Charity P. 33. §. xxx than any necessity of Argument if our Writers do sometimes either not at all or but faintly charge them with Idolatry And the Testimonies he produces argue rather the candor of our Affections towards them even such as to hope almost against Hope for their sakes than give any security to them in their Errors And because I would willingly if possible convince them of it I will very briefly subjoin a Reason or two 2dly Why even upon their own Principles I am not satisfied that they have such a rational Ground for this Adoration as may be sufficient to excuse them For 1st It is granted by this Author P. 26. §. xxii That a meerly good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance cannot excuse them from Idolatry So that if their ignorance then be really culpable their good Intention will not be sufficient to excuse them Now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded is their mistaken interpretation of those words This is my Body and whether that be a rational or culpable Mistake we shall best be able to judg by two or three Observations 1. It is confess'd by the greatest Men of their Church that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do so that had not the Authority of their Church interposed they might have been equally verified in our Interpretation And this must be allow'd unless we shall say that all places of Holy Scripture must be understood in a literal sense whatever the Consequence be of so doing 2. Our Author himself confesses that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain Contradiction then it cannot be right but we are bound to seek out some other Exposition to avoid a certain Contradiction 3. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of Sense and in that of the Truth of the Christian Religion which was confirmed by Miracles known only by the evidence of Sense and by Consequence of this particular Point that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God or can be rely'd upon as coming from him Now from these Principles I thus argue If that sense of these words This is my Body upon which they ground their Adoration do's necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them But that it do's so and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it I thus shew He that believes these words in the sense of Transubstantiation must believe the same natural Body at the same time to be in ten-thousand several places upon Earth and yet still to be but one Body and that all the while in Heaven He must believe that the same natural Body is at the same time extended in all its Parts and yet continuing still the same Body without any change to be unextended and have no distinct Parts nor be capable of being divided into any He must believe the same Body at the same time to move and to lie still to be the Object of our Senses and yet not to be perceptible by any With infinite others of the like kind * See above Ch. 2. of Transubstantiation Pag. 32 33. as I have more fully shewn before But now all these are gross Contradictions contrary to the Nature of a Body and to the common Principles of Reason in all Mankind and no Man can without culpable Ignorance pretend not to know them to be so And therefore notwithstanding any such supposed Divine Revelation as may be pretended from those words This is my Body they cannot by our Author 's own Rule without culpable Ignorance not know that they are mistaken in this Matter Again No Papist can have any reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of Holy Scripture This is my Body That these words are in Scripture he can know only by his Senses If his Senses therefore are not to be trusted he is not sure there are any such words in Scripture If they are to be trusted he is then sure that the Interpretation which he puts upon them must be false Since then it is confess'd that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense and that both upon the account of the Contradictions that such an Exposition involves to the common Principles of Reason and to the certain Evidence of the Senses of all Mankind it is necessary to take them in some other meaning it remains that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot pretend not to know that this could never have been the intention of our Blessed Saviour in those words and that such Ignorance will not excuse them our Author himself has freely confess'd But 2dly let us quit this Reflection and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation Yet still it is confess'd by them 1. That there is no Command nor Example in holy Scripture for adoring Christ in the Eucharist 2. That infinite Defects may happen to hinder him from being there and then what they worship is only a piece of Bread. 3. That they can never be sure that some of these Defects have not happened and by consequence that what they suppose to be Christ's Body is indeed any more than a meer Wafer From whence I argue He that without any Command or Warrant of God pays a Divine Adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature can never be sure that he do's not commit Idolatry But whosoever worships the Host worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit Idolatry Now concerning the former of these how dangerous it is for any one to give Divine Worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer Creature be it considered what jealousy God has at all times express'd of his Honour as to this Matter how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his Supreme Prerogative in such Cases How therefore he that will come to him must be very well assured that it is God to whom he approaches and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it ought not to worship with a doubting Mind because he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault but the doing of which may for ought he knows be a very great Sin. And for the second Whether every Roman Catholick who adores the Host has not even upon his own Principles very great cause to doubt whether he adores Christ's Body or only a bit of Bread will appear from those infinite Defects which they themselves allow as sufficient to hinder a Consecration and which make it great odds were their Doctrine otherwise never so true whether yet one Host in twenty it may be in five hundred be
