Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy body to be distinct from both we see thy body not broken and thy bloud not shed From all which it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my body and this is my bloud in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew 2ly That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Christian Church which the Church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the Church did alwayes understand and interpret our Saviour's words in this sense To manifest the groundlesness of this pretence I shall 1. shew by plain testimony of the Fathers in several Ages that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church 2. I shall shew the time and occasion of its coming in and by what degrees it grew up and was established in the Roman Church 3. I shall answer their great pretended Demonstration that this alwayes was and must have been the constant belief of the Christian Church 1. I shall shew by plain Testimonies of the Fathers in several Ages for above five hundred years after Christ that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church I deny not but that the Fathers do and that with great reason very much magnify the wonderfull mystery and efficacy of this Sacrament and frequently speak of a great supernatural change made by the divine benediction which we also readily acknowledge They say indeed that the Elements of bread and Wine do by the divine blessing become to us the body and bloud of Christ But they likewise say that the names of the things signified are given to the Signs that the bread and Wine do still remain in their proper nature and substance and that they are turn'd into the substance of our bodies that the body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his natural body but the sign and figure of it not that body which was crucified nor that bloud which was shed upon the Cross and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the Son of man and drinking his â—loud literally all which are directly opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and utterly inconsistent with it I will select but some few Testimonies of many which I might bring to this purpose I begin with Justin Martyr who sayes expresly that * Apol. 2. p. 98. Edit Paris 1636. our bloud and Flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food which we receive in the Eucharist But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of Christ for no man will say that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies The Second is * Lib. 4. c. 34. Irenoeus who speaking of this Sacrament sayes that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread but the Eucharist or Sacrament consisting of two thingâ— the one earthly the other heavenly He sayes it is no longer common bread but after invocation or consecration it becomes the Sacrament that is bread sanctified consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly the earthly thing is bread and the heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invocation or consecration is added to it And * lib. 5. c. 2. elsewhere he hath this passage when therefore the cup that is mix'd that is of Wine and Water and the bread that is broken receives the word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is increased and consists But if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nourish our bodies it must be bread and wine and not the natural body and bloud of Christ There is another remarkable Testimony of Irenoeus which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain yet hath been preserv'd by * Comment in 1 Pet. c. 3. Oecumenius and it is this when sayes he the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni that is such as had not been admitted to the Sacrament and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians these Servants having nothing to say that might gratify those who offered violence to them except only that they had heard from their Masters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Christ they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh declar'd as much to those that questioned them The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Christâ—â—ns discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it to whom Blandina boldly answered How would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten By which it appears that this which they would have charged upon Christians as if they had literally eatten the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament was a false accusation which these Martyrs denied saying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all The next is â—ertullian who proves against Marcion the Heretick that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phaâ—â—asm and appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body otherwise the Sacrament would be an image of an image His words are these * Advers Marcionem l. 4. p. 571. Edit Rigalt Paris 1634 the bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own body saying this is my body that is the image or figure of my body But it could not have been the figure of his body if there had not been a true and real body And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of sense he useth this Argument That if we question our senses we may doubt whither our Blessed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard and saw and touched * Lib. de Anima p. 319. He might sayes he be deceived in the voice from heaven in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial and in the taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his bloud So that it seems we are to tâ—ust ouâ— senses even in the matter of the Sacrament and if that be true the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is certainly false Origen in his * Edit Huetii Comment on Matth. 15 speaking of the Sacrament hath this passage That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the
denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the christian church And thâ—s likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman church a In Sent. l. 4. Dist 11. Q. 3. Scotus acknowledgeth that this Doctrine was not alwayes thought necessary to be believed but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And b In sent l. 4. dist 11. q. 1. n. 15. Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary if the Church had not by that determination oblidged men to believe it c de Euchar. l. 1. p. 146. Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields that before the Lateran council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament And d In 1. Epist ad corinth c. 7. citan te etiam Salmerone Tom. 9. Tract 16. p. 108. Erasmus who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church and then whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing And e De Haeres l. 8. Alphonsus a castro sayes plainly that concerning the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church I shall now in the Second place give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church The Doctrine of the Corporal presence of Christ was first started started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christs body and bloud but is properlie his body and bloud So that the corporal Body of Christ in the sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid worship of Images And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion nor have been applied to a fitter purpose And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * De Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine's Observation that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies hath put this errour viz. of denying Transubstantiation in his catalogue nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years Which is very true because there could be no occasion then to dipute against those who denied Transubstantiation since as I have shewn this Doctrine was not in being unless amongst the Eutychian Heretiques for the first 600 years and more But ‡ Ibid. Bellarmine goes on and tells us that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI the opposers of Images after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by himself viz the bread and wine in the Eucharist which represents the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord but his true body as appears from the VII Synod which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greek so in the Latine or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII And for this besides the Evidence of History we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome Bellarmine and Sirmondus who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument * Descriptor Eccles Bellarmine in those words this Author was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christs body and bloud in the Eucharist And †In vita Paschasii Sirmoâ—dus in these he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholick church that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he only first explained the sense of the Catholique Church in this Point yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church and it met with great opposition in that Age as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew For Rabanus Maurus Arch-biship of Meâ—tz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschusius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ‡ Epist. ad Heribaldum c. 33. Some sayes he of late not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord have said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the cross and rose from the dead which errour sayes he we have opposed with all our might From whence it is plain by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned bishops of that Age and of eminent reputation for Piety that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament was then esteem'd an Errour broach'd by some particular Persons but was far from being the generally received Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning could have condemned this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church not only in that but in all former Ages and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most prenicious Heresies Afterwards in the year MLIX when Berengarius in France and Germany had raised a fresh opposition against this Doctrine he was compelled to recant it by pope Nicholas
