of them the Abbot of Ville-loyne I have been assured by some of his intimate Acquaintance that he had always a particular respect for the Church of England and which others of their Communion at this day esteem to be neither Heretical nor Schismatical V. But I may not insist on these things and will therefore finish this Address with this only remonstrance to them That since it is thus evident that for above 1200 years this Doctrine was never establish'd in the Church nor till then in the opinion of their own most learned Men any matter of Faith since the Greatest of their Writers in the past Ages have declared themselves so freely concerning it as we have seen above and some of the most eminent of their Communion in the present have ingenuously acknowledged that they could not believe it since 't is confess'd that the Scripture does not require it Sense and Reason undoubtedly oppose it and the Primitive Ages of the Church as one of their own Authors has very lately shewn received it not They will at least suffer all these things to dispose them to an indifferent Examination wherefore at last it is that they do believe this great Error Upon what Authority they have given up their Senses to Delusion their Reason to embrace Contradictions the Holy Scripture and Antiquity to be submitted to the dictates of two Assemblies which many of themselves esteem to have been rather Cabals than Councils And all to support a Doctrine the most injurious that can be to our Saviour 's Honour destructive in its nature not only of the certainty of the Christian Religion but of every thing else in the World which if Transubstantiation be true must be all but Vision for that cannot be true unless the Senses of all Mankind are deceived in judging of their proper Objects and if this be so we can then be sure of nothing These Considerations if they shall incline them to an impartial view of the following Discourses they may possibly find somewhat in them to shew the reasonableness of our dissent from them in this matter However they shall at least I hope engage those of our own Communion to stand firm in that Faith which is thus strongly supported with all sorts of Arguments and convince them how dangerous it is for Men to give up themselves to such prejudices as neither Sense nor Reason nor the word of God nox the Authority of the best and purest Ages of the Church are able to overcome A TABLE OF THE Principal Matters Contained in this TREATISE PREFACE THE occasion of this Discourse Page i The method made use of for the explaining the nature of this Holy Eucharist Page iv No Proof of Transubstantiation in Holy Scripture Page v The rise and establishment of it Page vi vii Several of their greatest Men before the Council of Trent believed it not Page vii viii And many have even since continued to disbelieve it Page x So Picherellus Page x Cardinal du PERRON Page xi F. Barnes Page xii Monsieur de MARCA Page xiii F. SIRMOND Page xv Monsieur L Page xvii Mons de Marolles Page ib. Others Page xxiv c. Consequences drawn from these Examples I. Of the danger of the Papists especially upon their own Principles Page xxvii With reference to this Sacrament and therein to the 1. Consecration Page xxvii 2. Adoration Page ib. 3. Communion in one kind Page xxix 4. Mass Page xxx With reference to their entire Priesthood Page xxxi II. Against the Infallibility of the Roman Church Page xxxiii III. Against its Authority Page xxxiv IV. As to the Reasonableness of our Reformation Page xxxvi V. That these things ought to dispose those of that Communion to an impartial search into the grounds of their belief as to this matter Page xxxvii PART I. The Introduction Of the Nature of this Holy Sacrament in the General Pag. 1 Christ's design in the Institution of it Pag. 2 That he establish'd it upon the Ceremonies of the Jewish Passover Pag. 3 4 5 6 The method from hence taken to explain the nature of it Pag. 6 7 CHAP. I. Of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence established by the Church of Rome Pag. 8 What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this point ib. This shewn upon the Principle before laid down to be repugnant 1. To the design and nature of this Holy Sacrament Pag. 12 2. To the expression it self This is my Body Pag. 14 The Papists themselves sensible of it Pag. 18 That the Sixth of S. John does not at all favour them Pag. 20 This Doctrine shewn further to be repugnant I. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church Pag. 24 II. To the right Reason Pag. 32 III. To the common Sense of all Mankind Pag. 36 Conclusion of this Point and transition to the next Pag. 37 CHAP. II. Of the Real Presence acknowledged by the Church of England 41 The notion of the Real Presence falsly imputed by a late Author to our Church 42 In answer to this Four things proposed to be considered I. What is the true notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England Pag. 43 II. That this Notion has been constantly maintained by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines Pag. 46 So those abroad Calvin Pag. 47 Beza Pag. 49 Martyr c. Pag. 51 For our own Divines consider the express words of the twenty ninth Article in K. Edw. VI. time Pag. 52 Archbishop Cranmer Pag. 53 Bishop Ridley Pag. 55 That the same continned to be the Opinion of our Divines after Pag. 56 Shewn 1. From the History of the Convocations proceeding as to this point in the beginning of Q. Eliz. Reign ib. 2. From the Testimonies of our Divines Bp. Jewell Pag. 59 Mr. Hooker Pag. 60 Bp. Andrews Pag. 62 A. B. of Spalatto Pag. 64 Bp. Montague ib. Bp. Taylour Pag. 66 Mr. Torndyke Pag. 69 Whose Testimonies are cited at large Of 1. Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum 2. Bp. Morton 3. A. B. Usher 4. Bp. Cosens 5. Dr. Jo. White 6. Dr. Fr. White 7. Dr. Jackson 8. Dr. Hammond Whose Authorities are refer'd to Pag. 71 72 III. That the alterations which have been made in our Rubrick were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions as is vainly and falsly suggested Pag. 72 IV. That the Reasons mentioned in our Rubrick concerning the Impossibility of Christ's Natural Body's existing in several places at the same time is no way invalidated by any of this Author's Exceptions against it Pag. 77 1. Not by his First Observation ib. 2. Nor by his Second Pag. 79 3. Nor by his Third Pag. 80 4. Nor by his Fourth Pag. 81 The Objection of this Opinion's being downright Zuinglianism Answered Pag. 82 And the whole concluded Pag. 84 PART II. CHAP. III Of the Adoration of the Host as prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome Two things proposed to be considered I. What the Doctrine of the
all Metaphor only just two or three words for their purpose Literal But that which raises our wonder to the highest pitch is that the very fifty first Verse its self on which they found their Argument is two thirds of it Figure and only otherwise in one Clause to serve their Hypothesis I am says our Saviour the living Bread which came down from Heaven This is Figurative If any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever That is they say by a Spiritual Eating by Faith And the Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World. This only must be understood of a proper manducation of a real eating of his Flesh in this Holy Sacrament It must be confessed that this is an Arbitrary way of explaining indeed and becomes the Character of a Church whose dictates are to be received not examined and may therefore pass well enough amongst those with whom the supposed Infallibility of their Guides is thought a sufficient dispensation for their own private Consideration But for us who can see no reason for this sudden change of our Saviours Discourse nay think that the connexion of that last Clause with the foregoing is an evident sign that they all keep the same Character and are therefore not a little scandalized at so Capernaitical a Comment as indeed Who can bear it V. 60. They will please to excuse us if we take our Saviours Interpretation to be at least of as good an Authority as 't is much more reasonable than theirs V. 62. Do's this says he Offend you Do's my saying that ye must eat my flesh and drink my Blood scandalize you Mistake not my design I mean not any carnal eating of me that indeed might justly move your Horrour It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life He that desires a fuller account of this Chapter may please to recur to the late excellent †A Paraphrase with Notes and a Preface upon the Sixth Chapter of Saint John Lond. 1686. Paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it and which will be abundantly sufficient to shew the reasonableness of that Interpretation which we give of it I shall only add to close all that one Remark which * De Doctrin Christian Lib. 3. Cap. 16. Saint Augustine has left us concerning it and so much the rather in that it is one of the rules which he lays down for the right Interpreting of Holy Scripture and illustrates with this particular Example If says he the saying be Preceptive either forbidding a wicked action or commanding to do that which is good it is no Figurative saying But if it seems to command any Villany or Wickedness or forbid what is profitable and good it is Figurative This saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you seems to command a Villanous or Wicked Thing It is therefore a FIGVRE enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay it up in dear and profitable Remembrance that his Flesh was crucifi'd and wounded for our sakes And now having thus clearly I perswade my self shewn the Weakness of those Grounds on which this Doctrine of the substantial Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament is establish'd I shall but very little insist on any other Arguments against it Only in a Word to demonstrate that all manner of Proofs fail them in this great Error I will in the close here subjoin two or three short Considerations more to shew this Doctrine opposite not only to Holy Scripture as we have seen but also 1. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church 2. To the Right Reason and 3. To the Common Senses of all Mankind I. That this Doctrine is opposite to the best and purest Tradition of the Church Now to shew this I shall not heap together a multitude of Quotations out of those Fathers through whose hands this Tradition must have past He that desires such an Account may find it fully done by one of the Roman Communion in a little * A Treatise of Transubstantiation by one of the Church of Rome c. Printed for Rich. Chiswell 1687. Treatise just now publish'd in our own Language I will rather take a method that seems to me less liable to any just Exception and that is to lay down some general Remarks of undoubted Truth and whose consequence will be as evident as their certainty is undeniable And I. For the Expressions of the Holy Fathers It is not deny'd Such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Note there is hardly any of these Words which they have applied to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist but they have attributed the same to the Water in Baptism but that in their popular Discourses they have spared no words except that of Transubstantiation which not one of them ever used to set off so great a Mystery And I believe that were the Sermons and Devotional Treatises of our own Divines alone since the Reformation searcht into one might find Expressions among them as much over-strain'd * See Treatise first of the Adoration c Printed lately at Oxford Which would make the World believe that we hold I know not what imaginary Real Presence on this account just as truly as the Fathers did Transubstantiation And doubtless these would be as strong an Argument to prove Transubstantiation now the Doctrine of the Church of England as those to argue it to have been the Opinion of those Primitive Ages But now let us consult these men in their more exact composures when they come to teach not to declaim and we shall find they will then tell us That these Elements are for their * It is not necessary to transcribe the Particulars here that have been so often and fully alledged Most of these Expressions may be found in the Treatise of Transubstantiation lately published The rest may be seen in Blondel Eclaircissements Familiers de la Controverse de l' Eucharistie Cap. iv vii viii Claude Rep. au 2. Traittè de la Perpetuitè i. Part. Cap. iv v. Forbesius Instructiones Historico-Theolog lib. xi cap. ix x xi xii xiii xv Larrogue Histoire de l' Eucharistie liv 2. cap. ii substance what they were before Bread and Wine That they retain the true properties of their nature to nourish and feed the Body that they are things inanimate and void of sense That with reference to the Holy Sacrament they are Images Figures Signes Symbols Memorials Types and Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ That in their Vse and Benefit they are indeed the very Body and Blood of Christ to every saithful Receiver but in a Spiritual and Heavenly manner as we confess That in
