Reason and religion, or, The certain rule of faith where the infallibility of the Roman Catholick Church is asserted, against atheists, heathens, Jewes, Turks, and all sectaries : with a refutation of Mr. Stillingfleets many gross errours / by E.W.

CHAP. XI.

The Protestant takes away the only means to know true Religion by. His proofs, whether He defend's Pro∣testancy or impugn's Catholick Doctrin, are vnreduci∣ble to Principles, and neuer goe beyond the weaknes of his own vnproued Assertion. Meer glosses support all He saith, which is euidenced by à brief han∣dling one Controuersy, touching the B. Sacrament. Theodoret wrong'd by Sectaries, cleared. His Doctrin is most Catholick.

1. NOte first. If God as I said aboue, once established true Religion among Christians, He made it so discernable from all false sects, that it may be found out by prudent reason. Omni literaturâ notius saith Tertull. lib. 1. de Testimonio animae. Its more known then any other learning. For to say on the one side, That an infinite wisdom hath planted true Religion in the

world, which shall not perish, and on the other, to assert it cannot be proued or found out, is first to cast à blemish on Prouidence, and next to free all from the obligation of embracing it, because none can be obliged to embrace that which cannot be known by reason, or rational arguments. Note. 2. The Doctrin of Christ which essentially constitutes true Religion, stand's most firm vpon indubi∣table Principles appliable to the Belieuers reason. If therefore à Want be found of such proofs, and doubts arise, whether Christ's Doctrin be taught or no; None can by doubtful or ambiguous Principles only, absolutly say. This is Christs Doctrin, and Conse∣quently the proofs of true Religion answer to the weightines of the matter, that is, they are clear, conuincing, and exclude à possibility of reasonable doubting. Thus much supposed.

2. I say first. who euer endeauour's to shew by arguments what Tenents of Religion now held amongst Christians are pure and Orthodox (when the matter is of Controuersy,) and cannot bring his proofs to à Clearer Principle, then the particular assertion is which should be proued, argues improbably. The Protestant in all the discussed matters of Religion doth so, that is, he neuer goes beyond the strength of his own weak assertion, but eludes all by talk wholly as dark and weightles as the very Assertion is, which should be proued; therefore he Argues improbably.

3. To proue the Minor proposition wherein the difficulty lies. Take à veiw of all our Protestant Tenents as they differ from Catholick Doctrin, or Constitute this new reformed Religion and ask, what Protestant dare appear and venture to proue, That Faith only iustifies: The like I say of his other negatiue Articles, Of no real Presence, of no Inuocation of Saints of no Sacrifice of the Mass. &c. I absolutly affirm, He cannot make one of these Articles good by any vndoubted Principle, or establish any of them by à proof which is clearer, than that dark article is, which should be proued. One reason is. These Doctrins opposite to the Latin and Greek Church also, are not euidently known as truths by the light of nature, or by any receiued Principle grounded on Reuelation. No ancient Church reputed Orthodox held them 7. hundred years

agone, and Consequently no vniuersal tradition is for them. The only difficulty is, whether Holy Scripture or the Fathers gene∣rally patronize such Doctrins? And to fauour Sectaries all that's possible, we will here moue no doubt of the letter of their Bible, but withall assure them, it will be impossible to draw such new learning out of that Book, and the impossibility will be thus mani∣fested. As long as these men cannot proue their new Doctrin to be transmitted to them from as good and assured authority as their book of Scripture is transmitted (but vpon less sure grounds, or less assured tradition) so long their doctrin is naught and stands vnprincipled. But this is so, as we shall see presently. And you may by the way note here the difference between the Catholick and Protestant. The first, proues euery particular Tenet of his Faith by as sure à Principle as he proues his Bible to be Diuine, (the Church assures him of both) but the Sectary euer fall's short in this and cannot giue you so strong à proof for his particular Do∣ctrin, as he doth for the very letter of his book, which he sup∣poses teaches that Doctrin.

