our Saviour Instituted this Sacrament was when they had been eating the Passover which was a Feast much of the same Nature among the Jews that this is among Christians that was appointed by God in memory of thier Deliverance when the Angel of God destroyed the First-born of all the Egyptians and this in memory of that much greater Blessing to Christians by the Death and Sufferings of Jesus Christ As therefore the Master of the Family when he distributed the Paschal Lamb was to say This is the Lord 's Passover as being Instituted in memory of the Lord 's passing over the Houses of the Israelites so now being to Institute a new Sacrament for his Church of Christians as that was for the Jews he appoints a memorial of the breaking of his Body and the shedding of his Blood and in the very same figure of Speech that the other was This is my Body or this is the Lord's Body could be no strange form of Speech to them who just before had heard him say This is the Lord's Passever and who had been constantly used to that form of Speech And accordingly we do not find that they were in any difficulty or surprize in the Matter which they could not have avoided if the Words are to be understood just as they sound for it was a Matter more than a little amazing especially to those who never had been used to such sort of Mysteries that their Master should take a piece of Bread in his Hand and with speaking a few Words should make it become without any apparent change that very Body which was then standing before them That he should hold his own Body whole and entire in his own Hand that they should put the same one Body whole and entire into each of their Mouths that they should eat him first and drink him afterwards and yet that he should stand by them untouched all the while besides the very uncouthness and horror of the Institution to eat their Master a Person whom they loved and had reason to love and to drink Human Blood these are things one would think should at least surprize them a little and make them ask some Questions about it for they are indeed strange monstrous Absurdities whereas the sense we give to the Words is natural and easy especially to the Persons to whom they were spoken as being used to such expressions and who had heard the like but just before in a like Case I have this one thing more to add in this Matter That as the Jewish Sacraments were Signs and Representations as well as ours and so were commonly called by the Name of what they represented so the inward Blessings conveyed to them was the same that is conveyed by the Christian Sacraments and therefore the Apostle tells us they did all eat of the same spiritual meat and drank of the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.3,4 Now here is altogether as plain evidence that the Jews did eat and drink Christ before he was Born as the Christians do since But that is a way of Transubstantiation which those of the Church of Rome don't yet acknowledge and we may conclude that if the Apostle had known any thing of that Doctrine among Christians he would have been more wary in his Expressions and not have weakned the credit of it by using the same sort of Words where nothing of the same thing was meant From hence we may give an account of that large Discourse of our Saviour in the Sixth Chapter of St. John My Flesh is Meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed c. For if he were Meat and Drink to the Jews so long before he was born he might in the same manner be Meat and Drink to them still without the portentous way of putting his Body into their Mouths Christ is said to be a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World and in the same sense was Meat and Drink to all good People from the Foundation of the World that is the benefits of his Death reach backward even to the beginning of the World though he were put to death several Thousand Years after And they are the Benefits of his Death which are the great Food of Souls that which gives and preserves Life in them as the Life of the Body is kept up by Meat and Drink And this suggests another Consideration That we may know what sort of eating this is if we only consider what sort of Life is kept up by it The eating and drinking of a Body is proper to keep up the Life of a Body but it 's only the inward Grace and Assistance of God that keeps up the Life of a Soul and therefore we then eat and drink for that when we do by Faith or any other method take in that Spiritual nourishment In a Word Our Saviour says He gave his flesh for the life of the World and we may then not improperly be said to eat his Flesh when we receive in that Spiritual Life and Nourishment procured by it And that this is the Sense is apparent from several expressions in that Discourse as in v. 35. And Jesus saith unto them I am the Bread of Life he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst in which words there are Two things which directly contradict this gross sense of eating his very Body First that he alters here the expression of Eating and so explains himself whosoever comes to me and whosoever believes in me which shews that this Blessing comes by Believing in Christ and not by gross carnal Eating Secondly The Blessing it self is such as does not belong to all that only externally receive the Sacrament but to such only as come to Christ with true Faith as may be seen not only in this Verse but every where through that Discourse thus v. 51. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever And v. 53. 54. Verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of he Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day Which words are very true if understood of the feeding our Souls by the Benefits received from the Body and Blood of Christ but cannot be understood of external eating of him in the Sacrament for very wicked Men often do that according to the Opinion of the Romish Church and are only the worse instead of being the better for it This I believe is abundantly sufficient to shew that the Sense we put upon the Sacramental words This is my Body c. is natural and easie agreeable to the design of a Sacrament and other expressions of the same kind in Scripture and if it be so we need not be solicitous to prove any thing
more about it for there are so many Absurdities and gross Contradictions in the contrary Opinion that we ought to lay hold of any thing that can but make sense of the Words and avoid those Monstrous Absurdities But I shall now indeavour to prove from the Words themselves that the sense which the Church of Rome puts upon them cannot be the true sense of them 1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome is that our Saviour by pronouncing these words this is my Body made that to be his Body which before was only Bread but certainly the literal sense of the words does not import any thing of this and it 's the literal sense which they must stick to or else the whole support of their cause is gone now according to all the Rules of speaking it ought to have been his Body before he could truly pronounce it to be so but this they deny and say it was only Bread till these words were pronounced and that the calling it his Body made it become so which is a form of Speech quite unknown to the World and I challenge them to bring any Author either Sacred or Prophane that ever made use of words of this kind in such a Sense Since therefore it is confessed that what our Saviour took into his Hands was Bread and that it remained Bread till the speaking of these words This is my Body and since those words in their natural construction cannot be understood to effect any Change it must remain Bread still and be only the Body of Christ in such a sense as Bread may be called his Body that is in such a sense as the Lamb they eat of but just before was called the Passover by being a Representation and Commemoration of it 2. Another Argument I would make use of is this that our Saviour did not by pronouncing those words make what he gave them to be his very Body and Blood because after the pronouncing of them he calls what he gave