all their Senses tell them is but a bit of Bread to the hinderance of whose Conversion so many things may interpose that were their Doctrine otherwise as infallible as we are certain it is false it would yet be a hundred to one that there is no Consecration in a word how they can worship that which they can never be secure is changed into Christ's Body nay when as the examples I have before given shew they have all the reason in the World to fear whether even the Priest himself who says the Mass does indeed believe that he has any Power or by consequence can have any intention to turn it into the Flesh of Christ And the same consideration will shew Thirdly How little security their other Plea of Concomitance which they so much insist upon to shew the sufficiency of their Communicating only in one kind viz. that they receive the Blood in the Body can give to the Laity to satisfie their Consciences that they ever partake of that Blessed Sacrament as they ought to do Since whatever is pretended of Christ's Body 't is certain there can be none of his Blood in a meer Wafer And if by reason of the Priest's infidelity the Host should be indeed nothing else of which we have shewn they can never be sure neither can they ever know whether what they receive be upon their own Principles an intire Communion And then Lastly for the main thing of all The Sacrifice of the Mass it is clear that if Christ's Body be not truly and properly there it cannot be truly and properly offer'd nor any of those great benefits be derived to them from a morsel of Bread which themselves declare can proceed only from the Flesh and Blood of their Blessed Lord. It is I know an easie matter for those who can believe Transubstantiation to believe also that there is no hazard in all these great and apparent dangers But yet in matters of such moment Men ought to desire to be well assured and not exposed even to any possible defects De defectibus cirea Missam De defectu panis Si panis non sit triticeus vel si triticeus sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tantâ quantitate ut non maneat panis triticeus vel sit alioqui corruptus non conficitur Sacramentum Si sit confectus de aqud rosaceâ vel alterius distillationis dubium est an conficiatur Et de defect vini Si Vinum sit factum penitus acetum vel penitus putridum vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expressiom vel admixtum tantum aque ut vinum sit corruptum non consicitur Sacramentum I do not now insist upon the common remarks which yet are Authorized by their own Missal and may give just grounds to their fears That if the Wafer be not made of Wheat but of some other Corn there is then no Consecration If it be mixed not with common but distill'd Water it is doubtful whether it be Consecrated If the Wine be sowre to such a certain degree that then it becomes incapable of being changed into the Blood of Christ with many more of the like kind and which render it always uncertain to them whether there be any change made in the blessed Elements or no * Du Moulin in the place above cited mentions one that in his time was burnt at Loudun for Consecrating a Host in the name of the Devil Thes Sedann Th. 97. n. 10. p. 846. Vol. 1. the Relations I have given are not of counterfeit Jews and Moors who to escape the danger of the Inquisition have sometimes become Priests and administred all the Sacraments for many years together without ever having an intention to Administer truly any one of them and of which I could give an eminent instance in a certain Jew now living who for many Years was not only a Priest but a Professor of Divinity in Spain and all the while in reality a meer Jew as he is now The Persons here mention'd were Men of undoubted reputation of great learning and singular esteem in their Church and if these found the impossibilities of Transubstantiation so much greater than either the pretended Authority or Infallibility of their Church certainly they may have just cause to fear whether many others of their Priests do not Live in the same infidelity in which these have Died and so expose them to all the hazards now mentioned and which are undeniably the consequences of such their Unbelief But these are not the only dangers I would desire those of that Communion to reflect on upon this occasion Another there is and of greater consequence than any I have hitherto mentioned and which may perhaps extend not only to this Holy Eucharist but it may be to the invalidating of most of their other Sacraments * Eugenii IV. decret in Act. Concil Florent Ann. 1439. Concil Labb Tom. 13. p. 535. Concil Trident. Sess VII Can. 2. It is the Doctrine of the Roman Church that to the Validity of every Sacrament and therefore of that of Orders as well as the rest three things must concur a due matter a right form and the Person of the Minister conferring the Sacrament with an intention of doing what the Church does Where either of these is wanting the Sacrament is not performed If therefore the Bishop in conferring the Holy Order of Priesthood has not an intention of doing what the Church does 't is plain that the Person to be ordained receives no Priestly Character of him nor by consequence has any power of consecrating the Holy Eucharist or of being hereafter advanced to a higher degree Now the form of conferring the Order of Priesthood they determine to be this †Ibid. pag. 5â—3 Catech. Concil Trid. de Sacr. Ord. n. xxii p. 222. Item n. L. p. 228. The Bishop delivers the Cup with some