A DISCOURSE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST, IN THE TWO GREAT POINTS OF THE Real Presence AND THE Adoration of the Host. IN ANSWER to the Two DISCOURSES lately Printed at OXFORD on This SUBJECT. To which is prefixed A Large HISTORICAL PREFACE relating to the same ARGUMENT. LONDON, Printed for Richard Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXVII. THE PREFACE. THE nature of the Holy Eucharist is a subject that hath been both so frequently insisted upon, and so fully explained in our own and other Languages, that it may well be thought a very needless undertaking for any one to trouble the World with any farther Reflections upon it. For not to mention now those Eminent Men who have heretofore laboured in this work, nor to run beyond the points that are here designed to be examined; What can be said more evidently to show the impossibility of the pretended substantial change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament, than has been done in the late excellent Discourse against Transubstantiation? It is but a very little time since the Adoration of the Host has been shown not only to be a novel invention, contrary to the practice of all Antiquity, but the danger of it evidently demonstrated, notwithstanding whatever pretences can be made of a good intention to excuse them from the charge and danger of Idolatry, who continue the practice of it. And both these not only still remain unanswered; but if we may be allowed to judge either by their own strength, or by our Adversaries silence, are truly and indeed unanswerable. It is not therefore out of any the least Opinion that any thing more need be said to confirm our cause, much less that I esteem myself able to undertake it with the same success that those other Champions of our Faith have done it, that I venture these Discourses to a public view. But since our Adversaries still continue, without taking notice of any of these things, to cry up their Great Diana no less than if she had never at all been shown to be but an Idol, I thought it might not be amiss to revive our Instances against it: And that we ought not to appear less solicitous by a frequent repetition of our Reasons, to keep men in the Truth, than others are by a continual insisting upon their so often baffled Sophistry, to lead them into Error. 'Twas an ingenious Apology that Seneca once made, for his often repeating the same things; That he did but inculcate over and over the same Counsels, to those that over and over committed the same faults: And I remember an ancient Father has left it as his Opinion, that it was useful for the same truths to be vindicated by many, because that one Man's Writings might possibly chance to come where the others did not; and what was less fully or clearly explained by one, might be supplied and enlarged by the other. And a greater than either of these, S. Paul, has at once left us both an example and a warrant for this solicitude; Phil. 3.1. To write the same things to you, to me (says he) is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Indeed I think if there be any need of an excuse for this undertaking, it ought to be rather to Apologise for a far greater absurdity which we all commit in writing at all against those Men, who in these Disputes concerning the Holy Sacrament, have most evidently shown that to be true of Christians, which was once said of the ancient Philosophers, That there can be nothing so absurd which some Men will not adventure to maintain. In most of our other Controversies with those of the Church of Rome, we show them to be Erroneous; in this they are Extravagant; And as an eminent Pen has very justly expressed it, Discourse against Transubstantiation, Pag. 2. The business of Transubstantiation is not a Controversy of Scripture against Scripture, or of Reason against Reason, but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture, and all the sense and reason of mankind. The truth is, as the same Person goes on, Ibid. It is a most self-evident falsehood: and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the World that is of itself more evidently true, than Transubstantiation is evidently false. And if such things as these must be disputed, and this Evidence, That what we see and handle, and taste to be Bread is Bread, and not the Body of a Man; and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine, and not Blood, may not pass for sufficient without any farther Proof, I cannot discern why any Man that hath but confidence enough to do so, may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is, or affirm it to be what all the World sees it is not, and this without all possibility of being further confuted. But yet since it has pleased God so far to give over some Men to a spirit of delusion, as not only seriously to believe this themselves, but also rashly to damn all those that cannot believe it with them, we ought as well for the security of those who have not yet abandoned their own sense and reason, in compliance only with others who in this matter profess to have laid aside theirs; as in charity to such deluded Persons as are unhappily led away with these Errors, to show them their unreasonableness: To convince them that Christianity is a wise and rational Religion: that 'tis a mistaken Piety to suppose that Men ought to believe Contradictions; or that their Faith is ever the more perfect, because the Object of it is impossible: That our Senses ought to be trusted in judging aright of their proper Object; that to deny this is to overthrow the greatest external Evidence we have for our Religion, which is founded upon their judgement; or if that will be more considerable, is to take away all the grounds that even themselves can pretend to, wherefore they should disbelieve them in favour of Transubstantiation. And this I persuade myself I have in the following Discourse sufficiently shown, and I shall not need to repeat it again here. For the words themselves, which are the grounds of this great Error, I have taken that Method which seemed to me the most proper to find out the true meaning of them; and, as far as the nature of the Enquiry would permit, have endeavoured to render it plain and intelligible even to the meanest Capacity. And I have some cause to hope that the most learned will not be dissatisfied with the design, what ever they may be with the performance; it being from such that I have taken the greatest part of my Reflections, and in which I pretend to little of my own besides the care of putting together here, what I had observed scattered up and down in parts elsewhere. It was so much the more fit at this time to insist upon this manner of arguing, in that a late disturber of the Fathers, the better to show the Antiquity of his new Religion, has pretended to search no less than into the secrets of the Jewish Cabala after it, and to have found out Transubstantiation there amongst the rest of the Rabbinical Follies: Consensus Veterum p. 21, etc. Now however the very name of Galatinus be sufficient to Learned Men to make them esteem his Judgement in his Jewish to be much the same as in his Christian Antiquity which follows after, in those eminent pieces of S. Peter 's and S. Matthew 's Liturgies, Ibid. p. 27. S. Andrew 's work of the Passion of our Lord; Dionysius 's Ecclesiast. Hierarch. etc. yet because such stuff as this may serve to amuse those who are not acquainted with the emptiness of it, I was so much the rather inclined to show what the true notions of the Jewish Rites would furnish us with to overthrow their pretences; and that the Rabbins Visions are of as little moment to confirm this conceit as their own Miracles. But whatever those of the other Communion shall please to judge of my Arguments, yet at least the Opinions of those eminent Men of their own Church may certainly deserve to be considered by them, who have freely declared that there is not in Scripture any evident proof of Transubstantiation; nay some of whom have thought so little engagement upon them either from that or any other Authority to believe it, that they have lived and died in their Church without ever embracing of it. And of this the late Author of the * Traittè d'un Autheur de la Communion Roman touchant lafoy Transubstantiation. Lond. 1686. Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation, and which is just now set forth in our own Language, may be an eminent instance, being a Person at this day living in the Communion of the Church of Rome, and in no little Esteem among all that know Him. It is not fit to give any more particular character of Him at this time. They who shall please to peruse his Book, will find enough in it to speak in his Advantage; and if they have but any tolerable disposition to receive the truth, will clearly see, that this point of Transubstantiation was the production of a blind and barbarous Age; unknown in the Church for above one thousand Years, and never owned by the greatest Men in any Ages since. The truth is, if we inquire precisely into this business of Transubstantiation, we shall find the first foundation of it laid in a Cloister by an unwary Monk about the beginning of the 7th Century: About 636 or 640. See Blondel de l'Eucharistie. c. 14. p. 36●. carried on by a Cabal of Men, assembled under the name of a (a) 2. Concil. Nic. General Council to introduce the worship of Images into the Church, Ann. 787. (b) Blondel. l. c. cap. 18. pag. 426. form into a better shape by another (c) Paschasius Radbertus. Monk Ann. 818. and He too opposed by almost all the Learned Men of his Age; and at last confirmed by a (d) See the Treatise of Transubstantiation; Hist. of the 9th Age. Pope of whom their own Authors have left us but a very indifferent (e) Innocent. III. Super omnes mortales ambitiosus & superbus, pecuniaeque sititor i●satiabilis, & ad omnia ●●●lera pro praemiis datis vel promissis cereus & proclivis. Matt. Paris. character; and in a (f) Concil. Lateran. IV. Can. 3. de Haereticis. Synod of which I shall observe only this, that it gave the Pope the power of unmaking Kings, as well as the Priests that of making their God. But indeed I think we ought not to charge the Council with either of these Attempts; since, contrary to the manner of proceeding in such Assemblies, received in all Ages, nothing was either judged or debated by the Synod: ‡ His omnibus congregatis in suo loco praefato, & juxta morem Conciliorum generalium in suis Ordinibus singulis collocatis, facto. prius ab ipso Papâ exhortationis sermone, recitata sunt in pleno Concilio capitula LXX quae aliis placabilia, aliis videbantur onerosa. Matt. Paris. ad Ann. 1215. See this confirmed by Monsieur du Pin. Dissert. VII. Paris. 4ᵒ 1686. pag. 572, 573. The Pope only himself form the Articles, digested them into Canons, and so read them to the Fathers; some of which, their own Historian tells us, approved them, others did not, but however all were forced to be contented with them. Such was the first rise of this new Doctrine; 1215 years after Christ. But still the most learned Men of that and the following Ages doubted not to descent from it. (a) See 3. q. 75. Art 6. Vtrum fact● consecratione remaneat in Hoc Sacramento forma substantialis Panis? Aquinas who wrote about 50 years after this definition, speaks of some, who thought the substantial form of the Bread still to remain after Consecration: (b) In. 4 d. 11. q. 9 Quid ergo dicendum de conversione substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi? Salvo meliori judicio, potest aestimari, quod SI in isto Sacramento fiat Conversio substantiae Panis in Corpus Christi, quod ipsa fit per Hoc quod corruptâ formâ Panis materia eius sit sub formâ Corporis Christi Durandus doubted not to assert the continuance of the Matter of the Elements, whatever became of the form; and that 'twas (c) Id. in 4. dist. 11. q. 4. Art 14. rashness to say that Christ's Body could be there no otherwise than by Transubstantiation: To which (d) Scotus in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. Scotus also subscribed, that the truth of the Eucharist might be saved without Transubstantiation, (e) Id. 4. sent. d. 11. q. 3. and that in plain terms ours was the easier, and to all appearance the truer interpretation of Christ's words; in which (f) Ockam in 4. q. 6. Ockam and (*) Alliaco in 4. q. 6. art. 2. d'Alliaco concurred with him. (g) Contr. capt. Bab●l. cap. 10. Fisher confessed that there was nothing to prove the true presence of Christ's Body and Blood in their Mass: (a) Ferus in Matt. 26. Cum certum sit ibi esse Corpus Christi, quid opus est disputare num Panis substantia maneat, vel non? Ferus would not have it inquired into, How Christ's Body is there; and (b) Lib. 1. de Eucharistiâ: See the Treatise of Transubstantiation, 1. part. Tonstall thought it were better to leave Men to their Liberty of belief in it. Those who in respect to their Church's definition did accept it, yet freely declared that (c) Vid. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. p. 767, 768. Suarez in 3. part. D. Th. vol. 3. disp. 50. p. 593, 594. Cajetan. in 3. D. Th. q. 75. art. 1. Scotas, l. c. 4. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. Vid. etiam Ockam, Alliac. loc. supr. cit. before this Council it was no matter of Faith, nor but for its decision would have been now; That the Ancients did not believe it; that the Scripture does not express it; in short, that the interpretation which we give is altogether as agreeable to the words of Christ, and in truth free from infinite inconveniences with which the other abounds. All which plainly enough shows that not only the late private Heretical Spirit, whose imperious sentiments, and private Glosses, and contradictory interpretations (as a late * Consensus Veterum Pag. 27. Author has elegantly expressed it) like the victorious Rabble of the Fishermen of Naples riding in triumph, and trampling under foot Ecclesiastical Traditions, Decrees, and Constitutions, Ancient Fathers, Ancient Liturgies, the whole Church of Christ, but especially those words of his, This is my Body, has opposed this Doctrine; but even those who are to be supposed to have had the greatest reverence for all these, their own Masters and Doctors, found it difficult to embrace so Absurd and Contradictory a Belief. And here then let me beseech those into whose hands these Papers may chance to fall, seriously to consider this matter, and whether the sole Authority of such a Pope as Innocent III, whose actions towards one of our own Kings, and in favour of that very ill Man Dominick and his Inquisition, K. John. were there nothing else remaining of his Life, might be sufficient to render him detestable to all good Men, aught to be of so great an Authority with us, as to engage us to give up our senses and our reason; nay and even Scripture and Antiquity itself, in obedience to his arbitrary and unwarrantable Definition. It is I suppose sufficiently evident from what has been before observed, how little assurance their own Authors had, for all the definition of the Council of Lateran, of this Doctrine. I shall not need to say what debates arose among the Divines of the Council of Trent about it. And though since its determination there, Men have not dared so openly to speak their Minds concerning it as before, yet we are not to imagine that they are therefore ever the more convinced of its Truth. I will not deny but that very great numbers in the Roman Communion, by a profound ignorance and a blind obedience, the two great Gospel perfections with some men, disposed to swallow any thing that the Church shall think fit to require of them, may sincerely profess the belief of this Doctrine; because they have either never at all considered it, or it may be are not capable of comprehending the impossibility of it. Nor shall I be so uncharitable as to suppose that all, even of the learned amongst them, do wilfully profess and act in this matter, against what they believe and know to be true. I will rather persuade myself that some motives or prejudices which I am not able to comprehend, do really blind their eyes, and make them stumble in the brightness of a midday light. But yet that all those, who nevertheless continue to live in the external Communion of the Church of Rome, are not thus sincere in the belief of it, is what I think I may without uncharitableness affirm; and because it will be a matter of great importance to make this appear, especially to those of that Persuasion; I will beg leave to offer such proofs of it as have come to my knowledge, in some of the most eminent Persons of these last Ages, and to which I doubt not but others, better acquainted with these secrets than I can pretend to be, might be able to add many more Examples. And the first that I shall mention is the famous † Petri Picherelli Expositio Verborum institutionis Caenae Domini. Lugd. Batav. 1629. 12ᵒ. Picherellus, of whom the testimonies prefixed to his Works speak so advantageously, that I shall not need say any thing of the esteem which the learned World had of him. * Hoc est Corpus meum, i. e. Hic panis fractus est Corpus meum. pag. 10. Hoc est Corpus meum, i. e. Panis quem frangimus est communio cum Corpore Christi. pag. 14.— and pag. 27. Expounding Gratian. didst. 