CHAP. I. Of Transubstantiation.

THis barbarous word hath been the occa­sion of much Idolatry, and the cause of many Troubles in the World; and I am engaged to take notice of it in in the first place upon this occasion. A Person of Honour told me, That my History of Transubstantiation should be answered. After two years, a learned Friar sends me a Book called An Answer; wherein he chargeth our famous Church and Nation with Perjury, for abjuring Transubstan­tiation, in subscribing a Declaration set forth to that purpose, by Authority of his Majesty and the Parlia­ment; requiring of me a Reply. My Reply is, That the very first words of his Book are a notorious un­truth, as all the Nation can witness; and but little truth in the rest, save in two or three places, where the poor Infidel confesseth his Ignorance of the true [Page 4] Faith, and some other things that every School-boy knows. A full Reply I shall give him in four Asser­tions.

1. That Transubstantiation was never heard of, or known in the Church, till above 1000 years after Christ, neither name nor thing.

2. That it was never generally received by Learned Papists themselves, till the Council of Trent.

3. That their Grounds and Reasons for it, are too weak to support it, and that monstrous weight of Doubts and Difficulties that depend upon it.

4. That the Doctrine of the Church of England in this point, is most agreeable to Holy Scriptures, and to all pure Antiquity, and may be called Transmuta­tion.

I. To the first, the Frier saith, It was ever known and believed in the Church, quoad rem, though not quoad nomen: (i. e.) by certain equivalent terms; and for that cites Five Fathers, all rejected for spurious by their own Learned Men. His equi­valent Terms are, Mutatio, Transmutatio, Transe­lementatio: the two first we admit in the same sense that the Fathers used them; the last is a change, Etiam ad materiam primam, saith a famous School­man, and will not serve his turn. There be other terms used by the Fathers, that will do him as little good; but I shall take no notice of more than he sends me.

Anno Christi 420.] About this time lived St. Au­gustine, who Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. printed at Paris, Anno 1517. saith, Those words, Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, &c. are a Figure; and [Page 5] a little before hath these words, Literam sequi, & signa pro rebus quae his significantur, accipere, servilis est infirmitatis. This I am sure of, let the Frier make the best construction of it he can, St. Augustine was a famous Bishop, sate in several Councils, and was President of some himself, and must needs know the Catholick sense of the Church at that time, better than our Frier.

Anno 850.] About this time lived Bertram a fa­mous Presbyter, who in his Book De Corp. & Sang. Christi, saith, That according to their substance the Bread and Wine remain in the Sacrament, after Con­secration. The bold Frier calls this an Impertinency, when the whole University of Doway, in their censure of it, could neither deny the Book, nor answer it.

Anno 1057.] About this time lived Berengarius, Archdeacon of Anjou, who denied Transubstantia­tion. Pope Nicholas 2. Concil. Lateran. 2. made him recant and make this publick Confession, That the very Body and Blood of Christ, in the Sacrament, was truely and sensually broken and bruised in pieces with the teeth of the Faithful; and this Confession the Pope and Council allowed for Catholick. Our bold Friar saith it is false; I shall prove him a Liar presently. For this Confession is recorded by Lom­bard. l. 4. dist. 12. D. and De Conser. dist. 2. Ca. Ego Berengarius. And their own Carranza testifies, That the Pope did force and compel him to it: And that it was allowed for Catholick by Pope and Council, appears clearly; because Lanfranc of Can­terbury, who sate in that Council, sharply rebukes Berengarius for recanting that Confession, as after­wards he did. This Confession was as near the [Page 6] Capernaites as could well be. But where is now our bold Friars Catholick sense of the Church for Tran­substantiation? Here is no appearance of it, name or thing, according to the Friars own terms.

Anno 1150.] About this time lived Peter Lombard, Bishop of Paris, the likeliest man alive to know the Catholic sense of the Church; because he made it his study and business to search the Fathers, and col­lect Sentences out of their Writings; and yet he saith ( l. 4. dist. 11. A) Si autem quaeritur, &c. If it be demanded, what manner of Conversion is in the Sacrament, or of what kind, Definire non suffi­cio: I am not able (saith he) to determine. We ac­knowledg a Conversion as well as they; but if Lombard, in all his reading, could not learn what manner of Conversion it was; then it may be the same that we allow, and the Fathers understood no other.

