A LETTER To the AUTHOR of the REPLY to a late PAPER CALLED A full Answer to Dr. Tenison's Conferences concerning the EUCHARIST.  
SIR,  
I Am so great a Friend to Truth, that I cannot sufficiently express the favour you have done me in opening my mistake; yet give me leave so far to justify myself, as to assure you, the same grounds which drew my Friend and me into the Error, has deceived many even of the Doctor's Admirers; and for my part I think it no disgrace to be mistaken in so good Company, and upon so good grounds too; for I always thought that the common practise of Publishers was, either to let the world know the Author's Name, or at least to disown themselves the Work; but not reading this piece of ingenuity in the front of the English Conferences, my Friend and I missed our way. However, if my Friend and I must guess again, you must writ again; for I am sure you are not less contravene in thinking my Paper answered, than We in imagining the Doctor to be the Author of the Conferences. This I will demonstrate in the first place, and then perchance, ex abundanti, I will touch some things in your Paper, neither spoken to the purpose, nor proved with reason.  
The Author of the Six Conferences puts the stress of his whole Discourse on this Principle, That if Transubstantiation were one of the doctrines of Christianity, Christian Religion would be opposed with greater strength than it can be maintained, because one might oppose against it whatever is offered against Transubstantiation, viz. all evidence of sense. I retorted the Argument, saying, That the same medium would throw down all Authority of Scripture, because before a Pagan can be convinced of the Truth of Scripture, he must confess that Abraham's senses were deceived, and by consequence that it is possible for his own to be so. Now, according to the Author of the Six Conferences, a Heathen hath greater evidence of the Infallibility of his Senses, than of the Truth of the holy Scriptures; therefore he hath a stronger Argument to retain him from assenting to them, than to move him to embrace them. Now, Sir, if you think to enervate my Discourse with those Arguments you are pleased to expose in Print, your Reason is as much deceived as Abraham's Senses; and if you intend to convince Men of their solidity, you must imagine their capacities to be as shallow as your own.  
You answer thus: They that appeared to Abraham in the 18th of Genesis, for ought can be proved, did for that time assume the real Bodies of men; and then you back your Assertion with a killing Parenthesis, It should seem so by their eating. Now, Sir, if I reply, For ought can be proved they did not assume real Bodies; have I not as good an end of the Staff as you? Nay, the Angel Raphael  told Tobias,( I suppose you will deny not the Story, tho' according to you it be not Scripture) he did not really eat, but seemed so to do. Whence, in my opinion, it may very probably be concluded, he had no man's Body, but only in appearance, otherwise he might have eaten as really as Tobias. But because you thought men would not much rely on this weak Answer, you go to another; telling us, there is no parity between the deceptio visus of Abraham, and ours in the Eucharist. But why, Sir? because 'tis certain that to the making of that Creature, which we call a Man, there goes something more than what is visible to the eye, viz. a human Soul; and whether that were there or no, or an Angel in the room of it, was more than Abraham could certainly discern by his senses: But there is not the same case in seeing of a piece of Bread, because there is no ground to think there is any thing in a piece of Bread more than what is discernible by sense. But, Sir, in the first place, suppose I should attack you with your own Argument, I do not see how you would defend yourself. I answer then, For ought that can be proved there is something else. Nay, Sir, you cannot but know that the most approved Philosophers, before Christianity, maintained that in mixed Bodies there was a forma regens, as they termed it; and others at least admitted Elementary Forms, not discernible by the senses. And few rejected these Opinions, till Des carts raled out of the Ashes of Epicurus and Democritus, his Scholastic Nonsense. Now, Sir, prescinding from Christianity, the greatest part of Philosophers stand for me. Is it not then a madness above expression to pawn your Soul Des Cartes's Opinion is true.( I assure you, Sir,( by the by) people who are so prodigal of their own Soul, shall never have the guiding of mine.) And now, Sir, that you stake your Soul on Des Cartes's side, I prove thus: If Christ hath revealed the reality of his Corporal Presence in the B. Sacrament, and you deny it chiefly upon Des carts Account; you stake your Soul on Des Cartes's his side; but so it is: Ergo. I prove the Minor. You deny that Christ has revealed his Corporal Presence, because 'tis impossible he should: This you prove, because 'tis impossible all our senses should be deceived. When I tell you, Abraham's were; you deny it, because to the making up that Creature we call a Man, there goes something more than what is visible to the eye; in Bread the case is otherwise, because there is no ground to think there is any thing in a piece of Bread, more than what is discernible to sense. Therefore your Salvation or Damnation depends chiefly on the Truth or Falsity of this Opinion. Therefore you lay your Soul on Des Cates's side.  
