learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie Bellarmine Suazer and Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge Durandus to have said as much Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrine which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray says plainly that the Doctrine of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrine viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the authority of the Church nay he goes farther that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my body in a proper and not a metaphorical sense but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. Cardinal Contarenus and Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whether we consider the like expressions in Scripture as where our Saviour says he is the door and the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said this is my true body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body and the Rock which followed the Israelites to be Christ 1. Cor. 10. 4. They drank of that rock which followed them and that rock was Christ All which and innumerable more like expressions in Scripture every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense And it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signify and represent and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signify so and so than to say that it is so and so Thus Joseph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him Gen. 41. 26. Says the seven good kine are seven years and the seven good ears of corn are seven years that is they signified or represented seven years of plenty and so Pharaoh understood him and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions nor do I beleive that any sensible man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour this is my body would upon reading the institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been this Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Bloud and this which you see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me But surely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and give away himself from himself with his own hands Or whether we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as Justin Martyr tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Passover is our Saviour and our refuge not that they believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias the Saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it But this Lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the world And nothing is more common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign As the delivery of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is call'd a Conveyance or making over of such an Estate and it is really so not the delivery of mere wax and parchment but the conveyance of a real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material houses and lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and man are given to the Signs or Seals of that Covenant By Baptism Christians are said to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6. 4. And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are said to communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us that is of the real benefits of his death and passion And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ But still it is bread and he still calls it so v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one body for we are partakers of that one bread The Church of Rome might if they pleased as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by
some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni that is such as had not been admitted to the Sacrament and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians these Servants having nothing to say that might gratify those who offered violence to them except onely that they had heard from their Masters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Christ they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh declar'd as much to those that questioned them The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Christians discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it To whom Blandina boldly answered How would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten By which it appears that this which they would have charg'd upon Christians as if they had literally eaten the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament was a false accusation which these Martyrs denied saying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all The next is Tertullian who proves against Marcion the Heretique that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phantasm and appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body otherwise the Sacrament would be an image of an image His words are these the bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own body saying this is my body that is the image or figure of my body But it could not have been the figure of his body if there had not been a true and real body And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of sense he useth this Argument That if we question our senses we may doubt whether our Blessed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard and saw and touched He might says he be deceived in the voice from heaven in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial and in tho taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his bloud So that it seems we are to trust our senses even in the matter of the Sacrament and if that be true the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is certainly false Origen in his Comment on Matth. 15 speaking of the Sacrament hath this passage That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught which none surely will say of the Body of Christ. And afterwards he adds by way of explication it is not the matter of the bread but the word which is spoken over it which profiteth him that worthily eateth the Lord and this he says he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body So that the matter of bread remaineth in the Sacrament and this Origen calls the typical and Symbolical body of Christ and it is not the natural body of Christ which is there eaten for the food eaten in the Sacrament as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught This testimony is so very plain in the Cause that Sextus Senensis suspects this place of Origen was depraved by the Heretiques Cardinal Perron is contented to allow it to be Origen's but rejects his testimony because he was accused of Heresie by some of the Fathers and says he talks like a Heretique in this place So that with much adoe this testimony is yielded to us The same Father in his Homilies upon Leviticus speaks thus There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who doth not Spiritually understand those things which are said for if we take according to the Letter that which is said EXCEPT YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOVD this Letter kills And this also is a killing Testimony and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way by saying he talks like a Heretique St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle to Cecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water onely without Wine mingled with it and his main argument against them is this that the bloud of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the Cup when there is no Wine in the Cup by which the Bloud of Christ is represented and afterwards he says that contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine water was in some places offer'd or given in the Lord's Cup which says he alone cannot express or represent the bloud of Christ. And lastly he tells us that by water the people is understood by Wine the bloud of Christ is shewn or represented but when in the Cup water is mingled with Wine the people is united to Christ. So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental Cup is no otherwise chang'd into the bloud of Christ than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ. I omit many others and pass to St. Austin in the fourth Age after Christ. And I the rather insist upon his Testimony because of his eminent esteem and authority in the Latin Church and he also calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and Sign of Christ's body and bloud In his Book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expression our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body And in his explication of the third Psalm speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last Supper in which says he he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his Body Language which would now be censur'd for Heresie in the Church of Rome Indeed he was never accus'd of Heresie as Cardinal Perron says Origen was but he talks as like one as Origen himself And in his Comment on the 98 Psalm speaking of the offence which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud c. he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them ye must understand Spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat this body which ye see and to drink that bloud which shall be shed by those that shall crucifyme I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being Spiritually understood will give you life What more opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation than that the Disciples were not to eat that Body of Christ which they saw nor to drink that bloud which was shed upon the Cross but that all this was to be understood spiritually and according to the nature of a Sacrament For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven in his Comment upon
these words me ye have not always He speaks says he of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his Disciples fourty days he is ascended up into heaven and is not here In his 23d Epistle if the Sacrament says he had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all but from this resemblance they take for the most part the names of the things which they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christ's body and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Christ So the Sacrament of faith meaning Baptism is faith Upon which words of St. Austin there is this remarkable Gloss in their own Canon Law the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly whence it is said that after a manner but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified So that the meaning is it is called the body of Christ that is it signifies the body of Christ And if this be St. Austin's meaning I am sure no Protestant can speak more plainly against Transubstantiation And in the ancient Canon of the Mass before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine it is expresly call'd a Sacrament a Sign an Image and a figure of Christ's body To which I will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin cited by Gratian that as we receive the similitude of his death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud that so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain I will mention but one Testimony more of this Father but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have utter'd It is in his Treatise de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If says he the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime or commanding us to do good it is not figurative but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he says this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words as we call the mystical fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the true Vine viz. of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not literally and properly but onely figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ. And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour changed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or Sign and to the Symbol or Sign the name of his Body thus when he had call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Symbol or Sign his bloud so that in the same sense that he call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the Symbol of his bloud his bloud For says he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who call'd that which by nature is a body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the Symbols with the name of his body and bloud not changing nature but adding grace to nature Where you see he says expresly that when he call'd the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. bread and Wine his Body and Bloud he made no change in the nature of the things onely added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a Spiritual and Supernatural vertue and efficacy The Second is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholique under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretique under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was chang'd into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutyches he illustrates the matter by this Similitude As says he the Symbols of the Lord's body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing So the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what says the Catholique Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Heretiques Thou art says he caught in thy own net because the mystical Symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature for they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not onely deny the outward figure and appearance of the Symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of