2. Can. Non Hoc Corpus, Ipsum Corpus invisibiliter, de vero & germano Corpore in Caelis agente intelligitur: Non ipsum visibiliter de Corpore & sanguine Sacramentalibus, Pane & Vino; Corporis Christi & sanguinis symbolis: Quae rei quam significant nomen per supradictam metonymiam mutuantur. I must transcribe his whole Treatise should I insist on all he has delivered repugnant to their Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Suffice it to observe that in his Exposition of the words of Institution, This is my Body, He gives this plain interpretation of them, This Bread is my Body which is both freely allowed by the Papists themselves to be inconsistent with their belief as to this matter; and which he largely shows not only to be his own, but to have been the constant Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers in this point. But in this it may be there is not so much ground for our admiration, that one who was not very fond of any of the Errors of that Church, should openly descent from her in this: It will more be wondered that a person so eminent amongst them as Cardinal du Perron, and that has written so much in defence of Transubstantiation, should nevertheless all the while Himself believe nothing of it. And yet this we are assured he freely confessed to some of his Friends not long before his death: That he thought the Doctrine to be Monstrous; that He had done his endeavour to colour it over the best He could in his Books; but that in short he had undertaken an ill cause, and which was not to be maintained. But I will set down the relation as I find it in Monsieur Drelincourt 's * Reponse à la Lettre de Monsig. le Prince 〈◊〉 Ernest aus cinq Micistres de Paris, etc. Geneve 1664. Answer to the Landgrave of Hesse; and who would not have presumed to have offered a relation so considerable, and to a person of such Quality, had he at all feared that he could have been disproved in it. † Votre Altesse me croira s'il luy plait. Mais je luy puis dire avectonte sincerity & verité, que si le defunt Cardinal du Perron luy a persuadé la Transubstantiation, il luy a persuadé ce qu'il n'a pû se persuader à forméme, & qu'il n'a nullement cru. Car je scay par des Gene d' Honneur & dignes de foy, qui l'avoient apris de temoins oculaires, que des Amis de cet illustre & scavant Cardinal, qui l'estoient allé visiter lors qu' il estoit languissant en son lit, & malade de la maladie dont il est mort, le prierent de le●r dire franchement ce qu'il croyeit de la Transubstantiation, & qu'il répondit, qu' il la tenoit pour un Monster. Et comme ils luy demanderent, comment done il en avoit écrit si amplement & si doctement; il repliqua, qu'il avoit deployé toutes les Adresses de son Esprit po● colourer cet abus, & pour le rendre plausibile; & qu'il avoit fait comrre ceux qui font tous leurs Efforts pour defendre une manvaise Cause. Your Highness (says He) may believe me if you please: But I can assure you with all sincerity and truth that if the late Cardinal du Perron has convinced you of the Truth of Transubstantiation, he has convinced you of that of which he could never convince himself, nor did he ever believe it. For I have been informed by certain Persons of Honour, and that are in all respects worthy of belief, and who had it from those that were eye witnesses; That some friends of that Illustrious and Learned Cardinal who went to see him as he lay languishing upon his Bed, and ill of that distemper of which he died, desired him to tell them freely, what he thought of Transubstantiation: To whom he answered, That 'twas a MONSTER. And when they farther asked him, How then he had written so copiously and learnedly about it? He replied, That he had done the utmost that his Wit and Parts had enabled him, to COLOR OVERDO THIS ABUSE and RENDER IT PLAUSIBLE; But that he had done like those who employ all their force to defend an ILL CAUSE. And thus far Monsieur Drelincourt. I could to this add some farther circumstances which I have learned of this matter, but what is here said may suffice to show what the real Opinion of this great Cardinal, after all his Voluminous Writings, as to this Doctrine was; unless some future Obligations shall perhaps engage me to enter on a more particular account of it. To these two great instances of another Nation I will beg leave to subjoin a third of our own Country: Father Barnes the Benedictine, Catholico-Romano-Pacificus Oxon. 1680. Pag. 90. Assertio Transubstantiationis s●u mutationis substantialis panis, licet sit Opinio communior, non tamen est fides Ecclesiae. Et Scripturae & Patres docentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sufficienter expo●● possant de admirand● & supernaturali mutatione Panis per Praesentiam Corporis Christi ei accedentem, sine substantialis Panis desitione. Et. P. 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illam in Augustissimo Sacramento factam, plerique graves & antiqui Scriptoresita explicant, ut non fiat per desitionem substantiae panis, sed per receptionem supernaturalem substantiae Corporis Christi in substantiam Panis. V pl. who in his Pacific Discourse of most of the points in Controversy between us and the Papists, expressly declares, That the Assertion of Transubstantiation, or of the substantial change of the Bread, though it be indeed the more common Opinion, is yet no part of the Church's Faith: And that the Scripture and Fathers, when they speak of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be sufficiently Expounded of that admirable and supernatural change of the Bread, by the presence of Christ's Body added to it, without the departure of the substance of the Bread itself. It appears by these words how little this Monk thought Transubstantiation an Article of Faith. But a greater than he, and who not only did not esteem it necessary for Others, to receive it, but clearly shows that he did not believe it himself, Illustriss. atque Reverend P●de Marea Parisiens. Archiep. Dissertationes Posthumae. De Sanctissimo Eucharistiae Sacramento dissertatio, in sne. is the Illustrious Monsieur de Marca, late Archbishop of Paris, and well known to the World for his great Learning and Eminence. His Treatise of the Eucharist was published with Authority, by one of his near Relations the Abbé Faget at Paris 1668. with some other little Tracts which he had received from the Archbishops own hands. In the close of that Treatise he thus delivers his Opinion: † Species P●nis est Essentiâ & Naturâ distincta à Corpore Christi sibi adjuncto, licet ratio Eucharistiae id exigat, ut substantia Panis interior conversa suerit in illud Corpus modo quodam qui omnem cogitationem exsuperat. Caeterum mutatio illa non officit quin Panis, qui videtur, [id est, Accidentia] suam Naturam, Extantiam & Essentiam [SIVE SUBSTANTIAM] retineat, & naturae verae Proprietates, inter quas est alendi corporis humani facultas—. Vnde consequitur rectè observatum à Gelasio Sacramenta Corporis & Sanguinis Christi divinam rem esse, quia Panis & Vinum in divinam transeunt substantiam, S. spiritu persiciente, nempe in Corpus Christi spiritale: sed ex alia parte non desinere substantiam & naturam Panis & Vini, sed ea permanere in suae proprietate Naturae. Quoniam scil. postquam Panis in divinam substantiam transivit, [NON INTERIIT INTEGRA PANIS NATURA QUAM SUBSTANTIAM QUOQUE VOCAT, NEC DESIVIT: SED] in suae proprietate Naturae permansit ad alendum Corpus idonea, quod est praecipuum confecti panis munus. Note, That in the Paris Edition, they have put in those words printed in the Black Letter (id est, Accidentia) and omitted those that I have caused to be set in Capitals: But in the Original leaf, which I have left in S. Martin's Library to be seen by any that pleases, and which was cut out for the sake of this passage, it stands as I have said: and as it is truly represented in the Holland Edition. The species of the Bread is in its Essence and Nature distinct from the Body of Christ adjoined to it, although the reason of the Eucharist requires that the inward substance of the Bread should be converted into that Body after a manner that exceeds all Imagination. But yet this change hinders not but that the BREAD which is seen still RETAINS its own NATURE, BEING, and ESSENCE, or SUBSTANCE, together with the proprieties of its true Nature, among which one is the faculty of nourishing our Bodies, etc. Whence it follows that it was rightly observed by Gelasius, that the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was a Divine thing, because the Bread and Wine being perfected by the Holy Spirit pass into the Divine substance, viz. the spiritual Body of Christ; but on the other side, that the SUBSTANCE and NATURE of the BREAD and WINE do not cease to be, but continue still in the propriety of their own Nature. And here I suppose any one who reads this passage alone of this Treatise might without the help of * Baluze 2 Lettre à Monsieur le Presid. Marca. S'il est uray, ce que j'ay de la peine à croire, que feu Monsigneur ait composé les Traittez que M. Faget a fait imprimer sous son nom, dont il se vante dans la Preface & dans la Vie d'avoir les Originaux escrits de la main de l'Auteur, nous ne scaurions empescher que feu Monsigneur ne passe dans l'Esprit de beaucoup de Gens pour HERETIC, au sujet de l' Eucharistie. Monsieur Baluze's Animadversion easily have concluded, That if this be indeed the work of Monsieur de Marca, 'twill be impossible to hinder him from passing with many Persons for a HERETIC as to the point of the Eucharist. But before I quit this Instance, I cannot but observe with reference to this Treatise, what care the Romanists take to hinder the sentiments of learned Men in this Point from coming to a public knowledge: And which might give us some cause to suspect, that their great concern is not so much whether they do indeed believe Transubstantiation themselves, as not to let the World know that they do not. This has been heretofore shown in another Treatise with reference to S. Chrysostom; whose * Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Engl. Appendix, p. 127. n. v. Epistle to Caesarius some of the Sorbonne Doctors caused most shamefully to be cut out of Monsieur Bigot 's Edition of Palladius, because it too plainly spoke the Doctrine of the Protestants as to this point. And the same has almost happened to this Treatise of Monsieur de Marca here mentioned: † See the Preface to the Reader before the Edition of the same Treatises 12ᵒ Anno 1669. and Monsieur Baluze's Letter to the Bishop of Tulle on this occasion. p. 5. Before it came to a public sight, the passages that seemed most visibly to oppose their Doctrine, were either changed or suppressed; * The Oiginal leaves cut out by them having fallen into my Hands, may be seen by those that desire it in S. Martin's Library. (of which the passage before cited is one). as appears by the Paris Edition now extant of them. But † See Monsieur Baluze 2. Letter pag. 15. the Providence of God that brought to light the other, has discovered this cheat too; For before the alarm was given, and that the Chancellor, (a) Mais enfin le refus que Mrs. de Sorbonne luy ont fait de luy donner leur approbation— luy ont fait ovurir les yeux, s'estant laissé entendre, quoyqu'un peu tard, qu'il a fait une Sottise. ibid. the Sorbonne Doctors, but especially Monsieur Baluze by his Letters to the Precedent de Marca, the Archbishop 's Son, upon this occasion, had awakened the Abbé Faget to consider more nearly what he had done; (b) Et p. 16. Je dis, un peu tard; parce qu'il avoit de ja fait des presentes de son liure, & que le libraire en avoit aussi debite quelques uns. several Presents had been made of the entire work as it was in the Authors MS.; and, if we may credit their own relations, the Printer who was a Protestant and the same that printed (c) Baluze Lettre à Monsieur l'Evesque de Tulle, p. 5. Monsieur Claude's Books against the Perpetuité, had obliged that learned Person with a Copy; by which means both the genuine sentiments of Monsieur de Marca in opposition to Transubstantiation are preserved, and their fraudulent endeavours to suppress his opinion discovered. To this eminent Person I will beg leave to subjoin a fifth, and he too no less known to the World both for his Learning and Reputation, nor less a Heretic in this point, however not hitherto so openly discovered as the other: and that is Father Sirmond the Jesuit. In his life of Paschasius Radbertus, he tells us, Sirmond. Vit. Pasch. Radbert. That this Monk was the first who explained the genuine sense of the Catholic Church in this mystery: and indeed if what * Eclaircissement de l'Euch. c. 19 p. 431, etc. Blondel and some others have observed concerning him be true, that it was for Impanation, not Transubstantiation; the Jesuit perhaps spoke his real judgement of him, though not in that sense that he is usually understood to have done it. But however that be, certain it is that this learned Father so little believed the Doctrine of the present Roman Church as to this point, that he freely confessed he thought it had herein departed from the ancient Faith; and at the desire of one of his Friends wrote a short Treatise to confirm his Assertion. This though it be not yet made public, is neverthess in the hands of several Persons of undoubted integrity: I will mention only one, whose learning and worth are sufficiently known to the World, viz. Monsieur Bigot: who discoursing with Father Raynauld at Lions about this matter, the Jesuit confessed to him that it was true, that he had himself a copy of his Treatise which he would communicate to him, and that it was Father Sirmond whom upon this account he reflected upon in his Book, Ingenia praeclara in rebus difficilibus aliquid semper de suo comminisountur. Nam praeclara ingenia multa novant circa scientias. Theoph. Raynaudi S. J. Erotemata de malis ac bonis libris: Lugduni 1653. p. 251. de bonis & malis Libris, where he observes, That Men of great parts love to innovate, and invent always somewhat of their own in difficult matters. When Monsieur Bigot returned to claim the performance of his promise, the Jesuit excused himself to him that he could not light upon it; which when he afterwards told to Father Chiflet another Jesuit of Dijonois, he again confirmed to him the truth of the relation, and voluntarily offered him a Copy of the Treatise, which he told him was transcribed from Father Sirmonds' Original. This Monsieur Bigot has not only acknowledged to some of his Friends of my acquaintance, but promised to communicate to them the very Treatise; and I dare appeal to the candour of that worthy Person for the truth of what I have here related, and whose name I should not have mentioned, but only to remove all reasonable cause of suspicion in a matter of such importance. And what I have now said of Father Sirmond, I might as truly affirm of a fourth Person of as great a name, a Doctor of the Sorbonne, whose Treatise against Transubstantiation has been seen by several persons, and is still read in the MS. But because I am not at liberty to make use of their names, I shall not any further insist upon this example. My next instance will be more undeniable, and it is of the ingenious Monsieur de Marolles Abbot of Ville-loyn, well known in France for his excellent Writings and great Abilities. A little before his death, which happened about the beginning of the Year 1681. being desirous to free his Conscience as to the point of the Holy Eucharist, in which he supposed their Church to have many ways departed from the right Faith, he caused a Paper to be Printed, in which he declares his thoughts 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 gratify 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 sat 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 publicly 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 expressly 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 remarked the custom of Libations which were in use time out of mind throughout the whole Roman Empire, and which custom was established 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 sanctify 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 entire 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 mere Visions, and which are not so easy 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 'tis plain of what we read, That Jesus the night in which he was betrayed took Bread, and when he had given thanks he broke 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 annexed to them, that it remains there whole and entire, without the least confusion, and may be so in divers 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 considered 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 'tis carried abroad, says, Behold the good God going in procession to confound the Heretics: 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 entire 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 than 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. 