and yet not move That there should be no Certainty in our Senses and yet that we should know something Certainly and yet know nothing but by our Senses That that which Is and Was long ago should now begin to be That that is now to be made of Nothing which is not Nothing but Something That the same thing should be Before and After its self These and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable and most of them the avow'd Consequences of Transubstantiation and I need not say all of them Contradictions to Right Reason But I shall insist rather upon such Instances as the Primitive Fathers have judged to be absurd and impossible and which will at once shew both the Falseness and Novelty of this monstrous Doctrine and such are these * See Examples of every one of these collected by Blondel Eclaircissements familiers de la controverse de l' Eucharistie cap. 8. p. 253. That a thing already existing should be produced anew That a finite thing should be in many places at the same time That a Body should be in a place and yet take up no room in it That a Body should penetrate the dimensions of another Body That a Body should exist after the manner of a Spirit That a real body should be invisible and impassible That the same thing should be its self and the figure of its self That the same thing should be contained in and participate of its self †Monsieur Claude Rep. au 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite part 1. c. 4. n. 11. p. 73. Ed. 4to Paris 1668. That an Accident should exist by its self without a Subject after the manner of a Substance All these things the primitive Fathers have declared to be in their Opinions gross Absurdities and Contradictions without making any exception of the Divine Power for the sake of the Eucharist as some do now And indeed it were well if the impossibilities stopp'd here but alas the Repugnancies extend to the very Creed its self and destroy the chiefest Articles of our Faith the Fundamentals of Christianity How can that man profess that he believes our Saviour Christ to have been born xvi Ages since of the Virgin Mary whose very Body he sees the Priest about to make now before his Eyes That he believes him to have Ascended into Heaven and behold he is yet with us upon Earth There to Sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty till in the end of the World He shall come again with Glory to judg both the Quick and the Dead And behold he is here carried through the Streets lock'd up in a Box Adored first and then Eaten by his own Creatures carried up and down in several manners and to several places and sometimes Lost out of a Priests Pocket These are no far-fetch'd Considerations they are the obvious Consequences of this Belief and if these things are impossible as doubtless if there be any such thing as Reason in the World they are I suppose it may be very much the concern of every one that professes this Faith to reflect a little upon them and think what account must one day be given of their persisting obstinately in a point so evidently erroneous that the least degree of an impartial judgment would presently have shewn them the falseness of it But God has not left himself without farther witness in this matter but has given us Thirdly III. The Conviction of our Senses against it An Argument this which since it cannot be Answered they seem resolved to run it down as the Stoick in Lucian who began to call names when he had nothing else to say for himself But if the Senses are such ill Informers that they may not be trusted in matters of this moment would these Disputers please to tell us What Authority they have for the truth of the Christian Religion Was not Christianity first founded upon the Miracles of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles Or were not the Senses judges of those Miracles Are not the Incarnation Death Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord the most Fundamental Articles of our Faith Have we any other Argument to warrant our belief of these but what comes to us by the ministry of our Senses * John xx 27 29. Did not Christ himself appeal to them for the proof of his own Rising The Romanist himself believes Transubstantiation because he reads in the Scripture or rather to speak more agreeably to the method of their Church because he has been told there are such Words there as Hee est Corpus Meum Now not to enquire how far those words will serve to warrant this Doctrine is it not evident that he cannot be sure there are any such words there if he may not trust his Senses And if he may is it not as plain That he must seek for some other meaning than what they give of them Let us suppose the change they speak of to be Supernatural Be it as much a Miracle as they desire The very Character of a Miracle is to be known by the Senses Nor God nor Christ nor any Prophet or Apostle ever pretended to any other And I shall leave it to any one to judge what progress Christianity would have made in the World if it had had no other Miracles but such as Transubstanation to confirm it i. e. Great Wonders confidently asserted but such as every ones sense and reason would tell him were both falsely asserted and impossible to be performed But now whil'st we thus oppose the Errors of some by asserting the continuance of the Natural Substance of the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Holy Eucharist let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mistakes of others as if this Holy Sacrament were nothing more than a meer Rite and Ceremony a bare Commemoration only of Christ's Death and Passion Our Church indeed teaches us to believe That the Bread and Wine continue still in their True and Natural Substance but it teaches us also that 't is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechism and Article Twenty eighth The Communion-Office c. which every faithful Soul receives in that Holy Supper Spiritually indeed and after a Heavenly manner but yet most truly and really too The Primitive Fathers of whom we have before spoken sufficiently assure us that they were strangers to that Corporeal change that is now pretended but for this Divine and Mystical they have openly enough declared for it Nor are we therefore afraid to confess a change and that a very great one too made in this Holy Sacrament The Bread and the Wine which we here Consecrate ought not to be given or received by any one in this Mystery as common ordinary food Those Holy Elements which the Prayers of the Church have sanctified and the Divine Words of our Blessed Saviour applied to them though not Transubstantiated yet certainly separated to a Holy use and
concerning it and sent it to several of his most learned Acquaintance the better to undeceive them in this matter One of these Persons to whom this Present was made having been pleased to communicate to me the very Paper which by the Abbot 's order was brought to him it may not perhaps be amiss to gratifie the Reader 's curiosity if I here insert it at its full length * The Abbot means that now at his death he hoped he might speak freely what he durst not in his Life-time do Permission hoped for to speak freely for the Truth I Cannot but exceedingly wonder that a certain Preacher who reads the Holy Scriptures and will maintain nothing but by their Authority should nevertheless undertake to defend against all Opposers by the Scriptures the Real Presence in the Eucharist out of the act of receiving and think himself so sure to overcome in this Occasion as to talk of it as a thing certain and in which he knows he cannot be resisted It would certainly be more safe not to be too much prepossessed with any thing I will not name the Person because I have no mind to displease him But in the mean time neither Sense nor Reason nor the Word of God have suggested to him one word of it unless the Apostle was mistaken when he said ' If ye are risen with Christ seek those things that are above where Christ is sate at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above and not on things upon the Earth Coloss 3.1 2. For how could he speak after this manner if Jesus Christ be still upon Earth by his real Presence under the species in the Eucharist When he ascended into Heaven he said not