment) had it been guilty of so much Novelty as it is accused of, by our Discourser.  
Having thus finished (with all plainness and sincerity) my Remarks upon such particular Objections as he hath offered against this Doctrine of Transubstantiation; I must now reassume the Consideration of our late Answerer, and some others, who have emptied their whole Quivers of sharpest (though fruitless) Arguments against an Article of Faith, securely placed by the Promises and Providence of the Almighty, far above the reach of humane Malice, or Power.  
First, our Answerer hath a particular Notion, and (very ingeniously) hath made a Parallel between many Circumstances in the Institution of the Jewish Passover, (or rather the Memorial of it) and that of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: And indeed, could he have reconciled the plain literal Institution of the Passover, with his figurative expression in the Sacrament, he had gone somewhat farther towards the Point he aimed at; But if we take them both in a literal sense (and so in reason the Parallel ought to run) Alas! his consequence is confounded, and all his Parallels come to little or nothing. But granting him the benefit of his Clerkship, and Reading, in its utmost Latitude, will this save him? truly I think not, for these Reasons. First, it hath been the received Opinion of all Parties, that the Jewish Passover, was a Type of the Christian Sacrament, and myself was present when a Learned 
* Bishop of Rochester.  Bishop made a whole Sermon before the late King at White Hall upon this Supposition: If so, how comes it then to pass, that this Type or Figure should be no more than a Figure of a Figure? It was what the Fathers could not endure to hear. But, Secondly, according to our Author's Parallel, the Sacrament is no more (at most) than a Figure (of the Memorial, that is) of the Figure, of this Figure (that is) the Passover. But in truth it appears not clear to me, that the eating of unleavened Bread, had any particular relation to the Passover itself; but that they were the Memorials of two distinct, and different actions: The one, That God did Pass over, or spare the Children of Israel, when he slew the Children of the Egyptians: The other, That God brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt, which is thus fully expressed in Exod. 13. v. 8. and 9 And thou shalt show thy Son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt: And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lords Law may be in thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt. This our Author confesseth himself in his Introduction, p. 4. and it is again set forth in Exod. c. 12.  
If this be so, (and with submission I am apt to believe it is) what then becomes of our Answerers Parallels? Since now they have no relation to the Passover, or Paschal Lamb? Why, since they lie thus fair for us, we will presume to make use of them, to prove still further the undoubted Truth of the Catholic Doctrine.  
The Body of Christ then in the Sacrament, is the Substance signified by the Paschal Lamb, which was a Figure of it; by means of which holy Sacrifice, God is pleased to spare us, and pass over us, as he did the Children of Israel, and take us into his particular Protection.  
The Elements, Symbols, or Accidents, may be the Substances signified by the unleavened Bread, and (among other significations) are the Memorials of our deliverance from the bondage of Sin and Satan. Thus the Parallels run right upon all four, and when our Answerer shall have better considered of it, possibly he may not think so well of what he calls, almost a Demonstration, Introd. p. 6.  
The next Remark from our Answerers' Discourse, is this, That he hath brought several Learned Catholics (professedly remaining such) not only, not to have believed, but also to have written against Transubstantiation. If this be really true (as I perceive he imagines it is) then surely (if their Judgements were no greater than their Honesty) their Testimonies will not do him much honour; for, to profess a Doctrine of that Importance, and yet not to believe it, must unavoidably convince the World, that they were false, interested, hypocritical Knaves; and in this Character will I include the late Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome, but with this additional aggravation of partiality; that he admits of the English Real Presence, Consubstantiation, Impanation, Zuingli●●●s●, or any thing, rather than Transubstantiation: And had he been honest and sincere, he should have produced the Authorities of the same Fathers plainly asserting what he would make them deny; and have reconclled them to his Interpretation, if he could.  
But Secondly, we have nothing but his word for the truth of his Protestant Relics, now if we should ridicule those as most probably he hath done some Popish Relics, which he might have met withal in his Travels, I know not how he will help himself; we shall have reason to question his own Sincerity, as immediately shall be shown.  
