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
and what is opposite to the one can no more be agreeable to the other than God can be contrary to himself And though if the Revelation be clear and evident we submit to it because we are then sure it cannot be contrary to Reason whatever it may appear to us yet when the contradiction is manifest as that a natural Body should be in more places than one at the same time we are sure that interpretation of Holy Scripture can never be the right which would infer this but especially when there is another and much more reasonable that do's not And in this we are after all justified by one whose Authority I hope our Author will not question even his own self If says he Treatise 1st §. 29. pag. 21. we are certain there is a contradiction then we are certain there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation and when any Revelation tho' never so plain is brought we are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility And let him that sticks to this rule interpret Christs words for Transubstantiation if he can But do not our own Authors sometimes say that notwithstanding all the difficulties brought against Transubstantiation yet if it can be shewn that God has revealed it they are ready to believe it Perhaps some may have said this because for that very Reason that there are so many contradictions in it they are sure it cannot be shewn that God has revealed it But if he means as he seems to insinuate that notwithstanding such plain contradictions as they charge it with they thought it possible nevertheless that God might have revealed it and upon that supposition they were ready to believe it I answer from his own words that their supposal then was Absurd and impossible since he himself assure us Treatise 1st §. xx n. 3. pag. 14. that None can believe a thing true upon what motive soever which he first knows to be certainly false or which is all one certainly to contradict For these we say are not verifyable by a divine Power and Ergo here I may say should a divine power declare a truth it would transcend its self Which last words if they signifie any thing and do not transcend Sense must suppose it impossible for such a thing as implies a certain Contradiction to be revealed II. Observation But our Author goes on I conceive that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a Perfect Contradiction can no more be effected by divine Power than another or than many others the like may Seeing then we admit that some seeming Contradictions to Reason may be verified by the Divine power in this Sacrament there is no reason to deny but that this may be also as well as any other Now not to contend with him about words whoever told our Author that we allow'd that there was any thing in this Sacrament as received by us that seemed to us to include a Perfect Contradiction Perfect Contradictions we confess are all of them equally verifyable by a divine Power that is are all of them impossible And for this we have his own word before Now if there be any such things as perfect contradictions to be known by us that which seems to us to be a perfect contradiction must really be a perfect contradiction unless contradictions are to be discover'd some other way than by seeming to our Reason to be so And such it not only seems but undoubtedly is for the same One natural finite Body to be in more places than one at the same time if to be and not to be be still the measure of Contradictions He that says of such a Body that it is in Heaven and on Earth at London and Rome at the same time says in Effect that 't is one and not one finite and not finite in one place and not in one place c. All which are such seemingly perfect contradictions that I fear 't will be a hard matter to find out any Power by which they can be verify'd III. Observation Treatise 1st §. xxii p. 15. He observes Thirdly That those who affirm a Real and Substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant contradistinct to any such other Real presence of Christs Body as implies only a presence or it in Virtue and Spiritual Effects c. must hold this particular seeming Contradiction to be True or some other equivalent to it If by the Real Presence of the very Body of Christ he means as he before explains it That Christ's Natural Body that very Body which is now in Heaven should be also at the same time here upon Earth it is I think necessary for those who will affirm this to hold some such kind of Contradiction as he says And 't is for that very Reason I am perswaded he will find but few such Persons in the Church of England which so expresly declares that Christ's Natural Body is in Heaven and not here upon this very account That it is contrary to the truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than one at the same time However if any such there be as they herein depart from the Doctrine of their Church so it is not our concern to answer for their Contradictions IV. He observes lastly It seems to me that some of the more judicious amongst them the Divines he means of the Church of England have not laid so great a weight on this Philosophical Position Tract 1. §. xxviii p. 20. as wholly to support and regulate their Faith in this matter by it as it stands in opposition not only to Nature's but the Divine Power because they pretend not any such certainty thereof but that if any Divine Revelation of the contrary can be shewed they profess a readiness to believe it I shall not now trouble my self with what some of our Divines may seem to him to have done in this matter 't is evident our Church has laid stress enough upon this Contradiction Indeed where so many gross Repugnancies both to Sense and Reason are crowded together as we have seen before there are in this Point it ought not to be wondered if our Divines have not supported and regulated their Faith wholly upon this one alone We do not any of Us think it either safe or pious to be too nice in determining what God can or cannot do we leave that to the bold Inquisitiveness of their Schools But this we think we may say that if there are any unalterable Laws of Nature by which we are to judg of these things then God can no more make one Body to exist in ten thousand places at the same time than he can make one continuing one to be ten thousand than he can divide the same thing from its self and yet continue it still undivided And if any of our Divines have said that they cannot admit that one Body can be in several
