Being no Priests they had no Power to Consecrate All the Hosts therefore which were either offered or taken or worshipped in any of the Masses celebrated by those Priests whom these two Bishops Ordained were only meer Bread and not the Body of Christ And as many of them as being afterwards advanced to a higher dignity were consecrated Bishops received no Episcopal Character because they were destitute of the Priestly before Thus the danger still encreases For by this means the Priests whom they also Ordain are no Priests and when any of them shall be promoted to a higher degree are uncapable of being made Bishops And so by the Infidelity of these two Men there are at this day infinite numbers of Priests and Bishops who say Mass and confer Orders without any manner of power to do either and in a little time it may be there shall not be a true Bishop or Priest in the whole Gallicane Church But II. A second Consideration which I would beg leave to offer from the fore-going instances is this What reliance we can make upon the Pretended Infallibility of their Church when 't is thus plain that so many of the most learned Men of their own Communion did not only not believe it to be Infallible but supposed it to have actually Erred and that in those very Doctrines that are at this day esteemed the most considerable Points in difference between Vs It is plain from what has been said in the foregoing reflection that disbelieving Transubstantiation they must also have lookt upon all the other Consequences of it viz. the Adoration of the Host the Sacrifice of the Mass c. as Erroneous too Now though it be not yet agreed among them nor ever likely to be where the supposed Infallibility of their Church is seated yet since all manner of Authority has conspired to establish these things Popes have decreed them Councils defined them and both Popes and Councils anathematized all those that shall presume to doubt of them 't is evident either these Men did not believe the Church to be Infallible as is pretended or they did not believe the Roman to be according to the modern phrase indeed the Catholick Church III. And upon the same grounds there will arise a third Reflection which they may please to make with us and that is with what Reason they can press us with the Authority of their Church in these matters when such eminent persons of their own Communion and who certainly were much more Obliged to it than we can be thought to be yet did not esteem it sufficient to enslave their belief It is a reproach generally cast upon us that we set up a private Spirit in opposition to the Wisdom and Authority of the Church of God and think our selves better able to judge in matters of Faith than the most General Council that was ever yet assembled This is usually said but is indeed a foul Misrepresentation of our Opinion All we say is that every Man ought to act Rationally in matters of Religion as well as in other concerns to employ his Vnderstanding with the utmost skill and diligence that he is able to know God's will and what it is that he requires of us We do not set up our own judgments against the Authority of the Church but having both the Holy Oracles of God and the Definitions of Men before us we give to each their proper weight And therefore if the one at any time contradicts the other we resolve as is most fitting not that our own but God's Authority revealed to us in his Word is to be preferred And he who without this examination servilely gives up himself to follow whatever is required of him He may be in the right if his Church or Guide be so but according to this method shall never be able to give a reason of his Faith nor if he chance to be born in a False Religion ever be in a capacity of being better instructed For if we must be allowed nothing but to obey only and not presume to enquire why He that is a Jew must continue a Jew still he that is a Turk a Turk a Protestant must always be a Protestant In short in whatsoever profession any one now is in that he must continue whether true or false if reason and examination must be excluded all place in matters of Religion * All this is lately granted by the Catholick Representer Cap. VI. And indeed after all their clamours against us on this occasion yet is this no more than what themselves require of us when 't is in order to their own advantage Is a Proselyte to be made they offer to him their Arguments They tell him a long story of their Church the Succession Visibility and other Notes of it To what purpose is all this if we are not to be Judges to examine their pretences whether these are sufficient marks of such a Church as they suppose and if they are whether they do indeed agree to theirs and then upon a full conviction submit to them Now if this be their intention 't is then clear let them pretend what they will that they think us both capable of judging in these matters and that we ought to follow that which all things considered we find to be most reasonable which is all that we desire And for this we have here the undoubted Examples of those Eminent Persons of their own Communion before named who notwithstanding the Authority of their Church and the decision of so many Councils esteemed by it as General have yet both thought themselves at liberty to examine their Decrees and even to pass sentence too upon them that they were erroneous in the Points here mentioned And therefore certainly we may modestly desire the same liberty which themselves take at least till we can be convinced and that by such Arguments as we shall be allow'd to judge of that there is such an infallible Guide whom we ought in all things to follow without further inquiry and where we may