they worship only Christ in the Sacrament or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine and that 't is only Christ or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is alwayes present is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament and that their Worship is given to that and not to the consecrated Elements or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise and if we take them at their own words they are sufficient to bear wiâ—ness against them and condemn them of Idolatry but this will be found to be much greater and grosser when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host proves upon Examination to be false and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errours in the World to wit the belief of Transubstantiation or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after consecration but only the Flesh and blood of Christ corporally present under the species and accidents of bread and wine If this Doctrine be true it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry for then their only fault will be their joyning the species which how thin and ghostly soever they be yet are Creatures together with CHRIST as one Object of Worship and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point from what it is now I see not how they can justifie their worshipping with Latreia or the Worship due only to God not only the adorable substance of Christs Body but the very Vails and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye and yet when they teach as they do the adoring of the Sacrament they must adore the visible and outward part of it as well as the invisible Body of CHRIST for without the remaining Species it would not according to them be a Sacrament and they have not gone so far yet I think as to deny that there are any remaining Species and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us that when we see something there is really nothing of a visible Object And the same Object which is visible is adorable too according to them If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacrament tho' it were lawful to adore it as there present but by no means either the substance or Species of Bread with it yet it is much to be doubted whither it were a duty or necessary to do so It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more publick appearance God we know is present in all his Creatures but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them unless where he makes a sensible Manifestation of himself and appears by his Shechinah or his Glory as to Moses in the burning Bush and to others in like manner and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God which appears without any Alteration just as it was before it was made such and especially to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do that Christ is present in it not only in the action and solemn Celebration but extra usum as they speak and permanenter even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over that he should continue there as a praesens Numen as Boileau expresly calls it a de Eucharistiae Adorat p. 140. and be shewed and carried about and honoured as such and dwell in the species as long as they continue as truly as he dwelt in the Flesh before that was crucified this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament but not so as the Papists believe nor so as to be worshipped I mean the Lutherans But to bring the matter to a closer issue the Papists themselves are forced to confess that if the Bread remain after consecration and be still Bread and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ that they are then Idolaters So Fisher against Oecolampadius l. 1. c. 2. In express words So Coster in his Intali errore atque Idololotria qualis in or be terrarum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam aut alterius materiae imaginem quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur vel pannum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii quam eorum qui frustum panis coster Ench. c. â— S. 10. Longe potiori ratione excusandi essent infideles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt Ib. Euchiridion de Euch c. 8. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacrament then they are left in such an Errour and Idolatry as was never seen or heard for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable who Worshipp a golden or silver statue for God or any other Image or even a red cloth as the Laplanders are said to do or living Animals as the Egyptians then of those who worship a piece of bread And Again Those Infidel Idolaters would be more excusable who worship'd their statues To whom I shall add Bellarmine a Sacramentarii omnes negant Sacramentum Adorandum Idololatriam appellant ejusmodi Adorationem neque id mirum videri debet cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse praâ—sentem panem Eucharistiae reipsa nihil esse nisi panem ex furno Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. who sayes It does not seem strange that they call the Adoration of the sacrament Idolatry who do not believe that Christ is there truly present but that the bread is still true bread If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host and the Elements in the Eucharist are not substantially changed into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ then it is confest Idolatry and it is not strange according to Bellarmine that it should be so and then sure it will be true Artolatreia or Bread worship too if that be Bread which they worship and be not the natural Body of CHRIST that which is there present that they adore and if that be only Bread then they adore Bread And here I should enter that controversie which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errours about the Eucharist the making both a God of it and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament which CHRIST intended it and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation but a great man has spared me this trouble by his late excellent Discourse against it to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present controversie and shall take it for
Angels or Saints departed said God at any time Sit thou on my right hand to make intercession for Men Of which of them has he at any time affirmed as he has done of Christ He is able to save them to the uttermost that come to God by him seeing he ever lives to make Intercession for Men That if any Man Sin he is an Advocate with the Father for him Or whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in his name it shall be given you Certainly they who will have Angels and Saints Mediatours betwixt God and Men ought to produce a Commission signed by God or his Son Jesus to constitute them such but this they are no more able to do then they are to make a grant of such Power and Honour themselves to them It 's true the Blessed Spirits above are said to stand about the Throne of God and the Holy Angels to behold his Face and as the Honour of a Prince is encreased by the number of his Attendants so is our Lords exaltation rendered the more Glorious by those ten thousand times ten thousand that Minister unto him but yet it 's never said They sit at Gods right Hand or live for ever to make Intercession for us and having no such delegation of Power from God for this office the Honour and Worship that belongs to it can't be given to them without manifest Wrong and Sacriledge to Christ who has The Holy Angels are Gods ministring Spirits and the Spirits of Just-Men departed his Glorified Saints but God hath made Jesus the Lord and Christ and put all things in Heaven and Earth in Subjection under his feet of him only hath he said Let all the Angels Honour him and all the Saints fall down before him and all Men Honour the Son even as they Honour the John 5. 23 Father Amen To Conclude WEre we certain that the Saints departed do now reign in Heaven and enjoy the Beatifick Vision and that it was lawful to Invocate such as are undoubtely Saints as the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Apostles Yet methinks a wary Man should be shy and not over-forward to exhibit that honour to all whom the Pope hath Cannoniz'd I cannot for my heart but think that the Prelates and Bishops in King Henry the Eighth's time had as much reason to Unsaint Thomas Becket for being a Rebel against his Prince as Pope Alexander the Third had to Canonize him for being a Biggot for the Church What can a sober Christian think of the Saintship of some who never had any being in the World and of others who never had any goodness many of their Saints are meer Names without Persons and many meer Persons without Holiness nay I am very confident that the greatest Incendiaries and Disturbers of the Peace of the World do as well deserve it as that famous Pope Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh Inumerable might be instanc'd in whose Saintship justly falls under great Suspicion but 't is enough that some Romanists themselves and those of no little Authority in their Church have granted that the Popes canonizations are doubtful and subject to error If then at any Billar de beat sanct l. 1. c. 7. 8. time his Infallibility should chance to mistake as I am pretty sure he has more then once done the Members of that Church are in a sweet case and are not only in danger of Invocating Saints but Devils also which is Idolatry with a witness and by their own Confession FINIS A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION EDINBVRGH Re-printed by John Reid Anno DOM 1686. A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION COncerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion there are two main Points of difference between Vs and the Church of Rome One about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in which they think but are not certain that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side and that so plainly that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it Of the first of these I shall now treat and endeavour to shew against the Church of Rome That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversaries to dispute a matter of Sense which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute It might well seem strange if any man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-Bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to be put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a Man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Bloud And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do see why any man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the world sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the world sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of scripture against scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of scripture and all the sense and Reason of Mankind It is a most self-evident Falshood and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the world that is of it self more evidently true then Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-catholick Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other society of Christians to be any part of it so Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth for it cannot be true unless our senses and the senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this be true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Errour and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less
Christâ— All which and innumerable more like expressions in scripture every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense And it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signify and represent and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signifie so and so then to say that it is so and so Thus Joseph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him Gen. 21. 26. Sayes the seven good kine are seven years and the seven good ears of corn are seven years that is they signified or represented seven years of plenty And so Pharaoh understood Him and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions nor do I believe that any sensible man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour this is my Body would upon râ—ading of the institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be mean'd by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been this Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Bloud and this which you see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me But surely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and give away himsel from himself with his own hands Or whither we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as n Dialog cum Justin â—â—rtyr tells us tuto to pascha ho Soter hemon kai he kata phyge hemon this Passover is our Saviour and our refugeâ— not that they believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed Tryph. p. 297. Edit Paris 1639. either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias the Saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it But this Lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the World And nothing is more common in all Languages then to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign as the delivery of a Deed or writing under hand and Seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an Estate and it is really so not the delivery of mere wax and parchment but the conveyance of a real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material houses and land themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and man are given to the Sgns or Seals of that Covenant By Baptism Christians are sâ—id to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6. 