signification ought to be regarded with a very just Honour by us And whilst we Worship Him whose Death we herein Commemorate and of whose Grace we expect to be made partakers by it we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the Types and Figures by which he has chosen to represent the one and convey to us the other Thus therefore we think we shall best divide our Piety if we Adore our Redeemer in Heaven yet omit nothing that may testifie our just esteem of his Holy Sacrament on Earth Nor suffer the most Zealous Votary for this new Opinion to exceed us in our Care and Reverence of Approaching to his Holy Table We acknowledg him to be no less Really Present tho after another manner than they nor do we less expect to Communicate of his Body and Blood with our Souls than they who think they take Him carnally into their Mouths Let our Office of Communion be examined let the Reverence and Devotion with which we Celebrate this Sacred Feast be consider'd all these will shew how far the Church of England is from a light esteem of this great Mystery indeed that it is impossible for any to set a higher Value and Reverence upon it I shall close this with the Declaration of One who after many Years spent in great Reputation in their Communion was so happy as to finish his Days in our Church upon his first receiving the Blessed Communion among us * Andr. Sallii Votum pro pace c. 23. p. 90. Ed. Oxon. 1678. Tantam magnorum Praesulum demissionem tam eximiam Principum Populi Reverentiam in Sacra Eucharistia administranda recipienda nusquam ego vidi apud Romanenses qui tamen se unos Sacramenti istius cultores jactant That He never saw in the Church of Rome so great a Reverence both in Administring and Receiving this Holy Eucharist as he found among us insomuch that he supposed it would hardly be believed among them what from his own Experience he recounted concerning it Porro haec quae narravi trita nimis ac vulgo nota Videbuntur fratribus nostris Reformatae Ecclesiae Vid. ibid. pag. 90. cap. xxiv n. 7. Nova omnino fortè incredebilia Apparebunt Romanae Congregationis Alumnis quorum scilicet auribus perpetuò suggeritur per suos Instructores nullam apud Protestantes existere fidem praesentiae Christi realis in Eucharistiae Sacramento nullam Devotionem aut Reverentiam in eo Sumendo And this may suffice for the first thing proposed Of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or of the Real Presence professed and established in the Church of Rome Our next Business will be to inquire II. What that Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist is which is acknowledged by the Church of England CHAP. II. Of the Real Presence acknowledged by the Church of England IT may sufficiently appear from what has been said in the foregoing Chapter what just reason we have to reject that kind of Presence which the Church of Rome supposes of Christ in this Holy Eucharist But now in Answer to our Reflections upon them on this Occasion Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Eucharist Oxford 1687. a late Author has thought fit to make the World believe that we our selves in our Opinion of the Real Presence are altogether as absurd as they are and that the same Exceptions lie against our own Church which we urge against theirs All which if it were true would but little mend the matter unless it may be thought sufficient for a man to prove that he is not mad himself because most of his Neighbours are in the same condition Indeed herein he must be allowed to have reason on his side that if the Case be so as he affirms we of all men living ought not to press them with such Contradictions Tract I. pag. 15 16. as our own Opinion stands equally involved in 'T is true he confesses for what concerns the Church of England as it stood in the latter * Tract I. §. 26. end of King Edward the 6th's time and as it may perhaps be thought to stand now since the †Ibid. §. 4. reviving of the Old Rubrick against the Adoration of the Sacrament at the end of our Communion-Office it seems not to lye open to such a Recrimination But taking our Opinion of the Real Presence from the Expressions of our own Divines and of those abroad such as Calvin c. whose Doctrine amongst all the rest the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with especially since the beginning of the Reformation by Q. Elizabeth it plainly implies That the very Substance of Christ's Body That his Natural Body that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin and crucified on the Cross is present as in Heaven so here in this Holy Sacrament either to the worthy Receiver or to the Symbols which not only contradicts the present Declaration of our Church viz. That the Natural Body of Christ is not in in this blessed Sacrament but will also lay a necessity upon us to quit our Reason too that we give for it viz. That it is against the Truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than One at One time and on which we seem to found our Faith in this matter This is I think the design of the former of those Discourses lately Printed at Oxford as to what concerns the Real Presence and in Answer to which that I may proceed as distinctly as possible I shall reduce my Reflections to these Four Generals 1. What is the true Notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England 2. That this has been the Notion constantly maintain'd by the Generality of our Divines 3. That the Alteration of the Rubrick as to this matter was not upon any such difference in their Opinions as this Author seems to surmise 4. That the Reason alledged by it concerning the Impossibility of Christ's Natural Body's existing in several places at the same time is no way invalidated by any of his Exceptions against it But before I enter on these Reflections I cannot but observe the unreasonableness of our Adversaries in repeating continually the same Arguments against us without either adding of any the least new force to them or even taking notice of those Replies that have more than once been made against them The Publisher of this Treatise has not been so indiligent an Observer of what has past under his Eyes with reference to these kind of Controversies as not to know that this very Objection which is the Foundation of his First Discourse was made by his Old Friend T. G. above Nine Years since and fully answer'd by his Reverend and Learned Adversary not long after And therefore that he certainly ought either quietly to have let alone this Argument already baffled and not have put the World in Mind where
meneés qui se faisoient dans le Royaume Protestant Minister who in the Troubles of France being brought over to the King's Interest was secretly reconciled to the Church of Rome and permitted so far to dissemble his own Opinion as not only to continue in the outward profession of the Protestant Religion but even to exercise the Functions of his Ministry as before and that by the express leave of his Holiness for three whole Years the better to carry on the Catholick Cause in betraying the Secrets and managing the Debates of his Brethren As for Bishop Forbes and the Arch-bishop of Spalatto it is not to be wondred if Men that had entertained the Design of reconciling all Parties were forced to strain sometimes a little farther than was fit for the doing of it And for Mr. Thorndyke we have seen that his Notion of the Real Presence was particular and widely different both from theirs and ours and therefore that we are not to answer for the Consequences of it But however to quit these just Exceptions against them Will he himself allow every thing to be the Doctrine or not of the Church of Rome which I shall bring him three of their Authors to affirm or deny If he will then Transubstantiation is not their Doctrine for I have already quoted above twice three of their most Learned Men against it To adore an Vnconsecrated Host by mistake is Idolatry for so S. Thomas Paludanus Catharine and others assure us To worship the Host supposing their Doctrine of Transubstantiation false a worser Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty of so several of their Writers confess But now if our Author will not allow this to be good arguing against them with what reason do's he go about to urge it against us Secondly We must in the next place consider what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to this Point is and whether what this Author has advanced in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their practice of this Adoration For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I find it thus clearly set down by the Council of Trent Concil Trid. Sess xiii cap. 5. p. 57. Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholicâ Ecclefiâ semper recepto Latriae cultum qui Vero deo Debetur huic Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant Neque enim ideò minùs est Adorandum quòd fuerit à Christo D. ut sumatur institutum Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem IN EO adessâ— Credimus quem Pater aternus introducens in Orbem Terrarum dicit Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dâ—i Hebr. I. There can be no doubt but that all the Faithful of Christ after the manner that has ever been received in the Catholick Church ought to give that Supreme Worship which is due to the true God to his Holy Sacrament For it is nevertheless to be adored because it was instituted by our Lord Christ that it might be received Forasmuch as we believe the same God to be present in it of whom the Eternal Father when he brought him into the World said And let all the Angels of God worship him That therefore according to this Council is to be worshipped which Christ instituted to be received and in which they believe Christ to be present But 't is no other than the Holy Sacrament as these Trent-Fathers here expresly and properly stile it which we all confess Christ instituted to be received and in which they suppose Christ to be present And therefore 't is the Sacrament which is to be adored Card. Pallavicino Istoria del Concilio di Trento parte seconda l. 12. c. 7. pag. 298. Ora è notissimo che accióche un Tutto s'adori con adorazione di Latria basta che una parte di quel rutto meriti questo culto Come dunque non douremo parimente adorare questo Sacramento il quale è un Tutto che contiene come parte principale il Corpo di Christo Which reasoning I find Card. Pallavicini thus improving in his History of this Council It is well known says he that to make a Whole Adorable with the Supreme Adoration it is sufficient that One part of that Whole merits such a Worship This he illustrates in the Example of Christs Humanity and thence concludes How then ought we not in like manner to adore this Sacrament which is a Whole that contains as its principal part the Body of Christ It is therefore as I conceive the undoubted Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist for the Reason here given is to be adored with that Supreme Adoration that is due to the true God. Now to warrant their Practice in this Matter our Authour thus proceeds in proof of it I. He premises some Propositions which he calls Answer to his second Discourse Protestant Concessions II. Some others which he stiles Catholick Assertions And then III. Goes on to shew what warrant they have for that Belief on which this Adoration is founded I shall distinctly follow him in every one of these In his first Part which he calls I. Part Protestant Concessions Protestant Concessions I will go on with him thus far 1st * §. I. pag. 1. That Supreme and Divine Adoration is due to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2dly †Ibid. §. II. That where-ever the Body of our Lord now is there must also his whole Person be And therefore 3dly ‖ Ibid. §. III. That where-ever Christ's Body is truly and really present there his Divine Person is supremely adorable But now for his next Assertion * §. V. n. 1. p. 2. That it is affirmed by many Protestants especially those of the Church of England that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present not only in Virtue but in Substance in the Encharist †See Treatise 1. p. 5. §. 7. If he means as in his former Treatise he explain'd himself that the very natural Body of Christ that Body that was born of the Virgin and crucified on the Cross and is now in Heaven is also as to its Substance truly and really present on Earth in the Holy Eucharist or to the worthy Receiver I have in the foregoing Chapter fully shewn this new Fancy to be neither the Doctrine of the Church of England nor the Opinion of those very Writers whom he produces for proof of it And as to the ‖ Disc 2. p. 8. §. vi n. 1. adoration of it upon any such account I have just now declared his Mistake of them in that Point too And I shall not follow our Author 's ill Example in repeating it all over again For his * §. vii p. 10. fifth Remark That the Lutherans affirm that Christ's Body and Blood are present not only to the worthy Communicants but to the Consecrated Symbols and