in the Cup the Fruit of the Vine Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God In which words are contained these three I think plain Reasons which prove that it was Wine and not his Blood that he gave them 1. That He expresly calls it the fruit of the Vine and the Words they say are to be taken in the literal Sense and literally nothing else is the fruit of the Vine but Wine at least the Blood of Christ is not 2. In his saying that he would drink no more of it till he drank it new in the Kingdom of God it is supposed that he had heretofore drank of what he then gave them But I suppose it will hardly be said that he ever before drank his own Blood 3. As the Words suppose that he had drank before of what he then gave them so they do that he would drink of it again which very likely must be understood of his eating and drinking with them after his Resurrestion for then the Kingdom of God that is the new State of the Christian Church was come And therefore unless the Blood of Christ can be properly called the fruit of the Vine unless it can be supposed that he had drank his own Blood before and did design to drink it afterward these Words must evince that it was Wine which he then gave them I would not conceal that tho' St. Matthew and St. Mark recite the Words which I have Quoted after the Consecration of the Cup yet one of the Evangelists St. Luke recites them before and so they may seem to relate to a Cup that went about the Table at the Paschal Supper But this Objection if well considered does rather the more confirm what I have been proving for two of the Evangelists do place it immediately after the Consecration and delivery of the Sacramental Cup and in them it is apparent they can referr to nothing else but that Now if our Opinion about this Sacrament be true the difference betwixt the Evangelists in this Case is not material as importing no difference at all in the Doctrine of the Sacrament though our Saviour's Words are reported different ways and so this secures the Honour and Authority of all the Evangelists But if our Saviour's Words are to be understood as the Church of Rome understands them it 's impossible in any tolerable manner to reconcile the Evangelists for St. Matthew and St. Mark must upon this supposition not only put his Words wrong together and out of that order he spoke them but must also quite misrepresent his meaning and that in a Point of great Consequence Which I believe can be no way consistent with the Opinion which the Church of God has always had of these Gospels But I shall consider this Matter a little more fully in that which I have to urge in the Third Place 3. I desire it may be considered that the Words of our Saviour in the Institution of this Sacrament cannot be understood literally because as they are recited by the Evangelists they are not literally the same but differ as to the literal meaning very materially Mat. 26.28 Mark 14.24 Luke 22.20 St. Matthew and St. Mark in the Instistution of the Cup recite our Saviour's Words thus This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you St. Luke recites them thus This is the New Testament in my Blood Now from this difference among them I would observe these Two Things 1. That the Evangelists being so little curious to recite the very same Words that our Saviour spake could not have any Notion of a strict necessity of a literal meaning and of such a strange Doctrine which could have no foundation but in the literal interpretation of the very Words that he spake this had been at best very strange negligence in a Matter of so great Consequence 2. I would observe that if our Interpretation of the Words be true the Evangelists are easily reconciled as agreeing in the same general Sense tho' differing in the Expressions because both of them denote a Commemoration of the Blood of Christ and of the New Testament or Covenant founded upon it and it is not then very material which is placed first but if they are to be taken literaly it's impossible ever to make them agree and so one of the Evangelists must not only have mis-recited our Saviour's Words but quite have mis-understood his meaning and have done what he could to lead People wrong in a great Point of Faith For certainly the true real Blood of Christ is a very different thing from the New Covenant or Testament which is founded upon it But it will appear still of greater Consequence to keep to the very Words which Christ spake if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be true that it is the repeating the Words of our Saviour which effects the
AN ADDRESS To those of the Roman Communion IN ENGLAND Occasioned by the late Act of Parliament For the further Preventing the Growth of Popery LONDON Printed for Mat. Wotton at the Three Daggers near the Inner-Temple-gate in Fleetstreet 1700. BOOKS Printed for Matt. Worten The Second Volume of the Remains of the most Reverend Father in God and Blessed Mertyr William Laud Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Written by himself Collected by the Late Learned Mr Henery Wharton and Published According to his Request by the Reverend Mr. Edmund Wharton his Father Occasional Paper N o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Angliae Notitia Or the present State of England with divers Remarks upon the Ancient State thereof by Edward Chamberlayne Doctor of Laws The Ninth Edition with Great Additions and Improvements In Three parts Remaks upon an Essay concerning Humane Understanding in a Letter Addressed to the Author N o 1 2 3. The History of the Revolution of Portâ—gal in the Year 1640. Or an Account of their Revolt from Spain and Setting the Crown on the Heads of Don John of Braganza Father to Don Pedro the present King and Catherine the Queen Dowager of England Echard's Roman History First and Second Part. Charone of Wisdome in Three Books Englished by George Stanhope D. D. Farnaby's Rhetorik English Gardiner BOOKS Printed for Matthew Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet A Guide to the Devout Christian In Three Parts The First containing Meditations and Prayers affixed to the days of the Week Together with many Occasional Prayers for particular Persons The Second for more Persons than one or a whole Family for every day of the Week Together with many Occasional Prayers The Third containing a Discourse of the Nature and Necessity of the Holy Sacrament Together with Meditations thereon Prayers and Directions for the worthy Receiving thereof To which is Added A Prayer for Ash-Wednesday or any other time in Lent for Good-Fryday and any Day of Publick Fasting By John Inett M. A. Chanter of the Cathedral Church of Lincoln The Fourth Edition Corrected A Guide to Repentance or the Character and Behaviour of the devout Christian in Retirement By John Inett Chanter of the Cathedral Church at Lincoln The Christians Pattern or a Treatise of the Imitation of Jesus Christ in Four Books with Cutts written originally in Latin by Thomas à Kempis now rendered into English To which are added Meditations and Prayers for sick Persons By George Stanhope D. D. Chaplain in ordinary to his Majesty Price 5 s. The same Book is Printed in a smaller Letter and sold for 2 s. Salvation every Man's great Concern written originally in French by Monsieur Rapin done into English An earnest Invitation to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper wherein all the Excuses that Men ordinarily make for their not coming to the Holy Communion are Answered by Jos Glanvil late Minister of Bath A Defence of the 39 Articles of the Church of England written in Latin by J. Ellis S. T. D. now done into English To which are added the Lambeth Articles together with the Judgment of Bp. Andrews Dr. Overal and other Eminent and Learned Men upon them Twelve Sermons preached upon several Occasions By the Right Reverend Father in God Richard Lord Bp. of Bath and Wells His 2d and 3d. Parts of the Demonstration of the Messias in which the Truth of the Christian Religion is Defended especially against the Jews Dr. Stanhope's Sermon at the Funeral of Dr. Towerson His Sermon preached