Charity P. 33. §. xxx than any necessity of Argument if our Writers do sometimes either not at all or but faintly charge them with Idolatry And the Testimonies he produces argue rather the candor of our Affections towards them even such as to hope almost against Hope for their sakes than give any security to them in their Errors And because I would willingly if possible convince them of it I will very briefly subjoin a Reason or two 2dly Why even upon their own Principles I am not satisfied that they have such a rational Ground for this Adoration as may be sufficient to excuse them For 1st It is granted by this Author P. 26. §. xxii That a meerly good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance cannot excuse them from Idolatry So that if their ignorance then be really culpable their good Intention will not be sufficient to excuse them Now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded is their mistaken interpretation of those words This is my Body and whether that be a rational or culpable Mistake we shall best be able to judg by two or three Observations 1. It is confess'd by the greatest Men of their Church that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do so that had not the Authority of their Church interposed they might have been equally verified in our Interpretation And this must be allow'd unless we shall say that all places of Holy Scripture must be understood in a literal sense whatever the Consequence be of so doing 2. Our Author himself confesses that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain Contradiction then it cannot be right but we are bound to seek out some other Exposition to avoid a certain Contradiction 3. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of Sense and in that of the Truth of the Christian Religion which was confirmed by Miracles known only by the evidence of Sense and by Consequence of this particular Point that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God or can be rely'd upon as coming from him Now from these Principles I thus argue If that sense of these words This is my Body upon which they ground their Adoration do's necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them But that it do's so and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it I thus shew He that believes these words in the sense of Transubstantiation must believe the same natural Body at the same time to be in ten-thousand several places upon Earth and yet still to be but one Body and that all the while in Heaven He must believe that the same natural Body is at the same time extended in all its Parts and yet continuing still the same Body without any change to be unextended and have no distinct Parts nor be capable of being divided into any He must believe the same Body at the same time to move and to lie still to be the Object of our Senses and yet not to be perceptible by any With infinite others of the like kind * See above Ch. 2. of Transubstantiation Pag. 32 33. as I have more fully shewn before But now all these are gross Contradictions contrary to the Nature of a Body and to the common Principles of Reason in all Mankind and no Man can without culpable Ignorance pretend not to know them to be so And therefore notwithstanding any such supposed Divine Revelation as may be pretended from those words This is my Body they cannot by our Author 's own Rule without culpable Ignorance not know that they are mistaken in this Matter Again No Papist can have any reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of Holy Scripture This is my Body That these words are in Scripture he can know only by his Senses If his Senses therefore are not to be trusted he is not sure there are any such words in Scripture If they are to be trusted he is then sure that the Interpretation which he puts upon them must be false Since then it is confess'd that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense and that both upon the account of the Contradictions that such an Exposition involves to the common Principles of Reason and to the certain Evidence of the Senses of all Mankind it is necessary to take them in some other meaning it remains that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot pretend not to know that this could never have been the intention of our Blessed Saviour in those words and that such Ignorance will not excuse them our Author himself has freely confess'd But 2dly let us quit this Reflection and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation Yet still it is confess'd by them 1. That there is no Command nor Example in holy Scripture for adoring Christ in the Eucharist 2. That infinite Defects may happen to hinder him from being there and then what they worship is only a piece of Bread. 3. That they can never be sure that some of these Defects have not happened and by consequence that what they suppose to be Christ's Body is indeed any more than a meer Wafer From whence I argue He that without any Command or Warrant of God pays a Divine Adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature can never be sure that he do's not commit Idolatry But whosoever worships the Host worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit Idolatry Now concerning the former of these how dangerous it is for any one to give Divine Worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer Creature be it considered what jealousy God has at all times express'd of his Honour as to this Matter how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his Supreme Prerogative in such Cases How therefore he that will come to him must be very well assured that it is God to whom he approaches and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it ought not to worship with a doubting Mind because he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault but the doing of which may for ought he knows be a very great Sin. And for the second Whether every Roman Catholick who adores the Host has not even upon his own Principles very great cause to doubt whether he adores Christ's Body or only a bit of Bread will appear from those infinite Defects which they themselves allow as sufficient to hinder a Consecration and which make it great odds were their Doctrine otherwise never so true whether yet one Host in twenty it may be in five hundred be
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
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