find him and when this is done I will for my part promise as freely to give up my self to his Conduct as I am till then I think reasonably resolved to follow what according to the best of my ability in proving all things I shall find indeed to be Good. IV. I might from the same Principles Fourthly argue the Reasonableness of our Reformation at least in the opinion of those great Men of whom we have hitherto been speaking And who thinking it allow'd to them to dissent themselves from the received Doctrine of their Church which they found to be erroneous could not but in their Consciences justifie us who as a national Church no way subjected to their Authority did the same and by the right which every such Church has within it self reformed those Errors which like the Tares were sprung up with the Good Seed This 't is evident they must have approved and for one
disturber of the Fathers the better to shew the Antiquity of his new Religion has pretended to search no less than into the secrets of the Jewish Cabala after it and to have found out Transubstantiation there amongst the rest of the Rabbinical Follies Consensus Veterum p. 21 c. Now however the very name of Galatinus be sufficient to Learned Men to make them esteem his Judgment in his Jewish to be much the same as in his Christian Antiquity which follows after in those eminent pieces of S. Peter 's and S. Matthew 's Liturgies Ibid. p. 27. S. Andrew 's work of the Passion of our Lord Dionysius 's Ecclesiast Hierarch c. yet because such stuff as this may serve to amuse those who are not acquainted with the emptiness of it I was so much the rather inclined to shew what the true notions of the Jewish Rites would furnish us with to overthrow their pretences and that the Rabbins Visions are of as little moment to confirm this conceit as their own Miracles But whatever those of the other Communion shall please to judge of my Arguments yet at least the Opinions of those eminent Men of their own Church may certainly deserve to be consider'd by them who have freely declared that there is not in Scripture any evident proof of Transubstantiation nay some of whom have thought so little engagement upon them either from that or any other Authority to believe it that they have lived and died in their Church without ever embracing of it And of this the late Author of the * Traittè d'un Autheur de la Communion Romaine touchant la Transubstantiation Lond. 1686. Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation and which is just now set forth in our own Language may be an eminent instance being a Person at this day living in the Communion of the Church of Rome and in no little Esteem among all that know Him. It is not fit to give any more particular character of Him at this time They who shall please to peruse his Book will find enough in it to speak in his Advantage and if they have but any tolerable disposition to receive the truth will clearly see that this point of Transubstantiation was the production of a blind and barbarous Age unknown in the Church for above one thousand Years and never own'd by the greatest Men in any Ages since The truth is if we enquire precisely into this business of Transubstantiation we shall find the first foundation of it laid in a Cloyster by an unwary Monk about the beginning of the 7th Century About 636 or 640. See Blondel de l'Eucharistie c. 14. p. 36â— carried on by a Cabal of Men assembled under the name of a (a) 2. Concil Nic. General Council to introduce the worship of Images into the Church Ann. 787. (b) Blondel l. c. cap. 18. pag. 426. formed into a better shape by another (c) Paschasius Radbertus Monk Ann. 818. and He too opposed by almost all the Learned Men of his Age and at last confirmed by a (d) See the Treatise of Transubstantiation Hist of the 9th Age. Pope of whom their own Authors have left us but a very indifferent (e) Innocent III. Super omnes mortales ambitiosus superbus pecuniaeque sititor iâ—satiabilis ad omnia â—â—â—lera pro praemiis datis vel promissis cereus proclivis Matt. Paris character and in a (f) Concil Lateran IV. Can. 3. de Haereticis Synod of which I shall observe only this that it gave the Pope the power of unmaking Kings as well as the Priests that of making their God. But indeed I think we ought not to charge the Council with either of these Attempts since contrary to the manner of proceeding in such Assemblies received in all Ages nothing was either judged or debated by the Synod ‡ His omnibus congregatis in suo loco praefato juxta morem Conciliorum generalium in suis Ordinibus singulis collocatis facto prius ab ipso Papâ exhortationis sermone recitata sunt in pleno Concilio capitula LXX quae aliis placabilia aliis videbantur onerosa Matt. Paris ad Ann. 1215. See this confirmed by Monsieur du Pin. Dissert VII Paris 4º 1686. pag. 572 573. The Pope only himself formed the Articles digested them into Canons and so read them to the Fathers some of which their own Historian tells us approved them others did not but however all were forced to be contented with them Such was the first rise of this new Doctrine 1215 years after Christ But still the most learned Men of that and the following Ages doubted not to dissent from it (a) See 3. q. 75. Art. 6. Vtrum factâ— consecratione remaneat in Hoc Sacramento forma substantialis Panis Aquinas who wrote about 50 years after this definition speaks of some who thought the substantial form of the Bread still to remain after Consecration (b) In. 4 d. 11. q. 9. Quid ergo dicendum de conversione substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi Salvo meliori judicio potest aestimari quod SI in isto Sacramento fiat Conversio substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi quod ipsa fit per Hoc quod corruptâ formâ Panis materia eius sit sub formâ Corporis Christi Durandus doubted not to assert the continuance of the Matter of the Elements whatever became of the form and that 't was (c) Id. in 4. dist 11. q. 4. Art. 14. rashness to say that Christ's Body could be there no otherwise than by Transubstantiation To which (d) Scotus in 4. dist 11. q. 3. Scotus also subscribed that the truth of the Eucharist might be saved without Transubstantiation (e) Id. 4. sent d. 11. q. 3. and that in plain terms ours was the easier and to all appearance the truer interpretation of Christ's words in which (f) Ockam in 4. q. 6. Ockam and (*) Alliaco in 4. q. 6. art 2. d'Alliaco concurr'd with him (g) Contr. capt Babâ—l cap. 10. Fisher confess'd that there was nothing to prove the true presence of Christ's Body and Blood in their Mass (a) Ferus in Matt. 26. Cum certum sit ibi esse Corpus Christi quid opus est disputare num Panis substantia maneat vel non Ferus would not have it inquired into How Christ's Body is there and (b) Lib. 1. de Eucharistiâ See the Treatise of Transubstantiation 1. part Tonstall thought it were better to leave Men to their Liberty of belief in it Those who in respect to their Churches definition did accept it yet freely declared that (c) Vid. Bellarm de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767 768. Suarez in 3. part D. Th. vol. 3. disp 50. p. 593 594. Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. Scotas l. c. 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. Vid etiam Ockam Alliac loc supr cit before this
which is altogether as unintelligible as the Mystery which 't is brought to explain I might to the particulars hitherto mentioned add the whole Sect of their new Philosophers who following the Hypothesis of their Master Des-cartes that Accidents are nothing else but the Modes of Matter must here either renounce his Doctrine or their Churches Belief But I shall close these remarks which have already run to a greater length than I designed with one instance more from a Prelate of our own Church but yet whos 's truly Christian sincerity will I am perswaded justifie him even to those of the Roman Communion The same is affirmed by Monsieur du Moulin of several Priests in France Disp Sedannens de Sacr. Euch. par 4. p. 846. Nec abs re de intentione presbyteri dubitatur cum plurimi Sacerdotes canant Missam relactante Conscientiâ quales multos vidimus qui ejurato Papismo fatebantur se diu cecinisse Missam animo à Missà alienissimo and it is the learned Archbishop Usher who having been so happy as to convert several Roman Priests from their errors and inquiring diligently of them what they who said Mass every day and were not obliged to confess Venial Sins could have to trouble their Confessors so continually withal ingenuously acknowledged to him that the chiefest part of their constant Confession was their Infidelity as to the point of Transubstantiation and for which as was most fit they mutually quitted and absolved one another And now that is thus clear from so many instances of the greatest Men in the Roman Church which this last Age has produced and from whose discovery we may reasonably enough infer the like of many others that have not come to our knowledge that several Persons who have lived and enjoyed some of the greatest Honours and Dignities in that Communion have nevertheless been Hereticks in this point may I beseech those who are still mis-led with this great Error to stop a while and seriously examine with me two or three plain considerations and in which I suppose they are not a little concerned And the first is Of their own danger but especially upon their Own Principles It is but a very little while since an ingenious Person now living in the French Church the Abbé Petit publish'd a Book which he calls (a) Les Veritez de la Religion prouveés defendues contre les auciennes Heresies par la verité de l'Eucharistie 1686. The truths of the Christian Religion proved and defended against the antient Heresies by the Truth of the Eucharist And what he means by this truth he thus declares in his Preface viz. the change of (b) Que du pain divienne le Corps du fils de Dieu du Vin son sang Preface p. 7. the Bread into the Body of the Son of God and of the Wine into his Blood. He there pretends that this Doctrine however combatted by us now was (c) Quoiqu'il n'y ait point presentement de verites plus incontestables que les trois grands articles de nostre foi qui sont contenus dans le symbole c'est à dire la dizinite de J. C. la divinite du S. Esprit la Resurrection Cependant j ' ose dire que la presence réelle de J. C. au Saint Sacrament etoit une verité encore plus indubitable dans les premiers siecles de l'Eglise Pref. p. 5. yet more undoubted in the Primitive Church than either the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost or the certainty of our future Resurrection And this he wrote as the Title tells us (d) Traitté pour confirmer les Noveaux Convertis dans la foi de l'Eglise Catholique To confirm the new Converts in the Faith of the Catholick Church meaning according to their usual figure the Roman How far this extravagant undertaking may serve to convince them I cannot tell this I know that if we may credit those who have been that Abbot ' s most intimate acquaintance he believes but very little of it himself unless he also be become in this point a new Convert But now if what has before been said of so many eminent Persons of their Church be true as after a due and diligent examination of every particular there set down I must beg leave to profess I am fully perswaded that it is 't will