Thirdly, It is a great question, whether all these Eminent persons whom he hath named, did really deny the Doctrine of Transubstantiation itself, or rather, some particular manner among the School. Men of explaining it; which is a considerable difference, and may render them totally excusable.  
And Lastly, it is Evident, That some of these persons did certainly believe the Doctrine itself, and moreover, have explained it most conformable to the Canons of the Council of Trent: And First, Monsieur de Marca, the Learned Archbishop of Paris (taking our Answerers own Account in his Preface, p. 13.) hath given an admirable Explication of it, and however Mr. de Baluze, or the Sorbon Doctors might misunderstand him, my Opinion as there set down is much the same with Monsieur de Marca's; and in the Conclusion, I shall endeavour to make it consistent with Scripture, the Fathers, and General Councils, and most agreeable to Sense and Reason. The same I believe of Cardinal Perron, rather than make him such a Villain as Drelincourt (a professed Enemy) hath represented him to the Landgrave of Hesse. Our Answerer, for want of a right understanding, mistakes Monsieur de Meaux, and others, whose Reputations he hath ignorantly (not to say maliciously) endeavoured to blast, which if it were much to my present purpose, I would further make appear.  
The last particular which I shall observe (for others who shall think it worth their pains may enlarge if they please) is his great disingenuity, and partiality in his Answer to the Learned Oxford Discourser, concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Sacrament. The Discourser proposeth (and one would think with very good Reason) That Catholics (here our Answerer tells us, 
P. 99  he means Papists still, and this he childishly repeats so often, that it is ten times more insupportable, than the Crambe bis cocta, or Cabbage twice boiled which (the Poet says) was so nautious to the Masters). The Discourser, I say, proposeth, That Catholics, grounding their adoration not upon Transubstantiation, but on a Real Presence with the Symbols, which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans, together with them, aught to be freed from Idolatry therein, as well as the Lutherans. What says the Answerer? That if by this assertion, he means only to make this discovery, That Christ's Real Presence, together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine, is, in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration, as if he mere there only with the Species of the Bread, the Substance being changed into his Body: I have no more to say it. Here than he grants it, for the one is as good as the other. But if (he goes on) he would hereby make us believe, That 'tis all one whether Christ be adored, as supposed here by the Lutherans in this holy Eucharist, and as imagined there by the Papists; 
P. 100  I must then deny his Assertion: What ill luck is this— but why? Truly because the one offers more violence to the Senses, than the other. I could wish our Answerer would offer less violence to his own, and his Readers Senses; for what have Senses to do with an equal supposition of Christ's Invisible Presence, though after a different manner? For Instance, Suppose one man should adore Christ under a Veil, believing, that, that which Supported the Veil, was the real Natural Body of Christ; the other, equally adored Christ under the some Veil, but upon the Supposition, that Christ's Natural Body was under it, or with it, but together with some other Substance which totally Supported this Veil, would not any Man judge that the first is (at least) as excusable as the latter?  