at the Annual Meeting of the Sons of the Clergy The Heinousness of Injustice A Sermon preached at the Assizes at Lincoln by Lawrence Echard A. M. Mr. Bradford's Sermon preached before the King Jan. 30th Mr. Hole 's Visitation Sermon at Bridgwater Dr. Barton's Sermon to the Societies for Reformation of Manners The Character of the True Church in a Sermon Preach'd at the French Church in the Savoy upon these Words How goodly are thy Tents O Jacob and thy Tabernacles O Israel Numb 24. ver 5. by A. D. Astor de Laussac formerly a Prior and Arch-Deacon of the Church of Rome THE CONTENTS THE Design of this Address Page 1. Why those of the Roman Communion have not Reason to expect the same Toleration with other Dissenters p. 4. Reasons to persuade those of the Church of Rome to examine the Grounds of their Religion p. 15. Of the Infallibility of the Church of Rome p. 25. Of Transubstantiation p. 54. Of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome p. 95. Of the Popes Supremacy p. 127. ERRATA PAge 10 in Marg. after Vid. ad 4 Gen. p. 13. line 10. for they read the Romanists p. 27. l. 11. f. it r. is p. 28. l. 16. f. differs r. differ p. 32. l. 14. f. pretences r. pretenders p. 55. l. ult f. thing and lies r. things and lie p. 57. l. 9. f. terms r. forms p. 58. l. 9. after Now r. our Saviour p. 60. l. 21. f. blessings r. blessing p. 117. l. 16. f. Scripture r. Scriptures and dele adds p. 126. l. 5. f. those r. these p. 141. l. penult f. Person r. Persons p. 143. l. 1. after and r. the. AN ADDRESS To those of the Roman Communion IN ENGLAND THE Design of this Address is not by any means to insult over you in the Circumstances under which it has pleased God in his Providence to bring you or to raise popular Odium against you No however necessary I may judge that which has lately been done yet I cannot but have a great compassion for any thing that looks like Suffering for Conscience sake And this I think I owe not only to the Principles of Humane Nature which require that we should have a tenderness and pity for those that are in Affliction but to the Principles of my Religion as a Christian and a Member of the Church of England I have always looked upon it as one of the Glories of the Protestant Religion that it gives the dominion over Mens Consciences to God only that it asserts the natural Liberty of Mankind to judge for themselves what it is that God expects from them that it makes very charitable Allowances for the Ignorance and Mistakes of Men when joined with Sincerity and a true Love of God and that in consequence of these things it does not incline it's Members to a severe inquisition into the private Opinions of Men or to be hard upon them upon that account And on the other side that it has been a great aggravation of the Errors of the Church of Rome that the Belief of them has been so rigidly exacted under no less pain than Damnation in the other World and the being Burnt or at least Vndone in this whenever it has been in their power to effect it But you will say perhaps That if the Opinion of Protestants be so much against Persecution how comes it to pass that there have been so many severe Laws from time to time made against you especially
Protestants examining the Scriptures now but what would have held as well against the Command of our Saviour here to the Jews unless they can shew us a positive Institution of an Infallible Guide but all the Arguments from Reason and the imperfection of our Understanding are perfectly the same in both Cases The truth is all our Saviour's Preaching did suppose this for it had been a vain thing to Preach to People who had not abilities to understand And if we go further to the Preaching of the Apostles we shall find that they endeavoured to prove the truth of what they said out of the Scriptures by which they appealed to the Understanding of their Hearers and made them proper Judges of what they said as far as their own Salvation was concerned in it We see in Acts 17.11 The Bereans were commended as more noble than those of Thessalonica because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things the Apostles preached were so or not The Apostle St. John commands Christians to try the Spirits that is to examine the pretences that any should make to the Spirit of God which supposes that their Understanding how fallible soever was sufficient to judge in these Matters In a word the Writers and Emissaries of the Church of Rome do themselves when they don't think of it in effect confess this for when they bring Scripture and other Arguments to persuade us to come over to their Church I would ask them are we proper Judges of these things or are we not Will our Faith be a true Faith that is founded upon these Scriptures or these Reasons that you here bring If it be so then we may understand for our selves and there is no necessity in order to true Faith of an Infallible Judge but if it be not so there ought to be then an end of Disputes for it 's in vain to Dispute where it 's supposed that we cannot understand or judge and all offering of Scripture or Reason to prove the truth of their Opinions is only affront and mockery But it may be it will be said Don't we see People differ about the Interpretation of Scripture some go one way and some another and yet all are consident of their own how can we be sure that we are in the right any more than they who are as confident in what they say as we are Now this Objection is founded upon this that we cannot have certainty of what is once Disputed which is contrary to the Common Opinion of Mankind who would have done Disputing if they thought they could not be certain when once Men differed from them This does indeed overthrow all Reason and Religion Some have ventured to Dispute the Being of God and many more the Truth of the Christian Religion and yet I hope we may be very certain of the Truth of both these But I would only urge at present this one Consideration Are all the World agreed about their Infallible Judge If not how can they be certain of that But to press this Matter a little more plainly they say for instance that we can't from Scripture be certain of the Divinity of our Saviour because the Socinian's a small number of Men dispute that Matter But the same Socinians deny their Infallible Judge and therefore that must at least be as uncertain as the other And not only the Socinians but all Protestants deny it which must make it still more uncertain and not only all the Protestants but the Greek Armenian Aethiopian Churches a vast Body of Men which must still add to the uncertainty and not only all these but all that in any Age or Nation have ever differed from the Church of Rome for whoever differs from them must deny their Infallibility and consequently this must have been Disputed not only as much as any one Point but as much as all the rest together This I think is a demonstrative Answer to this whole way of Arguing and shews the manifest Absurdity of it for it makes things uncertain because they are Disputed and yet makes the most Disputed thing in all the World the Foundation of all the certainty they have I have been the longer in examining this Point of the Infallibility of your Church as being that which is the great support of all your other Errors I now proceed to speak something to the particulars I promised and first I shall begin with Transubstantiation which is the first thing Renounced in the Test The Sense of the Church of England in this Matter seems to be this That tho' Believers in the faithful and due receiving of this Holy Sacrament are made Partakers of the Benefits of the Death of Christ that is of the breaking of his Body and the shedding his Blood and so may be properly enough said to be partakers of his Body and Blood yet that which they take into their Mouths is really but Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine set apart for a holy Use to represent the breaking of the Body and the shedding of the Blood of our Blessed Saviour and therefore in a Sacramental sense may be called his Body and Blood tho' in truth and reality they are but Bread