the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it there was no mention at all of this Article in the primitive Church And that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be denyed by any sober person who considers that it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerate times and argued and unsettled almost 1300 years after Christ And that it was so will but too evidently appear by the stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law. For Berengarius was by Pope Nicholaus commanded to recant his Errors in these words and to affirm Cap. Ego Bereng consecr dist 2. Verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum in Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sâ—cerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in the Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before 115 Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet this day it is renounced by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded says the Gloss will-lead unto Heresie But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reproved but being ashamed and disputed into a more sober understanding of their Hypothesis they spake more warily but yet differently from what they spake at first So it was and is in this Question at first they understood it not and it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sense to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best ages of the Church these following Testimonies do make evident Advers Marqion l. 4. c. 40. The words of Tertullian are these The Bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body The same is affirmed by Justin Martyr Contra Tryph. Judae The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion In Dialog contra Mar. Collectis ex Maximo tempore Commodi Severi Imper. Origen calls the Bread and the Chalice the Images of the Body and Blood of Christ And again that Bread which is sanctified by the Word of God so far as belongs to the matter or substance of it goes into the belly In Matt. 13. and is cast away in the secession or separation which to affirm of the natural and glorified Body of Christ were greatly blasphemous and therefore the Body of Christ which the Communicants receive is not the Body in a natural sense but in a spiritual which is not capable of any such accident as the Elements are Eusebius says Demonstr Evangel l. 1. c. 1 ult h. 2. that Christ gave to his Disciples the Symbols of Divine Oeconomy commanding the Image and Type of his own Body to be made St. Macarius says that in the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood and they that partake of the Bread that appears do spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ By which words the sense of the above cited Fathers is explicated For when they affirm that in this Sacrament is offered the Figure the Image the Antitype of Christs Body and Blood although they speak perfectly against Transubstantiation yet they do not deny the real and spiritual presence of Christs Body and Blood which we all believe as certainly as that it is not transubstantiated or present in a natural and carnal manner The same is also fully explicated by the good St. Ephrem The Body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from the sensible substance De sacris Anti och legibus a pud Photium l. 1. c. 229. and is undivided from a spiritual Grace For even Baptism being wholly made spiritual and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance I mean of Water saves and that which is born doth not perish St. Gregory Nazianzen spake so expresly in this Question as if he had undertaken on pupose to consute the Article of Trent Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal Supper Orat. 2. in Pasch but still in figure though more clear than in the old Law. For the legal Passover I will not be afraid to speak it was an obscure Figure of a Figure St. Chrysostom affirms dogmatically Epist ad Caes contr Haeres Apollinarii cit per Damasc Colect Senten Pp. contr Severianos edit per Tunian h. 23. in 1 Cor. that be fore the Bread 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 is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it To these very many more might be added but instead of them the words of St. Augustin may suffice as being an evident conviction what was the Doctrine of the primitive Church in this Question In Psalm 98. This great Doctor brings in Christ speaking thus to his Disciples You are not to eat this Body which you see or drink that Blood which my Crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you And again Christ brought them to a Banquet in which he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood for he did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body and that which is by all men called a Sacrifice is the Sign of the true Sacrifice in which the Flesh of Christ after his Assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance But in this particular the Canon Law it self and the Master of the Sentences are the best Witnesses De Consecrat dist 1. c. qui manducant c. prima quidem c. non hoc corpus c. quid paras in both which Chollections there are divers Testimonies brought especially from St. Ambrose and St. Augustin which whosoever can reconcile with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may easily put a Civet and Dog a Pidgeon and a Kite into couples and make Fire and Water enter into natural and eternal Friendships Theodoret and Pope Gelasius speak more emphatically even to the nature of things and the Philosophy of the Question Christ honoured the Symbols and Signs saith Theodoret not changing the Nature but to Nature