also was omitted lest it should give Offence to those who were still zealous for their mistaken Principles and Worship This was the Wise and Christian Design of that Excellent Princess and how happy an Effect this Moderation might have had if the Bishop of Rome had not by his Artifice and Authority with some of her Subjects prevented it the first Years of her Reign sufficiently shew Thus was the Occasion and Reason of its omission in Q. Elizabeth's time as great as the necessity of its first Insertion in King Edward's And in this state it continued all the Reign of that Queen and of her two Successors King James and King Charles 1st I shall not need to say by what means it was that new Occasion was given for the reviving of it We have all of us heard and many of us seen too much of it How Order became Superstitious and Decency termed Idolatry The Church of England traduced as but another Name for Popery and this Custom of kneeling at the Communion one of the strongest Arguments offer'd for the Proof of it And now when Panick Fears had found such prevalence over the Minds of Men as to destroy a King and embroil a Kingdom into a Civil War of almost Twenty Years continuance and tho by the good hand of God our King and our Peace were again restored yet the minds of the People were still unsetled and in danger of being again blown up upon the least Occasion what could be more advisable to justifie our selves from all suspicion of Popery in this matter and induce them to a Conformity with us in a Ceremony they had entertain'd such a dread of than to revive that ancient Rubrick and so quiet the Minds of the People now by the same means by which they had been setled and secured before This I am perswaded is so rational an Account as will both justifie the proceedings of our Governours in these Changes and shew the dis-ingenuity of those who not only knowing but having been told these things will still rather impute it to an imaginary wavering or uncertainty of Opinion than to a necessary and Christian Accommodation to the Times For the change in the Prayer of Consecration I have already said that 't is in the Words not the Sense And if our Governours thought the present Expressions 〈◊〉 liable to exception than the former they had certainly reason for the Alteration For the other Exceptions there is very little in them whether the Minister lay his Hand on the Sacred Elements when he repeats the words of Institution as at this time or only consecrates them by the Prayers of the Church and the Words of Christ without any other Ceremony as heretofore Whether with the Church of Rome we use only the words of Christ in the distribution or with most of the Reformed Churches the other Expression Take and eat this c. or as we chuse rather joyn them both together Whether we sing the Gloria in Excelsis Deo before or after the receiving but because the chiefest Mystery he thinks lies in this That whereas in King Edward's days the Rubrick called it an Essential Presence which we have now turned into Corporeal I must confess I will not undertake to say what the Occasion of it was if they thought this latter manner more free from giving Offence than the other would have been I think they did well to prefer it Let every one entertain what Notion he pleases of these things this I have shewn is the Doctrine of the Church which we all subscribe That the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here i. e. in the Sacrament and if there can be any other Real Presence than such as I have shewn to have been the constant belief of our Divines consistent with this Rubrick I shall no more desire to debar any one the belief of it than I shall be willing to be obliged to believe it with him And now after so clear an Account as I have here given of the several changes that have been made in our Rubrick were I minded to recriminate and tell the World what Alterations have been made in their Mass those in Points infinitely more material than any thing that can be alledged against us I much question whether they would be able to give us so good an account of it And so mething of this I may perhaps offer as a Specimen of the wisdom of this Author in the choice of his Accusation before we part In the mean time I go on to the last thing proposed to be here consider'd 4thly that the Reason mention'd in our Rubrick concerning the Impossibility of Christs natural Body's existing in several places at the same time is no way invalidated by any of this Authors exceptions against it Now these being most of them founded upon the former mistaken Notion of the Real presence falsely imputed to us will admit of a very short and plain consideration 1 st He observes That Protestants Treatise 1st §. xx n. 1. pag. 13. but especially our English Divines generally confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist to be an ineffable Mystery Well be it so what will he hence infer Why this he conceives is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by Humane Reason But supposing they should not think it so from being Opposite and Contradictory to but because the manner how Christ herein communicates himself to us is hid from and above our Humane Reason might not this be sufficient to make it still be called an ineffable and incomprehensible Mystery Whereas the other would make it rather plain and comprehensible Nonsence 'T is a strange Affection that some Men have got of late for Contradictions they are so in love with them that they have almost brought it to be the definition of a Mystery to be the Revelation of something to be believ'd in Opposition to Sense and Reason And what by their Notions and Parallels have advanced no very commendable Character of Christianity as if it were a Religion full of Absurdities Bishop TAYLOVRS Polem Disco of the Real prefence Sect. ii pag. 231. and as Fisher the Jesuit once told King James 1 st with reference to this very Subject the rather to be believed because it is contrary to Reason But if this be indeed our Authors Notion of Mysteries and the truth is Transubstantiation can be no other Mystery we desire he will be pleased to confine it to his own Church and not send it abroad into the World as ours too We are perswaded not only that our Worship must be a reasonable Service but our Faith a Reasonable Assent He who opposes the Authority of Holy Scriptures Ibid. says Bishop Taylor against manifest and certain Reason do's neither understand himself nor them Reason is the voice of God as well as Revelation