disturber of the Fathers the better to shew the Antiquity of his new Religion has pretended to search no less than into the secrets of the Jewish Cabala after it and to have found out Transubstantiation there amongst the rest of the Rabbinical Follies Consensus Veterum p. 21 c. Now however the very name of Galatinus be sufficient to Learned Men to make them esteem his Judgment in his Jewish to be much the same as in his Christian Antiquity which follows after in those eminent pieces of S. Peter 's and S. Matthew 's Liturgies Ibid. p. 27. S. Andrew 's work of the Passion of our Lord Dionysius 's Ecclesiast Hierarch c. yet because such stuff as this may serve to amuse those who are not acquainted with the emptiness of it I was so much the rather inclined to shew what the true notions of the Jewish Rites would furnish us with to overthrow their pretences and that the Rabbins Visions are of as little moment to confirm this conceit as their own Miracles But whatever those of the other Communion shall please to judge of my Arguments yet at least the Opinions of those eminent Men of their own Church may certainly deserve to be consider'd by them who have freely declared that there is not in Scripture any evident proof of Transubstantiation nay some of whom have thought so little engagement upon them either from that or any other Authority to believe it that they have lived and died in their Church without ever embracing of it And of this the late Author of the * Traittè d'un Autheur de la Communion Romaine touchant la Transubstantiation Lond. 1686. Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation and which is just now set forth in our own Language may be an eminent instance being a Person at this day living in the Communion of the Church of Rome and in no little Esteem among all that know Him. It is not fit to give any more particular character of Him at this time They who shall please to peruse his Book will find enough in it to speak in his Advantage and if they have but any tolerable disposition to receive the truth will clearly see that this point of Transubstantiation was the production of a blind and barbarous Age unknown in the Church for above one thousand Years and never own'd by the greatest Men in any Ages since The truth is if we enquire precisely into this business of Transubstantiation we shall find the first foundation of it laid in a Cloyster by an unwary Monk about the beginning of the 7th Century About 636 or 640. See Blondel de l'Eucharistie c. 14. p. 36â— carried on by a Cabal of Men assembled under the name of a (a) 2. Concil Nic. General Council to introduce the worship of Images into the Church Ann. 787. (b) Blondel l. c. cap. 18. pag. 426. formed into a better shape by another (c) Paschasius Radbertus Monk Ann. 818. and He too opposed by almost all the Learned Men of his Age and at last confirmed by a (d) See the Treatise of Transubstantiation Hist of the 9th Age. Pope of whom their own Authors have left us but a very indifferent (e) Innocent III. Super omnes mortales ambitiosus superbus pecuniaeque sititor iâ—satiabilis ad omnia â—â—â—lera pro praemiis datis vel promissis cereus proclivis Matt. Paris character and in a (f) Concil Lateran IV. Can. 3. de Haereticis Synod of which I shall observe only this that it gave the Pope the power of unmaking Kings as well as the Priests that of making their God. But indeed I think we ought not to charge the Council with either of these Attempts since contrary to the manner of proceeding in such Assemblies received in all Ages nothing was either judged or debated by the Synod ‡ His omnibus congregatis in suo loco praefato juxta morem Conciliorum generalium in suis Ordinibus singulis collocatis facto prius ab ipso Papâ exhortationis sermone recitata sunt in pleno Concilio capitula LXX quae aliis placabilia aliis videbantur onerosa Matt. Paris ad Ann. 1215. See this confirmed by Monsieur du Pin. Dissert VII Paris 4º 1686. pag. 572 573. The Pope only himself formed the Articles digested them into Canons and so read them to the Fathers some of which their own Historian tells us approved them others did not but however all were forced to be contented with them Such was the first rise of this new Doctrine 1215 years after Christ But still the most learned Men of that and the following Ages doubted not to dissent from it (a) See 3. q. 75. Art. 6. Vtrum factâ— consecratione remaneat in Hoc Sacramento forma substantialis Panis Aquinas who wrote about 50 years after this definition speaks of some who thought the substantial form of the Bread still to remain after Consecration (b) In. 4 d. 11. q. 9. Quid ergo dicendum de conversione substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi Salvo meliori judicio potest aestimari quod SI in isto Sacramento fiat Conversio substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi quod ipsa fit per Hoc quod corruptâ formâ Panis materia eius sit sub formâ Corporis Christi Durandus doubted not to assert the continuance of the Matter of the Elements whatever became of the form and that 't was (c) Id. in 4. dist 11. q. 4. Art. 14. rashness to say that Christ's Body could be there no otherwise than by Transubstantiation To which (d) Scotus in 4. dist 11. q. 3. Scotus also subscribed that the truth of the Eucharist might be saved without Transubstantiation (e) Id. 4. sent d. 11. q. 3. and that in plain terms ours was the easier and to all appearance the truer interpretation of Christ's words in which (f) Ockam in 4. q. 6. Ockam and (*) Alliaco in 4. q. 6. art 2. d'Alliaco concurr'd with him (g) Contr. capt Babâ—l cap. 10. Fisher confess'd that there was nothing to prove the true presence of Christ's Body and Blood in their Mass (a) Ferus in Matt. 26. Cum certum sit ibi esse Corpus Christi quid opus est disputare num Panis substantia maneat vel non Ferus would not have it inquired into How Christ's Body is there and (b) Lib. 1. de Eucharistiâ See the Treatise of Transubstantiation 1. part Tonstall thought it were better to leave Men to their Liberty of belief in it Those who in respect to their Churches definition did accept it yet freely declared that (c) Vid. Bellarm de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767 768. Suarez in 3. part D. Th. vol. 3. disp 50. p. 593 594. Cajetan in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art 1. Scotas l. c. 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. Vid etiam Ockam Alliac loc supr cit before this