4. But let vs come to the point which chiefly vrgeth, and take one particular Controuersy (we cannot insist on all) and ask the Protestant. How he proues that the real presence of Christs sacred body (as Catholicks assert) is not expressed in the literal sense of those words. This is my body. His negatiue assertion most euidently is not there in plain terms. We therefore vrge him to make it good by à proof that's clear or more conuincing than his own dark and yet vnproued Negatiue is. And is he not obliged think yee to produce à strong proof indeed, when he hath so many powerful Aduersaries to contrast with? 1. The clear words of Christ now alleged 2. A long Catalogue of most ancient Fathers vsually cited by Authors opposite to him. 3. The Authority of the Greek and Latin Church, for both Churches mantain the real substantial presEnce to this day. 4. The express Doctrin of general Councils, which define our Doctrin positiuely, and condemn the figuratiue presence of Sectaries 5. Euident Miracles wrought in confirmation of the Mystery, related by authors of

most indubitable credit. These are no slight grounds of our Do∣ctrin. Let vs see by what strong receiued Principle the Sectary endeauour's to weaken them, or (which is immediatly to my pur∣pose) proues his new negatiue Position. Has he the express letter of Scripture for his Negatiue: Christ is not substantially present in the Eu∣charist? Not one word in the whole Bible is like it, much contrary. Doth the sense of Scripture after all places are compared together fauour him? No. What euer sense he drawes from thence see∣mingly to his purpose, will be as obscure and remote from the nature of à proof or any known Principle, as his own improbable position is, and therefore most vnfit to perswade it. Has he as vniuersal Tra∣dition or the vnanimous consent of Fathers for his negatiue, (or for that sense he would force out of Scripture), as he and we haue for the letter of the Text now cited? Nothing at all. And to show you how iustly I propose this question, call to mind what Mr: Stilling: exact's of his Aduersary Part. 1. c. 7. P. 216. If I should, saith he, once see you proue the infallibility of your Church, the Popes supremacy, Inuocation of Saints &c. by as vnquestionable and vniuersal tradition as that is whereby we receiue the Scriptures, I would extoll you for the only person that euer did any thing considerable on your side. Thus he speakes after this precaution giuen. Think not to fob vs off, with the Tradition of your Church in stead of the Catho∣lik, with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers, instead of the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles times. Your own words Mr: Stilling: shall here condemn you. The Question is whether your Negatiue, Christ is not really present in the Eucharist, as Catholiks affirm, be Orthodox Doctrin? We exact as rigid à proof from you, as you demand of vs, but fob vs not off with your own talk (Tradition you haue none) nor with the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers, but giue vs the vniuersal consent of the Church since the Apostles time, as clear for your negatiue, as you demand of vs for the articles now mentioned; Or if this be too much, giue vs but only the indu∣bitable sentiment of any Church, reputed Orthodox, four or fiue hundred years past for this your sense and assertion, and I will

applaud you as à most singular person. But this you shall doe, when you haue turned all faith out of the world; that is neuer. I say therefore you haue no more but the ambiguous Testimonies of two or three Fathers (nay you haue not so much) for this Nega∣tiue Doctrin; which vpon that account proue nothing, because they are as dark for your sence, as the Doctrin is, which you would proue by them.

5. For example. You may allege some passages out of S. Au∣stin, chiefly that contra Adimant. C. 12. Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body when he gaue à sign of his body. The obuious sense whereof without torturing the Text, is thus. Our Lord gaue vnto his Disciples the Consecrated species and accidents of bread, which were à sign of his Body there contained, and doubted not to say, that what he gaue them vnder those accidents, was really his body. Let now any one probably inferr, that his sacred body was not then present vnder the accidents of bread, because S. Austin saith those accidents were à sign of his body not absent, for à sign or figure implies not the absence of the thing signified by it. Well, but grant contrary to truth all you can wish, The words at most are ambiguous, and therefore no fit Principle to ground an article of faith, as is now noted. You may next allege that known Testimony in Theodorets Dialogues. The Mystical signes after the sanctification recede not from their nature, but remain in their first substance, figure and form; are seen and touched as before. I answer, Theoderet plainly speaks of the Mystical signes which are seen and touched, not of the inward substance of bread and wine, which are no immediate obiect of our senses, those sig∣nes recede not from their nature, but remain in their form and fi∣gure as before; and t'is Catholick Doctrin whereof more presently. But grant the vtmost. The words are only dubious and therefore insufficient to assure vs of an article of Faith, when contrary to the receiued Doctrin of the present Church. I assert yet more. Though any Father should say, That the substance and nature of bread and wine cease not to bee, there is nothing yet concluded against vs, for by these words substance or nature, the outward

Massinesse, or Corpulency of bread and wine may be well vnderstood, which as Theoderet saies remain. The reason is. In ordinary Speech we often giue to qualities which flow from the essence or nature of à thing the very name of the thing it self. Thus we say an excessiue heat is fire, à Massy heauiness is lead, or à stone, wheras heat and heauiness in common philosophy, are only natural qualities or properties distinct from each substance, respectiuely. Such locutions, were they found, are at most dubious, but we stand in no need of any far-fetch't glosses.