and Wine Both Sides do in some Sense own a real Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but this one thing if observed will sufficiently shew the difference That Protestants say that in the devout and holy Use of this Sacrament Christ will be present with his Grace and Assistance to the Souls of good People but that the Things which appear before us which we eat and drink are not Christ but Bread and Wine Those of the Church of Rome on the other side say That the Thing which lies before them which they put into their Mouths tho' before Consecration they are Bread and Wine yet upon pronouncing those Words This is my Body and this is my Blood they lose their own Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine and become very Christ the very same Christ that was Born of the Virgin Mary and that suffered upon the Cross And therefore pay them the same Divine Honour and Worship as if God or Christ did truly and openly appear before them Now the whole ground of this Dispute lies in the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood They say that the Words ought to be understood in the plain literal Sense we say they ought to be understood as used by Christ in his Instituting a Sacrament that is appointing one thing to be a representation and a memorial of another and which because it does represent may very well be called by the Name of that Thing which is represented by it which we think to be a very natural easy way of speaking and agreeable as to that present occasion so to other terms of Speech of the same nature which had been in use among those People to whom our Saviour spoke But in particular the time in which
Transubstantiation For I would ask Supposing a Man should Consecrate with the Words of St. Luke This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood would that change the Wine not to say the Cup into the very Blood of Christ Certainly it would not do it by force of those Words for they intimate no such thing and it is not unlikely but those were the very Words our Saviour spake for not only St. Luke uses them but St. Paul and that upon a solemn occasion when it concerned him much to give a true Representation of this Sacrament as you may see 1 Cor. Chap. 11. The occasion of his mentioning the Institution of this Sacrament was very great Irreverence which some were guilty of in receiving of it indeed such as it was almost impossible for them to be guilty of had they believed what the Church of Rome now believes about it it was therefore very necessary that the Apostle should speak clearly and plainly out in this matter and we see he does solemnly usher in what he says with the Authority of Christ For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you in c. And then he repeats the Words as St. Luke does and not only so but calls the other part of the Sacrament Bread near Ten times in that Chapter 4. The Last Argument I shall make use of upon this Head is this That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon another account does not agree with the Words of our Blessed Saviour The Opinion of that Church is That under each Species as they call it whole Christ is contained Body Blood Soul and Divinity so that both are but just the very same Thing in nothing different but in outward appearance which only deceives our Senses And it is upon this Opinion chiefly that they ground the denyal of the Cup to the People because say they should they have the Cup they would have no more but just the very same thing they had in the other Kind And supposing their Opinion true the Argument may for any thing I know have some force in it but then they ought not to deny us leave to Argue the other way That that Opinion must needs be false which makes our Saviour guilty of a great Absurdity in appointing Two Kinds but both really the same thing and one of them perfectly unnecessary But that which I would chiefly take notice of is That this Doctrine of theirs contradicts the Words of our Saviour for what they make but One Thing he plainly makes Two and calls them by Two different Names The one he calls his Body the other he calls his Blood which supposes them to be Two different Things as plain as Words can express them They say indeed That in the Glorified Body of Christ the Body and Blood cannot be separated and therefore were the Words to be taken in such a sense as to consider them separated they would contain a great Absurdity so that wherever the one is the other by concomitancy must be there too But who told them that the Glorified Body of Christ is in the Sacrament The Words of the Institution intimate no such thing but speak of his Body given and his Blood shed which certainly was separate from his Body But however this is arguing from Reason against the Words and is just the very same thing which they condemn as Heretical in us And if this be once allowed they must throw off the whole Doctrine for we can shew them Ten times as many Absurdities in the Doctrine of Transustantiation as they can in supposing the Body and Blood of Christ to subsist separately In short either we must stick to the very Words of our Blessed Saviour or we must not if we must their Opinion must be false which makes what our Saviour calls Two Things to be but One if we must not stick to the very Words but interpret them according to right Reason and other Places of Scripture they then give up their Cause To conclude this Head What Reason can there be imagined why our Saviour should in a solemn manner at different Times and under different Names give the very same thing call the one his Body and the other his Blood when according to the Nature of the Thing he might as well have inverted the Names and have called that his Blood which he calls his Body and so on the other side There cannot I believe be any Reason thought of but only this That the one Kind the Bread was very proper to represent the breaking of his Body the other the Wine to represent the shedding of his Blood which is the very thing that we would have for then there is a sufficient Reason for these Names without any Bodily Presence at all I have been the longer in considering the Sense of the Scripture in this Matter because your Writers commonly boast more of the Scripture being for you in this Case than in any other Controversies betwixt us And I think I have proved more than I need have done in proving that the Sense your Church puts upon the Words of our Saviour cannot be the true Sense of them It being sufficient in a Matter of this Nature which is loaded with so many Absurdities to have shewed that they did fairly admit of another Interpretation But having so fully Confuted this Doctrine out of the Scriptures I am now more at liberty to shew you the gross Absurdities and the monstrous Contradictions that are involved in it tho' in truth it is so full fraught with Contradictions that it 's a hard matter to know where to begin I shall therefore content my self just to repeat some of them which are ready Collected to my hand by a Great Divine of our own Chilligworth p. 165. That there should be Accidents without a Subject that is That there should be length and nothing long breadth and nothing broad thickness and nothing thick whiteness and nothing white roundness and nothing round weight and nothing heavy sweetness and nothing sweet moisture and nothing moist fluidness and nothing flowing many actions and no agent many passions and no patient that is that there should be a long broad thick white round heavy sweet moist flowing active passive nothing That Bread should be turned into the Substance of Christ and yet not any thing of that Bread become any thing of Christ neither the Matter nor the Form nor the Accidents of Bread be made either the Matter or the Form or the Accidents of Christ That Bread should be turned into nothing and at the same time with the same Action be turned into Christ and yet that Christ should not be nothing That the same thing at the same time should have it's just dimensions and just distance of it's Parts one from another and at the same time should not have it but all its Parts together in the felf-same Point That the Body of Christ which is much greater should