But Secondly, He tells us, That the Lutheran do undoubtedly right in the object, and in that he is not mistaken; But the Papist (altho' he terminates his Adoration upon the same Object, Christ, as supposed really Present, and no otherwise would adore, yet) he is mistaken; so the one, only adores Christ as in a place where he is not, the other as in a thing in which he is not; and this makes the vast difference. A difference there is, I confess, for one adores nothing for Christ; the other, Christ believed in, or under something; but both upon the same Supposition, of Christ's Invisible Presence, and this is the State of the Case in Short. The question is, Whether they be both equally excusable or guilty of Idolatry? Here the Answerer passeth Sentence clearly against the Papist; but had he writ less, and closer, he would not surely have so easily forgot what himself (from Bishop Taylor) was pleased to urge in p. 68 Where he lays it down for a Rule (and giveth reasons for it) That to worship Christ where he is not, is to worship nothing, a Non Ens, which must needs be Idolatry. Well, but still it may be the Bishop, (says the Answerer) does not intent to exclude the Corpus Domini, but only the Corporal, or Natural manner of that Body: Let us therefore hear how he goes on; 
P. 69.  for Idolum nihil est in Mundo, saith St. Paul, and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament (or with the Sacrament) is a Non Ens: For it is not true; there is no such thing. What (says the Answerer) not as Christ there, no way as to his Humane Nature? No, he is (saith the Bishop) present there, by his Divine Power, and his Divine Blessing, etc. But for any other Presence, it is Idolum; It is nothing in the World. It seems then, to worship nothing for Christ, in the Bishop's Judgement (produced by the Answerer) is Idolatry; The Question is only concerning Idolatry, therefore sure both are equally culpable, or equally innocent of that Crime. What a deal of Stuff than hath our Answerer heaped up, to no other purpose, than to snew himself a partial Scribbler? Let him not be offended then, if I most justly apply to himself, what he produces in reference to another; 
P. 96.  That for a Book which carried a great appearance of Reasoning, it hath the least in it of any I ever met with. But I leave the Learned Oxford Discourser, to manage his own Defence against this Answerer, if he shall think it worthy of a thought.  
The last public Enemy to Transubstantiation that I shall mention, is, The Defender of the Dublin Letter. I must confess he seems to be a Man of Learning and Judgement, though equally unknown to me as the rest; but because his Defence depends chief upon the Authorities of Fathers, whose Sense (I humbly conceive) he mistakes, or misapplies; I shall endeavour to reconcile them, in the Conclusion, to other expressions of the Fathers, and all, to the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation.  
Thus, Reverend Fathers, I have made such particular Remarks upon these Authors against Transubstantiation as I thought necessary toward the clearing our way to the right understanding of that great Mystery; and if I have said aught which might hitherto offend you, or them, I know not how to ask your Pardons; for as (being ignorant of their Persons) I can have no malice towards them; so when I find Men writing magisterially, and pragmatically against Learned Men, and Christian Doctrines, when (as I believe) they are themselves in the wrong, I thought it a part of my Duty, to present the Glass, to them that by seeing how ill their Reflections appear, they might call to mind that admirable Rule of Justice and Equity, Quod tibi non vis fieri, alteri ne feceris.  

The CONCLUSION.  
HAving endeavoured to remove some prejudices against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which every Author had kept, as particular Reserves, over and above those Vulgar Objections, which are common to them all; I should now totally apply myself to the reconciling part, and I have made some considerable Progress in it; but finding that I have already exceeded the limits which I at first proposed to myself, and that the weightiness of this Subject, together with the variety of Objections against it, and of Opinions concerning it, will engage me in a larger Discourse than is proper for this time and place, I resolved to make a Treatise of it by itself, and this I am the rather inclined to do, because we may probably see something of this kind in public, done by a better hand, which likely, may save both you and me a further labour. I shall content myself therefore at present to say something in General, and for Particulars, must refer you to what I further design, if need require, and God shall enable us.  
The main Objections against Transubstantiation are chief these two.  
I. That the natural Body of Christ cannot be in several places at the same time.  
II. That it is against the Evidences of our Senses to believe, that what we see, and feel, and taste, and smell, and which nourisheth, should not be what it seems to be: Or, that Accidents should exist without a Subject after the manner of a Substance, and yet be nothing. These and many others which are the consequences of these (bating several gross mistakes) are obvious in most Protestant Authors.  
To the First, The Reasons given why the Natural Body of Christ cannot be in several places at the same time, are, Because a Body cannot exist after the manner of a Spirit, That a Body cannot be invisible and impossible, Answ. p. 34. Or, as it is in the Rubric, Because it is against the truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one. Now if we can Evidently show out of Scripture, that the Body of Christ here upon Earth, did sometimes exist after the manner of a Spirit, and was Invisible, I hope the two first Reasons will be taken off by consent. And first it is understood (I think) by all, 
Mat. 17.  that the Body of Christ when he was transfigured, did exist after a Supernatural manner, and was freed (for the time being) from the clog, and earthly limitations of common humane Bodies.  
