briefly and compare our Faith and Practice in relation to the Sacrament which is the most Solemn branch of our Devotion For I shall ever acknowledge it as an obligation from you if you will be fair in this particular and communicate your own Thoughts freely without prevarication whether you can submit your Reason in this particular to that Doctrin of your Church that is so much against it Whither you can believe in your Conscience as it is openly profest that a Priest by Consecrating Bread and Wine according to the Missal can change their substance into that of God Or so Establish the Divinity in those Creatures or under the covert of their Accidents as really to make them or what you see upon the Table in their Shape to become a proper Object to be Worshipt and Adored For since nothing can be more absurd nor indeed more criminal in Religion than to apply God's Worship to any thing that is not God there is nothing less than a belief of this particular that can be pleaded by you to justifie your Practice when you Worship and Adore the Consecrated Host in the constant Exercise of your Publick Devotion Let us enquire therefore I beseech you into the foundation of this Faith and how this Notion which appears impossible to Mankind should come to have that Credit in the Church as to be made a Principle of the Christian Religion and not only be received as an Article of Faith but to be made the ground-work also of such a dangerous Practice § 8. The Church of Rome dogmatically tells us that our Blessed Saviour at the Institution of his Holy Supper changed the substance of the Bread and Wine into the substance of his own Body and Blood For saying of the Bread This is my Body and of the Wine This is my Blood and in both Expressions being literally to be understood by all Men his Expressions cannot be true except this change be really effected It being impossible in a literal Sense that the same thing at the same time can be real Bread and also the Body of Christ and therefore they believe that after the words of Consecration are pronounced Christ himself with his Body and Blood his Soul and his Divinity and not any longer Bread and Wine do really remain upon the Table and so they Adore the Consecrated Host as being really then the Person of Christ who is the Saviour God and Judge of all the World Now Sir if you will but seriously consider all those words which our Saviour Christ hath spoken on this Subject together with the end design and occasion of his speaking them it will not appear difficult to prove clearly to you First that those words of Christ are not thus literally to be interpreted but directly contrary to this Doctrin their true Sense is altogether Spiritual and Mystical And 2 â—ly That if they were literally to be understood by all Men even in the utmost Sense those words can bear yet they will neither assert what the Council of Trent Decrees nor justifie your Practice in Worshiping the Host § 9. First I say that the Words of our Saviour Christ in the Institution of this Sacrament cannot be understood in a literal Sense but must have a sigurative or mystical signification And this doth appear fully from the Nature of the thing the Design of the Institution the Occasion of the Expression and our Saviour's own Judgment as to their Interpretation As to the Nature of the thing it is a sufficient proof that any Text of Scripture is not literally to be understood by Christians if its common reading contradicts the Rules of Sense and Principles of Philosophy or destroys the ground-work of all certainty and knowledge and so roots up the foundation of Religion in general And if a Man by being a Christian is to take those words of Christ in a literal Sense and to believe that that is Flesh which by his sight touch tast and smell he fully and clearly discovers to be Bread all those recited mischiefs are the necessary consequence and there can be no Rule of any certainty in Religion In so much that no Man can be sure that there is a Bible or that any such words as these we treat of are Recorded in it or indeed that any thing else is written in order to his Salvation if he must not trust his Senses being rightly disposed in relation to a proper Object with a fit Medium If you say that this is an improper Object because it is a Substance when Accidents alone do incur the Senses I say that there is no other way to know a Substance but by the Accidents that are proper to it and if it were possible for all the Accidents that are proper to one Subject to inhere another it would be impossible to determine which is which or ever truly to distinguish any one thing from another But it is also evident that a Humane Body is the real thing we here treat of and that this is a proper Object for our Senses appears plainly to us from the practice of our Saviour in that he recurr'd unto them even after his Resurrection and made them the only Judges of his Bodily Substance Behold saies he Luke xxiv 39. my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have So that either this Body of Christ supposed in the Sacrament must be a proper Object for our Senses or it is not that Body of Christ wherewith he arose from the Dead And the Priest must create another Body such as our Saviour never had