be contained wholly in that which is less and that not once only but as many times over as there are Points in the Bread and Wine That the same thing at the same time should be wholly above it self and wholly below it self within it self and without it self on the right Hand and on the left Hand and round about it self That the same thing at the same time should move to and from it self and lie still or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space and yet not move That to be One should be to be undivided from it self and yet that one and the same thing should be divided from it self That a finite thing may be in all Places at once That there should be no certainty in our Senses and yet that we should know some things certainly and know nothing Corporal but by our Senses That that which is and was long ago should now begin to be That the same thing should be before and after it self That it should be possible that the same Man for Example You or I may at the same time be awake at London and not awake but asleep at Rome there run or walk here not run or walk but stand still sit or liedown there study or write here do nothing but dine or sup there speak here be silent that he may in one place freeze with cold in another burn with heat that he may be drunk in one place sober in another valiant in one place a coward in another a Thief in one place and honest in another that he may be a Papist and go to Mass in Rome a Protestant and go to Church in England that he may die in Rome and live in England or dying in both Places may go to Hell from Rome and to Heaven from Fngland That the Body and Soul of Christ should cease to be where it was and yet not go to another place nor be destroyed These are some of those monstrous Contradictions which are involved in this Doctrine of Transubstantiation I shall only observe these few things more about this Matter and then conclude this Point 1. That you ought not for the avoiding of these Difficulties to content your selves to believe in general that somehow or other you don't know how this Sacrament is the Body of Christ for your Church has determined the Matter that it is the very Body of Christ which was Born of the Virgin Mary and was afterward Crucified and that there remains no substance of Bread but only this Body of Christ after Consecration 2. I would observe that none of these Difficulties are taken off by considering Christ's Body as glorified for besides that if it be a Body still it must have the Properties of a Body this Sacrament was Instituted while our Saviour lived in the World and had just such a Body as other Men of the same bigness and all other qualities as to his Body the same And therefore in interpreting these Words This is my Body all the Difficlties are still the same as if he were now living or as they would be were they spoken of the Body of any other Man 3. I desire that you would consider that you may be sure we do not mis-understand nor mis-represent your Opinion because these Absurdities are what your own Divines take notice of as well as ours and do not pretend to be able to give any direct Answer to them 4. I would observe That tho' these Contradictions are so apparent and staring that no Body that hears of this Doctrine can well miss of them yet they are new and none of them ever heard of in the Church for many Hundred Years from whence we inferr that the Doctrine it self was as little heard of 5. We do not find that any Christian for many Hundred Years ever denied or disputed the truth of this Doctrine from whence we cannot but conclude that it was then unknown in the Church for it must have had strange good fortune to escape without any Contradiction when all the Articles of the Creed had been Disputed round 6. As this was not disputed or denied by any Christians so neither was it objected against the Christian Religion by any Heathen not even by Julian himself who as being an Apostate must have known all the Secrets of our Religion whereas in truth there had been Ten times more weight in this than in all the Objections together which they made use of against Christianity 7. There were several things in the Primitive Church inconsistent with the belief of this Doctrine in particular that of mixing Water with the Wine the Water to represent the People as the Wine represented the Blood of Christ of which St. Cyprian gives us a full Account Vid. Cypr. Epist 63. 8. I would observe That the Church of Rome can assign no peculiar necessity or usefulness of this Sacrament above others that should give a probable Reason of the mighty difference betwixt this and others and of such a strange wonderful Dispensation as the eating our Blessed Saviour himself Nay with them both Baplism and Confession are esteemed much more necessary and the omission of them more dangerous than the omission of this Sacrament 9. To conclude this whole Matter I think I have sufficiently shewed that this Doctrine has no foundation in Scripture I would have considered at large the Sense of the Primitive Church in it and I do not question but to have been able very clearly to make out that it was a Doctrine quite unknown to the Church of God for many Ages but that was not consistent with the Brevity I am at present forced to use I would therefore only observe this one thing That we ought not to conclude this to have been the Doctrine of the Fathers only from some accidental or general Expressions which they sometimes make use of It 's plain that none of them designedly treat of this Matter or explain it to us none of them recite it among the Articles of their Faith none of them take any notice of the difficulties of it no Christians appear to have been shocked at this Doctrine and no Heathens to have Objected it all which could hardly have been avoided had this been the constant Doctrine of the Catholick Church And as for General Expressions the calling what they received the Body and Blood of Christ that could not be avoided the Nature of the thing requiring them even according to our Opinion of this Matter And we see that notwithstanding we have made such express Declarations against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and that by reason of this Controversy we express our selves more cautiously than we may suppose the Fathers would do before any Controversy was moved ved about it yet some general Expressions of our own Divines are often turned against us by those of the Church of Rome and there is no question but were the Authors of them as Old as the
Fathers they would be as confidently quoted for the Proof of Transubstantiation as any Sayings of the Fathers now are And this shews us how this Doctrine tho' monstrous in it self might under the Covert of such General Expressions without any great stir or bustle insensibly creep into the Church especially in very Ignorant and Superstitions Times tho' after all our Divines have sufficiently traced the footsteps of it and shewed the progress it made and the opposition it met with in the World before it could be Established The next thing to be spoken to is the Idolatry of the Church of Rome In the Sacrfice of the Mass and in the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and of other Saints as it is practised in that Church Now Idolatry may be of two sorts I. When People worship any thing for the Supreme God which really is not so II. When they give that Worship to any Creature which is due only to God and which he has appropriated to himself As to the first sort of Idolatry that of Worshiping some thing as the Supreme God which realy is not so we do not charge the Church of Rome with it unless perhaps the worshipping of what is but Bread and Wine in the Sacrament instead of Jesus Christ may come under that head I say perhaps here because I would not enter into any thing besides the main cause that may be contested for tho' Jesus Christ be God and they worship some thing as Jesus Christ which is not so yet the mistake being chiefly about his Human Nature I would