originem Dominicae Traditionis revertatur◠Cypr. Epist 63. Pamilianae editionis and in administring it to the People do not do that which Jesus Christ our Lord God the Teacher and Author of this Sacrifice did and taught I judged it to be agreeable to good Conscience and necessary to write to you about this matter that if any one be yet possessed with this Error he may by seeing the Light of Truth return to the root and original of our Lords Tradition And thus having establisht his foundation namely that nothing ought to be done contrary to the Institution of Christ in the first part of his Epistle he proves the necessity of using Wine in the Consecration of the Sacrament but in the later part he comes to consider the great inconvenience and mischief to the people that ensued from their being deprived of the Cup. And that which he chiefly takes notice of was a great decay and failure of Christian Courage occasioned as St. Cyprian supposes by this depravation of the Sacrament For in times of Persecution some learned from the Aquarians to abstain from drinking the Consecrated Wine least the smell of it should discover that they have been at the Christian Meetings in the Mornings St. Cyprians Words are these Caeterum omnis Religionis et ve ritatis Disciplina subvertitur nisi id quod spiritualiter praecipitur fideliter observetur nisi si sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis ve retur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi sic ergoincipit in persecutionibus a passione Christi fraternitas retardari dum in oblationibus discit de sanguine ejus et cruore confundi Cyp. Ep. 63. ubi supra But the discipline and good order of all Religion and Truth is overthrown unless what was spiritually commanded be faithfully observed But perhaps the case is that some persons in the Morning Sacrifices or Sacraments are afraid least by the savor of Wine they should smell of Christs Blood and so by this means our Christian Brethren in times of Persecution begin to be slack or backward in suffering for Christ while at the Celebration of the Sacrament they learn to be ashamed of Christs Blood. And a little after the same Author says Quomodo autem possumus propter Christem sanguinem fundere qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere How can we being asham'd to drink the Blood of Christ spill our Blood for Christs sake Besides in another Epistle the same S. Cyp. writing to Cornelius the Bishop of Rome concerning the restoring of certain delinquent Brethren who in times of Persecution had fallen into Idolatry but by Repentance deserved to be reconciled to the Church urges the necessity of their being admitted into Communion because that since new Troubles and Persecutions were coming on it would be necessary to arm and fortifie all Believers with the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and he insists particularly upon the necessiy of giving them the Sacramental Cup. His expressions are these that follow For after what a strange manner do we teach and excite them to lose their Blood in confessing the Name of Christ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione Nominis Christi sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Sanguinem Christi denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus si eos priùs ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure Communicationit non admittimus Cyp. Ep 54. Edit Pamel if we deny the Blood of Christ to them that are ready to undergo such a warfare And how do we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first by the right of Communion to drink our Lords Cup in the Church It is observable that S. Cyprian here pleads for the peoples receiving the Cup from the right of Communion that is from the right which accrewed to every one by his being made a member of the visible Church By this passage and the rest before cited it appears abundantly what the Judgment of this holy Martyr was that he thought all Christians obliged to receive the consecrated Wine and that the omission of it was a transgression of our Lords Commandment and the destruction of several Christian virtues especially of that courage and resolution wherewith all Believers ought openly to profess the Name of Christ I might produce many more ancient Witnesses of great credit to make good what is here by me affirmed but I shall content my self for brevitys sake with two others whose Authority doubtless ought to be past all exception with the Roman Catholicks because they were Popes or Bishops of Rome for anciently the Title of Pope was given to any eminent Bishop The first of these is Leo the first of that name that was Bishop in Rome but before I produce his Testimony it is necessary to observe that although his words are levelled against the Manichees who superstitiously abhorred Wine and therefore avoided receiving the Sacramental Cup yet Leo's words do abundantly shew what his Judgment was concerning that necessity which as he thought did lye indispensibly upon all Communicants to partake of the mystical Blood of Christ Consequently says he when they venture to be present at our mysteries Cumque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutius lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant quod ideò vestram scire volumus sanctitatem ut nobis hujusmodi homines his manifestentur indiciis quorum fuerit deprehensa sacrilegia simulatio notati proditi à Sanctorum societate Sacerdotali Authoritate pellantur Serm. 4. in Quadrages they after such manner do comport themselves in partaking of the Sacraments that sometimes they very safely pass undiscerned with an unprepared mouth they receive the Body but altogether avoid the drinking of the Blood of our Redemption which I would have you holy Brethren therefore to take no tice of that by these indications such men as these may be discovered to us and that they whose sacrilegious dissimulation is sound out by being observed and detected may be driven from the society of the Saints by the Power of the Church Hence it is manifest to any man of reason that St. Leo lookt upon this practice of the Manichees as a most wicked and sacrilegious thing and he decrees no less a penalty for it than Excommunication Now it cannot be their inward and invisible superstition that he would have notice taken of but it must be their external comportment in avoiding the consecrated Wine Moreover if receiving the Cup had been an indifferent thing and esteemed so in Leo's age then the omission or declining of it would have been no distinctive mark to discover the Manichees from the Orthodox or regular Communicants For both might have done the same thing and so