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
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
Council it was no matter of Faith nor but for its decision would have been now That the Ancients did not believe it that the Scripture does not express it in short that the interpretation which we give is altogether as agreeable to the words of Christ and in truth free from infinite inconveniences with which the other abounds All which plainly enough shews that not only the late private Heretical Spirit whose imperious sentiments and private Glosses and contradictory interpretations as a late * Consensus Veterum Pag. 27. Author has elegantly expressed it like the victorious Rabble of the Fishermen of Naples riding in triumph and trampling under foot Ecclesiastical Traditions Decrees and Constitutions Ancient Fathers Ancient Liturgies the whole Church of Christ but especially those words of his This is my Body has opposed this Doctrine but even those who are to be supposed to have had the greatest reverence for all these their own Masters and Doctors found it difficult to embrace so Absurd and Contradictory a Belief And here then let me beseech those into whose hands these Papers may chance to fall seriously to consider this matter and whether the sole Authority of such a Pope as Innocent III whose actions towards one of our own Kings and in favour of that very ill Man Dominick and his Inquisition K. John. were there nothing else remaining of his Life might be sufficient to render him detestable to all good Men ought to be of so great an Authority with us as to engage us to give up our senses and our reason nay and even Scripture and Antiquity it self in obedience to his arbitrary and unwarrantable Definition It is I suppose sufficiently evident from what has been before observed how little assurance their own Authors had for all the definition of the Council of Lateran of this Doctrine I shall not need to say what debates arose among the Divines of the Council of Trent about it And though since its determination there Men have not dared so openly to speak their Minds concerning it as before yet we are not to imagine that they are therefore ever the more convinced of its Truth I will not deny but that very great numbers in the Roman Communion by a profound ignorance and a blind obedience the two great Gospel perfections with some men disposed to swallow any thing that the Church shall think fit to require of them may sincerely profess the belief of this Doctrine because they have either never at all considered it or it may be are not capable of comprehending the impossibility of it Nor shall I be so uncharitable as to suppose that all even of the learned amongst them do wilfully profess and act in this matter against what they believe and know to be true I will rather perswade my self that some motives or prejudices which I am not able to comprehend do really blind their eyes and make them stumble in the brightness of a mid-day light But yet that all those who nevertheless continue to live in the external Communion of the Church of Rome are not thus sincere in the belief of it is what I think I may without uncharitableness affirm and because it will be a matter of great importance to make this appear especially to those of that Perswasion I will beg leave to offer such proofs of it as have come to my knowledge in some of the most eminent Persons of these last Ages and to which I doubt not but others better acquainted with these secrets than I can pretend to be might be able to add many more Examples And the first that I shall mention is the famous †Petri Picherelli Expositio Verborum institutionis Caenae Domini Lugd. Batav 1629. 12o. Picherellus of whom the testimonies prefix'd to his Works speak so advantagiously that I shall not need say any thing of the esteem which the learned World had of him * Hoc est Corpus meum i. e. Hic panis fractus est Corpus meum pag. 10. Hoc est Corpus meum i. e. Panis quem frangimus est communio cum Corpore Christi pag. 14. and pag. 27. Expounding Gratian. dist 2. Can. Non Hoc Corpus Ipsum Corpus invisibiliter de vero germano Corpore in Caelis agente intelligitur Non ipsum visibiliter de Corpore sanguine Sacramentalibus Pane Vino Corporis Christi sanguinis symbolis Quae rei quam significant nomen per supradictam metonymiam mutuantur I must transcribe his whole Treatise should I insist on all he has delivered repugnant to their Doctrine of Transubstantiation Suffice it to observe that in his Exposition of the words of Institution This is my Body He gives this plain interpretation of them This Bread is my Body which is both freely allowed by the Papists themselves to be inconsistent with their belief as to this matter and which he largely shews not only to be his own but to have been the constant Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers in this point But in this it may be there is not so much ground for our admiration that one who was not very fond of any of the Errors of that Church should openly dissent from her in this It will more be wondred that a person so eminent amongst them as Cardinal du Perron and that has written so much in defence of Transubstantiation should nevertheless all the while Himself believe nothing of it And yet this we are assured he freely confess'd to some of his Friends not long before his death That he thought the Doctrine to be Monstrous that He had done his endeavour to colour it over the best He could in his Books but that in short he had undertaken an ill cause and which was not to be maintain'd But I will set down the relation as I find it in Monsieur Drelincourt 's * Reponse à la Lettre de Monsig le Prince 〈◊〉 Ernest aus cinq Micistres de Paris c. Geneve 1664. Answer to the Landgrave of Hesse and who would not have presum'd to have offer'd a relation so considerable and to a person of such Quality had he at all fear'd that he could have been disproved in it †Votre Altesse me croira s'il luy plait Mais je luy puis dire avectonte sincerite verité que si le defunt Cardinal du Perron luy a persuadé la Transubstantiation il luy a persuadé ce qu'il n'a pû se persuader à forméme qu'il n'a nullement cru Car je scay par des Gene d' Honneur dignes de foy qui l'avoient apris de temoins oculaires que des Amis de cet illustre scavant Cardinal qui l'estoient allé visiter lors qu' il estoit languissant en son lit malade de la maladie dont il est mort le prierent de leâ—r dire franchement ce qu'il croyeit de la Transubstantiation
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
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
in memory of their Deliverance out of Egypt The bitter Herbs were a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remembrance of the bitter servitude they underwent there Exod. i. 14. The red Wine was a †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Memorial of the Blood of the Children of Israel slain by Pharaoh And for this they were expresly commanded by Moses Exod. xiii 8. to * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SHEW i.e. to annunciate or tell forth to their Children what the Lord had done for them And so in this Holy Sacrament Christ expresly institutes it for the same end * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do this says he in remembrance of me which St. Paul thus explains 1 Cor. xi 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do or rather do ye * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SHEW the very word before used the Lords death till his coming So clear an Allusion does every part of this Sacrament bear to that ancient Solemnity and we must be more blind than the Jews themselves not to see that as that other Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ from the Practise and Custom of the ‖ See Dr. Hammonds Practical Catechism Lib. 6. pag. 115. Oper. fol. Lond. 1684. Jewish Doctors who received their Proselytes by the like washing so was this Holy Eucharist establisht upon the Analogy which we have seen to the Paschal Supper whose place it supplies and whose Ceremonies it so exactly retains that it seems only to have heightned the design and changed the Application to a more excellent Remembrance I know not how far it may be allow'd to confirm this Analogie That it was one of the most ancient Traditions among the * Vid. Fagium in Annotat in Exod. xii 13. where he renders their words thus Et in eadem die viz. xv mensis Nisan sc Martii redimendus est Israel in diebus Messiae Vid. Vol. 1. Critic M. p 498. Jews of old that the Messiah should come and work out their deliverance The very same night in which God had brought them out of Egypt the night of the Paschal Solemnity But certainly considerable it is that as God under the Law the same night in which he deliver'd them instituted the Passover to be a perpetual Memorial of it throughout their Generations so here our Saviour instituted his Communion not only in the same Night in which he deliver'd us but immediately after having eaten His last Passover to shew us that what that Solemnity had hitherto been to the Jews this Sacrament should from henceforth be to us and that we by this Ceremony should commemorate ours as they by that other had been commanded to do their Deliverance This the Holy Scriptures themselves direct us to by so often calling our Blessed Saviour in express terms The Lamb of God Joh. i. 29. St. Peter speaking of our Redemption wrought by Him tells us that it was not obtained by corruptible things such as silver and gold but by the precious Blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot 1 Pet. i. 18. And St. Paul so clearly directs us to this allusion that no possible doubt can remain of it Christ says he our Passover is sacrificed for us theresore let us keep the Feast 2 Cor. 1. v. 7. And now after so many Arguments for this Application as being joined together I think I might almost call a Demonstration of it I suppose I may without scruple lay down this foundation both for the unfolding of the nature of this Holy Sacrament in the General and for the Examination of those two great points I am here to consider in particular viz. That our Saviour in this Institution addressing himself to Jews and speaking in the direct form of the Paschal Phrases and in a Ceremony which 't is thus evident he designed to introduce in the stead of that Solemnity The best method we can take for explaining both the words and intent of this Communion will be to examine what such men to whom he spake must necessarily have conceived to be his meaning but especially on an occasion wherein it neither became him to be obscure and the Apostles silence not one of them demanding any explication of his words as at other times they were wont to do clearly shewing that he was not difficult to be understood This only Postulate being granted which I think I have so good reason to expect I shall now go on to examine by it the first great Point proposed to be consider'd viz. Of the Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Sacrament and that 1st As established by the Church of Rome 2dly As acknowledged by the Church of England PART I. CHAP. I. Of TRANSUBSTANTIATION Or the Real Presence Establish'd by the CHURCH of ROME TRansubstantiation is defined by the * Concil Trid. Sess 13. cap. 4. Can. 2. Council of Trent to the A WONDERFVL CONVERSION of the whole Substance of the Bread in this Holy Sacrament into the whole substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of the Wine into his Blood the Species or Accidents only of the Bread and Wine remaining For the better understanding of which Wonderful Conversion because the Church of Rome which is not very liberal in any of her Instructions has taken †Catechismus ad Parochos Par. II. cap. de Euch. Sacr. n. 39.41 45. particular care that this should not be too much explain'd to the People as well knowing it to be a Doctrine so absurd that even their credulity could hardly be able to digest it it may not be amiss if from the very words of their own Catechism we examine a little farther into it Now three things there are which they tell us must be consider'd in it I. * Catech. ibid. n. xxv Sect. Primum That the true Body of Christ our Lord the very same that was Born of the Virgin and now sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Father is contained in this Sacrament Now by the true Body they mean not only his Human Body and whatsoever belongs to it as Bones Sinews c. to be contain'd in this Sacrament ‖ Ibid. n. xxxi Sect. Totus Christus ut Deus Homo in Eucharistia continetur But the intire Christ God and Man so that the Eucharistical Elements are changed into our Saviour as to both his Substances and the consequences of both his Blood Soul and Divinity its self all which are really present in this Sacrament * Ibid. n. xxxiii Sect. Per Concomitantiam in Euch. quae sint the Body of Christ by the Consecration the rest by Concomitance with the Body Again When 't is said †Ibid. n. xxxix Sect. Conversio quae sit in Euchar. c. That the whole Substance of the Bread is changed into his whole Body and the whole Substance of the Wine into his whole Blood this is not to be