the word substance and it was necessary so to do otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him The next is one of their own Popes Gelasius who brings the same Instance against the Eutychians surely says he the Sacraments which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of bread and Wine and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries that is in the Sacrament To make this Instance of any force against the Eutyâ—hâ—ans who held that tho body of Christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ. So that here is an infallible authority one of their own Popes expresly against Transubstantiation The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop who lived in the 6th Century Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons he reasons thus Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption as the Sacrament of his body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup is by us called his body and bloud not that the bread says he is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and bloud Can any man after this believe that it was then and had ever been the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Christ By these plain Testimonies which I have produced and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose it is I think evident beyond all denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the Christian Church And this likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman Church Scotus acknowledgeth that this Doctrine was not always thought necessary to be believed but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary if the Church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields that before the Lateran Council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament And Erasmus who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church and than whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing And Alphonsus a Castro says plainly that concerning the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church I shall now in the Second place give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church The Doctrine of the corporal presence of Christ was first started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other image of himself but the Sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christ's body and bloud but is properly his body and bloud So that the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid worship of Images And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion nor have been applied to a fitter purpose And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with Bellarmine's Observation that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies hath put this errour viz. of denying Transubstantiation in his Catalogue nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years Which is very true because there could be no occasion then to dispute against those who denied Transubstantiation since as I have shewn this Doctrine was not in being unless amongst the Eutychian Heretiques for the first 600 years and more But Bellarmine goes on and tells us that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI the opposers of Images after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by Christ himself viz. the bread and wine in the Eucharist which represents the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord but his true body as appears from the VIIth Synod which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greeks so in the Latin or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus first a Monk and afterwards Abbat of Corbey was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII And for this besides the Evidence of History we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome Bellarmine and Sirmondus who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument Bellarmine in these words This Authour was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christ's body and bloud in the Eucharist And Sirmondus in these he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholique Church that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he onely first explain'd the sense
of the Catholique Church in this Point yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church and it met with great opposition in that Age as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew For Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschasius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it Some says he of late not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord have said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the Cross and rose from the dead which errour says he we have oppos'd with all our might From whence it is plain by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned Bishops of that Age and of eminent reputation for Piety that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament was then esteem'd an Errour broach'd by some particular Persons but was far from being the generally receiv'd Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning could have condemn'd this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church not onely in that but in all former Ages and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious Heresies Afterwards in the year MLIX when Berengarius in France and Germany had rais'd a fresh opposition against this Doctrine he was compell'd to recant it by Pope Nicholas and the Council at Rome in these words that the bread and wine which are set upon the Altar after the consecration are not onely the Sacrament but the true body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and are sensibly not onely in the Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priest and ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithfull But it seems the Pope and his Council were not then skilfull enough to express themselves rightly in this matter for the Gloss upon the Canon Law says expresly that unless we understand these words of BERENGARIVS that is in truth of the Pope and his Council in a sound sense we shall fall into a greater Heresie than that of BERENGARIVS for we do not make parts of the body of Christ. The meaning of which Gloss I cannot imagine unless it be this that the Body of Christ though it be in truth broken yet it is not broken into parts for we do not make parts of the body of Christ but into wholes Now this new way of breaking a Body not into parts but into wholes which in good earnest is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though to them that are able to believe Transubstantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be sound sense yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be solid non-sense About XX years after in the year MLXXIX Pope Gregory the VII th began to be sensible of this absurdity and therefore in another Council at Rome made Berengarius to recant in another Form viz. that the bread and wine which are placed upon the Altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and quickning flesh and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and after consecration are the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which being offered for the Salvation of the World did hang upon the Cross and sits on the right hand of the Father So that from the first starting of this Doctrine in the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII till the Council under Pope