which the ingredients of a humane body are exposed unto To what is received in the Eucharist the primitive Church in relation to the body attributes the power of Nutrition The Analogy of Faith obligeth us to believe that God will not command inhumanity But if the sence of the Church of Rome be true the greatest inhumanity is practised according to his Will What is more savage than to eat the body of a living man much more must it be to champ with our Teeth and swallow down the living Body of our blessed Lord to whom supreme Veneration is due This made a Pagan to say Who dost thou think Cott. in Cicer. de nat Decr. l. 3. can be so mad as to believe that to be his God which he eats It was an abomination to the Aegyptians to eat with the Hebrews Gen. 43.32 The Chaldee paraphrast gives the reason because the Hebrews eat those Cattle which the Aegyptians use to worship Those words except ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Joh. 6.55 give no countenance to what is asserted by the Church of Rome By Flesh is meant the bread spoken of v. 51. The bread that I will give you is my flesh and by the Bread we are to understand our blessed Lord himself I am the bread of life v. 35. and by eating believing on him as is evident by the consequent words he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst As eating and drinking satisfie our natural appetite so believing in Christ our spiritual By faith we draw out of his fulness and plenitude a supply of our necessities This spiritual Sence is pointed at v. 56. and very agreeable to the manner of speaking amongst the Jews with whom Christ conversed when he spoke the words under consideration Maimon More Nevoâ— par 1. c. 30. The Hebrews use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comedere not only to express the feeding upon that which conduceth to the nourishment of the body but likewise the acquisition of Learning and Wisdom such as faith imports which tends to the nutrition of the Soul Psal 33. or 34 v. 2. S. Basil says that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual mouth of the inward Man With this we receive the impressions made by external objects and ruminate upon and digest them by meditation All this being considered it is evident that Transubstantiation is contrary to the Holy Scripture 2. Antiquity Those who assert the Body of Christ to be corporally present in the Sacrament and the substance of the Bread and Wine not speak contrary to the sence of all the primitive Fathers Ignatius who lived in the first Century 〈…〉 calls that which is broken and given in the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr in the second Century Apol. 2. stiles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and attributes to it a nutritive power in relation to the body Tertullian in the third Century asserts L. 4 cont Marc. that Christ made the bread which he took to be his body that is a figure of his body Origen says L. 8. cont Celsum we have a symbol of thanksgiving to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread which is called the Eucharist S. Cyprian affirms 〈…〉 that the Lord calls the bread compounded of many grains his Body Eusebius in the fourth Century terms L. 1 â—emon Evan. c. ult what is received in the Sacrament symbols of the Body and blood of Christ Cyril of Jerusalem stiles it Bread and Wine Catech. Mystagog 1.3 and compares the change which is made by consecration to that in consecrated Oil which doth not lose its old Nature but is dedicated and set apart to a higher use and purpose S. Ambrose affirms L. 4. de Saâ— c. 4. that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament sunt a â—â—â—e panis vinum altho changed into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ Gregory Nissen owns that which he calls the Body of Christ by the name of Bread Orat. de San. Bapr and expresseth at large that the Bread and Wine being Consecrated retain their pristine nature even as Baptismal Water an Altar a Priest do after Consecration has passed upon them Gaudentius represents the Sacrament as an image of the passion and figure of the Body and Blood of Christ Tract 2. in Exo. S. Chrysostome in the fifth Century useth these words Epist ad Casâ—arium Monashum Before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread when the Divine Grace hath sanctified it by means of the Priest it loseth the name of Bread and is held worthy to be called the Lord's Body altho the nature of the Bread doth remain in it and is not called two bodies but the body of the Son S. Austin says Ad Adamantum â— 12. That the Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body Cyril of Alexandria asserts L. 4. c. 14. in Evang. Joan. that our Lord gave fragments of Bread saying Take eat This is my Body Theodoret affirms 1. Dial. cont Eutyc that our Saviour honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Gelasius is of the same mind De duabus Christi naturis The Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing by means whereof we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the substance of the Bread and Wine doth not cease to be Bellarmine in his Polemical Discourse concerning the Eucharist useth most of the names which I have mentioned to a contrary purpose and brings them into the field with a great deal of pomp His policy seems to resemble that of a great Commander When he had drawn up his Souldiers into a military order and was ready to engage the enemy a great part of them declared they would not fight He being not in a capacity to retreat