not positively affirm a thing which may bring on any dispute which is not to our purpose This they do not deny that they give the highest Divine Worship which they call Latria to that Object which they take into their hands and put into their Mouths in receiving this Sacrament which I shall at present call Idolatry but with a promise to recant it whensoever they shall answer the Reasons I have given to prove that what they thus Adore is only Bread and Wine or whenever they shall give me a more proper Name by which I may call that great Sin of giving the highest Divine Worship to a Creature The truth is that such a Worship may not only be called Idolatry but the most absurd and senseless Idolatry that ever the World fell into But this I shall not now insist upon having spoken so much already to that which is the foundation of it the Doctrine of Transubstantiation The other Matter in which we charge them with Idolatry is the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints Now in this we do not charge them with owning any of those to be God but only with giving them that Worship and Honour which cannot lawfully be given to any thing which is but a Creature In speaking to this I shall consider these Two Things 1. Whether the giving to a Creature the Worship due only to God may not be properly termed Idolatry tho' at the same time we pay that Worship we own it not to be God but a Creature 2. Whether the Worship given to Saints by the Invocation practised in the Church of Rome be of that sort such as God has appropriated to himself and consequently such as becomes Idolatrous when applied to a Creature 1. As to the first of these Those of the Roman Church cannot deny but it must be a very great Sin to give the Worship of God to Creatures but they deny it to be properly Idolatry We on the other side grant that it is not Idolatry in the highest sense of the Word and in the sense in which they commonly understand it viz. The owning a Creature to be God So that so far we are agreed but then we say that Word may be used in a lower sense to denote what they grant to be a Sin as well as we but will not call it by that Name so that our difference in this Matter is only about the use of a Word Now we think our selves in the right in the use of this Word upon these Accounts 1. Because we have no other Name to express that which is not denied to be a very great Sin The giving God's Worship to Creatures and having no peculiar Name for it we think it not improper to give it the Name of that Sin which is of nearest affinity to it and of the same general kind as is done in many other Cases Thus our Saviour calls looking upon a Woman to lust after her by the name of Adultery and the like The next step to owning a Creature to be God is to give it the Worship due to God and therefore we think it not at all improper to call these two Sins by the same general Name especially having no Word in our Language more proper by which we may express it 2. We think our selves fully justified in the expression because the Scripture does every where charge the Heathen Worship of their Gods and Images in general with the Crime of Idolatry tho nothing can be more apparent than that many of the Heathen owned only one Supreme God and that all of them looked upon many of the Gods whom they Worshipped not as Supreme but as Gods of an Inferior Nature and had much the same Opinion of them as the Romanists have now of Saints and Angels and had the very same pretences and excuses for the Worshipping of them which the Romanists make use of to defend themselves They owned many of their Gods to have been born and to have dyed and it was hardly possible to look upon any such to be the Supreme God In a Word There is nothing more evident than this that they had several Ranks and Orders and Degrees among their Gods and it was impossible to look upon all these to be Supreme And yet the Scripture every where without any distinction charges their whole Worship with Idolatry and so do the Primitive Fathers as well as the Scriptures particularly they thought it to be Idolatry to throw a little Incense into the Fire before the Statues of their Emperors From whence we may plainly inferr these Two Things First That they thought that there might be Idolatry in giving such Worship as was appropriated to God to Creatures tho' they were not pretended to be any thing else but Creatures only Creatures highly exalted and in high Favour with God as Saints and Angels are supposed to be Secondly That they looked upon the offering of Incense to be a part of Worship appropriated to God and that could not be given to a Creature without the Crime of Idolatry which is a Matter the Church of Rome have reason to consider well of who offer it every Day to those who however they may have been better Men are certainly no more Gods than the Heathen Emperors were To conclude this Matter The sense of the Primitive Church in the business of Idolatry is plainly seen in this that they every
Instance we have of this kind is that of St. John in the Revelations falling down to Worship the Angel who we see puts him off it with the same kind of general Words that our Saviour uses in the former Instance See thou do it not I am thy fellow servant Worship God Rev. 22.18.19 Here I would observe as in the former Case that the Worship which the Angel rejects and appropriates to God is falling down at his feet to Adore him And in the next place I would observe that had Adoration been due to an Angel the true Answer to St. John had been that he should have a care not to mistake him to be God who was but an Angel and so give him more than was due to him but we see he throws off the whole without any reserve or distinction and for a Reason that will hold against all Creature Worship that he was his Fellow-servant In a word it had been no great secret for the Angel to tell St. John that God was to be Worshipped or that God only was to be Worshipped with an inward apprehension of his being God neither of these were any great Mystery or to the purpose And therefore his meaning must be that Religious Worship such as that Adoration was ought to be given to none but God I shall name but one more place of Scripture in which this Creature Worship is taken notice of and that is Coloss 2.18 Let no man beguile you of your reward by a voluntary humility and Worshipping of Angels The Apostle in this and the following Verses makes use of Two Arguments against the Worshipping of Angels First that it is a voluntary Humility that is tho' Men may pretend a great deal of Humility that it is not fit for such mean Creatures as they to go directly into the Presence of God but that they ought to apply to the Angels of God to be their Introducers yet all this is Humility of their own inventing such as God has not required at their hands 2. That this Worshipping of Angels is leaving Christ their Head He is the only Mediator betwixt God and Men and therefore applying to any other is leaving him who is the Head of the Church and then no wonder if it beguile us of our reward This Argument is very plain and very strong against the practice of Praying to Saints or Angels and it hath this one thing very observable in it That if this Text proves it unlawful to set up any more Mediators but Jesus Christ it must be understood of Mediators of Intercession for no body could so much as pretend that Angels were Mediators of Redemption as those of the Church of Rome without any ground at all make the distinction I might shew farther the Idolatry of this Practice of praying to Saints and Angels from this that it must suppose Divine Perfections in the Creatures to whom we pray as of Power to be able to supply our Wants especially in those Prayers that are put up to them directly to beg such or such Blessings from them and so of Knowledge because Prayer at least Mental Prayer supposes that the Persons we pray to know our Hearts and the secret thoughts and sincerity or insincerity of all the Men and Women in the World and that they can perfectly attend to them all at the same time which are Perfections that