also evident that our reception of them by Faith is every way as valid as beneficial and as effectual to Salvation as can be imagined in your Carnal Manducation Since it is the Spirit that quickneth and the Flesh profiteth nothing and it is not any action of the Body but the purity and sincerity of the Mind and Soul that God respects in any Holy Exercise and therefore it is this alone that ought to be regarded which unites a Man to Christ and brings down God's Gifts and Graces on him by a due reception of that Holy Sacrament § 15. But notwithstanding all this if you continue positive in this Opinion and will resolutely adhere unto that Man of Sin that Exalteth himself above all that is called God contradicting the Ordinances of Christ with a Non Obstante to his Institution of them And that sitteth as God in the Temple of God imposing Laws and Restrictions upon the Consciences of Men In so much that you may rationally suspect your self to have fallen into the state of those unhappy Persons to whom God hath sent a strong delusion that they should believe a lye and obstinately maintain these apparent Contradictions against all the force both of sense and reason That I may abate at least your fondness for this error or restrain that practice that against the Law of God is founded on it I will offer my second Proposition also to be considered That if those words of Christ This is my Body were to be taken in the literal sense as effecting such a change as against sense and reason is asserted to make the Proposition literally true Yet I say they will neither justifie your practice in worshiping the Host nor maintain the Doctrin of the Church of Rome as by the Council of Trent it is taught and explained For it is plain that those words of Christ in the most literal sense that they can bear can have no relation farther than to his Body only and this too in the most strict and limited notion of a Sacrifice wherein Mankind are made Partakers of it Since as your selves confess the design of the Institution was only this that all Men might become Partakers by it of the Sacrifice which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Cross when he made a full atonement for the Sins of the whole World Now we know that the nature of a Sacrifice is such that it must be slain before it can be offered and consequently then this Body of Christ into which you do believe that the Elements are changed must be dead as well as broken and totally abstracted or separated from the Soul as it was offered up in Sacrifice to God and how this Body then in this very state and notion can be a proper Object for Divine Worship is a thing that deserves to be very well considered For it is very evident that it doth not contain the essence of a Man since that consists chiefly in his rational Soul that is departed from it and to which St. Augustine tells us that the Divinity was united And therefore though all his Sufferings in the Flesh are truly attributed to him as the Son of God because it was Christ that suffered who really was that Sacred Person yet when we say that he was buried it is an improper way of speaking as that Father observes and doth express no more but the burial of his Body only since it is evident that it was not the Person of Christ but only his Body that was subject to that Passion We generally look upon it as an infinite condescention in Almighty God that he united his Divine unto our Human Nature even in its greatest purity and perfection But to expect that this Divinity should be immediately united unto the grosser part of Man even his Body or Carcass when his Rational Soul is separated from it and when you cannot truly say that even the Human Nature continues extant there And much more to believe then that any Priest whatsoever can effect this condescention at his pleasure and by the introduction of a Material Substance only unite the Divine Nature to the accidents of Bread and Wine which must then be inherent in the whole Suppositum or subsist by themselves and so cease to be Accidents These are thoughts too hard to be entertained of God except he himself in every Circumstance had expresly declared and promis'd it in Scripture The Council of Trent therefore to avoid this difficulty hath joyned the Soul of Christ together with his Body to accompany his Divinity in the Sacrament Insomuch that I have heard a Doctor of Laws of that Communion declare that he believed that the Host after its Consecration was as rational discursive and visible as any Man But on what Authority all this Confidence is founded I profess I am in the dark as to its discovery For take those words of Christ this is my Body in any sense that they can bear and certainly nothing more than the Body of Christ can be exprest in them besides their Mystical signification and if you will limit this unto the notion of a Sacrifice as I shewed you must that will infer directly that his Soul must be excluded from it And surely then whosoever he is that pretends to Miracles to act not only beyond the Power and the very Conceptions of a Man but even directly against all sense and reason He ought to produce at least the Commission that God hath given him for to do such things with such ample Clauses and Expressions in it as confer that Power beyond all exception Otherwise Men cannot believe him that he is sent by God but will undoubtedly reject him and despise his Doctrin The Consequence then is this That even the most literal sense of Christ's words being granted yet the Consecrated Host is not to be adored But this constant practice of Worshiping it at Mass is a Crime not justifiable in any Christian being directly contrary