'Tis 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 than 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 in the same design to worship God; as the Paschal Lamb of one Family, was not the Lamb of another, although both the one and the other were to accomplish the same Mystery. Thus for instance, on Corpus Christi-day, the Sacrament of S. d' Auxerrois, where the perpetual Vicar consecrates the Host, and Monsieur the Dean, the first Curé, carries it the Procession under a rich Canopy crowned with Flowers, this Host is not the same with that of S. Paul's which is carried after another manner, viz. the Image of that Apostle made of Silver gilt, falling from his Horse at his Conversion, under the Sacrament of Jesus Christ hung up in rays of Gold, and carried under the covering of another stately Canopy; and so of all the other Churches. As for the stories of several Hosts that have been stabbed with Penknives, and have bled, they serve only to bring in some superstition contrary to the word of God, which never pretended that there was material Blood in the consecrated Bread, because it is the Body of Jesus Christ in a mystery of Faith. For what is said of an Infant that was seen in the stead of the Host, and of the figure of Christ sitting upon a Sepulshre instead of the same Host, are mere Fables suggested by the Father of Lie. It is further reported of certain Robbers that carrying away the Vessel in which the Host is kept, they have thrown the Host itself upon the ground, and trampled it under foot, sometimes have cast it into nasty places, without any fear that it should avenge itself; This is a most horrible thought, and of which we ought not to open our mouths, but only to detest so dreadful a profanation. The same must be said of those Hosts which have been cast up, as soon as received, whether by sick persons, or sometimes by debauched Priests, disordered with the last night's intemperance; both which have sometimes happened, not to say any thing of those other terrible inconveniences, remarked in the Cautions concerning the Mass. All which show that Men have carried things too far, without any warrant from the Word of God. It is not therefore so easy, as some imagine, to maintain the Doctrine of the Real Presence out of the Use, against the Opinions of any Opposer. In the mean time the Truth is terribly obscured, and few give themselves the trouble to clear it. On the contrary it seems that among the many Writers of the Age, there are some who make it their whole business to hid it, and to keep themselves from finding it out, as if they desired never to be wiser than they are. The vanity of lying flatters them but too much in all the Humane passions which sway them. There are nevertheless some faithful Disciples, and Apostolic Souls who are exempted, to obey God by his Grace, and to give glory to his Name. It was not long before his departure that David said, Every man is a liar: Psal. 115.2. and S. Paul to the Romans 3.4. to show that God only is true, adds immediately after from Psalm * Li. 4. 50.6. Thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Such was the Opinion of Monsieur de Marolles as to this point: I should too much trespass upon the Reader's patience to insist thus particularly upon others of lesser note. The Author of the late Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation, has fully shown not only his own Opinion, but the Tradition of all the Ages of the Church against it: And though I dare not say the same of whoever he was that set forth the ‡ Il nous suffit que J.C. qui est la Verité meme nous ait assuré que ce Sacrament est veritablement fon Corpse, & qu'il ait ordonne de manger sa chair & boire son sang: car il faut absolument qu'il y soit, puis q'il il nous ordonne de l'y manger, sans s'embarasser l'Esprit de quelle manner & comment cela se fait 2. Part, p. 102. Moyens surs & Honnestes, etc. that he did not believe Transubstantiation himself, yet this is clear, That he did not desire any one should be forced to believe it; or indeed be encouraged to search too nicely into the manner how Christ is Present and Eaten in the Holy Sacrament. Whether Monsieur de Meaux believes this Doctrine or not, his authority is become of so little importance, that I do not think it worth the while to examine. Yet the first French * Advertissement n. 14. p. 22. Mr. B.— Speaking of that Edition, Il n'y avoit en aucun lieu de l'Article, ni le terme de Transubstantiation, ni cette proposition, que le pain & le vin sont changez au corpse & au sang de J.C. dans la derniere [Edition] apres ces mots, le propre Corpse & le proper ●ing de J.C. il a ajoute ausquelles le pain & le vin sont changez; cest ce qu'on appelle Transubstantiation. Answer to his Exposition observes, that in the suppressed Edition of it he had not at all mentioned that the Bread and Wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ; those words in the close of that Paragraph which we now read, viz. that the Bread and the Wine are changed into the proper Body, and proper Blood of Jesus Christ, and that this is that which is called Transubstantiation, being put in; ‡ Monsieur de Meaux Letter of his alterations; Vind. p. 13. & 117. pour l'ordre, & pour une plus grande netteté du discourse & du style. for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Style, since. But now for his Vindicator, 'tis evident, if he understands his own meaning, that he is not very well instructed about it. * Vindication of the Bishop of Condom's Expos. Pag. 83. It is manifest, says he, that our dispute with Protestants is not about the manner, How Jesus Christ is Present, but only about the Thing itself, whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ be truly, really, and substantially present after the words of Consecration, under the species or Appearance of Bread and Wine, the substance of Bread and Wine being not so present. In which words, if his meaning be to exclude totally the manner, How Jesus Christ becomes present in the Eucharist, as his expression is, from being a matter of Faith, it might well have been ranged amongst the rest of their new Popery 1686. But if he designs not to exclude the manner of Christ's Presence, but only the mode of the Conversion, as he seems by some other of his words to insinuate, viz. whether it be by Adduction, etc. from being a matter of Faith, he ought not then to have denied the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, which their Church has absolutely defined to be by that wonderful and singular Conversion so aptly called Transubstantiation; but more precisely to have explained his School-nicety, and which is altogether as unintelligible, as the Mystery which 'tis brought to explain. I might to the particulars hitherto mentioned, add the whole Sect of their new Philosophers, who following the Hypothesis of their Master Descartes, that Accidents are nothing else but the Modes of Matter, must here either renounce his Doctrine or their Church's Belief. But I shall close these remarks, which have already run to a greater length than I designed, with one instance more, from a Prelate of our own Church, but yet whose truly Christian sincerity will I am persuaded justify him even to those of the Roman Communion: The same is affirmed by Monsieur du Moulin of several Priests in France: Disp. Sedannens. de Sacr. Euch. par. 4. p. 846. Nec abs re de intention presbyteri dubitatur, cum plurimi Sacerdotes canant Missam relactante Conscientiâ, quales multos vidimus qui ejurato Papismo fatebantur se diu cecinisse Missam animo à Missà alienissimo. and it is the learned Archbishop Usher, who having been so happy as to convert several Roman Priests from their errors, and enquiring diligently of them, what they who said Mass every day, and were not obliged to confess Venial Sins, could have to trouble their Confessors so continually withal; ingenuously acknowledged to him, that the chiefest part of their constant Confession was their Infidelity as to the point of Transubstantiation, and for which as was most fit, they mutually quitted and absolved one another. And now that is thus clear from so many instances of the greatest Men in the Roman Church, which this last Age has produced; and from whose discovery we may reasonably enough infer the like of many others that have not come to our knowledge, that several Persons who have lived and enjoyed some of the greatest Honours and Dignities in that Communion, have nevertheless been Heretics in this point; may I beseech those who are still misled with this great Error, to stop a while, and seriously examine with me two or three plain considerations, and in which I suppose they are not a little concerned. And the first is, Of their own danger: but especially upon their Own Principles. It is but a very little while since an ingenious Person now living in the French Church, the Abbé Petit published a Book which he calls (a) Les Veritez de la Religion prouveés & defendues contre les auciennes' Heresies, par la verité de l'Eucharistie. 1686. The truths of the Christian Religion proved and defended against the ancient Heresies by the Truth of the Eucharist: And what he means by this truth, he thus declares in his Preface, viz. the change of (b) Que du pain divienne le Corps du fils de Dieu, & du Vin son sang. Preface p. 7. the Bread into the Body of the Son of God, and of the Wine into his Blood. He there pretends that this Doctrine however combated by us now, was (c) Quoiqu'il n'y ait point, presentement de verities plus incontestables que les trois grands articles de nostre foi, qui sont contenus dans le symbol, c'est à dire, la dizinite de J. C. lafoy divinity du S. Esprit, & la Resurrection: Cependant j' ose dire que la presence réelle de J. C. au Saint Sacrament etoit une verité encore plus indubitable dans les premiers siecles de l'Eglise. Pref. p. 5. yet more undoubted in the Primitive Church than either the divinity of Christ and the Holy Ghost, or the certainty of our future Resurrection. And this he wrote as the Title tells us, (d) Traitté pour confirmer les Noveaux Convertis dans la foi de l'Eglise Catholic. To confirm the new Converts in the Faith of the Catholic Church; meaning according to their usual figure, the Roman. How far this extravagant undertaking may serve to convince them I cannot tell; this I know, that if we may credit those who have been that Abbot' s most intimate acquaintance, he believes but very little of it himself, unless he also be become in this point, a new Convert. But now if what has before been said of so many eminent Persons of their Church be true, as after a due and diligent examination of every particular there set down, I must beg leave to profess I am fully persuaded that it is; 'twill need no long deduction to show how dangerous an influence their unbelief must have had, in some of the chiefest instances of their constant Worship. For 1. It is the Doctrine of the (e) Concil. Trid. Sess. seven. Can. 11. siquis dixerit in ministris dum Sacramenta conficiunt, non requiri intentionem, saltem saciendi quod facit Ecclesia, Anathema sit. Council of Trent that to make a Sacrament, the Priest must have, if not an Actual, yet at least a Virtual Intention of doing that which the Church does: And in the (f) Vid. de defectibus circa Missam, c. de defectu Intentionis. In Missali. R. Rubrics of their Missal, the want of such an Intention in the Priest is one of the defects there set down as sufficient to hinder a Consecration. Now if this be true, as every Roman Catholic who acknowledges the Authority of that Synod must believe it to be; 'tis then evident that in all those Masses which any of the Persons I before named have said, there could have been no Consecration: It being absurd to suppose that they who believed not Transubstantiation, could have an intention to make any such change of the Bread into the Body of Christ, which they thought it impossible to do. Now if there were no Consecration, but that the Bread continued mere Bread as it was before; then Secondly, All those who attended at their Masses, and Adored their Hosts, paid the supreme worship of God to a bare Wafer, and no more. How far the modern plea of their good Intention to Adore Christ in those sacred Offices, may excuse them from having committed Idolatry, it is not necessary I should here examine. They who desire a satisfaction in this matter, may please to recur to a late excellent Treatise written purposely on this Subject, A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host. Lond. 1685. and where they will find the weakness of this supposal sufficiently exposed. But since (a) Vid. Catharin. in Cajet. pag. 133. Ed. Paris. 1535. Where he quotes S. Thomas and Paludanus for the same Opinion: This Book of his was seen and approved by the Pope's order by the Divines at Paris: as himself tells us in the review of it. Lugdan. 1542. many of their own greatest Men confess that if any one by mistake should worship an Unconsecrated Host, taking it to have been Consecrated, he would be guilty of Idolatry; and that such an Error would not be sufficient to excuse him; may they please to consider with what Faith they can pay this Divine Adoration to that which all their Senses tell them is but a bit of Bread; to the hindrance 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 show, 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 show, Thirdly; How little security their other Plea of Concomitance, which they so much insist upon, to show the sufficiency of their Communicating only in one kind, viz. that they receive the Blood in the Body, can give to the Laity, to satisfy their Consciences that they ever partake of that Blessed Sacrament as they ought to do. Since whatever is pretended of Christ's Body, 'tis certain there can be none of his Blood in a mere Wafer: And if by reason of the Priest's infidelity, the Host should be indeed nothing else, of which we have shown they can never be sure; neither can they ever know whether what they receive be upon their own Principles, an entire 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 offered; 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 easy 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 distilled Water, it is doubtful whether it be Consecrated. If the Wine be sour 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 administered 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 mere Jew as he is now. The Persons here mentioned 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 IU. decret. in Act. Concil. Florent. Ann. 1439. Council 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, 'tis 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. 5●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. Being no Priests they had no Power to Consecrate. All the Hosts therefore which were either offered or taken, or worshipped in any of the Masses celebrated by those Priests whom these two Bishops Ordained, were only mere Bread, and not the Body of Christ; And as many of them, as being afterwards advanced to a higher dignity, were consecrated Bishops, received no Episcopal Character, because they were destitute of the Priestly before. Thus the danger still increases: For by this means, the Priests whom they also Ordain are no Priests; and when any of them shall be promoted to a higher degree, are uncapable of being made Bishops; And so by the Infidelity of these two Men, there are at this day infinite numbers of Priests and Bishops, who say Mass, and confer Orders without any manner of power to do either; and in a little time it may be there shall not be a true Bishop or Priest in the whole Gallicane Church. But, II. A second Consideration which I would beg leave to offer from the foregoing instances is this: What reliance we can make upon the Pretended Infallibility of their Church; when 'tis thus plain that so many of the most learned Men of their own Communion did not only not believe it to be Infallible, but supposed it to have actually Erred, and that in those very Doctrines that are at this day esteemed the most considerable Points in difference between Us. It is plain from what has been said in the foregoing reflection, that disbelieving Transubstantiation, they must also have looked upon all the other Consequences of it, viz. the Adoration of the Host, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc. as Erroneous too. Now though it be not yet agreed among them, nor ever likely to be, where the supposed Infallibility of their Church is seated, yet since all manner of Authority has conspired to establish these things; Popes have decreed them, Councils defined them, and both Popes and Councils anathematised all those that shall presume to doubt of them; 'tis evident either these Men did not believe the Church to be Infallible, as is pretended; or they did not believe the Roman, to be, according to the modern phrase, indeed the Catholic Church. III. And upon the same grounds there will arise a third Reflection, which they may please to make with us; and that is, with what Reason they can press us with the Authority of their Church in these matters; when such eminent persons of their own Communion, and who certainly were much more Obliged to it than we can be thought to be, yet did not esteem it sufficient to enslave their belief. It is a reproach generally cast upon us, that we set up a private Spirit in opposition to the Wisdom and Authority of the Church of God: and think ourselves better able to judge in matters of Faith, than the most General Council that was ever yet assembled. This is usually said, but is indeed a foul Misrepresentation of our Opinion. All we say is, that every Man ought to act Rationally in matters of Religion, as well as in other concerns; to employ his Understanding with the utmost skill and diligence that he is able, to know God's will, and what it is that he requires of us. We do not set up our own judgements against the Authority of the Church; but having both the Holy Oracles of God, and the Definitions of Men before us, we give to each their proper weight. And therefore if the one at any time contradicts the other, we resolve, as is most fitting, not that our own, but God's Authority revealed to us in his Word, is to be preferred. And he who without this examination servilely gives up himself to follow whatever is required of him; He may be in the right, if his Church or Guide be so; but according to this method shall never be able to