6. Lastly Tertullians speech lib. 4. contra Marcio: cap. 39. ex Cap. 21. Lucae contain's no difficulty. Christ taking bread into his hands and distributing it to his Disciples made the same his body, saying this is my Body; That is, à figure of my body. Obserue the words. Made the same his body, and all is clear? What did he make so? I answer. That bread which in the old Testament was à figure of his body (according to the words of the Prophet. Mittamus lignum in panem eius. Let vs put wood into his bread, that is à Cross into his body) he makes now in the new law most truely and really his body. Whoeuer read's Tertullian, will find this to bee the genuine sense of his whole Discourse in the place cited, where first he ieer's Marcion. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis vt panis Cru∣cifigeretur, Then saies, Marcion vnderstand's not, that bread in the old Testament was à figure of Christ's body, as the Prophet Ierimie speak's. Conijciamus lignum in panem eius, scilicet, (They are Ter∣tullian's own words) Crucem in Corpus eius. That is à Cross into his body. See Pamelius his learned notes vpon this passage, chiefly. n. 662. and. 667. and you will easily free Tertullian from all ambiguity in Speech. There are yet other Authorities much wea∣ker produced by Sectaries, but these now quoted seem sufficient for my chief aime, whereof more presently. In the interim I ex∣pect from these men à clamorous reply.

7. They will certainly tell vs the sense and explication now giuen to these Fathers are no more but meer vnproued guesses, or thoughts of our fancy. I might first answer. This sense imme∣diatly flowes from the plain words which we admit, according to

the rigid grammatical signification of euery particular sentence. But let vs waue this, and ask, whether the contrary sense of sectaries be any more but meerly their vnproued glosses, or thoughts of fancy? I say they are so, and consequently as dark, and wholly obscure, as that Negatiue Proposition is, which should be proued by them. They storm, and say the sense is clear for them, I stifly deny it, and assert the conttary. They perhaps will vrge me to proue my sense; I vrge them to proue theirs, which cannot be done by the Fathers own words without à surer Principle; For, you see, the words oc∣casion the quarrel, but that which is the cause of our dissentions can neuer end them, or bring vs to any acquiescency, without à further Principle. And thus we stand Andabatarum more, winking and fighting. The one saies. Yea, The other. No. without fruit or further progress, and are yet farr from ending diffi∣culties.

8. Now here is that which I would haue all to reflect on, for it is of mighty importance, viz. That controuersies between the Catholick and à sectary, cannot but be an endles work, if both endeauour to decide them by Principles, and vary as much about the sense of those Principles, (which are supposed to end the Dis∣pute) as we do about the very matter in question. This is euer so, whilst the sectary reiect's an infallible Church or her vniuer∣sal Tradition. Obserue well: The matter now in question is, Whether Christ be really present in the blessed Sacrament? We allege his own Sacred words. The Sectary saies we mistake the sense, and consequently will not haue the difficulty decided that way. To know the Truth, both of vs examin all the other passa∣ges in Scripture relating to the Mystery, both read the originals, and the different versions, both compare Text and text together, nothing is yet ended; Still we stand at variance about the sense, which should decide matters between vs. Next we read the Holy Fathers (for our Sectaries like not Tradition) they produce their Testimonies; we interpret. We produce ours; They also inter∣pret. Obserue well I say. Are we not as much at variance about the sense of these Fathers, which are supposed à Principle to end

our debates, as about the very meaning of Gods word? And doth not the matter in question still remain vndecided? Most euidently yes. Therefore, vnless some other means be afforded whereby we may come more easily to the knowledge and belief of the reuealed truth in this Mystery, (may Sectaries glosses haue place) all are cast into à labyrinth of seeking, without hope of finding what God will haue vs to belieue. In à word the plain truth is thus.