to the first Commandment in the Law and our Saviours Confirmation of it in the Gospel where he hath expresly commanded us in these unquestionable terms Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Mat. iv 10. § 16. There is one thing more that is observable in this branch of your Devotion which I think my self obliged to make Remarks on and that is the general state of the Congregation when the Mass is Celebrated before them For the Sacrament being daily Administred in the sight of all the People there appears an eminent danger even in going to Mass without such a Preparation for it as befits a Worthy Communicant Since if you consider seriously the Feast which the King made at his Son's Wedding as it is related in the Parable Mat. xxii 2. and is generally understood to represent the Blessed Sacrament wherein Christ is most especially united unto his Church You will find that the Person who is there Condemned was
A LETTER TO A FRIEND Concerning his CHANGING HIS RELIGION IMPRMATUR June 23. 1692. R. BARKER LONDON Printed for R. Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's-Church yard 1692. The CONTENTS SHewing the reasonableness of any Man 's changing his Religion upon proper Motives and of what nature they are and wherein the scandal of such a change is truly given An enquiry is then made into the reasons of this Gentleman's Proceedings and those are observed to be chiefly two viz. That he might become more truly in the Communion of the Catholick Church and that he might be more Pure and Orthodox in his Faith and Worship § 1. The first of these Proposals iâ— examined and the Church of Rome is shewn not to 〈◊〉 the Catholick Church upon account either of its Authority or Comprehension The first is proved in that the Catholick Church was not establish'd by our Saviour under a Monarchical but an Aristocratical Government and this is shewn farther from the election and practice of the twelve Apostles That the Church of Rome is but a particular Church is also shewn from Scripture An Objection relating to St. Peter is answered The practice of the Apostles and the Bishops their Successours shews that their Government was in Society Several reasons are urged farther to prove that the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholick Church and that the Church of England as a particular Church hath equal right and as good a claim as she to all those Promises which are made unto the Church by our Blessed Saviour in the Gospel § 2. This is further shewn to have been the opinions even of the Church of Rome in former Ages and proved from her Decrees and Practice in the Sacrament of Baptism A Comparison is also made between the Church of Rome and that of the Donatists on this pretence and St. Augustine's Argument against the one applyed in terminis unto the other § 3. A Comparison is also made between the Church of Rome and Church of England as to terms of Communion and thereby it is shewn that according to his notion of Catholick he that lives in the Communion of the Church of England lives more in the Communion of the Catholick Church than any Member of the Church of Rome § 4. A further Comparison is made between the Churches as to the Universality of their Doctrin and thereby it is shewn that the Catholick Faith is much more truly profest in the Church of England than in the Church of Rome § 5. It is also shewn that in point of Doctrin the Church of England is more antient than the Church of Rome so that the old Religion appears evidently to be still profest there and that no new Doctrin was brought in but rather abolisht by the Reformation § 6. The second Motive is enquired into and examined and a brief Comparison in this point is made between the Churches shewing how the one is â—ounded on the Scriptures and is consonant to the Law of God and the Principles of Reason while the other hath no ground but a loose Tradition and Contradicts them both in her Doctrin and Religious Practice § 7. The Question is more particularly stated in that Doctrin and Practice that relates unto the Sacrament With a brief Observation of the unreasonableness of the one and the danger of the other as they now stand in the Church of Rome § 8. The Doctrin of the Church of Rome in this Point is laid down and two observations are made upon it First That our Saviour's words at the Institution of the Sacrament are not to be understood in a literal sense as she asserteth Secondly That if they were yet neither can her Doctrin be inferred from them nor her Practice be justified by them § 9. The first of these is proved 1st From the nature of the thing in that it contradicts our Senses which are shewn to be proper Judges in this Case as well as any other The imposition also of the Schoolmen is detected in treating on this subject in improper terms and farther it is also shewn that in this sense they cannot agree with the concomitant expressions as well before as after the Institution § 10. The same thing is proved 2dly From the design of the Institution which is shewn and explained and then compared with the Passover and other Sacrifices among the Jews and so both the Practice and the Benefits thereof are illustrated by shewing what they did and what they expected § 11. It is proved also 3dly From the occasion of that expression which is shewn to be a parallel Phrase constantly in use among the Jews at the Celebration of the Passover and so by the evident meaning of their words the sense of our Saviour is fully explained § 12. The Doctrin of the Church of England in this Point is shewn to agree with that of the Fathers and the ancient Doctrin of the Church of Rome her self This is shewn to