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
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