qu'il répondit qu' il la tenoit pour un Monstre Et comme ils luy demanderent comment done il en avoit écrit si amplement si doctement il repliqua qu'il avoit deployé toutes les Adresses de son Esprit poâ— colourer cet abus pour le rendre plausibile qu'il avoit fait comrre ceux qui font tous leurs Efforts pour defendre une manvaise Cause Your Highness says He may believe me if you please But I can assure you with all sincerity and truth that if the late Cardinal du Perron has convinced you of the Truth of Transubstantiation he has convinced you of that of which he could never convince himself nor did he ever believe it For I have been informed by certain Persons of Honour and that are in all respects worthy of belief and who had it from those that were eye witnesses That some friends of that Illustrious and Learned Cardinal who went to see him as he lay languishing upon his Bed and ill of that distemper of which he died desired him to tell them freely what he thought of Transubstantiation To whom he answer'd That 't was a MONSTER And when they farther ask'd him How then he had written so copiously and learnedly about it He replied That he had done the utmost that his Wit and Parts had enabled him to COLOUR OVER THIS ABUSE and RENDER IT PLAUSIBLE But that he had done like those who employ all their force to defend an ILL CAUSE And thus far Monsieur Drelincourt I could to this add some farther circumstances which I have learnt of this matter but what is here said may suffice to shew what the real Opinion of this great Cardinal after all his Voluminous Writings as to this Doctrine was unless some future Obligations shall perhaps engage me to enter on a more particular account of it To these two great instances of another Nation I will beg leave to subjoyn a third of our own Country Father Barnes the Benedictine Catholico-Romano-Pacificus Oxon. 1680. Pag. 90. Assertio Transubstantiationis sâ—u mutationis substantialis panis licet sit Opinio communior non tamen est fides Ecclesiae Et Scripturae Patres docentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficienter expoâ—â— possant de admirandâ— supernaturali mutatione Panis per Praesentiam Corporis Christi ei accedentem sine substantialis Panis desitione Et. P. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illam in Augustissimo Sacramento factam plerique graves antiqui Scriptoresita explicant ut non fiat per desitionem substantiae panis sed per receptionem supernaturalem substantiae Corporis Christi in substantiam Panis V. pl. who in his Pacific Discourse of most of the points in Controversie between us and the Papists expresly declares That the Assertion of Transubstantiation or of the substantial change of the Bread though it be indeed the more common Opinion is yet no part of the Churches Faith And that the Scripture and Fathers when they speak of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be sufficiently Expounded of that admirable and supernatural change of the Bread by the presence of Christ's Body added to it without the departure of the substance of the Bread it self It appears by these words how little this Monk thought Transubstantiation an Article of Faith. But a greater than he and who not only did not esteem it necessary for Others to receive it but clearly shews that he did not believe it himself Illustriss atque Reverend Pâ—de Marea Parisiens Archiep. Dissertationes Posthumae De Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento dissertatio in sne is the Illustrious Monsieur de Marca late Archbishop of Paris and well known to the World for his great Learning and Eminence His Treatise of the Eucharist was publish'd with Authority by one of his near Relations the Abbé Faget at Paris 1668. with some other little Tracts which he had received from the Archbishops own hands In the close of that Treatise he thus delivers his Opinion †Species Pâ—nis est Essentiâ Naturâ distincta à Corpore Christi sibi adjuncto licet ratio Eucharistiae id exigat ut substantia Panis interior conversa suerit in illud Corpus modo quodam qui omnem cogitationem exsuperat Caeterum mutatio illa non officit quin Panis qui videtur id est Accidentia suam Naturam Extantiam Essentiam SIVE SUBSTANTIAM retineat naturae verae Proprietates inter quas est alendi corporis humani facultas Vnde consequitur rectè observatum à Gelasio Sacramenta Corporis Sanguinis Christi divinam rem esse quia Panis Vinum in divinam transeunt substantiam S. spiritu persiciente nempe in Corpus Christi spiritale sed ex alia parte non desinere substantiam naturam Panis Vini sed ea permanere in suae proprietate Naturae Quoniam scil postquam Panis in divinam substantiam transivit NON INTERIIT INTEGRA PANIS NATURA QUAM SUBSTANTIAM QUOQUE VOCAT NEC DESIVIT SED in suae proprietate Naturae permansit ad alendum Corpus idonea quod est praecipuum confecti panis munus Note That in the Paris Edition they have put in those words printed in the Black Letter id est Accidentia and omitted those that I have caused to be set in Capitals But in the Original leaf which I have left in S. Martin's Library to be seen by any that pleases and which was cut out for the sake of this passage it stands as I have said and as it is truly represented in the Holland Edition The species of the Bread is in its Essence and Nature distinct from the Body of Christ adjoyn'd to it although the reason of the Eucharist requires that the inward substance of the Bread should be converted into that Body after a manner that exceeds all Imagination But yet this change hinders not but that the BREAD which is seen still RETAINS its own NATURE BEING and ESSENCE or SUBSTANCE together with the proprieties of its true Nature among which one is the faculty of nourishing our Bodies c. Whence it follows that it was rightly observ'd by Gelasius that the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was a Divine thing because the Bread and Wine being perfected by the Holy Spirit pass into the Divine substance viz. the spiritual Body of Christ but on the other side that the SUBSTANCE and NATURE of the BREAD and WINE do not cease to be but continue still in the propriety of their own Nature And here I suppose any one who reads this passage alone of this Treatise might without the help of * Baluze 2 Lettre à Monsieur le Presid Marca S'il est vray ce que j'ay de la peine à croire que feu Monsigneur ait composé les Traittez que M. Faget a fait imprimer sous son nom dont il se vante dans la Preface