give a reason of his Faith; nor if he chance to be born in a False Religion, ever be in a capacity of being better instructed. For if we must be allowed nothing but to obey only, and not presume to inquire why; He that is a Jew must continue a Jew still; he that is a Turk, a Turk; a Protestant must always be a Protestant: In short, in whatsoever profession any one now is, in that he must continue, whether true or false, if reason and examination must be excluded all place in matters of Religion. * All this is lately granted by the Catholic Representer. Cap. VI And indeed after all their clamours against us on this occasion, yet is this no more than what themselves require of us when 'tis in order to their own advantage. Is a Proselyte to be made, they offer to him their Arguments: They tell him a long story of their Church; the Succession, Visibility, and other Notes of it. To what purpose is all this, if we are not to be Judges, to examine their pretences whether these are sufficient marks of such a Church as they suppose; and if they are, whether they do indeed agree to theirs, and then upon a full conviction submit to them. Now if this be their intention, 'tis then clear, let them pretend what they will, that they think us both capable of judging in these matters, and that we ought to follow that, which all things considered we find to be most reasonable, which is all that we desire. And for this we have here the undoubted Examples of those Eminent Persons of their own Communion before named; who notwithstanding the Authority of their Church, and the decision of so many Councils esteemed by it as General, have yet both thought themselves at liberty to examine their Decrees, and even to pass sentence too upon them, that they were erroneous in the Points here mentioned. And therefore certainly we may modestly desire the same liberty which themselves take; at least till we can be convinced, (and that by such Arguments as we shall be allowed to judge of,) that there is such an infallible Guide whom we ought in all things to follow without further inquiry, and where we may find him; and when this is done I will for my part promise as freely to give up myself to his Conduct, as I am till then, I think reasonably, resolved to follow what according to the best of my ability in proving all things, I shall find indeed to be Good. iv I might from the same Principles, Fourthly, argue the Reasonableness of our Reformation, at least in the opinion of those great Men of whom we have hitherto been speaking: And who thinking it allowed to them to descent themselves from the received Doctrine of their Church, which they found to be erroneous, could not but in their Consciences justify us, who, as a national Church, no way subjected to their Authority, did the same; and by the right which every such Church has within itself, reform those Errors, which like the Tares were sprung up with the Good Seed. This 'tis evident they must have approved; and for one 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 established 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 'tis confessed 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 shown, 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 show 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, seven Several of their greatest Men before the Council of Trent believed it not. Page seven, viij 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, etc. 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 established 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 shown 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 itself, 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 shown 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 falsely 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, etc. 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 contained to be the Opinion of our Divines after. Pag. 56 Shown 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. Jewel. 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. Cousins. 5. Dr. Jo. White. 6. Dr. Fr. White. 7. Dr. Jackson. 8. Dr. Hammond. Whose Authorities are referred to; Pag. 71, 72 III. That the alterations which have been made in our Rubric, were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions, as is vainly and falsely suggested. Pag. 72 IU. That the Reasons mentioned in our Rubric, 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, 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 Church of England as to this point is. Pag. 86 Our Author's exceptions against it, Answered. Pag. 87 II. What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and whether what this Author has said in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this matter. Pag. 91 Their Doctrine stated. ib. The Defence of it, unsufficient: shown in Answer, 1. To his Protestant-Concessions. Pag. 93 2. To his Catholic Assertions. First. Pag. 96 Second. Pag. 99 Third. ib. Fourth. Pag. 100 Fifth. Pag. 102 Sixth. Pag. 103 Seventh. Pag. 104 Eighth. ib. 3. To the Grounds he offers of their Belief. Pag. 105 The Lutherans Practise no Apology for theirs. Pag. 106 Ground First. Answered. Pag. 108 Ground Second. Answered. Pag. 109 Ground Third. Answered. Pag. 113 Ground Fourth. Answered. Pag. 114 Ground Fifth. Answered. Pag. 115 Some Arguments proposed, upon their own Principles, against this Adoration. Pag. 117 Conclusion. Pag. 125 ERRATA. PAG. xvii. l. 10. fourth r. sixth. p. xviii. l. 10. in r. on. p. xxii. l. 33. r. they are. p. xxiv. l. 5. r. That thou. p. 13. marg. Hammond. l. 6. p. 129. p. 64. marg. Casaubon. ib. l. 19 Body is of Christ. p. 76. l. 24. deal. which. p. 80. l. 15. then that. p. 91. l. 27. r. this Holy. p. 98. l. 16. for then r. the. p. 112. l. 18. Catholicâ. l. 20. asks. A few lesser Faults there are, which the Reader may please to correct. A DISCOURSE OF THE Holy Eucharist, With particular Reference To the two GREAT POINTS OF THE REAL PRESENCE, AND The Adoration of the HOST. INTRODUCTION. Of the Nature of this HOLY SACRAMENT in the General. TO understand the true design of our Blessed Saviour, in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament, we cannot, I suppose, take any better course than to consider first of all, what Account the Sacred Writers have left us of the Time and Manner of the doing of it. Now for this St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 11.23." That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed (having first eaten the Passover according to the Law, Exod. 12. Matt. xxvi. 20.) took Bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it, * Matt. xxvi. and gave it to the Disciples, and said, Take, Eat, This is my Body which is broken for you, This do in Remembrance of Me. After the same manner also he took the Cup when he had supped, saying, This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood: This do ye, as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me. Such is the Account which St. Paul gives us of the Original of this Holy Sacrament: Nor do the Evangelists descent from it; only that St. Matthew with reference to the Cup, adds, Drink ye ALL of it, Matt. xxvi. 27. to which St. Mark subjoins a particular Observation, and which ought not here to be passed by," That they ALL drank of it, Mark xiv. 23. It is not to be doubted, but that the design of our Blessed Saviour in instituting this Holy Sacrament, was to Abolish the Jewish Passover, and to establish the Memory of another, and a much greater Deliverance, than that of the firstborn, now to be wrought for the whole World in his Death. The Bread which he broke, and the Wine which he poured out, being such clear Types of his Body to be broken, his Blood to be shed for the Redemption of Mankind, that it is impossible for us to doubt of the Application. And as God Almighty under the Law, designed that other Memorial of the Paschal Lamb, now changed into a so much better and more excellent Remembrance, to continue as long as the Law its self stood in force: So this Blessed Eucharist, established by Christ in the room of it, must no doubt have been intended by Him, to be continued in his Church, as long as the Covenant sealed with that Blood which it exhibits, stands: And therefore, that since that shall never be abolished; 'tis evident that this also will remain our Duty, and be our perpetual Obligation to the end of the World. This is the import of our Saviour's Addition, Do this in Remembrance of Me; and is by St. Paul more fully expressed in those Words, which he immediately subjoins to the History of the Institution before recited, 1 Cor. xi. 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show, i.e. in the Jewish Phrase, set forth, Commemorate the Lords Death till his coming. And that this Holy Sacrament now established in the place of the Jewish Passover, might be both the better understood, and the easier received by them; it is a thing much to be remarked for the right explaining of it, how exactly he accommodated all the Notions and Ideas of that Ancient Ceremony to this new Institution. I. In that Paschal Supper, the Master of the House took Bread, and presenting it before them, instead of the usual Benediction of the Bread, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‖ See Dr. Hammond on Mat. xxvi. lit. E. Casaubon in Mat. xxvi. 26. etc. This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers eaten in Egypt. In this Sacred Feast, our Saviour in like manner takes Bread, the very Loaf, which the Jews were wont to take for the Ceremony before mentioned; breaks it, and gives it to his Disciples, saying, This is my Body which is broken for you; alluding thereby, not only to their Ceremony in his Action, but even to their very manner of Speech in his Expression, to the Passover before them, which in their Language they constantly called, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. Buxtorf. Vindic. contr. Capel. P. 14. Hammond in Mat. xxvi. l. e. etc. the Body of the Paschal Lamb. II. In that Ancient Feast, the Master of the House in like manner after Supper took the Cup, and having given thanks, gave it to them, saying, † Allix preparat a la saint Cene. cap. 2. pag. 16. This is the Fruit of the Vine, and the Blood of the Grape. In this Holy Sacrament our Blessed Lord in the very same manner takes the Cup, he Blesses it, and gives it to his Disciples saying, This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood; his Action being again the very same with theirs; and for his Expression, it is that which Moses used, when he ratified the Ancient Covenant between God and the Jews; [Exod. xxiv. 8. compared with Hebr. ix 20.] saying, This is the Blood of the Testament. III. In that Ancient Feast, after all this was finished, they were wont to sing a * Dr. Lightfoots Heb & Talmud. Observation Mat. xxvi. ver. 26, 27. T. 2. p. 258, 260. Hymn, the Psalms yet extant, from the cxiii. to the cxix. thence called by them, the Great Hallelujah. In this Holy Supper, our Saviour and his Disciples are expressly recorded to have done the like, and very probably in the selfsame words. [See Matt. xxvi. 30. Mark xiv. 26.] In a word, Lastly, iv That ancient Passover the Jews were commanded to keep in memory of their Deliverance out of Egypt. The bitter Herbs were a * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remembrance of the bitter servitude they underwent there, Exod. i 14. The red Wine was a † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Memorial of the Blood of the Children of Israel slain by Pharaoh: And for this they were expressly commanded by Moses, Exod. xiii. 8. to * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SHOW, i.e. to annunciate or tell forth to their Children what the Lord had done for them. And so in this Holy Sacrament, Christ expressly institutes it for the same end, * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Do this, says he, in remembrance of me; which St. Paul thus explains, 1 Cor. xi. 26." For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do (or rather, do ye) * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. SHOW (the very word before used) the Lords death till his coming. So clear an Allusion does every part of this Sacrament bear to that ancient Solemnity; and we must be more blind than the Jews themselves, not to see, that as that other Sacrament of Baptism was instituted by Christ from the Practice and Custom of the ‖ See Dr. Hammonds Practical Catechism Lib. 6. pag. 115. Oper. fol. Lond. 1684. Jewish Doctors, who received their Proselytes by the like washing; so was this Holy Eucharist established upon the Analogy which we have seen to the Paschal Supper, whose place it supplies, and whose Ceremonies it so exactly retains, that it seems only to have heightened the design, and changed the Application to a more excellent Remembrance. I know not how far it may be allowed to confirm this Analogy, That it was one of the most ancient Traditions among the * Vid. Fagium in Annotat. in Exod. xii. 13. where he renders their words thus, " Et in eadem die viz. xv. mensis Nisan, sc. Martii, redimendus est Israel in diebus Messiae. Vid. Vol. 1. Critic. M. p 498. Jews of old, that the Messiah should come and work out their deliverance, The very same night in which God had brought them out of Egypt, the night of the Paschal Solemnity. But certainly considerable it is, that as God under the Law, the same night in which he delivered them, instituted the Passover to be a perpetual Memorial of it throughout their Generations; so here our Saviour instituted his Communion not only in the same Night in which he delivered us, but immediately after having eaten His last Passover; to show us, that what that Solemnity had hitherto been to the Jews, this Sacrament should from henceforth be to us; and that we by this Ceremony should commemorate ours, as they by that other had been commanded to do their Deliverance. This the Holy Scriptures themselves direct us to, by so often calling our Blessed Saviour in express terms," The Lamb of God, Joh. i. 29. St. Peter speaking of our Redemption wrought by Him, tells us, that it was not obtained by corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but by the precious Blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish, and without spot, 1 Pet. i 18. And St. Paul so clearly directs us to this allusion, that no possible doubt can remain of it; Christ, says he, our Passover is sacrificed for us, theresore let us keep the Feast, 2 Cor. 1. v. 7. And now after so many Arguments for this Application, as, being joined together, I think I might almost call a Demonstration of it; I suppose I may without scruple lay down this foundation both for the unfolding of the nature of this Holy Sacrament in the General, and for the Examination of those two great points I am here to consider in particular, viz. That our Saviour in this Institution addressing himself to Jews, and speaking in the direct form of the Paschal Phrases; and in a Ceremony which 'tis thus evident he designed to introduce in the stead of that Solemnity; The best method we can take for explaining both the words and intent of this Communion, will be to examine what such men to whom he spoke must necessarily have conceived to be his meaning, but especially on an occasion wherein it neither became him to be obscure; and the Apostles silence, not one of them demanding any explication of his words, as at other times they were wont to do, clearly showing that he was not difficult to be understood. This only Postulate being granted, which I think I have so good reason to expect; I shall now go on to examine by it, the first great Point proposed to be considered, viz. Of the Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Sacrament, and that 1st. As established by the Church of Rome. 2dly. As acknowledged by the Church of England. PART I. CHAP. I. Of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, Or the Real Presence Established by the CHURCH of ROME. TRansubstantiation is defined by the * Concil. Trid. Sess. 13. cap. 4. & Can. 2. Council of Trent, to the A WONDERED CONVERSION of the whole Substance of the Bread, in this Holy Sacrament, into the whole substance of the Body of Christ, and of the whole substance of the Wine into his Blood; the Species or Accidents only of the Bread and Wine remaining. For the better understanding of which Wonderful Conversion, because the Church of Rome, which is not very liberal in any of her Instructions, has taken † Catechismus ad Parochos. Par. II. cap. de Euch. Sacr. n. 39.41, 45. particular care that this should not be too much explained to the People, as well knowing it to be a Doctrine so absurd, that even their credulity could hardly be able to digest it; it may not be amiss if, from the very words of their own Catechism, we examine a little farther into it. Now three things there are, which, they tell us, must be considered in it: I. * Catech. ibid. n. xxv. Sect. Primum. That the true Body of Christ our Lord, the very same that was Born of the Virgin, and now sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, is contained in this Sacrament. Now by the true Body, they mean not only his Human Body, and whatsoever belongs to it, as Bones, Sinews, etc. to be contained in this Sacrament; ‖ Ibid. n. xxxi. Sect. Totus Christus ut Deus & Homo in Eucharistia continetur. But the entire Christ, God and Man; so that the Eucharistical Elements are changed into our Saviour, as to both his Substances, and the consequences of both, his Blood, Soul, and Divinity its self, all which are really