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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and yet not move That there should be no Certainty in our Senses and yet that we should know something Certainly and yet know nothing but by our Senses That that which Is and Was long ago should now begin to be That that is now to be made of Nothing which is not Nothing but Something That the same thing should be Before and After its self These and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable and most of them the avow'd Consequences of Transubstantiation and I need not say all of them Contradictions to Right Reason But I shall insist rather upon such Instances as the Primitive Fathers have judged to be absurd and impossible and which will at once shew both the Falseness and Novelty of this monstrous Doctrine and such are these * See Examples of every one of these collected by Blondel Eclaircissements familiers de la controverse de l' Eucharistie cap. 8. p. 253. That a thing already existing should be produced anew That a finite thing should be in many places at the same time That a Body should be in a place and yet take up no room in it That a Body should penetrate the dimensions of another Body That a Body should exist after the manner of a Spirit That a real body should be invisible and impassible That the same thing should be its self and the figure of its self That the same thing should be contained in and participate of its self †Monsieur Claude Rep. au 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite part 1. c. 4. n. 11. p. 73. Ed. 4to Paris 1668. That an Accident should exist by its self without a Subject after the manner of a Substance All these things the primitive Fathers have declared to be in their Opinions gross Absurdities and Contradictions without making any exception of the Divine Power for the sake of the Eucharist as some do now And indeed it were well if the impossibilities stopp'd here but alas the Repugnancies extend to the very Creed its self and destroy the chiefest Articles of our Faith the Fundamentals of Christianity How can that man profess that he believes our Saviour Christ to have been born xvi Ages since of the Virgin Mary whose very Body he sees the Priest about to make now before his Eyes That he believes him to have Ascended into Heaven and behold he is yet with us upon Earth There to Sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty till in the end of the World He shall come again with Glory to judg both the Quick and the Dead And behold he is here carried through the Streets lock'd up in a Box Adored first and then Eaten by his own Creatures carried up and down in several manners and to several places and sometimes Lost out of a Priests Pocket These are no far-fetch'd Considerations they are the obvious Consequences of this Belief and if these things are impossible as doubtless if there be any such thing as Reason in the World they are I suppose it may be very much the concern of every one that professes this Faith to reflect a little upon them and think what account must one day be given of their persisting obstinately in a point so evidently erroneous that the least degree of an impartial judgment would presently have shewn them the falseness of it But God has not left himself without farther witness in this matter but has given us Thirdly III. The Conviction of our Senses against it An Argument this which since it cannot be Answered they seem resolved to run it down as the Stoick in Lucian who began to call names when he had nothing else to say for himself But if the Senses are such ill Informers that they may not be trusted in matters of this moment would these Disputers please to tell us What Authority they have for the truth of the Christian Religion Was not Christianity first founded upon the Miracles of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles Or were not the Senses judges of those Miracles Are not the Incarnation Death Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord the most Fundamental Articles of our Faith Have we any other Argument to warrant our belief of these but what comes to us by the ministry of our Senses * John xx 27 29. Did not Christ himself appeal to them for the proof of his own Rising The Romanist himself believes Transubstantiation because he reads in the Scripture or rather to speak more agreeably to the method of their Church because he has been told there are such Words there as Hee est Corpus Meum Now not to enquire how far those words will serve to warrant this Doctrine is it not evident that he cannot be sure there are any such words there if he may not trust his Senses And if he may is it not as plain That he must seek for some other meaning than what they give of them Let us suppose the change they speak of to be Supernatural Be it as much a Miracle as they desire The very Character of a Miracle is to be known by the Senses Nor God nor Christ nor any Prophet or Apostle ever pretended to any other And I shall leave it to any one to judge what progress Christianity would have made in the World if it had had no other Miracles but such as Transubstanation to confirm it i. e. Great Wonders confidently asserted but such as every ones sense and reason would tell him were both falsely asserted and impossible to be performed But