before he can adapt it to this Doctrin of the Sacrament It is therefore evidently a device of the School-Men to impose upon the Vulgar that they generally discourse thus of the Object of one Science in terms and notions that are peculiar to another and instead of Matter and Form wherein the Essence of a Body doth consist and which do evidently demonstrate that every Humane Body doth consist of Limbs hath Flesh and Bones with that Extent Shape and Dimensions that are proper to it and whereof all Mankind are equally sure and certain All their Disputations are about its Substance and its Accidents which are Metaphysical terms and may agree with a Spirit with whose Nature and Parts the wisest Men are unacquainted And therefore abstracting from the Senses wherein the least intelligent are sufficient Judges they confound our Understanding in such intricacies and quillets that even they themselves cannot explain their meaning And therefore I say that either our Senses must be Judges in this case as well as other Bodies or else that the Body of Christ is not a proper Body as Nestorius heretofore did Heretically assert it or else that God hath appointed here an irresistible deception of all Mankind continually in that which is most evident and sure to be relyed on and how agreeable these are
to the nature of Man or to the justice of God especially if he should punish us for being so deceived I refer to any Man of reason to determine I will not trouble you with the recital of any of those Arguments which demonstrate this Change to be impossible and that the Doctrin doth imply so many contradictions that it is no proper Object for Almighty Power But this I must desire you to observe that if a substantial change were made of the Elements by the words of Consecration then the act of the Apostles was manifestly different from the command of Christ whereon it was founded For nothing can be clearer from the Text than that our Saviour gave the Bread and commanded them to take and eat that is Bread the words of its Consecration being not yet pronounced If then they did eat another substance and not Bread who can truly say that they fulfilled the Commandment of the Lord or Received the Sacrament according to his order § 10. As to the Design in this most Sacred Institution it appears to be the same in relation unto Christians as that of the Passover was unto the Jews That as they did believe in a Messias that was to come and of whom their Sacrifices were but Types and Shadows and so were partakers of the Sacrifice that he was to offer by eating of those Sacrifices that did Typically represent it So we that now believe in a Messias already come should in a parallel manner become Partakers of the same Oblation and by an external act like unto what they did in every Circumstance we should obtain the benefit of that propitiatory Sacrifice and really and truly be made Partakers of it And therefore our Saviour Christ appointed that Bread and Wine should be received by his Disciples in the place and stead of his Body and Blood which were the real Sacrifice that he offered unto God for Man and very improper things to be actually eaten or drank by Christians and therefore he calls the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood not as being really the things themselves but as Instituted by him to represent them to us So that by a due participation of these Creatures according unto Christ's appointment it is certain that all Christians are partakers of that Sacrifice which he offer'd to God for them and the Bread and Wine being duly Consecrated and Received in the nature of a Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ is really and truly received by the Faithful in them not that the Elements are changed in themselves or that there is any real alteration of their substance but the act is Spiritual in respect of the Receivers who take them not for Food but as a Mystery in Religion and therefore they do not receive them in their common notion as they are Bread and Wine that is proper Food to nourish or sustain the Body but as they represent the Body and Blood of Christ and are appropriated by Faith to nourish and support the Soul And since then this Sacrament was ordained to become a Sacrifice to Christians as St. Augustinâ— tell us and that those Patriarchs of old who believed in a Messias that was to come were as actual Partakers of that Sacrifice which he hath offered as we can be For they all eat the same spiritual Meat and they all drank the same spiritual Drink 1 Cor. x. 3. Neither is there Salvation in any other Acts iv 12. And yet it was impossible that they should eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood according to the Letter because his Body was not framed yet nor actually born It is therefore rational to conclude that we are still Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ in the same manner that they were not in a Literal but a Spiritual participation Since the reception of them by Faith only was fully sufficient to the Salvation of the one and therefore is all that is necessary to the Salvation of the other § 11. And this gives us a fair light into the reason or occasion of this Figurative Expression in that the Sacrament of the Eucharist