was turmoiled reflecting upon the prodigious Doctrine of Transubstantiation alone sufficient to fright rational believers from the Romish Communion By it we are required to believe that when the Priest pronounces those few Latin words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body minding what he says the substance of all the bread he lays before him is destroyed in a moment and instead of it our Saviour Jesus is placed under that figure of bread personally and corporally A wonder though a dayly one yet far surpassing that other which once happened in the world when God hearkning to the voice of Joshua made the Sun and Moon stand till he compleated his Victory against the Enemy invading Gibeon Josh 10.12 And to support this wonder a great number of others most stupendious are chained to it As First that those accidents of white and round remaining do subsist without any substance to rest upon a thing repugnant to their nature and to all humane understanding Secondly that the same accidents being converted either into vermin by corruption or into flesh and bloud by nutrition in him that eats them should produce a substance which is to give what they have not a thing surpassing all kind of power Thirdly that a proper well proportion'd body as that of our Saviour glorious in Heaven must come down and be fitted to every Wafer and to every the least crumb of them Fourthly that the same Body must lye sit or stand or however be in a hundred thousand places at the same time All these monstrous miracles and more we must swallow to support that mystery in spight of all reason to the contrary without any pertinent Text of Scripture to ground it upon nay many Texts opposing it as we shall hereafter declare and no necessity urging to it either for verifying the words of our Saviour in the institution of this blessed Sacrament or for the effects of it St. 1â— 15 Not for verifying the words seeing our Saviour in the same tenor said I am the true vine without any alteration either in his Person or in the Vine And St. Paul saith of his Corinthians 2 Cor. 12 27. ye are the Body of Christ yet meaning no conversion of substances Nor for the effects of the Sacrament Christ being able to convey with the worthy receiving of Bread and Wine what spiritual graces he pleaseth without any substantial alteration in the Elements as in the Waters of Baptism he affordeth the soveraign grace of Regeneration without any alteration in the substance of the Water The like repugnance I felt in believing their prodigious Doctrine of Indulgences Purgatory Worship of Saints and Images and other Points controverted with them but smother'd my doubts while in Spain partly fearing the severity of that Countrey in proceeding against Opposers of their Doctrine partly amused with the supposition that the Church and Pope of Rome were Infallible in their Decrees touching matters of Faith and so might stand with security to their Declarations And finally perswaded by my Catechists that it was a mortal Sin to admit willingly even a doubt in Matters of Faith A terrible yoke reaching to the thoughts of the heart but conducent to their purpose of keeping in their people by right or wrong With these Generalities I quieted in some sort my mind while I could see none that would seriously oppose those Tenents nor know the Arguments against them but by relation of Romish Writers fashioning them so as they might better receive their stroke For though by occasion of my Employment of teaching controversies in the University of Salamanca some years I had a Licence from the Inquisitor General of Spain to read prohibited Books yet the Prohibition was so severe that I could never come by any Book of their Opposers But Divine Providence leading me to this Countrey I met with persons of excellent wisedom and great integrity who in close and serious Disputes gave me a different light and help to find out the truth The chiefest of all was the Most Reverend Father in God Thomas Lord Archbishop of Cashell who at his coming to that See having notice of me and pittying I should continue in errours sought carefully after me and finding me out with admirable zeal and great dexterity dictated by Christian charity set upon me with solid Arguments of Holy Scripture Councels Fathers and Histories and gave me to view several learned Authors representing the Errours of the Roman Church in all the points controverted to which I listened the more willingly because I saw a vein of Charity and Zeal of Union among Christians run through all his discourses acknowledging the Church of Rome to be a part of the Catholick Church though not the Catholick Church as they speak excluding other Christian Congregations from that honourable Title reverencing what in them was good as the belief of Scripture and Christian Creeds the Practice of Devotion and Piety and onely reproving the Superstructures of Erroneous Practises introduced contrary to the Institution of Christ and Stile