now whil'st we thus oppose the Errors of some by asserting the continuance of the Natural Substance of the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Holy Eucharist let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mistakes of others as if this Holy Sacrament were nothing more than a meer Rite and Ceremony a bare Commemoration only of Christ's Death and Passion Our Church indeed teaches us to believe That the Bread and Wine continue still in their True and Natural Substance but it teaches us also that 't is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechism and Article Twenty eighth The Communion-Office c. which every faithful Soul receives in that Holy Supper Spiritually indeed and after a Heavenly manner but yet most truly and really too The Primitive Fathers of whom we have before spoken sufficiently assure us that they were strangers to that Corporeal change that is now pretended but for this Divine and Mystical they have openly enough declared for it Nor are we therefore afraid to confess a change and that a very great one too made in this Holy Sacrament The Bread and the Wine which we here Consecrate ought not to be given or received by any one in this Mystery as common ordinary food Those Holy Elements which the Prayers of the Church have sanctified and the Divine Words of our Blessed Saviour applied to them though not Transubstantiated yet certainly separated to a Holy use and
Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist I shall therefore produce only a Witness or two of this King's Reign and so pass on to those that follow And 1st A. B. A.B. CRANMER Cranmer in his Answer to Gardiner Bishop of Winchester objecting to him That he deny'd the Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist replies That it was a thing he never said nor thought My book in divers places saith clean contrary Answer to Gardiâ—er Bishop of Winchester Fol. London 1551. That Christ is with us spiritually present is eaten and drunken of us and dwelleth within us although Corporally he be departed out of this World and gone into Heaven pag. 5. Pag. 5. As he giveth Bread to be eaten with our Mouths so giveth he his very Body to be eaten with our Faith. And therefore I say that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with Faith not with Mouth pag. 9. Pag. 9. As the washing outwardly in Water is not a vain Token but teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly in them that duly receive the same so likewise is not the Bread a vain Token but sheweth and preacheth to the godly Receiver what God worketh in him by his Almighty Power secretly and invisibly And therefore as the Bread is outwardly eaten indeed in the Lord's Supper so is the very Body of Christ inwardly by Faith eaten indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do which eating nourisheth them unto Everlasting Life And in his Treatise of the Holy Sacrament Assertio verae Catholicae Doctrinae de Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis J. â—hristi Servaâ—â—ris nostri Liâ—â—ae 8 vo 1601. Lib. 3. where he sets himself particularly to state this very Question How Christ is present in this Holy Sacrament He declares Cap. 2. That whereas the Papists suppose Christ to be under the Species of Bread and Wine we believe him to be in those who worthily receive these Holy Elements They think him to be received by the Mouth and to enter with the Bread and Wine We assert that he is received only by the Soul and enters there by Faith. That Christ is present only sacramentally and spiritually in this sacred Mystery p. 116. That since his Ascension into Heaven he is there and not on Earth p. 118. and that he cannot be in both together 128. In short he gives us this Rule for interpreting the Expressions of the Fathers where it is said That we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ That we receive in the Holy Sacrament the very body that hung on the Cross c. cap. 14. p. 180. These says he and other Expressions of the like kind which speak Christ to be upon Earth and to be received of Christians by eating or drinking are either to be understood of his Divine Nature which is every where or else must be taken figuratively or spiritually For he is figuratively only in the Bread and Wine and spiritually in those that receive this Bread and Wine worthily But truly and as to his Body and Flesh he is in Heaven only from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead Thus did this Learned and Holy Martyr understand our Doctrine of the Real Presence Bp. RIDLEY and the same was the Idea which his Companion both in Doctrine and Suffering Bishop Ridley has left us of it In his Discourse of the Lord's Supper pag. 33. he tells us Ridlei de Caenâ Dominicâ Assertio Genevae apud Jo. Crispinum 1556. That the Substance of the Bread continues as the Matter of this Sacrament but so that by reason of its change as to Vse Office and Dignity it is turned Sacramentally into the Body of Christ as in Baptism the Water is turned into the Laver of Regeneration That the Humane Nature of Christ is in Heaven and cannot in any manner lye hid under the form of Bread p. 34. Then he enquires whether therefore we take away the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament p. 35. And utterly denies that this is either said or thought by him