9. Sectaries will haue vs to dispute of Religion, but on such Terms as shall be sure neuer to end one difficulty. That is, they will haue vs to reason about matters of highest consequence, and with it destroy the best ground of all reasoning. I say therefore. If Religion were to be proued by Scripture only (add to Scripture the authorities of Fathers) when euery one makes that sense of scriptu∣re orthodox, which he conceiues to be so; Religion ere this day had been long since destroyed. For the Arian would haue his sense passe for truth, The Pelagian his, The Monothelite his, The Protestant his. All these different senses admitted, destroy the very Essentials of Christian Religion. And for this reason I would fain learn of any knowing man, What that owned Principle is, whereby the Sectary proues the sense he giues of Scripture to be more certainly à reuealed Truth, than that glosse is which either Arian or Pelagian forceth out of the very book which Protestants read? I assert boldly, they are all alike: Guesses and meer fancies guide them, and nothing els. The Arians sense is not clear, no more is the Protestants: The Arian has no vniuersal Tradition for his sense, no more hath the Protestant. The Arian has no vniuersal consent of Fathers, no more has the Protestant. The Arian has no Church euer reputed Orthodox which owned his sense, no more hath the Protestant. Now if the Protestant recurr to the Primiti∣ue Church, The Arian will go higher to the very Apostles preaching, and auouch that his sense was taught by those first Masters of the Gospel. I say it once more, they are all alike, there is no difference between them. The Arians gloss is as good as the Protestants, and the Protestants wholly as bad as the Arians▪

10. Hence I say. 2. The Protestant cannot aduance any thing like à proof in behalf of his own new opinions, and he is as farr from Principles, when he opposes Catholick Doctrin. You haue the reason giuen already. No proof, less sure than the true sense of Scripture, taught and deliuered by à Church confessedly ortho∣dox. No proof, less firm than that Churche's authority and her receiued Tradition, can indubitably ascertain any of Christ's Sacred Doctrin. But it is euident Protestants want such proofs, when they either plead for their own opinions, or impugn Catholik Doctrin, And to make good what I say, I appeal to their own writings and ask euery iudicious Reader, whether he euer yet heard Protestant whilst he asserts no Transubstantiation, (for example) No Sacrifice of the Mass no Inuocation of Saints, say plainly and positiuely vpon à solid ground: Such an ancient Church reputed Orthodox con∣fessedly denied Transubstantiation, Inuocation of saints, the Sacrifice of the Altar &c? Such à passage of Scripture sensed and interpre∣ted by that Orthodox Church, or general consent of Fathers agreeing with known Scripture and Church Doctrin, decried these Catholick Tenets, as we Sectaries do now? Has euer Protestant I say, gone thus plainly to work? No God knowes. I'le highly extoll the man that shall offer at it. What then is their strain of writing. All à long à meer cheat. They either argue negati∣uely. We find not, forsooth, Such Doctrins in antiquity (which is false) and, though true, t'is to no purpose; Or, they cite you two or three ambiguous Testimonies of the Fathers, gloss, and sense them as they please, and then cry victory. Thus Mr: Stil∣••ingfleet proceed's as you shall see presently. I say, No such mat∣••er. An ambiguous Testimony of à Father glossed or sensed by ••ou, is wholly insufficient to ground faith vpon, or to assert ab∣••lutely: This is Christs Doctrin, without an ancient Orthodox Church, which indubitably maintaine'd the Position and that ••nse you would draw from à Father. And mark well what I say, ••or we shall afterwards end all controuersies by it. In the mean ••me who is there so far from reason, that can perswade himselfe, ••t I or any ought to reiect what my Church teaches, because à

Sectary offer's to draw some few Fathers to à new sense which no Orthodox Church euer heard of? When all know, or should know, that no priuate mans opinion, no doubtful Text, much lesse Sectaries glosses added to an ambiguous sentence, can assure me what Christ's Doctrin is, which, as I said, euer stand's firm vpon vndubitable Principles, or à Belieuer ought not to own it as Doctrin truely reuealed.