Gregory the VII th in the year MLXXIX it was almost three hundred years that this Doctrine was contested and before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now setled and establish'd in the Church of Rome Here then is a plain account of the first rise of this Doctrine and of the several steps whereby it was advanced by the Church of Rome into an Article of Faith I come now in the Third place to answer the great pretended Demonstration of the impossibility that this Doctrine if it had been new should ever have come in in any Age and been received in the Church and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the Church in all Ages For if it had not always been the Doctrine of the Church when ever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bustle about it and the whole Christian World would have rose up in opposition to it But we can shew no such time when it first came in and when any such opposition was made to it and therefore it was always the Doctrine of the Church This Demonstration Monsieur Arnauld a very learned Man in France pretends to be unanswerable whether it be so or not I shall briefly examine And First we do assign a punctual and very likely time of the first rise of this Doctrine about the beginning of the ninth Age though it did not take firm root nor was fully setled and establish'd till towards the end of the eleventh And this was the most likely time of all other from the beginning of Christianity for so gross an Errour to appear it being by the confession and consent of their own Historians the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the Christian Church both for Ignorance and Superstition and Vice It came in together with Idolatry and was made use of to support it A sit prop and companion for it And indeed what tares might not the Enemy have sown in so dark and long a Night when so considerable a part of the Christian World was lull'd asleep in profound Ignorance and Superstition And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himself gives in the Parable of the Tares of the springing up of Errours and Corruptions in the Field of the Church While the men slept the Enemy did his work in the Night so that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came but being sure they were there and that they were not sown at first they concluded the Enemy had done it Secondly I have shewn likewise that there was considerable opposition made to this Errour at its first coming in The general Ignorance and gross Superstition of that Age rendered the generality of people more quiet and secure and disposed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of mystery in Religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the Sacrament and that seemed any way
to countenance the worship of Images for which at that time they were zealously concern'd But notwithstanding the security and passive temper of the People the men most eminent for piety and learning in that Time made great resistance against it I have already named Rabanus Arch-Bishop of Mentz who oppos'd it as an Errour lately sprung up and which had then gained but upon some few persons To whom I may add Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerres in France Io. Scotus Erigena and Ratramnus commonly known by the name of Bertram who at the same time were employed by the Emperour Charles the Bald to oppose this growing Errour and wrote learnedly against it And these were the eminent men for learning in that time And because Monsieur Arnauld will not be satisfied unless there were some stir and bustle about it Bertram in his Preface to his Book tells us that they who according to their several opinions talked differently about the mystery of Christ's body and bloud were divided by no small Schism Thirdly Though for a more clear and satisfactory answer to this pretended Demonstration I have been contented to untie this knot yet I could without all these pains have cut it For suppose this Doctrine had silently come in and without opposition so that we could not assign the particular time and occasion of its first Rise yet if it be evident from the Records of former Ages for above D. years together that this was not the ancient belief of the Church and plain also that this Doctrine was afterwards received in the Roman Church though we could not tell how and when it came in yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact This is just Zeno's Demonstration of the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his Eyes For this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been which most certainly was Just thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonstrated that the tares were wheat because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any tares were sown or by whom and if an Enemy had come to do it he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition but no such resistance was made and therefore there could be no tares in the field but that which they call'd tares was certainly good wheat At the same rate a man might demonstrate that our King his Majesty of great Britain is not return'd into England nor restor'd to his Crown because there being so great and powerfull an Army possess'd of his Lands and therefore obliged by interest to keep him out it was impossible He should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloudshed but there was no such thing therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his Crown And by the like kind of Demonstration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom last year and besiege Vienna because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have employed it against him but Monsieur Arnauld certainly knows no such thing was done And therefore according to his way of Demonstration the matter of fact so commonly reported and believed concerning the Turks Invasion of Christendom and besieging Vienna last year was a perfect mistake But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is or was never to have been For of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so than to make that which hath been not to have been All the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty And I have often wonder'd how a man of Monsieur Arnauld's great wit and sharp Judgment could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a Cause or could think to defend it with so wooden a Dagger as his Demonstration of Reason against certain Experience and matter of Fact A thing if it be possible of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate Transubstantiation it self I proceed to the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that is The infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith And this in truth is the ground into which the most of the learned men of their Church did heretofore and many do still resolve their belief of this Doctrine And as I have already shewn do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it And that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church obliged them otherwise