The Substance of the true Body and Blood of Christ says he is always in Heaven nor shall it depart thence before the end of the World. Now this Substance of his Body and Blood being conjoyned to his Divine Nature has not only Life in it self but can and is wont to bestow it upon all those who partake of it and believe in his Name Nor is it any hindrance to this that Christ still remains in Heaven and that we are upon Earth For by Grace that is Life as S. John interprets it c. 6 and the Properties of it as far as may be profitable to us in this our Pilgrimage here below he is with us to the end of the World. As the Sun who though he never leaves his Orb yet by his Life Heat and Influence is present to us pag. 36 37. Hitherto then there can be no doubt but that both the Church and the Divines knew no other Real Presence than what has been before acknowledged to be still our Doctrine We must now go on to the times of tryal the days of Q. Elizabeth and her Successors I. Tract §. IV. pag. 4. when our Author supposes that Men of different Judgments had the Power Now for proof of this besides the Expressions of particular Men which we shall presently consider we have Two General Presumptions offer'd to us One That Dr. Heyliâ—â— and others have observed he says of this Queen that she was a zealous propugner of the Real Presence which may be very true and yet but little to the purpose if she propugned it in the same sense that her Brother King Edward the 6th and the Church of England had done before and not in the new Notion imposed upon her by this Author but without any manner of proof to warrant his suggestion The other That upon the Re-view made by her Divines of the Common-Prayer and Articles I. Treatise pag. 2. §. I. and again p. 22. §. XXXI they struck out of the One the Rubrick against the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Passage before mention'd being of the same temper as the Declaration in the Liturgy out of the xxixth Article and which has accordingly been omitted ever since And here I cannot but again take notice of the disingenuousness of this Author in dissembling the true Account that has so largely been given by our late accurate Compiler of the History of our Reformation of this whole matter only for the advancing so pitiful an Insinuation of what I dare appeal to his own Conscience whether he did not know to be otherwise I will beg leave to transcribe the whole Passage and shall then leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge whether a man so well acquainted with Books and so interested in this
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
to the Spirit i. e. the Godhead of Christ become both one Sacramentally by being both one with the Spirit or Godhead of Christ to the conveying of God's Spirit to a Christian And thus have I consider'd the several Divines produced for this new Conceit concerning the Real Presence and shewn the greatest part of his Authors to be evidently against it some not to have spoken so clearly that we can determine any thing concerning them but not one that favours what they were alledged for viz. to shew that they believed Christ's Natural Body to be both in Heaven and in the Sacrament only after another manner than the Papists It were an easie matter to shew how constant our Church has been to the Doctrine of the true real spiritual Presence which it still asserts and which it derived from its first Reformers whose words have been before set down by a cloud of other Witnesses as may be seen by the short Specimen I have put together in the * Reformatio legum Eccles ex Authorit Henr. 8. Edw. 6. Lond. 1641. Tit. de Sacram. cap. 4. pag. 29. Morton de Euch. part 2. Class 4. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 224. Lat. 1640. 4 to Fr. White against Fisher pag. 407. Lond. 1624. Fol. A. B Vster's Answer to a Challenge c of the Real Presence p. 44 45. Lond. 1625. Id. Serm before the House of Commons pag 16 1â— c Dr. Hownand Pract. Catech. part ult Answer to this Question the Importance of these wâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 the Bâ—dâ— and 〈◊〉 of Christ are verily and indeed taken and receivâ—â— p. 132. 〈◊〉 Lond Fol. 1634. Dr. Jachson's Works Tom. 3. pag. 300 302. Lond. 1673 Dr. Jo. Wâ—â—â—â—â—'s Way to the True Church Lond. 1624. §. 51. N. 1â— pag. 2â—9 Cosens Hist Transubst p. 3 4 12 c. Edit London 1675 8vo Margent But I have insisted too long already on this matter and shall therefore pass on to the Third thing I proposed to consider viz. Thirdly 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 fasly suggested To give a rational Account of this Affair we must carefully consider the Circumstances of the Times the Tempers and Dispositions of the Persons that lived in them and what the Designs of the Governing Parties were with reference to them and then we shall presently see both a great deal of Wisdom and Piety in the making of these Alterations allowing the Opinions of those who did it to have continued as we have seen in all of them the same When first this Rubrick was put into King Edward's Liturgy the Church of England was but just rising up out of the Errors and Superstitions with which it had been over-run by the prevalency of Popery upon it It had the happiness to be reformed not as most others were by private persons