be still evident in the Roman Missal although it hath been alter'd since the days of St. Ambrose to make it more conformable to the present Doctrin § 13. The former Observation is proved 4thly From our Saviour's own Declaration John vi Where he tells his Disciples that he is spiritually to be understood and therefore as is further observed not only St. Paul but even the aforesaid Missal calleth the Sacrament Bread after its Consecration § 14. Another Comparison is made between the Doctrin of the Church of Rome and that of the Church of England as to the consequences of them and thereby shewn that in the Church of Rome Men hazard their Salvation on the truth of an Opinion that may be false and more than probably is so for none not the least advantage if it should be true § 15. The other Observation also is propounded and therein it is shewn that our Saviour's words in the literal sense can only respect his Body and that too as it was dead and offer'd up to God in Sacrifice And several Reasons are offered thence to shew that this is not a proper Object for Divine Worship and therefore observed that the Council of Trent to justifie their Practice do strein the words abundantly beyond all that they can bear without any Reason or Authority for it § 16. Another danger is observed even in going to Mass as it is in the general Practice of the Church of Rome in that many are always present whenever the Sacrament is Administred who are not in a fit state to be Partakers of it and this is shewn from Scripture as well as the Practice of the Primitive Christians § 17. Some other Particulars of the like nature are proposed and briefly toucht to shew the further evidence of the Proposition discust And so the Conclusion is made with an Exhortation to return A LETTER TO A Friend c. SIR AS every Man's Salvation is his Principal Concern and ought to be the chief end of all his Undertakings
boast or insult thus thou bearest not the root but the root thee Ib. v. 18. And lastly to shew the World farther that it was but a particular Church and not the Catholick to whom he wrote that Epistle to the Romans he threatens her v. 22. with being cut off or totally destroyed if she continueth not in the Goodness of God Whereas Christ hath expresly promist to his Universal Church that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Mat. xvi 18. If any Man shall urge against me that the Church to whom our Saviour made this promise must be founded on St. Peter as the Text expresses it and consequently it can be no other but the Church of Rome who claims all her Rights and Priviledges from him I answer 1 st That the whole Church of Christ may be said in some Sense to have been built upon St. Peter in that he was the first of the Apostles that Preacht the Gospel after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them and it is obvious that by his Sermon so many were Converted to the Faith that a Church was founded thereby at Jerusalem and this being the first Fruits of the Christian Religion the whole Building might properly be represented by it and so that Promise of our Saviour doth not respect the Church of Rome whatsoever her pretences are but the whole Society or Body of Christians 2 dly That St. Augustine in Expounding of that Text tells us that by the Rock Christ meant himself and not St. Peter And also that St. Peter is not to be understood in that place and many other in the Scripture as a single Person but as fully representing the whole Society or Body of Christians to whom the Promises were made and all those Favours given For Christ's Question in that place was evidently proposed to all the Disciples and so the Answer to it appears in the name of all and whatever gift or promise was thus made to one is to be understood as having a respect to all Since it is evident that there is no one particular Benefit or Power granted by our Saviour unto St. Peter but what the rest of the Apostles as the Fathers have observed had an equal Right to and as great a Concern in And if we consult our Ecclesiastical Records we shall find this Commission to be Executed thus and although St. Paul tells us that the care of all the Churches came upon him daily 2 Cor. xi 28. yet both in planting of the Church and in Governing it being planted no one single Person presided over all but they acted all alike as Members of a Society And when they were called away by God to be rewarded for their Labours they left the same Form of Government with the Bishops their Successors who maintained it constantly for several Ages following And whenever any Dispute or Controversie arose among them that was destructive to their Faith or Discipline as it was observed among the Apostles themselves before they took care for to decide it in a Synod or Assembly And we never find that any single Person under the pretence either of being Infallible or of having a Supream Power over all the rest did undertake for to determine what was thus Disputed but the Decree of the whole Church was required to decide it as the regular Act of the whole Society Some of the Bishops being still assembled in a Synod or Council and the rest submitting unto their determinations Thus their Unity was maintained in the matters of greatest moment and by their Literae Formatae or circular Epistles in all the things of smaller consequence and so they preserved themselves entire as one Society or Body of Christians not by any Superiority of one over the rest but by the right hand of fellowship from one to another And each of them was so perswaded of the Unity of the Catholick Church which was thus preserved that whosoever was excluded from the Communion of any