with honour or security told them that the only kindness which he desired of them was to march to a Hill a little way of and there be Spectators of the courage and fate of their fellow Souldiers hoping they might appear to the enemy as a Reserve and prove as great a discouragement to them as if they had actually engaged them I cannot imagine why these antient Fathers who have so positively declared in the Testimonies above-cited that they will not fight should be continued in view except it be with the like design to impose upon the Faith of those who are strangers to their intentions To the Authorities already produced I might add many more which do evidently manifest that the Church was a stranger to the doctrin of Transubstantiation for many hundred years What might be alledged I will sum up in the following particulars 1. They all agree in an imitation of the stile of Scripture and
call the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ 2. They say that they are not so essentially but figuratively and therefore stile them signs Symbols Figures Antitypes Memorials It is usual to call the sign and the thing signified by the same name 3. They affirm that after Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine remains and the change made is only in respect of Use Office and Dignity 4. They say That they nourish our flesh and blood and have the same effect that other food has and therefore they use to give the remains of the Euchariscical Bread to boyes and to abstain from the Communion upon Fasting days 5. They assert that wicked men do not eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ but interpret the eating of his flesh Jo. 6. the receiving of him in a spiritual manner namely by Faith 6. When they deny the Eucharist to be a figure or sign they mean a bare sign The Sacrament is more than so It feals and exhibits It is a means whereby we receive the Body and Blood of Christ not only the benefits of them but Christ himself in a spiritual manner as crucified for us and is a real pledge to assure us thereof Tho' the crucified body of Christ is in Heaven yet that spirit which dwells in it being communicated to a worthy Receiver in the Sacramental action we are made to drink into one Spirit it produceth such a union betwixt us and Christ Jesus as laies a clear foundation of Communion with and participation of him 7. When they say there is a mutation in the nature of the Bread they mean by nature the use and property only as is manifest by their own explications Before Consecration it was appropriated to the nourishment of the body but now by Consecration it is exalted to a higher purpose A new dignity is put upon it It becomes a means whereby a worthy Communicant gains Communion with our blessed Lord. 8. When it 's said That the Senses are deceived and no competent judges of the mutation this may be very true altho' the change be Sacramental only The change is not the proper object of sense but of faith The knowledge of it with its effects is conveyed to us by a Divine Testimony extant in the holy Scriptures 9. When it is affirmed That under the species of Bread is given the Body and under the species of Wine the Blood by Species we must not understand the Accidents without their proper subjects This apprehension never entred into the thoughts of the antient Fathers They were perfect strangers to this kind of Philosophy S. Aust l. 4. cal â—â— Tâ—in Serm. de Temp. 38. S. Ambr. l. 4. de Init. By species they understand the specifical nature of a thing and by the species of Bread and Wine True Bread and True Wine as is manifest to any who consult their discourses 10. Where it is said That the Lord who changed Water into Wine could change in the Eucharist Wine into Blood the intention of Cyril is not to make these two conversions in every thing parallel Jerus as is manifest by the words that follow he presently asserts That the eating of Christ's flesh must be understood spiritually and calls the Table mystical and intellectual And therefore all that his words can import is this He who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed Water into Wine by a corporal mutation changed at his mystical Table Wine into Blood not corporally but spiritually and mystically Lastly It must be acknowledged that there are many Hyperbolical expressions in the Fathers Hom 23. in Mat Par. 〈◊〉 as S. Chrysostome and others in relation to the Sacrament The design of them is to secure it from contempt and to elevate and raise the devotion of Communicants They being improper Speeches must not be expounded in such a sence as is inconsistent with what is elsewhere expressed by the same Authors in plain words without any figure They all agree in this in as clear expressions as can be desired That the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist Their Rhetorical flourishes cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of that which is plain and manifest When S. Chrysostome says That Christ mingles himself with us and not by Faith only but indeed makes us to be his Body His meaning is not That there is any corporal mixture or immediate contact betwixt us and his body but that when we receive the figure of his body which is in Heaven the Spirit which dwells in it is communicated to the worthy Receiver and produceth a union betwixt them and therefore what we receive â— 870. he presently calls the Grace of the Spirit Damascen who lived in the eighth Century was one of the first who deserted the Orthodox doctrin of the Fathers He being concerned in