11. But before I press this point further, and shew vpon what certain Principle the Catholick relies, when the Scriptures sense (the like is of the Fathers) is debated, I must needs entertain you à little (because it much auail's to my present purpose) with à few known Authorities of Fathers which either conuince our Catho∣lick Doctrin of Christs real Presence in the Eucharist, or (we may boldly say) no truth was euer established by those great lights of the Church. I say only à few: for it is not my intent to collect half of what is vsually quoted by Catholick Authors, my chief ayme being thus much at present, to make this truth manifest. That as long as Sectaries iarr with vs about the sense of Fathers and only deliuer opinatiuely their contrary Sentiments, so long they do no more, but without fruit beat the aire and dispatch no work. Recourse therefore must be had to à clearer Principle, whereof we shall af∣terward treat at large. Now as I promised one Authority is to be examined.

Theoderets Testimony alleged aboue, Contains most Catholick Doctrin.

12. Whilst I was in hand with this Chapter à Gentleman •• our Nation pleased to tell me of à late little book, called to h•• remembtance, The Rule of Faith, wherein one passage of Theoder•• is much vrged and thought vnanswerable. After some Discourse I shewed him my notes in the other Treatise. Disc. 4. C. 7. n. •• wherevnto He replied modestly, Surely Theoderet saies mor•• who either must suppose the very inward substance of bread ••

changed at all, or his Conference with the Eutichian Heretick be∣comes forcelesse, and this the little book presseth most. Sr, said I. It seem's very strange, that your late book bring's again to light such stale obiections, long since answered by one (to say nothing of many others) of our own Nation, the learned Bre∣reley. Please to read with me Theoderet's own words first, and Brereley afterward. We turned to Theoderet, Paris Print 1642. Tom. 4. Dialog: 2. called Inconfusus Dialogus, and began with the pag. 84. Next I produced Brereley of the Liturgie of the Mass Colain Print 1620. dedicated to our late Soueraign Charles the first, then Prince of wales. Tract. 2. Sect. 8. P. 208. and sect: 11. page chiefly. 252. Hauing perused both, the Gentleman wondred his little book passed ouer so slightly the main thing considerable in this Dialogue, and that no word of answer was returned to the obseruations of Mr. Brereley, adding, it would do well to make the truth à little better known, which is my intent at present.

13. First, it cannot be doubted, but that the Eutychian Heretick concealed vnder the name of Eranistes, held our Lords whole Sacred body after his Ascension changed into his Diuinity. Contrariwise, Theoderet called, Orthodoxus, oppugn's the Heresy, and saith, Christs body remain's as it was before, true humane natu∣re most glorious, and not conuerted into the Diuinity. Again, all who haue read the Dialogue know well, that the context to our present purpose is as followes. After the Orthodox had pro∣fessed his belief of the Holy Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ, Eranistes the Heretick begin's his plea. In good time has't thou mentioned these Diuine Mysteries, for from them I will shew thee, that our Lord's body is changed into an other nature. Answer the∣refore to my question? Ortho. I will answer. Eran: How call'st thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest? Ortho: I may not speak plainly, for it is likely some are present, not yet admitted to the Mysteries. Eran: Answer darkly or aenigmatically. Ortho: It is yet, when offered, that meat which is made vp of such seeds. Eran: And how do we call the other sign or Symbole? Ortho: That

is also à common name, which signifies à kind of drink, or cup. Eran: But after the Sanctification how dos't thou call them? Ortho: The body and blood of Christ. Eran: And dos't thou belieue that th•••• receiues't the body and blood of Christ. Ortho: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 So I belieue, Here vpon Eranistes infer's. As therefore the Symbols of our Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests inuoca∣tion, and after his inuocation are changed, and made other things, euen so the Lords body is changed into the Diuine substance.