need no long deduction to shew how dangerous an influence their unbelief must have had in some of the chiefest instances of their constant Worship For 1. It is the Doctrine of the (e) Concil Trid. Sess vii Can. 11. siquis dixerit in ministris dum Sacramenta conficiunt non requiri intentionem saltem saciendi quod facit Ecclesia Anathema sit Council of Trent that to make a Sacrament the Priest must have if not an Actual yet at least a Virtual Intention of doing that which the Church does And in the (f) Vid. de defectibus circa Missam c. de defectu Intentionis In Missali R. Rubricks of their Missal the want of such an Intention in the Priest is one of the defects there set down as sufficient to hinder a Consecration Now if this be true as every Roman Catholick who acknowledges the Authority of that Synod must believe it to be 't is then evident that in all those Masses which any of the Persons I before named have said there could have been no Consecration It being absurd to suppose that they who believed not Transubstantiation could have an intention to make any such change of the Bread into the Body of Christ which they thought it impossible to do Now if there were no Consecration but that the Bread continued meer Bread as it was before then Secondly All those who attended at their Masses and Adored their Hosts pay'd the supream worship of God to a bare Wafer and no more How far the modern plea of their good Intention to Adore Christ in those sacred Offices may excuse them from having committed Idolatry it is not necessary I should here examine They who desire a satisfaction in this matter may please to recur to a late excellent Treatise written purposely on this Subject A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host Lond. 1685. and where they will find the weakness of this supposal sufficiently exposed But since (a) Vid. Catharin in Cajet pag. 133. Ed. Paris 1535. Where he quotes S. Thomas and Paludanus for the same Opinion This Book of his was seen and approved by the Pope's order by the Divines at Paris as himself tel's us in the review of it Lugdan 1542. many of their own greatest Men confess that if any one by mistake should worship an Unconsecrated Host taking it to have been Consecrated he would be guilty of Idolatry and that such an Error would not be sufficient to excuse him may they please to consider with what Faith they can pay this Divine Adoration to that which
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
Humane Nature of Christ still remains though assumed by and conjoyned to the Divine Which words as their Editor has done well to set a Cautè upon in the Margent to signifie their danger so this is clear from them that Gelasius and so the other Writers that have made use of the same Argument as St. Chrysostome Theodoret c. must have thought the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist no more to have been really changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ than they did believe his Humane Nature to have been truly turned into the Divine For that otherwise the parallel would have stood them in no stead nay would have afforded a defence of that Heresie which they undertook to oppose by it VI. Yet more Had the Primitive Christians believed this great Change how comes it to pass that we find none of those Marks nor Signs of it that the World has since abounded with * See the contrary proved that the Fathers did not believe this by Blondel de l'Euch c. 8. Claude Rep. au 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite part 1. c. 4. No talk of Accidents existing without Subjects of the Senses being liable to be deceived in judging of their proper Objects in short no Philosophy corrupted to maintain this Paradox No Adorations Processions Vows paid to it as to Christ himself It is but a very little time since the †Under Greg. ix Ann. 1240. vid. Nauclerum ad Ann. cit Bell came in play to give the People notice that they should fall down and Worship this new God. The ‖ Instituted by Vrban iv Ann. 1264. Feast in honour of it is an Invention of Yesterday the Adoring of it in the Streets no ⸪ Indeed in all Probability a hundred years later older Had not those first Christians respect sufficient for our Blessed Saviour Or did they perhaps do all this Let them shew it us if they can But till then we must beg leave to conclude That since we find not the least Footsteps of any of these necessary Appendages of this Doctrine among the Primitive Christians it is not to be imagined that we should find the Opinion neither VII But this is not all We do not only not find any such Proofs as these of this Doctrine but we find other Instances directly contrary to this belief In some Churches they ‖ So in that of Jerusalem See Hesych in Levitic l. 2. c. 8. burnt what remained of the Consecrated Elements * So in that of Constantinople Evag. Hist l. 4. c. 35. In others they gave it to little Children to Eat †Vid. apud Autor Vit. Basilii c. 8. in Vit. Pat. l. 1. This Custom was condemned in a Council at Carthage Anno 419. Vid. Codic Eccl. Afric Justel c. 18. In some they buried it with their Dead In all they permitted the Communicants to carry home some Remnants of them they sent it abroad by Sea by Land from one Church and Village to another without any Provision of Bell or Taper Canopy or Incense or any other mark of Adoration they sometimes made ⸪ Vid. St. August Oper. imp contr Julian lib. 3. c. 164. Poultices of the Bread they mix'd the ⸫ See an instance of this in Baronius Ann. 648. Sect. 15. The 8th General Council did the same In Act. Syn. Wine with their Ink all which we can never imagine such holy Men would have presumed to do had they indeed believed them