she hath authority to impose things on my Belief that thwart my Senses and contradict common Principles of Reason This monstrous and lately framed figment of human invention I mean the Doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the time it began to be owned publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrin and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduced For all the World knows that by their own Parties by (a) In 4. lib Sentent d. 11. q. 3. Scotus by (b) ibid. q. 6. Ocham (c) Leâ—t 40. in can missae Biel Fisher Bishop (d) Cap. cont captivit Babyl of Rochester and divers others whom (e) De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect 2. dicit Bellarmine calls most acute and learned men It was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of Novelty But further we know that it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Innocent III. 1215 Years after Christ that since that pretended (f) Venere quidem tunc multa in confultationem nec decerni tamen aperte quic quam potuit Platina in vita Innocent III. determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have no more been satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirmed that the Article is not expressed in Scripture (g) apud Suar. tom 3. disp 46. sect 3. loc com lib. 3. fund 2. particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckoned And therefore if it was not expressed in Scripture it will be clear that they made their Article out of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it be there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith. But that we may put it past Argument and Probability it is certain That as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not taught at all as a Catholick Doctrine or as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now in order to make this appear we have the Confessions of many Authors very much esteemed by the Church of Rome whose authorities have been most exactly collected and examined by the learned Bishop Taylor to whom I own my self much indebted for my Conversion For the further manifestation of the incontroulable truth of this point we need no other proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the great Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says That before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses Lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23 Sect. unum tamen Sum. l. 8. c. 20. and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says It was not antient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of Ignorance saying He talked at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory VII nor that consent of Fathers which to little purpose he had heaped together Rem Transubstantionis Patres nè attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuites in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touched or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation Discurs modest p. 13. And in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confessed He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these L. 4. Senten dist 11 lit a. If it be enquired what kind of Conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or another kind I am not able to define it only I know that it is not formal because the same Accidents remain the same Colour and Tast To some it seems to be substantial saying that the Substance is changed that it is done essentially to which the former authority seems to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things if the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ which before was not the Body then every day some substance is made the Body and Bloud of Christ which was not his Body before And to day something is Christs Body which yesterday was not and every day Christs Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the conception These are his words which I have remarked not only for Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written about (a) Ad Annum 1160. fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran (b) Ad Annum 1215. Council And therefore it made haste in so short a time to pass from a disputable Question to an Article of Faith. But even after the Council (c) Secund. Buchol An. Dom. 1271. sed secund Volaterranum 1335. in 4. lib. Sen. tent dist 11. q. 1. sect propter tertium Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintained that even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained and although he says that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it be Christs Body and yet the matter of Bread remain And if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of Bread does not remain But here his Reason was overcome by Authority and he durst not affirm that which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account of But by this it appears that the Opinion then was but in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain and the Opinion was not determined at Lateran as it is now held at Rome It is also plain that it is a stranger to antiquity De Transubstantiatione â—anis in Corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio De Heraes l. 8. verbo Indulgentia said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of Transubstantiating the Bread into Christs Body I know the modesly and interest of