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
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
places at once till the Papists can demonstrate the possibility thereof by Testimony of Holy Scripture or the ancient Tradition of the Primitive Church or by apparent Reason We need not suppose that they said this doubting whether it implied a Contradiction but because the certainty of the Contradiction secured them against the possibility of any such Proof * This is evident in B. Taylor who thought that God could not do this because it implied a Contradiction Real Presence §. xi n. 1. p. 230. and Ibid. n. 27. He saith 't is utterly impossible So also Dr. White professes that according to the Order which God has fixed by his Word and Will this cannot be done Confer pag. 446 447. and before pag. 181. to this Objection That tho in Nature it be impossible for one and the same Body to be in many places at once yet because God is Omnipotent he is able to effect it We answer says he It implieth a Contradiction that God should destroy the nature of a thing the nature of the same thing remaining safe See 〈◊〉 p. 180 181. White 's Works Lond. 1624. And now I know but one Objection more that is or can be offered against what I have said and which having answered I shall close this Point For if this be all the Church of England understands when it speakes of a Real Presence viz. A Real Sacramental Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Signs and a real Spiritual Presence in the inward Communion of them to the Soul of every worthy Receiver will not this precipitate us into downright ‖ See 1. Treatise pag. 23. §. xxxii p. 24. §. xxxii p. 25. §. xxxvi xxxvii c. Zuinglianism and render us after all our pretences as very Sacramentaries as they Indeed I am not able directly to say whether it will or no because I find the Opinion of Zuinglius very variously represented as to this matter But yet First If by Zuinglianism he means that which is more properly * Smalcius de Coen Dom. p. 347. Id Disp 9. de Hypocr p. 289. Volkelius lib. iv cap. 12. p. 304 319 c. Socinus in Paraenesi c. iv Sclichtingius disp de Coeu Dom. p. 701. Socinianism viz. a meer Commemoration of Christ's Death and a Thanksgiving to God for it 't is evident it does not forasmuch as we positively confess that in this Holy Sacrament there is a Real and Spiritual Grace communicated to us even all the benefits of that Death and Passion which we there set forth And this or somewhat very like it I find sometimes to have been maintained by †Zuingl See de Provid Dei cap. 6 c. Zuinglius But now Secondly If by Zuinglianism he understands such a Real Prefence as denies only the Coexistence of Christ's Natural Body now in Heaven at the same time in this Holy Sacrament but denies nothing of that Real and Spiritual * And this our Author seems to insinuate See the places above cited And indeed others have alledged this as the true Opinion of Zuinglius See Calvin Tract de Coen Dom. Defens Sacram. Admonit ad Westphal Passim alibi Vid. insuper libr. de Orthod Consens c. 7 And especially Hospin p. 42 55 177 c. Hist Sacr. paâ—â— 2. Communion of it we have be fore mentioned this is indeed our Doctrine nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any ill Names he is able to put upon it But yet I wonder why he should call this Zuinglianism since if the common name of Catholick or Christian Doctrine be not sufficient he might have found out a more ancient Abettor of this Real Presence than Zuinglius and the truth is one of the most dangerous Opposers both of their Head and their Faith that ever was I mean St. Paul who has not only clearly express'd himself against them as to this Point of the Eucharist 1 Cor. x. 16. but in most of their other Errors left such pernicious Sayings to the World as all their Authority and Infallibility let me add nor all their Anathema's neither will not be able to overcome I shall close up this Discourse of the Real Presence acknowledged by us in this Holy Sacrament with a plain familiar Example and which may serve at once both to illustrate and confirm the Propriety of it A Father makes his last Will and by it bequeaths his Estate and all the Profits of it to his Child Vid. Cosens Hist Transubstantionis cap. v. §. 5. p. 57. He delivers it into the Hands of his Son and bids him take there his House and Lands which by this his last Will he delivers to him The Son in this case receives nothing but a Roll of Parchment with a Seal tied to it from his Father but yet by virtue of this Parchment he is intituled to his Estate performing the Conditions of his Will and to all the Benefits and Advantages of it And in that Deed he truly and effectually received the very House and Lands that were thereby conveyed to him Our Saviour Christ in like manner being now about to leave the World gives this Holy Sacrament as his final Bequest to us in it he conveys to us a right to his Body and Blood and to all the Spiritual Blessings and Graces that proceed from them So that as often as we receive this Holy Eucharist as we ought to do we receive indeed nothing but a little Bread and Wine into our Hands but by the Blessing and Promise of Christ we by that Bread and Wine as really and truly become Partakers of Christ's Body and Blood as the Son by the Will of his Father was made Inheritor of his Estate Nor is it any more necessary for this that Christ's Body should come down from Heaven or the outward Elements which we receive be substantially turned into it than it is necessary in that other case that the very Houses and Lands should be given into the Hands of the Son to make a real delivery or conveyance of them or the Will of the Father be truly and properly changed into the very Nature and Substance of them PART II. CHAPTER III. Of the Adoration of the Host as prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome WE are now arrived at the last Part of this Discourse in which I must thus far change the Method I pursued in the Other Subject as to consider First What the Doctrine of the Church of England as to this Point is and what our Adversaries Exceptions against it are Secondly What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and whether what this Author has said in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this Matter For the former of these The Doctrine of the Church of England we shall need go no farther than the Rubrick we have before-mention'd wherein it is expresly declared with reference to this Holy Sacrament Rubr. at the end of the
undertaken to Anathematize all those who will not own her Authority and receive her Errors tho never so gross as Articles of Faith We are so fully convinced of the unreasonableness of her Pretences and of our own Liberty that we shall hardly be brought to submit our selves to the Conduct of such a blind Guide lest we sall into the same Ditch into which she her self is tumbled And it would certainly much better become our Author and his Brethren to consider how they can justify their Disobedience to their own Mother than to endeavour at this rate to lead us into the same Apostacy both to our Religion and our Church with them The Conclusion AND thus by the Blessing of God and the Advantage of a good Cause have I very briefly passed through this Author's Reflections and I am perswaded sufficiently shewn the weakness and falsity of the most of them If any one shall think that I ought to have insisted more largely upon some Points he may please to know that since by the importunate Provocations of those of the other Communion we have been forced too often to interrupt those Duties of our Ministry in which we could rather have wish'd to have employ'd our Time for these kind of Controversies which serve so very little to any purposes either of true Piety or true Charity among us We have resolved thus far at least to gratify both our selves and others as to make our Disputes as short as is possible and loose no more time in them than the necessary Defence of our selves and the Truth do require I have indeed pass'd by much of our Author's Discourses because they are almost intirely made up of tedious and endless Repetitions of the same things and very often in the same words But for any thing that is Argumentative or otherwise material to the main Cause I do not know that I have either let the Observation of it slip or dissembled at all the Force of it It was once in my thoughts to have made some Reflections in the Close upon the Changes of their Rituals in requital for our Author's Observations on the Alterations of our Liturgie but I have insisted longer than I designed already and shall therefore content my my self to have given the Hint of what might have been done and shall still be done if our Author or any in his behalf desire it of me In the mean time I cannot but observe the unreasonableness of that Method which is here taken from the Expressions of some of our Divines and the Concessions of others whose profess'd Business it was to reconcile if possible all Parties and therefore were forced sometimes to condescend more than was fit for the doing it and even these too miserably mangled and misrepresented to pretend to prove the Doctrine of our Church contrary to the express Declarations of the Publick Acts and Records of it This has been the endeavour of several of our late Writers but of this Discourser above any Had those worthy Persons whose Memory they thus abuse been yet living they might have had an ample Confutation from their own Pens as in the very Instance before us has been given them for the like ill use made by some among them of the pious Meditations of a most Excellent and Learned Father of our Church and who might otherwise in the next Age have been improved into a new Witness against us I do not think that Bp Taylour ever thought he should have been set up as a favourer of Popery who had written so expresly and warmly against it Yet I cannot but observe a kind of Prophetick Expression in his Book of the Real Presence which being so often quoted by these Men I somewhat wonder it should have slipp'd their Remark Where speaking of their Shifts to make any One they please of their side Real Presence §. xii n. 28. pag. 261. he has these words And I know no reason says he but it may be possible but a WITTY MAN may pretend when I am dead that in this Discourse I have pleaded for the Doctrine of the Roman Church We have now lived to see some of those WITTY MEN that have done but little less than this tho how Honest they are in the mean time I will not determine But I hope this Design too shall be from henceforth in good measure frustrated And therefore since neither their New Religion nor their New Advocates will do their Business since it is in vain that they either misrepresent their own Doctrine or our Authors in favour of it may they once please either honestly to avow and defend their Faith or honestly to confess that they cannot do it Such shuffling as this do's but more convince us of the weakness of their Cause and instead of defending their Religion by these Practices they only encrease in us our ill Opinion of that and lessen that good One which we willingly would but shall not always be able to conserve of those who by such indirect means as these endeavour to support it FINIS Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 4o A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of â—ilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 4o A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8o A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24o An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto
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