to be the very Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord. VIII Lastly Since the prevalence of this Doctrine in the Church what Opposition has it met with What Schisms has it caused What infinite Debates have there risen about it I shall not need to speak of the Troubles of Berenger in the Eleventh Of the Waldenses Albigenses and others in the Twelfth Century Of Wickliff Hus c. who continued the Opposition and finally of the great Reformation in the beginning of the last Age by all which this Heresy has been opposed ever since it came to any Knowledg in the Church Now is it possible to be believed that so many Centuries should pass so many Heresies should arise and a Doctrine so full of Contradictions remain uncontested in the Church for almost a Thousand years That Berenger should be one of the first that should begin to Credit his Senses to Consult his Reason or even to Defend his Creed These are Improbabilities that will need very convincing Arguments indeed to remove them But for the little late French trick of proving this Doctrine necessary to have been received in the Primitive Church This is the Foundation of the Authors of the Treatises De la Perpetuite Answered by Mons Claude because it is so in the Present and if you will believe them 't is impossible a Change should have been made I suppose we need only turn the terms of the Argument to shew the Weakness of the Proof viz. That from all these and many other Observations that might be offer'd of the like kind 't is Evident that this Doctrine at the beginning was not believed in the Church and let them from thence see if they can conclude that neither is it believed now Thus contrary is this Doctrine to the Best and Purest Tradition of the Church Nor is it less Secondly II. To Right Reason too It were endless to heap together all the Contradictions that might be offer'd to prove this That there should be Length and nothing Long See Mr. Chillingworth against Knot c. iv n. 46. Breadth and nothing Broad Thickness and nothing Thick Whiteness and nothing White Roundness and nothing Round Weight and nothing Heavy Sweetness and nothing Sweet Moisture and nothing Moist Fluidness and nothing Flowing many Actions and no Agent many Passions and no Patient i.e. That there should be a Long Broad Thick White Round Heavy Sweet Moist Flowing Active Passive NOTHING That Bread should be turned into the Substance of Christ and yet not any thing of the Bread become any thing of Christ neither the Matter nor the Form nor the Accidents of the Bread be made either the Matter or the Form or the Accidents of Christ that Bread should be turned into Nothing and at the same Time with the same Action turned into Christ and yet Christ should not be Nothing that the same Thing at the same Time should have its just Dimensions and just Distance of its Parts one from another and at the same time not have it but all its Parts together in one and the self-same Point That the same Thing at the same time should be wholly Above its self and wholly Below its self Within its self and Without its self on the Right-hand and on the Left-hand and Round-about its self That the same thing at the same time should move to and from its self and yet lie still or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space
matter could have lived so long in the world without hearing of so eminent a matter in our Church-History as this The Author is treating about the difference between the Article establish'd in King Edward the six's time Dr. Burnet's Hist of the Refomation Vol 2. Pag. 405. Ann. 1559. Edit 2. 1683. and those in Q. Elizabeth's In the Article of the Lord's Supper there is a great deal left out For instead of that large Refutation of the Corporal Presence from the Impossibility of a Bodies being in more places at once from whence it follows That since Christ's Body is in Heaven the Faithful ought not to believe or profess a Real or Corporal Presence of it in the Sacrament In the new Article it is said That the Body of Christ is given and received after a spiritual manner M S S. C. Cor. Christ Cant. and the means by which it is received is Faith. But in the Original Copy of these Articles which I have seen subscribed by the Hands of All that sate in either House of Convocation there is a further Addition made The Articles were subscribed with that precaution which was requisite in a matter of such consequence For before the Subscriptions there is set down the Number of the Pages and of the Lines in every Page of the Book to which they set their Hands In that Article of the Eucharist these words are added An Explanation of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament Christ when he ascended into Heaven made his Body Immortal but took not from it the Nature of a Body For still it retains according to the Scriptures the Verity of a Humane Body which must be always in One definite place and cannot be spread into many or all places at Once Since then Christ being carry'd up to Heaven is to remain there to the end of the World and is to come from thence and from no place else as says S. Austin to judge the Quick and the Dead None of the Faithful ought to believe or profess the Real or as they call it the Corporal Presence of his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist But this in the Original is dash't over with minium yet so that it is still legible The Secret of it was this The Queen and her Council studied as hath been already shewn to unite all into the Communion of the Church And it was alledged that such an express Definition against a Real Presence might drive from the Church many who were still of that Perswasion and therefore it was thought