one particular Church he was adjudged as cut off from the Communion of the whole And could not be received into another Congregation until he was reconciled unto that Church which he offended So that the Catholick Church of Christ cannot be confined to any Country nor yet limited or restrained to one peculiar Governour but it contains the whole Body or Society of Christians even all that are Baptized into the Covenant of Grace And as every particular Church is at Unity in her self by the submission or agreement of all her Members under one Governour so is the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained by the agreement or correspondence of those Governours whereby they do compose one Catholick Society And therefore it is well observed that there can be no more necessity of an Universal Bishop to establish and maintain this Unity in the Church than there is of an Universal Monarch to keep Peace and Commerce in the World Since agreement among the Bishops is as sufficient to the one as correspondence among Princes is unto the other And as there cannot possibly be more than one Catholick Church because it contains all Christians and consequently all particular Churches whatsoever So no one particular Society of Christians let its extent be never so great or Members numerous can justly lay a claim unto that Title Nor on the other hand can any particular Church cease to be a Member of this Catholick as long as she continues Christian that is as long as she retaineth the Holy Scriptures as the word of God and expounds their meaning by Catholick Tradition And consequently then no Society of Christians can be denied this priviledge or any other Right and Claim which the Catholick Church pretends to until they do renounce the Faith and cease to be Christians and so are no longer Members of the Body of Christ That the Church of Rome therefore is the Catholick Church upon account either of its Authority or comprehension is no more a Truth than that a part is the whole the terms being equally evident and therefore as plain in the conclusion And if the Church of Rome is but a particular Church and so a Member only of the Catholick The Church of England also must have an equal claim unto the same Right and Title while no one can deny that she is Christian And therefore she cannot lose her Property in the Promises of her Saviour till she quits that Christianity whereon they are founded Whence it evidently follows that all the Members of the Church of England are equally qualified for all Priviledges in Religion and all Advantages in respect of the Catholick Church which any Member of the Church of Rome can have a just claim or reason to pretend to § 2. This is a Truth of so much Evidence that all the Antient Christians even in the Church of Rome believed it otherwise their Decree against Re-baptizing Hereticks made by Pope Cornâ—lius and confirmed after by
Pope Stephen must contradict the Principles of the Christian Religion and deny Salvation unto Penitent Believers For if no Man can be a Christian but he that is in the Communion of the Catholick Church and Baptism is not Sacramental nor Beneficial to Salvation where the Person is excluded from the Society of Cristians Such Baptism then must be necessary to Salvation as doth make a Man a Christian and a Member of that Society If any Person therefore that is Baptized by one whom you call Heretick and with whose Church you will not Communicate be notwithstanding this so much a Christian as that he is to be Baptized no more but if he shall change his Religion and become a Convert to the Church of Rome they will receive him into their Communion but never permit him to be Baptized again I say then this is a fair Concession from themselves that they Believe that he was a Christian and consequently a Member of the Body of Christ before he was actually of their Communion For the Scripture tells us that every Branch although it is unfruitful yet it abideth in the Vine until it is cut off viz. by an Apostacie from the Faith nor can any new Branch be grafted in but by that Sacrament of Baptism which Christ ordained for it And therefore it is evident that those Antient Fathers did not believe that all Men were Apostates who differed from them in Opinion as to Religion but acknowledged that they were still Christians though Erroneous and therefore would not repeat their Baptism which was compleat before but received them Charitably by the Imposition of Hands Which is a sufficient Evidence that the Catholick Church of Christ is more extensive than the Church of Rome and that a Christian may be a Member of the one although he is not actually in the Communion of the other And therefore it is observable even at this day that in the Administration of Baptism in the Church of Rome no Man is obliged by his Baptismal Vow to believe their own Articles or Constitutions but only to Profess the Christian Faith as it is in common with all other Christians and which is not sufficient in a state of Maturity to qualifie any Person to be of their Communion And consequently then those Articles are not necessary in order to be a Christian although the proper Standard of the Church of Rome But a Man may be a Member of the Catholick Church that is not precisely one of her Communion There is a Famous Act Recorded of the Donatists in Africa that is exactly parallel with our present case They being scarce a National or particular Church but rather a broken part or fraction of one yet positively decreed themselves to be the Catholick Church of Christ and in a Synod of their own party formally Excommunicated all other Christians that would not submit unto