4. And by the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we are said to Communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us that is of the real benefites of his death and passion And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which We break is it not the communion of the body of Christ But still it is bread and he still calls it so v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one bread The Church of Rome might if they pleased as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by their participation of the Sacrament because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body .. And the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the consecration of the Elements still calls them the bread and the Cup in three verses together As often as eat this bread and drink this Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of that cup v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had said this is my blood of the new Testament immediately adds * Mat. 36. 29. but I say unto you I will not hencefoorth drink of this fruit of the Vine untill I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom that is not till after his Resurrection which was the first step of his exaltation into the Kingdom given him by his Father when the Scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his Disciples But that which I observe from our Saviour's words is that after the consecration of the Cup and the delivering of it to his Disciples to drink of it he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which he had now drank with them till after his Resurrection From whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the Vine real wine which our Saviour drank of and communicated to his Disciples in the Sacrament Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural body and bloud of Christ because it was his body and his bloud shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his naturall body broken and his bloud shed these words this is my body which is broken and this is my bloud which is shed could not be true because this Body was then whole and unbroken and his bloud not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacramen to be unleses they will say that propitiation was made before Christ suffer'd And is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not onely plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given not his body broken and his bloud shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be That they should not tell him we see this to be
for one If says he the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime or commanding us to do good it is not fiugurate but if it seem to command any heynous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he sayes this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that * Gen. 49. 11. Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words †Dialog 1. as we call the mysticall fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the Vine viz of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not literally and properly but only figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour chaâ—â—ed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or sign and to the symbol or sign the name of his Body thus when he had called himself the Viâ—e he called the symbol his bloud so that in the same sense that he called himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the symbol of his bloud his bloud For sayes he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who called that which by nature is a body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the symbols with the name of his body and bloud not Changing nature but adding grace to nature Whence you see he sayes expresly that when he called the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine his body and bloud he made no change in the nature of the things only added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a spiritual and supernatural vertue and efficacy The secound is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholick under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretick under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was changed into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutyches he illustrates the matter by this similitude As sayes he the symbols of the Lords body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the Invocation are changed and become another thing so the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what sayes the Catholick Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Hereticks Thou art sayes he caught in thy own net because the mystical symbols after consecration doe not pass out of their own nature For they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not only deny the outward figure and appearance of the symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance and it was necessary so to do otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him The next is one of their own Popes Gelasius who brings the same Instance against the Eutychans * biblioth Patr. Toâ— 4. surely sayes heâ— the Sacrament which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and Wine and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries that is in the Sacrament To make this Instance of any force against the Eutychians who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ So that here is an infallible authority one of their own Popes expresly against Transubstantiation The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop who lived in the 6th Century Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons reasons thus * Facund p. 144 edit Paris 1676. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption as the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cap is by us called his body and bloud not that the bread sayes he is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and bloud can any man after this believe that it was then and had ever been the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Christ By these plain Testimonies which I have produced and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose it is I think evident beyond all
and the Council at Rome in these words * Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. Lanfranc de corp sang Domini c. 5. Guitmund de sacram l. i. Alger de sacram l. 1. c. 19. that the bread and wine which are set upon the Altar after the consecration are not only the Sacrament but the true body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and are sensibly not onlie in the Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priest ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithful But it seems the Pope and his Council were not then skilful enough to express themselves rightly in his matter for the Gloss upon the Canon Law sayes expresly †Gloss Decret de conse crat dist 2. in cap. Ege Berengarius that unless we understand these words of BERENGARIVS that is in truth of the Pope and his Council in a sound sense we shall fall into a greater Heresie then that of BERENGARIVS for we do not make parts of the body of Christ The meaning of which Gloss â— cannot imagine unless it be this that the Body of Christ though it be in truth broken yet it is not broken into parts for we do not make parts of the body of Christ but into wholes Now this new way of breaking a Body not into parts but into wholes which in good earnest is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though to them that are able to believe Transubstantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be sound sense yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be solid non-sense About XX years after in the year MLXXIX Pope Gregory the VII Began to be sensible of this absurdity and therefore in another council at Rome made Berengarius to recant in another * Waldnes Tom. 2. c. 1â— Form viz. that the bread and wine which are placed upon the Altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and quickning flesh and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and after consecration are the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which being offered for the Salvation of the World did hang upon the cross and sits on the right hand of the Father So that from the first starting of this Doctrine in the second council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII till the council under Pope Gregory the VII th in the year MLXXIX it was almost three hundred years that this Doctrine was contested and before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now setled and establish'd in the Church of Rome Here then is a plain account of the first rise of this Doctrine and of the several steps whereby it was advanced by the Church of Rome into an Article of Faith I come now in the Third place to answer the great pretended Demonstration of the impossibility that this Doctrine if it had been new should ever have come in in any Age and been received in the Church and con-consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the Church in all Ages For if it had not alwayes been the Doctrine of the Church when ever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bustle about it and the whole Christian World would have rose up in opposition to it But we can shew no such time when first it came in and when any such opposition was made to it and therefore it was alwayes the Doctrine of the Church This Demonstration Monsieur Arnauld a very learned Man in France pretends to be unanswerable whither it be so or not I shall briefly examine And First We do assign a punctual and very likely time of the first rise of this Doctrine about the beginning of the ninth Age though it did not take firm root nor was fully setled and establish'd till towards the end of the eleventh And this was the most likely time of all other from the begining of Christianity for so gâ—oss an Errour to appear it being by the confession and 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 It came in together with Idolatry and was made use of to support it A fit prop and companion for it And indeed what tares might not the Enemy have sown in so dark and long a Night when so considerable a part of the Christian World was lull'd a sleep in profound Ignorance and Superstition And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himself gives in the Parable of the Tares of the springing up of Errours and Corruptions in the Field of the Church * Matth. 13 24. While the men sleept the Enemy did his work in the Night so that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came but being sure they were there and that they were not sown at first they concluded the Enemy had done it Secondliâ— I have shewn likewise that there was considerable opposition made to this Errour at its first coming in The general Ignorance and gross Superstition of that Age rendered the generality of people more quiet and secure and disposed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of mystery in Religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the Sacrament and that seemed any way to countenance the worship of Images for which at that time they were zealously concern'd But notwithstanding the security and passive temper of the People the most eminent for piety and learning in that Time made great resistance against it I have already named Rabanus Arch-Bishop of Mentz who oppos'd it as an Errour lately sprung up and which had then gained but upon some few persons To whom I may add Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerres in France Io. Scotus Erigena and Ratramnus commonly known by the name of Beriram who at the same time were imployed by the Emperour Charles the Bald to oppose this growing Errour and wrote learnedly against it And these were the eminent men for learning in that time And because Monsieur Arnauld will not be satisfied unless there some stir and bustle about it Bertram in his Preface to his book tells us that they who according to their several opinions talked differently about the mystery of Christs bodie and bloud were divided by no small Schism Thirdlie Though for a more clear satisfactory answer to this pretended Demonstration I have been contented to unty this knot yet I could without all these pains have cut it For suppose this Doctrine had silently come in and without opposition so that we could not assign the particular time and occasion of its first Rise yet if it be evident from Records of former Ages for above 500. years together that this was not the ancient belief of the Church and plain also that this Doctrine was afterwards received in the Roman Church though we could