adding Grace Sentent lib. 4. dist 11. dialog 1. c. 8. which Symbols are seen with the title of his Body and Blood. Dialog 2. c. 24. For neither do the mystical Signs recede from their Nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen touched c. And for a Testimony that will be esteemed infallible I alledge the words of Pope Gelasius De Duabus Nat. contra Eutych Nestor videatur Picherel in Dissert de missa expositione verbo rum Institutionis coenae Domini Truly the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive are a divine thing for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature yet ceases not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine And truly an image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries If the Patrons of this novelty be not yet satisfied by what is already said in reference thereunto let them see and diligently mark these following Councils Ancyranum anno Domini 314. Can. 2. Neocaesariense anno eodem Can. 13. Nicenum 1. an 325. in act lib. 2. c. 3. Laodicenum ann 364. Can. 25. Carthagiense ann 397. Can. 24. Aurelianense ann 541. Can. 4. Toletanum 4. an 633. Can. 17. Bracarense ann 675 C. 2. Toletanum 16. ann 693. C. 6. Constantinopolitanum in Trullo ann 691. Can. 32. and if there be any shame in them they will never brag of Antiquity to patronize them therein for they are diametrically repugnant unto them in this behalf Now from these premises I am not desirous to infer any odious consequences in reproof of the Church of Rome but I think my self bound in conscience to swerve from it and judge it my duty to give caution and admonition to all other well disposed Christians to do so likewise 1. That they be not abused by the Rhetorical words and high expressions alledged out of the Fathers calling the Sacrament the Body or Flesh of Christ For we all believe it is so and rejoyce in it But the Question is after what manner it is so whether after the manner of Flesh or after the manner of spiritual Grace or sacramental consequence I with the holy Scriptures Jo. 6.36 and primitive Fathers affirm the latter the Church of Rome against the words of Scripture and the Explication of Christ affirm the former 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under the pretence of being ancient since although the Roman Error had been so long admitted and is ancient in respect of our days yet it is an Innovation in Christianity and brought in by Ignorance Power and Superstition very many ages after Christ 3. I exhort them that they remember the words of Christ when he explicates the Doctrine of giving us his Flesh for Meat and his Blood for Drink that he tells us Ut supra the Flesh profiteth nothing but the Words which I speak are Spirit and they are Life 4. That if these ancient and primitive Doctors above cited say true and that the Symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties even after they are blessed and when they are received and that Christs Body and Blood are only present to Faith and Spirit that then whoever attempts to give Divine Honour to these Symbols or Elements as the Church of Rome does attempts to give a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God and that then this evil passes further than an error in the understanding for it carrys them to a dangerous practice which cannot reasonably be excused from the crime of Idolatry To conclude this matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous that I need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous Questions which are sometimes handled by them of the Church of Rome concerning this divine mystery As if a Priest going by a Bakers Shop and saying with an Intention Hoc est Corpus meum whether all the Bakers Bread be turned to Christs Body whether a Church-mouse does eat her Maker whether a man by eating the consecrated Symbols does break his fast for if it be Bread and Wine he does not and if it be Christs Christs Body and Bloud naturally and properly it is not Bread and Wine Whether it may be said the Priest in some sense is the Creator of God himself whether his Power be greater than the Power of Angels and Archangels For that it is so is expresly affirmed by Cassenaeus Gloria mundi 4. num 6. Whether as a Bohemian Priest said that a Priest before he says his first Mass be the Son of God but afterward he is the Father of God and Creator of his Body But these things are too bad and therefore I love not to rake in so filthy channels but give only general warning to all them whom I wish well to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their new sound Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such Doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propsitions frequently do issue As the Tree is such must be the Fruit. But I hope it may be sufficient to say that what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no Faith obligeth me and no Reason can endure CHAP. IV. Of the Half Communion THE fourth Motive of my Conversion is another piece of Novelty I was much dissatisfied with and that is the Half Communion And the more I inquired into the Word of God and the Sense of the primitive Church concerning it the more I found cause to dislike it Certainly the common Reason of all men that are Christians cannot but suggest unto them that every Command Order and Institution of Christ ought to be accounted extremely sacred and that whatever he has appointed should be observed most religiously without any deviation from the Rule which he hath delivered Now upon examination I found that the Church of Rome had made a very unwarrantable and a strange alteration in the Administration of the Sacrament by detaining the Cup from the people and therefore I hope no rational man can blame me for rejecting Communion with her and adhering to that Religion of the Reformed Church where I saw the Command of our Saviour carefully observed and his Institution most obsequiously followed And because I do here enter upon an Accusation of the Church of Rome it is reasonable I should in the first place set down what I apprehend to be the Doctrine of that party concerning this matter and then I will endeavour to demonstrate that both the Doctrine and Practice of it are repugnant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine and Practice of the primitive Church It is pretended by the Romanists that they have made no change in any thing material or essential to the Sacrament For they resolutely affirm