Wine and the Paten with Bread into the Hands of the person whom he Ordains saying Receive the Power of offering a Sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost By which Ceremony and words their Catechism tells us He is constituted an Interpreter and Mediator between God and Man which is to be esteemed the chiefest Function of a Priest So that then the intention necessary to the conferring the Order of Priesthood is this to give a Power to consecrate i. e. to Transubstantiate the Host into Christ's Body and so offer it as a Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead If therefore any of their Bishops for instance Cardinal du Perron or Monsieur de Marca did not believe that either the Church or themselves as Bishops of it had any Authority to confer any such Power they could not certainly have any Intention of doing in this case what the Church intends to do Having no such Intention the Persons whom they pretended to Ordain were no Priests
A DISCOURSE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN THE TWO GREAT POINTS OF THE Real Presence AND THE Adoration of the Host IN ANSWER to the Two DISCOURSES lately Printed at OXFORD on This SUBJECT To which is prefixed A Large HISTORICAL PREFACE relating to the same ARGUMENT LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII THE PREFACE THE nature of the Holy Eucharist is a subject that hath been both so frequently insisted upon and so fully explain'd in our own and other Languages that it may well be thought a very needless undertaking for any one to trouble the World with any farther Reflections upon it For not to mention now those Eminent Men who have heretofore labour'd in this work nor to run beyond the points that are here designed to be examined What can be said more evidently to shew the impossibility of the pretended substantial change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament than has been done in the late excellent Discourse against Transubstantiation It is but a very little time since the Adoration of the Host has been shewn not only to be a novel invention contrary to the practice of all Antiquity but the danger of it evidently demonstrated notwithstanding whatever pretences can be made of a good intention to excuse them from the charge and danger of Idolatry who continue the practice of it And both these not only still remain unanswer'd but if we may be allow'd to judge either by their own strength or by our Adversaries silence are truly and indeed unanswerable It is not therefore out of any the least Opinion that any thing more need be said to confirm our cause much less that I esteem my self able to undertake it with the same success that those other Champions of our Faith have done it that I venture these Discourses to a publick view But since our Adversaries still continue without taking notice of any of these things to cry up their Great Diana no less than if she had never at all been shewn to be but an Idol I thought it might not be amiss to revive our Instances against it And that we ought not to appear less sollicitous by a frequent repetition of our Reasons to keep men in the Truth than others are by a continual insisting upon their so often baffled Sophistry to lead them into Error 'T was an ingenious Apology that Seneca once made for his often repeating the same things That he did but inculcate over and over the same Counsels to those that over and over committed the same faults And I remember an antient Father has left it as his Opinion that it was useful for the same truths to be vindicated by many because that one Man's Writings might possibly chance to come where the others did not and what was less fully or clearly explain'd by one might be supplied and enlarged by the other And a greater than either of these S. Paul has at once left us both an example and a warrant for this sollicitude Phil. 3.1 To write the same things to you to me says he is not grievous but for you it is safe Indeed I think if there be any need of an excuse for this undertaking it ought to be rather to Apologize for a far greater absurdity which we all commit in writing at all against those Men who in these Disputes concerning the Holy Sacrament have most evidently shewn that to be true of Christians which was once said of the antient Philosophers That there can be nothing so absurd which some Men will not adventure to maintain In most of our other Controversies with those of the Church of Rome we shew them to be Erroneous in this they are Extravagant And as an eminent Pen has very justly express'd it Discourse against Transubstantiation Pag. 2. 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 The truth is as the same Person goes on Ibid. 