present in this Sacrament; * Ibid. n. xxxiii. Sect. Per Concomitantiam in Euch. quae sint. the Body of Christ by the Consecration, the rest by Concomitance with the Body. Again: When 'tis said, † Ibid. n. xxxix. Sect. Conversio quae sit in Euchar. etc. That the whole Substance of the Bread is changed into his whole Body, and the whole Substance of the Wine into his whole Blood; this is not to be so understood, as if the Bread did not contain the whole Substance of his Blood, as well as of his Body, and so the Wine, the whole Substance of his Body, as well as of his Blood; (⸪) Ibid. n. xxxv. Sect. Christus totus in qualibet particula, & n. xlii. etc. seeing Christ is entire in each part of the Sacrament, nay in every the least Crumb or Drop, of either part. II. The * Ibid. n. xxv. Sect. Secundum. second thing to be considered for the understanding of this Mystery, is, That not any part of the Substance of the Bread and Wine remains; though nothing may seem more contrary to the Senses than this; in which they are certainly in the right. III. † Ibid. n. xxv. Sect. Tertium & n. xliv. Sect. Accid. sine subjecto const. in Euch. That the Accidents of the Bread and Wine, which either our Eyes see (as the Colour, Form, etc.) or our other Senses perceive (as the Taste, Touch, Smell) all these are in no Subject, but exist by themselves, after a wonderful manner, and which cannot be explained. For the rest, the Conversion its self, ‖ Ibid. n. xxxvii. Sect. Primo natione. It is very difficult to be comprehended, How Christ's Body, which before Consecration, was not in the Sacrament, should now come to be there, since 'tis certain that it changes not its place, but is still all the while in Heaven. Nor is it made present there by Creation, * Ibid. n. xxxix. Sect. Conversio quae sit in Euch. etc. nor by any other Change; For it is neither increased nor diminished, but remains whole in its Substance as before. † Ibid. n. xliii. Quonam modo Christus existat in Euchar. Christ is not in the Sacrament Locally; for he has no Quantity there, is neither Great nor Little. (**) Ibid. n. xli. Sect. De Transubstant. curiosius non inquirendum. In a word, Men ought not to inquire too curiously, how this Change can be made, for it is not to be comprehended, seeing neither in any natural Changes, nor indeed in the whole Creation, is there any Example of any thing like it. Such is the Account which themselves give of this Mystery: From all which we may in short conclude the State of the Question before us, to be this; That we do not dispute at all about Christ's Real Presence, which after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner, we acknowledge in this Holy Eucharist, as we shall hereafter show; nor by consequence of the Truth of Christ's Words which we undoubtedly believe: But only about this Manner of his Presence, viz. Whether the Bread and the Wine be changed into the very natural Body and Blood of Christ, so that the Bread and Wine themselves do no longer remain; But that under the Appearance of them is contained that same Body of Christ, which was Born of the Blessed Virgin, with his Soul and Divinity; which same Body of Christ, though extended in all its parts in Heaven, is at the same time in the Sacrament without any Extension, neither Great nor Small, comes thither neither by Generation, nor by Creation, nor by any local Motion; forasmuch as it continues still at the right Hand of God in Heaven, at the very same instant that it exists whole and entire in every consecrated Host, or Chalice; nay more, is whole and entire, not only in the whole Host, or the whole Chalice; but in every the least Crumb of the Host, and every the least Drop of the Chalice, here upon Earth. And here it might well be thought a very needless, indeed an extravagant undertaking, to prove that those Elements, which so many of our Senses tell us, continue after their Consecration the very same, as to what concerns their natural Substance, that they were before, are in reality the very same: That what all the World Sees, and Feels, and Smells, and Tastes, to be Bread and Wine, is not changed into the very natural Flesh and Blood of a Body actually before existent; had it not entered into the Minds of so great a part of the Christian Church to join in the maintaining of a Paradox, which has nothing to defend it, but that fond Presumption they have certainly done well to take up, That they cannot possibly be in the wrong, and without which it would be very difficult for them to persuade any sober man that they are here in the right. To show that those words, which they tell us, work all this Miracle, and are the only reason that engages them to maintain so many absurdities as are confessedly the unavoidable Consequences of this Doctrine, have no such force nor interpretation as they pretend; I must desire it may be remembered what I before remarked, That this Holy Sacrament was established by our Saviour in the room of the Jewish Passever, and upon the very Words and Ceremonies of it. So that, if in that all things were Typical; the Feast, the Customs, the Expressions merely allusive to something that had been done before, and of which this sacred Ceremony was the memorial; we ought in all reason to conclude, that both our Saviour must have designed, and his Apostles understood this Holy Sacrament to have been the same too. Now as to the Nature of the Passover; we have already seen that it was appointed by God as a Remembrance of his delivery of the Jews out of the Land of Egypt, when he slew all the firstborn of the Egyptians, Exod. xii. The Lamb which they eaten every year in this Feast, was an Eucharistical Sacrifice and Type of that first Lamb which was slain in the night of their deliverance, and whose Blood sprinkled upon the Posts of their Doors had preserved their Forefathers from the destroying Angel, that he should not do them any mischief. The Bread of Affliction, which they broke, and of which they said, perhaps in the very * Vid. Cameron Annot. in Matt. xxvi. 26. in illa verba, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inter critic. pag. 780. l. 24. same manner that Christ did of the very same Loaf, Take, eat, this is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers eaten in Egypt; they esteemed a Type and Figure, of that unleavened Bread which their Forefathers so many Ages before had eaten there; and upon that account called it * Allix Serm. pag. 503. " The Memorial of their delivery out of Egypt. † Hammond Pract. Catechism. lib vi. pag. Ed. fol. The Cup of Blessing which they blessed, and of which they ALL drank in this Feast, they did it at once in memory both of the Blood of the Children of Israel slain by Pharaoh, and of the Blood of the Lamb, which being sprinkled upon their doors, preserved their own from being shed with that of the Egyptians. Now all these Ideas with which the Apostles had so long been acquainted, could not but presently suggest to them the same design of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament: That when He, as the Master of the Feast, took the Loaf, Blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and Bid them in like manner henceforward, Do this in Remembrance of Him; He certainly designed that by this Ceremony, which hitherto they had used in memory of their deliverance out of Egypt, they should now continue the memory of their Blessed Lord, and of that deliverance which he was about to work for them. That as by calling the Lamb in that Feast" The Body of the Passover, they understood that it was the remembrance of God's mercy in commanding the destroying Angel to pass over their Houses when he slew their Enemies; the memorial of the Lamb which was killed for this purpose in Egypt; so Christ calling the Bread his Body, nay, his Body broken for them, could certainly mean nothing else but that it was the Type, the Memorial of his Body, which as yet was not, but was now just ready to be given for their redemption. This is so natural a reflection, and in one Part at least of this Holy Sacrament so necessary too, that 'tis impossible to explain it otherwise. This Cup, says our Saviour, is the New Testament in my Blood; That is, as * See Exod. xxiv. 8. Heb. ix ●0. And this Allusion is applied by S. Peter, 1 Ep. i 2. Vid. Hammond. Annot. in loc. lit. a. Moses had before said of the Old Testament in the very same Phrase, the seal, the ratification of it. Now if those words be taken literally, then 1st. 'Tis the Cup that is Transubstantiated, not the Wine; 2ly, It is changed not into Christ's Blood (as they pretend) but into the New Testament in his Blood; which being confessedly absurd and impossible, it must in all reason follow, That the Apostles understood our Saviour alike in both His Expressions; and that by consequence we ought to interpret those words, This is my Body which is broken for you, of the Bread's being the Type, or Figure of his Body; as we must that of the Cup, That it was the New Testament in his Blood, i. e. the sign, or seal of the New Testament. So naturally do all these Notions direct us to a figurative interpretation of his Words; the whole design of this Institution, and all the Parts and Ceremonies of it being plainly Typical, in Remembrance (as Christ himself has told us) of Him. But now if we go on more particularly to inquire into the Expression its self, This is my Body which is broken for you, That will yet more clearly confirm this interpretation. It has before been observed, That these words of our Saviour in this Holy Sacrament, were used by him instead of that other Expression of the Master in the Paschal Feast, when in the very same manner he took the very same Bread into his Hands, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to those who were at the Table with Him, saying, This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers eaten in Egypt. And can any thing in the world be more plain, than that as never any Jew yet imagined, that the Bread which they thus took every year, was by that saying of the Master of their Feast changed into the very substance of that Bread which their forefathers had so many Ages before consumed in Egypt, in the night of their deliverance; but being thus broken and given to them, became a Type, a Figure, a Memorial of it: So neither could those to whom our Saviour Christ now spoke, and who as being Jews had so long been used to this Phrase, ever imagine, that the pieces of that Loaf which He broke, and gave them, saying, This is my Body which is broken for you, Do this in Remembrance of me, became thereupon the very Body of that Saviour from whose Hands they received it; and who did not sure with one member of his Body, give away his whole Body from himself to them; but only designed that by this Ceremony they should remember Him, and his Body broken for them, as by the same they had hitherto remembered the Bread of affliction which their Fathers eaten in Egypt. I ought not to omit it, because it very much confirms the force of this Argument, That what I have here said of this Analogy of the Holy Eucharist, to the Jewish Passover, was not the original remark of any Protestant, or indeed of any other Christians differing from the Church of Rome in this point: But was objected to them long before the Reformation, by the * Vid. apud Author. Fortalitii Fidei, Lib. 4. Consid. 6. Impoes. 10. Those who have not this Book, may find the Quotation at large in the late Edition of Joan. Parisiensis, in Praefat. pag. 73, 74. Jews themselves to show that in their literal Interpretation of these Words, they had manifestly departed from the intention of our Blessed Saviour, and advanced a notion in which 'twas impossible for his Apostles, or any other acquainted, as they were, with the Paschal forms, ever to have understood him. And if † Epistol. xxiii. ad Bonifac. Vol. 2. pag. 29. Oper. Ed. Lugd. 1664. St. Augustine, who I suppose will not be thought a Heretic by either party, may be allowed to speak for the Christians; he tells us, we are to look upon the Phrase, This is my Body, Just, says He, as when in ordinary conversation we are wont to say, This is Christmas, or Good-Friday, or Easter-day; Not that this is the very day on which Christ was born, or suffered, or risen from the dead, but the return or remembrance of that day on which Christ was born, or suffered, or risen again. It is wonderful to consider with what confidence our new Missionaries produce these words on all occasions; and thereby show us how fond they would be of the Holy Scripture, and how willingly they would make it their Guide in Controversy, did it but ever so little favour their Cause. Can any thing, say they, be more express? This is my Body; Is it possible for words to be spoken more clear and positive? And indeed were all the Expressions of Holy Scripture to be taken in their literal meaning, I will not deny, but that those words might as evidently prove Bread to be Christ's Body, as those other in St. John, I am the Bread that came down from Heaven, argue a contrary Transubstantiation of Christ's Body into Bread, John vi. 48, 51. or those more usual instances, I am the true Vine; I am the door of the sheep; That Rock was Christ; prove a great many Transubstantiations more, viz. of our Saviour into a Vine, a Door, and a Rock. But now, if for all this plainness and positiveness in these expressions, they themselves tell us, That it would be ridiculous to conclude from hence, that Christ was indeed turned into all these, and many other the like things; they may please to give us leave to say the same of this before us, it being neither less impossible, nor less unreasonable to suppose Bread to be changed 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 shown 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 itself, and these Expressions in it were founded: And I will only add this farther, in confirmation of it; That in the Style 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 viij. 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 Signify 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 broke 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 shown before, how little confidence their greatest Schoolmen had of this Doctrine; those who have stood the most stiffly 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 show 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. 'Twas 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, etc. 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 acknowledgement 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. etc. greatest Writers at this day, That if the Pronoun THIS in that Proposition, This is my Body, be referred to the Bread, which our Saviour Christ held in his Hand, which he blessed, which he broke 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 affirmed of one another, Bread and Christ's Body, will force them to be taken in a figurative Interpretation: For as much as 'tis 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 does not determine those words to the Bread, 'tis evident that nothing in that whole Proposition does; 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 show, 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 myself from entering 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 shows 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 show the Weakness of this Second Attempt too; and that 'tis in vain that they rally these scattered Forces, whilst their main Body continues so entirely defeated. It is a little surprising in this matter, that they universally tell us, That neither the beginning nor ending of our Saviour's Discourse in that Chapter belongs to this Matter; that both before and after that passage which they refer to, 'tis all Metaphor; only just two or three words for their purpose, Literal. But that which raises our wonder to the highest pitch, is, that the very fifty first Verse its self on which they found their Argument, is two thirds of it Figure, and only otherwise in one Clause to serve their Hypothesis. I am, says our Saviour, the living Bread which came down from Heaven; This is Figurative: If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever: That is, they say, by a Spiritual Eating by Faith: And the Bread which I will give, is my Flesh, which I will give for the life of the World. This only must be understood of a proper manducation, of a real eating of his Flesh in this Holy Sacrament. It must be confessed, that this is an Arbitrary way of explaining indeed, and becomes the Character of a Church whose dictates are to be received, not examined; and may therefore pass well enough amongst those, with whom the supposed Infallibility of their Guides, is thought a sufficient dispensation for their own private Consideration. But for us, who can see no reason for this sudden change of our Saviour's Discourse; nay think that the connexion of that last Clause with the foregoing, is an evident sign that they all keep the same Character; and are therefore not a little scandalised at so Capernaitical a Comment, as indeed" Who can bear it? V 60. They will please to excuse us, if we take our Saviour's Interpretation to be at least of as good an Authority, as 'tis much more reasonable than theirs, V 62." Does this, says he, Offend you? Does my saying that ye must eat my flesh, and drink my Blood scandalise you? Mistake not my design, I mean not any carnal eating of me; that indeed might justly move your Horror; It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life. He that desires a fuller account of this Chapter, may please to recur to the late excellent † A Paraphrase with Notes, and a Preface upon the Sixth Chapter of Saint John, Lond. 1686. Paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it, and which will be abundantly sufficient to show the reasonableness of that Interpretation which we give of it. I shall only add, to close all, that one Remark which * De Doctrine. Christian. Lib. 3. Cap. 16. Saint Augustine has left us concerning it, and so much the rather in that it is one of the rules which he lays down for the right Interpreting of Holy Scripture, and illustrates with this particular Example: If, says he, the saying be Preceptive, either forbidding a wicked action, or commanding to do that which is good, it is no Figurative saying: But if it seems to command any Villainy, or Wickedness, or forbidden what is profitable and good, it is Figurative. This saying, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, you have no Life in you, seems to command a Villainous or Wicked Thing: It is therefore a FIGURE, enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord, and to lay it up in dear and profitable Remembrance, that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for our sakes. And now having thus clearly, I persuade myself, shown the Weakness of those Grounds, on which this Doctrine of the substantial Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament is established; I shall but very little insist on any other Arguments against it: Only in a Word, to demonstrate, that all manner of Proofs fail them in this great Error, I will in the close here subjoin two or three short Considerations more, to show this Doctrine opposite, not only to Holy Scripture, as we have seen, but also, 1. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church. 2. To the Right Reason, and 3. To the Common Senses of all Mankind. I. That this Doctrine is opposite to the best and purest Tradition of the Church. Now to show this, I shall not heap together a multitude of Quotations out of those Fathers, through whose hands this Tradition must have past: He that desires such an Account, may find it fully done by one of the Roman Communion, in a little * A Treatise of Transubstantiation, by one of the Church of Rome, etc. Printed for Rich. Chiswell. 1687. Treatise just now published in our own Language. I will rather take a method that seems to me less liable to any just Exception, and that is to lay down some general Remarks of undoubted Truth, and whose consequence will be as evident, as their certainty is undeniable. And, I. For the Expressions of the Holy Fathers; It is not denied, Such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Note, there is hardly any of these Words, which they have applied to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, but they have attributed the same to the Water in Baptism. but that in their popular Discourses they have spared no words (except that of Transubstantiation, which not one of them ever used) to set off so great a Mystery: And I believe that were the Sermons and Devotional Treatises of our own Divines alone, since the Reformation, searched into, one might find Expressions among them, as much overstrained. * See Treatise first, of the Adoration, &c Printed lately at Oxford; Which would make the World believe that we hold, I know not what imaginary Real Presence on this account; just as truly, as the Fathers did Transubstantiation. And doubtless these would be as strong an Argument to prove Transubstantiation now the Doctrine of the Church of England, as those to argue it to have been the Opinion of those Primitive Ages. But now let us consult these men in their more exact composures, when they come to teach, not to declaim, and we shall find they will then tell us, That these Elements are for their * It is not necessary to transcribe the Particulars here that have been so often and fully alleged. Most of these Expressions may be found in the Treatise of Transubstantiation lately published. The rest may be seen in Blondel, Eclaircissements Familiars de la Controverse de l' Eucharistie, Cap. iv, seven, viij. Claude Rep. au 2. Traittè de la Perpetuitè, i. Part. Cap. iv, v. Forbesius Instructiones Historico-Theolog. lib. xi. cap. ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xv. Larrogue Histoire de l' Eucharistie, liv. 2. cap. two. substance what they were before, Bread and Wine: That they retain the true properties of their nature, to nourish and feed the Body: that they are things inanimate, and void of sense: That with reference to the Holy Sacrament they are Images, Figures, Signs, Symbols, Memorials, Types and Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ. That in their Use and Benefit, they are indeed the very Body and Blood of Christ to every saithful Receiver, but in a Spiritual and Heavenly manner, as we confess: That, in propriety of speech the Wicked receive not in this Holy Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ, although they do outwardly press with their teeth the Holy Elements; but rather eat and drink the Sacrament of His Body and Blood to their damnation. II. Secondly, For our Saviour's words which are supposed to work this great Change, 'tis evident from the Liturgies of the Eastern Church, that the Greek Fathers did not believe them to be words of Consecration; This Arcudius himself is forced to confess of some of the latter Greeks, viz. That they take these Words only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Historically. See his Book de Concord. Lib. 3. Cap. 27. And indeed all the ancient Liturgies of that Church plainly speak it; However both He and Goar endeavour to shift it off; in which the Prayer of Consecration is after the words of Institution, and distinct from it. So in Liturg. S. Chrysostom. Edition. Goar. pag. 76. n. 130. 132. are pronounced the Words of Institution. Then pag. 77. numb. 139. the Deacon bids the Priest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Who thereupon thus consecrates it; He first signs it three times with the sign of the Cross, and then thus prays 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And so the Cup afterwards. but to be the same in this Holy Eucharist that the Haggadah, or History of the Passover was in that ancient Feast; That is, were read only as an account of the Occasion and design of the Institution of this Blessed Sacrament, not to work any Miracles in the Consecration. And for the * The same seems to have been the custom of the African Church, whose Prayers now used, see in Ludolph. Histor. l. 3. cap. 5. Where is also the Expression mentioned, n. 56. Hic Panis est Corpus meum, etc. African Churches, they at this day expound them in this very Sacrament after such a manner, as themselves confess to be inconsistent with Transubstantiation, viz. This Bread is the Body of Christ. III. Let it be considered, Thirdly, That it was a great debate in the Primitive Church for above a thousand Years, Whether Christ's Glorified Body had any Blood in it or no? Now how those Men could possibly have questioned whether Christ's Glorified Body had any Blood at all in it, See this whole matter deduced through the first Ages to St. Augustine, whom Consentius consulted about this very matter, in a particular Treatise written by Monsieur Allix de Sanguine Christi, 8vo. Paris 1680. had they then believed the Cup of Eucharist to have been truly and really changed, into the Blood of his Glorified Body, as is now asserted, is what will hardly, I believe, be ever told us. iv We will add to this, Fourthly, their manner of opposing the Heathenism of the World. With what confidence could they have rallied them as they did, for worshipping gods which their own Hands had made? So Justin Martyr. Apol. 2. Tertul. Apolog. cap. 12. Arnobius, lib. 1. Minutius Felix. p. 26. Octau. Julius Firmicus, pag. 37. Edit. Lugdunens'. 4to, 1652. Hieron. lib. 12. in Esai. St. Augustinus in Psal. 80. & in Psal. 113. Lactantius Instit. lib. 2. cap. 4. Chrysostom. Homil. 57 in Genes. etc. That had neither Voice, nor Life, nor Motion; Exposed to Age, to Corruption, to Dust, to Worms, to Fire, and other Accidents. That they adored gods which their Enemies could spoil them of, Thieves and Robbers take from them; which having no power to defend themselves, were forced to be kept under Locks and Bolts to secure them. For is not the Eucharistical Bread and Wine, in a higher degree than any of their Idols were, exposed to the same raillery? Had their Wafer, if such than was their Host, any voice, or life, or motion? Did not their own Hands form its substance, and their Mouths speak it into a God? Can it defend its self, I do not say from public Enemies, or private Robbers, but even from the very Vermin, the creeping things of the Earth? Or should we suppose the Christians to have been so impudent, as notwithstanding all this, to expose others for the same follies of which themselves were more notoriously guilty; yet were there no * And yet that none did, the Learned Rigaltius confesses. Not. ad Tertul. l. 2. ad Vxor. c. 5. Heathens, that had wit enough to recriminate? The other † See Tertul. Apol. c. 21. Et de carne Christi, c. 4.5. Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. Arnob. l. 2. Orig. contr. Cells. l. 1. Articles of our Faith they sufficiently traduced; That we should worship a Man, and He too a Malefactor, crucified by Pilate; How would they have triumphed, could they have added, That they worshipped a bit of Bread too; which Coster himself thought a more ridiculous Idolatry than any the Heathens were guilty of? Since this Doctrine has been started, we have heard of the Reproaches of all sorts of Men, Jews, Heathens, Mahometans, against us on this account. ‖ See du Perron de l' Euchar. l. 3. c. 29. p. 973. Were there no Apostates that could tell them of this secret before? Not any Julian that had malice enough to publish their Confusion? Certainly had the Ancients been the Men they are now endeavoured to be represented, we had long ere this seen the whole World filled with the Writings that had proclaimed their shame, in one of the greatest instances of Impudence and Inconsideration, to attack their Enemies for that very Crime, of which themselves were more notoriously guilty. V. Nor does their manner of Disputing against the Heretical Christians any less speak their Opinion in this Point, See this fully handled in a late treatise called, The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared etc. 1687. than their way of Opposing the Idolatry of the Heathens. It was a great argument amongst them to expose the frenzy of Eutyches, who imagined some such kind of Transubstantiation of the humane nature of Christ into the Divine, to produce the Example of the Eucharist; That as there the Bread and the Wine, says P. Gelasius, Being perfected by the Holy Spirit, pass into the Divine Substance, yet so as still to remain in the property of their own Nature, or substance of Bread and Wine; This Argument is managed by St. chrysostom Epist. ad Caesarium Monachum. By Theodoret Dial. 2. pag. 85 Ed G. L. Paris, 1642. Tom. 4. Gelasius in Opere contra Eutychen & Nestorium. He thus states the Eutychian Here●●e,' Dicunt unam esse naturam. i.e. Divinam. Against this he thus disputes, Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christs divina res est.— Et tamen non definit substantia vel Natura Panis & Vini.— Satis ergo nobis Evidentur Ostenditur, hoc nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur.— sicut in hanc sc. in divinam transeant S. Spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae, sic, etc. So here the Humane Nature of Christ still remains, though assumed by, and conjoined to the Divine. Which words, as their Editor has done well to set a Cautè upon in the Margin to signify 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. chrysostom, Theodoret, etc. 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 Heresy 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 urban 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 Christian's respect sufficient for our Blessed Saviour? Or, did they perhaps do all this? Let them show 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. burned 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. Author. 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 mixed 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. last: 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, etc. 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 Knowledge 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, 'tis impossible a Change should have been made; I suppose, we need only turn the terms of the Argument to show the Weakness of the Proof, viz. That from all these, and many other Observations, that might be offered of the like kind, 'tis 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 offered 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 selfsame 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 Lefthand, and Roundabout 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, 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 avowed 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 show both the Falseness and Novelty of this monstrous Doctrine; and such are these; * See Examples of every one of these collected by Blondel, Eclaircissements familiars 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 impassable: 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 perpetuity, 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 stopped 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 xuj. 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 Sat at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, till in the end of the World He shall come again with Glory to judge both the Quick and the Dead? And behold he is here carried through the Streets; locked 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 Priest's Pocket. These are no far-fetched 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 judgement, would presently have shown 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 Stoic 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, He est Corpus Meum: Now not to inquire 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 one's sense and reason would tell him were both falsely asserted, and impossible to be performed. But now whilst 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 mere 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 'tis the Body and Blood of Christ, See the Church Catechism, and Article Twenty eighth. The Communion-Office, etc. 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 signification, aught to be regarded with a very just Honour by us: And whilst we Worship Him whose Death we herein Commemorate, and of whose Grace we expect to be made partakers by it, we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the Types and Figures, by which he has chosen to represent the one, and convey to us the other. Thus therefore we think we shall best divide our Piety, if we Adore our Redeemer in Heaven, yet omit nothing that may testify our just esteem of his Holy Sacrament on Earth: Nor suffer the most Zealous Votary for this new Opinion, to exceed us in our Care and Reverence of Approaching to his Holy Table. We acknowledge him to be no less Really Present, though after another manner than they; nor do we less expect to Communicate of his Body and Blood with our Souls, than they who think they take Him carnally into their Mouths. Let our Office of Communion be examined; let the Reverence and Devotion, with which we Celebrate this Sacred Feast, be considered; all these will show how far the Church of England is from a light esteem of this great Mystery; indeed, that it is impossible for any to set a higher Value and Reverence upon it. I shall close this with the Declaration of One, who after many Years spent in great Reputation in their Communion, was so happy as to finish his Days in our Church; upon his first receiving the Blessed Communion among us: * Andr. Sallii Votum pro pace, c. 23. p. 90. Ed. Oxon. 1678. Tantam magnorum Praesulum demissionem, tam eximiam Principum & Populi Reverentiam, in Sacra Eucharistia administranda & recipienda, nusquam ego vidi apud Romanenses, qui tamen se unos Sacramenti istius cultores jactant. That He never saw in the Church of Rome, so great a Reverence both in Administering and Receiving this Holy Eucharist, as he found among us; insomuch, that he supposed it would hardly be believed among them, what from his own Experience, he recounted concerning it. Porro haec quae narravi & trita nimis ac vulgo nota Videbuntur fratribus nostris Reformatae Ecclesiae: Vid. ibid. pag. 90. cap. xxiv. n. 7. Nova omnino & fortè incredebilia Apparebunt Romanae Congregationis Alumnis; quorum scilicet auribus perpetuò suggeritur per suos Instructores, nullam apud Protestantes existere fidem praesentiae Christi realis in Eucharistiae Sacramento, nullam Devotionem aut Reverentiam in eo Sumendo. And this may suffice for the first thing proposed; Of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or of the Real Presence professed and established in the Church of Rome. Our next Business will be to inquire: II. What that Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist is, which is acknowledged by the Church of England. CHAP. II. Of the Real Presence acknowledged by the Church of England. IT may sufficiently appear from what has been said in the foregoing Chapter, what just reason we have to reject that kind of Presence which the Church of Rome supposes of Christ in this Holy Eucharist. But now in Answer to our Reflections upon them on this Occasion, Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Eucharist. Oxford. 