of the Primitive Church entertaining a charitable hope of the Salvation of many of them that went on with simplicity of heart and blameless ignorance of the Errours they were bred in All which sympathizing with my own temper and dictates in relation to all Christian Congregations got in my mind a special respect and regard to his reasons I replied to them with sincerity and liberty according to the principles I was instructed in Where a clear Text or pressing reason was deficient I appealed as to a Sanctuary to the Infallibility of the Church that in things surpassing our comprehension we were to captivate our understanding to the obedience of Faith proposed to us by the Church of God To secure this refuge and have it in a readiness I framed to my self and proposed to his Grace this kind of Demonstration That by natural evidences I was convinced there was a God of infinite Goodness wisedom and power That to these attributes it belonged he should provide for Man-kind means for obtaining their end of everlasting bliss That by revealed Oracles common to all Christians I believed he sent down his Son Jesus Christ for this purpose in humane nature and to shew by his Example and Doctrine a sure way to eternal happiness And providing not only for the age he lived in but for all times to come he left upon earth a Church furnished with convenient Laws for the foresaid end And whereas he foretold himself that in future times there should arise Heresies and Controversies as it is the nature of men it became his wisedom and goodness to appoint a visible Judge with infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost to determine all Controversies emergent which Judge was no other than the Pope of Rome Successor of St. Peter to whose definitions therefore we ought to stand and so quiet our minds The former part of this Demonstration had a grateful acceptance with his Grace as
in several verses after making mention of that Consecrated Element calls it still Bread as often as you eat this Bread Whosoever shall eat this Bread c. In all which St. Paul doth but conform himself to the words of our Saviour which he relateth exactly as set down by St. Luke in the 22th chapter of his Gospel v. 19. And he took Bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me And when our Saviour himself thus declareth his words to be in a figurative sense after an usual and plain manner of speaking it is a disorder to run to a violent explication of them containing wonders surpassing humane understanding without any probable ground in the holy Text as the Papists do to maintain their doctrine with this or the like gloss This is my Body that is the thing contained under those Forms is by conversion and substantial transmutation my Body So as pretending to stick to the letter they only keep the sound of the words and to give them sense for their purpose they unaware produce a trope or something darker a paradox repugnant to all humane reasoning and nothing coherent with the context We agree all in calling the holy Eucharist a Sacrament why should we not then agree in taking the expressions touching it in a Sacramental way A Sacrament in common is a sign of a sacred thing Signum rei sacrae as Divines do ordinarily define it Why may not the Sacrament of Christ's Body be called a sign of his Body Why may not we understand that to be the meaning of Christ's words when taking the Bread he said This is my Body to wit this is the sign of my Body It being usual to call Sacramental signs by the name of the things signified by them As St. Augustine testifyeth Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Aug. to 2 ep 23. ad Bonifac saying Sacraments are signs which often do take the name of those things which they do signifie and represent And to our purpose addeth that after a certain manner the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is the Body of Christ So the Lamb being a sign of the Passover is called the Passover Mat. 26.17 Exo. 12.11 The Rock being a sign of Christ suffering for us is called Christ Vt Baptismus dicitur Sepulchrum sic hoc est Corpus meum Aug. con Faust li 20. c. 21 and the Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 and Baptism the sign of Christ's Burial is called Christ's Burial which St. Augustine applyeth to our purpose saying As Baptism is called Christ's Burial so is the Sacrament of the Body of Christ called his Body Besides Bellarmine Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum cum signum daret corporis sui Aug. to 6. cont Adaman cap. 12. and all other Romish Writers do confess being not able to deny it that the words of our Saviour touching the second part of this Sacrament to wit the Cup are sigurative This Cup is the New Testament of my Bloud Where they acknowledge a Trope in the word Cup or Calice taking it for that which is in the Cup. Why will not they likewise admit the former words relating to the Bread to be figurative Non negamus in verbo calix