II. My second Assertion is, That Transubstantia­tion was never generally received by Learned Papists themselves, till the Council of Trent. For their most eminent School-men (some of them Cardinals) say, That they receive it out of reverence to the Church, because she hath so decreed; but otherwise in their own judgment, rather approve that Opinion which saith, That the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the Sacrament, as most agreeable to holy Scripture and right Reason; and that Transubstantiation was a rash Opinion, having no ground in Scripture. This was the more common Opinion of the Schoolmen for above 200 years. The Friar saith, I wrong the Doctors, and will prove it; I know not when. But let him unmask himself, that I may see the right [Page 7] face, and then I shall return him his own challenge, and let him put it to trial when he dares.

III. My third Assertion is, That their own Rea­sons or Grounds for Transubstantiation, are too weak to support it, and the monstrous weight of Doubts and Difficulties that depend upon it. Their general ground is the power and truth of Christ, God Almighty, who made all the world by his word; hence they infer Possibility, Verity, Necessity. The Answer is, that an Argument from the Creation, is but à particulari ad particulare, and holds not; nor à posse ad esse, from Possibility to Verity: as to say, It may be so, therefore it is so; or, God can do this and that, therefore he doth it, or it is done; all such Arguments are inconsequent, irrational, and ridiculous. An Argument may well follow from the Will of God to his Power, but not from his Power to his Will. Particular Reasons or Grounds they have.

1. The Time when Christ spake the words; a time (say they) when all Figures were ended; but that is apparently false: for there is a plain Figure in the Cup, which they neither deny nor can avoid.

2. Some argue thus; The Bread which Christ gave in his last Supper, came down from Heaven; But Bakers bread came not down from Heaven; therefore he gave not Bakers bread, but the substance of his own Body. It is retorted thus; The substance of Christ his natural Body was taken of the B. Virgin, and came not down from Heaven: But the bread which Christ gave came down from Heaven: Therefore the Bread which Christ gave, was not the substance of his natural Body. Considering the weakness of [Page 8] their Argument, and inconvenience of the retort, they fly to other grounds; as

3. To Ubiquity, through Personal Ʋnion of both Natures: But this overthrows the grounds of their own assertion. For as they handle the matter, their Ʋbiquity is not ubique, (good Mr. Frier.) But the direct answer is this; Although both Natures are united in one Person, yet the essential properties of either are reserved to each nature, and not communi­cated. So that as Christ God-man died, but not the Godhead; so also Christ God-man is every where, but not the Manhood. That follows in Concreto, which does not follow in Abstracto.

4. Another ground for Corporal Presence, is our Incorporation into Christ, Ephes. 5.30. We are Members of his Body, flesh and bones: and 1 Co­rinth. 10.16. The breaking of bread is the commu­nion of the Body of Christ. By corporal presence. But it is Communio, not Commixtio, as their own Learned say; and Communio effectivè operans, not needing Corporal presence, but only the presence of a Supernatural, Sacramental Grace, Power, and Ver­tue from his Body. Our Saviour's words are plain to this purpose, Joh. 6.35. He that believeth in me, shall never thirst, never hunger, but be satisfied with my body and blood by Faith in believing. And (ver. 56.) He that eateth my flesh, &c. dwelleth in me, and I in him: What manner of dwelling it is, the Apostle tells you, Ephes. 5.17. Christ dwells in our hearts by Faith. And sure the Apostle knew the minde of Christ better than all the Friers in the world.

5. They have another Argument, From the long [Page 9] continuance of their Doctrine in the Church, ever since the Apostles time. It hath been disproved al­ready, and proved, That the Church in all Ages taught the contrary, till a few years before our age. Another Argument they have from the promise of Christ, To keep his Church from errour. The pro­mise is true, and holds good; but their Argument so vain, that I will not spend Paper about it.