Secondly, It is plain that after his Resurrection Jesus made his Body become Invisible. The Text tells us, That he appeared in several Forms. After that he appeared in another Form unto two of them, Mark 16. v. 12. Which I suppose is somewhat above Nature: Also the third time when Jesus shown himself to his Disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, he had changed again his Form, for they knew him not, John c. 21. Nor was he known the first time by Mary Magdalen, but was mistaken by her for the Gardener. But in Luke 24. It is clearly expressed, That Jesus appeared to his Disciples after the manner of a Spirit, for it is said in v. 36. And as they thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and said unto them, peace be unto you, But they were terrified and affrighted and supposed that they seen a spirit. Now altho' the Circumstances in this Text sufficiently denote, that our Saviour came not to his Disciples progressively after the manner of humane Bodies, but that eodem instant he appeared in the midst of them, which was the cause of their fear (for they were told before that our Lord was risen): Yet the preceding v. 31. of the same Chapter, leads so manifestly to this Interpretation, that there is no colour left to doubt; for it is there written, That after our Lord had been ignorantly entertained by the two Disciples, at Emmaus, at last, Their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight. This agrees also with the account which we have from St. John, c. 20. v. 19 Where it is said, The same day at Evening when the Doors were shut, came Jesus and stood in the midst of them. The same Circumstance is also repeated in v. 26.  
In vain do ye therefore so often Object to us, Worthy Fathers, the necessity of believing our Senses, in all things, and upon all Occasions, since you see how the Apostles themselves were deceived by them, even concerning the real, visible, corporal Presence of Christ upon Earth. As for St. Thomas, and the Confirmation from the Evidence of his Senses, our Saviour reproached his want of Faith, and suffered him to put his doubting hand into his Sacred Wounds, not so much to show him that he was mere Man, as to convince them that he was God and Man: God, from his infinite Power, in being able to make his Natural Body exist after the manner of a Spirit, which they had seen before, and were terrified at it: And Man, in that nevertheless he had the shape and Substance of that very Body in which he suffered.  
Nor must we think that these Supernatural changes were done by chance, or without the blessed design of the Divine Wisdom; for the Disciples, who hitherto had doubted concerning the great Article of the Resurrection of the Flesh, were not only hereby convinced of this necessary truth, but were also taught after what manner their Bodies should be raised from the dead; Or, as S. Paul says, 1 Cor. c. 15. What Bodies they do become: S. Paul gives them their Answer, v. 36. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die. Then telling us of the several differences between Bodies, some more, and some less glorified, he proceeds v. 42. So also is the Resurrection of the Dead: It is sown in Corruption, it is raised in Incorruption▪ It is sown in Dishonour, it is raised in Glory; It is sown in Weakness, it is raised in Power; It is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a Spiritual Body. And this our Saviour had before experimentally taught them, by the differing, and Spiritual manner of the Existence of his own Body; confirming also has Divinity, by that Power which he exercised upon it, according to that of S. Matthew, c. 28. v. 18. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth. If then our common Sinful Bodies shall have this Glory, Power and Spirituality, when they are raised from the Dead, and probably be subject then to the Soul, as the Soul is now to the Body, who will dare to prescribe Laws to the holy and spotless Body of our Lord, united to his Divinity?  
However it be, the vindication of the Real Presence seems to concern yourselves, worthy Fathers, or at least many other Protestants, no less than Catholics; and if that be admitted, methinks Transubstantiation should not be so rudely refused Entrance: For give me leave to ask you, from what Authority you pretend to tell us, That Christ is really Present in the Sacrament, except you mean, as in all other pious Duties? If you deny this real Presence, you stand separate from the whole Christian World, Lutherans, as well as Catholics; which is no very good Argument that you are in the right. If you confess it, solve these difficulties yourselves, for it concerns you, no less than us. But if again, you do not confess it, then tell me (I say) what ground you have from Scripture to name those words, except as a consequence from these, This is my Body, and upon the Supposition, that (at least) the Substance of the Bread is become, after Consecration the very Body of our Lord?  