that we should abhor any such disrespect shewn to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body as is used by them in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire or into the Air or Water to stop a Tempest or Inundation or keep themselves from drowning or any the like mischief to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions 'T is out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament that we are against the carrying it up and down as a show and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful an Abuse and so gross an Idolatry We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God and are set apart to his Worship and Service to the Temple where God is said himself to dwell and to be more immediately present to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated to the Holy Vessels that are alwayes used in those Administrations to the Holy Bible which is the Word of God in the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Sacrament is his Body and the New Testament in his Blood to the Font which is the Laver of Regeneration wherein we put on Christ as well as we eat him in the Eucharisâ— and if we would strain things and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these it would go as far and look as like to adoring them as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sacrament as I shall afterwards make appear in answer to what the a Jacob. Boileau Paris De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. latest Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist has culled or rather raked together out of the Fathers It seems from that Declaration of our Church that some were either so silly or so spiteful as to suppose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament we gave Worship to the Elements and that learned man is willing to have it believed that we do thereby externè Eucharistiam colere c outwardly b Boil p. 145. Worship the Sacrament and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds as well as outwardly with our Bodies so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause or be made use of to strike at us but it may as well be said that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions or their Seats when they kneel before them the roof of the Church or the crowns of their Hats when they fix their Eyes upon them at the same time they are at their Prayers upon their Knees or that the Papists worship the Priest himself before whom they Kneel in their Confessions or that on Ashwednesday they adore the holy Ashes as they call them and on Palmsunday the holy Boughs which they do not pretend to do because they Kneel when they are given them as well as that we Worship the Eucharist or the Mystical Elements when we receive them Kneeling and disavow any such thing and declare it to be Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christians But is it Idolatry to Worship Christ Or or to Worship the Body of Christ tho' not for it self yet for the sake of the Divine Nature to which it is alwayes hypostatically united Noâ— by no means I know no Hereticks tho' they denied Christs Divinity but yet were for worshipping him the old Arrians and the late Socinians but how justifiably when they believe him but a meer man or only a more excellent Creature they and the Church of Rome are both concerned to defend and to clear it if they can of Idolatry As to the Worship of the Flesh tho' Nestorius could not do this according to his Principles as St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus argue against him nor could the Ebionites nor Doketai of old yet I know none but some of their School-men dispute now of Adoring the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ which however it be in our minds is never in truth abstracted from his Divinity But we will not at all trouble our selves with those parts of the Science of controversie nor shall we stand upon any of those things Well then why may not Christ and his Body be adored in the Sacrament if they are proper Objects of Adorations No doubt but they may be adored in this Sacrament in the Sacrament of Baptism too and in all the Offices of the Christian Religion wherein we pray to Christ and Kneel before him and exercise the devout acts of the Mind toward him put our trust and hope in him and expect Salvation from him and devout our selves in all Subjection to him and bow both our Souls and our Bodies and give all both internal and external Worship to him this Adoration we give to Christ who is God blessed for ever and who sits at the right hand of God the Father And the very same the Papists give to the Sacrament to the Host and the consecrated Elements the the most Soveraigne and Absolute and highest Degree of Religious Worship that is due to God whose creatures those Elements are or to Christ himself who commanded us receive them in remembrance of him But it is only Christ say they whom we Worship in the Sacrament whom we adore as being present there with his Body in the Host and not the Host or the Sacrament it self so a great many of them would fain bring off the matter or at least colour and disguise it Bellarmine a Lib. 4. de Eucharist c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi slatus quaestionis non est nisian Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae when he had entangled himself with the distinctions of worshipping the Sacrament whither formally or materially would extricate himself by thus stating the matter and reducing it to this question Whither Christ be to be adored in the Eucharist And St. Clara b St. Clara Deus Natura Gratia p. 308 〈◊〉 bene non dicit concilium Tridentinum Sacramentum sed Christuns in Sacramento latria adorandum would reconcile the dispute with this Observation Nota benè Mark this the council of Trent does not say that the Sacrament is to be adored but Christ in the Sacrament I wonder so great a man as Cassander c Adoratio non ad exteriâ—s signum quod exterius videtur sed ad ipsam rem veritatem quae interiuâ— creditur referenda Cassand consult de Adorat Euchar. should say Unless with a design to condemn the thing That the Adoration is not to be given to the outward sign which is seen but is to be referr'd to the thing it self and to that which is truly and inwardly believed But Reconcilers who will attempt the vain project of Accomodation must do with the
Doctrine of the Church of Rome as Apelles did with Antigonus his face they must draw but one part half of it that so they may Artificially conceal it as deformed and its blind side That all these do so I shall shew by stating the controversie carefully and truely which is the chiefest thing in this dispute for they love to hide their own Doctrines as much as they can and they cunningly contrive most of them with a back door to slip out at privately and upon occasion The Council of Trent has in this as in other things used art and not spoke out in one place as it does in another that so we mistake half its words for its full meaning as Bellarmine and others were willing to do or at least to have others do so In its sixth Canon on the Eucharist it only sayes a Council Trident. Can. 6. De Euchor si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christam Vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum Anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the external Worship of Latria in the holie Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be accursed Who will not say in those general words that Christ is to be adored with outward and inward Worship both not only in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist but of Baptism too and in every Christian Office and in every Prayer and solemn Invocation of him either publick or private But they mean a great deal more then all this by Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament and in as plain words they say b Ib. 13. Sess c. 5. That the Sacrament it self is to be adored that whatever it be which is something besides Christ even according to them which is placed in the Patin and upon the Altar which the Priest holds in his hands and lifts up to be seen this very thing is to be adored There is no doubt sayes the Council c Ib. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in catholica Ecclesia semper recepto lâ—triae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in Veneratione adhibeant neque enim minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Dâ—mino ut sumatur institutum but that all faithful Christians according to the custom alwayes received in the Catholick Church ought to give Supreme and Soveraign Worship which is due to God himself to the most Holy Sacrament in their Worship of it for it is nevertheless to be adored tho' it was instituted of Christ to be received That which is to be received which is to be put into the Peoples Mouths by the Priest for since they have made a God of the Sacrament they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it nor take it into their hands and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament this is now to serve for another use to be adored as a God and it would be as true Heresie in the church of Rome not to say that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored as not to say that Christ himself is to be adored But what according to them is this Sacrament It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine and the natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration which they call Sacramentum for Christs body without those Species and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine would not according to them be a Sacrament they being the outward and visible part are according to their School-men properly and strictly called the Lombard sent l. 4. dist 10. Sacramentum and the other the res Sacramenti and to this external part of the Sacrament as well as to the internal they give Latreia and Adoration to those remaining Species which be they what they will are but creatures religious Worship is given together with Christs Body and they withh that are the whole formal Object of their Adoration Non solum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adorari sayes Suarez a In Th. Quaest 9. disp quia est unum constans ex Christo Speciebus Not only Christ but the whole visible Sacrament which must be something besides Christs invisible Body is to be adored with one and the same Worship because it is one thing or one Object consisting of Christ and the Species So another of their learned men b Henriquez Moral l. 8. c. 32. Speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist because of Christ whom they contain Now Christ whom they contain must be something else then the Species that contain him Let him be present never so truely and substantially in the Sacrament or under the species he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present and as subtil as they are and as thin and subtil as these species are they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them and they can never be left out but must be part of the whole which is to be adored totum illud quod simul adoratur as Bellarmine calls it must include these de Euch. l 4. c. 30. as well as Christs Body Adorationem sayes Bellarmine a Bellarmine de Euch l. 4. c. 29. ad Sybola etiam panis vini peâ—â—nere ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent Adoration belongs even to the Symbols of Bread and Wine as they are apprehended to be one with with Christ whom they contain and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him and may be Worship'd together with Christ as T. G. b owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary and are the very term of Adoration as Gregory de Valentia c Cathol no Idolaters p. 268. sayes who farther adds that they who think this worship d De Idol l. 2. c. 5. does not at all belong to the Species in that heretically oppose the perpetual custome and sence of the Church Qui censeunt nullo mâ—do ad Species ipsias eam Venerationem pertinere in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum sensum Ecclesiae de Veneratione Sacram. ad Artic. Tom. 5. Indeed they say That these species or Accidents are not be Worship'd for themselves or upon their own account but because Christ is present in them and under them and so they may be Worshipp'd as T. G. sayes d Ib. with Christ in like manner as his Garments were Worship'd together with him upon Earth which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine
penalties then of temporal death and Eternal damnation And therefore to undeceive if possible these deluded souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a Doctrine and to lay open the monstruous absurdity of it And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tollerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not only in reason excused from believing this Doctrine but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine Which must be one or more of these five Either 1. The Authority of scripture Or 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Christian Church as an belief of of this Doctrine in the Christian Church as an evidence that they alwayes understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my body in this sense Or 3ly The authority of the present Church to make and declare new articles of Faith Or 4ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5 ly To magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1. They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative exressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the new Testament in my Bloud which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words be literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the bloud of Christ but into the new Testament or new Covenant in his bloud Besides that his bloud is said then to be shed and his body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first celebration of this Sacrament But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writters of the Church of Rome in this Controversie a de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine b in 3. dis 49. Qu. 75. Sect. 2. Suarez and c in 3. part dis 150. Qu. 75. art 2. c. 15. Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Scholman to have said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge d in sent l. 4. dist 11. qu. 1. n. 15 Durandus to have said as much e in 4. sent Q. 5. quod 4. q. 3. Ocham another famous schoolman sayes expresly that the Doctrine which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after the consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture f in 4 sent Q 6. art 2. Petrus ab Alliaâ—â— Cardinal of Cambray say plainly that the Doctrine of the substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more free from absurdity more rational and no wayes repugnant to the authority of scripture nay more that for the other Doctrine viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in scripture g in canon Miss Lect. 40. Gabriel Biel another Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the scripture a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation in to some other Revelation besides scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal h in Aquin 3. part Qu. 74 art 1. Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the authority of the Church nay he goes farther that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my body in a proper and not a metaphorical sense but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope i Aegid â—â—nink de sacrâ—â—â— Q. 75. art 1. n. 13. Pius V. Cardinal k de sacram l. 2. c. 3. Contarenus and l Loc. Theolog l. 3. c. 3. Melchior Canus one of the best most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr m contra captiv Babylon c. 10 n. 2. Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviours words in the sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whither we consider the like expressions in scripture where our Saviour sayes he is the door and the true Viue which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said this is my true Body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body and the Rock which followed the Israelites to be Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of that Rock which followed them and that Rock was
dâ—aught which none surely will say of the Body of CHRIST And afterwards he adds by way of explication it is not the matter of the bread but the word which is spoken over it which profiteâ—h him that worthily eateth the Lord and this he sayes he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body So that the matter of bread remaine hâ—m the Sacrament and this Origen calls the typical and symbolical body of CHRIST and it is not the natural body of Christ which is there eatâ—en for the food eaten in the Sacrament as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught This testimony is so very plain in the cause that Sextus Senensis suspects â—his place of Origen was depraved by the Heâ—eticks Cardinal Pâ—rron is contented to allow it to be Origens but rejects his testimony because he was accused of Heresie by some of the Fathers and sayes he talks like a Heretick in this place So that with much ado this testimony is yielded to us The same Father in his * cap. 10. Homilies upon Leviticâ—s spâ—â—ks â—hus There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who doth not spiritually understand these things which are said for if we take according to the Letter that which is said EXCEPT YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOUD this Letter kills And this is also a killing Testimony and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way by saying he talks like a Heretick St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle * Ep. 63. to Cecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water only without Wine mingled with it and his main argument against them is this that the bloud of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickened cannot seem to be in the cup when there is no Wine in the cup by which the Bloud of Christ is represented And afterwards he sayes that contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine water was in some places offered or given in the Lords cup which sayes he alone cannot express or represent the bloud of Christ. And lastly he tels us that by water the people is understood by Wine the bloud of Christ is shewn or represented but when in the cup water is mingled with wine the people is united to Christ. So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental cup is no otherwise chang'd into the bloud of Christ then the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ. I omit many others and pass to St. Austin in the fourth Age after Christ And I the rather insist upon his Testimony because of his eminent esteem and authority in the Latin Church and he also calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and sign of Christs body and bloud In his book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expression * Aug Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit basil 1569 our Lord did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body And in his explication of the third Psalm speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last supper in which sayes he ‡ enarrat in Psal Tom. 8. p. 16. he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his body Language which would now be censur'd for Heresie in the Church of Rome Indeed he was never accus'd of Heresie as cardinal Perron sayes Origen was but he talks as like one as Origen himself And in his comment on the 98 Psalm speaking of the offence which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud c. He brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them †Id. tom 7. p. 1105. ye must understand spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat his body which ye see and to drink that bloud which shall he shed by those that shall crucify me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being spiritually understood will give you life What more opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation then that the Disciples were not to eat that Body of Christ which they saw nor to drink that bloud which was shed upon the Cross but that all this was to be understood spiritually and according to the nature of a Sacrament For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven in his Comment upon these words me ye have not alwayes * Id. Tract 50. in Johan He speaks sayes he of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his Disciples fourty dayes he is ascended up into Heaven and is not here In his 23. Epistle †Id. Tom. 2. p. 93. if the Sacraments sayes he had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all but from this resemblance they take for the most part the name of the things which they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christs body and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Christ so the Sacrament of faith meaning Baptism is faith Upon which words of St. Austin there is this remarkable Gloss in their own Cannon Law †De consecr dist 2. Hoc est the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly whence it is said that after a manner but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified So that the meaning is it is called the body of Christ that is it signifies the body of Christ And if this be St. Austin's meaning I am sure no Protestant can speake more plainly against Transubstantiation And in the ancient Canon of the Mass before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine it is expresly call'd a sacrament a sign an Image and a figure of Christ's body To which I will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin cited by * De consecrat dist 2. sect Vtrum Gratian that as we receive the similitude of his death in baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud that so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain I will mention but one Testimony more of this Father but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have utter'd It is in his Treatise * Lib. 3. Tom. 3. p. 53. de Doctrina christiaua where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this