Now the Doubts, Difficulties, and Absurdities that accompany Transubstantiation, are, Locatum sine loco; Quantum sine quantitate, &c. In a place, possessing no place; a body without quantity, or other acci­dents; and accidents subsisting of themselves, with­out a body or subject. Fraction, or breaking in the Sacrament, and yet nothing broken, but only in shew or appearance. And the Apostle calls it breaking of Bread, because it seems so to the eye. If there be any Jugglers in the world, these are plain Jugglers, who cast a mist of senseless words before mens eyes, to make them believe they see that, which is not. The Frier professeth to keep close to our Saviour's words; but where then doth our Sa­viour say, This is my spiritualized Body; or, This is a Spirit? Or, This is my body under the species of bread? Or where doth St. Paul say, The species of bread which we break? &c. The Frier may be ashamed of these shifts. I desire the Reader to take notice of Three things.

1. That Species, a word used by the Fathers, is taken by them for substance of bread, and is com­monly taken so at this day, for substance, especially by Physicians.

2. To Consecrate never signified to Transubstan­tiate, [Page 10] but only to dedicate a common thing to a sacred use.

3. It is an usual manner of Speech in Scripture, when it speaks of Sacraments, to call the Sign by the name of the thing signified.

IV. My Fourth and last Assertion is, That the Doctrine of the Sacrament held by the Church of England, is most agreeable to Holy Scripture and to all pure Antiquity. We may call it Transmutation, a word found often in old Writers, and alloweth a change great and marvellous, not in substance, but in Vertue, Power and Operation. There must be a wonderful Change, else there could not follow such a powerful Operation: But this change is not in substance, for that remains still unchanged. For proof whereof, I refer the Frier to the usual Argu­ment of the Fathers against the Eutychian Hereticks, and from thence downward to all Learned Writers, even their own best Doctors; let him search and see. We acknowledge, that the very Body and Bloud of Christ are in the Sacrament, truely received, truely eaten, &c. We contend not about the matter, but the manner; we receive the very Body of Christ by Faith, in a Spiritual divine manner. The Frier promiseth to give my little History another broad side; but to save a labour, he fairly yields the cause, ( pag. 10. of his Book) in these words: His natural Body to eat in a spiritual divine manner; and ( pag. 9.) His true body existing in a spirtual divine manner; and so I hope we shall agree at last.

CHAP. II. Of Consubstantiation.

THis Opinion also hath been the occasion of much Superstition, and cause of much Trouble, especially in Germany, upon this occasion. Zuinglius observing how near the Decree of Pope Nicholas, and his Council of Lateran, drew to the Capernaites; he withdrew as much to the other side, shewing his Arguments to one Carolostadius. Carolostadius ut­tered the same in his own name at Wittenberg and other places, allowing less than Zuinglius did, no­thing but Bread and Wine, with bare figure and signification of Christ's Death. He offered a De­fence of his opinion against Luther; but Luther drew him so far from his grounds of bare figure, that he was ashamed of his attempt, and recanted his, Er­rour. Luther made the Question publick, and al­lowed the corporal presence of Christ's Body and Blood, joyntly and together with the Bread and Wine, calling it Consubstantiation. Oecolampadius, and at last Zuinglius, oppose against Luther at Zurich; and this Contention continued very sharp between them and their Co-partners above fourty years. At last the Reformed Ministers of France, in their Synod at Charenton, 1631. took this Doctrine of Consub­stantiation into consideration; and conceiving there was no great venome in it, by their publick Act they received the Lutherans into their Commu­nion. [Page 12] God send Peace and Truth, Unity in Ve­rity.

CHAP. III. Of Roman Catholicks.