in the same design to worship God as the Paschal Lamb of one Family was not the Lamb of another although both the one and the other were to accomplish the same Mystery Thus for instance on Corpus Christi-day the Sacrament of S. Germain d' Auxerrois where the perpetual Vicar consecrates the Host and Monsieur the Dean the first Curé carrys it the Procession under a rich Canopy crown'd with Flowers this Host is not the same with that of S. Paul's which is carried after another manner viz. the Image of that Apostle made of Silver gilt falling from his Horse at his Conversion under the Sacrament of Jesus Christ hung up in rays of Gold and carried under the covering of another stately Canopy and so of all the other Churches As for the stories of several Hosts that have been stabb'd with Penknives and have bled they serve only to bring in some superstition contrary to the word of God which never pretended that there was material Blood in the consecrated Bread because it is the Body of Jesus Christ in a mystery of Faith. For what is said of an Infant that was seen in the stead of the Host and of the figure of Christ sitting upon a Sepulshre instead of the same Host are meer Fables suggested by the Father of Lies It is further reported of certain Robbers that carrying away the Vessel in which the Host is kept they have thrown the Host it self upon the ground and trampled it under foot sometimes have cast it into nasty places without any fear that it should avenge it self This is a most horrible thought and of which we ought not to open our mouths but only to detest so dreadful a profanation The same must be said of those Hosts which have been cast up as soon as received whether by sick persons or sometimes by debauched Priests disordered with the last nights intemperance both which have sometimes happened not to say any thing of those other terrible inconveniences remark'd in the Cautions concerning the Mass All which shew that Men have carry'd things too far without any warrant from the Word of God. It is not therefore so easie as some imagine to maintain the Doctrine of the Real Presence out of the Use against the Opinions of any Opposer In the mean time the Truth is terribly obscured and few give themselves the trouble to clear it On the contrary it seems that among the many Writers of the Age there are some who make it their whole business to hide it and to keep themselves from finding it out as if they desired never to be wiser than they are The vanity of lying flatters them but too much in all the Humane passions which sway them There are nevertheless some faithful Disciples and Apostolick Souls who are exempted to obey God by his Grace and to give glory to his Name It was not long before his departure that David said Every man is a lyar Psal 115.2 and S. Paul to the Romans 3.4 to show that God only is true adds immediately after from Psalm * Li. 4. 50.6 Thou mightest be justified when thou speakest and be clear when thou judgest Such was the Opinion of Monsieur de Marolles as to this point I should too much trespass upon the Reader 's patience to insist thus particularly upon others of lesser note The Author of the late Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation has fully shewn not only his own Opinion but the Tradition of all the Ages of the Church against it And though I dare not say the same of whoever he was that set forth the ‡ Il nous suffit que J.C. qui est la Verité meme nous ait assuré que ce Sacrament est veritablement fon Corps qu'il ait ordonne de manger sa chair boire son sang car il faut absolument qu'il y soit puis q'il il nous ordonne de l'y manger sans s'embarasser l'Esprit de quelle maniere comment cela se fait 2. Part p. 102. Moyens surs Honnestes c. that he did not believe Transubstantiation himself yet this is clear That he did not desire any one should be forced to believe it or indeed be encouraged to search too nicely into the manner how Christ is Present and Eaten in the Holy Sacrament Whether Monsieur de Meaux believes this Doctrine or not his authority is become of so little importance that I do not think it worth the while to examine Yet the first French * Advertissement n. 14. p. 22. Mr. B. Speaking of that Edition Il n'y avoit en aucun lieu de l'Article ni le terme de Transubstantiation ni cette proposition que le pain le vin sont changez au corps au sang de J.C. dans la derniere Edition apres ces mots le propre Corps le propâ—e â—ing de J.C. il a ajoute ausquelles le pain le vin sont changez cest ce qu'on appelle Transubstantiation Answer to his Exposition observes that in the suppress'd Edition of it he had not at all mentioned that the Bread and Wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ those words in the close of that Paragraph which we now read viz. that the Bread and the Wine are changed into the proper Body and proper Blood of Jesus Christ and that this is that which is called Transubstantiation being put in ‡ Monsieur de Meaux Letter of his alterations Vind. p. 13. 117. pour l'ordre pour une plus grande netteté du discours du style for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile since But now for his Vindicator 't is evident if he understands his own meaning that he is not very well instructed about it * Vindication of the Bishop of Condom's Expos Pag. 83. It is manifest says he that our dispute with Protestants is not about the manner How Jesus Christ is Present but only about the Thing it self whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ be truly really and substantially present after the words of Consecration under the species or Appearance of Bread and Wine the substance of Bread and Wine being not so present In which words if his meaning be to exclude totally the manner How Jesus Christ becomes present in the Eucharist as his expression is from being a matter of Faith it might well have been ranged amongst the rest of their new Popery 1686. But if he designs not to exclude the manner of Christ's Presence but only the mode of the Conversion as he seems by some other of his words to insinuate viz. whether it be by Adduction c. from being a matter of Faith he ought not then to have deny'd the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist which their Church has absolutely defined to be by that wonderful and singular Conversion so aptly called Transubstantiation but more precisely to have explain'd his School-nicety and
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
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
Church of England as to this point is Pag. 86 Our Authors exceptions against it Answered Pag. 87 II. What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and whether what this Author has said in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this matter Pag. 91 Their Doctrine stated ib. The Defence of it unsufficient shewn in Answer 1. To his Protestant-Concessions Pag. 93 2. To his Catholick Assertions First Pag. 96 Second Pag. 99 Third ib. Fourth Pag. 100 Fifth Pag. 102 Sixth Pag. 103 Seventh Pag. 104 Eighth ib. 3. To the Grounds he offers of their Belief Pag. 105 The Lutherans Practice no Apology for theirs Pag. 106 Ground First Answer'd Pag. 108 Ground Second Answer'd Pag. 109 Ground Third Answer'd Pag. 113 Ground Fourth Answer'd Pag. 114 Ground Fifth Answer'd Pag. 115 Some Arguments proposed upon their own Principles against this Adoration Pag. 117 Conclusion Pag. 125 ERRATA PAG. xvii l. 10. fourth r. sixth p. xviii l. 10. in r. on p. xxii l. 33. r. they are p. xxiv l. 5. r. That thou p. 13. marg Hammond l. 6. p. 129. p. 64. marg Casaubon ib. l. 19. Body is of Christ p. 76. l. 24. dele which p. 80. l. 15. then that p. 91. l. 27. r. this Holy. p. 98. l. 16. for then r. the. p. 112. l. 18. Catholicâ l. 20. asks A few lesser Faults there are which the Reader may please to correct A DISCOURSE OF THE Holy Eucharist With particular Reference To the two GREAT POINTS OF THE REAL PRESENCE AND The Adoration of the HOST INTRODUCTION Of the Nature of this HOLY SACRAMENT in the General TO understand the true design of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament we cannot I suppose take any better course than to consider first of all what Account the Sacred Writers have left us of the Time and Manner of the doing of it Now for this St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 11.23 That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betray'd having first eaten the Passover according to the Law Exod. 12. Matt. xxvi 20. took Bread and when he had given thanks he brake it * Matt. xxvi and gave it to the Disciples and said Take Eat This is my Body which is broken for you This do in Remembrance of Me. After the same manner also he took the Cup when he had supp'd saying This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood This do ye as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me Such is the Account which St. Paul gives us of the Original of this Holy Sacrament Nor do the Evangelists dissent from it only that St. Matthew with reference to the Cup adds Drink ye ALL of it Matt. xxvi 27. to which St. Mark subjoins a particular Observation and which ought not here to be pass'd by That they ALL drank of it Mark xiv 23. It is not to be doubted but that the design of our Blessed Saviour in instituting this Holy Sacrament was to Abolish the Jewish Passover and to establish the Memory of another and a much greater Deliverance than that of the first-born now to be wrought for the whole World in his Death The Bread which he brake and the Wine which he poured out being such clear Types of his Body to be broken his Blood to be shed for the Redemption of Mankind that it is impossible for us to doubt of the Application And as God Almighty under the Law designed that other Memorial of the Paschal Lamb now changed into a so much better and more excellent Remembrance to continue as long as the Law its self stood in force So this Blessed Eucharist establish'd by Christ in the room of it must no doubt have been intended by Him to be continued in his Church as long as the Covenant seal'd with that Blood which it exhibits stands And therefore that since that shall never be abolish'd 't is evident that this also will remain our Duty and be our perpetual Obligation to the end of the World. This is the import of our Saviours Addition Do this in Remembrance of Me and is by St. Paul more fully expressed in those Words which he immediately subjoyns to the History of the Institution before recited 1 Cor. xi 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew i.e. in the Jewish Phrase set forth Commemorate the Lords Death till his coming And that this Holy Sacrament now establish'd in the place of the Jewish Passover might be both the better understood and the easier received by them it is a thing much to be remarked for the right explaining of it how exactly he accommodated all the Notions and Ideas of that Ancient Ceremony to this new Institution I. In that Paschal Supper the Master of the House took Bread and presenting it before them instead of the usual Benediction of the Bread He brake it and gave it to them saying ‖ See Dr. Hammond on Mat. xxvi lit E. Casaubon in Mat. xxvi 26. c. This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt In this Sacred Feast our Saviour in like manner takes Bread the very Loaf which the Jews were wont to take for the Ceremony before mentioned breaks it and gives it to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is broken for you alluding thereby not only to their Ceremony in his Action but even to their very manner of Speech in his Expression to the Passover before them which in their Language they constantly called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. Buxtorf Vindic. contr Capel P. 14. Hammond in Mat. xxvi l. e. c. the Body of the Paschal Lamb. II. In that Ancient Feast the Master of the House in like manner after Supper took the Cup and having given thanks gave it to them saying †Allix preparat a la Sainte Cene. cap. 2. pag. 16. This is the Fruit of the Vine and the Blood of the Grape In this Holy Sacrament our Blessed Lord in the very same manner takes the Cup he Blesses it and gives it to his Disciples saying This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood his Action being again the very same with theirs and for his Expression it is that which Moses used when he ratified the Ancient Covenant between God and the Jews Exod. xxiv 8. compared with Hebr. ix 20. saying This is the Blood of the Testament III. In that Ancient Feast after all this was finish'd they were wont to sing a * Dr. Lightfoots Heb Talmud Observation Mat. xxvi ver 26 27. T. 2. p. 258 260. Hymn the Psalms yet extant from the cxiii to the cxix thence called by them the Great Hallelujah In this Holy Supper our Saviour and his Disciples are expresly recorded to have done the like and very probably in the self-same words See Matt. xxvi 30. Mark xiv 26. In a word Lastly IV. That ancient Passover the Jews were commanded to keep