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 than Transubstantiation is evidently false And if such things as these must be disputed and this Evidence 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 Blood may not pass for sufficient without any farther Proof I cannot discern why any Man that hath but confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm it to be what all the World sees it is not and this without all possibility of being further confuted But yet since it has pleased God so far to give over some Men to a spirit of delusion as not only seriously to believe this themselves but also rashly to damn all those that cannot believe it with them we ought as well for the security of those who have not yet abandoned their own sense and reason in compliance only with others who in this matter profess to have laid aside theirs as in charity to such deluded Persons as are unhappily led away with these Errors to shew them their unreasonableness To convince them that Christianity is a wise and rational Religion that 't is a mistaken Piety to suppose that Men ought to believe Contradictions or that their Faith is ever the more perfect because the Object of it is impossible That our Senses ought to be trusted in judging aright of their proper Object that to deny this is to overthrow the greatest external Evidence we have for our Religion which is founded upon their judgment or if that will be more considerable is to take away all the grounds that even themselves can pretend to wherefore they should disbelieve them in favour of Transubstantiation And this I perswade my self I have in the following Discourse sufficiently shewn and I shall not need to repeat it again here For the words themselves which are the grounds of this great Error I have taken that Method which seemed to me the most proper to find out the true meaning of them and as far as the nature of the Enquiry would permit have endeavour'd to render it plain and intelligible even to the meanest Capacity And I have some cause to hope that the most learned will not be dissatisfied with the design what ever they may be with the performance it being from such that I have taken the greatest part of my Reflections and in which I pretend to little of my own besides the care of putting together here what I had observed scattered up and down in parts elsewhere It was so much the more fit at this time to insist upon this manner of arguing in that a late
qu'il répondit qu' il la tenoit pour un Monstre Et comme ils luy demanderent comment done il en avoit écrit si amplement si doctement il repliqua qu'il avoit deployé toutes les Adresses de son Esprit poâ— colourer cet abus pour le rendre plausibile qu'il avoit fait comrre ceux qui font tous leurs Efforts pour defendre une manvaise Cause Your Highness says He may believe me if you please But I can assure you with all sincerity and truth that if the late Cardinal du Perron has convinced you of the Truth of Transubstantiation he has convinced you of that of which he could never convince himself nor did he ever believe it For I have been informed by certain Persons of Honour and that are in all respects worthy of belief and who had it from those that were eye witnesses That some friends of that Illustrious and Learned Cardinal who went to see him as he lay languishing upon his Bed and ill of that distemper of which he died desired him to tell them freely what he thought of Transubstantiation To whom he answer'd That 't was a MONSTER And when they farther ask'd him How then he had written so copiously and learnedly about it He replied That he had done the utmost that his Wit and Parts had enabled him to COLOUR OVER THIS ABUSE and RENDER IT PLAUSIBLE But that he had done like those who employ all their force to defend an ILL CAUSE And thus far Monsieur Drelincourt I could to this add some farther circumstances which I have learnt of this matter but what is here said may suffice to shew what the real Opinion of this great Cardinal after all his Voluminous Writings as to this Doctrine was unless some future Obligations shall perhaps engage me to enter on a more particular account of it To these two great instances of another Nation I will beg leave to subjoyn a third of our own Country Father Barnes the Benedictine Catholico-Romano-Pacificus Oxon. 1680. Pag. 90. Assertio Transubstantiationis sâ—u mutationis substantialis panis licet sit Opinio communior non tamen est fides Ecclesiae Et Scripturae Patres docentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficienter expoâ—â— possant de admirandâ— supernaturali mutatione Panis per Praesentiam Corporis Christi ei accedentem sine substantialis Panis desitione Et. P. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illam in Augustissimo Sacramento factam plerique graves antiqui Scriptoresita explicant ut non fiat per desitionem substantiae panis sed per receptionem supernaturalem substantiae Corporis Christi in substantiam Panis V. pl. who in his Pacific Discourse of most of the points in Controversie between us and the Papists expresly declares That the Assertion of Transubstantiation or of the substantial change of the Bread though it be indeed the more common Opinion is yet no part of the Churches Faith And that the Scripture and Fathers when they speak of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be sufficiently Expounded of that admirable and supernatural change of the Bread by the presence of Christ's Body added to it without the departure of the substance of the Bread it self It appears by these words how little this Monk thought Transubstantiation an Article of Faith. But a greater than he and who not only did not esteem it necessary for Others to receive it but clearly shews that he did not believe it himself Illustriss atque Reverend Pâ—de Marea Parisiens Archiep. Dissertationes Posthumae De Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento dissertatio in sne is the Illustrious Monsieur de Marca late Archbishop of Paris and well known to the World for his great Learning and Eminence His Treatise of the Eucharist was publish'd with Authority by one of his near Relations the Abbé Faget at Paris 1668. with some other little Tracts which he had received from the Archbishops own hands In the