to be enough to condemn Transubstantiation and to say that Christ was present after a spiritual manner and received by Faith. To say more as it was judged superflous so it might occasion division Upon this these words were by common consent left out And in the next Convocation the Articles were subscribed without them of which I have also seen the Original This shews that the Doctrine of the Church subscribed by the whole Convocation was at that time contrary to the belief of a Real or Corporal Presence in the Sacrament only it was not thought necessary or expedient to publish it Though from this silence which flowed not from their Opinion but the Wisdom of that time in leaving a Liberty for different Speculations as to the manner of the Presence SOME have since inferr'd that the chief Pastors of this Church did then disapprove of the definition made in King Edwards time and that they were for a Real Presence Thus that Learned Historian And here let our Adversary consider what he thinks of this Account and whether after so evident a Confutation from plain matter of Fact of his Objection before it appear'd we may not reasonably complain both of his Weakness and In-sincerity neither to take any notice of such a plain History of this whole Transaction or to imagine that so vain a Surmise of Q. Elizabeth's being a great propugner of the Real Presence would be sufficient to obviate so clear and particular an Account of this matter But though this might suffice to shew the continuance of the same Doctrine of the Real Presence in this Queen's that was before profess'd in her Brother's Reign yet it may not be amiss to discover a little further the truth of this matter and how falsly this Author has alledged those great Names he has produced I will therefore beg leave to continue my Proof with an Induction of the most Eminent of our Divines that I have at this time the Opportunity to consult to our own days And first for Bishop Jewel Bp. JEWEL though the part he had in the Convocation before mention'd may sufficiently assure us of his Opinion yet it may not be improper to repeat the very words of a Person of his Learning and Eminence in our Church In his Reply to Harding thus he expresses the Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Real Presence Vth Article of the Real Presence against Harding pag. 237. Lond. 1611. See also his Defence of the Apology of the Church of England pag. 219 c. Whereas Mr. Harding thus unjustly reporteth of us that we maintain a naked Figure and a bare Sign or Token only and nothing else He knoweth well we feed not the People of God with bare Signs and Figures but teach them that the Sacraments of Christ be Holy Mysteries and that in the Ministration thereof Christ is set before us even as he was crucified upon the Cross We teach the People not that a naked Sign or Token but that Christ's Body and Blood indeed and verily is given unto us that we verily eat it that we verily drink it that we verily be relieved and live by it that we are Bones of his Bones and Flesh of his Flesh that Christ dwelleth in us and we in him Yet we say not either that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is done away or that Christ's Body is let down from Heaven or made Really or Fleshly present in the Sacrament We are taught according to the Doctrine of the Old Fathers to lift up our Hearts to Heaven and there to feed upon the Lamb of God Thus spiritually and with the Mouth of our Faith we eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood even as verily as his Body was verily broken and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross Indeed the Bread that we receive with our Bodily Mouths is an earthly thing and therefore a Figure as the Water in Baptism is likewise also a Figure But the Body of Christ that thereby is represented and there is offer'd unto our Faith is the thing it self and not Figure To conclude Three things herein we must consider 1st That we put a difference between the Sign and the thing it self that is signified 2. That we seek Christ above in Heaven and imagine not him to be present Bodily upon the Earth 3. That the Body of Christ is to be eaten by Faith only and none
measure to us all and Protestations against Popery Now 't is true for what concerns the latter of these we allow Popery to have the advantage of us as to the Point of Antiquity nor are we ashamed to own it It being necessary that they should have fallen into Errors before we could protest against them but as to the present matter our Author in his * Disc 1. p. 55. §. lvii Guide to which he refers us confesses that Berengarius against whom these little Synods were called proceeded upon Protestant Grounds i. e. in effect was a Protestant as to this Point And therefore 't is false in him now to say that these Councils were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism But I return to his Church Authority and answer 1. If this Doctrine be certainly contrary to Sense and Reason as was before said then he has told us before that no Motive whatever no Revelation tho never so plain can be sufficient to engage us to believe it 2. For his Councils the eldest of them was above a thousand Years after Christ when by our own Confession the Error tho not of Transubstantiation yet of the Corporal Presence was creeping into the Church 3. These Councils were themselves a Party against Berengarius and therefore no wonder if they condemned him 4. They were neither universal of the whole Church or even of the Western Patriachate in which they assembled and therefore we can have no security that they did not err tho we should grant this Priviledg to a truly General Council that it could not 5. 