so understood as if the Bread did not contain the whole Substance of his Blood as well as of his Body and so the Wine the whole Substance of his Body as well as of his Blood (⸪) Ibid. n. xxxv Sect. Christus totus in qualibet particula n. xlii c. seeing Christ is intire in each part of the Sacrament nay in every the least Crumb or Drop of either part II. The * Ibid. n. xxv Sect. Secundum second thing to be consider'd for the understanding of this Mystery is That not any part of the Substance of the Bread and Wine remains tho nothing may seem more contrary to the Senses than this in which they are certainly in the right III. †Ibid. n. xxv Sect. Tertium n. xliv Sect. Accid sine subjecto const in Euch. That the Accidents of the Bread and Wine which either our Eyes see as the Colour Form c. or our other Senses perceive as the Tast Touch Smell all these are in no Subject but exist by themselves after a wonderful manner and which cannot be explain'd For the rest the Conversion its self ‖ Ibid. n. xxxvii Sect. Primo natione It is very difficult to be comprehended How Christs Body which before Consecration was not in the Sacrament should now come to be there since 't is certain that it changes not its place but is still all the while in Heaven Nor is it made present there by Creation * Ibid. n. xxxix Sect. Conversio quae sit in Euch. c. nor by any other Change For it is neither increased nor diminish'd but remains whole in its Substance as before †Ibid. n. xliii Quonam modo Christus existat in Euchar. Christ is not in the Sacrament Locally for he has no Quantity there is neither Great nor Little. (**) Ibid. n. xli Sect. De Transubstant curiosius non inquirendum In a word Men ought not to inquire too curiously how this Change can be made for it is not to be comprehended seeing neither in any natural Changes nor indeed in the whole Creation is there any Example of any thing like it Such is the Account which themselves give of this Mystery From all which we may in short conclude the State of the Question before us to be this That we do not dispute at all about Christ's Real Presence which after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner we acknowledg in this Holy Eucharist as we shall hereafter shew nor by consequence of the Truth of Christs Words which we undoubtedly believe But only about this Manner of his Presence viz. Whether the Bread and the Wine be changed into the very natural Body and Blood of Christ so that the Bread and Wine themselves do no longer remain But that under the Appearance of them is contain'd that same Body of Christ which was Born of the Blessed Virgin with his Soul and Divinity which same Body of Christ tho extended in all its parts in Heaven is at the same time in the Sacrament without any Extension neither Great nor Small comes thither neither by Generation nor by Creation nor by any local Motion forasmuch as it continues still at the right Hand of God in Heaven at the very same instant that it exists whole and intire in every consecrated Host or Chalice nay more is whole and intire not only in the whole Host or the whole Chalice but in every the least Crumb of the Host and every the least Drop of the Chalice here upon Earth And here it might well be thought a very needless indeed an extravagant undertaking to prove that those Elements which so many of our Senses tell us continue after their Consecration the very same as to what concerns their natural Substance that they were before are in reality the very same That what all the World Sees and Feels and Smells and Tasts to be Bread and Wine is not changed into the very natural Flesh and Blood of a Body actually before existent had it not entred into the Minds of so great a part of the Christian Church to joyn in the maintaining of a Paradox which has nothing to defend it but that fond Presumption they have certainly done well to take up That they cannot possibly be in the wrong and without which it would be very difficult for them to perswade any sober man that they are here in the right To shew that those words which they tell us work all this Miracle and are the only reason that engages them to maintain so many absurdities as are confessedly the unavoidable Consequences of this Doctrine have no such force nor interpretation as they pretend I must desire it may be remembred what I before remark'd That this Holy Sacrament was establish'd by our Saviour in the room of the Jewish Passever and upon the very Words and Ceremonies of it So that if in that all things were Typical the Feast the Customs the Expressions merely allusive to something that had been done before and of which this sacred Ceremony was the memorial we ought in all reason to conclude that both our Saviour must have designed and his Apostles understood this Holy Sacrament to have been the same too Now as to the Nature of the Passover we have already seen that it was appointed by God as a Remembrance of his delivery of the Jews out of the Land of Egypt when he slew all the first-born of the Egyptians Exod. xii The Lamb which they ate every year in this Feast was an Eucharistical Sacrifice and Type of that first Lamb which was slain in the night of their deliverance and whose Blood sprinkled upon the Posts of their Doors had preserved their Fore-fathers from the destroying Angel that he should not do them any mischief The Bread of Affliction which they broke and of which they said perhaps in the very * Vid. Cameron Annot. in Matt. xxvi 26. in illa verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter critic pag. 780. l. 24. same manner that Christ did of the very same Loaf Take eat this is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt they esteem'd a Type and Figure of that unleaven'd Bread which their Forefathers so many Ages before had eaten there and upon that account called it * Allix Serm. pag. 503. The Memorial of their delivery out of Egypt †Hammond Pract. Catechism lib vi pag. Ed. fol. The Cup of Blessing which they blessed and of which they ALL drank in this Feast they did it at once in memory both of the Blood of the Children of Israel slain by Pharaoh and of the Blood of the Lamb which being sprinkled upon their doors preserved their own from being shed with that of the Egyptians Now all these Idea's with which the Apostles had so long been acquainted could not but presently suggest to them the same design of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament That when