the controversie concerning Images and the opposers of them asserting that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament were the only Image and representation which Christ allowed of himself he was transported with an intemperate zeal and affirmed they were no image or figure at all L. 4. c. sid Oâ—t ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho' in these words he did not design any real conversion of the Elements but rather a corporal presence or consubstantiation yet he gave occasion to some in the ninth Age to dispute for a substantial mutation Paschasius Ratbertus was the first who writ seriously and copiously about it as Bellarmine asserts His sentiments about this argument were received with a warm opposition Rabanus Maurus Bertram Joannes Scotus Erigena did strongly assert the contrary doctrin In the tenth Age which was a night of ignorance all things fell asleep controversies were laid aside Darkness did reconcile them as the want of light does various colours In the eleventh Age Berengarius was awakened and did with great perspicuity assert the Truth Tho' the violence of his enemies and infirmity of his nature induced him to submit to a recantation The controversie all this while was managed with so much ambiguity that Joannes Duns Scotus asserts That it was not necessary for any to believe a substantial conversion or Transubstantiation till the Lateran Council held under Innocent the Third in the year 1215. and therefore the master of the Sentences who flourished in the Century before about the year 1145. useth these words What kind of conversion it is 〈…〉 illa 〈…〉 whether formal or substantial I am not able to determine The truth is that Transubstantiation was brought forth by Paschasius confirmed by Innocent the Third and at last so firmly married to the See of Rome by the Council of Trent that there was no possibility of a divorce tho' there is just reason to believe that the most Learned of that Community could heartily desire it The issue produced by this unhappy conjunction is the mutilation of the Sacrament the Adoration of the Host the Sacrince of
which the Prince resides and to Worship the Prince residing in that Palace To say that no Catholick is bound to believe more than that Christ in the Sacrament is to be Worshipped because this is enjoyned under a particular Anathema the other of Worshipping the Sacrament not is nothing to the purpose The intent of the Decrees is veritatâ—m dicere to set forth the true doctrin of the Church as the Council has declared Every jot of this doctrin is to be received whether there be a particular Curse denounced against the Refusers of it or no. The Curse doth not make the obligation to comply with the doctrin but shews only the danger which those incur who refuse it If the Church of Rome does not think fit always to set before us the danger in a particular Anathema upon some prudential considerations best known to her self yet the obligation to entertain her doctrin doth not cease but remain in full force Her Authority is as much in a Decree without an Anathema as in a Canon with one and it is her authority which creates the obligation To say that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Council speaks of falls upon the Accidents of the Bread and Wine in an inferiour manner cannot be reconciled with any good reason For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either internal or external Internal imports a superlative esteem in the mind of infinite Excellency External the doing some action or speaking such words as are appropriated to signifie this internal veneration Neither of these can be terminated upon the Bread and Wine in an inferiour manner For what is outwardly done or spoken being but an expression or indication of internal veneration and the inward veneration being of the highest nature if it falleth upon any thing in an inferiour manner or degree it ceaseth to be what it was the superlative degree being essential to it and not separable from it Neither do they mend the matter who assert that Latria as it is terminated upon the outward Elements is not absolute but relative Christ only under the Elements is adored per se or absolutely the Symbols by virtue of their relation to Christ as the garments with which he was cloathed when he was upon the Earth were worshipped when adoration was given to his person When the Council says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is due to the Sacrament absolute and not relative Latria is intended It is in express words such a Latria quae debetur vero Deo and that is undoubtedly absolute Tho' there may be relative honour yet if we speak properly there can be no such thing as relative Latria For it is agreed that the word signifies that Veneration which is peculiar to the Supreme Being and if this be divided into two species Absolute and Relative then it may be predicated of both for every Genus is predicated of its species and if so then either equally or unequally not equally for then the relative species will participate as much of the nature of the Genus as the absolute not unequally because Latria as I have before intimated consists in a point of which there can be no unequal participations An inferiour Latria is as much as an inferiour Superiority I grant an honour due to many things upon the account of their relation to God but to make this honour equal to that which is due immediately to God is highly injurious For the relation which the Creature has to the Creator is but a finite mode or