close of that Treatise he thus delivers his Opinion †Species Pâ—nis est Essentiâ Naturâ distincta à Corpore Christi sibi adjuncto licet ratio Eucharistiae id exigat ut substantia Panis interior conversa suerit in illud Corpus modo quodam qui omnem cogitationem exsuperat Caeterum mutatio illa non officit quin Panis qui videtur id est Accidentia suam Naturam Extantiam Essentiam SIVE SUBSTANTIAM retineat naturae verae Proprietates inter quas est alendi corporis humani facultas Vnde consequitur rectè observatum à Gelasio Sacramenta Corporis Sanguinis Christi divinam rem esse quia Panis Vinum in divinam transeunt substantiam S. spiritu persiciente nempe in Corpus Christi spiritale sed ex alia parte non desinere substantiam naturam Panis Vini sed ea permanere in suae proprietate Naturae Quoniam scil postquam Panis in divinam substantiam transivit NON INTERIIT INTEGRA PANIS NATURA QUAM SUBSTANTIAM QUOQUE VOCAT NEC DESIVIT SED in suae proprietate Naturae permansit ad alendum Corpus idonea quod est praecipuum confecti panis munus Note That in the Paris Edition they have put in those words printed in the Black Letter id est Accidentia and omitted those that I have caused to be set in Capitals But in the Original leaf which I have left in S. Martin's Library to be seen by any that pleases and which was cut out for the sake of this passage it stands as I have said and as it is truly represented in the Holland Edition The species of the Bread is in its Essence and Nature distinct from the Body of Christ adjoyn'd to it although the reason of the Eucharist requires that the inward substance of the Bread should be converted into that Body after a manner that exceeds all Imagination But yet this change hinders not but that the BREAD which is seen still RETAINS its own NATURE BEING and ESSENCE or SUBSTANCE together with the proprieties of its true Nature among which one is the faculty of nourishing our Bodies c. Whence it follows that it was rightly observ'd by Gelasius that the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was a Divine thing because the Bread and Wine being perfected by the Holy Spirit pass into the Divine substance viz. the spiritual Body of Christ but on the other side that the SUBSTANCE and NATURE of the BREAD and WINE do not cease to be but continue still in the propriety of their own Nature And here I suppose any one who reads this passage alone of this Treatise might without the help of * Baluze 2 Lettre à Monsieur le Presid Marca S'il est vray ce que j'ay de la peine à croire que feu Monsigneur ait composé les Traittez que M. Faget a fait imprimer sous son nom dont il se vante dans la Preface
dans la Vie d'avoir les Originaux escrits de la main de l'Auteur nous ne scaurions empescher que feu Monsigneur ne passe dans l'Esprit de beaucoup de Gens pour HERETIQUE au sujet de l' Eucharistie Monsieur Baluze's Animadversion easily have concluded That if this be indeed the work of Monsieur de Marca 't will be impossible to hinder him from passing with many Persons for a HERETICK as to the point of the Eucharist But before I quit this Instance I cannot but observe with reference to this Treatise what care the Romanists take to hinder the sentiments of learned Men in this Point from coming to a publick knowledge And which might give us some cause to suspect that their great concern is not so much whether they do indeed believe Transubstantiation themselves as not to let the World know that they do not This has been heretofore shewn in another Treatise with reference to S. Chrysostom whose * Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Engl. Appendix p. 127. n. v. Epistle to Caesarius some of the Sorbonne Doctors caused most shamefully to be cut out of Monsieur Bigot 's Edition of Palladius because it too plainly spoke the Doctrine of the Protestants as to this point And the same has almost happened to this Treatise of Monsieur de Marca here mentioned †See the Preface to the Reader before the Edition of the same Treatises 12º Anno 1669. and Monsieur Baluze's Letter to the Bishop of Tulle on this occasion p. 5. Before it came to a publick sight the passages that seemed most visibly to oppose their Doctrine were either changed or suppress'd * The Oiginal leaves cut out by them having fallen into my Hands may be seen by those that desire it in S. Martin's Library of which the passage before cited is one as appears by the Paris Edition now extant of them But †See Monsieur Baluze 2. Lettre pag. 15. the Providence of God that brought to light the other has discover'd this cheat too For before the alarm was given and that the Chancellor (a) Mais enfin le refus que Mrs. de Sorbonne luy ont fait de luy donner leur approbation luy ont fait ouvrir les yeux s'estant laissé entendre quoyqu'un peu tard qu'il a fait une Sottise ibid. the Sorbonne Doctors but especially Monsieur Baluze by his Letters to the President de Marca the Archbishop 's Son upon this occasion had awakened the Abbé Faget to consider more nearly what he had done (b) Et p. 16. Je dis un peu tard parce qu'il avoit de ja fait des presentes de son livre que le libraire en avoit aussi debite quelques uns several Presents had been made of the intire work as it was in the Authors MS. and if we may credit their own relations the Printer who was a Protestant and the same that printed (c) Baluze Lettre à Monsieur l'Evesque de Tulle p. 5. Monsieur Claude's Books against the Perpetuité had obliged that learned Person with a Copy by which means both the