all Metaphor only just two or three words for their purpose Literal But that which raises our wonder to the highest pitch is that the very fifty first Verse its self on which they found their Argument is two thirds of it Figure and only otherwise in one Clause to serve their Hypothesis I am says our Saviour the living Bread which came down from Heaven This is Figurative If any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever That is they say by a Spiritual Eating by Faith And the Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World. This only must be understood of a proper manducation of a real eating of his Flesh in this Holy Sacrament It must be confessed that this is an Arbitrary way of explaining indeed and becomes the Character of a Church whose dictates are to be received not examined and may therefore pass well enough amongst those with whom the supposed Infallibility of their Guides is thought a sufficient dispensation for their own private Consideration But for us who can see no reason for this sudden change of our Saviours Discourse nay think that the connexion of that last Clause with the foregoing is an evident sign that they all keep the same Character and are therefore not a little scandalized at so Capernaitical a Comment as indeed Who can bear it V. 60. They will please to excuse us if we take our Saviours Interpretation to be at least of as good an Authority as 't is much more reasonable than theirs V. 62. Do's this says he Offend you Do's my saying that ye must eat my flesh and drink my Blood scandalize you Mistake not my design I mean not any carnal eating of me that indeed might justly move your Horrour It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life He that desires a fuller account of this Chapter may please to recur to the late excellent †A Paraphrase with Notes and a Preface upon the Sixth Chapter of Saint John Lond. 1686. Paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it and which will be abundantly sufficient to shew the reasonableness of that Interpretation which we give of it I shall only add to close all that one Remark which * De Doctrin Christian Lib. 3. Cap. 16. Saint Augustine has left us concerning it and so much the rather in that it is one of the rules which he lays down for the right Interpreting of Holy Scripture and illustrates with this particular Example If says he the saying be Preceptive either forbidding a wicked action or commanding to do that which is good it is no Figurative saying But if it seems to command any Villany or Wickedness or forbid what is profitable and good it is Figurative This saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you seems to command a Villanous or Wicked Thing It is therefore a FIGVRE enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay it up in dear and profitable Remembrance that his Flesh was crucifi'd and wounded for our sakes And now having thus clearly I perswade my self shewn the Weakness of those Grounds on which this Doctrine of the substantial Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament is establish'd I shall but very little insist on any other Arguments against it Only in a Word to demonstrate that all manner of Proofs fail them in this great Error I will in the close here subjoin two or three short Considerations more to shew this Doctrine opposite not only to Holy Scripture as we have seen but also 1. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church 2. To the Right Reason and 3. To the Common Senses of all Mankind I. That this Doctrine is opposite to the best and purest Tradition of the Church Now to shew this I shall not heap together a multitude of Quotations out of those Fathers through whose hands this Tradition must have past He that desires such an Account may find it fully done by one of the Roman Communion in a little * A Treatise of Transubstantiation by one of the Church of Rome c. Printed for Rich. Chiswell 1687. Treatise just now publish'd in our own Language I will rather take a method that seems to me less liable to any just Exception and that is to lay down some general Remarks of undoubted Truth and whose consequence will be as evident as their certainty is undeniable And I. For the Expressions of the Holy Fathers It is not deny'd Such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Note there is hardly any of these Words which they have applied to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist but they have attributed the same to the Water in Baptism but that in their popular Discourses they have spared no words except that of Transubstantiation which not one of them ever used to set off so great a Mystery And I believe that were the Sermons and Devotional Treatises of our own Divines alone since the Reformation searcht into one might find Expressions among them as much over-strain'd * See Treatise first of the Adoration c Printed lately at Oxford Which would make the World believe that we hold I know not what imaginary Real Presence on this account just as truly as the Fathers did Transubstantiation And doubtless these would be as strong an Argument to prove Transubstantiation now the Doctrine of the Church of England as those to argue it to have been the Opinion of those Primitive Ages But now let us consult these men in their more exact composures when they come to teach not to declaim and we shall find they will then tell us That these Elements are for their * It is not necessary to transcribe the Particulars here that have been so often and fully alledged Most of these Expressions may be found in the Treatise of Transubstantiation lately published The rest may be seen in Blondel Eclaircissements Familiers de la Controverse de l' Eucharistie Cap. iv vii viii Claude Rep. au 2. Traittè de la Perpetuitè i. Part. Cap. iv v. Forbesius Instructiones Historico-Theolog lib. xi cap. ix x xi xii xiii xv Larrogue Histoire de l' Eucharistie liv 2. cap. ii substance what they were before Bread and Wine That they retain the true properties of their nature to nourish and feed the Body that they are things inanimate and void of sense That with reference to the Holy Sacrament they are Images Figures Signes Symbols Memorials Types and Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ That in their Vse and Benefit they are indeed the very Body and Blood of Christ to every saithful Receiver but in a Spiritual and Heavenly manner as we confess That in