to his Disciples which saw his wonderful Ascension I shall be with you always by my Real Presence under the species of the Eucharist which shall be publickly exposed to you In his Sermon at the Supper which he had just now celebrated and which immediately preceded his Passion Jesus Christ according to S. John says expresly to his Apostles that he was about to leave them that he should not be long absent that he would send to them the Comforter but not one word of his Real Presence in the Eucharist which he had so lately instituted under the Bread and Wine to be a Mystery of our Faith for the nourishment of the Soul to life Eternal as ordinary Bread and Wine are for the nourishment of the Body to a temporal Life and that too for ALL the faithful as is clearly signified by those Words Drink ye all of this Whereupon I have elsewhere remark'd the custom of Libations which were in use time out of mind throughout the whole Roman Empire and which custom was establish'd in honour of the gods As may be seen in the Version of Athenaeus in 1680 and as I had observed long before upon Virgil and Horace though there was but little notice taken of it Which makes me think it very probable that our Saviour intended to sanctifie this Profane custom as he did some others which I have remarked in the same place When Men undertake to prove too much they very often prove nothing at all To maintain that Jesus Christ is intire in the Eucharist with all his Bodily extension and all his Dignity so as he is in Heaven so that under the Roundness of the Bread there is nothing that is Round under the Whiteness there is nothing White this is what the Scripture has not said one word of They are indeed meer Visions and which are not so easie to maintain as Men may think The Priest who celebrates breaks the Host in three pieces One of these he puts into the Cup of the two others he communicates in memory as 't is plain of what we read That Jesus the night in which he was betray'd took Bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take Eat This is my Body which is broken for you Do this in Remembrance of Me. 1 Cor. 11.23 24. In the Mass there is here no more Bread they are only the appearances of Bread that is to say the Accidents and which are not tied to any Substance And yet so long as there is but one Atom of those Accidents which they call Eucharistical species in the Consecration that has been made the true Flesh of the Lord Jesus is so annex'd to them that it remains there whole and intire without the least confusion and may be so in diverse places at the same time I doubt not but those who teach us this Doctrine have thought of it more than once but have they well consider'd it for there is not one word of it in all the Sacred Writings Is it nothing that Jesus Christ said to his Apostles but a little while before his Passion when he was now about to celebrate his Holy Supper with them You shall have the Poor always with you but me ye shall not have always Matth. 26.11 His Real Presence in the Eucharist out of the act of communicating not excepted They say to the People Behold your Creator that made Heaven and Earth And the People seeing the consecrated Bread in the Ciboire wherein 't is carry'd abroad says Behold the good God going in procession to confound the Hereticks and according to their natural inclination they adore with all their Hearts they know not what because so they have been instructed and the better to maintain their prejudice intire in this matter they become mad But alas they know not what they do and we ought to pity their Excess On the other side who can tell whether the Priest has consecrated or indeed whether he be capable of consecrating Is it a point of Faith to believe that among so many Priests not one of them is a Cheat and an Impostor This certainly cannot be of Faith and if this be not neither is that which exposed with so much Pomp to carry the true Body of the Lord through the Streets of Faith. Thus the belief is at best but Conjecture and then whatsoever in such cases is not of Faith is sin according to the Apostle Rom. 14.23 I know not what colour can be sufficient to excuse so strong an Objection unless Men will absolutely resist the Holy Scripture and right Reason founded upon it 'T is further said that Jesus Christ is in many places at the same time in the Hosts which are carried in very different manners But neither for this is there any Text of Scripture You will say this may be I answer the Question here is not of the Infinite power of Jesus Christ but of his Will and which we must obey when it is known to us and of this as to the present point we read nothing in the Holy Scripture The shorter way then would be to say that the Sacrament of one Parish is not the same with that of another although both the one and the other concur
all their Senses tell them is but a bit of Bread to the hinderance of whose Conversion so many things may interpose that were their Doctrine otherwise as infallible as we are certain it is false it would yet be a hundred to one that there is no Consecration in a word how they can worship that which they can never be secure is changed into Christ's Body nay when as the examples I have before given shew they have all the reason in the World to fear whether even the Priest himself who says the Mass does indeed believe that he has any Power or by consequence can have any intention to turn it into the Flesh of Christ And the same consideration will shew Thirdly How little security their other Plea of Concomitance which they so much insist upon to shew the sufficiency of their Communicating only in one kind viz. that they receive the Blood in the Body can give to the Laity to satisfie their Consciences that they ever partake of that Blessed Sacrament as they ought to do Since whatever is pretended of Christ's Body 't is certain there can be none of his Blood in a meer Wafer And if by reason of the Priest's infidelity the Host should be indeed nothing else of which we have shewn they can never be sure neither can they ever know whether what they receive be upon their own Principles an intire Communion And then Lastly for the main thing of all The Sacrifice of the Mass it is clear that if Christ's Body be not truly and properly there it cannot be truly and properly offer'd nor any of those great benefits be derived to them from a morsel of Bread which themselves declare can proceed only from the Flesh and Blood of their Blessed Lord. It is I know an easie matter for those who can believe Transubstantiation to believe also that there is no hazard in all these great and apparent dangers But yet in matters of such moment Men ought to desire to be well assured and not exposed even to any possible defects De defectibus cirea Missam De defectu panis Si panis non sit triticeus vel si triticeus sit admixtus granis alterius generis in tantâ quantitate ut non maneat panis triticeus vel sit alioqui corruptus non conficitur Sacramentum Si sit confectus de aqud rosaceâ vel alterius distillationis dubium est an conficiatur Et de defect vini Si Vinum sit factum penitus acetum vel penitus putridum vel de uvis acerbis seu non maturis expressiom vel admixtum tantum aque ut vinum sit corruptum non consicitur Sacramentum I do not now insist upon the common