and in many places contrary to the desires of the Civil Power but by a Unanimous Concurrence of the Highest Authority both Civil and Ecclesiastical of Church and State. Hence it came to pass that Convocations being assembled Deliberations had of the greatest and wisest Persons for the proceeding in it nothing was done out of a Spirit of Peevisnness or Opposition the Holy Scriptures and Antiquity were carefully consulted and all things examined according to the exactest measures that could be taken from them and a diligent distinction made of what was Popery and what true and Catholick Christianity that so the One only might be rejected the other duly retained Now by this means it was that the Ancient Government of the Church became preserved amongst us a just and wise Liturgy collected out of the Publick Rituals Whatever Ceremonies were requisite for Order or Decency were retain'd and among the rest that of receiving the Communion kneeling for One which has accordingly ever since been the manner establish'd amongst us But that no Occasion of Scandal might hereby be given whether to our Neighbour-Churches abroad or to any particular Members of our own at home That those who were yet weak in the Faith might not either continue or fall back into Error and by our retaining the same Ceremony in the Communion that they had been used to in the Mass fancy that they were to adore the Bread as they did before For all these great Ends this Caution was inserted that the true Intent of this Ceremony was only for Decency and Order not that any Adoration was thereby intended or ought to be done unto any Real or Essential Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood which were not there but in Heaven it being against the Truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at One time in more places than One. And this is sufficiently intimated in the words of the Rubrick to have been the first Cause and Design of it Thus it continued the remainder of King Edward's time But now Queen Elizabeth being come to the Crown there were other Circumstances to be consider'd Those of the Reformed Religion abroad were sufficiently satisfied both by this publick Declaration which had stood so many years in the Liturgy of our Church and by the Conversation and Acquaintance of our Divines forced by the dispersion in the foregoing Reign to seek forrefuge among their Brethren in other Countries of our Orthodox Faith as to this Point Our own Members at home had heard too much of this matter in the publick Writings and Disputations and in the constant Sufferings of their Martyrs not to know that the Popish Real Presence was a meer Figment an Idolum as Bishop Taylor justly stiles it and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored There was then no longer need of this Rubrick upon any of those Accounts for which it was first establish'd and there was a very just reason now to lay it aside That great Queen desired if possible to compose the Minds of her Subjects and make up those Divisions which the differences of Religion and the late unhappy Consequences of them had occasion'd For this she made it her business to render the publick Acts of the Church of England as agreeable to all Parties as Truth would permit The Clause of the Real Presence inserted in the Articles of her first Convocation and subscribed by all the Members of it to shew that their belief was still the same it had ever been as to this matter was nevertheless as we have seen struck out for this end their next Session The Title of Head of the Church which her Father had first taken her Brother continued and was from both derived to her so qualified and explained as might prevent any Occasion of quarrelling at it by the most captious persons That Petition in the Litany inserted by King Henry viii From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable Enormities Good Lord c. struck out And in conformity to what was done in the Articles as to this Point this Rubrick
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
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
upon a Substance which really is not Christ's Body but only mistaken by him to be so shall be in the same Condition there being an apparently vast difference between worshipping Christ in a place where he is not and worshipping that for Christ which really is not Christ but only a created Substance And this in truth our Author seems to have been sensible of and therefore thinks to evade it by saying That they do not worship the Substance that is in that place Ibid p. 23. under such Accidents whatever it be which if Bread should happen to be there he confesses would make them Bread-worshippers but they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christ's Body and not Bread. Well be this so But what now if they are mistaken in their Supposition They worship he confesses the Substance that is under those Accidents supposing it to be Christ's Body but still mistaken or not that Substance which is under those Species whatever it be they do worship And if they have as he thinks a rational ground for this Supposition which we shall see by and by yet this will only excuse them from being formal Idolaters but will not hinder but that their Worship is still directed to an undue Object if that which is under the Species