14. Stay à little, Gentle Reader, and speak your thoughts freely. Is it not euident from this part of the Dialogue (the rest you shall haue presently) that both the Heretick and the Or∣thodox did here suppose the verity of Christs real presence in the sacrament, as à known Doctrin receiued in the Church? The Heretick supposed it; otherwise he had been more than sensless to haue proued his pretended Transubstantiation of Christs hu∣mane nature into the Godhead, by vrging à parity taken from that other Doctrin of the Transubstantiation of bread, into Christs body. His inference had been without life most langui∣shing, had he drawn the false Doctrin of his conceited change, from an other as false. viz. From no real change made in the bread after consecration. For how lame an inference would this haue been? Bread in the Sacrament remain's, as it was before, substan∣tially bread, only deputed to à holy vse, that is, not really change•• at all, yet from thence I will conclude, that Christs humane nature is really changed into the substance of his Diuinity. As who should say. Because bread is not substantially changed into Christs body, I will infer that the humane nature is changed into the Godhead, which is pure nonsense. And as gre•• Nonsense would it haue been, had he only supposed the extrinsid sacramental change of Protestants or from thence drawn his inferen∣ce, that Christs body was really changed into his Diuinity: For the most which can be inferred out of this sacramental chang•• only, is that Christ's humane nature admit's in like manner o•• some new extrinsecal denomination.

15. Now that Theoderet or the Orthodox supposes also the

known Doctrin of the Church in this Mystery is manifest vpon these grounds. 1. You see how he was prouoked by the Here∣tick to deny the real presence and change of bread into Christs body. After sanctification how do'st thou call them? Again. Do'st thou belieue that thou takes the body and blood of Christ &c? Ob∣serue I beseech you. Might not Theoderet thus strongly pres∣sed, haue quite ouerthrown his Aduersaries argument, had he belieued as Protestants belieue, that the inward substance of bread is not changed into Christs body? For vpon this sup∣position he should haue replied. Thou ask'st me what these things are after sanctification? I answer they are substantially bread and wine, though signes of Christs body and blood. I answer, I take not Orally the true body and blood of Christ, but bread and wine only made à Sacrament. If therefore they still remain bread, and wine as before, I acquit my self clearly, and render thy argument forcelesse, for thou cans't not infer, because I and the Church hold bread and wine, not substantially changed in the Sacrament, That Christs humane nature is really and substantially changed into the Diuinity. But Theoderet, as you hear, return's no such answer, but positiuely asserts the contrary plainly enough. They are the bo∣dy and blood of Christ. I receiue that body and blood. &c. Though he warily forbeares to express the change too significantly, be∣cause perhaps of some present, not yet admitted to the Mysteries. Again. And here is my. 2. ground. Theoderet who was an Orthodox Father, penned this Dialogue, and therefore as the lear∣ned Brereley obserues, neither could nor would haue propoun∣ded the hereticks Argument vpon the Churches then receiued Doctrin of Transubstantiation, (which we see manifestly done) had that Doctrin been then strange, vnknown, or reputed false. Much less could he haue wrote as he doth. That the Symbols after the Priest's inuocation are changed and made other things had our Secta∣ries Doctrin of no Transubstantiation been then taught by the Church and reputed true. 3. Theoderet's great circumspection was needlesse. I may not speak openly, for it is likely some are present &c. If he had belieued no other presence of Christ in the Sa∣crament,

than that, which Protestants call Sacramental: He might well without scruple in that opinion, haue declared their sense, and said openly. The Sacrament before consecration was à plain piece of bread, and so it is substantially bread afterward. Thou spea∣kest improperly Er••nistes, whilst thou supposest the Symbols changed and made other things. I tell thee, they are not changed intrinsecally, but totally remain in their inward substance as they were, only signifying Christ body and blood as they are deputed to à holy vse. Thus the Orthodox should haue both answered, and excepted against his Aduersary, had Protestant Doctrin been in those dayes owned by Christians, but he goes on in à quite different strain, as is already declared. Hence I say, this part of the Dialogue is so inuincible à proof against Protestants in behalf of the real Presence that it cannot be answered, and therefore the Centurist's with other Hereticks quoted by Brereley. pag. 111. and pag. 258. hauing charged S. Chrisostome with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation, censure Theoderet vpon the same score as one that speak's dangerously in the matter. These men it seem's, saw no great force in the later part of the Dialogue which our modern Protestants so much vrge, and followes thus.