propriety of speech the Wicked receive not in this Holy Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ although they do outwardly press with their teeth the Holy Elements but rather eat and drink the Sacrament of His Body and Blood to their damnation II. Secondly For our Saviours words which are supposed to work this great Change 't is evident from the Liturgies of the Eastern Church that the Greek Fathers did not believe them to be words of Consecration This Arcudius himself is forced to confess of some of the latter Greeks viz. That they take these Words only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Historically See his Book de Concord Lib. 3. Cap. 27. And indeed all the ancient Liturgies of that Church plainly speak it However both He and Goar endeavour to shift it off in which the Prayer of Consecration is after the words of Institution and distinct from it So in Liturg. S. Chrysostom Edition Goar pag. 76. n. 130. 132. are pronounced the Words of Institution Then pag. 77. numb 139. the Deacon bids the Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who thereupon thus consecrates it He first signs it three times with the sign of the Cross and then thus prays 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the Cup afterwards but to be the same in this Holy Eucharist that the Haggadah or History of the Passover was in that ancient Feast That is were read only as an account of the Occasion and design of the Institution of this Blessed Sacrament not to work any Miracles in the Consecration And for the * The same seems to have been the custom of the African Church whose Prayers now used see in Ludolph Histor l. 3. cap. 5. Where is also the Expression mentioned n. 56. Hic Panis est Corpus meum c. African Churches they at this day expound them in this very Sacrament after such a manner as themselves confess to be inconsistent with Transubstantiation viz. This Bread is the Body of Christ III. Let it be considered Thirdly That it was a great debate in the Primitive Church for above a thousand Years Whether Christs Glorified Body had any Blood in it or no Now how those Men could possibly have questioned whether Christ's Glorified Body had any Blood at all in it See this whole matter deduced through the first Ages to St. Augustine whom Consentius consulted about this very matter in a particular Treatise written by Monsieur Allix de Sanguine Christi 8vo Paris 1680. had they then believed the Cup of Eucharist to have been truly and really changed into the Blood of his Glorified Body as is now asserted is what will hardly I believe be ever told us IV. We will add to this Fourthly their manner of opposing the Heathenism of the World. With what confidence could they have rallied them as they did for worshipping gods which their own Hands had made So Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Tertul. Apolog. cap. 12. Arnobius lib. 1. Minutius Felix p. 26. Octav. Julius Firmicus pag. 37. Edit Lugdunens 4to 1652. Hieron lib. 12. in Esai St. Augustinus in Psal 80. in Psal 113. Lactantius Instit lib. 2. cap. 4. Chrysostom Homil 57. in Genes c. That had neither Voice nor Life nor Motion Exposed to Age to Corruption to Dust to Worms to Fire and other Accidents That they adored gods which their Enemies could spoil them of Thieves and Robbers take from them which having no power to defend themselves were forced to be kept under Locks and Bolts to secure them For is not the Eucharistical Bread and Wine in a higher degree than any of their Idols were exposed to the same raillery Had their Wafer if such then was their Host any voice or life or motion Did not their own Hands form its substance and their Mouths speak it into a God Could it defend its self I do not say from publick Enemies or private Robbers but even from the very Vermine the creeping things of the Earth Or should we suppose the Christians to have been so impudent as notwithstanding all this to expose others for the same follies of which themselves were more notoriously guilty yet were there no * And yet that none did the Learned Rigaltius confesses Not. ad Tertul. l. 2. ad Vxor c. 5. Heathens that had wit enough to recriminate The other †See Tertul. Apol. c. 21. Et de carne Christi c. 4.5 Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Arnob l. 2. Orig. contr Cels l. 1. Articles of our Faith they sufficiently traduced That we should worship a Man and He too a Malefactor crucified by Pilate How would they have triumph'd could they have added That they worshipped a bit of Bread too which Coster himself thought a more ridiculous Idolatry than any the Heathens were guilty of Since this Doctrine has been started we have heard of the Reproaches of all sorts of Men Jews Heathens Mahometans against us on this account ‖ See du Perron de l' Euchar l. 3. c. 29. p. 973. Were there no Apostates that could tell them of this secret before Not any Julian that had malice enough to publish their Confusion Certainly had the Ancients been the Men they are now endeavour'd to be represented we had long ere this seen the whole World filled with the Writings that had proclaimed their shame in one of the greatest instances of Impudence and Inconsideration to attacque their Enemies for that very Crime of which themselves were more notoriously guilty V. Nor does their manner of Disputing against the Heretical Christians any less speak their Opinion in this Point See this fully handled in a late treatise called The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared c. 1687. than their way of Opposing the Idolatry of the Heathens It was a great argument amongst them to expose the frenzy of Eutyches who imagined some such kind of Transubstantiation of the humane nature of Christ into the Divine to produce the Example of the Eucharist That as there the Bread and the Wine says P. Gelasius Being perfected by the Holy Spirit pass into the Divine Substance yet so as still to remain in the property of their own Nature or substance of Bread and Wine This Argument is managed by St. Chrysostome Epist ad Caesarium Monachum By Theodoret Dial. 2. pag. 85 Ed G. L. Paris 1642. Tom. 4. Gelasius in Opere contra Eutychen Nestorium He thus states the Eutychian Hereâ—â—e ' Dicunt unam esse naturam i.e. Divinam Against this he thus disputes Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christs divina res est Et tamen non definit substantia vel Natura Panis Vini Satis ergo nobis Evidentur Ostenditur hoc nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur Vt sicut in hanc sc in divinam transeant S. Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae sic c. So here the
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
that Debate stopp'd or at least he should have added some new strength to it But to send it again into the World in the same forlorn State it was before to take no notice either from whose Store-house he borrow'd it or what had been returned to it This is in effect to confess that they have no more to say for themselves And 't is a sad Cause indeed that has nothing to keep it up but what they know very well we can answer and that they themselves are unable to defend But to return to the Points proposed to be consider'd And First To state the Notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England I must observe 1st That our Church utterly denies our Saviour's Body to be so Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament as either to leave Heaven or to exist in several places at the same time We confess with this Author 1. Tract p. 19. §. 27. that it would be no less a Contradiction for Christ's Natural Body to be in several places at the same time by any other Mode whatsoever than by that which the Church of Rome has stated the repugnancy being in the thing its self and not in the manner of it 2dly That we deny that in the Sacred Elements which we receive there is any other Substance than that of Bread and Wine distributed to the Communicants which alone they take into their Mouths and press with their Teeth Answer to T. G's Dialogues Lond. 1679. pag. 66. In short All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real Effects to the Souls of Men. As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies while they assumed them or rather as the Church is the Body of Christ because of his Spirit quickening and enlivening the Souls of Believers so the Bread and Wine after Consecration are the Real but the Spiritual and Mystical Body of Christ Thus has that learned Man to whom T. G. first made this Objection stated the Notion of the Real Presence profess'd by us and that this is indeed the true Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter is evident not only from the plain words of our xxviii Article and of our Church Catechism but also from the whole Tenour of that Office which we use in the celebration of it In our Exhortation to it this Blessed Eucharist is expresly called The Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ We are told that if with a true Penitent Heart and lively Faith we receive this Holy Sacrament then we Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood. When the Priest delivers the consecrated Bread he bids the Communicant Take and eat this in Remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith with Thanksgiving In our Prayer after the Receiving We thank God for that he doâ—â— vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries with the Spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ and doth assure us thereby of his favour and goodness towards us and that we are very Members incorporate in the Mystical Body of his Son. All which and many other the like Expressions clearly shew that the Real Presence which we confess in this Holy Eucharist is no other than in St. Pauls Phrase a Real Communion of Christ's Body and Blood or as our Church expresses it Article xxviii That to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ Hence it was that in the Prayer of Consecration in King Edward vi time the Church of England after the Example of the ancient Liturgies of the Greek Church used that Form which our Author observes to have been since left out Tract I. 2. And with thy Holy Spirit vouchsafe to Bless and Sanctifie these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ i. e. as the Sense plainly implies may Communicate to our Souls all the Blessings and Graces which Christ's Body and Blood has purchased for us which is in Effect the very same we now pray for in the same Address Hear us O Merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christs Holy Institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most Blessed Body and Blood. Between which two Petitions there is so near an Affinity that had not 〈◊〉 Author been very desirous to find out Mysteries where there are indeed none He would hardly have suffer'd his Puritan Friend to have lead him to make so heavy a complaint Pag. 3. about so small a Variation I will not deny but that some Men may possibly have advanced their private Notions beyond what is here said But this is I am sure all that our Church warrants or that we are therefore concern'd to defend And if there be indeed any who as our Author here expresses it do believe Christs natural Body to be as in Heaven so in the Holy Sacrament they may please to consider how this can be reconciled with the Rubrick of our Church That the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one In the mean time I pass on to the next thing I proposs'd Secondly To shew in Opposition to the Pretences of our Adversary that this has been the Notion of the Real Presence constantly maintain'd by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines And here because our Author has thought fit to appeal not only to our own but to the forreign Divines for this new Faith which he is pleas'd to impose upon us viz. Tract 1. §. 7. That the very Substance of Christs Body that his natural Body that that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin and crucified on the Cross c. is present as in Heaven so Here in this Holy Sacrament i. e. in both at the same time I must be content to follow his Steps and enquire into the Doctrine first of Mr. Calvin and his followers next of our own Country-men in this Particular And first for Mr. Calvin and his followers I cannot but observe what different charges are brought against them in this matter On the one hand we are told by Becanus the Jesuit that * Calvinistae negant corpus sanguinem Christi vere realiter substantialiter praesentem