genuine sentiments of Monsieur de Marca in opposition to Transubstantiation are preserved and their fraudulent endeavours to suppress his opinion discovered To this eminent Person I will beg leave to subjoyn a fifth and he too no less known to the World both for his Learning and Reputation nor less a Heretick in this point however not hitherto so openly discovered as the other and that is Father Sirmond the Jesuit In his life of Paschasius Radbertus he tells us Sirmond Vit. Pasch Radbert That this Monk was the first who explained the genuine sense of the Catholick Church in this mystery and indeed if what * Eclaircissement de l'Euch c. 19. p. 431 c. Blondel and some others have observed concerning him be true that it was for Impanation not Transubstantiation the Jesuit perhaps spoke his real judgment of him though not in that sense that he is usually understood to have done it But however that be certain it is that this learned Father so little believed the Doctrine of the present Roman Church as to this point that he freely confess'd he thought it had herein departed from the antient Faith and at the desire of one of his Friends wrote a short Treatise to confirm his Assertion This though it be not yet made publick is neverthess in the hands of several Persons of undoubted integrity I will mention only one whose learning and worth are sufficiently known to the World viz. Monsieur Bigot who discoursing with Father Raynauld at Lyons about this matter the Jesuit confess'd to him that it was true that he had himself a copy of his Treatise which he would communicate to him and that it was Father Sirmond whom upon this account he reflected upon in his Book Ingenia praeclara in rebus difficilibus aliquid semper de suo comminisountur Nam praeclara ingenia multa novant circa scientias Theoph. Raynaudi S. J. Erotemata de malis ac bonis libris Lugduni 1653. p. 251. de bonis malis Libris where he observes That Men of great parts love to innovate and invent always somewhat of their own in difficult matters When Monsieur Bigot return'd to claim the performance of his promise the Jesuit excused himself to him that he could not light upon it which when he afterwards told to Father Chiflet another Jesuit of Dijonois he again confirmed to him the truth of the relation and voluntarily offer'd him a Copy of the Treatise which he told him was transcribed from Father Sirmonds Original This Monsieur Bigot has not only acknowledged to some of his Friends of my acquaintance but promised to communicate to them the very Treatise and I dare appeal to the candor of that worthy Person for the truth of what I have here related and whose name I should not have mentioned but only to remove all reasonable cause of suspicion in a matter of such importance And what I have now said of Father Sirmond I might as truly affirm of a fourth Person of as great a name a Doctor of the Sorbonne whose Treatise against Transubstantiation has been seen by several persons and is still read in the MS. But because I am not at liberty to make use of their names I shall not any further insist upon this example My next instance will be more undeniable and it is of the ingenious Monsieur de Marolles Abbot of Ville-loyn well known in France for his excellent Writings and great Abilities A little before his death which happen'd about the beginning of the Year 1681. being desirous to free his Conscience as to the point of the Holy Eucharist in which he supposed their Church to have many ways departed from the right Faith he caused a Paper to be Printed in which he declares his thoughts
into Christ's Body than for Christ's Body to be changed into Bread a Vine a Door a Rock or whatever you please of the like kind But I have already shewn the ground of this mistake to be their want of considering the Customs and Phrases of the Jewish Passover and upon which both the Holy Eucharist it self and these Expressions in it were founded And I will only add this farther in confirmation of it That in the Stile of the Hebrew Language in general there is nothing more ordinary than for things to be said to * Expressions of this kind are very frequent in Holy Scripture The seed is the Word of God Luke viii 11. The field is the World the good seed are the children of the kingdom The tares are the children of the wicked one Matt. xiii 38. The seven Angels are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches Rev. i. 20. With infinite more of the like kind Be that which they Signifie or Represent Thus Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's Dream Gen. xli 26. The seven good Kine says he are seven years and again The seven good Ears of Corn are seven years i. e. as is plain they signify seven years And so in like manner in this place Christ took Bread and blessed and brake it and gave it to his disciples saying Take Eat this is my Body which is Broken for you That is this Bread thus Taken and Blessed and Broken and Given to you This Bread and this Action signifies and represents my Body which shall be Broken for you And indeed after all this seeming assurance it is nevertheless plain That they themselves are not very well satisfied with their own interpretation †See the Preface We have shewn before how little confidence their greatest Schoolmen had of this Doctrine those who have stood the most stifly for it could never yet * See their Opinions collected by Monsieur Aubertine de Eucharistiâ lib. 1. cap. 9.11 12 13 14. agree how to explain these words so as to prove