'T is evident that some of them did err forasmuch as the very * In the first Formulary prescribed him by P. Nicholas 2. in the Siynod of Rome 1059. He thus declares Panem Vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus Sanguinem D. N. J. Christi esse sensualiter non solùm SACRAMENTO sed in Veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri The former Part of which Confession is Lutheran the latter utterly deny'd by the C. of R. at this day In the second Formulary prescribed him by Gregory viith 1078. Confiteor Panem Vinum converti in veram ac propriam Carnem Sanguinem J. C. D. N. Et post consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi non tantùm per signum virtutem Sacramenti sed in proprietate naturae veritate substantiae This speakes of a Conversion but of what kind it says not and Lombard and the other Schoolmen to the very time of the Council of Lateran were not agreed about it and P. Gregory himself in his MS. Work upon St. Ma◠knew not what to think of it Formularies of Recantation prescribed to Berengarius do not agree the one with the other and one of them was such that their own †Jo. Semeca ad Can. Ego Berengar not ad Jus Canon Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii in majorem incides Haeresim quam ipse habuit ideò onmia referas ad species ipsas nam de Christi Corpore partes non facimus So Hervaeus in 4. dist qu. 1. art 1. says that to speake the more expressly against the Hereticks be declined a little too much to the opposite side So Ricardus de Media Villa in 4. dist princip 1. qu. 1. Berengarius suerat infamatus quòd non credebat-Corpus Christi realiter contineri sub pane ideò ad sui purgationem per verba excessiva contrarium Asseruit Authors tell us it must be very favourably interpreted or it will lead us into a worser Error than that which it condemn'd 6. Were they never so infallible yet they none of them defined Transubstantiation but only a Corporal Presence and so whatever Authority they have it is for the Lutherans not the Papists 7. And this their own Writers seem to own forasmuch as none of them pretend to any definition of Transubstantiation before the Council of Lateran and till which time they freely confess it was no Article of Faith. Such is the Church Authority which this Discourser would put upon us But now that I have mentioned the Council of Lateran as I have before observed Pag. 28. that it was the same Council which establish'd this Error that also gave power to the Pope to depose Princes and absolve their Subjects from their Obedience so I cannot but remak further in this place the Zeal of our Author in the defence of its Authority It is but a very little while since another of their Church ‖ Lond. 1616. Pag. 362 c. Father Walsh in his Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln did not think that the * Mr. Dodwel Consid of present Concernment §. 31. Learned Person of our Church to whom he refers us had so clearly proved these Canons to have been the genuine †Monsieur du Pin utterly denies these Canons to have been the Decrees of the Council Dissert vii c. iii. §. 4. Acts either of the Council or even of the Papist himself but that a Man might still have reason to doubt of both But indeed tho that Father be of another mould yet there are still some in the World and I believe of this Author's acquaintance who like this Council never the worse for such a decision but think the third Canon as necessary to keep Princes in a due Obedience to the Church as the first de Fide Catholià to help out the obscurity of the Text in favour of Transubstantiation But he goes on Pag. 28 29. §. xxv and upon these Premises Ask us What more reasonable or secure course in matters of Religion can a private and truly humble Christian take than where the sense of a Divine Revelation is disputed to submit to that Interpretation thereof which the Supreamest Authority in the Church that hath heretofore been convened about such matters hath so often and always in the same manner decided to him and so to act according to its Injunction Now not to say any more as to his Expression of the Supremest Church Authority which it may be he will interpret not absolutely but with this Reserve that hath been convened about such matters I answer from himself 1. It is a more reasonable and secure course to follow that Interpretation which is agreeable to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind and against which he tells us not only the Authority of a Synod but even a Divine Revelation is not sufficient to secure us 2. These Synods as I have shewed besides that they were particular were moreover Parties in the case And then 3. It is false to say that they always decided the same or that that which they decided is the same which the Church of Rome now holds in this matter All which our * Particularly Elondel to whom this Author refers us Eclairciss de l'Euch c. 20