being Instituted by our Saviour in the place of the Jewish Passover which was now to be abolished many of the External Rites were still retained to shew that all those Types are now compleated And therefore as it was usual at the introduction of the Paschal Lamb for the Priest or some other of the Company to tell the People that this is the Lamb that was slain in Egypt when the Lord passed over the houses of our Fathers and slew the Egyptians And again after Supper was ended distributing Bread and Wine to every one in order was wont to tell them This is the Bread of Sorrow which our Fathers eat in Egypt Whereas all Men know that it could not possibly be that very Lamb that was slain nor that very Bread that was eaten in Egypt but another Lamb and other Bread Instituted by God's order in the stead or commemoration of it So our Saviour likewise at the Institution of the Sacrament using the same Phrase upon the like occasion ought to be understood in the same manner of expression And since it was in conformity to their constant way of speaking that when he Instituted Bread and Wine to be Received by Christians in the Commemoration of his own death as that Lamb was of the Passover he said of the Bread This is my Body and of the Wine This is my Blood we are to understand by it no more than if he had told us that they are Elements Sacramentally to be Received in the stead and commemoration of his Body and Blood So that although there is nothing Corporeally upon the Table after the Coâ—â—eâ—ration but the same things that were there before nor eatâ—â— by the Receivers but very Bread with the very same substance that it always had Yet in the notion of a Sacrament and as a Religious Mystery it is not to be received as meer or common Bread by any true or faithful Christian But we verily believe that the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ is actually and truly partaken of in those Elements and as the Church of England Emphatically expresses it The Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and Received by the Faithful in the Lord's-Supper § 12. This you cannot but know to be the Doctrin of the Sacrament as it is received in the Church of England and if you will consult Antiquity you shall find that it hath not only been the general Doctrin of the Universal Church but particularly of the Church of Rome in former Ages For the Antient Fathers generally speak of the Spiritual and Figurative Being of Christ's Body in the Sacrament and do expresly call the same thing at the same time both Bread and the Body of Christ which is impossible to be a truth in the Literal sense and therefore it is necessary to
understand it Mystically or reject those expressions as false and incongruous And it is also observable in other places when some of them fly higher in their Rhetorical expressions and to enflame the Zeal or to raise the Devotion of their Auditors who were apt to think too grosly of this Sacred Ordinance seem to express this change which you desire I say it is observable that they often speak not only beyond the truth and all that we believe but even the very utmost that you your selves will own and consequently there is no reliance upon such expressions as shew not the Faith but the Fancy of their Author Nay although it is apparent that the Roman Missal hath been alter'd since the days of St. Ambrose to make it more conformable to your present Doctrin Yet there is a memorable expression still retained in it in the very Prayer of Consecration wherein the Ancient Doctrin is sufficiently apparent For it is certain that no Man wou'd ever pray to God to grant him less than he expected to receive and yet it is obvious that although they pretend to a Transubstantiation yet they desire no more there than what we Pray for who do not believe it Their words are these Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quaesumus ut benedictam c. Facere digneris ut nobis corpus sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui c. Which Oblation we beseech thee O God to vouchsafe to render blessed c. that it may become to us the Body and Blood of thy most Beloved Son c. Since then the difference on debate is this whether the Elements in the Sacrament are changed as to their substance and so really made the Body and Blood of Christ in se in themselves as the Church of Rome asserteth or whether without any such Change or Alteration of their Substance they become Spiritually or Sacramentally so Nobis to us who do Receive by Faith the Body and Blood of Christ in them as the Church of England doth express it I say it is sufficiently apparent that the Composers of the Roman Missal have delivered their Opinion for us to be the same with that of the Church of England and not with the present Church of Rome So that the Ancient Doctrin of that Church is evidently for us and whatever is profest in point of Faith upon other occasions yet the truth in this place so far prevaileth as to be openly asserted whenever Mass is Celebrated among you § 13. But lastly this is not only the voice of Men but agreeable to the Declaration of Christ himself who directs all Christians not to understand him on this subject in a Literal Sense but to expound his words Spiritually as containing