that Debate stopp'd or at least he should have added some new strength to it But to send it again into the World in the same forlorn State it was before to take no notice either from whose Store-house he borrow'd it or what had been returned to it This is in effect to confess that they have no more to say for themselves And 't is a sad Cause indeed that has nothing to keep it up but what they know very well we can answer and that they themselves are unable to defend But to return to the Points proposed to be consider'd And First To state the Notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England I must observe 1st That our Church utterly denies our Saviour's Body to be so Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament as either to leave Heaven or to exist in several places at the same time We confess with this Author 1. Tract p. 19. §. 27. that it would be no less a Contradiction for Christ's Natural Body to be in several places at the same time by any other Mode whatsoever than by that which the Church of Rome has stated the repugnancy being in the thing its self and not in the manner of it 2dly That we deny that in the Sacred Elements which we receive there is any other Substance than that of Bread and Wine distributed to the Communicants which alone they take into their Mouths and press with their Teeth Answer to T. G's Dialogues Lond. 1679. pag. 66. In short All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real Effects to the Souls of Men. As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies while they assumed them or rather as the Church is the Body of Christ because of his Spirit quickening and enlivening the Souls of Believers so the Bread and Wine after Consecration are the Real but the Spiritual and Mystical Body of Christ Thus has that learned Man to whom T. G. first made this Objection stated the Notion of the Real Presence profess'd by us and that this is indeed the true Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter is evident not only from the plain words of our xxviii Article and of our Church Catechism but also from the whole Tenour of that Office which we use in the celebration of it In our Exhortation to it this Blessed Eucharist is expresly called The Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ We are told that if with a true Penitent Heart and lively Faith we receive this Holy Sacrament then we Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood. When the Priest delivers the consecrated Bread he bids the Communicant Take and eat this in Remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith with Thanksgiving In our Prayer after the Receiving We thank God for that he doâ—â— vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries with the Spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ and doth assure us thereby of his favour and goodness towards us and that we are very Members incorporate in the Mystical Body of his Son. All which and many other the like Expressions clearly shew that the Real Presence which we confess in this Holy Eucharist is no other than in St. Pauls Phrase a Real Communion of Christ's Body and Blood or as our Church expresses it Article xxviii That to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ Hence it was that in the Prayer of Consecration in King Edward vi time the Church of England after the Example of the ancient Liturgies of the Greek Church used that Form which our Author observes to have been since left out Tract I. 2. And with thy Holy Spirit vouchsafe to Bless and Sanctifie these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ i. e. as the Sense plainly implies may Communicate to our Souls all the Blessings and Graces which Christ's Body and Blood has purchased for us which is in Effect the very same we now pray for in the same Address Hear us O Merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christs Holy Institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most Blessed Body and Blood. Between which two Petitions there is so near an Affinity that had not 〈◊〉 Author been very desirous to find out Mysteries where there are indeed none He would hardly have suffer'd his Puritan Friend to have lead him to make so heavy a complaint Pag. 3. about so small a Variation I will not deny but that some Men may possibly have advanced their private Notions beyond what is here said But this is I am sure all that our Church warrants or that we are therefore concern'd to defend And if there be indeed any who as our Author here expresses it do believe Christs natural Body to be as in Heaven so in the Holy Sacrament they may please to consider how this can be reconciled with the Rubrick of our Church That the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one In the mean time I pass on to the next thing I proposs'd Secondly To shew in Opposition to the Pretences of our Adversary that this has been the Notion of the Real Presence constantly maintain'd by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines And here because our Author has thought fit to appeal not only to our own but to the forreign Divines for this new Faith which he is pleas'd to impose upon us viz. Tract 1. §. 7. That the very Substance of Christs Body that his natural Body that that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin and crucified on the Cross c. is present as in Heaven so Here in this Holy Sacrament i. e. in both at the same time I must be content to follow his Steps and enquire into the Doctrine first of Mr. Calvin and his followers next of our own Country-men in this Particular And first for Mr. Calvin and his followers I cannot but observe what different charges are brought against them in this matter On the one hand we are told by Becanus the Jesuit that * Calvinistae negant corpus sanguinem Christi vere realiter substantialiter praesentem
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