accident And a finite mode cannot merit the same species of Worship or Honour which the infinite perfection of the Divine Nature does When our blessed Lord was upon the Earth 〈◊〉 garments were not worshipped by the same individual act with which his person was For Worship is an acknowledgment of excellency and none will assert that the same acknowledgment of excellency can without a palpable injury be terminated upon his Person and his Garment As the Accidents are worshipped so likewise is the substance of the Bread and Wine The Church of Rome believes that by the Priest's pronouncing the words of Consecration the Body and Blood of Christ become corporally present upon the Altar that by the same words in the same moment the substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into them that what the substance of the Bread and Wine is converted into must have the same worship terminated upon it which is peculiar to the person of Christ God-man Now if there be no such change as is pretended but the Bread and Wine retain their pristine nature it must necessarily follow that the substance of the Bread is Worshipped in the place of Christ If it be said that this cannot with justice be charged upon a Romanist because he believes that the substance of the Bread and Wine do not remain and we must not impute the Worshipping of that to him which he believes not to be in the Sacrament I answer that tho' this excuse at the first sight may appear plausible yet upon a due examination it will be found to be of no validity By the same method of Reasoning it may be concluded that a Jew reflects no dishonour upon the True Messias when in the Synagogue thrice a day he curseth Jesus of Nazareth because he believes that Jesus of Nazareth is not the True Messias or that the Persians do not Worship a creature when they make their religious Addresses to the Sun because they apprehend he is the first Being and maker of all things or that the Heathens did not sacrifice to Devils as they are accused in the holy Scripture because they were far from believing that their Idols were animated by infernal Spirits It must be confessed that an error springing from the nature of the object may contribute something to an excuse Suppose there had been a Man when our blessed Lord was upon the Earth every way like him in the features of his face and all the lineaments of his Body and another induced by that similitude had given to him the veneration which is due only to Jesus Christ it had been tolerable in him to have pleaded his error it deriving its original from that which it was not in his power to help But whâ—â— the error springs from a voluntary distemper in the Subject it can have no propitious influence upon his justification And this we have too much reason to believe is the case of those who adhere to the Community of Rome who when they assert the Body of Christ to be corporally present in the Eucharist and the substance of the Bread and Wine not put the highest affront upon those Topicks from which we usually derive our assurance in all other points of Divinity namely the Scripture Antiquity Reason Sence 1. Scripture They affirm that which is contrary to the Words of the institution when Christ says This is my Body he means This is a sign or memorial of it To this interpretation we
are led by the context This do in remembrance of me When he pronounces the demonstrative This he points at that which he took and had in his hand and this is called Bread and therefore in the Latin Translation of the Aethiopick Version these words occur Hic panis Corpus meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must import his dead body as it is in the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc cadaver meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a dead body 1 Sam. 17.46 Isa 14.19 These we have reason to believe were the words of our blessed Lord who at the institution of the Sacrament did undoubtedly use that language which was then familiar to the Jews and that was the Syriack which by reason of its affinity with the Hebrew is sometimes called by the same name Joh. 19.13 17. Act. 21.20 Now it is evident that what Christ gave at his last Supper could not be his dead body in a literal sence and therefore it must be so in a figurative which will amount to this This is a memorial of my Body as crucified for you Christ's body in the Sacrament is not given as living but dead upon our account and his blood not as contained in his veins but shed for our sins We have not only the Words to justifie our interpretation but the scope aimed at by him that spoke them It is agreed on all sides that God did design by them the institution of a Sacrament It is as unanimously asserted that in every Sacrament there must be a visible Sign and a Thing signified There is nothing here to import the outward Sign but the Demonstrative This or the Thing signified but that which is predicated of it my Body Now the sign is never essentially but always figuratively the thing which is signified by it As when we say of the formal sign or picture of Augustus or Tiberius This is Augustus This is Tiberius we do not mean their persons really but representations of them In the other part of the Sacrament it is said This Cup is the New Testament This cannot be true essentially as tho' the Cup was changed into the nature of the New Testament but figuratively only We have just reason to believe the same concerning the Words under debate that the Bread is no otherwise the Body of Christ than the Cup is