not tell how and when it came in yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact This is just Zeno's Demonstration of the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his Eyes For this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been which most certainly was Just thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonstrated that the Tares were Wheat because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any Tares were sown or by whom and if an Enemy had come to do it he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition but no such resistance was made and therefore there could be no Tares in the field but that which they call'd Tares was certainly good wheat At the same rate a man might demonstrate that our King his Majesty of great Britain is not return'd into England nor restor'd to his Crown because there being so great and powerful an Army possess'd of his Lands and therefore oblidged by interest to keep him out it was impossible He should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloud shed but there was no such thing therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his Crown And by the like kind of Demonstration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom last year and besiege Vienna because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have imployed it against him but Monsieur Arnauld certainly knowes no such thing was done And therefore according to his way of Demonstration the matter of fact so commonly reported and believed concerning the Turks Invasion of Christendom and besieging Vienna last year was a perfect mistake But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is or was never to have been For of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so then to make that which hath been not to have been All the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty And I have often wonder'd how a man of Monsieur Arnaulds great wit and sharp Judgement could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a cause or could think to defend it with so wooden a Dagger as his Demonstration of Reason against certain Experience and matter of Fact A thing if it be possible of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate Transubstantiation it self I proceed to the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that is The Infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith And this in truth is the ground into which the most of the Learned Men in their Church did heretofore and many do still resolve their belief of this Doctrine And as I have already shewn do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it And that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church oblidged them otherwise But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by vertue of the Authority of the Roman Church and the Declation of the Council under Pope Gregory the VII or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is plain Innovation in the Christian Doctrine and a new Article of Faith impos'd upon the Christian World And if any Church hath this power the Christian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine nay any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable may become an Article of Faith oblidging all Christians to the belief of it when ever the Church of Rome shall think fit to stamp her Authority upon it which would make Christianity a most uncertain and endless thing The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is the necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it But there is no colour for this if the thing be rightly consider'd Because the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the Institution And as Water in Baptism without any substantial change made in that Element may by the Divine blessing accompanying the Institution be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration So there can no reason in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine blessing accompanying this Institution make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby without any substantial change made in those Elements since our Lord hath told us that verily the flesh profiteth nothing So that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our Lord I do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us then what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him For the spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received supposing we receive what our Lord appointed and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it and makes it effectual to those Spiritual ends for which it was appointed The Fifth and last pretended ground of this Doctrine is to magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle And this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the Divine Wisdom to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the Priest that he should be able every day and as often as he pleases by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change and as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak to make God himself But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himself for he did not nor cannot make himself nor do any thing that implies a contradiction as Transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God For to make that which already is and to make that now which alwayes was is not only vain and trifling if it could be done but impossible because it implies a contradiction And what if after all Transubstantiation if it were possible and actually wrought by the Priest would yet be no Miracle For there are two things necessary to a Miracle that there be a supernatural effect wrought and that this effect be evident to sense So that though a supernatural effect be wrought yet if it be not evident â—o sense it
Credulity is certainly a fault as well as Infidelity And he who said blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed hath no where said blessed are they that have seen and yet have not believed much less blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they see To conclude this Discourse By what hath been said upon this Argument it will appear with how little truth and reason and regard to the interest of our common Christianity it is so often said by our Adversaries that there are as good arguments for the belief of Transubstantiation as of the Doctrine of the Trinity When they themselves do acknowledge with us that the Doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the Scriptures and that according to the interpretation of them by the consent of the ancient Fathers But their Doctrine of Transubstantiation I have plainly shewn to have no such ground and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own Church And this Doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all Divine Warrant and Authority our Objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to Reason and sense are so many Demonstrations of the falsehood of it Against all which they have nothing to put in the opposite Scale but the Infallibility of their Church for which there is even less colour of proof from Scripture then for Transubstantiation it self But so fond are they of their own Innovations and Errours that rather then the Dictates of their Church how groundless and absurd soever should be call'd in question rather then not have their will of us in imposing upon us what they please they will owerthrow any Article of the Christian Faith and shake the very foundations of our common Religion A clear evidence that this Church of Rome is not the true Mother since she can be so well contented that Christianity should be destroyed rather then the Point in question should be decided against her FINIS A DISCOURSE Concerning the ADORATION OF THE HOST As it is Taught and Practiced in the CHURCH of ROME Wherein an Answer is given to T. G. oâ— that Subject And to Monsieut Boileau's late book De Adoratione Eucharistiae Paris 1685. EDINEVRGH Re-printed by John Reid Anno DOM 1686. A DISCOURSE OF THE ADORATION Of the HOST c. IDolatry is so great a Blot in any Church what ever other glorious Marks it may pretend to that it is not to be wondred that the Church of Rome is very angry to be charged with it as it has alwayes been by all the Reform'd who have given in this among many others as a just and necessary Reason of their Reformation and it must be confessed to be so if it be fully and clearly made good against it and if it be not it must be owned to be great Uncharitableness on the other side which is no good Note of a Church neither as grievous Slander and most uncharitable Calumny which will fall especially upon all the Clergy of the Church of England who by their Consent and Subscription to its Articles and to the Doctrine of its Homilies and to the Book of Common Prayer do expresly join in it For it is not the private Opinion only of some particular and forward men in their Zeal and Heat against Popery thus to accuse it of Idolatry but it is the deliberate and sober and downright Charge of the Church of England of which no honest man can be a Member and Minister who does not make and believe it I might give several Instances to shew this but shall only mention one wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists in their Adoration of the Host which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion in which are these remarkeable words It is hereby declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood for the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians Here it most plainly declares its mind against that which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host That the Elements do not remain in their natural Substances after Consecration if they do remain as we and all Protestants hold even the Lutherians then in Worshipping the consecrated Elements they worship meer Creatures and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry as I shall shew by and by and if Christs natural Flesh and Blood â—e not corporally present there neither with the Substance nor Signs of the Elements then the Adoring what there is most be the Adoring some things else then Christs body and if Bread only be there and they adore that which is there they must surely adore the Bread it self in the opinion of our Church but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it and declared that to be false and that it is both Unfit and Idolatrous too to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration and it continued of the same mind and exprest iâ— is particularly and directly in the Canons of 1640. where it sayes a Canon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head A Declaration about some Rites and Ceremonis That for the cause of the Idolatry committed in the Mass all Popish Altars were demolish'd so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point then our Church has done It recommends at the same time but with great Temper and Moderation the religious Gesture of bowing towards the Altar both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist and in it and in neither a Ib. can 7. 1â—40 Vpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table or in the mystical Elements but only to give outward and bodily as well as inward worship to the Divine Majesty and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament Kneeling b Rubric at Communion in a posture of Adoration as the Primitive Church used to do with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility tropo proskynesios kai sebasmatos St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaks c Cyril Hierosolym Catech. Mystag 5. and as I shall shew is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they produce out of the Ancients for Adoration not to but at the Sacrament so far are we from any unbecoming or irreverent usage of that Mystery as Bellarmine d Controv. de Eucharist when he is angry with those who will not Worship it tells them out of Optatus that the Donatists gave it to Dogs and out of Victor Vticencis that the Arriaâ—s trod it under their Feet