very earnest against those who receive unworthily this Holy Sacrament and by consequence ties not Christs natural Body to the Bread and declares it to be after a Spiritual imperceptible and miraculous manner As for the term Corporaliter which he there uses and which Melancthon and some others had used before him that may be well enough understood in the same Sence Celess ii 9 17. as verè or realiter and is often so used both in Scripture and in the Holy Fathers As when St. Paul says of Christ that in Him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead Bodily that is really in opposition to the Shechinah or Presence of God in the Tabernacle And again The Body of Christ that is the substance See Hammend in Coloss 1. Annot. d. the reality opposed to the types and sigures of the Law. And so in the Hebrew Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for Essence as well as Body Arch-Bishop LAWD and applied to Spiritual as well as Corporal things Nor can I see any more reason to understand Arch-Bishop Lawd in any other Sence He asserts the true and real Presence of Christ in this Sacred Feast 1 Tract §. xiv pag. 8. but he do's not say that Christ's natural Body which is now in Heaven is also in this Holy Sacrament or in the worthy receiver nor have we any reason to believe that he understood it so to be * MONTâ—GVE Origeres Eccles. Tom. prior par postor p. 247 249 250. c. Panis in Sanaxi fit corpus Christi Sed et Corpus Christi CREDENIES nunt Ad eundem utrumque moduin mensuram sed non Naturaliter Itaque nee Panis ITA est Corpus Christi Mystice tantum non Pâ—â—sice vid. plur And the same must be said of †Bishop HALL Bishop Hall Bishop Montague and Bishop Bilson MONTAGVE BILSON in whose expressions as they are quoted by our Author I find nothing that proves the Sence he would impose upon them and whose works had I now by me I might possibly be able to give some better account of them Though after all should one of these in his violence against his Adversaries or the others in their pacifick design of reconciling all Parties as to this Point have said more than they ought to do I do not see but that it ought to have been imputed to the circumstances they were in and the designs they pursued rather than be set up for the measure either of their own or our Churches Opinion And now I am mentioning these things Bishop FORBES I ought not pass over one other eminent instance of such a charitable undertaking and which has given occasion to our Author of a Quotation he might otherwise have wanted in that excellent Bishop of St. Andrews Bishop Forbes concerning whose Authority in this matter I shall offer only the censure of one than whom none could have given a more worthy Character of a person who so well deserved it as that good Bishop did I do not deny Author of the Life of Bishop BEDEL in the Preface but his earnest desire of a general Peace and Vnion among all Christians has made him too favourable to many of the Corruptions in the Church of Rome But though a Charity that is not well ballanced may carry one to very in iscreet things yet the principle from whence thdy flow'd in him was so truly good that the Errors to which it carry'd him ought to be either excused or at lest to be very gently censured There remain now but two of all the Divines he has produced to prove his new fancy which he would set up for the Dâ—ctrine of the Church of England and those as little for his purpose as any he has hitherto mentioned Bishop TAYLOR Bishop Taylor and Mr. Thorndyke For Bishop Taylor I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication since it is evident that he has so plainly opposed his Notion and that in the very Book he quotes and which he wrote on purpose to shew our meaning of the Real Presence Polemical discourses p. 182. London 1674. that he could not but have known that he mis-represented him I shall set down the state of the Question as it is in the beginning of that Treatise The Doctrine of the Church of England and generally of the Protestants in this Article is That after the Minister of the Holy Mysteries hath rightly pray'd and blessed or consecrated the Bread and the Wine the Symbols become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ after a Sacramental i.e. in a Spiritual Real manner So that all that worthily communicate do by Faith receive Christ Really Effectually to all the purposes of his Passion It is Bread and it is Christs Body It is Bread in in Substance Christ in the Sacrament and Christ is as really given to all that are truly dispos'd as the Symbols are p. 183. It is here as in the other Sacrament for as there natural Water becomes the laver of Regeneration so here Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ but there and here too the first Substance is changed by Grace but remains the same in nature We say that Christs Body is in the Sacrament really but Spiritually They the Papists say it is there really but Spiritually For so Bellarmin is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this Question Where now is the difference Here By Spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit by Spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only that is so as Christ is not present to any other Sence but that of faith or spiritual susception They say that Christs Body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross but not after the manner of all or any Body But we by the real Spiritual Presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the Hearts of the faithful by Blessing and Grace and this is ALL we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence Such is the Account which that Excellent Bishop here gives not only of his own but as he expresly terms it of the Church of England's and the Generality of the Protestants Belief in this Matter Our Author's dissimulation of it is so much the more inexcusable Treatise 1st p. 20th by how much the more zealous an Advocate he makes him of his Cause when all this that I have transcribed was in the very same Section and almost in the same Page with what he has cited For his little Remark upon the Title of the Bishops Book where he calls it of the Real Presence and Spiritual whence he would infer a difference between the two Terms and find something Real that is not Spiritual in this Sacrament it is evident that the Design of that Distinction was this There be several sorts of Real Presences the Papists the Lutherans the Church of England all
also was omitted lest it should give Offence to those who were still zealous for their mistaken Principles and Worship This was the Wise and Christian Design of that Excellent Princess and how happy an Effect this Moderation might have had if the Bishop of Rome had not by his Artifice and Authority with some of her Subjects prevented it the first Years of her Reign sufficiently shew Thus was the Occasion and Reason of its omission in Q. Elizabeth's time as great as the necessity of its first Insertion in King Edward's And in this state it continued all the Reign of that Queen and of her two Successors King James and King Charles 1st I shall not need to say by what means it was that new Occasion was given for the reviving of it We have all of us heard and many of us seen too much of it How Order became Superstitious and Decency termed Idolatry The Church of England traduced as but another Name for Popery and this Custom of kneeling at the Communion one of the strongest Arguments offer'd for the Proof of it And now when Panick Fears had found such prevalence over the Minds of Men as to destroy a King and embroil a Kingdom into a Civil War of almost Twenty Years continuance and tho by the good hand of God our King and our Peace were again restored yet the minds of the People were still unsetled and in danger of being again blown up upon the least Occasion what could be more advisable to justifie our selves from all suspicion of Popery in this matter and induce them to a Conformity with us in a Ceremony they had entertain'd such a dread of than to revive that ancient Rubrick and so quiet the Minds of the People now by the same means by which they had been setled and secured before This I am perswaded is so rational an Account as will both justifie the proceedings of our Governours in these Changes and shew the dis-ingenuity of those who not only knowing but having been told these things will still rather impute it to an imaginary wavering or uncertainty of Opinion than to a necessary and Christian Accommodation to the Times For the change in the Prayer of Consecration I have already said that 't is in the Words not the Sense And if our Governours thought the present Expressions 〈◊〉 liable to exception than the former they had certainly reason for the Alteration For the other Exceptions there is very little in them whether the Minister lay his Hand on the Sacred Elements when he repeats the words of Institution as at this time or only consecrates them by the Prayers of the Church and the Words of Christ without any other Ceremony as heretofore Whether with the Church of Rome we use only the words of Christ in the distribution or with most of the Reformed Churches the other Expression Take and eat this c. or as we chuse rather joyn them both together Whether we sing the Gloria in Excelsis Deo before or after the receiving but because the chiefest Mystery he thinks lies in this That whereas in King Edward's days the Rubrick called it an Essential Presence which we have now turned into Corporeal I must confess I will not undertake to say what the Occasion of it was if they thought this latter manner more free from giving Offence than the other would have been I think they did well to prefer it Let every one entertain what Notion he pleases of these things this I have shewn is the Doctrine of the Church which we all subscribe That the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here i. e. in the Sacrament and if there can be any other Real Presence than such as I have shewn to have been the constant belief of our Divines consistent with this Rubrick I shall no more desire to debar any one the belief of it than I shall be willing to be obliged to believe it with him And now after so clear an Account as I have here given of the several changes that have been made in our Rubrick were I minded to recriminate and tell the World what Alterations have been made in their Mass those in Points infinitely more material than any thing that can be alledged against us I much question whether they would be able to give us so good an account of it And so mething of this I may perhaps offer as a Specimen of the wisdom of this Author in the choice of his Accusation before we part In the mean time I go on to the last thing proposed to be here consider'd 4thly that the Reason mention'd in our Rubrick concerning the Impossibility of Christs natural Body's existing in several places at the same time is no way invalidated by any of this Authors exceptions against it Now these being most of them founded upon the former mistaken Notion of the Real presence falsely imputed to us will admit of a very short and plain consideration 1 st He observes That Protestants Treatise 1st §. xx n. 1. pag. 13. but especially our English Divines generally confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist to be an ineffable Mystery Well be it so what will he hence infer Why this he conceives is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by Humane Reason But supposing they should not think it so from being Opposite and Contradictory to but because the manner how Christ herein communicates himself to us is hid from and above our Humane Reason might not this be sufficient to make it still be called an ineffable and incomprehensible Mystery Whereas the other would make it rather plain and comprehensible Nonsence 'T is a strange Affection that some Men have got of late for Contradictions they are so in love with them that they have almost brought it to be the definition of a Mystery to be the Revelation of something to be believ'd in Opposition to Sense and Reason And what by their Notions and Parallels have advanced no very commendable Character of Christianity as if it were a Religion full of Absurdities Bishop TAYLOVRS Polem Disco of the Real prefence Sect. ii pag. 231. and as Fisher the Jesuit once told King James 1 st with reference to this very Subject the rather to be believed because it is contrary to Reason But if this be indeed our Authors Notion of Mysteries and the truth is Transubstantiation can be no other Mystery we desire he will be pleased to confine it to his own Church and not send it abroad into the World as ours too We are perswaded not only that our Worship must be a reasonable Service but our Faith a Reasonable Assent He who opposes the Authority of Holy Scriptures Ibid. says Bishop Taylor against manifest and certain Reason do's neither understand himself nor them Reason is the voice of God as well as Revelation