And now, dear Reader, I appeal to you, Whether our Anti-Transubstantiators, or Anti-Reallists, have so much reason to boast of, to ridicule one of the most Sacred Articles of Christian Belief? An Article as old as Christianity itself, preached by the Apostles, delivered by holy Doctors, sealed with the Blood of Martyrs, and more than once confirmed by General Councils. Shall I call him a Christian; nay a man, who gives greater credit to a doting Des carts, than to so many Divine Oracles? No, no; who thus abuses Reason, deserves a place among those Creatures who have none.  
To illustrate your Answer,( which is very obscure) you bring forth a Black Dog. Sir, let me tell you seriously, one of your Communion has been highly scandalized that you should play the Buffoon in so Sacred a matter. And for my part, I am resolved my Paper shall not be blacked with your Cur: yet I must inform the Reader, 'tis more than probable the Black Dog bears some similitude with the Author; first, as to the colour; secondly, they both snarl and bark to no purpose.  
Next you accuse me for condemning the Author's Logic. Sir, I did, and yourself too for defending it. What say you to this way of arguing; Some Doctors are Ignoramusses in Logic, therefore all are? You will, without doubt, at least after some hums, grant the Antecedent, and then deny the Consequence. What then will you say to this; Our senses deceive us in this particular circumstance of the Eucharist, therefore they may deceive us in any thing else? Pray, Sir, one reason, Why the Consequence of the first Enthymema must be denied, and not of the last? and another if you please, Why these be not universal Inductions from particular Antecedents?  
Sir, because you desire me to give you as good Scripture-proofs for Transubstantiation as there is for the Trinity, and also to load the doctrine of the Trinity, as delivered by Scripture, with as many Absurdities as follow from Transubstantiation: I shall comply with your first demand, and confess ingenuously I cannot with the second, because no Absurdities follow from the One or the Other; and all those seeming Absurdities you lay on Transubstantiation, do rather aim at the Real Presence: and so I think it sufficient here to give as good Scripture-proofs for Christ's Corporal Presence. I say then, this passage, This is my Body, is as convincing, both for the Real Presence and Transubstantiation too, as any you can find for the Trinity; nor is there any Text in all the Scripture which opposes it. Now for the Trinity what place will you allege? Mat. 28.19. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: I and my Father am one: Or, in fine, There are Three who bear record in Heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One, Ep. Jo. 5.7. Now, Sir, an Arian will draw from Scripture stronger Arguments to oppugn these Texts, than you can for your life to enervate mine, This is my Body. And first, if an Arian tells you it does not follow the Three Persons are One, because the Apostles were commanded to baptize in the Name of them All; How will you disprove him? If you say, Christ affirmed He and his Father were One; he will run to the other place, My Father is greater than I. If again you sand him to St. John Ep. 1.5. he will tell you it proves nothing, because the verse following explicates the precedent, ibid. 8. And there are Three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood; and these Three are One: Now 'tis evident these Three are not One substantially; therefore, says an Arian, nor the former. I know in your Bible, to wave the difficulty, you translate 〈◇〉, And these Three agree in One; but with what Authority? But still an Arian will push on further, we red in John 17.21. where Christ prayed, That they All may be One, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee; that They also may be One in Us. And again, ibid. 22. That They may be One, even as We are One. He will argue so; Christ is only One with his Father, as 'tis possible for the Disciples to be One: But 'tis possible for the Disciples to be One only in Affection, not in Substance; therefore Christ is only One in Affection with his Father, not in Substance. show me, if you can, out of Scripture as seeming evidences against the doctrine of Catholics concerning this Sacrament. But this will be a long while a doing, and therefore I shall show you that the doctrine of the Trinity-contradicts this Maxim, Quae conveniunt in uno tertio conveniunt inter se, in the true sense of it. This Principle asserts, That when two things agree with a third, they agree with themselves; therefore in the Blessed Trinity, if two things which agree with a third, do not agree with themselves, the doctrine of the Trinity contradicts the Principle: But in the Trinity two things which agree with a third, do not agree with themselves; therefore the doctrine of the Trinity contradicts the forementioned Maxim. I prove it thus: The person of the Son is the same with the Divine Essence, as also the person of the Father is identified with the same Divine Essence; therefore they agree with a third: But the person of the Son is not the same with the person of the Father; therefore the two persons which agree with a third, do not agree with themselves. Have I not performed my promise, Sir?  