it And Cardinal Bellarmine alone who reckons up the most part of their several ways and argues the weakness too of every one but his own may be sufficient to assure us that they are never likely to be And might serve to shew what just cause their own great * Tract 2. de Verbis quibus Conficitur Catharinus had so long since to cry out upon his Enquiry only into the meaning of the very first word This Consider says he Reader into what difficulties they are thrown who go about to write upon this matter when the word THIS only has had so many and such contradictory Expositions that they are enough to make a man lose his Wits but barely to consider them all 'T was this forced so many of their †See their Testimonies cited in the late Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation in the Defence of the Exposition of the Church of England p. 63 64 65. In the Preface above c. greatest and most learned men before Luther ingenuously to profess That there was not in Scripture any evident proof of this Doctrine and even Cardinal Cajetan since to own That had not the Church determined for the literal sense of those words This is my Body they might have passed in the Metaphorical It is the general acknowledgment of their ‖ See Bellarmin's words in the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England pag. 56 57. To which may be added Salmer Tom. 9. Tr. 20. Suarez Disp 58. Sect. 7. Vasquez Disp 201. c. 1. c. greatest Writers at this day That if the Pronoun THIS in that Proposition This is my Body be referr'd to the Bread which our Saviour Christ held in his Hand which he bless'd which he brake and gave to his Disciples and of which therefore certainly if of any thing he said This is my Body the natural repugnancy that there is between the two things affirm'd of one another Bread and Christs Body will force them to be taken in a figurative Interpretation For as much as 't is impossible that Bread should be Christ's Body otherwise than in a figure And however to avoid so dangerous a Consequence they will rather apply it to any thing nay to nothing at all than to the Bread yet they would do well to consider whether they do not thereby fall into as great a danger on the other side since if the Relative THIS do's not determine those words to the Bread 't is evident that nothing in that whole Proposition do's And then how those words shall work so great a change in a Subject to which they have no manner of Relation will I believe be as difficult to shew as the change its self is incomprehensible to conceive And now after so plain an evidence of the weakness of that foundation which is by all confessed to be the chief and has by many of the most Learned of that Church been thought the only Pillar of this Cause I might well dispense with my self from entring on any farther examination of their other pretences to establish it But because they have taken great pains of late to apply the †Concil Trid. Sess xiii sixth Chapter of St. John to the Holy Eucharist tho' it might be sufficient in general to say that no good Argument for a matter of such consequence can be built upon a place which so many of the * See them thus ranged by Albertinus de Euch. lib 1. cap. 30. pag. 209. Two Popes Innocent III. Pius II. Four Cardinals Bonaventure D' Alliaco Cusan Cajetane Two Archbishops Richardus Armachannus Guererius Granatensis Five Bishops Stephanus Eduensis Durandus Mimatensis Gulielmus Altisiodorensis Lindanus Ruremondensis Jansenius Gandavensis Doctors and Professors of Divinity in great abundance Alexander Alensis Richardus de media villa Jo. Gerson Jo. de Ragufio Gabriel Biel Thomas Waldenfis Author tract contr perfidiam quorundam Bohemorum Jo. Maria Verratus Tilmannus Segebergensis Astesanus Conradus Jo. Ferus Conradus Sasgerus Jo. Hesselius Ruardus Tapperus Palatios Rigaltius Here are 50. of the Roman Church who reject this Application of this Chapter For the Fathers see the Learned Paraphrase lately set forth of this Chapter in the Preface All which shews how little strength any Argument from this Chapter can have to establish Transubstantiation most Eminent and Learned of that Communion have judged not to have the least Relation to this matter yet I will nevertheless beg leave very briefly to shew the Weakness of this Second Attempt too and that 't is in vain that they rally these scatter'd Forces whilst their main Body continues so intirely defeated It is a little surprizing in this matter that they universally tell us That neither the beginning nor ending of our Saviours Discourse in that Chapter belongs to this Matter that both before and after that passage which they refer to 't is
Charity P. 33. §. xxx than any necessity of Argument if our Writers do sometimes either not at all or but faintly charge them with Idolatry And the Testimonies he produces argue rather the candor of our Affections towards them even such as to hope almost against Hope for their sakes than give any security to them in their Errors And because I would willingly if possible convince them of it I will very briefly subjoin a Reason or two 2dly Why even upon their own Principles I am not satisfied that they have such a rational Ground for this Adoration as may be sufficient to excuse them For 1st It is granted by this Author P. 26. §. xxii That a meerly good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance cannot excuse them from Idolatry So that if their ignorance then be really culpable their good Intention will not be sufficient