remarks which yet are Authorized by their own Missal and may give just grounds to their fears That if the Wafer be not made of Wheat but of some other Corn there is then no Consecration If it be mixed not with common but distill'd Water it is doubtful whether it be Consecrated If the Wine be sowre to such a certain degree that then it becomes incapable of being changed into the Blood of Christ with many more of the like kind and which render it always uncertain to them whether there be any change made in the blessed Elements or no * Du Moulin in the place above cited mentions one that in his time was burnt at Loudun for Consecrating a Host in the name of the Devil Thes Sedann Th. 97. n. 10. p. 846. Vol. 1. the Relations I have given are not of counterfeit Jews and Moors who to escape the danger of the Inquisition have sometimes become Priests and administred all the Sacraments for many years together without ever having an intention to Administer truly any one of them and of which I could give an eminent instance in a certain Jew now living who for many Years was not only a Priest but a Professor of Divinity in Spain and all the while in reality a meer Jew as he is now The Persons here mention'd were Men of undoubted reputation of great learning and singular esteem in their Church and if these found the impossibilities of Transubstantiation so much greater than either the pretended Authority or Infallibility of their Church certainly they may have just cause to fear whether many others of their Priests do not Live in the same infidelity in which these have Died and so expose them to all the hazards now mentioned and which are undeniably the consequences of such their Unbelief But these are not the only dangers I would desire those of that Communion to reflect on upon this occasion Another there is and of greater consequence than any I have hitherto mentioned and which may perhaps extend not only to this Holy Eucharist but it may be to the invalidating of most of their other Sacraments * Eugenii IV. decret in Act. Concil Florent Ann. 1439. Concil Labb Tom. 13. p. 535. Concil Trident. Sess VII Can. 2. It is the Doctrine of the Roman Church that to the Validity of every Sacrament and therefore of that of Orders as well as the rest three things must concur a due matter a right form and the Person of the Minister conferring the Sacrament with an intention of doing what the Church does Where either of these is wanting the Sacrament is not performed If therefore the Bishop in conferring the Holy Order of Priesthood has not an intention of doing what the Church does 't is plain that the Person to be ordained receives no Priestly Character of him nor by consequence has any power of consecrating the Holy Eucharist or of being hereafter advanced to a higher degree Now the form of conferring the Order of Priesthood they determine to be this †Ibid. pag. 5â—3 Catech. Concil Trid. de Sacr. Ord. n. xxii p. 222. Item n. L. p. 228. The Bishop delivers the Cup with some Wine and the Paten with Bread into the Hands of the person whom he Ordains saying Receive the Power of offering a Sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost By which Ceremony and words their Catechism tells us He is constituted an Interpreter and Mediator between God and Man which is to be esteemed the chiefest Function of a Priest So that then the intention necessary to the conferring the Order of Priesthood is this to give a Power to consecrate i. e. to Transubstantiate the Host into Christ's Body and so offer it as a Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead If therefore any of their Bishops for instance Cardinal du Perron or Monsieur de Marca did not believe that either the Church or themselves as Bishops of it had any Authority to confer any such Power they could not certainly have any Intention of doing in this case what the Church intends to do Having no such Intention the Persons whom they pretended to Ordain were no Priests
of them the Abbot of Ville-loyne I have been assured by some of his intimate Acquaintance that he had always a particular respect for the Church of England and which others of their Communion at this day esteem to be neither Heretical nor Schismatical V. But I may not insist on these things and will therefore finish this Address with this only remonstrance to them That since it is thus evident that for above 1200 years this Doctrine was never establish'd in the Church nor till then in the opinion of their own most learned Men any matter of Faith since the Greatest of their Writers in the past Ages have declared themselves so freely concerning it as we have seen above and some of the most eminent of their Communion in the present have ingenuously acknowledged that they could not believe it since 't is confess'd that the Scripture does not require it Sense and Reason undoubtedly oppose it and the Primitive Ages of the Church as one of their own Authors has very lately shewn received it not They will at least suffer all these things to dispose them to an indifferent Examination wherefore at last it is that they do believe this great Error Upon what Authority they have given up their Senses to Delusion their Reason to embrace Contradictions the Holy Scripture and Antiquity to be submitted to the dictates of two Assemblies which many of themselves esteem to have been rather Cabals than Councils And all to support a Doctrine the most injurious that can be to our Saviour 's Honour destructive in its nature not only of the certainty of the Christian Religion but of every thing else in the World which if Transubstantiation be true must be all but Vision for that cannot be true unless the Senses of all Mankind are deceived in judging of their proper Objects and if this be so we can then be sure of nothing These Considerations if they shall incline them to an impartial view of the following Discourses they may possibly find somewhat in them to shew the reasonableness of our dissent from them in this matter However they shall at least I hope engage those of our own Communion to stand firm in that Faith which is thus strongly supported with all sorts of Arguments and convince them how dangerous it is for Men to give up themselves to such prejudices as neither Sense nor Reason nor the word of God nox the Authority of the best and purest Ages of the Church are able to overcome A TABLE OF THE Principal Matters Contained in this TREATISE PREFACE THE occasion of this Discourse Page i The method made use of for the explaining the nature of this Holy Eucharist Page iv No Proof of Transubstantiation in Holy Scripture Page v The rise and establishment of it Page vi vii Several of their greatest Men before the Council of Trent believed it not Page vii viii And many have even since continued to disbelieve it Page x So Picherellus Page x Cardinal du PERRON Page xi F. Barnes Page xii Monsieur de MARCA Page xiii F. SIRMOND Page xv Monsieur L Page xvii Mons de Marolles Page ib. Others Page xxiv c. Consequences drawn from these Examples I. Of the danger of the Papists especially upon their own Principles Page xxvii With reference to this Sacrament and therein to the 1. Consecration Page xxvii 2. Adoration Page ib. 3. Communion in one kind Page xxix 4. Mass Page xxx With reference to their entire