1687. a late Author has thought fit to make the World believe, that we ourselves, in our Opinion of the Real Presence, are altogether as absurd as they are; and that the same Exceptions lie against our own Church, which we urge against theirs: All which, if it were true, would but little mend the matter, unless it may be thought sufficient for a man to prove, that he is not mad himself, because most of his Neighbours are in the same condition. Indeed herein he must be allowed to have reason on his side, that if the Case be so as he affirms, we, of all men living, ought not to press them with such Contradictions, Tract. I. pag. 15, 16. as our own Opinion stands equally involved in. 'Tis true, he confesses for what concerns the Church of England, as it stood in the latter * Tract. I. §. 26. end of King Edward the 6th's time, and as it may perhaps be thought to stand now, since the † Ibid. §. 4. reviving of the Old Rubric against the Adoration of the Sacrament at the end of our Communion-Office; it seems not to lie open to such a Recrimination: But taking our Opinion of the Real Presence from the Expressions of our own Divines, and of those abroad, such as Calvin, etc. whose Doctrine, amongst all the rest, the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with, especially since the beginning of the Reformation by Q. Elizabeth; it plainly implies, That the very Substance of Christ's Body; That his Natural Body, that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, is present as in Heaven, so here in this Holy Sacrament, either to the worthy Receiver, or to the Symbols: which not only contradicts the present Declaration of our Church; viz. That the Natural Body of Christ is not in in this blessed Sacrament; but will also lay a necessity upon us to quit our Reason too that we give for it; viz. That it is against the Truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than One at One time; and on which we seem to found our Faith in this matter. This is, I think, the design of the former of those Discourses lately Printed at Oxford, as to what concerns the Real Presence; and in Answer to which, that I may proceed as distinctly as possible, I shall reduce my Reflections to these Four Generals: 1. What is the true Notion of the Real Presence, as acknowledged by the Church of England. 2. That this has been the Notion constantly maintained by the Generality of our Divines. 3. That the Alteration of the Rubric, as to this matter, was not upon any such difference in their Opinions, as this Author seems to surmise. 4. That the Reason alleged by it, concerning the Impossibility of Christ's Natural Body's existing in several places at the same time, is no way invalidated by any of his Exceptions against it. But before I enter on these Reflections, I cannot but observe the unreasonableness of our Adversaries, in repeating continually the same Arguments against us without either adding of any the least new force to them, or even taking notice of those Replies that have more than once been made against them. The Publisher of this Treatise has not been so indiligent an Observer of what has passed under his Eyes, with reference to these kind of Controversies, as not to know, that this very Objection, which is the Foundation of his First Discourse, was made by his Old Friend T. G. above Nine Years since; and fully answered by his Reverend and Learned Adversary not long after. And therefore that he certainly ought either quietly to have let alone this Argument already baffled, and not have put the World in Mind where that Debate stopped; or, at least, he should have added some new strength to it. But to send it again into the World in the same forlorn State it was before; to take no notice either from whose Storehouse he borrowed it, or what had been returned to it; This is in effect to confess, that they have no more to say for themselves: And 'tis a sad Cause indeed that has nothing to keep it up, but what they know very well we can answer, and that they themselves are unable to defend. But to return to the Points proposed to be considered: And, First, To state the Notion of the Real Presence, as acknowledged by the Church of England. I must observe, 1st. That our Church utterly denies our Saviour's Body to be so Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament, as either to leave Heaven, or to exist in several places at the same time. We confess, with this Author, 1. Tract. p. 19 §. 27. that it would be no less a Contradiction for Christ's Natural Body, to be in several places at the same time by any other Mode whatsoever, than by that which the Church of Rome has stated; the repugnancy being in the thing its self, and not in the manner of it. 2dly, That we deny that in the Sacred Elements which we receive, there is any other Substance than that of Bread and Wine, distributed to the Communicants; which alone they take into their Mouths, and press with their Teeth. Answer to T. G's Dialogues. Lond. 1679. pag. 66. In short, All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase, is only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace, so in and with the Elements, as by the faithful receiving of them, to convey spiritual and real Effects to the Souls of Men. As the Bodies assumed by Angels, might be called their Bodies, while they assumed them; or rather, as the Church is the Body of Christ, because of his Spirit quickening and enlivening the Souls of Believers, so the Bread and Wine, after Consecration, are the Real, but the Spiritual and Mystical Body of Christ. Thus has that learned Man, to whom T. G. first made this Objection, stated the Notion of the Real Presence professed by us; and that this is indeed the true Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter, is evident not only from the plain words of our xxviii. Article, and of our Church Catechism; but also from the whole Tenor of that Office which we use in the celebration of it. In our Exhortation to it, this Blessed Eucharist is expressly called The Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ: We are told, that if with a true Penitent Heart and lively Faith we receive this Holy Sacrament; then we Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink his Blood. When the Priest delivers the consecrated Bread, he bids the Communicant Take and eat this in Remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith with Thanksgiving. In our Prayer after the Receiving, We thank God, for that he do●● vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries, with the Spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and doth assure us thereby of his favour and goodness towards us, and that we are very Members, incorporate in the Mystical Body of his Son. All which, and many other the like Expressions, clearly show, that the Real Presence which we confess in this Holy Eucharist is no other than in St. Paul's Phrase, a Real Communion of Christ's Body and Blood; or as our Church expresses it Article xxviii. That to such as rightly and worthily, and with Faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Hence it was that in the Prayer of Consecration in King Edward vi. time, the Church of England after the Example of the ancient Liturgies of the Greek Church used that Form, which our Author observes to have been since left out. Tract. I. 2. And with thy Holy Spirit vouchsafe to Bless and Sanctify these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ— i. e. as the Sense plainly implies, may Communicate to our Souls all the Blessings and Graces which Christ's Body and Blood has purchased for us; which is in Effect the very same we now pray for in the same Address— Hear us, O Merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee, and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's Holy Institution, in remembrance of his Death and Passion, may be partakers of his most Blessed Body and Blood. Between which two Petitions there is so near an Affinity, that had not 〈◊〉 Author been very desirous to find out Mysteries where there are indeed none; He would hardly have suffered his Puritan Friend to have lead him to make so heavy a complaint, Pag. 3. about so small a Variation. I will not deny but that some Men may possibly have advanced their private Notions beyond what is here said: But this is I am sure all that our Church warrants, or that we are therefore concerned to defend. And if there be indeed any, who as our Author here expresses it, do believe Christ's natural Body to be as in Heaven, so in the Holy Sacrament; they may please to consider how this can be reconciled with the Rubric of our Church, That the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here, it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one. In the mean time I pass on to the next thing I propossed, Secondly, To show in Opposition to the Pretences of our Adversary, that this has been the Notion of the Real Presence constantly maintained by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines. And here, because our Author has thought fit to appeal not only to our own, but to the foreign Divines for this new Faith which he is pleased to impose upon us, viz. Tract. 1. §. 7. That the very Substance of Christ's Body, that his natural Body, that that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, etc. is present, as in Heaven, so Here in this Holy Sacrament; i. e. in both at the same time: I must be content to follow his Steps, and inquire into the Doctrine first of Mr. Calvin and his followers; next of our own Countrymen in this Particular. And first for Mr. Calvin, and his followers, I cannot but observe what different charges are brought against them in this matter. On the one hand we are told by Becanus the Jesuit, that, * Calvinistae negant corpus & sanguinem Christi, vere, realiter, & substantialiter praesentem esse in Eucharistiâ. Becani manuale. l. 3. c. 9 p. 501. Ed. Luxembergi. 1625. The Calvinists, says he, deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly, really, and substantially present in the Eucharist: On the other, Here is one will prove, that they believe his very Body, his natural Body, now in Heaven, to be nevertheless at the same time in the Holy Sacrament. It were to be wished that they would let us once know what 'tis they will stick to, and not by such contradictory charges show to all the World, that both their Accusations may be false, but that it is utterly impossible they should both be true. And indeed in this very instance they are both false; CALVIN. The Calvinists hold neither the one or other of these Extremes. In the Edition of his Institutions printed at Basil 1536. Mr. Calvin thus delivers his Opinion, of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. We say, Dicimus verè & Efficaciter exhiberi non autem naturaliter. Quo scil. significamus non substantiam ipsam corporis, seu verum & naturale Christi corpus illic dari, sed omnia quae in suo corpore no●is Beneficia Christus praestitit. EA est corporis PRAESENTIA quam Sacramenti ratio postulat. Edit. Basil. 8ᵒ. 1536. that they are truly and Efficaciously exhibited to us, but not naturally: By which we signify, not that the very Substance of his Body, or that the true and natural Body of Christ are given there, but all the Benefits which Christ did for us in his Body. THIS is that PRESENCE of his Body, which the nature of the Sacrament requires. But because I do not find these words in the Editions of that Book since, lest any one should thereupon conclude that he had also changed his Opinion; we may observe the very same delivered by him in * Dilucida explicacio etc. Contra Westphalvir. Edit. Anno 1561. another of his Books, and which will be so much the more considerable, in that it was written purposely for the clearing of this matter. Now in this he affirms, † Christi corpus non modò semel fuisse datum in salutem nostram, dum ad explanda peccata immolatum in cruse fuit, sed quotidiè nobis in alimentum porrigi, ut dum ipse habitat in nobis, bonorum etiam eius omnium societate fruamur.— Apud Hospin. Hist. Sacram. Part 2da Ann. 1561. p. 477. That Christ's Body was not only once given for our Salvation, but is also every day reached out to us for our Sustenance, that so, whilst he dwells in us, we may also enjoy the Fellowship of all his goods.— Then he explains How Christ is our food, viz. † Rursum alimentum à nobis vocatur hoc sensu, quia incomprehensibili spiritûs Virtute nobis vitam suam inspirat ut fit nobis communis, non secus atque à radice arboris vitalis succus in ramos se diffundit, vel à capite in singula membra manat Vigour. Ibid.— Imprimis obstaculum de corporis immensitate submovere necesse est. Nisi enim conster finitum esse caelóque comprehendi nulla erit dissidii conciliandi Ratio— p. 478 Christus sicuti in gloriam coelestem semel est receptus, ita lecorum intervallo quoad carnem, est à nobis dissitus; Divinâ autem Essential & virtute, gratiâ etiam spirituali caelum & terram implere.— Idem ergo Corpus quod semel filius Dei Patri in sacrificium obtulit, quotidie nobis in Coena offered, ut sit in Spirituale Alimentum. Tantùm de modo tenendum est, non opus esse descendere carnis Essentiam è coelo ut eâ pascamur, sed ad penetranda impedimenta & superandam locorum distantiam sufficere Spiritùs virtutem.— Commenta procul facessant; qualia sunt de Corporis ubiquitate, vel de occultâ sub panis symbolo inclusi●ne, vel de substantiali ejus in terris praesentiâ. H●spin. p. 478 Haec omnia refert ex illo Calvini loco. because by the incomprehensible Virtue of the Holy Spirit, he inspires his Life into us, that he may communicate it to us, no less than the vital juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree, or than Vigour flows from the Head into all the members.— He declares Christ's Body to be finite, and enclosed in Heaven; and therefore as to his Flesh to be distant in place from us.— That it is not necessary that the Essence of his Flesh should descend from Heaven, that we may be fed with it, but that to remove all such impediments, and overcome the distance of places, the Virtue of the Spirit is sufficient— In short, that all inventions contrary to this are to be rejected, such as, The ubiquity of Christ's Body, the enclosing of it under the Symbol of Bread, and his Substantial presence upon Earth. BEZA. By all which it sufficiently appears, that Mr. Calvin was no friend to our Author's Fancy; but evidently explained the Real Presence after that Spiritual manner we have before laid down. For Beza, and the rest as he calls them, of the same Sect; we cannot better learn their Opinion than from the Acts of the Colloquy of Poissy, and which chief lay upon this Point. At this conference the most eminent Men of the Calvinian Party were assembled; the first of them which spoke, was Beza: In that part of his Discourse which referred to the Holy Eucharist, his words were much like those which our Author has quoted out of him. And by his own Exposition of them, we shall be better able to judge of his meaning, than by his Adversaries Gloss. * See Hospin. Hist. Sacram. Part. 2. ad Ann. 1561. p. 515. Edit. Genev. 1681. Comment. de statu Relig. & reipub. in Galliâ ad Ann. 1561. p. 112. Et postea pag. 138. ita se exprimit in eundem planè sensum" affirmamus J. C. adesse in usu Coenae, in quâ nobis offered, dat & verè exhibet Corpus suum & sanguinem suum operatione Spiritus Sti. nos verò recipimus, edimus & bibimus spiritualiter & per fidem illud ipsum corpus quod pro nobis mortuum est, eùmque illum sanguinem pro nobis effusum. Edit. Ann. 15●7. 