16. When Eranistes had asserted that the Symbols by the inuocation of the Priest are changed and made other things, and from that change inferred, that our Lords body after his Ascension, was conuerted into the Diuine substance. The Orthodox Answer's. Thou art caught in the netts, thou hast wouen, For, the Mystical symbols after Sanctification go not away from their nature▪ For, they remain in their former essence, and figure, and form, and ••••y be seen and touched a•• before. But yet they are vnderstood to be those things, which they are made, and belieued and adored to be those things, as they are belieued. Thus the Latin interpreter render's Theoderet's words (you shall haue presently an other Lection) though truely to read them as you see here, after due reflection made vpon the precedent part of the Dialogue, is so fully enough to ascertain euery one of this learned Father's meaning, that I wonder any iudicious Man can scruple at it. The genuin sense is. Thou

Eranistes maintain's that the visible circumscribed body of our Sauiour was after his Ascension swallowed as it were vp, or totally changed into his Godhead. To illustrate this thy Doctrin, thou takest à proof from the Mystical signes or Symbols of the blessed Sacrament, and not only from the inward substance of bread, which thou acknowledgest changed. I tell thee thou art caught in thy own net, the parity fail's there, for the Mystical signes remain to sense as before in the same exteriour form and substance, they are seen, felt &c. Darest thou Eranistes say, Christ's sacred body retain's yet the same exteriour form it had on earth? Has it yet in Heauen the same dimensions, as these symbols haue after Consecration? Is it visible, or extended? Answer as thou pleasest. Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma for thee. Either thou maintains't that Chris'ts glorious body is now visible and extended as the Symbols of the Sacrament are, Or, contrariwise, not sensible, not seen, not ex∣tended. Grant the first: Thou denies't thy own Doctrin, and must assert that his whole glorious body is not conuerted into the Godhead. Grant the second, or say, it has not the same exte∣riour form, the same visibility and extension, Thy instance, and proofs taken from the Symbols of the Sacrament, are Eo ipso made null, and forcelesse, for these signes keep the same form as before, they are perceptible to sense, extended &c. and thus thou art both caught and conuinced.

17. By what is now said you find Theoderet's discourse most solid against the Heretick, who would needs infer, grounding himselfe vpon the change made in the Sacrament, that Christ's whole humane nature was conuerted into the Diuinity. Thus much saith Theoderet, is euidently false, for these Symbols remain in their exteriour form, vnaltered, but Chris'ts humane body with thee remain's not so, for all in it, the very exteriour is changed into the Godhead: Therefore thy proof, taken from the symbols of the Sacrament, not changed at all, is void of strength, faint, and weightlesse. Now that Theoderet speak's only of the outward symbols of the Sacrament, is manifest. First by what is noted already, where he saith we are partakers of the true body and blood

of Christ. 2. By his answer, to the Heretick, where he openly pro∣fesseth, that though these symbols are seen and handled as before, yet to the vnderstanding, and Faith, they contain the things we true∣ly belieue. That is Christ's real body and blood. And thus much He proues in the following words where he asserts, that they are to be ado∣red no otherwise than Christ's immortal body is now adored, sitting at the right hand of His Father, for in both places, as you may read in the text, the same word of Diuine honour is referred to Christ in the Sacrament, and now glorious in heauen.

18. You must here haue à word of the other Lection already hinted at which clear's all, and takes away the least shadow of à difficulty. The most eminent and learned Cardinal Perron pro∣pound's it, and proues it also absolutely the best, by six stronge Arguments Liu. 2. De L'Eucharistie Chap. 12. P. 539. First saith he There is certainly in Theoderet's Greek Text à dubious form of speaking, perhaps vsed on set purpose because of some Au∣ditors present, not yet initiated, or first instructed in these Myste∣ries. The Original words are thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. That is. The symbols remain in their former essence, and figu∣re, and form and may be seen &c. But read them thus saith the Cardinal, by à Transposition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. That is For they remain, and, i•• the form, and, in the figure of the first substance, and all difficulty ceases. For by this construction Theoderet only sayes, the acci∣dents or species of bread and wine remain, intimating nothing at all of any inward substance of bread remaining, nay, his whole context supposes the inward substances changed into Christs body.

19. If this Construction be admitted, so that the Genitiue case 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be as it is à Genitiue, and the other two follow in form of Latin ablatiues, you haue this Connatural sense. Manent in pri•••••• essentiae & formâ & figurâ. The Symbols remain in the form and figure of their first essence, which preiudices nothing the real Transmutation of bread into Christ's body, but much confirm's it. But such à

Construction, add's the learned Cardinal, or Transposition of words is not only possible, but very frequent in the Greek Lan∣guage, whereof he giues examples, and one out of Theoderet. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is. The body of our Lord of the nature. In lieu of saying. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. id, est. The body of the nature of our Lord.