Priesthood Page xxxi II. Against the Infallibility of the Roman Church Page xxxiii III. Against its Authority Page xxxiv IV. As to the Reasonableness of our Reformation Page xxxvi V. That these things ought to dispose those of that Communion to an impartial search into the grounds of their belief as to this matter Page xxxvii PART I. The Introduction Of the Nature of this Holy Sacrament in the General Pag. 1 Christ's design in the Institution of it Pag. 2 That he establish'd it upon the Ceremonies of the Jewish Passover Pag. 3 4 5 6 The method from hence taken to explain the nature of it Pag. 6 7 CHAP. I. Of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence established by the Church of Rome Pag. 8 What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in this point ib. This shewn upon the Principle before laid down to be repugnant 1. To the design and nature of this Holy Sacrament Pag. 12 2. To the expression it self This is my Body Pag. 14 The Papists themselves sensible of it Pag. 18 That the Sixth of S. John does not at all favour them Pag. 20 This Doctrine shewn further to be repugnant I. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church Pag. 24 II. To the right Reason Pag. 32 III. To the common Sense of all Mankind Pag. 36 Conclusion of this Point and transition to the next Pag. 37 CHAP. II. Of the Real Presence acknowledged by the Church of England 41 The notion of the Real Presence falsly imputed by a late Author to our Church 42 In answer to this Four things proposed to be considered I. What is the true notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England Pag. 43 II. That this Notion has been constantly maintained by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines Pag. 46 So those abroad Calvin Pag. 47 Beza Pag. 49 Martyr c. Pag. 51 For our own Divines consider the express words of the twenty ninth Article in K. Edw. VI. time Pag. 52 Archbishop Cranmer Pag. 53 Bishop Ridley Pag. 55 That the same continned to be the Opinion of our Divines after Pag. 56 Shewn 1. From the History of the Convocations proceeding as to this point in the beginning of Q. Eliz. Reign ib. 2. From the Testimonies of our Divines Bp. Jewell Pag. 59 Mr. Hooker Pag. 60 Bp. Andrews Pag. 62 A. B. of Spalatto Pag. 64 Bp. Montague ib. Bp. Taylour Pag. 66 Mr. Torndyke Pag. 69 Whose Testimonies are cited at large Of 1. Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum 2. Bp. Morton 3. A. B. Usher 4. Bp. Cosens 5. Dr. Jo. White 6. Dr. Fr. White 7. Dr. Jackson 8. Dr. Hammond Whose Authorities are refer'd to Pag. 71 72 III. That the alterations which have been made in our Rubrick were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions as is vainly and falsly suggested Pag. 72 IV. That the Reasons mentioned in our Rubrick concerning the Impossibility of Christ's Natural Body's existing in several places at the same time is no way invalidated by any of this Author's Exceptions against it Pag. 77 1. Not by his First Observation ib. 2. Nor by his Second Pag. 79 3. Nor by his Third Pag. 80 4. Nor by his Fourth Pag. 81 The Objection of this Opinion's being downright Zuinglianism Answered Pag. 82 And the whole concluded Pag. 84 PART II. CHAP. III Of the Adoration of the Host as prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome Two things proposed to be considered I. What the Doctrine of the
into Christ's Body than for Christ's Body to be changed into Bread a Vine a Door a Rock or whatever you please of the like kind But I have already shewn the ground of this mistake to be their want of considering the Customs and Phrases of the Jewish Passover and upon which both the Holy Eucharist it self and these Expressions in it were founded And I will only add this farther in confirmation of it That in the Stile of the Hebrew Language in general there is nothing more ordinary than for things to be said to * Expressions of this kind are very frequent in Holy Scripture The seed is the Word of God Luke viii 11. The field is the World the good seed are the children of the kingdom The tares are the children of the wicked one Matt. xiii 38. The seven Angels are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches Rev. i. 20. With infinite more of the like kind Be that which they Signifie or Represent Thus Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's Dream Gen. xli 26. The seven good Kine says he are seven years and again The seven good Ears of Corn are seven years i. e. as is plain they signify seven years And so in like manner in this place Christ took Bread and blessed and brake it and gave it to his disciples saying Take Eat this is my Body which is Broken for you That is this Bread thus Taken and Blessed and Broken and Given to you This Bread and this Action signifies and represents my Body which shall be Broken for you And indeed after all this seeming assurance it is nevertheless plain That they themselves are not very well satisfied with their own interpretation †See the Preface We have shewn before how little confidence their greatest Schoolmen had of this Doctrine those who have stood the most stifly for it could never yet * See their Opinions collected by Monsieur Aubertine de Eucharistiâ lib. 1. cap. 9.11 12 13 14. agree how to explain these words so as to prove it And Cardinal Bellarmine alone who reckons up the most part of their several ways and argues the weakness too of every one but his own may be sufficient to assure us that they are never likely to be And might serve to shew what just cause their own great * Tract 2. de Verbis quibus Conficitur Catharinus had so long since to cry out upon his Enquiry only into the meaning of the very first word This Consider says he Reader into what difficulties they are thrown who go about to write upon this matter when the word THIS only has had so many and such contradictory Expositions that they are enough to make a man lose his Wits but barely to consider them all 'T was this forced so many of their †See their Testimonies cited in the late Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation in the Defence of the Exposition of the Church of England p. 63 64 65. In the Preface above c. greatest and most learned men before Luther ingenuously to profess That there was not in Scripture any evident proof of this Doctrine and even Cardinal Cajetan since to own That had not the Church determined for the literal sense of those words This is my Body they might have passed in the Metaphorical It is the general acknowledgment of their ‖ See Bellarmin's words in the Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England pag. 56 57. To which may be added Salmer Tom. 9. Tr. 20. Suarez Disp 58. Sect. 7. Vasquez Disp 201. c. 1. c. greatest Writers at this day That if the Pronoun THIS in that Proposition This is my Body be referr'd to the Bread which our Saviour Christ held in his Hand which he bless'd which he brake and gave to his Disciples and of which therefore certainly if of any thing he said This is my Body the natural repugnancy that there is between the two things affirm'd of one another Bread and Christs Body will force them to be taken in a figurative Interpretation For as much as 't is impossible that Bread should be Christ's Body otherwise than in a figure And however to avoid so dangerous a