for their Adoration whereby they become Absolved by other Protestants from Idolatry in adoring our Lord as present there I see not why the Grounds of Roman Catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs In Answer to which the Reader may please to remember that I have before said that we do not excuse those Lutherans who do this so much upon this Principle that they have a more plausible Ground or Motive for their Adoration but for this rather that confessing the Substance of the Bread to remain they do not mistake their Object but pay their Adoration indeed to Christ only supposing him to be there where in Truth he is not But 2dly this Author is very much mistaken if he thinks the Lutherans have no better a Foundation for their Real Presence than the Papists See Ibid. Indeed were the difference no greater than between a Con and a Trans it would I confess be hardly worth the while to contend about it But when we come to the Point it self we may observe these four Advantages among many others of the Lutherans side 1. They confess for the outward Elements that they are really what they appear to be Bread and Wine and so they do no Violence to their Senses which as I have said is a great aggravation against the Papists 2. By this means they are at no defiance with all those Texts of Scripture where they are so often called Bread and Wine after Consecration All which the Papist contradicts but the Lutheran does not 3. From the words of Christ This is my Body we all of us confess may be inferr'd that Christ's Body is in this Holy Sacrament But whence do's the Papist infer the destruction of the Substance of the Bread so that what is taken and blessed and given is not Bread but Christ's Body under the appearance of Bread This is an Error which I am sure the Text gives no manner of colour to and therefore our Author cannot with any reason pretend as he do's whether we consult the Text of Holy Scripture or our own Senses that they have as good grounds for their Real Presence as the Lutherans have for theirs To all which let me add 4thly that by Transubstantiation they destroy the very Nature of a Sacrament by leaving no true external Sign or Symbol and which is another unanswerable Argument against them whilst the Lutherans acknowledging the Substance of the Bread to remain do not destroy at all the Nature of this Sacrament but retain the same Sign which our Blessed Lord established and so have no Objection on this side neither to convict them But yet notwithstanding all this Pag. 26 27. Do not some of our Writers confess that the Papists Interpretation is more rational than the Lutherans I Answer What certain Protestants may have said in Zeal for their own Opinions and in particular Hospinian upon the account of his Master Zuinglius I cannot tell But sure I am we are not bound to answer for all that any Protestant Author has said And if these Reasons I have here given for the contrary are valid they ought to be more regarded than the ungrounded Assertions of a Sacramentary Historian Well Pag. 27. but still the Papist do's not ground his Adoration upon Transubstantiation but on Corporal Presence and so they must both be excused or neither This is a fetch to very little purpose For let me ask this Author He confesses he founds his Adoration upon the Corporal Presence Do's he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation exclusive to all others or no If he do's then 't is evident that the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation must with him stand or fall together and so if he adores on the account of the Corporal Presence he do's it upon the account of Transubstantiation If he do's not believe this 't is plain he is no Papist nor submits to the Authority of the Church of Rome which has defined the Corporal Presence to be after this particular manner exclusive to all Others and Anathematized all that dare to deny it Laying aside therefore this Comparison and which in truth will do them but very little kindness Pag. 27. §. xxiv Let us view more particularly what rational Grounds they have to exhibit for this their belief of their Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and of the Adoration of him upon that account I. Ibid. Ground And the first is Divine Revelation For which our Author offers the two usual Instances of the words of Institution and the 6th Chapter of S. John both which therefore I have at large discoursed on above and I believe sufficiently shewn how false a Foundation these are of this belief But yet since our Author reminds us * Pag. 27 28. That against these no Argument taken from our Senses or Reason is valid I will beg leave to remind him of his own Assertion too * See Treatise 1. p. 14. That none can believe a thing true upon what Motive soever that he knows certainly to be false or which is all one certainly to contradict So that if our Reason then makes us certain of such a contradiction P. 21. Treat 1. we may be certain that there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation and when any Revelation tho NEVER SO PLAIN is brought we are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility From which Principle it seems to me to follow that were Hoc est Corpus meum as evident a proof of Transubstantiation as their own Authors confess it is not yet if our Sense and Reason tell us that there are certain Contradictions against the common Principles of Nature and the universal Sentiments of all Mankind no otherwise to be avoided but by taking those words in the sense in which we do we are then BOVND to interpret them so as to avoid these Impossibilities And this I am confident I have at large shewn above to be the Case and thither I refer the Reader II. Ground P. 28. §. xxv Their second Ground is founded upon the Authority of those Councils that have determined this Matter The Declaration as he calls it of the most Supreme and Vniversal Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former Times for the decision of this Controversy long before the birth of Protestantism These are great Words indeed but I wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable * These are his Synods at Rome Vercelles Tours Rome again An. 1059. and again An. 1078. Synods of particular Prelats such as are all those to which he refers us assembled against Berengarius were the most supream and universal Church-Authority For his little Reflection that they were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism I must tell him I doubt he is mistaken The Religion of Protestants like that of Papists is composs'd of two great parts Catholick Christianity common in some