the New Testament When this manner of Speech is used in relation to other Sacraments as Circumcision and the Passover Circumcision is my Covenant the Lamb is the Lord 's Passover it constantly bears this sence Neither Circumcision or the Lamb were really and essentially the things which are predicated of them but signs and memorials only The admitting a Trope in the Words is not contrary to the design of Christ in his last Will which undoubtedly was to deliver his mind clearly We may speak as plainly when we use a Trope or Figure as when our speech is without it If we walk in a Gallery adorned with Pictures and say this is Julius Caesar this is Constantine the Great we are as well understood as if we had said this is the Picture of such a Person That is not obscure whether figuratively or literally spoken which is expressed according to the manner which is familiar to those to whom the words are directed The known custom at the time when these words This is my Body were used was to speak after the like manner about the Passover into whose place the Sacrament of the Supper came It was the usual language of the Jews to call the Lamb the Body of the Passover The Lamb being a Figure of Christ our Passover and he putting a period to the old Institution and substituting Bread in the room of it to be a memorial and Type of himself under the Gospel he calls it by the same name As the Paschal Lamb had been his Typical Body under the Old Testament So now he declares that the Bread shall be his figurative Body under the New If a Trope makes the Words obscure and unfit to be a branch of the last Will of Jesus Christ then the interpretation of the Church of Rome is condemned by her own acknowledgment For she believes that when it is said This is my Body a living Body is meant and therefore Body by a Synecdoche is put for the Body and Soul The other part of the Sacrament is contained in his last Will as well as this and yet in the words which set it forth there is no less than two Tropes This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood The Cup is put for the Wine contained in it and the New Testament for the Sacrament of the New Covenant As the scope of our Saviour confirms the sence which we have given So likewise do the antecedents and consequences Before these words This is my Body were spoken it is said Jesus took Bread and blessed and brake it c. what can he mean by This but that which he took into his hand and blessed and brake and that is expresly called Bread After Consecration as that which is termed his Blood is stiled the Fruit of the Vine so that which he named his Body is by his Spirit in the holy Apostle said to be Bread As often as ye eat this bread 1 Cor. 11.26 Whosoever shall eat of this bread v. 27. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread v. 28. If before and after Consecration that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This doth import is called Bread then no such mutation is made as is contended for and the words must be interpreted in a Sacramental and Figurative Sence We have not only the Antecedents and Consequences to favour our interpretation but likewise the Analogy of Faith This says that Christ as man was made like unto his Brethren Heb. 2.17 This car not be true if he be corporally in the Sacrament The bodies of his Brethren are naturally confined to a certain place But according to this apprehension his Body may be in a thousand places at once even upon all the Altars in the World Wheresoever the Host is consecrated it is wholly in the whole and wholly in every part of it The Analogy of Faith asserts that Christ it gone to heaven in his bodily presence I am no more in the world Jo. 17.11 The interpretation which the Church of Rome gives of the words under debate makes him to be more in the World than when he conversed with his Disciples upon the Earth For then he was but in one place at a time but now according to the Creed of the Romanists he is the same moment in Millions of places The Analogy of Faith assures us that the body or flash of Christ shall see no corruption Act. 2.27 31. But if it be in the Sacrament then it is corporally eaten turned into Chyle and Nutriment and subject to all the corruption
no evidence in Courts of Justice sufficient to ground a condemnatory Sentence upon Eye-witnesses tho' of the greatest integrity will be of no signification all will be left in a perfect state of Scepticism The grand pillars which support Religion will be utterly overthrown and demolished How can we be assured that there is a God but by his Word and Works And how can we perceive the Contents of his Word or be acquainted with his Works without using our Senses We cannot be sure that The Heavens declare the Glory of God or that this Proposition This is my Body is contained in the New Testament if we may not conside in our eyes Miracles the great Seals of Evangelical Verity are rendered insignificant if the Senses of those who were present when they were wrought may not be trusted to their attestation will be of no value Indeed we are told that the Sense is not deceived in the Sacrament The accidents of the Bread and Wine are its proper objects and they remain there according as they appear but as for the Substance that is miraculously changed and Sense is no competent Judg about it To which the reply is easie Accidents alone are not the proper objects of Sense but Accidents together with those material subjects in which they inhere It is matter which properly makes the impression upon our Nerves