Consequence they will rather apply it to any thing nay to nothing at all than to the Bread yet they would do well to consider whether they do not thereby fall into as great a danger on the other side since if the Relative THIS do's not determine those words to the Bread 't is evident that nothing in that whole Proposition do's And then how those words shall work so great a change in a Subject to which they have no manner of Relation will I believe be as difficult to shew as the change its self is incomprehensible to conceive And now after so plain an evidence of the weakness of that foundation which is by all confessed to be the chief and has by many of the most Learned of that Church been thought the only Pillar of this Cause I might well dispense with my self from entring on any farther examination of their other pretences to establish it But because they have taken great pains of late to apply the †Concil Trid. Sess xiii sixth Chapter of St. John to the Holy Eucharist tho' it might be sufficient in general to say that no good Argument for a matter of such consequence can be built upon a place which so many of the * See them thus ranged by Albertinus de Euch. lib 1. cap. 30. pag. 209. Two Popes Innocent III. Pius II. Four Cardinals Bonaventure D' Alliaco Cusan Cajetane Two Archbishops Richardus Armachannus Guererius Granatensis Five Bishops Stephanus Eduensis Durandus Mimatensis Gulielmus Altisiodorensis Lindanus Ruremondensis Jansenius Gandavensis Doctors and Professors of Divinity in great abundance Alexander Alensis Richardus de media villa Jo. Gerson Jo. de Ragufio Gabriel Biel Thomas Waldenfis Author tract contr perfidiam quorundam Bohemorum Jo. Maria Verratus Tilmannus Segebergensis Astesanus Conradus Jo. Ferus Conradus Sasgerus Jo. Hesselius Ruardus Tapperus Palatios Rigaltius Here are 50. of the Roman Church who reject this Application of this Chapter For the Fathers see the Learned Paraphrase lately set forth of this Chapter in the Preface All which shews how little strength any Argument from this Chapter can have to establish Transubstantiation most Eminent and Learned of that Communion have judged not to have the least Relation to this matter yet I will nevertheless beg leave very briefly to shew the Weakness of this Second Attempt too and that 't is in vain that they rally these scatter'd Forces whilst their main Body continues so intirely defeated It is a little surprizing in this matter that they universally tell us That neither the beginning nor ending of our Saviours Discourse in that Chapter belongs to this Matter that both before and after that passage which they refer to 't is
also was omitted lest it should give Offence to those who were still zealous for their mistaken Principles and Worship This was the Wise and Christian Design of that Excellent Princess and how happy an Effect this Moderation might have had if the Bishop of Rome had not by his Artifice and Authority with some of her Subjects prevented it the first Years of her Reign sufficiently shew Thus was the Occasion and Reason of its omission in Q. Elizabeth's time as great as the necessity of its first Insertion in King Edward's And in this state it continued all the Reign of that Queen and of her two Successors King James and King Charles 1st I shall not need to say by what means it was that new Occasion was given for the reviving of it We have all of us heard and many of us seen too much of it How Order became Superstitious and Decency termed Idolatry The Church of England traduced as but another Name for Popery and this Custom of kneeling at the Communion one of the strongest Arguments offer'd for the Proof of it And now when Panick Fears had found such prevalence over the Minds of Men as to destroy a King and embroil a Kingdom into a Civil War of almost Twenty Years continuance and tho by the good hand of God our King and our Peace were again restored yet the minds of the People were still unsetled and in danger of being again blown up upon the least Occasion what could be more advisable to justifie our selves from all suspicion of Popery in this matter and induce them to a Conformity with us in a Ceremony they had entertain'd such a dread of than to revive that ancient Rubrick and so quiet the Minds of the People now by the same means by which they had been setled and secured before This I am perswaded is so rational an Account as will both justifie the proceedings of our Governours in these Changes and shew the dis-ingenuity of those who not only knowing but having been told these things will still rather impute it to an imaginary wavering or uncertainty of Opinion than to a necessary and Christian Accommodation to the Times For the change in the Prayer of Consecration I have already said that 't is in the Words not the Sense And if our Governours thought the present Expressions 〈◊〉 liable to exception than the former they had certainly reason for the Alteration For the other Exceptions there is very little in them whether the Minister lay his Hand on the Sacred Elements when he repeats the words of Institution as at this time or only consecrates them by the Prayers of the Church and the Words of Christ without any other Ceremony as heretofore Whether with the Church of Rome we use only the words of Christ in the distribution or with most of the Reformed Churches the other Expression Take and eat this c. or as we chuse rather joyn them both together Whether we sing the Gloria in Excelsis Deo before or after the receiving but because the chiefest Mystery he thinks lies in this That whereas in King Edward's days the Rubrick called it an Essential Presence which we have now turned into Corporeal I must confess I will not undertake to say what the Occasion of it was if they thought this latter manner more free from giving Offence than the other would have been I think they did well to prefer it Let every one entertain what Notion he pleases of these things this I have shewn is the Doctrine of the Church which we all subscribe That the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here i. e. in the Sacrament and if there can be any other Real Presence than such as I have shewn to have been the constant belief of our Divines consistent with this Rubrick I shall no more desire to debar any one the belief of it than I shall be willing to be obliged to believe it with him And now after so clear an Account as I have here given of the several changes that have been made in our Rubrick were I minded to recriminate and tell the World what Alterations have been made in their Mass those in Points infinitely more material than any thing that can be alledged against us I much question whether they would be able to give us so good an account of it And so mething of this I may perhaps offer as a Specimen of the wisdom of this Author in the choice of his Accusation before we part In the mean time I go on to the last thing proposed to be here consider'd 4thly that the Reason mention'd in our Rubrick concerning the Impossibility of Christs natural Body's existing in several places at the same time is no way invalidated by any of this Authors exceptions against it Now these being most of them founded upon the former mistaken Notion of the Real presence falsely imputed to us will admit of a very short