a Mystery For in the sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel he is very express as to the nature and design of this his Holy Institution as most of the Ancient Doctors have always understood him though Bellarmine for special Reasons is of another Opinion insomuch that if any Text of Scripture soundeth fair for Transubstantiation it is to be lookt for in that Chapter But we find in the conclusion that this was never intended by our Saviour For when his Disciples were offended at his Doctrin apprehending foolishly as St. Augustine observes that they must be Canibals in order to be Christians as if the eating of humane flesh was to be a Rite in their Religion he rectifies their thoughts and explains his meaning fully v 63. saying it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life that is as St. Augustine expounds it they are spiritually to be understood by you as containing a Mystery that will hereafter be apparent in the Institution of a Sacrament that will explain them And therefore it is observable that St. Paul calls the Eucharist Bread and not the Body of Christ but as it is received The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ For me being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all Partakers of that one Bread 1 Cor. x. 16 17. and in the following Chapter v. 26 27 28. even after an account given of the Consecration of it yet he is still express in calling it Bread and if words are to be understood always in a literal sense when no absurdity doth follow the Missal saith the same thing in the Prayer after Consecration calling it Panem sanctum vitae aeternae the Holy Bread of Eternal Life All which would strangely derogate from the nature of the thing if it were Christ's Body and not Bread which they discourse of But this is confirmed beyond all disputation by that expression of our Saviour at the Institution of it Do this in remembrance of me For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death 'till come 1 Cor. xi 26. Since first it contradicts the common form of speaking to remember a present Object that stands before us when we cannot make Reflections thus but upon absent things And secondly if Christ should actually come whenever the Sacrament is Administred then that Holy Institution is no longer to continue being to determine on our Saviour's coming especially when we know that it is no ravity even in the Scripture for a thing that represents or signifies another to bear the name or title of the thing represented § 14. If then Sir there is no advantage to a Christian in the Carnal Manducation of the Body of Christ as I suppose you will confess and it is â—vident to all Men that in point of Faith and as a Sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ are as really and truly received by the Faithful in the Church of England as in the Church of Rome You must needs acknowledge then that in this Point of Faith and Worship you have gotten no advantage by the change of your Religion but rather on the contrary in the Rules of your Devotion you hazard your Salvation upon an Opinion that may be false and more than probably is so for none not the least advantage if it should be true For if those Elements should not be changed by their Consecration according to your Fancy and you know that besides all the reasons that can be offered against it there are a multitude of Circumstances that may obstruct their Change grosser Idolatry cannot be committed than Men are daily guilty of in Worshiping the Host And if you will believe Câ—nsterus in his judgement on the Case and it is reasonable to allow him well acquainted with your Doctrin you will find that your Publick Devotion in this point of Worship doth exceed the very Heathens in their greatest Idolatry And yet on the other hand if those Elements should â—e changed as you unreasonably believe but no Man can prove by solid Argument it is
A LETTER TO A FRIEND Concerning his CHANGING HIS RELIGION IMPRMATUR June 23. 1692. R. BARKER LONDON Printed for R. Clavell at the Peacock in St. Paul's-Church yard 1692. The CONTENTS SHewing the reasonableness of any Man 's changing his Religion upon proper Motives and of what nature they are and wherein the scandal of such a change is truly given An enquiry is then made into the reasons of this Gentleman's Proceedings and those are observed to be chiefly two viz. That he might become more truly in the Communion of the Catholick Church and that he might be more Pure and Orthodox in his Faith and Worship § 1. The first of these Proposals iâ— examined and the Church of Rome is shewn not to 〈◊〉 the Catholick Church upon account either of its Authority or Comprehension The first is proved in that the Catholick Church was not establish'd by our Saviour under a Monarchical but an Aristocratical Government and this is shewn farther from the election and practice of the twelve Apostles That the Church of Rome is but a particular Church is also shewn from Scripture An Objection relating to St. Peter is answered The practice of the Apostles and the Bishops their Successours shews that their Government was in Society Several reasons are urged farther to prove that the Church of Rome cannot be the Catholick Church and that the Church