their determinations But certainly no Rational Man will say that that Decree so made was True and Authentick or that all the Christian Church was obliged to submit unto it and to be concluded by it because it was boldly delivered as a Truth and confidently asserted with over-great assurance by a company of Men that called themselves a Council But rather on the contary such an Act is to be derided and the Censure laught at as contrary to Reason and all Humane Constitutions which leave all Persons in their perfect Liberty until by themselves it is submitted And therefore St. Augustine's Argument against them is as fully unanswerable in respect of us who make the same Plea against the Church of Rome For if you confess that I am a Christian although I am no Papist you declare then that the Christian Faith is openly profest without the Communion of the Church of Rome And whosoever will endeavour to reduce the Catholick Church to such a narrow compass must be Guilty of the Schism that is occasioned by it in excluding so many Christians from the Communion of Saints § 3. But that the Church of Rome might render it self more a particular Church and less the Catholick if possible than any other is she hath of late years streightned her own extent extreamly by setting such new limits and restraints on her Communion as former Ages never heard of nor the Catholick Church ever prescribed or exacted Thus Purgatory was far from being an Article of Faith and necessary to Salvation in the days of St. Augustine Or the Worshiping of Images from being a Duty in Religion before the second Council of Nice So that without believing things that are incredible viz. Transubstantiation the Infallibility of the Pope c. And doing things that are unpracticable viz. Worshiping the Host and the Virgin Mary c. no Man can be admitted now into her Communion but a Man that is a real and most faithful Christian that believeth in and conformeth himself to the Holy Scriptures and also doth expound them in hard places according to the Faith and Practice of the Primitive Christians Yet notwithstanding all this he is excluded by her as being an Inâ—idel and as far as in her lyeth is deprived of the common Benefits and the Priviledges of a Christian Whereas the Church which you Deserted is evidently in this Case conformable to the Catholick in that any faithful Christian of any other particular Communion if he doth believe the Scriptures and understand them in the Sense of the Universal Church as it is delivered by the four General Councils which you must also own to be the Catholick Faith if your Opinion differs not from that of Athanasius If this Man I say doth make it his business to live up unto those Rules he is freely admitted into her Communion and may publickly enjoy all the common Rights and Benefits of a Christian without any other Injunction or Imposition on his Conscience For none of her Articles are propounded with Anathema's nor is there so much as a bar from her Communion inflicted on those Persons that do not Subscribe them but as their Title shews us they were composed for Peace for the avoiding of diversity of Opinions and for the Establishing of consent touching True Religion For the never did believe that any Society on Earth as the Church of Rome asserts it of her self had power either to alter or to add unto the Faith or to contradict the Institution of our Saviour and the practice of the Primitive Christians with a bold tamen or non obstante to them or ever to impose now Articles of Faith upon the People as absolutely necessary unto their Salvation which the Primitive Christians for some hundreds of years were never known to have thought or heard of So that according to your own Notion if to be Catholick is to be of no Party nor Faction in Religious Matters but a Christian in full latitude and in respect of the Church in general since every Member of the Universal Church must adjoin
briefly and compare our Faith and Practice in relation to the Sacrament which is the most Solemn branch of our Devotion For I shall ever acknowledge it as an obligation from you if you will be fair in this particular and communicate your own Thoughts freely without prevarication whether you can submit your Reason in this particular to that Doctrin of your Church that is so much against it Whither you can believe in your Conscience as it is openly profest that a Priest by Consecrating Bread and Wine according to the Missal can change their substance into that of God Or so Establish the Divinity in those Creatures or under the covert of their Accidents as really to make them or what you see upon the Table in their Shape to become a proper Object to be Worshipt and Adored For since nothing can be more absurd nor indeed more criminal in Religion than to apply God's Worship to any thing that is not God there is nothing less than a belief of this particular that can be pleaded by you to justifie your Practice when you Worship and Adore the Consecrated Host in the constant Exercise of your Publick Devotion Let us enquire therefore I beseech you into the foundation of this Faith and how this Notion which appears impossible to Mankind should come to have that Credit in the Church as to be made a Principle of the Christian Religion and not only be received as an Article of Faith but to be made the ground-work also of such a dangerous Practice § 8. The Church of Rome dogmatically tells us that our Blessed Saviour at the Institution of his Holy Supper changed the substance of the Bread and Wine into the substance of his own Body and Blood For saying of the Bread This is my Body and of the Wine This is my Blood and in both