Your last quarrel against me is, That I have proposed an insufficient method to convert an understanding Infidel. But let us see from whnce arises the grounds of insufficiency? I will change my Infidel into a Protestant Minister for the present, and ask him, If he will admit there is a God? I suppose he will not deny it, out of a fear of passing for a Papist. I will proceed farther, and inquire, Whether god does not see some Truths, which never a Member of the University can conceive? He must grant it, or eat up his first Concession, because otherwise God would not be infinitely Wise, and by consequence no God. Thirdly, I would demand, Whether God cannot reveal those Truths, and command his Creatures to believe them? This also he must grant me, under pain of being one of those Fools mentioned by David, The Food said in his heart there is no God. In fine, I would ask this Minister, What evidence he required to be assured that God had revealed these Truths? If he be a rational Creature, he would answer me, Such a one as no prudent man could doubt of. Now, it nos all moral evidence of this nature? Therefore, seeing there is all the moral evidence in the world that the Scripture is the Word of God, this Minister cannot rationally deny but whatever is contained in it is true. He must therefore( whatever his Reason dictates to the contrary) confess, that the old Philosophical Principle, Ex nihilo nihil fit, is false, as well as the other, Quae conveniunt in uno ter tio conveniunt inter se; as also, he must grant that our senses may be mistaken, or dash out of the Bible the apparition of Angels to Abraham, Jacob, &c. Nor is it necessary that God give us other Faculties before he reveal these Truths, because my Reason tells me God can do things above my capacity; and therefore, seeing I cannot doubt of the Revelation, I must conclude in these circumstances, my Sense and Reason are deceived. show me a more efficacious way to reduce an Infidel, if you can.  
Now, Sir, I have made my first promise good, and what I add is ex abundanti.  
You tell us, Papists can never prove Transubstantiation, till they first prove themselves infallible in interpreting Scriptures. Seeing, Sir, you are confident with me, I will take the boldness to use the same freedom; and therefore I tell you, till you can prove the Church of England is infallible in interpreting Scripture, I will never believe they cannot; for, Sir, I am not so devoted to sense and prejudice, as quiter to neglect my Reason. Seeing therefore the Papists challenge both Scriptures, Fathers, and General Councils, for the support of their doctrine, and shrewd Arguments too( upon my word) to demonstrate their Churches Infallibility; why shall I brand them with Idolatry, Superstition, &c. at the instigation of a Church which tells me, Sir, I may be mistaken? But after all; you will not believe that God hath revealed this Mystery; but why? because it is impossible he should. May not an Infidel on the same grounds deny the very first verse of the Bible, In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth? If he should tell you, God hath not revealed this Truth, because 'tis impossible he should; what would you answer but this? Friend, you are an impertinent Fellow. But let us examine your Reasons; the first is, Because our senses tell us 'tis Bread, This is answered already; so I go to the second, drawn from our reason, which tells us, That one and the same Body cannot be in several places. First, this Argument falls as heavy on your elder Brethren the Lutherans of Germany; nay, and on Bishop Andrews, tailor, Casaubon, &c.( who held the Real Presence) as on Papists; so that methinks a Church-of-England-man should never hector against Papists with such an Argument, which equally presseth his Brethren in Christ the Protestants: but experience teaches us, that passion is a blind Monster, which makes no distinction between Friends and Foes; it tramples on those, that it may sacrifice these to its fury. Secondly, Sir, let me ask you upon what Principle your Reason founds the impossibility of the same thing's being in several places? Is it upon this, that a thing cannot be here, and not here, at the same time? Good Sir, show me by what Logic to be here and there, is the same as to be here and not here? But this is not all; you have another retrenchment still, viz. it cannot be that the whole Body of a man be crowded into the compass of a pins head. This you affirm; but I see no reason, only an ipse dixit, which will never pass for a Demonstration with me. But if your doctrine be true, how came our saviour into the Chamber when the doors were shut? This question has put some of your Gentlemen to a non-plus, who at length choose rather to speak Nonsense, than nothing at all. Some say then he came in at the Window, others at the Chimney, another at the Key-hole: but above all, commend me to a Learned Doctor, who being asked how it was possible for Christ to enter into the Room, the doors locked, unless his Body were contracted, gave this( I will not say foolish, but) impious Answer, and, as I am  told, under his hand, You know to what perfection our Picklocks are come, we must give a little more dexterity to our saviour. Had a Jew or a Turk( dear Reader) vomited out such a blasphemous comparison, I should rather have pitied his ignorance, than blamed his malice; but for a man who professeth Christianity, who preacheth the Gospel, thus to profane it, is insupportable.  
Sir, if you know this Gentleman( as probably you may;) teach him better manners, than thus to turn his signiories on his saviour; bring him to his wits, if his frenzy be not past cure, and persuade him from explicating more Scripture, if he cannot do it without a crime. As for my Conclusion, Sir, it threatens the Doctor with no punishment here, I assure you, but in the world to come; and I fear he is resolved to try the truth of it, out of a mere punctilio. So, Sir, I leave you, only desiring you to tell me the meaning of these words, All the danger we fear for opposing that Church( in this way of Disputation) is wholly in this world. If I understand it rightly, 'tis a reflecting Proposition, and seems to squint on a Peron whom your Duty obliges you to reverence. But if your apprehension comes from your Fellow-Subjects the Papists, you may sleep securely, and never fear to rise in the morning with your throat cut.  
Sir, Farewell. Yours, W. D.   

LONDON: Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty for His household and chapel; and are to be sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in blackfriars. 1687.