to excuse them Now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded is their mistaken interpretation of those words This is my Body and whether that be a rational or culpable Mistake we shall best be able to judg by two or three Observations 1. It is confess'd by the greatest Men of their Church that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do so that had not the Authority of their Church interposed they might have been equally verified in our Interpretation And this must be allow'd unless we shall say that all places of Holy Scripture must be understood in a literal sense whatever the Consequence be of so doing 2. Our Author himself confesses that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain Contradiction then it cannot be right but we are bound to seek out some other Exposition to avoid a certain Contradiction 3. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of Sense and in that of the Truth of the Christian Religion which was confirmed by Miracles known only by the evidence of Sense and by Consequence of this particular Point that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God or can be rely'd upon as coming from him Now from these Principles I thus argue If that sense of these words This is my Body upon which they ground their Adoration do's necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them But that it do's so and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it I thus shew He that believes these words in the sense of Transubstantiation must believe the same natural Body at the same time to be in ten-thousand several places upon Earth and yet still to be but one Body and that all the while in Heaven He must believe that the same natural Body is at the same time extended in all its Parts and yet continuing still the same Body without any change to be unextended and have no distinct Parts nor be capable of being divided into any He must believe the same Body at the same time to move and to lie still to be the Object of our Senses and yet not to be perceptible by any With infinite others of the like kind * See above Ch. 2. of Transubstantiation Pag. 32 33. as I have more fully shewn before But now all these are gross Contradictions contrary to the Nature of a Body and to the common Principles of Reason in all Mankind and no Man can without culpable Ignorance pretend not to know them to be so And therefore notwithstanding any such supposed Divine Revelation as may be pretended from those words This is my Body they cannot by our Author 's own Rule without culpable Ignorance not know that they are mistaken in this Matter Again No Papist can have any reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of Holy Scripture This is my Body That these words are in Scripture he can know only by his Senses If his Senses therefore are not to be trusted he is not sure there are any such words in Scripture If they are to be trusted he is then sure that the Interpretation which he puts upon them must be false Since then it is confess'd that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense and that both upon the account of the Contradictions that such an Exposition involves to the common Principles of Reason and to the certain Evidence of the Senses of all Mankind it is necessary to take them in some other meaning it remains that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot pretend not to know that this could never have been the intention of our Blessed Saviour in those words and that such Ignorance will not excuse them our Author himself has freely confess'd But 2dly let us quit this Reflection and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation Yet still it is confess'd by them 1. That there is no Command nor Example in holy Scripture for adoring Christ in the Eucharist 2. That infinite Defects may happen to hinder him from being there and then what they worship is only a piece of Bread. 3. That they can never be sure that some of these Defects have not happened and by consequence that what they suppose to be Christ's Body is indeed any more than a meer Wafer From whence I argue He that without any Command or Warrant of God pays a Divine Adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature can never be sure that he do's not commit Idolatry But whosoever worships the Host worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit Idolatry Now concerning the former of these how dangerous it is for any one to give Divine Worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer Creature be it considered what jealousy God has at all times express'd of his Honour as to this Matter how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his Supreme Prerogative in such Cases How therefore he that will come to him must be very well assured that it is God to whom he approaches and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it ought not to worship with a doubting Mind because he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault but the doing of which may for ought he knows be a very great Sin. And for the second Whether every Roman Catholick who adores the Host has not even upon his own Principles very great cause to doubt whether he adores Christ's Body or only a bit of Bread will appear from those infinite Defects which they themselves allow as sufficient to hinder a Consecration and which make it great odds were their Doctrine otherwise never so true whether yet one Host in twenty it may be in five hundred be