Expressions being literally to be understood by all Men his Expressions cannot be true except this change be really effected It being impossible in a literal Sense that the same thing at the same time can be real Bread and also the Body of Christ and therefore they believe that after the words of Consecration are pronounced Christ himself with his Body and Blood his Soul and his Divinity and not any longer Bread and Wine do really remain upon the Table and so they Adore the Consecrated Host as being really then the Person of Christ who is the Saviour God and Judge of all the World Now Sir if you will but seriously consider all those words which our Saviour Christ hath spoken on this Subject together with the end design and occasion of his speaking them it will not appear difficult to prove clearly to you First that those words of Christ are not thus literally to be interpreted but directly contrary to this Doctrin their true Sense is altogether Spiritual and Mystical And 2 â—ly That if they were literally to be understood by all Men even in the utmost Sense those words can bear yet they will neither assert what the Council of Trent Decrees nor justifie your Practice in Worshiping the Host § 9. First I say that the Words of our Saviour Christ in the Institution of this Sacrament cannot be understood in a literal Sense but must have a sigurative or mystical signification And this doth appear fully from the Nature of the thing the Design of the Institution the Occasion of the Expression and our Saviour's own Judgment as to their Interpretation As to the Nature of the thing it is a sufficient proof that any Text of Scripture is not literally to be understood by Christians if its common reading contradicts the Rules of Sense and Principles of Philosophy or destroys the ground-work of all certainty and knowledge and so roots up the foundation of Religion in general And if a Man by being a Christian is to take those words of Christ in a literal Sense and to believe that that is Flesh which by his sight touch tast and smell he fully and clearly discovers to be Bread all those recited mischiefs are the necessary consequence and there can be no Rule of any certainty in Religion In so much that no Man can be sure that there is a Bible or that any such words as these we treat of are Recorded in it or indeed that any thing else is written in order to his Salvation if he must not trust his Senses being rightly disposed in relation to a proper Object with a fit Medium If you say that this is an improper Object because it is a Substance when Accidents alone do incur the Senses I say that there is no other way to know a Substance but by the Accidents that are proper to it and if it were possible for all the Accidents that are proper to one Subject to inhere another it would be impossible to determine which is which or ever truly to distinguish any one thing from another But it is also evident that a Humane Body is the real thing we here treat of and that this is a proper Object for our Senses appears plainly to us from the practice of our Saviour in that he recurr'd unto them even after his Resurrection and made them the only Judges of his Bodily Substance Behold saies he Luke xxiv 39. my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have So that either this Body of Christ supposed in the Sacrament must be a proper Object for our Senses or it is not that Body of Christ wherewith he arose from the Dead And the Priest must create another Body such as our Saviour never had before he can adapt it to this Doctrin of the Sacrament It is therefore evidently a device of the School-Men to impose upon the Vulgar that they generally discourse thus of the Object of one Science in terms and notions that are peculiar to another and instead of Matter and Form wherein the Essence of a Body doth consist and which do evidently demonstrate that every Humane Body doth consist of Limbs hath Flesh and Bones with that Extent Shape and Dimensions that are proper to it and whereof all Mankind are equally sure and certain All their Disputations are about its Substance and its Accidents which are Metaphysical terms and may agree with a Spirit with whose Nature and Parts the wisest Men are unacquainted And therefore abstracting from the Senses wherein the least intelligent are sufficient Judges they confound our Understanding in such intricacies and quillets that even they themselves cannot explain their meaning And therefore I say that either our Senses must be Judges in this case as well as other Bodies or else that the Body of Christ is not a proper Body as Nestorius heretofore did Heretically assert it or else that God hath appointed here an irresistible deception of all Mankind continually in that which is most evident and sure to be relyed on and how agreeable these are
understand it Mystically or reject those expressions as false and incongruous And it is also observable in other places when some of them fly higher in their Rhetorical expressions and to enflame the Zeal or to raise the Devotion of their Auditors who were apt to think too grosly of this Sacred Ordinance seem to express this change which you desire I say it is observable that they often speak not only beyond the truth and all that we believe but even the very utmost that you your selves will own and consequently there is no reliance upon such expressions as shew not the Faith but the Fancy of their Author Nay although it is apparent that the Roman Missal hath been alter'd since the days of St. Ambrose to make it more conformable to your present Doctrin Yet there is a memorable expression still retained in it in the very Prayer of Consecration