the Scripture never attributes to any but God and in the Nature of the thing it is hardly conceivable of any Creature but I shall content my self to have named these things and shall conclude this whole Matter with just proposing those two short Considerations 1. I desire it may be considered that in the Church of Rome there is no External part of Religion appropriated to God and incommunicable to Creatures but the Sacrifice of the Mass and if in the preceding Discourses I have overthrown the foundation of that there is then nothing at all remaining 2. I desire it may be considered that the Reasons commonly given to justify Prayers to Saints and Angels would if well followed hinder Men from ever praying to God at all as in fact this has much estranged Men from God in those Countries where they have had no Protestants among them to make them ashamed of it and even nearer our selves I believe we may justly say that at least Ten Prayers are put up to Creatures for one that is put up to God Of the Pope's Supremacy I now come to consider the Oath of Supremacy which consists of Two Parts I. A Declaration of the Unlawfulness and Impiety of taking up Arms against the King upon Account of His being Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope II. A Renunciation of the Pope's pretended Supremacy over the Church of Christ particularly over that part of it in this Kingdom As to the First of these I need not insist upon it becanse if I can prove the Second That the Pope has of right no Spiritual Power here the other must of course fall with it I would only observe before I proceed That if those of the Roman Communion among us do believe that the Pope has a Power from God to Excommunicate and to Deprive Princes of their Kingdoms for Heresy and that therefore they are bound to concur with the Pope as far they can to put his Sentence in Execution this must make them Enemies to all Protestants and consequently they have reason to expect that Protestants should have a care of them But if they do believe that God has not given any such Power to the Pope they have then Reason to have a care of their Guide who is doing what he can under pretence of Authority from God to carry them to Treason and Murther and all the Villanies which must follow an attempt to turn out their King and all his Protestant Subjects that will stand by him But I have in some measure taken notice of these things already and therefore shall not now inlarge upon them but proceed to consider the Grounds of the Popes pretence to Supremacy The Opinion of the Church of Rome with relation to his Supremacy is this That Jesus Christ made Saint Peter the Supreme Governor and Head as of all the rest of the Apostles so also of the whole Church That St. Peter was afterward Bishop of Rome and that by Divine Appointment his Successors the Bishops of Rome are to enjoy the same Supremacy over the Church which he had Their Opinion about the Supremacy of St. Peter is founded chiefly upon those Words of our Saviour Mat. 16.18,19 Vpon this Rock I will build my Church And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven They say our Saviour does by these Words promise to St. Peter to make him Monarch of the whole Church We say that tho' these Words were spoken to St. Peter upon occasion of his speaking to our Saviour immediately before yet that this Promise does as much belong to the rest
of the Apostles as it does to him and that therefore whatever Power may be here promised to him over the Church there is none promised over the rest of the Apostles and that consequently his Successors can claim nothing from hence over the Successors of all the Apostles the other Bishops of the Christian Church But to consider this Matter more particularly we may take notice 1. That the rest of the Apostles did not apprehend that St. Peter had here any peculiar Power promised him above them for we find that not long after they were contending who should be the greatest by which it's plain they did not then apprehend that our Saviour had already determined the Matter And as for our Saviour himself he does not at all endeavour to put them right as it was of great consequence he should do supposing that he designed St. Peter for their Governour but he endeavours to teach them all humility and not to affect Power or Authority over one another And the same instance we have in the Case of Zebedee's Children when their Mother came to desire that the one might sit on his right hand and the other on his left in his Kingdom that is that they might be the Persons of chief Favour and Authority with him their Petition plainly implies that they knew nothing of St. Peter's Prerogatives and our Saviour's Answer which you may see at large Mat. 20. implies as plainly that neither St. Peter nor any body else was to have such Power in the Church as the Bishops of Rome have since pretended to 2. I would observe that these Words of our Saviour to St. Peter do not actually invest him with any Power but are only a Promise to him and therefore the best way to see what was peculiar to him in it above the rest of the Apostles will be to see the fulfilling of the Promise and his being Actually invested in it That this is only a Promise appears from the Words themselves which run in the future tense I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven And I believe they of the Church of Rome will not deny this because they say that the Apostles were not Priests till our Saviour made them so in the Institution of the Lord's Supper Now if we consider the Actual Investiture into this Power there is nothing peculiar to Saint Peter Our Saviour gives them all their Power together in Words much of the same Nature with that Promise before to St. Peter Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained And as for the Expression Vpon this Rock I will build my Church there is much the same said of all the Apostles The Church is said to be built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone 3. The best way to see whether St. Peter had any such Supremacy will be to see whether he exercised any whether he did any Acts or Offices which belonged to so high a Power There must be constantly so many occasions for the exercise of that Power that if he had any such we could not miss of Instances of it The Times of the Apostles were indeed Times of greater Simplicity than these later Ages and therefore I do not expect they should shew me St. Peter Commanding after the manner of our Modern Popes But if they can shew me any one single Act of Authority over the rest of the Apostles if they can shew me St. Peter of himself making Laws and Orders for the good Government of the Church or so much as presiding in the College of the Apostles if they can shew me any Appeals made to him or Controversies ended by him or among so many Controversies as happened any advice to repair to him or command to obey him I shall not shut my Eyes against the discoveries But to consider this Matter a little more particularly As soon as our Blessed Saviour was Ascended there was an occasion given to exercise this Supremacy in chusing a new Apostle in the room of Judas Acts 1. But we see that the method taken was that the whole Multitude chose Two and then they cast Lots which of the Two should be the Apostle And so as to the choosing of Deacons Acts 7. the whole Multitude chose them and presented them not to Peter but to all the Apostles to be Ordained If we look a little further into the Acts of the Apostles to Ch. 8. We shall find the Apostles not sent by St. Peter up and down to their business as occasion required but St. John and him sent by them to Samaria which was not very mannerly nor very fit had they known him to be their Sovereign Acts 11. we find those of the Circumcision contending with him and forcing him to give an account of his Actions and that without any Ceremony or deference proper for one in so high a Place and we see he patiently submits to it without standing upon his Prerogative of being unaccountable without chiding them for their Insolence or any thing of that kind Acts 