of England as a particular Church hath equal right and as good a claim as she to all those Promises which are made unto the Church by our Blessed Saviour in the Gospel § 2. This is further shewn to have been the opinions even of the Church of Rome in former Ages and proved from her Decrees and Practice in the Sacrament of Baptism A Comparison is also made between the Church of Rome and that of the Donatists on this pretence and St. Augustine's Argument against the one applyed in terminis unto the other § 3. A Comparison is also made between the Church of Rome and Church of England as to terms of Communion and thereby it is shewn that according to his notion of Catholick he that lives in the Communion of the Church of England lives more in the Communion of the Catholick Church than any Member of the Church of Rome § 4. A further Comparison is made between the Churches as to the Universality of their Doctrin and thereby it is shewn that the Catholick Faith is much more truly profest in the Church of England than in the Church of Rome § 5. It is also shewn that in point of Doctrin the Church of England is more antient than the Church of Rome so that the old Religion appears evidently to be still profest there and that no new Doctrin was brought in but rather abolisht by the Reformation § 6. The second Motive is enquired into and examined and a brief Comparison in this point is made between the Churches shewing how the one is â—ounded on the Scriptures and is consonant to the Law of God and the Principles of Reason while the other hath no ground but a loose Tradition and Contradicts them both in her Doctrin and Religious Practice § 7. The Question is more particularly stated in that Doctrin and Practice that relates unto the Sacrament With a brief Observation of the unreasonableness of the one and the danger of the other as they now stand in the Church of Rome § 8. The Doctrin of the Church of Rome in this Point is laid down and two observations are made upon it First That our Saviour's words at the Institution of the Sacrament are not to be understood in a literal sense as she asserteth Secondly That if they were yet neither can her Doctrin be inferred from them nor her Practice be justified by them § 9. The first of these is proved 1st From the nature of the thing in that it contradicts our Senses which are shewn to be proper Judges in this Case as well as any other The imposition also of the Schoolmen is detected in treating on this subject in improper terms and farther it is also shewn that in this sense they cannot agree with the concomitant expressions as well before as after the Institution § 10. The same thing is proved 2dly From the design of the Institution which is shewn and explained and then compared with the Passover and other Sacrifices among the Jews and so both the Practice and the Benefits thereof are illustrated by shewing what they did and what they expected § 11. It is proved also 3dly From the occasion of that expression which is shewn to be a parallel Phrase constantly in use among the Jews at the Celebration of the Passover and so by the evident meaning of their words the sense of our Saviour is fully explained § 12. The Doctrin of the Church of England in this Point is shewn to agree with that of the Fathers and the ancient Doctrin of the Church of Rome her self This is shewn to be still evident in the Roman Missal although it hath been alter'd since the days of St. Ambrose to make it more conformable to the present Doctrin § 13. The former Observation is proved 4thly From our Saviour's own Declaration John vi Where he tells his Disciples that he is spiritually to be understood and therefore as is further observed not only St. Paul but even the aforesaid Missal calleth the Sacrament Bread after its Consecration § 14. Another Comparison is made between the Doctrin of the Church of Rome and that of the Church of England as to the consequences of them and thereby shewn that in the Church of Rome Men hazard their Salvation on the truth of an Opinion that may be false and more than probably is so for none not the least advantage if it should be true § 15. The other Observation also is propounded and therein it is shewn that our Saviour's words in the literal sense can only respect his Body and that too as it was dead and offer'd up to God in Sacrifice And several Reasons are offered thence to shew that this is not a proper Object for Divine Worship and therefore observed that the Council of Trent to justifie their Practice do strein the words abundantly beyond all that they can bear without any Reason or Authority for it § 16. Another danger is observed even in going to Mass as it is in the general Practice of the Church of Rome in that many are always present whenever the Sacrament is Administred who are not in a fit state to be Partakers of it and this is shewn from Scripture as well as the Practice of the Primitive Christians § 17. Some other Particulars of the like nature are proposed and briefly toucht to shew the further evidence of the Proposition discust And so the Conclusion is made with an Exhortation to return A LETTER TO A Friend c. SIR AS every Man's Salvation is his Principal Concern and ought to be the chief end of all his Undertakings