him but not the least tittle of their adoring it so farr from it that they were not in a posture of Adoration which they should have been in if they had inwardly adored it which makes this not only a Negative Argument as Boileau Å¿ De Adorat Euch. l. 2. c. 1. would have it but a positive one To take off this argument from the not mention of any such command or practice of Adoration to the Sacrament in the Gospel he sayes Neither is the Adoration of Christ prescribed in express words t Nullo ex iis loco conceptis verbis praescriptam fuisse Adorationem sc Christi p. 27. nor that of the Holy Ghost either commanded or performed * Nâ—llibi praeceptam ejus Adorationem aut confestim peractam conceptis intelligamus p. 98. But I hope all those places of Scripture that so fully tell us that both Christ and the Holy Ghost are God do sufficiently command us to worship them by bidding us worship God and if it had told us that the sacrament is as much God as they it had then commanded us to adore it There are sufficient instances of Christs being adored when he appeared upon Earth and had the other Divine persons assumed a bodily shape those who had seen and known it would have particularly adored it and so would the Apostles no doubt have done the Sacrament if they had thought that when it was before them an object of worship St. Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians of 1 Cor. 11. c. their very great Irreverence in receiving the Lords Supper had very good occasion to have put them in mind of adoring it had that been their Duty this then would have been a proper means to have brought them to the highest reverence of it but he never intimates any thing of worshipping it when he delivers to them the full account of its institution and its design nor never reproves them among all their other unworthy abuses of it for their not adoring it and 't is a very strange fetch in Boileau †Ib. p. 103. l. 2. that he would draw St. Pauls command of examining our selves before we eat to mean our adoring when or what we eat and that not discerning the Lords body and being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ is the not worshipping the sacrament which he never so much as touches upon among all â—heir other fauls Are there not many other wayes of abusing â—he sacrament besides the not worshipping it this is like his â—irst Argument out of Ignatius his Epistles ‡ l. 1. c. 2. synepheren de antois agapan Ep. ad smyr at ipsemet nos docet nihil nos diligere debere praeter solum Deum that because he sayes the â—acrament ought to be loved thereâ—ore he meant that it ought to be â—dored At which rate I should â—e afraid to love this Gentleman â—however taking he was lest I should consequently adore him â—or because I am not to abuse him therefore it would follow that I must worship him 2. This Adoration was not in use in the Primitive Church as I shall shew 1. From those Writers who give us an account of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist among the Ancient Christians 2. From the oldest Liturgies and Eucharistick forms 3. From some very ancient Customs 1. Those most ancient Writers 1. Justin Martyr 2. The Author 1. Justin Marty 2 Apologversus finem Apostol constitutit l. 8. c. 11 12. 13 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol Cateches mystagog c. 5. of the Apostolick Constitutions And 3. St. Cyril of Hierusalem who acquaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist which was generally then one constant part of their publick worship they give no account of any Adoration to the sacrament or to the consecrated Elements tho' they are particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use the Kiss of Charity in token of their mutual Love and Reconciliation this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament y allelous philemati aspazometha epâ—ita prosphoretai artos Justin Martyr Apol. 2. In St. Cyril's time z Catech mystagog 5. Aposstol constit l. 8. c. 11. the first thing was the bringing of Water by the Deacon and the Priests washing their hands in it to denote that purity with which they were to compass Gods Altar and then the Deacon spoke * Pâ—terion Kramaâ—â—â— Just Martyr to the people to give the holy Kiss then Bread was brought to the Bishop or Priest and ‡ Oi kalumenoi par hemâ—â— diaconoi â—idoasin ekaste paron to metalabein apo tu eucharistethentos artu kai oinu kai hydatos kai tois ou parusin apopherusin Just Martyr Ib. Wine mixt with Water in those hot Countries and after Prayers and Thanksgiving by the Priest to which the people too joyned their Amen * The Deacons gave every one present of the blessed Bread and Wine a Water and to those that were not present they carried it home this says Justin Martyr we account not Common Bread or common ‡ Eucharistetheisan trophen ex hes haima kai sarkes kata metabolen trephontai hemon Ib. Drink but the Body and Blood of Christ the blessed food by which our flesh and blood is nourished that is turned into it which could not be said of Christs natural Body nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that or to any of the blessed Elements The others are longer and much later and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgiving that were then used by the church of the sursum corda lift up your heart which St. * cyril Hierosol mystagog cat 5. cyril sayes followed after the Kiss of charity of the sancta sanctis things holy belong to those that are holy then they describe how they came to communicate how they held their hand * Me tetamenois tois toÌ„n cheiroÌ„n karpois mede dieremenois tois daktylois alla ten aristeran Ib. when they received the Elements how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the Ground but among all these most minute and particular Descriptions of their way and manner of receiving the sacrament no account is there of their adoring it which surely there would have been had there been any such in the Primitive church as now is in the Roman We own indeed as Boileau objects to us f L. 2. P. 106. that from these it appears that some things were then in use which we observe not now neither do the Church of Rome all of them for they are not essential but indifferent matters as mixing Water with Wine the Priest's washing the Kiss of Charity and sending the Sacrament to the absent but the Church may alter these upon good reasons according to its prudence and discretion but adoration to the Sacrament if it be ever a Duty is alwayeâ— so and never ought upon any account to
it is so called there by Nazianzen the Antitypes ‡ Eipou ti â—oÌ„n antitypon tu timu somatos kai haimatos he cheir â—thefaurisan Ib. of Christs Body and Blood which shews they were not thought to be the substance of it and she had all these about her and in her own keeping as many private Christians had in those times and there was no Host then upon the Altar when she worshipped Christ upon it for it was in the night †Nuktos aorian teresasa Ib. she went thus to the Church So St. Chrysostom * Vid. Boileau c. 7. l. 1. ex Chrysost in all the places quoted out of him only recommends the worshipping of Christ our blessed Savior and our coming to the Sacrament with all humility and Reverence like humble supplicants upon ouâ— knees and with Tears in our Eyes and all Expressions of sorrow for our sins and Love and Honour to our Saviour whom we are to meet there and whom we do as it were †Horas enthysiasterio Chry. in 1. Ep. Cor. 10. c. see upon upon the Altar which is the great stress of all that is produced out of him That we do not truly see him upon the Altar the Papists must own tho' they believe him there but not so as to be visible to our senses and he is no more to be truly adored as corporally present then he is visibly present St. Ambrose ‡ In sermone 56. Stephanus in terris positus Christum tangit in caelo sayes of St. Stephen that â—e being on Earth touched Christ in Heaven just as St. Chrysostom sayes Thou seest him on the Altar and as he and any one that will not resolve to strain an easie figurative Expression must mean not by a bodily touch or sight but by Faith * Non corporalia tactu sed fide and by that we own that we see Christ there and that he is there present 2. Adoring the Flesh and Body of Christ which tho' considered without his Divinity it would be worshipping a Creature as St. Cyril of Alexandria sayes †In actis concil Ephes Hos anthropon proskyneistai te ktisei latreuein yet as it is alwayes united to his Divinity 't is a true object of worship and ought to be so to us who are to expect Salvation by it even from the Blood and the Body ‡ Proskynete esti sorz syntoÌ„ logoÌ„ TheoÌ„ kathos apotheosen auten Chrysost Hom. 108. and Flesh of Christ and therefore as we inwardly trust in it so we ought to adore it as no doubt the Angels do in Heaven and as we are to do in all the Offices of our Religion tho' that be in Heaven yet we are to worship it upon Earth and especially when it is brought to our minds and thought by that which is appointed by Christ himself to be the Figure and Memorial of it the blessed Sacrament there and in Baptism especially when we put on Christ and have his Death and Rising again represented to us and have such great benefits of his Death and Incarnation bestowed upon us in these Mysteries we are as St. Ambrose * Caro Christi quam hodie in Mysteriis adoramus Ambros l. 3. de sp fanct c. 12. apud Boil p. 32. sayes to Adore the Body and the Flesh of Christ to which we immediately and particularly owe them and which we may truly call our Saviour St. Ambrose and St. Austin * August Enar. in Ps 98. his Scholar after him supposing that there was a great difficulty in that passage of the Psalms worship his footstool for so it is in the Latin * Adorate scabellum pedum ejus without the Preposition at his footstool they laboured to reconcile this with that command of Worshipping and serving God alone and to give an account how the Earth which was Gods footstool could be worshipt and the way they take was this to make Christs Flesh which he took of the Earth to be meant by that Earth which was Gods footstool ‡ Invenio quomodo sine Impietate adoretur terra scabellum pedum ejus suscepit enim de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae carnem accepit August Ib. and this say they we ought to worship his Apostles did so whilst he was upon Earth and we do so now whilst he is in Heaven We worship the Flesh of CHRIST which was crucified for us and by the benefit of which we hope for Pardon and Salvation we worship that tho' it be now in Heaven we worship it in the solemn Offices of our Religion * Ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit nemâ— autem ill â—m carnem mâ—nducat nisi prius adoraverit Aug. Ib. that Flesh which he gave to be eaten by us for our Salvation that we worship for none eates that Flesh but he first worships Worships that if they please tho' St. Austin do not expresly say that but we will own and we will be always ready to Worship the Flesh of Christ by which we are saved and we will do this especially at the Sacrament and that more truly and properly then they themselves will own that we eat and manducate it as St. Austin sayes not with ouâ— Teeth as we do the Bread but eat it and worship it too as it is Heaven St. Hierome †Epist ad Marcel Ibant Christiani Hierosolymam ut Christum in illis adorarent locis in quibus primum Evangelium de patibulo coruscaverat says of some devout Christians That they went to Hierusalem that they might adore Christ in those places where the Gospel first shone from the cross They went that they might adore Christ in those places not that they believed him to be corporally present in those places much less that they worship'd the places themselves but they made a more lively impression of Christ upon them and made them remember him with more Passion and Devotion and so does the blessed Sacrament upon us and we therefore worship Christ whom we believe to be in Heaven in the Sacrament as they worship'd him in those places where they were especially put in mind of him Thus St. Hierome sayes He worshipped Christ in the Grave and that Paula worshipped him in the stall * Ad Paul Eustoch and so we may be said to worship him on the cross or on the Altar or in the Sacrament and yet not to worship the Cross or the Altar or the Sacrament it self 3. Other places out of the Fathers brought by him for the Adoration of the Host mean only that the Sacrament is to be had in great reverence and esteem by us as all things sacred and set a part to religious uses are that a singular Veneration is due to the Eucharist as St. Austin says ‡ Eucharistiae deberi singularem venerationem Epist 118. c. 3. and as is to Baptism also of which he uses