c. Albertinus de Euch. lib. 3. p. 947. Authors have fully proved and this Discourser therefore ought to have answered III. Ground But now he says P. 29. §. xxvi if these Councils be declined as not being so ancient as some may expect i. e. not held before some Controversy happen'd in the Church touching the Point they decided They have yet another very rational Ground of their belief and that is the evident Testimony of the more Primitive Times It would have been more to the purpose if he could honestly have said of the most Primitive Times But however his Modesty is the greater now tho his Argument be not so strong As to the Point of Antiquity Treatise of Transubstantiation by an Author of the C. of R. I have already fully discussed it above and we are but very lately assured by one of their own Authors that Antiquity is of our side in this Point For the six or seven Fathers he has mentioned ‖ S. Ambrose de Sacramentis Euseb Emyssen de Paschate some of them are spurious others have been †Cyril Hierosol in the Relat. of the Conference at my Lady T. 1676. in the Paper sent my Lady T. p. 50 51 52. And for S. Ambrose de Sacr. allowing the Book yet see the Explication of what is there said given by himself l. 5. c. 4. See a late Treatise of the Doct. of the Trinity and Transubst compared Part 1. p. 46 47. expresly answered by us and all of them at large by Monsieur Aubertine Larrogue and others If this does not satisfy him he may shortly expect a fuller account in our own Language * Transubstantiation no Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers Cyrill 's Authority examined p. 13 14. Ambrose's p. 18 19. Chrysostom's p. 40. Greg. Nyssen's p. 48. a Specimen of which has already been given to the World in Earnest of what is suddenly to follow IV. Ground His next Ground is taken from the universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's Time and at present also excepting his Followers To which I answer That this Ground is not certainly true and if it were yet certainly 't is nothing to the purpose 1. It is not certainly true Indeed that the latter Ages of the Western Churches before Luther that is from the time of the Council of Laterane did profess the belief of Transubstantiation is confess'd And that a great part of the Greek Church at this day do's the same since their new Colledge at Rome and their Money and Missionaries sent among them have corrupted their Faith I do not deny But that this was so before Luther is not so certain and whosoever shall impartially read over the long debate between the late Monsieur Claude and Monsieur Arnaud concerning this matter will I believe confess that this can be no rational Ground for their belief Hist Ethiop l. 3. c. 5. n. 48. Ludolphus tells us of the Ethiopian Church that at this day it neither believes Transubstantiation Ibid. nor Adores the Host and Tellezius confesses it because they consecrate with these words This Bread is my Body For the * De Eccles Graec. Stat. Hodiern D. Smith p. 116. Lond. 1678. Claude Reponse au 2. Traitte liv 3. c. 8. p. 434 c. Charenton 1668. Id. ult resp à Quevilly 1670. lib. 5. c. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Histoire Critique de la creance des Coutumes des Nations du Levant Voyage du Mont Liban Hemarques p. 302 303 c. Larrogue Hist de l'Eucharistie liv 2. c. 19. pag. 781. Edit Amst 12o. Albertinus de Eucharistiâ p. 988 989. fol. Daventriae 1654. Greeks the Muscovites the Armenians the Nestorians Maronites c. those who please to interest their Curiosity in a matter of so little moment as to their Faith may satisfy themselves in the Authors to which I refer them Tho now 2. To allow the matter of Fact to be true I pray what force is there at last in this Argument The Church both Eastern Western in these last Ages have believed Transubstantiation therefore the Papists have a rational Ground to believe it That is to say you Protestants charge us for believing Transubstantiation as Men that act contrary to the design of Christ in this Holy Eucharist that have forsaken the Tradition of the Primitive Ages of the Church that destroy the nature of this Holy Sacrament and do violence to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind Be it so yet at least we have this rational Ground for our belief tho it should be false viz. That we did all of us peaceably and quietly believe it till you came with your Scripture and Antiquity and Sense and Reason to raise Doubts and Difficulties about it nay more we all of us still do believe it except those that you have perswaded not to do so Spectatum admissi risum teneatis Amici V. Ground P. 31. §. xxviii Of no greater strength is his last Ground for their belief viz That since Luther's Time no small number of Protestants even all the Genuine Sons of the Church of England have proceeded thus far as to confess a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist and Adoration of it as present there For 1. If we did acknowledg this yet it seems we are mistaken in it and then what grounds can it be for a Papist to believe Transubstantiation that we Hereticks by a Mistake do not believe it but only a real spiritual Presence and as such are Anathematized by them for our Error 2. I have before shewn that were this a rational Ground yet it fails them too for neither do the Genuine Sons of the Church of England nor any other that I know of either believe Christ's natural Body to be substantially present in the Holy Eucharist or to be adored there I am sure if there be any such they cannot be the Genuine Sons of the Church of England in this Matter who believe so expresly contrary to her formal Declaration as this Author has himself observed And then for the Lutherans Ibid. Pag. 32. to whom he again returns it is hard to conceive what rational ground of Security they can derive from their practice that because they commit no Idolatry in worshipping what they know certainly to be Christ the Papist commits none for worshipping what he do's not know certainly is Christ in truth what if he pleased he might know certainly is not Christ And now after a serious and impartial Consideration of the Grounds produced in Vindication of this Worship tho I could have wish'd I might have found them as rational as our Author pretends them to be and shall be glad as they are that they may hereafter prove sufficient to excuse them from the Guilt of formal Idolatry in this Adoration yet I must needs say I do in my Conscience think 't is more an excess of