15. we find a solemn Meeting of the Apostles and Brethren at Jerusalem where St. Peter speaks indeed as any other Man might have done but does not preside or determine any thing The Appeal was to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem not to him alone and if any thing in the whole Meeting was done Authoritatively by any single Person it was by St. James for he passes Sentence as you may see Verse 19. If we go to the Epistles we shall find as little evidence of his Authority as we have in the History of the Church in the Acts of the Apostles The first Epistle is that to the Romans not from St. Peter but from St. Paul where there is not the least notice taken either of St. Peter or of the great Prerogatives of that Church which one would think could hardly be avoided if St. Paul had known any thing of them nay he says some things which directly contradict their Pretences which you may see Chap. 11. He tells them there that he speaks to them who were Gentiles as being the Apostle of the Gentiles and if so St. Peter must not have had so near a relation to them because he was the Apostle of the Jews Then he proceeds to advise them to have a care of themselves lest they should fall away and be cut off as you may see ver 20 21. Be not high-minded but fear for if God spared not the natural Branches take heed lest he also spare not thee It 's plain that St. Paul at that time knew nothing of the great Privileges of that Church of its being the Mother and Mistris of all Churches of its being the Center of Church Vnity and of its being Infallibly secured from Error and Apostacy If we go on to the Epistle to the Corinthians we shall sind there a
very proper occasion to mention St. Peter's Authority if he had any such as they boast of as you may see 1 Eph. Chap. 1. Now this I say that every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas or Peter and I of Christ Is Christ divided or was Paul Crucified for you c. Those People certainly knew nothing of St. Peter's Supremacy nor St. Paul neither otherwise he would hardly have omitted to tell them of such an Infallible Cure for their Divisions In the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians we have many Arguments against St. Peter's pretended Supremacy St. Paul tells us there that he had no Superior that he had his Authority from none but Christ Ch. 1.17 He compares himself with St. Peter and says that the Ministry of the Vncircumcision was committed to him as the Ministry of the Circumcision was unto Peter Ch. 2. v. 7. He mentions St. Peter as of the same Authority with James and John when James Cephas and John who seemed to be Pillars Verse the 9th And a little further he tells us how he openly withstood Peter to the Face because he was to be blamed All these things might be urged at large but I content my self only tomention them But from all together I think I may well conclude that this Promise of our Saviour did not intend St. Peter any Power over the rest of the Apostles and consequently not any to his Successors if he had any over the Bishops of the Christian Church who are Successors of the Apostles in general tho' we do not deny but St. Peter had a Power over the whole Church but only as the rest of the Apostles had whose Care and consequently Authority was not consined to particular Churches as it was thought fit in order to the better Government of the Church that the Authority of Bishops should be since but was left at large and unconfin'd as to any certain limits either of Person or Places But suppose it should be granted that St. Peter had such Power as they affirm he had yet there is not one Word in Scripture about a Successor or about the vast Privileges of the Church of Rome in this Point And in truth there is as little evidence in the History of the Church for many Ages of this pretended Authority of the Bishop of Rome as there is in the Scriptures Rome was at the time of the Planting the Christian Religion a vast City and the Head of a very great Empire This must of it self give the Bishop of it a great influence in the Affairs of the Church which was almost all within the Roman Empire this made all sort of Communication with him easy by means of the mighty refort that was made from all Parts to the tal City and Greatness of his See did in course of Time bring great Riches to it and if we add to this that it was honoured by the Preaching and Martyrdom of two great Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul we see plain Reasons why the Bishops of Rome were likely to make a great Figure in the Church but as for real Authority such as is now pretended there do not appear any footsteps of it for several Ages As for Speculative Opinions We may not perhaps have so certain an account of them so long after unless of those which by some accident or other came to be Disputed But Government is a Practical thing and there happens every day Occasion to exercise it especially the Government of the whole Church and if the Pope had been from the beginning what he pretends to be and what he now makes himself his Power could have been no more a matter of Controversy than it could be made a Controversy whether there were any Christian Church for the same History that clears the one must at the same time clear the other The Old Body of History of the Christian Church is that of Eusebius which contains an account of the Affairs of it for above 300 Years now if the Pope were Monarch of the Church for those 300 Years we can no more miss to see it in that History than we can read any History of England for such a Number of Years and be uncertain whether we had here any King or no for so long a time No History hardly can be conceived so faulty or imperfect as to leave such a Matter a Secret or uncertain And yet I would Challenge any indifferent Person to read that History over and to shew me but any one thing in it from which it can be probably inferred that the Bishop of Rome was the Governour of the whole Church whereas were it truly so there must have been something of it in almost every Page Because all the business of the Church must in a manner roul upon him He must be the Person appeal'd to in almost all Difficulties we must have found his decrees in all the great Affaires that passed His Decretal Epistles must have been interspersed up and down in the whole Work his Authority must have put an end to all Schisms and Heresies or at least their Rebellion against him must have been reckoned as one great part of their Crime In a word as I said before the thing must have appeared as plain as that there was any King in England for these last 300 Years Next to that History the most likely place to find his Authority if he had any is in the Works of St. Cyprian which contain more of the Ancient Discipline and Government of the Church than is to be found in any other Old Author especially if we add further that a great part of his Works is only Letters to or from Bishops of Rome We could not but see in such a number of Letters whether he wrote to his Sovereign or not we should see it in the Titles which he gives him in his Style in the deference which he pays him In short the whole would some how or other shew that it was his Superior he was writing to but now the contrary to this is true He never speaks to him or of him in his Letters to other People but by the Name of Brother he freely Censures him and his Opinions just as he would do by any other Man and with as little deference or respect and he finally differed from him in a Matter of great consequence that of Re-baptizing Hereticks and called Councils of the Clergy and raised a great Party against him in it and yet was never that I have heard of charged either with Rebellion or Schism or Heresy upon that account but is to this day reputed a Saint in Heaven To conclude this Matter The whole Discipline of the Ancient Universal Church plainly shews that the Government of it was an Aristocracy especially that strict Account that Bishops were to give to their Fellow Bishops up and down the World of their Ordination and their Faith and other Matters in