20. The Cardinal maintain's the construction now giuen both as the more elegant, and most agreable to Theoderet's whole con∣text, for many sound reasons. Here is one taken from the Au∣thors very next words. But they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made, and belieued and adored. How Adored? As they are truely belieued: That is, as containing the true body and blood of Christ. For were this not really so, Christ could not be adored. For as none can adore one that meerly takes vpon him the Maiesty of à King, who is not; with an Adoration due to that Maiesty, so none can honour or adore Christ in the Eu∣charist with an honour due to Christ, when truely and really he is not present, but saith Theoderet Christ is to be really ado∣red in the Eucharist, and Consequently he is really present there.

21. For the rest I remit the Reader to C. Perron who in the following Chapters dissolues, and most clearly, what euer can be obiected against his Doctrin. To end this point, be pleased to reflect vpon this one particular. Had Theoderet said. The Symbols remain in their first essence, figure, and form, and included in that very speech, as our Aduersaries will haue the very substance of bread, He had spoken most improperly which ill beseem's so learned an Author, for vpon this supposition he speak's as incongruously as if one should say. Peter this very hour who is himselfe both Soul and body, remain's in him selfe, that is, in his Soul and body. But if you read with the Cardinal Thus. Car ils demeurent, & en lae forme, & en la sigure de la premiere sub∣stance. They remain and in the form, and in the figure, of the first substance of bread (before Consecration really formed and figured by them) the Construction is good, the sense most clear, perfect, and without exception.

22. Thus much I haue noted to satisfy the Gentleman, and hope neuer to hear Theoderet obiected hereafter against Transub∣stantiation. If I doe, I shall say an old obseruation of mine al∣waies proues true, and t'is, That the best Arguments of Sectaries, Printed and reprinted in their little books, are like old thread-bare garments quite out of fashion cast off and reiected, I mean, answe∣red ouer and ouer by Catholick Authors, yet Brusht vp, must appear as new. And this, less blamable, may pass (for they can do no better,) but methinks it is intolerable, that they bring again to light such worn-out stuff, as you see now done in this particular, and dare not inform the Reader, how often it hath been torn à pieces. Yet the worst of all remain's; Viz. That they build their faith vpon sand, one dubious Authority of à Father (if yet dubious) supports it, and seem's to these new spirits ground enough, to foment Schism, to maintain à rebellion against as ancient Church, which neuer belieued as they do.

Notes

• Proofs of true Reli∣gion, easy and Con∣uincing.
• The sectaries proofs, as dark as his Doctrin.
• One reason of our Asser∣tion.
• The differen∣ce beween the proofs of Catholiks and Prote∣stants.
• The grounds of our Ca∣tholick Te∣nets.
• The Sectary answers not to any.
• What we iustly require of Sectaries.
• S. Austin's words fauour not Sectaries.
• More of Theoderet afterward.
• Tertullians sense, most plain and easy.
• A reply of sectaries. answered.
• A reflection necessary for all that wri∣te Contro∣uersies.
• How Dispu∣tes are made endless.
• A iust paral∣lel between Arians and Protestants.
• Protestants Condemned by their own writings.
• In what manner Sectaries handle con∣trouersies.
• What is chiefly inten∣ded in Citing the Fathers.
• What Secta∣ries would force from this autho∣rity.
• Two Contra¦ry positions.
• Where the Hereticks seek's ad∣uantage.
• What the Orthodox and the Heretick belieued.
• The Here∣tick supposes à true Change in bread, accor∣ding to the Catholick Principle.
• Theoderet also supposes à real chan∣ge.
• Clear rea∣sons proue that suppos••∣tion.
• The Centu∣rist's Censure Theoderet.
• Theodoret's Assertion.
• His whole sense decla∣red.
• A dilemma.
• Theoderet only speak's of the Species or accidents remaining.
• Theodorets Text, du∣bious▪
• How the Cardinal read's.
• The reason why he read's so.
• One reflec∣tion more.
• The Cardi∣nals reading clear's all.