concerning it and sent it to several of his most learned Acquaintance the better to undeceive them in this matter One of these Persons to whom this Present was made having been pleased to communicate to me the very Paper which by the Abbot 's order was brought to him it may not perhaps be amiss to gratifie the Reader 's curiosity if I here insert it at its full length * The Abbot means that now at his death he hoped he might speak freely what he durst not in his Life-time do Permission hoped for to speak freely for the Truth I Cannot but exceedingly wonder that a certain Preacher who reads the Holy Scriptures and will maintain nothing but by their Authority should nevertheless undertake to defend against all Opposers by the Scriptures the Real Presence in the Eucharist out of the act of receiving and think himself so sure to overcome in this Occasion as to talk of it as a thing certain and in which he knows he cannot be resisted It would certainly be more safe not to be too much prepossessed with any thing I will not name the Person because I have no mind to displease him But in the mean time neither Sense nor Reason nor the Word of God have suggested to him one word of it unless the Apostle was mistaken when he said ' If ye are risen with Christ seek those things that are above where Christ is sate at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above and not on things upon the Earth Coloss 3.1 2. For how could he speak after this manner if Jesus Christ be still upon Earth by his real Presence under the species in the Eucharist When he ascended into Heaven he said not to his Disciples which saw his wonderful Ascension I shall be with you always by my Real Presence under the species of the Eucharist which shall be publickly exposed to you In his Sermon at the Supper which he had just now celebrated and which immediately preceded his Passion Jesus Christ according to S. John says expresly to his Apostles that he was about to leave them that he should not be long absent that he would send to them the Comforter but not one word of his Real Presence in the Eucharist which he had so lately instituted under the Bread and Wine to be a Mystery of our Faith for the nourishment of the Soul to life Eternal as ordinary Bread and Wine are for the nourishment of the Body to a temporal Life and that too for ALL the faithful as is clearly signified by those Words Drink ye all of this Whereupon I have elsewhere remark'd the custom of Libations which were in use time out of mind throughout the whole Roman Empire and which custom was establish'd in honour of the gods As may be seen in the Version of Athenaeus in 1680 and as I had observed long before upon Virgil and Horace though there was but little notice taken of it Which makes me think it very probable that our Saviour intended to sanctifie this Profane custom as he did some others which I have remarked in the same place When Men undertake to prove too much they very often prove nothing at all To maintain that Jesus Christ is intire in the Eucharist with all his Bodily extension and all his Dignity so as he is in Heaven so that under the Roundness of the Bread there is nothing that is Round under the Whiteness there is nothing White this is what the Scripture has not said one word of They are indeed meer Visions and which are not so easie to maintain as Men may think The Priest who celebrates breaks the Host in three pieces One of these he puts into the Cup of the two others he communicates in memory as 't is plain of what we read That Jesus the night in which he was betray'd took Bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take Eat This is my Body which is broken for you Do this in Remembrance of Me. 1 Cor. 11.23 24. In the Mass there is here no more Bread they are only the appearances of Bread that is to say the Accidents and which are not tied to any Substance And yet so long as there is but one Atom of those Accidents which they call Eucharistical species in the Consecration that has been made the true Flesh of the Lord Jesus is so annex'd to them that it remains there whole and intire without the least confusion and may be so in diverse places at the same time I doubt not but those who teach us this Doctrine have thought of it more than once but have they well consider'd it for there is not one word of it in all the Sacred Writings Is it nothing that Jesus Christ said to his Apostles but a little while before his Passion when he was now about to celebrate his Holy Supper with them You shall have the Poor always with you but me ye shall not have always Matth. 26.11 His Real Presence in the Eucharist out of the act of communicating not excepted They say to the People Behold your Creator that made Heaven and Earth And the People seeing the consecrated Bread in the Ciboire wherein 't is carry'd abroad says Behold the good God going in procession to confound the Hereticks and according to their natural inclination they adore with all their Hearts they know not what because so they have been instructed and the better to maintain their prejudice intire in this matter they become mad But alas they know not what they do and we ought to pity their Excess On the other side who can tell whether the Priest has consecrated or indeed whether he be capable of consecrating Is it a point of Faith to believe that among so many Priests not one of them is a Cheat and an Impostor This certainly cannot be of Faith and if this be not neither is that which exposed with so much Pomp to carry the true Body of the Lord through the Streets of Faith. Thus the belief is at best but Conjecture and then whatsoever in such cases is not of Faith is sin according to the Apostle Rom. 14.23 I know not what colour can be sufficient to excuse so strong an Objection unless Men will absolutely resist the Holy Scripture and right Reason founded upon it 'T is further said that Jesus Christ is in many places at the same time in the Hosts which are carried in very different manners But neither for this is there any Text of Scripture You will say this may be I answer the Question here is not of the Infinite power of Jesus Christ but of his Will and which we must obey when it is known to us and of this as to the present point we read nothing in the Holy Scripture The shorter way then would be to say that the Sacrament of one Parish is not the same with that of another although both the one and the other concur
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