But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by virtue of the Authority of the Roman Church and the Declaration of the Council under Pope Gregory the VII th or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is a plain Innovation in the Christian Doctrine and a new Article of Faith impos'd upon the Christian world And if any Church hath this power the Christian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine nay any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable may become an Article of Faith obliging all Christians to the belief of it whenever the Church of Rome shall think fit to stamp her Authority upon it which would make Christianity a most uncertain and endless thing The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is the necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it But there is no colour for this if the thing be rightly consider'd Because the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the Institution And as Water in Baptism without any substantial change made in that Element may be the Divine blessing accompanying the Institution be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration So there can no reason in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine blessing accompanying this Institution make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby without any substantial change made in those Elements since our Lord hath told us that verily the flesh profiteth nothing So that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our Lord I do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us than what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him For the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the
contempt of all that are endued with Reason And to speak the plain truth the Christian Religion was never so horribly exposed to the scorn of Atheists and Infidels as it hath been by this most absurd and senseless Doctrine But thus it was foretold that the Man of Sin should come with power and Signs and Lying Miracles and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness with all the Legerdemain and jugling tricks of falsehood and imposture amongst which this of Transubstantiation which they call a Miracle and we a Cheat is one of the cheif And in all probability those common jugling words of hocus pocus are nothing else but a corruption of hoc est corpus by way of ridiculous imitation of the Priests of the Church of Rome in their trick of Transubstantiation Into such contempt by this foolish Doctrine and pretended Miracle of theirs have they brought the most sacred and venerable Mystery of our Religion 2. It is very scandalous likewise upon account of the real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion upon supposition of the truth of this Doctrine Literally to eat the flesh of the Son of man and to drink his bloud St. Austin as I have shewed before declares to be a great Impiety And the impiety and barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated but onely the appearance of it by its being done under the Species of Bread and Wine For the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe that they verily eat and drink the natural flesh and bloud of Christ. And what can any man do more unworthily towards his Friend How can he possibly use him more barbarously than to feast upon his living flesh and bloud It is one of the greatest wonders in the world that it should ever enter into the minds of men to put upon our Saviour's words so easily capable of a more convenient sense and so necessarily requiring it a meaning so plainly contrary to Reason and sense and even to Humanity it self Had the ancient Christians owned any such Doctrine we should have heard of it from the Adversaries of our Religion in every page of their Writings and they would have desired no greater advantage against the Christians than to have been able to hit them in the teeth with their feasting upon the natural flesh and bloud of their Lord and their God and their best Friend What endless triumphs would they have made upon this Subject And with what confidence would they have set the cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament against their God Saturn's eating his own Children and all the cruel and bloudy Rites of their Idolatry But that no such thing was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrine was then believed 3. It is scandalous also upon account of the cruel and bloudy consequences of this Doctrine so contrary to the plain Laws of Christianity and to one great end and design of this Sacrament which is to unite Christians in the most perfect love and charity to one another Whereas this Doctrine hath been the occasion of the most barbarous and bloudy Tragedies that ever were acted in the world For this hath been in the Church of Rome the great burning Article and as absurd and unreasonable as it is more Christians have been murther'd for the denial of it than perhaps for all the other Articles of their Religion And I think it may generally pass for a true observation that all Sects are commonly most hot and furious for those things for which there is least Reason for what men want of Reason for their opinions they usually supply and make up in Rage And it was no more than needed to use this severity upon this occasion for nothing but the cruel fear of death could in probability have driven so great a part of mankind into the acknowledgment of so unreasonable and senseless a Doctrine O blessed Saviour thou best Friend and greatest lover of mankind who can imagine thou didst ever intend that men should kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their senses for being unwilling to think that thou shouldst make one of the most horrid and barbarous things that can be imagin'd a main Duty and principal Mystery of thy Religion for not flattering the pride and presumption of the Priest who says he can make God and for not complying with the folly and stupidity of the People who believe that they can eat him 4. Upon account of the danger of Idolatry which they are certainly guilty of if this Doctrine be not true and such a change as they pretend be not made in the Sacrament for if it be not then they worship a Creature instead of the Creatour God blessed for ever But such a change I have shewn to be impossible or if it could be yet they can never be certain that it is and consequently are always in danger of Idolatry And that they can never be certain that such a change is made is evident because according to the express determination of the Council of Trent that depends upon the mind and intention of the Priest which cannot certainly be known but by Revelation which is not pretended in this case And if they be mistaken about this change through the knavery or crosness of the Priest who will not make God but when he thinks fit they must not think to excuse themselves from Idolatry because they intended to worship God and not a Creature for so the Persians might be excus'd from Idolatry in worshipping the Sun because they