be indeed but Bread and not Christ's Body as they imagine And this then may serve to argue the falseness of what he lays down as his Fifth P. 22. §. xix Catholick Assertion That supposing both the Lutherans and Papists mistaken in their Opinion yet there can be no pretence why the One should not be as excusable as the others Since as I have said 1st They err more grosly in abandoning the conviction of their Senses which the Lutherans do not 2dly They worship a Substance for Christ which really is not To which if this be not enough I will add yet two other Reasons 3dly That they make the Consecration without which Christ is not present upon their own Principles to depend on such uncertainties as I shall more fully shew anon that they can never be sure that Christ is there which the Lutherans are free from And lastly They Anathematize those who dissent from them as to this Point and so make a Schism in dividing the Vnity of the Church which the Lutherans are so far from doing that they neither establish any Doctrine of Adoration at all nay many of them do not believe it and upon occasion freely communicate with those who dissent from them in their belief both of their way of the Real Presence and of the Adoration And for the same reason I cannot totally assent to his Sixth Assertion P. 25. §. xxi That supposing there be no such Real Presence as either of them believes yet that their adoration of Christ who is a true Object of Supreme Adoration and only by them mistaken to be in some place where He is not cannot be termed any such Idolatry as is the worshipping of an Object not at all adorable This as to what concerns those of the Lutherans who adore Christ in the Sacrament is true But for the Papist it is not He intends I allow it to worship Christ but he mistakes an Object for Christ which is only a piece of Bread. He worships his Host supposing it to be our Saviour's Body but his Error is gross and he not only mistakes Christ to be in a place where he is not but he mistakes that to be Christ which indeed is not but only a simple Wafer His Worship therefore is not like the Manichees worshipping of Christ in the Sun but rather as if the Manichee should from some mistaken grounds have fancy'd the Sun it self to be turned into Christ's Body and then in defiance of all Scripture Sense and Reason should have fallen down before it but with a good Intention not to adore the Sun but the Body of our Blessed Lord under the Species or Accidents of the Sun. This is the true Parallel only that herein still the Manichee would have been the more excusable of the two by how much the Sun is a more likely Object to be mistaken for Christ's glorified Body than a Morsel of Bread and less capable of being discovered by our Senses and Examination not to be so It remains then that these Lutherans only adore Christ where he is not the Papists not only do this but more-over they adore that for Christ which really is not but a meer created Substance Both the One and the Other are Erroneous but the Papist's Mistake renders him at the least guilty of material Idolatry whereas the Lutherans is only an undue Application of his Worship as to the Place but right as to the Person Let us see Seventhly How far their Mistake will excuse them P. 26. §. xxii in answer to his seventh Assertion That however a Manichaean may be guilty of Idolatry for worshipping Christ in the Sun and an Israelite for worshipping God as specially resident in the Calves of Dan and Bethel because it is adoring a Fancy of their own without any rational Ground or Pretence thereof and however meerly a good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance can excuse none from Idolatry or any other Fault yet if Catholicks i.e. the pretended Roman Catholicks can produce a rational Ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry Which Proposal is so just that I am very willing to allow it and shall be heartily glad that the Grounds of their Mistake may in the End prove to have been so reasonable as to excuse them But then it must be remembred too that he confesses if these Grounds be not reasonable but as he says of the Manichees their adoring of the Host be indeed an adoring a Fancy of their own without any rational Ground So that their ignorance in this Matter is culpable then by their own allowance they are Idolaters This therefore brings me to the last Thing to be enquired into III. What Grounds they have for this Adoration and whether they be such as should they be mistaken in it will be sufficient to excuse them And thus after a great deal of Preamble but very little to the purpose we are at last come to the main Question I have already so largely shewn our Reasons against Transubstantiation or that Real Presence on which this Adoration is built that I shall not need to insist here Yet because the stress of this Controversy depends principally on this last Part I will 1st Examine the strength of those Grounds which this Author has offer'd to warrant their Adoration 2dly I will propose an Argument or two upon their own allowed Principles against it But before we proceed to these Points we must yet have one touch more upon the old String Pag. 26. §. xxiii For the Lutherans he says being allow'd to have such a plausible Ground or Motive
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