the Particles of it are under diverse modes and figures commonly stiled Accidents The Essence of these consists in inhesion Accidentis esse est inesse So that if they be separated they presently cease to be and by consequence have no power to make any impulse upon Sense They can have no more a solitary existence than the height breadth and length of a house with all the colours and modes of every room may remain after the whole fabrick is demolished If there be any miraculous change in the substance of the Bread and Wine nothing can be more sit to discern it than our Senses The essential effect of a Miracle is to work wonder and admiration and nothing can produce this but that which is manifest to our faculties Tho' the mode of doing is latent yet the thing done is clear and accommodated to the apprehension of every Spectator These four Topicks Scripture Antiquity Reason Sense standing in an irreconcileable opposition to the doctrin of Transubstantiation nothing is left to support it except these two pretences the Declaration of the present Church and an impossibility that what she declares should be an Innovation As for the first If by the Church we understand the Universal no such thing is done by her The Eastern Churches declare the contrary The Greeks in their Liturgies have nothing of this nature expressed They adhere to the seven first General Councils only which are wholly silent in this matter Tho' they have a proper word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express Transubstantiation by yet they never use it when they speak of the Eucharist When they call the Bread the Body of Christ it is with an extenuating term as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi or the like After Consecration they give no adoration to it They deny that an unworthy Communicant receives the Body and Blood of Christ Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople says in the name of the Greek Church Vid. Hotting An. Appen p. 422. We confess and believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true and firm Presence of our Lord Jesus to wit that which Faith offers and gives us and not that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the invented Transubstantiation doth inconsiderately teach These are his words in his Oriental Confession of the Christian Faith To say notwithstanding all this that Transubstantiation is the declared belief of the Universal Church is to cut off the Greeks from being any part of it altho' they receive the Holy Scriptures embrace the ancient Creeds submit to the seven first General Councils have an uninterrupted succession of Bishops If it be said That Schism and Heresie has deprived them and all other Churches of this priviledge and dignity who do not submit to the Papal Supremacy this may be as easily denied as asserted The Universality of jurisdiction contended for is a perfect usurpation which can never be legitimated by length of time against the institution of our blessed Lord who constituted all the Apostles in a parity No Man can with justice be charged with Schism or Heresie for not owning of that which bears an opposition to the appointment of the Supreme Head of the Church If we must believe the declaration of the present Church in the point under consideration what were those obliged to do who lived in the time of Pope Gelasius when there was a declaration diametrically opposite The present Pope declares That the Bread and Wine do not remain in the Sacrament Gelasius a person of equal Authority and every jot as Infallible declares That they do Both these we cannot be obliged to believe they being contrary one to the other If the present Church of Rome must be credited whensoever she thinks sit to declare her self How is this to be known She has no peculiar promise made to her That to the Universal is nothing to the purpose she being but a part and a very corrupt one too All that the promise imports is that there shall be always a people with their Pastors in the World retaining all the points which are fundamental and of peremptory necessity to Salvation which may be tho' the Community of Rome utterly cease As for any Universal Tradition about this matter it is but a futilous and vain pretence as is evident by the contests betwixt the Roman and African Bishops If the last had known of any such Tradition and believed the first to be infallible a sudden stop would have been put to all contradiction No man will dare to oppose a Church which he believes cannot err Neither are there any motives of Infallibility efficacious enough to induce us to receive this doctrin Bellarmine has reckoned up fifteen but they are so far from evincing that the Church of Rome is Infallible in her declarations that they will not amount to prove her a True Church as will be manifest in the Fourth Section As for the Second pretence the impossibility of Innovation it is in vain to alledge it against so much evidence as may be produced for the matter of fact The antient Church for many Centuries did assert That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains after Consecration as I have already proved The doctrin of the present Church of Rome is That it doth not remain Here is an undeniable change To set up an imaginary demonstration against so clear a matter of fact and to commend it to our belief with all the advantages of Art is a method not unlike to that of Pericles who when he had received a fair fall by his Antagonist attempted to impose upon his Spectators with his Rhetorical flourishes and