wherein the Ancient Doctrin is sufficiently apparent For it is certain that no Man wou'd ever pray to God to grant him less than he expected to receive and yet it is obvious that although they pretend to a Transubstantiation yet they desire no more there than what we Pray for who do not believe it Their words are these Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus ut benedictam c. Facere digneris ut nobis corpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui c. Which Oblation we beseech thee O God to vouchsafe to render blessed c. that it may become to us the Body and Blood of thy most Beloved Son c. Since then the difference on debate is this whether the Elements in the Sacrament are changed as to their substance and so really made the Body and Blood of Christ in se in themselves as the Church of Rome asserteth or whether without any such Change or Alteration of their Substance they become Spiritually or Sacramentally so Nobis to us who do Receive by Faith the Body and Blood of Christ in them as the Church of England doth express it I say it is sufficiently apparent that the Composers of the Roman Missal have delivered their Opinion for us to be the same with that of the Church of England and not with the present Church of Rome So that the Ancient Doctrin of that Church is evidently for us and whatever is profest in point of Faith upon other occasions yet the truth in this place so far prevaileth as to be openly asserted whenever Mass is Celebrated among you § 13. But lastly this is not only the voice of Men but agreeable to the Declaration of Christ himself who directs all Christians not to understand him on this subject in a Literal Sense but to expound his words Spiritually as containing a Mystery For in the sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel he is very express as to the nature and design of this his Holy Institution as most of the Ancient Doctors have always understood him though Bellarmine for special Reasons is of another Opinion insomuch that if any Text of Scripture soundeth fair for Transubstantiation it is to be lookt for in that Chapter But we find in the conclusion that this was never intended by our Saviour For when his Disciples were offended at his Doctrin apprehending foolishly as St. Augustine observes that they must be Canibals in order to be Christians as if the eating of humane flesh was to be a Rite in their Religion he rectifies their thoughts and explains his meaning fully v 63. saying it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life that is as St. Augustine expounds it they are spiritually to be understood by you as containing a Mystery that will hereafter be apparent in the Institution of a Sacrament that will explain them And therefore it is observable that St. Paul calls the Eucharist Bread and not the Body of Christ but as it is received The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ For me being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all Partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. x. 16 17. and in the following Chapter v. 26 27 28. even after an account given of the Consecration of it yet he is still express in calling it Bread and if words are to be understood always in a literal sense when no absurdity doth follow the Missal saith the same thing in the Prayer after Consecration calling it Panem sanctum vitae aeternae the Holy Bread of Eternal Life All which would strangely derogate from the nature of the thing if it were Christ's Body and not Bread which they discourse of But this is confirmed beyond all disputation by that expression of our Saviour at the Institution of it Do this in remembrance of me For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death 'till come 1 Cor. xi 26. Since first it contradicts the common form of speaking to remember a present Object that stands before us when we cannot make Reflections thus but upon absent things And secondly if Christ should actually come whenever the Sacrament is Administred then that Holy Institution is no longer to continue being to determine on our Saviour's coming especially when we know that it is no ravity even in the Scripture for a thing that represents or signifies another to bear the name or title of the thing represented § 14. If then Sir there is no advantage to a Christian in the Carnal Manducation of the Body of Christ as I suppose you will confess and it is â—vident to all Men that in point of Faith and as a Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ are as really and truly received by the Faithful in the Church of England as in the Church of Rome You must needs acknowledge then that in this Point of Faith and Worship you have gotten no advantage by the change of your Religion but rather on the contrary in the Rules of your Devotion you hazard your Salvation upon an Opinion that may be false and more than probably is so for none not the least advantage if it should be true For if those Elements should not be changed by their Consecration according to your Fancy and you know that besides all the reasons that can be offered against it there are a multitude of Circumstances that may obstruct their Change grosser Idolatry cannot be committed than Men are daily guilty of in Worshiping the Host And if you will believe Câ—nsterus in his judgement on the Case and it is reasonable to allow him well acquainted with your Doctrin you will find that your Publick Devotion in this point of Worship doth exceed the very Heathens in their greatest Idolatry And yet on the other hand if those Elements should â—e changed as you unreasonably believe but no Man can prove by solid Argument it is