intend to worship God and not a Creature and so indeed we may excuse all the Idolatry that ever was in the world which is nothing else but a mistake of the Deity and upon that mistake a worshipping of something as God which is not God II. Besides the infinite scandal of this Doctrine upon the accounts I have mentioned the monstrous absurdities of it make it insupportable to any Religion I am very well assured of the grounds of Religion in general and of the Christian Religion in particular and yet I cannot see that the foundations of any revealed Religion are strong enough to bear the weight of so many and so great absurdities as this Doctrine of Transubstantiation would load it withall And to make this evident I shall not insist upon those gross contradictions of the same Body being in so many several places at once of our Saviour's giving away himself with his own hands to every one of his Disciples and yet still keeping himself to himself and a thousand more of the like nature But to shew the absurdity of this Doctrine I shall onely ask these few Questions 1. Whether any man have or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than every man hath of the falshood of Transubstantiation Infidelity were hardly possible to men if all men
had the same evidence for the Christian Religion which they have against Transubstantiation that is the clear and irresistible evidence of sense He that can once be brought to contradict or deny his senses is at an end of certainty for what can a man be certain of if he be not certain of what he sees In some circumstances our senses may deceive us but no Faculty deceives us so little and so seldom And when our senses do deceive us even that errour is not to be corrected without the help of our senses 2. Supposing this Doctrine had been delivered in Scripture in the very same words that it is decreed in the Council of Trent by what clearer evidence or stronger Argument could any man prove to me that such words were in the Bible than I can prove to him that bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still He could but appeal to my eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible and with the same reason and justice might I appeal to several of his senses to prove to him that the bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still 3. Whether it be reasonable to imagine that God should make that a part of the Christian Religion which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole I mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles the assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense For if the senses of those who say they saw them were deceived then there might be no Miracles wrought and consequently it may justly be doubted whether that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Christian Religion would be strong enough to prove it supposing Transubstantiation to be a part of it Because every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false as he hath that the Christian Religion is true Suppose then Transubstantiation to be part of the Christian Doctrine it must have the same confirmation with the whole and that is Miracles But of all Doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a Miracle For if a Miracle were wrought for the proof of it the very same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the Miracle he hath of the falsehood of the Doctrine that is the clear evidence of his senses For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Christ there is onely the evidence of sense and there is the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not the body of Christ but bread So that here would arise a new Controversie whether a man should rather believe his senses giving testimony against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or bearing witness to a Miracle wrought to confirm that Doctrine there being the very same evidence against the truth of the Doctrine which there is for the truth of the Miracle And then the Argument for Transubstantiation and the Objection against it would just balance one another and consequently Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle because that would be to prove to a man by some thing that he sees that he does not see what he sees And if there were no other evidence that Transubstantiation is no part of the Christian Doctrine this would be sufficient that what proves the one doth as much overthrow the other and that Miracles which are certainly the best and highest external proof of Christianity are the worst proof in the world of Transubstantiation unless a man can renounce his senses at the same time that he relies upon them For a man cannot believe a Miracle without relying upon sense nor Transubstantiation without renouncing it So that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the Doctrine of Christianity and that of Transubstantiation because they draw several ways and are ready to strangle one another because the main evidence of the Christian Doctrine which is Miracles is resolved into the certainty of sense but this evidence is clear and point-blank against Transubstantiation 4. And Lastly I would ask what we are to think of the Argument which our Saviour used to convince his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was really risen and that they were not deluded by a Ghost or Apparition Is it a necessary and conclusive Argument or not And he said unto them why are ye troubled and why do thoughts arise in your hearts Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have But now if we suppose with the Church of Rome the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true and that he had instructed his Disciples in it just before his death strange thoughts might justly have risen in their hearts and they might have said to him Lord it is but a few days ago since thou didst teach us not to believe our senses but directly contrary to what we saw viz. that the bread which thou gavest us in the Sacrament though we saw it and handled it and tasted it to be bread yet was not bread but thine own natural body and now thou appealest to our senses to prove that this is thy body which we now see If seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to our senses then we were deceived before in the Sacrament and 〈◊〉 they be not then we are not sure now that this is thy body which we now see and handle but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones just as in the Sacrament that which we saw and handled and tasted to be bread was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread Now upon this supposition it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughts of the Disciples For if the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to them that what they saw and handled was his body his very natural flesh and bones because they saw and handled them which it were impious to deny it would as strongly prove that what they saw and received before in the Sacrament was not the natural body and bloud of Christ but real bread and wine And consequently that according to our Saviour's arguing after his Resurrection they had no reason to believe Transubstantiation before For that very Argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his body after his Resurrection doth as strongly prove the reality of bread and wine after Consecration But our Saviour's Argument was most infallibly good and true and therefore the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is undoubtedly false Upon the whole matter I shall onely say this that some other Points between us and the Church of Rome are managed with some kind of wit and subtilty but this of Transubstantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of