and what is opposite to the one can no more be agreeable to the other than God can be contrary to himself And though if the Revelation be clear and evident we submit to it because we are then sure it cannot be contrary to Reason whatever it may appear to us yet when the contradiction is manifest as that a natural Body should be in more places than one at the same time we are sure that interpretation of Holy Scripture can never be the right which would infer this but especially when there is another and much more reasonable that do's not And in this we are after all justified by one whose Authority I hope our Author will not question even his own self If says he Treatise 1st §. 29. pag. 21. we are certain there is a contradiction then we are certain there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation and when any Revelation tho' never so plain is brought we are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility And let him that sticks to this rule interpret Christs words for Transubstantiation if he can But do not our own Authors sometimes say that notwithstanding all the difficulties brought against Transubstantiation yet if it can be shewn that God has revealed it they are ready to believe it Perhaps some may have said this because for that very Reason that there are so many contradictions in it they are sure it cannot be shewn that God has revealed it But if he means as he seems to insinuate that notwithstanding such plain contradictions as they charge it with they thought it possible nevertheless that God might have revealed it and upon that supposition they were ready to believe it I answer from his own words that their supposal then was Absurd and impossible since he himself assure us Treatise 1st §. xx n. 3. pag. 14. that None can believe a thing true upon what motive soever which he first knows to be certainly false or which is all one certainly to contradict For these we say are not verifyable by a divine Power and Ergo here I may say should a divine power declare a truth it would transcend its self Which last words if they signifie any thing and do not transcend Sense must suppose it impossible for such a thing as implies a certain Contradiction to be revealed II. Observation But our Author goes on I conceive that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a Perfect Contradiction can no more be effected by divine Power than another or than many others the like may Seeing then we admit that some seeming Contradictions to Reason may be verified by the Divine power in this Sacrament there is no reason to deny but that this may be also as well as any other Now not to contend with him about words whoever told our Author that we allow'd that there was any thing in this Sacrament as received by us that seemed to us to include a Perfect Contradiction Perfect Contradictions we confess are all of them equally verifyable by a divine Power that is are all of them impossible And for this we have his own word before Now if there be any such things as perfect contradictions to be known by us that which seems to us to be a perfect contradiction must really be a perfect contradiction unless contradictions are to be discover'd some other way than by seeming to our Reason to be so And such it not only seems but undoubtedly is for the same One natural finite Body to be in more places than one at the same time if to be and not to be be still the measure of Contradictions He that says of such a Body that it is in Heaven and on Earth at London and Rome at the same time says in Effect that 't is one and not one finite and not finite in one place and not in one place c. All which are such seemingly perfect contradictions that I fear 't will be a hard matter to find out any Power by which they can be verify'd III. Observation Treatise 1st §. xxii p. 15. He observes Thirdly That those who affirm a Real and Substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant contradistinct to any such other Real presence of Christs Body as implies only a presence or it in Virtue and Spiritual Effects c. must hold this particular seeming Contradiction to be True or some other equivalent to it If by the Real Presence of the very Body of Christ he means as he before explains it That Christ's Natural Body that very Body which is now in Heaven should be also at the same time here upon Earth it is I think necessary for those who will affirm this to hold some such kind of Contradiction as he says And 't is for that very Reason I am perswaded he will find but few such Persons in the Church of England which so expresly declares that Christ's Natural Body is in Heaven and not here upon this very account That it is contrary to the truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than one at the same time However if any such there be as they herein depart from the Doctrine of their Church so it is not our concern to answer for their Contradictions IV. He observes lastly It seems to me that some of the more judicious amongst them the Divines he means of the Church of England have not laid so great a weight on this Philosophical Position Tract 1. §. xxviii p. 20. as wholly to support and regulate their Faith in this matter by it as it stands in opposition not only to Nature's but the Divine Power because they pretend not any such certainty thereof but that if any Divine Revelation of the contrary can be shewed they profess a readiness to believe it I shall not now trouble my self with what some of our Divines may seem to him to have done in this matter 't is evident our Church has laid stress enough upon this Contradiction Indeed where so many gross Repugnancies both to Sense and Reason are crowded together as we have seen before there are in this Point it ought not to be wondered if our Divines have not supported and regulated their Faith wholly upon this one alone We do not any of Us think it either safe or pious to be too nice in determining what God can or cannot do we leave that to the bold Inquisitiveness of their Schools But this we think we may say that if there are any unalterable Laws of Nature by which we are to judg of these things then God can no more make one Body to exist in ten thousand places at the same time than he can make one continuing one to be ten thousand than he can divide the same thing from its self and yet continue it still undivided And if any of our Divines have said that they cannot admit that one Body can be in several
Communion That no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or to any Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood For that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all Faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at One time in more places than One. This then being sufficiently cleared let us see what this Author has to observe against it 1. He supposes that we will grant Treatise 1. Ch. 4. §. 39. p. 27. that if there were a Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Body in this Holy Sacrament then Kneeling and Adoration would be here also due upon such an Account He means that were Christ himself here in his Body actually present He ought to be adored and this he need not doubt of our readiness to grant 2. Tho the Corporeal Presence of Christ's Body Ib. §. xl i.e. of its being there ad modum Corporis or clothed with the ordinary Properties of a Body be deny'd as it is not only by the English Divines but by the Lutheran and Roman Yet let there be any other manner of Presence known from Divine Revelation of the very same Body and Blood and this as Real and Essential as if Corporeal and then I do not see but that Adoration will be no less due to it thus than so Present Now to this I shall at present only say That the Supposition being absurd do's not admit of a rational Consideration Those who deny a bodily Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and ask whether Adoration may not be paid to his Body which is confess'd not to be bodily present there supposing it to be there some other way ought to have no other satisfaction than this that they suppose an Impossibility a thing which cannot be and therefore concerning which no reasonable Answer can be given Some I know have been more free and allowing for the unreasonableness of the Supposal have resolved contrary to our Author But I think it very needless to dispute of the Affections of a Chimera and wrangle about Notions that have neither Use nor Existence 3. Treatise 1. p. 28. §. xli He observes lastly That the Church of England hath believed and affirmed such a Presence he means of Christ's Body in the Eucharist to which they thought Adoration due I presume it was then in the Times of Popery for since the Reformation I have shewn before that she has always held the contrary But our Author will prove it and that since the Reformation Ibid. For he says he has in his time met with no less than five of our Writers and those of no mean Account neither that have been of this Opinion This indeed is a very notable way of proving the Doctrine of our Church But what now if I should bring him fifteen Others that have deny'd it then I hope the Doctrine of the Church of England may be as fair for the contrary But we will examine his Evidence First Treatise 1. §. xlii p. 28. Bishop Andrews he says declares that tho we adore not the Sacrament yet we adore Christ in and with the Sacrament besides and without the Sacrament and assures the World that K. James looked upon Christ to be truly present and truly to be adored in it How this Bishop thought Christ truly present in the Sacrament we have seen before and may from thence easily conclude how he supposed he might be adored there viz. As in all other Holy Offices in which we confess Him by his Divine Power to be present with us but especially in this Sacred Mystery And thus we all adore him both in and with and without the Sacrament we confess him to be truly present and therefore truly to be adored by us But now for Christ's Natural Body of which and not of Christ himself our Dispute is if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before shew'd let it be remembred that according to this Bishop it must not be his Glorified Body See above his Body as it now is but his Body Crucified his Body as offer'd for us and in the State of his Death so He expresly affirms and this I believe our Author himself will confess in his sense to be impossible His next Witness is Bishop Taylor We worship Treatise 1. §. xliii p. 28. He means says this Author the Body or the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist But is he sure the Bishop meant so If he be I am sure the Bishop thought we all of us committed Idolatry in so doing For being consulted as we have seen above whether without all danger of Idolatry we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host See Polemical Discourses 5. Letter at the end p. according to his Humane Nature in that Host He expresly declares We may not render Divine Worship to Him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idotry And indeed this our Author knew very well was his Opinion who himself in his next Treatise cites the xiiith Section of his Real Presence Treatise 2. p .9 §. vi n. 2. which was written on purpose to prove the unlawfulness of worshipping Christ's Body in this Sacrament But dissimulation of other Mens Opinions in matter of Religion is perhaps as lawful on some Occasions as if it were their own And why may not an Author prevaricate the Doctrine of his Adversary in defence of the Catholick Faith since I have read of a * The Story was publish'd in the Memoirs of Monsieur D'eageant printed with permission at Grenoble 1668. pag. 246 I will set it down in his own words Il'y avoit deja quelque tems que D'eageant avoit gagné l'un des Ministres de la Province de Languedoc qui etoit des plus employez aux Affaires meneés de ceux de la R. P. R. en l'Estime particuliere de Monsieur de Lesdiguiers Il avoit meme secrettement moyenne sa Conversion obtenu un Bref de Rome portant qu' en core qu' il eut etè receu au giron de l'Eglise il luy etoit permis de continuer son Ministere durant 3 Ans pourveu qu'en ses preches il ne dit rien de contraire à la creance de la vraye Eglise qu' il ne celebrât ponit la cene Le Bref fût obtenu afinque le Ministre pût estre continué dans les Emplois qu'il avoit decouvrir les
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