undertaken to Anathematize all those who will not own her Authority and receive her Errors tho never so gross as Articles of Faith We are so fully convinced of the unreasonableness of her Pretences and of our own Liberty that we shall hardly be brought to submit our selves to the Conduct of such a blind Guide lest we sall into the same Ditch into which she her self is tumbled And it would certainly much better become our Author and his Brethren to consider how they can justify their Disobedience to their own Mother than to endeavour at this rate to lead us into the same Apostacy both to our Religion and our Church with them The Conclusion AND thus by the Blessing of God and the Advantage of a good Cause have I very briefly passed through this Author's Reflections and I am perswaded sufficiently shewn the weakness and falsity of the most of them If any one shall think that I ought to have insisted more largely upon some Points he may please to know that since by the importunate Provocations of those of the other Communion we have been forced too often to interrupt those Duties of our Ministry in which we could rather have wish'd to have employ'd our Time for these kind of Controversies which serve so very little to any purposes either of true Piety or true Charity among us We have resolved thus far at least to gratify both our selves and others as to make our Disputes as short as is possible and loose no more time in them than the necessary Defence of our selves and the Truth do require I have indeed pass'd by much of our Author's Discourses because they are almost intirely made up of tedious and endless Repetitions of the same things and very often in the same words But for any thing that is Argumentative or otherwise material to the main Cause I do not know that I have either let the Observation of it slip or dissembled at all the Force of it It was once in my thoughts to have made some Reflections in the Close upon the Changes of their Rituals in requital for our Author's Observations on the Alterations of our Liturgie but I have insisted longer than I designed already and shall therefore content my my self to have given the Hint of what might have been done and shall still be done if our Author or any in his behalf desire it of me In the mean time I cannot but observe the unreasonableness of that Method which is here taken from the Expressions of some of our Divines and the Concessions of others whose profess'd Business it was to reconcile if possible all Parties and therefore were forced sometimes to condescend more than was fit for the doing it and even these too miserably mangled and misrepresented to pretend to prove the Doctrine of our Church contrary to the express Declarations of the Publick Acts and Records of it This has been the endeavour of several of our late Writers but of this Discourser above any Had those worthy Persons whose Memory they thus abuse been yet living they might have had an ample Confutation from their own Pens as in the very Instance before us has been given them for the like ill use made by some among them of the pious Meditations of a most Excellent and Learned Father of our Church and who might otherwise in the next Age have been improved into a new Witness against us I do not think that Bp Taylour ever thought he should have been set up as a favourer of Popery who had written so expresly and warmly against it Yet I cannot but observe a kind of Prophetick Expression in his Book of the Real Presence which being so often quoted by these Men I somewhat wonder it should have slipp'd their Remark Where speaking of their Shifts to make any One they please of their side Real Presence §. xii n. 28. pag. 261. he has these words And I know no reason says he but it may be possible but a WITTY MAN may pretend when I am dead that in this Discourse I have pleaded for the Doctrine of the Roman Church We have now lived to see some of those WITTY MEN that have done but little less than this tho how Honest they are in the mean time I will not determine But I hope this Design too shall be from henceforth in good measure frustrated And therefore since neither their New Religion nor their New Advocates will do their Business since it is in vain that they either misrepresent their own Doctrine or our Authors in favour of it may they once please either honestly to avow and defend their Faith or honestly to confess that they cannot do it Such shuffling as this do's but more convince us of the weakness of their Cause and instead of defending their Religion by these Practices they only encrease in us our ill Opinion of that and lessen that good One which we willingly would but shall not always be able to conserve of those who by such indirect means as these endeavour to support it FINIS Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees By WILLIAM CAVE D. D. Octavo An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure Footing in Christianity concerning the Rule of Faith With some other Discourses By WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. 4o A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome to prove the Nullity of our Orders By GILBERT BVRNET D. D. Octavo An Abridgment of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England By GILB BVRNET D. D. Octavo The APOLOGY of the Church of England and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio a Venetian Gentleman concerning the Council of Trent Written both in Latin by the Right Reverend Father in God JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury Made English by a Person of Quality To which is added The Life of the said Bishop Collected and written by the same Hand Octavo The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL D. D. Bishop of â—ilmore in Ireland Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil in Matter of Religion concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience Octavo The Decree made at ROME the Second of March 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits and other Casuists Quarto A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome Quarto First and Second Parts A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue Quarto A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented Quarto An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church Quarto A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 4o A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8o A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome Quarto The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures Quarto The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24o An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in Matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England Quarto