You tell us again, That we do verily, truly, and indeed receive the very Body of Christ, That, born of the Virgin Mary, which suffered for us, and risen from the Dead: Let me inquire again, what Authority you have to use those words, if you do not literally intent the thing? Spiritual Graces proceed not from his Humanity, but from his Divinity: Faith is one of these Spiritual Graces, and the immediate Gift of God, and signifies only this (at least in this place) That Christ was the Son of God; that he became Man; that he died for us, and risen again from the dead. What hath this to do with eating his Body, and drinking his Blood?  
A Commemoration only of his Death it cannot mean, nor could the Apostles so understand it, except you can show me some such like Metaphor used to express the memorial of a Man after his death: But if neither before our Saviour's Passion, nor since, amongst Jews, Heathens, or Christians such an Expression was ever used, why must we believe that, Christ spoke, or the Apostles understood different from all the expressions of mankind since the Creation of Adam? When the Master of the House, in Celebrating the Paschal Supper, said, This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt; true Bread was really delivered, and the Memorial was proper. When Moses said, Behold the Blood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath made with you, It was very Blood which Moses sprinkled on the People, Exod. 24. v. 8. But to tell us we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ, as a Memorial of him, when you profess we do no such thing, is the most extravagant of all Metaphors, and unparallelled in History.  
That some have eaten their deceased Friends, and that others have drank their Ashes, I have already hinted; but to say, eat and drink the Body and Blood of King Charles, that is, remember that he was Martyred, would be such an expression as stands single (at least as far as I have read) from all the Allegories of the most fantastical Poets. Why then do you tells us, That we indeed eat and drink his Body and Blood, and not rather, and only say that we break Bread in remembrance that Christ was so broken, and pour forth Wine, as a Memorial that his Blood was so shed for us? Give me leave to return the Answer; I fear, that whilst you want Faith to believe the truth intended by the words, you are ashamed to neglect the words themselves, lest you should become a scandal and reproach to all sober Christians, who had ever read the Holy Bible or the best of Fathers. Deceive not therefore yourselves and those poor Souls who depend upon you, but either give them in truth the last Sacred Legacy of our most dear and ever Blessed Master, or tell them plainly, he is departed and hath left them nothing; for a Body, which is no Body, and Blood which is no thing, is (at least) as absurd and senseless a Proposition, as your so often objected Smelling, Tasting, nourishing Accidents without a Substance.  
The Answerer hath given us a long Bead-roll of Objections in p. 32. Et sequent. Which he says contradicts right Reason: I could have furnished him with a great many more, and much more pertinent, from an Ancient Catholic Author, called, The Christians Manna, where he would also have found their Answers, to which I must recommend him. In some of his repugnancies (as he calls them) he shows himself so ignorant, or malicious, that he is, either way inexcusable: So p. 35. In p. 33. he seems neither to understand Catholic Divinity, nor common Philosophy, but talks so crudely of both, that he deserves not a sober Reply. What he (from Blondel) tells us of the Fathers, p. 34. I do not rightly understand, nor did I think it worth my pains to procure Blondel upon that account; but if either of them would make us believe, that the Fathers thought it absurd, and impossible, that God should act beyond and above the Power of Nature, the Fathers are much obliged to them for their good Opinion; but if he would make them say, that naturally a thing cannot exist, act, or be produced contrary to, or above Nature, he hath made a wise Speech for them, which he may keep for his own use.  
In his 36 P. he is come to his Senses; but because he hath only a slight touch of them, and those the same with our first Discourser, I shall consider them (as far as I intent at present) together.  