and plain consideration 1 st He observes That Protestants Treatise 1st §. xx n. 1. pag. 13. but especially our English Divines generally confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist to be an ineffable Mystery Well be it so what will he hence infer Why this he conceives is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by Humane Reason But supposing they should not think it so from being Opposite and Contradictory to but because the manner how Christ herein communicates himself to us is hid from and above our Humane Reason might not this be sufficient to make it still be called an ineffable and incomprehensible Mystery Whereas the other would make it rather plain and comprehensible Nonsence 'T is a strange Affection that some Men have got of late for Contradictions they are so in love with them that they have almost brought it to be the definition of a Mystery to be the Revelation of something to be believ'd in Opposition to Sense and Reason And what by their Notions and Parallels have advanced no very commendable Character of Christianity as if it were a Religion full of Absurdities Bishop TAYLOVRS Polem Disco of the Real prefence Sect. ii pag. 231. and as Fisher the Jesuit once told King James 1 st with reference to this very Subject the rather to be believed because it is contrary to Reason But if this be indeed our Authors Notion of Mysteries and the truth is Transubstantiation can be no other Mystery we desire he will be pleased to confine it to his own Church and not send it abroad into the World as ours too We are perswaded not only that our Worship must be a reasonable Service but our Faith a Reasonable Assent He who opposes the Authority of Holy Scriptures Ibid. says Bishop Taylor against manifest and certain Reason do's neither understand himself nor them Reason is the voice of God as well as Revelation
for their Adoration whereby they become Absolved by other Protestants from Idolatry in adoring our Lord as present there I see not why the Grounds of Roman Catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs In Answer to which the Reader may please to remember that I have before said that we do not excuse those Lutherans who do this so much upon this Principle that they have a more plausible Ground or Motive for their Adoration but for this rather that confessing the Substance of the Bread to remain they do not mistake their Object but pay their Adoration indeed to Christ only supposing him to be there where in Truth he is not But 2dly this Author is very much mistaken if he thinks the Lutherans have no better a Foundation for their Real Presence than the Papists See Ibid. Indeed were the difference no greater than between a Con and a Trans it would I confess be hardly worth the while to contend about it But when we come to the Point it self we may observe these four Advantages among many others of the Lutherans side 1. They confess for the outward Elements that they are really what they appear to be Bread and Wine and so they do no Violence to their Senses which as I have said is a great aggravation against the Papists 2. By this means they are at no defiance with all those Texts of Scripture where they are so often called Bread and Wine after Consecration All which the Papist contradicts but the Lutheran does not 3. From the words of Christ This is my Body we all of us confess may be inferr'd that Christ's Body is in this Holy Sacrament But whence do's the Papist infer the destruction of the Substance of the Bread so that what is taken and blessed and given is not Bread but Christ's Body under the appearance of Bread This is an Error which I am sure the Text gives no manner of colour to and therefore our Author cannot with any reason pretend as he do's whether we consult the Text of Holy Scripture or our own Senses that they have as good grounds for their Real Presence as the Lutherans have for theirs To all which let me add 4thly that by Transubstantiation they destroy the very Nature of a Sacrament by leaving no true external Sign or Symbol and which is another unanswerable Argument against them whilst the Lutherans acknowledging the Substance of the Bread to remain do not destroy at all the Nature of this Sacrament but retain the same Sign which our Blessed Lord established and so have no Objection on this side neither to convict them But yet notwithstanding all this Pag. 26 27. Do not some of our Writers confess that the Papists Interpretation is more rational than the Lutherans I Answer What certain Protestants may have said in Zeal for their own Opinions and in particular Hospinian upon the account of his Master Zuinglius I cannot tell But sure I am we are not bound to answer for all that any Protestant Author has said And if these Reasons I have here given for the contrary are valid they ought to be more regarded than the ungrounded Assertions of a Sacramentary Historian Well Pag. 27. but still the Papist do's not ground his Adoration upon Transubstantiation but on Corporal Presence and so they must both be excused or neither This is a fetch to very little purpose For let me ask this Author He confesses he founds his Adoration upon the Corporal Presence Do's he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation exclusive to all others or no If he do's then 't is evident that the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation must with him stand or fall together and so if he adores on the account of the Corporal Presence he do's it upon the account of Transubstantiation If he do's not believe this 't is plain he is no Papist nor submits to the Authority of the Church of Rome which has defined the Corporal Presence to be after this particular manner exclusive to all Others and Anathematized all that dare to deny it Laying aside therefore this Comparison and which in truth will do them but very little kindness Pag. 27. §. xxiv Let us view more particularly what rational Grounds they have to exhibit for this their belief of their Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and of the Adoration of him upon that account I. Ibid. Ground And the first is Divine Revelation For which our Author offers the two usual Instances of the words of Institution and the 6th Chapter of S. John both which therefore I have at large discoursed on above and I believe sufficiently shewn how false a Foundation these are of this belief But yet since our Author reminds us * Pag. 27 28. That against these no Argument taken from our Senses or Reason is valid I will beg leave to remind him of his own Assertion too * See Treatise 1. p. 14. That none can believe a thing true upon what Motive soever that he knows certainly to be false or which is all one certainly to contradict So that if our Reason then makes us certain of such a contradiction P. 21. Treat 1. we may be certain that there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation and when any Revelation tho NEVER SO PLAIN is brought we are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility From which Principle it seems to me to follow that were Hoc est Corpus meum as evident a proof of Transubstantiation as their own Authors confess it is not yet if our Sense and Reason tell us that there are certain Contradictions against the common Principles of Nature and the