the same word We venerate Baptism †Baptismum ubicunque est veneramur Id Epist 146. as we ought to do all the Rites and Ordinances of our Religion this is meant by Origen in that first place of him produced by Boileau * de Euch. Ador p. 10. ex Orlg. Homil. 12. Nostis qui Divinis mysteriis interesse consuestis quomodo cum suscipitis corpus Domini cum omni cautela veneratione servatis ne ex eo parum quid decidat ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur Reos enim vos creditis recte creditis si quid inde per negligentiam decidat Ye that are wont to be present at the Divine Mysteries know how when ye receive the Body of Christ ye keep it with all caution and Veneration that no part of the consecrated gift be let fall for ye think and that rightly that ye should be guilty of a fault if any of it should be let fall through your negligence And Christians have this care and Veneration of those consecrated Symbols of the Body and Blood of their Saviour of these wonderful Pledges of his Love that they would not willingly spill them or let them fall to the ground through their carelesness and neglect they that have that due regard to the Holy Bible which they ought would not trample it under their feet or shew any such disrespect to it it was this which Origen was recommending in that place from that example of their care and respect to the Sacrament Elements that they should give it also to the Word of God * Quod si circa corpus ejus tanta utimini cautela merito utimini quomodo putatis minoris esse praculi Verbum Dei neglexisse quam corpus ejus Ib. But if ye use such care and that very deservedly about keeping his Body how do ye think it to be a less fault to neglect the word of God then to neglect his Body The comparison here made between the Word of God and the Sacrament so plainly shews that he no way meant its Adoration that I wonder this person was not ashamed to pretend just before it that he †Alienum esse ab institutis meis ullum in medium adducere patrem quin conceptis verbis proprium Boil p 10. would bring no Authority but what was expresly for his Opinion and use none but †Animo decreverim argumenta invictissima concludere invincible Arguments but Roman Faith must be defended with Roman courage and confidence which is the only invincible thing they have The words of Theodoret are a great deal more plausible and seem at the first glance to look more fairly then any for their purpose The Elements are understood to be what they are made and they are beleived and reverenced as those things which they are beleived †Noeitai haper egeneto kai pisteuetai kai proskyneitai hos ekeina onta haper pisteuontai Theod Dialogâ— asygchyt apud Boil p 64. Here our Faith makes the Sacrament to be what it signifies to become to us the res Sacramenti as well as a sign and Representation of it and that thing is to be adored by us in the use of the Sacrament which is the true sense of Theodorets words and that he cannot mean in the Roman sense the substance of Christs Body is plain from what immediatly goes before and utterly destroyes what they would catch from half his words for he says That the Elements or the mysticall Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own but remain in their former substance †Oude gar meta tonhagiasmon ta mystica symbola tes â—oikeias existataiphyseos menei gar eiâ—eâ— proteros odfius Ibid. Thus their best Witness that seems to speak the most for them yet speaks that against them which destroys their whole cause as he must own whoever reads the Dialogue and considers the design of it which was to answer the pretence of those who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension turned into a Divine substance and lost the true nature of Body * hosper toinyn ta symbâ—la tu despotikon as the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are changed say those Hereticks into what they were not before Yes sayes he Now ye are taken into your own net for they remain in their former nature and substance afterwards and so does Christs Body If then the change of these sacred Elements be only as to their use and vertue but not as to their substance according to Theodoret then he could not mean that they should be adored but only reverenced by the word proskyneitai just as the Holy Bible * is said to be reverenced and the Priests themselves by the very same word * Prosknesai met ' eulabei as to euaggelion Liturg. chrysost Hiepeis proskynetot proskynetoi Adelpboi proskynete synodos Acta concil Ephes 4. Some of the Fathers words imply that when we come to the Sacrament it should be with the greatest lowliness both of Body and Mind and as the Primitive Church used to do and as the Church of England does in a posture of Worship and Adoration in the form and manner of Worship as St. Cyril of Hieros speaks ‡ Kypton kai tropo proskyâ—eseâ—â— kaâ— sebasmatos Catech. Myst 5. or as St. Chrysottome In the form of supplicants and Worshippers †Schema hiketon kai proskyneton echomen Chrysost Homil 7. in Matth. epi to timesai kai proskynesai ton hyion tu Theu Ibid. prosenegke sy tapein ophrosynen kai tetapeinomenen kapdion Homil. de Phil. Dianastesomen toinyn heautous kai phrixomen kai pollo ton barbaron â—keinon pleiona epideixomethaâ—en eulabeian of Christ as the Magi were when they came to bring their presents to him do thou then present him with humility and a lowly and submissive heart and be not like Herod who pretended he would come to worship him but it was to murder him but rather imitate the Magi and come with greater fear and reverence to thy Saviour then they did This is the whole design and substance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom †Boil c. 7. l. 1 And this is the plain meaning of Origen * Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum in greditur tu ergo humilians teipsuâ—â— imitare hâ—nc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum digâ—â—s ut intres sub tecâ—â—◠〈◊〉 that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament we should do it with all Humility for consider sayes he That then the Lords enters under thy roof do thou therefore humble thy self and imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence looking upon and †Phrixomen toinyu proâ—iontes cachariste somen prospesomen
Church and Christian will be both lost which would be as if a Prince should knock all his Subjects on the Head to keep them quiet 'T is true this would be an effectual way to procure it but by these means he must lose his Kingdom and make himself no Prince into the bargain 'T is no doubt but if Men were ignorant enough they would be quiet but then the consequences of it would be that they would cease to be Men. Lastly They frustrate the effects of real Religion by their Pretences to extraordinary Power and Priviledges that is they pretend to make that lawfull which is unlawfull Bellarmine saith that the Pope may declare vice to be vertue and vertue vice by this practice they attempt to change the reason of things which all Mankind agree to be unalterable By this pretended Power they can turn attrition into contrition that is they can make such a consternation of mind as fell upon Judas when he went and hanged himself to be contrition by the Priest's Absolution they can mâ—ke bodily Pennance to be of equal validity with an inward change of mind and true Repentance they pretend they can produce by I know not what magical force strange spiritual effects by vertue of Holy Water and the Cross they are also much puff't up with a Power they assume of Absolving Men from solemn Oaths and Obligations They boast much of the efficacy of Indulgences for the pardon of sin and for the delivery of Souls out of Purgatory by which Invention they detract from the efficacy of God's Grace as if it were not sufficient to prepare us for and at last to bring us to Heaven unless we pass through this imaginary Purgation after Death by which also they themselves are deceived whilst they couple prayer for the Dead and Purgatory together as if the one did necessarily suppose or imply the other But they doe not for though the sins of the Faithfull be privately and particularily forgiven at the day of Death yet the publick promulgation of their pardon is to come at the day of Judgment Christians then may be allowed to pray for this consummation of Blessedness when the Body shall be reunited to the Soul So we pray as often as we say Thy Kingdom come or come Lord Jesus coâ—â— quickly this is far enough from being a Prayer to deliver them out of Purgatory besides the Roman Church is not able to produce any one Prayer publick or private nor one Indulgence for the delivery of any one Soul out of Purgatory in all the Primitive times or out of their own ancient Missals or Records All these things before mentioned are not to be justified but thus the Papists have endeavoured to spoil the best Religion that ever was made known unto Men. Whereas the Christian Religion as it is professed in the Reformed Church is quite another thing for it doth neither persecute nor hold any principâ—es of faction or disturbance but only those of peace and obedience to the Laws of God and Man if there be any agitatours of Miscief and Treason it is the fault of particular parties and not to be charged upon the Reformed Church which Church holds the Worship of God and all other offices of Religion to be performed in the Vulgar Tongue so that Knowledge may be thereby had and promoted which Knowledge of Religion if any Man doth abuse for the ends of Pride Rebellion or Heresie he doth it at his own peril and God will judge him for it But St. Paul is so far from allowing any Service to God in an unknown Tongue that he calls it a piece of madness 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church be come together into one place and all speak with divers tongues and there come in the unlearned will not they say that you are mad that is they may justly say so Now a Man would wonder that any society of Men retaining the Name of Christians should zealously press that to be necessary for the Christian Church which St. Paul hath said to be a piece of madness The same Reformed Church owns the free use of the Scriptures both in publick and private calls upon Men as our Savâ—our did to search them for these make the Man of God perfect and do richly furnish him for every good work and by their help we are able to render a reason of the hope that is in us We do declare that the Preachers of the Church ought not to take away the Key of Knowledge from the People as our Saviour charges the Pharisees or as St. Augustine saith They do not command Faith in Men upon peril of Damnation to shew their superioritie but they appear as Officers do direct and give Counsel not with Pride to rule but in Compassion to lead others into the way of Truth and to recover them out of mislakes In short we tell the People that the Scripture is the only rule of their faith that it is full and perspicuous in all matters necessary for good life and practicâ— so that if they use diligence and mind them well they may easily understand them and be satiâ—fied we never demand any implicite Faith from them neiâ—her do we expect that they should resign up their Faculties as others believe blindfold and withâ—ut reason Therefore the Reformed Church is honest in all its dealings doth not deceive Men â—e any wâ—yes of fraud or faâ—shood such as the whole Doctrine of Merit â—s and the Relieving of Souls out of Purgatory by Massâ—s But there is a plâ—ce in the World where Coelum est venale Deusque Heaven and God himself is set to sale The premisses considered we may conclude that the Church of England had good reason to declare in her twenty second Aâ—â—cle that The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory Pardons Worshipping and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliqâ—es and aâ—so Invâ—â—ation â—â— Saints is a fond thing vainly invented and grounded upon no warraâ—â—â— of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God For the whole Scripture is against Purgatory wheâ—ein wâ— reaâ— 1 Joh. 1. 7. That the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin that the Children of God who die in Câ—â—ist do rest from their labours that as they are absent from the Lord wâ—â—â—e theâ— aâ—â— in the body so when they are absent from the body â—hey aâ—e present with the Lord Joh. 5. 24. They come not into Judgemenâ— but pass from Death to Life The same Doctrine is taughâ— bâ—â—â—â— ancient Fathers of the Chuâ—châ— Tertullian Tertul. lib de patien ch 3. sayes it is an Injury to Christ to maintain that such as be called from hence by him are in a Cyprian de Mortali sect 2. edit Goulart state that should be pitied Thus St. Cyprian affiâ—ms the Servants of God to have Peace and Rest as soon as they are withdrawn from the storms of this lower World And Hilary observes in the Gospel Hilar. in Psal 2. of the