The first Objection is, that what we taste, and smell, and see, and touch, and which nourish our Bodies, should be Nothing; and as it is reduced to an Objection against Sense, it runs thus, That what we see in the Sacrament is not Bread, but the Body of Christ. I have told you that I must defer my more particular Answer, to a particular Treatise upon that Subject, in which I hope to reconcile all difficulties, not only to Sense and Reason, but to the words of Consecration, to the Canons of the Council of Trent, and to the Fathers, and the Fathers to themselves, quite throughout: In the mean time I will give you the general Faith of all Catholics, and so conclude.  
The indispensable Faith of all Catholics is this. That the Substance of the Bread and Wine, after Consecration, is converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ united with his Soul and his Divinity: No good Catholics dispute this altho' several Opinions also there are concerning the manner how this is done. The great Question is concerning the Accidents which remain, and it is the more received Opinion, that they are real (tho' not properly called substantial) things; and that, as such, they may nourish the Body, suffer digestion and corruption, and are the true Objects of our Senses, in which (we say) all the virtues and qualities of Bread exist: This we are told is consistent with Aristotle's Philosophy; but if you think otherwise, dispute your Opinion as long as you please, and (if you can) oblige your Adversaries to find out some more satisfactory Answer, for there are some others, as I shall show hereafter. The Faith in the mean time remains inviolably among all, which, their different Opinions pretend not to destroy: All believe the Substance is converted; but for the Accidents, whether they be more, or less; whether they exist with, or without a Subject; what that Subject is; or whether they may not have Substances of themselves, these are Matters of Opinion and Philosophy, and we must remember, that Christ came not to teach us Philosophy, and Logic, but Faith and Obedience unto Good Works.  
But I shall enter no further upon this Discourse at present; nor shall I here answer our Discoursers four last Questions, which, depending upon the Doctrine of Accidents, shall be considered together with them, in our designed Treatise: I shall only therefore add my hearty Prayers, that you would once lay aside your prejudices, and affections, and many other temporal considerations, and sincerely and calmly endeavour with us, to find where the truth lies. I know no Body intends any harm to you, or other good to themselves, than that we might be all United under one Head, Christ Jesus, holding the Unity of Faith, in the Bond of Peace.  
It would be a defect of Charity not to be pardoned, should you believe all Catholics to be Knaves, or Fools; or that they did not see, and know, or would not know what can be said against them, as well as Protestants; since your greatest Objections which I have ever read against us, are found in our own Authors, and their Answers to them, of which you are pleased to be silent. It were besides, a strange Instance of Spiritual Pride, to think yourselves the only Children of Light, and this, grounded upon no other Authority, than your own private Opinions, and a partial Judgement passed upon yourselves, against the much greater part of the whole Christian World.  
The Glorious Epinikeas, and lofty Triumphs which you sing in all your Papers, might become the Buskins of a Pagan Conqueror; but in me, they move only my Compassion to see you so wonderfully pleased, and insulting in the wrong. Alas, you mistake the Sc●●● for in our Case, the Conquered wins the Priz●● and yet the Victor loseth not his honour. What would it profit him (says our Saviour) If a man should gain the whole World, and lose his own Soul? It is a serious consideration, and deserves a sober thought or two, free from passion, or prejudice. Now whether it be adviseable to venture so great a Treasure upon the single Bottom of every man's private Opinion? Whether our Saviour Christ would leave his own Church in a much more dangerous condition, than that in which he found the Jewish Church? Whether Certainty was to be had among the Jews from the Chair of Moses, concerning what they were to believe, and do; but no Certainty to Christians from the Chair of S. Peter, or any other Christian Church upon the face of the Earth? Whether Heresy and Schism be terms to affright us, and only different names for Knavery, and Hypocrisy? Or, whether a man who truly believes himself to be in the right, may not be desperately, and dangerously in the wrong; and highly punishable for his presumption, and disobedience to lawful Authority? And Lastly, whether you will tell us roundly and plainly. That to believe Christ to be the Son of the Living God, and to live a moral Life, be all that is required of us, as some of you have very boldly insinuated? These things I recommend to your pious and ingenuous Examination, until we meet again.   
FINIS.