THis glorious Title makes a great gap in our Nation, and many thousands are dazled and drawn away with the splendour of it, meerly for want of a right understanding. For this title doth no way belong to those that appropriate the same to themselves, but most properly to Protestants, especially of the Church of England. For St. Paul was the first Founder of the Church at Rome, where he planted the Christian Faith, once famous all the world over, Rom. 1.8. Spoken of throughout the world, and that was Catholick enough. Now this very same Catholick Faith that St. Paul taught the Ro­mans, we of the Church of England teach and pro­fess to a syllable; let St. Paul himself in all his holy Epistles be our Judge: And therefore we are the true Roman Catholicks, and not they that have de­serted the true Roman Faith. The common talk of St. Peters Chair at Rome, where they say he sate as Bishop twenty five years, are but vain words with­out proof. For what should St. Peter's Chair do in St. Paul's Church, planted by him? to whom was committed the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, as the Gospel of the Circumcision was unto Peter, Galat. 2. and thereupon they were agreed; and vers. 9. St. Pe­ter [Page 13] gave St. Paul the right hand of fellowship, that he should go to the Gentiles. Now if St. Peter set his Chair at Rome, it was contrary to his own cove­nant or agreement. Or (2.) If St. Peter's Headship is so necessary a point of the Faith, for the good of the universal Church, sure our Saviour would have spoken of it in more solemn plain words. Or, (3.) St. Paul in his Salutations or Greetings sent to the Saints at Rome, would surely have remembred the chief Pastor, if there had been any such; or if St. Peter had been the man. Or, (4.) If St. Peter was ordained Universal Pastor and Head of the Church, St. Paul did not well to take upon him the care of all the Churches, 2 Cor. 11.28. when that belongs to the chief Pastour; except they will say, that St. Paul was St. Peter's Curate. However, it is not the Chair, but the Doctrine; nor a succession of persons, but truth of Doctrine, that makes a true Church. People are then much mistaken, to call Popery the old Reli­gion, when the Protestant Religion is the most an­tient, clearly founded in Holy Scripture; and the other but new, not to be found in Holy Scripture, nor in any Record of pure Antiquity. So that we have no difference with the true Church of Rome, but with a prevailing Party or Faction, called in our Laws, not Roman Catholicks, but Popish Recu­sants.

CHAP. IV. Of Tradition.

TRadition is a Monster that lives meerly by Air. Our learned Frier calls it, Ʋncontrollable Tradition. If he takes it for the manner of delivery, called Oral Tradition; or for the matter delivered, called, Ʋnwritten Verities; they are both control­lable, and controlled by daily Experience, and found guilty of falshood. The Council of Trent it self hath overthrown Tradition, with their too much zeal to establish it: For by joyning it with Holy Scri­pture, instead of building it up, they cast it down; because Tradition is no more able to stand with Ho­ly Scripture, than Dagon before the Ark of God. Hereof a learned Carmelite, present in that Council, gave them warning; advising them to consider first, Whether the Christian Doctrine hath two parts, one written by the Will of God, the other forbidden to be written, but only to be taught by word of mouth: or whether in the whole body of Christian Doctrine, it happened accidentally, that all being taught, some part of it hath not been committed to writing. It is (said he) that in the Old Testament God shewed a necessity of writing it, and therefore writ the Deca­logue with his own finger, and laid it up in the Ark, to be kept. In the New, as the Holy Ghost did di­rect the Apostles to write and preach the Truth, so he did not forbid them to write any thing, and hold [Page 15] it in a Mystery, as in some false Religions they do. For then how were the Apostles Successours able to write that, which was forbidden of God? And if it happened accidentally, that derogates from the Pro­vidence of God, in directing the Apostles to com­pose the New Testament. And therefore he thought it not fit to make it an Article of competition against the Holy Scriptures. Thus reasoned the Learned Carmelite, to whom the Council gave no other but a check, by the mouth of Cardinal Pool. But we may reason thus: If Holy Scriptures, the same that we receive as well as they, be the Word of God, as that Council hath decreed, then they are of Divine Authority and Credit sufficient to be believed for themselves, and whatsoever they say is divine truth; and if so, then Tradition is clearly cast out, as use­less or needless. For Holy Scriptures say of them­selves, that they are sufficient and most certain: Joh. 20.30, 31. Jesus did many more things, but these are written that we may believe, and believing may have life through him. The written Word is sufficient of it self, Luc. 1.3, 4. It seemed good to write unto thee, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou art instructed. For Scripta manent, and are a certain Rule; when In­structions by word of mouth vanish, or in time are mistaken. And it is incredible to imagine, that stories for 1600 years, passing through so many mouths of men, of various Judgments, Tempers, or Affections, &c. should not be altered, or corrupted; when we see it is so, by daily experience, in very short time. Tradition now is quite out of doors, cast out by the Word of God; which will not [Page 16] endure the fellowship of such an Idol, and Teacher of Lies. And if this main Pillar fail, their whole Religion falls to the ground.

CHAP. V. Of the Council of Trent.