nature of the thing received supposing we receive what our Lord appointed and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it and makes it effectual to those Spiritual ends for which it was appointed The Fifth and last pretended ground of this Doctrine is to magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle And this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the Divine wisedom to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the Priest that he should be able every day and as often as he pleases by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change and as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak to make God himself But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himself for he did not nor cannot make himself nor do any thing that implies a contradiction as Transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God For to make that which already is and to make that now which always was is not onely vain and trifling if it could be done but impossible because it implies a contradiction And what if after all Transubstantiation if it were possible and actually wrought by the Priest would yet be no Miracle For there are two things necessary to a Miracle that there be a supernatural effect wrought and that this effect be evident to sense So that though a supernatural effect be wrought yet if it be not evident to sense it is to all the ends and purposes of a Miracle as if it were not and can be no testimony or proof of any thing because it self stands in need of another Miracle to give testimony to it and to prove that it was wrought And neither in Scripture nor in profane Authours nor in common use of speech is any thing call'd a Miracle but what falls under the notice of our senses A Miracle being nothing else but a supernatural effect evident to sense the great end and design whereof is to be a sensible proof and conviction to us of something that we do not see And for want of this Condition Transubstantiation if it were true would be no Miracle It would indeed be very supernatural but for all that it would not be a Sign or Miracle For a Sign or Miracle is always a thing sensible otherwise it could be no Sign Now that such a change as is pretended in Transubstantiation should really be wrought and yet there should be no sign and appearance of it is a thing very wonderfull but not to sense for our senses perceive no change the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament to all our senses remaining just as they were before And that a thing should remain to all appearance just as it was hath nothing at all of wonder in it we wonder indeed when we see a strange thing done but no man wonders when he sees nothing done So that Transubstantiation if they will needs have it a Miracle is such a Miracle as any man may work that hath but the confidence to face men down that he works it and the fortune to be believed And though the Church of Rome may magnify their Priests upon account of this Miracle which they say they can work every day and every hour yet I cannot understand the reason of it for when this great work as they call it is done there is nothing more appears to be done than if there were no Miracle Now such a Miracle as to all appearance is no Miracle I see no reason why a Protestant Minister as well as a Popish Priest may not work as often as he pleases or if he can but have the patience to let it alone it will work it self For surely nothing in the world is easier than to let a thing be as it is and by speaking a few words over it to make it just what it was before Every man every day may work ten thousand such Miracles And thus I have dispatch'd the First part of my Discourse which was to consider the pretended grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine and to shew the weakness and insufficiency of them I come in the SECOND place to produce our Objections against it Which will be of so much the greater force because I have already shewn this Doctrine to be destitute of all Divine warrant and authority and of any other sort of Ground sufficient in reason to justify it So that I do not now object against a Doctrine which hath a fair probability of Divine Revelation on its side for that would weigh down all objections which did not plainly overthrow the probability and credit of its Divine Revelation But I object against a Doctrine by the mere will and Tyranny of men impos'd upon the belief of Christians without any evidence of Scripture and against all the evidence of Reason and Sense The Objections I shall reduce to these two Heads First the infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion And Secondly the monstrous and insupportable absurdity of it First The infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion And that upon these four accounts 1. Of the stupidity of this Doctrine 2. The real barbarousness of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion upon supposition of the truth of this Doctrine 3. Of the cruel and bloudy consequences of it 4. Of the danger of Idolatry which they are certainly guilty of if this Doctrine be not true 1. Upon account of the stupidity of this Doctrine I remember that Tully who was a man of very good sense instanceth in the conceit of eating God as the extremity of madness and so stupid an apprehension as he thought no man was ever guilty of When we call says he the fruits of the earth Ceres and wine Bacchus we use but the common language but do you think any man so mad as to believe that which he eats to be God It seems he could not believe that so extravagant a folly had ever entred into the mind of man It is a very severe saying of Averroes the Arabian Philosopher who lived after this Doctrine was entertained among Christians and ought to make the Church of Rome blush if she can I have travell'd says he over the world and have found divers Sects but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found as is the Sect of the Christians because with their own teeth they devour their God whom they worship It was great stupidity in the People of Israel to say come let us make us Gods but it was civilly said of them Let us make us Gods that may go before us in comparison of the Church of Rome who say Let us make a God that we may eat him So that upon the whole matter I cannot but wonder that they should chuse thus to expose Faith to the