universal Sentiments of all Mankind no otherwise to be avoided but by taking those words in the sense in which we do we are then BOVND to interpret them so as to avoid these Impossibilities And this I am confident I have at large shewn above to be the Case and thither I refer the Reader II. Ground P. 28. §. xxv Their second Ground is founded upon the Authority of those Councils that have determined this Matter The Declaration as he calls it of the most Supreme and Vniversal Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former Times for the decision of this Controversy long before the birth of Protestantism These are great Words indeed but I wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable * These are his Synods at Rome Vercelles Tours Rome again An. 1059. and again An. 1078. Synods of particular Prelats such as are all those to which he refers us assembled against Berengarius were the most supream and universal Church-Authority For his little Reflection that they were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism I must tell him I doubt he is mistaken The Religion of Protestants like that of Papists is composs'd of two great parts Catholick Christianity common in some
Humane Nature of Christ still remains though assumed by and conjoyned to the Divine Which words as their Editor has done well to set a Cautè upon in the Margent to signifie their danger so this is clear from them that Gelasius and so the other Writers that have made use of the same Argument as St. Chrysostome Theodoret c. must have thought the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist no more to have been really changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ than they did believe his Humane Nature to have been truly turned into the Divine For that otherwise the parallel would have stood them in no stead nay would have afforded a defence of that Heresie which they undertook to oppose by it VI. Yet more Had the Primitive Christians believed this great Change how comes it to pass that we find none of those Marks nor Signs of it that the World has since abounded with * See the contrary proved that the Fathers did not believe this by Blondel de l'Euch c. 8. Claude Rep. au 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite part 1. c. 4. No talk of Accidents existing without Subjects of the Senses being liable to be deceived in judging of their proper Objects in short no Philosophy corrupted to maintain this Paradox No Adorations Processions Vows paid to it as to Christ himself It is but a very little time since the †Under Greg. ix Ann. 1240. vid. Nauclerum ad Ann. cit Bell came in play to give the People notice that they should fall down and Worship this new God. The ‖ Instituted by Vrban iv Ann. 1264. Feast in honour of it is an Invention of Yesterday the Adoring of it in the Streets no ⸪ Indeed in all Probability a hundred years later older Had not those first Christians respect sufficient for our Blessed Saviour Or did they perhaps do all this Let them shew it us if they can But till then we must beg leave to conclude That since we find not the least Footsteps of any of these necessary Appendages of this Doctrine among the Primitive Christians it is not to be imagined that we should find the Opinion neither VII But this is not all We do not only not find any such Proofs as these of this Doctrine but we find other Instances directly contrary to this belief In some Churches they ‖ So in that of Jerusalem See Hesych in Levitic l. 2. c. 8. burnt what remained of the Consecrated Elements * So in that of Constantinople Evag. Hist l. 4. c. 35. In others they gave it to little Children to Eat †Vid. apud Autor Vit. Basilii c. 8. in Vit. Pat. l. 1. This Custom was condemned in a Council at Carthage Anno 419. Vid. Codic Eccl. Afric Justel c. 18. In some they buried it with their Dead In all they permitted the Communicants to carry home some Remnants of them they sent it abroad by Sea by Land from one Church and Village to another without any Provision of Bell or Taper Canopy or Incense or any other mark of Adoration they sometimes made ⸪ Vid. St. August Oper. imp contr Julian lib. 3. c. 164. Poultices of the Bread they mix'd the ⸫ See an instance of this in Baronius Ann. 648. Sect. 15. The 8th General Council did the same In Act. Syn. Wine with their Ink all which we can never imagine such holy Men would have presumed to do had they indeed believed them to be the very Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord. VIII Lastly Since the prevalence of this Doctrine in the Church what Opposition has it met with What Schisms has it caused What infinite Debates have there risen about it I shall not need to speak of the Troubles of Berenger in the Eleventh Of the Waldenses Albigenses and others in the Twelfth Century Of Wickliff Hus c. who continued the Opposition and finally of the great Reformation in the beginning of the last Age by all which this Heresy has been opposed ever since it came to any Knowledg in the Church Now is it possible to be believed that so many Centuries should pass so many Heresies should arise and a Doctrine so full of Contradictions remain uncontested in the Church for almost a Thousand years That Berenger should be one of the first that should begin to Credit his Senses to Consult his Reason or even to Defend his Creed These are Improbabilities that will need very convincing Arguments indeed to remove them But for the little late French trick of proving this Doctrine necessary to have been received in the Primitive Church This is the Foundation of the Authors of the Treatises De la Perpetuite Answered by Mons Claude because it is so in the Present and if you will believe them 't is impossible a Change should have been made I suppose we need only turn the terms of the Argument to shew the Weakness of the Proof viz. That from all these and many other Observations that might be offer'd of the like kind 't is Evident that this Doctrine at the beginning was not believed in the Church and let them from thence see if they can conclude that neither is it believed now Thus contrary is this Doctrine to the Best and Purest Tradition of the Church Nor is it less Secondly II. To Right Reason too It were endless to heap together all the Contradictions that might be offer'd to prove this That there should be Length and nothing Long See Mr. Chillingworth against Knot c. iv n. 46. 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 i.e. 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 the Bread become any thing of Christ neither the Matter nor the Form nor the Accidents of the 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 turned into Christ and yet Christ should not be Nothing that the same Thing at the same Time should have its just Dimensions and just Distance of its Parts one from another and at the same time not have it but all its Parts together in one and the self-same Point That the same Thing at the same time should be wholly Above its self and wholly Below its self Within its self and Without its self on the Right-hand and on the Left-hand and Round-about its self That the same thing at the same time should move to and from its self and yet lie still or that it should be carried from one place to another through the middle space