tropum esse Bellarm. de Euch. l. 1. c. 11. such pressing reasons moving to it and such terrible inconveniences attending their construction as hereto has been and after shall be further declared Now that the most Reverend Fathers of that happier Age taught by Christ and his Apostles were of our Opinion taking the words of our Saviour in a Figurative sense and the Eucharistical Bread a Type or Sign of his sacred Body is clearly seen by their Writings such as could escape the blots of the Roman Expurgatory Vererable Denis Areopagita was ignorant of Transubstantiation and so distinguished between the substantial signs and Christ signified by them saying By those Reverend signs and Symboles Christ is signified Dionis Areopagita Eccles hierar c. 2. I no Dionisiq cap hier 3 Eucharistiam vocat ant typon Belar li. 2. de Eu char c. 15. n. sed hoc and the faithful made partakes of him He calleth the Sacrament a Type even after Consecration as Bellarmin himself confesseth So that according to St. Denis the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament are Types and Symboles which is to say figures and signs of the Body and Blood of Christ though not bare signs but really exhibiting Christ and his Spiritual grace to the faithful duly disposed which being St. Denis his expression fully agreeth with the belief of the Church of England in this particular St. Chrisostom delivereth clearly the same Doctrine Chrisest epist ad ad Caesar coâ—tr haeres Apollinar saying that before the Pread is sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread but it is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it But St. Austin is most eminent in clearing this point where he bringeth in Christ thus speaking to his disciples Augâ— in Psa 98. you are not to eat this Body which you see or to Drink that Bloud which my crucifiers shall powr forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you Contra Adamantium cap 12. And again he saith that Christ brought them to a banket in which he commended to his Disciples the figure of his Body and lood For he did not doubt to say This is my Body Contra â—â—austum Manichaeum when he gave the sign of his Body And in another place he saith that which by all men is called a Sacrifice is the sign of the true Sacrafice in which the flesh of Christ after his assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of remembrance Theodoret is more emphatical upon this subject saying Theodoreus Dialog 2 c. 24. Christ honoured the Symboles and the Signs which are seen with the title of his Body and Blood not changing the nature but to nature adding grace For neither do the mistical signs recede from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen and touched c. I will conclude these testimonies with one that haply may carry more weight if not deemed Infallible I mean of Pope Pelagius speaking thus Pelagius Papa de duabus naturis contra Eurichem Nestori um vide Picherel in dissert de missa expositione verborum institutionis caenae Domini Pag. 14. Truly the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive is a Divine thing for that by it we are made partakers of the Divine nature and yet it ceases not to be the substance or
nature of Bread and Wine And truly an Image and similitude of the Body and Bloud of Christ is celebrated in the Action of the mysteries I am to suppose it will be replyed for some exception must be conceived against evidences so clear and executive that these testimonies of the Fathers are not to be seen thus in their more corrected editions which I have reason to believe having seen the venerable writings of the most ancient and grave Fathers of the Church both Greek and Latine defaced with large blots wheresoever they were found opposite to the present Tenents and practice of the Roman Church according to the direction of the Roman Expurgatory They pretend that Protestants have inserted into the Books of the Fathers those clauses favouring their own Doctrine But who can believe that so many weighty Volumes making up great Libraries should be newly printed to receive those supplies that so many clear sentences concording with the context should be so artificially conveyed into the very heart and marrow of the Homilies of the Fathers The contrary is the more credible to me I having seen very ancient Libraries which never came under the hands of a Protestant expurged of such clauses and sentences according to the Rule of the Roman Expurgatory Besides this Scot. in 4. dis 11. q. 3. Ocham ib. q. 6. Biel lect 40 in Canon Missae Râ—ffens c. 1. o. 1. controv captiv Balil Scotus Ocham Biel Fisher Bishop of Rochester Bassolis Caietan Melchior Canus and others many eminent Schoolmen have affirmed that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible And certainly it was no Article of Faith before the Lateran Council declared it for such 1200. years after Christ as Scotus and others do affirm And even after this declaration several of