I Had not spoken of this famous Council, but that the Frier provokes me to it with his learned fol­lies. I question not their great wisdome and learn­ing; I believe many of them were devout holy men in their mistaken way; but most of them, I believe, more politick than pious, seeking their own more than the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The Protestants have many Objections against this Council; the two principal, the Actions of the Council it self, and some Concessions of R. H. in his Considerations up­on that Council, will make good, though Soane, or Padre Paul had never writ a word.

CHAP. VI. Of the Church of England.

THe Frier tells me, that the Church of England, meaning (saith he) the Prelatical Protestants, is no universal, but a particular Sect; no Church or Sect in the world agreeing or communicating with [Page 17] it. No, Mr. Frier? The Harmony of Confessions tells you what you are; and so do many other Wri­tings between us and all the Reformed Churches, full of Kindness, Unity and Love, yea between our Doctors and some of yours; there were many pas­sages of love and kindness pass'd between your Bel­larmine and our learned Whitaker, whom the Car­dinal had in great esteem for his great Learning: as every valiant man loves a man of valour, though his enemy. But it hath been long observed, that our English Jesuits, Priests, &c. are more bitter enemies to our Church, than any Strangers of forreign Parts; as Bishop Bramhall and others, by their own rela­tion found true by experience, when they were in France, during our late Troubles; they found Stran­gers civil and kind, our own very uncivil: here­upon I conclude our Frier is an Englishman, by his uncivil language.

But for a full Reply I say, That the Church of Christ is Universal or Particular; Universal absolute, or respective: Absolutely considered, it is the whole company of Believers, of all times and places, elect of God to Salvation in Jesus Christ, called in Scri­pture, The Spouse of Christ, Houshold of God, &c. In this Church there is no Condemnation, as out of it no Salvation. Or, the Catholick Church is taken respective, in respect of Men, Places, Times, Doctrine, and particular Congregations. Now though the Church of England be a particular Church, part of the universal, and called, The Church of England, from the place where it is seated; and the Church of Rome was no more at the best: yet the Church of [Page 18] England is Catholick in respect of her Doctrine, agreeing with all true Churches, yea with the true Church of Rome it self. And in this respect the Church of Rome (now so called) is not Catholick, because she is fallen from the true, antient, Catho­lick Faith. I have done now with our Friers scan­dalous Libel, charging our Nation with Perjury, which all the Friers in the world will never be able to prove.

CHAP. VII. Of Dissenters in Opinion.

OUr Church is at Unity in it self; and hath no differences, but such as our Adversaries them­selves scatter and cherish about in corners, with feigned words deceiving the hearts of the simple. The most considerable party of Dissenters is not so far gone, but may easily be reconciled. I know no difference between us, but two words of one signi­fication, and one word plainly mistaken. I should be sorry to grieve the hearts of any that are truely Godly, and have no other designe but to keep a good Conscience, and to live in the fear of God. I desire them in love to consider the distracted con­dition of their Native Countrey, and not stand upon terms, that have no ground in Scripture, whereto the Covenant doth no way oblige them, and whereof the Learned Reformed of Forreign Churches are quite weary, as they told our Divines at Dort. [Page 19] Other Dissenters our Adversaries have sent, as Pio­niers to undermine us. The most troublesome are Quakers, a poor deluded people; but if they would speak directly to some few Questions, I believe a short Answer would stop their mouths.

CHAP. VIII. Of Dissenters in Life and Manners.

SUch are all Drunkards, Blasphemers, Liers, &c. And these make the greatest breach in the Na­tion of all the rest. I was told once, that all I could say, was, that they drew the Judgments of God down upon the Nation. I never thought to hear such an answer from the mouth of a Christian. But these lewd Livers are the greatest Schismaticks; they are a scandal to our Church; a shame to our Reli­gion; a reproach to our Nation; bring contempt upon our good Laws and Government. Specially the beastly Sin of Drunkenness ruines many a hope­ful Youth, brings them to Beggery or worse; and makes all that use it, unserviceable and unfit for pu­blick Employment. One good Law, such as our Honourable Parliament hath given an excellent pat­tern of already, would remedy all. Let the bleeding condition of our Neighbours make us beware, be­fore it be too late; Repent of our Sins, lest our Land mourn too, and the people languish for all their Abominations.

[Page 20]Psalm 50.22. Consider this, ye that forget God, lest he tear you in pieces, and there be none to de­liver.