their chief Teachers continued affirming that Article not to be contained in Scripture Bassolis Caiâ—tan apâ—d Suar. to 3 Disp 46. sec 3. Caâ—us loâ— com l. 3. sun 2. especially â—assolis Caietan Melchior Canus and so they coined it of their own heads for they could not declare it to be revealed if it was not in Scripture Their doctrine of Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence of our Saviour in the Sacrament of the Altar being thus ill grounded consider how desperate is their resolution in giving to the consecrated wafer the Worship of Divinity nay greater than ever they give to the true undoubted God as is well known to such as have seen the sumptuous pomp of Spain and other Popish Countries in adoring the Consecrated Host Even standing to their own principles they can never be absolutely certain of Christ's Corporal Presence under those Forms of Bread That depending as themselves teach from the intention of the Priest consecrating and his due Ordination and this later again depending from the intention of the Bishop that ordained him and his legal Ordination and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be known certainly upon any occasion as Bellarmine Vega and all their Writers commonly do confess Bellar. li. 3. de justif c. 8. What blindness therefore is it to give Divine Worship to a thing they know not certainly to be more than a piece of bread Vega lib. 9. de justif c. 17. Some pressed with this Argument did answer that they were free from Idolatry in their practice herein because they believe that host to be God But upon this account the Egyptians worshipping the Sun for God and the Israelites adoring the Golden Calf believing it was the true God that brought them out of Egypt and the grossest Idolaters that ever were may plead for excuse from Idolatry alledging unwilful mistake To this again some of them reply that they do not barely suppose Christ to be really present under the Form of bread but that they know and believe it upon the same ground and motives upon which they believe that Christ is God and consequently to be adored Whereby certainly they give great advantage to the enemies of Christ's Divinity seeing they make the truth of these two things equal that is Bellar. de Christo l. 1. c. 4. the Divinity of Christ and Transubstantiation And of the untruth of this bold Assertion I will take learned Bellarmine for judge who when he proves the Divinity of Christ goes through nine several classes of Arguments of which six are wholly out of Scripture with uncontrollable strength and admirable clearness But being to prove Transubstantiation out of Scripture his only argument is from those words of our Saviour Matth. De Sacr. Euchar. l. 3. c. 19. 26. Take eat this is my body And finding that proof not clear enough appeals to the Authority of Councils and Fathers concluding the chapter thus Though in the words of the Lord there may be some obscurity or ambiguity that is taken away by the Councils and Fathers of the Church and so passes to that kind of proof But whatsoever be of Scripture for Transubstantiation it is intolerable boldness to say there is the same reason for the adoration of the Host as for Christ's Divinity it self whereas for the one we have a plain command in Scripture and for the other nothing like it St. Paul tells that all the Angels are commanded to worship the Son of God Heb. 1.6 and that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in Heaven Phi. 2.10 in Earth and under the Earth And St. John telleth from his Master's mouth that the Heavenly Father commanded that all men should honour the Son even as they do the Father Jo. 5.23 But where is the least intimation given that we are to worship Christ in the Sacramental Bread supposing him present there If you answer the general command extendeth to him where ever he is present I say you may upon that account as well worship him in the Sun and in the Moon and in any other bread for in all he is present as God I will conclude this Point with answering the argument I saw taken for the most weighty against our Doctrine hitherto declared of taking the Sacrament of the Altar for a commemoration of our Saviour and spiritual partaking of his blessed Body and Bloud for the food of our souls to life everlasting without any real transmutation of the substances That if the Jews did take his words in this sense they could not in reason strive among themselves saying John 5.52 How can this man give us his flesh to eat nor his Disciples say This is an hard saying who can hear it And Christ replying did not reprehend their misunderstanding his words but repeated his former doctrine saying Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man ye have no life in you This argument I once over-valued but considering it better I look upon it as a tacit censure of Christ's reply for non pertinent to satisfie the Objection of his Hearers Shall we pretend to understand their meaning better than Christ