8ᵒ. Beze. Hist. Eccles. pag. 595 596. For all this see Beza's own History ad Ann. 1561. p. 524. And when in the Conference D' Espense pressed them with departing from Calvin; Beza declared, that they were not at all contrary to him: That for the word Substance, which he sometimes used in expressing Christ's Real Presence, it was only to signify, that they did not seign any irraginary Body of Christ, or fantastic reception or communion of His Body in this Holy Supper; But that for the rest, they all believed, that no one could participate of him otherwise than Spiritually and by Faith, not in taking Him into the Mouth, or ear-ring him with the Teeth. See pag. 599. Ibid. We do not say that in the Eucharist there is only a commemoration of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; nor do we say, that in it we are made partakers only of the fruits of his death and passion; but we join the ground with the fruits, affirming with St. Paul, that the Bread which by God's appointment we break, is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us; the Cup which we drink, the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us; and that in the very same Substance which he received in the Womb of the Virgin, and which he carried up with him into the Heavens— Then descending to the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation: It overthrows, says he, the truth of Christ's Humane nature and of his Ascension— So little did he suppose, that Christ's natural Body could be at the same time both in Heaven and in the Sacrament. Hereupon he explains himself yet farther;— But now if any one should ask of us, whether we make Christ absent from the Holy Supper? We answer, By no means. But yet if we respect the distance of place (as when we speak of his Corporal presence, and of his Humanity, we must) we affirm, says he, that Christ's Body is as far distant from the Bread and Wine, as Heaven is from Earth— If any one shall from thence conclude, that we make Christ absent from the Holy Supper, he will conclude amiss: For this Honour we allow to God, that though the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven and not elsewhere, and we on Earth and not elsewhere, yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood after a spiritual manner, and by the means of Faith. Thus does Beza in like manner expound their Doctrine of the Real Presence, by a real communion of Christ's Body and Blood, and flatly condemns our Author's invention, PETER MARTYR. of his natural Bodie's being either in the Symbols, or any where else upon Earth. The same is the account which † Respond●o pro meâ parte, Corpus Christi non else Verè et substantialiter alibi quàm in Calo. Non tamen inficior Christi corpus verum, & sanguinem illius Verum quae pro salute humana cradita sunt in Cruse, fide spiritualiter percipi in Sacrâ Coenâ. Histoire Eccles. de Beze. liv. 4. p. 606. Anno 1561. Peter Martyr in the same conference gave of it; and of whom * Vid. Hist. de Beze ib. p. 599. Comment. de stat. rel. p. 140. ad Ann 1561. Hospin. pag. 518. Espensius, one of the Popish delegates, confessed That no Divine of that time had spoken so clearly and distinctly concerning this Sacrament, as he did. And however ⸫ See Hospin. of this whole matter pag. 520. Genebrard fasely pretends that the other Protestants dissented from him, yet 'tis certain they were so far from it, that they all Subscribed the very same Paper out of which he read his Declaration. But I will close this with the same words with which these Protestants did their final resolution in the Colloquy as to this matter; Affirmamus nullam locorum distantiam impedire posse communicationem quam habemus cum Christi corpore & sanguine, quoniam Coena Domini est res coelestis; et quamvis in terrâ recipiamus ore panem & vinum, vera scil. Corporis & sanguinis signa; tamen fide & spiritûs sancti operatione mentes nostrae (quarum hic est praecipuè cibus) in caelum elatae perfruuntur corpore & sanguine praesente. Et hoc respectu dicimus, Corpus verè se pani conjungere, & sanguinem vino; non aliter tamen quam sacramentali ratione, neque locali neque naturali mode, sed quoniam Efficaciter significant Deum illa dare fideliter communicantibus, illósque side verè & certo percipere. Hospin. l c. Comm. ibid. p. 142. Vbi sublicitur" Haec est perspicua de Corporis & sanguinis I C. Praesentia in Sacramento Caenae Ecclesiarum Beformatarum sentenria— Beze Hist. Eccles. pag. 615. where he adds, that they reject not only Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation, but also toute maniere de presence par laquelle le corps de Christ n'est colloquè maintenant reellem●nt ailleurs qu'au ciel. And then adds, why they thus use the word substance in this matter, and what they mean by it. See pag. 615. ad Ann 1561. We affirm that no distance of place can hinder the Communion which we have with Christ's Body and Blood; because the Supper of the Lord is a Heavenly thing, and though upon Earth we receive with our mouths Bread and Wine, viz. the true Symbols of his Body and Blood; yet by Faith, and through the Operation of the Holy Spirit, our Souls (of which this is the chief food) being carried up into Heaven, enjoy the Body and Blood present. And in this respect we say that the Body does truly join its self to the Bread, and the Blood to the Wine, but yet not otherwise than Sacramentally, neither after a local or natural manner. But because they do effectually signify, that God gives them to the Faithful Communicants, and that they do by Faith truly and certainly receive them. And thus far I have considered the foreign Divines produced by our Author, and in which we find the very same Explication which our Church gives of the Real presence. For our own Authors, I shall insist the rather upon them, both to take off any impression which the scraps here put together by those whose business it is to represent their own Sense, not their Authors, might otherwise be apt to make upon some Men; and also to show the exact concord there has been ever since the Reformation amongst us as to this matter. Now for what concerns our Divines in King Edward vi this. time, we have our Authors own confession, that towards the latter end of the Reign of that excellent Prince, they seem to have denied any such Real and Essential presence as he would fasten upon those of Queen Elizabeth's after. For as the first days of this Prince, 1 Treatise §. xxvi. pag 19 says he, seem to have been more addicted to Lutheranism, so the latter days to Zwinglianism; as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley and Peter Martyr. And indeed the Articles agreed upon in the Convocation at London 1562. plainly show it; in the xxixth. of which we find this express Clause; Since the very being of humane Nature doth require that the Body of one and the same man cannot be at one and the same time in many places, but of necessity must be in some certain and determinate place; Therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present in many different places at the same time. And since, as the Holy Scriptures testify, Christ hath been taken up into Heaven, and there is to abide till the end of the World, it becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess, that there is a Real or Corporal Presence, as they phrase it, of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. I shall therefore produce only a Witness or two of this King's Reign; and so pass on to those that follow. And 1st, A. B. A.B. CRANMER. Cranmer in his Answer to Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, objecting to him, That he denied the Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist, replies, That it was a thing he never said nor thought.— My book in divers places saith clean contrary, Answer to Gardener, Bishop of Winchester. Fol. London, 1551. That Christ is with us spiritually present; is eaten and drunken of us, and dwelleth within us, although Corporally he be departed out of this World, and gone into Heaven, pag. 5. Pag. 5. — As he giveth Bread to be eaten with our Mouths, so giveth he his very Body to be eaten with our Faith. And therefore I say, that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten, chawed and digested; but all is spiritually with Faith, not with Mouth, pag. 9 Pag. 9 — As the washing outwardly in Water is not a vain Token, but teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly in them that duly receive the same; so likewise is not the Bread a vain Token, but showeth and preacheth to the godly Receiver, what God worketh in him by his Almighty Power secretly and invisibly. And therefore as the Bread is outwardly eaten indeed in the Lord's Supper, so is the very Body of Christ inwardly by Faith eaten indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do; which eating nourisheth them unto Everlasting Life. And in his Treatise of the Holy Sacrament, Assertio verae & Catholicae Doctrinae de Sacramento Corporis & Sanguinis, J. ●hristi Serva●●ris nostri. Li●●ae, 8vo. 1601. Lib. 3. where he sets himself particularly to state this very Question, How Christ is present in this Holy Sacrament, He declares, Cap. 2. That whereas the Papists suppose Christ to be under the Species of Bread and Wine; we believe him to be in those who worthily receive these Holy Elements. They think him to be received by the Mouth, and to enter with the Bread and Wine; We assert, that he is received only by the Soul, and enters there by Faith. That Christ is present only sacramentally and spiritually in this sacred Mystery, p. 116. That since his Ascension into Heaven, he is there, and not on Earth, p. 118. and that he cannot be in both together, 128.— In short, he gives us this Rule for interpreting the Expressions of the Fathers, where it is said, That we eat the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ; That we receive in the Holy Sacrament, the very body that hung on the Cross, etc. cap. 14. p. 180. These, says he, and other Expressions of the like kind (which speak Christ to be upon Earth, and to be received of Christians by eating or drinking), are either to be understood of his Divine Nature (which is every where); or else must be taken figuratively or spiritually. For he is figuratively only in the Bread and Wine; and spiritually in those that receive this Bread and Wine worthily. But truly, and as to his Body and Flesh, he is in Heaven only; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. Thus did this Learned and Holy Martyr understand our Doctrine of the Real Presence; Bp. RIDLEY. and the same was the Idea which his Companion both in Doctrine and Suffering, Bishop Ridley, has left us of it. In his Discourse of the Lord's Supper, pag. 33. he tells us, Ridlei de Caenâ Dominicâ Assertio; Genevae apud Jo. Crispinum. 1556. That the Substance of the Bread continues as the Matter of this Sacrament; but so, that by reason of its change, as to Use, Office and Dignity, it is turned Sacramentally into the Body of Christ; as in Baptism, the Water is turned into the Laver of Regeneration— That the Humane Nature of Christ is in Heaven, and cannot in any manner lie hid under the form of Bread, p. 34.— Then he inquires, whether therefore we take away the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament? p. 35. And utterly denies, that this is either said or thought by him. The Substance of the true Body and Blood of Christ, says he, is always in Heaven, nor shall it departed thence before the end of the World. Now this Substance of his Body and Blood being conjoined to his Divine Nature, has not only Life in itself, but can, and is wont to bestow it upon all those who partake of it, and believe in his Name.— Nor is it any hindrance to this, that Christ still remains in Heaven, and that we are upon Earth. For by Grace, that is, Life (as S. John interprets it, c. 6) and the Properties of it, as far as may be profitable to us in this our Pilgrimage here below, he is with us to the end of the World. As the Sun, who though he never leaves his Orb, yet by his Life, Heat, and Influence, is present to us: pag. 36, 37. Hitherto then there can be no doubt, but that both the Church and the Divines knew no other Real Presence than what has been before acknowledged to be still our Doctrine. We must now go on to the times of trial, the days of Q. Elizabeth, and her Successors, I. Tract. §. iv pag. 4. when our Author supposes, that Men of different Judgements had the Power. Now for proof of this, besides the Expressions of particular Men, which we shall presently consider, we have Two General Presumptions offered to us; One, That Dr. Heyli●●, and others, have observed, he says, of this Queen, that she was a zealous propugner of the Real Presence; which may be very true, and yet but little to the purpose, if she propugned it in the same sense that her Brother King Edward the 6th, and the Church of England had done before, and not in the new Notion imposed upon her by this Author, but without any manner of proof to warrant his suggestion. The other, That upon the Review made by her Divines of the Common-Prayer and Articles, I. Treatise. pag. 2. §. I. and again, p. 22. §. XXXI. they struck out of the One the Rubric against the Adoration of the Sacrament, and the Passage before mentioned (being of the same temper as the Declaration in the Liturgy), out of the xxixth Article; and which has accordingly been omitted ever since. And here I cannot but again take notice of the disingenuousness of this Author, in dissembling the true Account that has so largely been given by our late accurate Compiler of the History of our Reformation of this whole matter, only for the advancing so pitiful an Insinuation of what I dare appeal to his own Conscience whether he did not know to be otherwise. I will beg leave to transcribe the whole Passage; and shall then leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge whether a man so well acquainted with Books, and so interested in this matter, could have lived so long in the world without hearing of so eminent a matter in our Church-History as this. The Author is treating about the difference between the Article established in King Edward the six's time, Dr. Burnet's Hist. of the Refomation, Vol 2. Pag. 405. Ann. 1559. Edit. 2. 1683. and those in Q. Elizabeth's. In the Article of the Lord's Supper there is a great deal left out; For instead of that large Refutation of the Corporal Presence, from the Impossibility of a Bodies being in more places at once; from whence it follows, That since Christ's Body is in Heaven, the Faithful ought not to believe or profess a Real or Corporal Presence of it in the Sacrament. In the new Article it is said, [That the Body of Christ is given and received after a spiritual manner; M S S. C. Cor. Christ. Cant. and the means by which it is received, is Faith.] But in the Original Copy of these Articles, which I have seen subscribed by the Hands of All that sat in either House of Convocation, there is a further Addition made. The Articles were subscribed with that precaution which was requisite in a matter of such consequence: For before the Subscriptions there is set down the Number of the Pages, and of the Lines in every Page of the Book to which they set their Hands. In that Article of the Eucharist these words are added; An Explanation of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament. Christ when he ascended into Heaven made his Body Immortal, but took not from it the Nature of a Body: For still it retains, according to the Scriptures, the Verity of a Humane Body; which must be always in One definite place, and cannot be spread into many, or all places at Once. Since than Christ being carried up to Heaven, is to remain there to the end of the World, and is to come from thence, and from no place else (as says S. Austin) to judge the Quick and the Dead: None of the Faithful aught to believe or profess the Real, or (as they call it) the Corporal Presence of his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist. But this in the Original is dashed over with minium; yet so that it is still legible. The Secret of it was this; The Queen and her Council studied (as hath been already shown) to unite all into the Communion of the Church: And it was alleged, that such an express Definition against a Real Presence, might drive from the Church many who were still of that Persuasion; and therefore it was thought to be enough to condemn Transubstantiation, and to say, that Christ was present after a spiritual manner, and received by Faith. To say more, as it was judged superflous, so it might occasion division. Upon this these words were by common consent left out. And in the next Convocation the Articles were subscribed without them; of which I have also seen the Original. This shows, that the Doctrine of the Church subscribed by the whole Convocation, was at that time contrary to the belief of a Real or Corporal Presence in the Sacrament; only it was not thought necessary or expedient to publish it. Though from this silence, which flowed not from their Opinion, but the Wisdom of that time, in leaving a Liberty for different Speculations, as to the manner of the Presence; SOME have since inferred, that the chief Pastors of this Church did then disapprove of the definition made in King Edward's time; and that they were for a Real Presence. Thus that Learned Historian. And here let our Adversary consider what he thinks of this Account; and whether after so evident a Confutation from plain matter of Fact of his Objection before it appeared, we may not reasonably complain both of his Weakness and In-sincerity; neither to take any notice of such a plain History of this whole Transaction, or to imagine that so vain a Surmise of Q. Elizabeth's being a great propugner of the Real Presence, would be sufficient to obviate so clear and particular an Account of this matter. But though this might suffice to show the continuance of the same Doctrine of the Real Presence in this Queen's, that was before professed in her Brother's Reign; yet it may not be amiss to discover a little further the truth of this matter, and how falsely this Author has alleged those great Names he has produced. I will therefore beg leave to continue my Proof, with an Induction of the most Eminent of our Divines that I have at this time the Opportunity to consult, to our own days. And first for Bishop Jewel; Bp. JEWEL. though the part he had in the Convocation before mentioned, may sufficiently assure us of his Opinion; yet it may not be improper to repeat the very words of a Person of his Learning and Eminence in our Church. In his Reply to Harding thus he expresses the Doctrine of the Church of England, as to the Real Presence: Vth Article of the Real Presence against Harding, pag. 237. Lond. 1611. See also his Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, pag. 219, etc. Whereas Mr. Harding thus unjustly reporteth of us, that we maintain a naked Figure, and a bare Sign or Token only, and nothing else— He knoweth well, we feed not the People of God with bare Signs and Figures, but teach them, that the Sacraments of Christ be Holy Mysteries; and that in the Ministration thereof Christ is set before us even as he was crucified upon the Cross.— We teach the People, not that a naked Sign or Token, but that Christ's Body and Blood indeed and verily is given unto us; that we verily eat it; that we verily drink it; that we verily be relieved and live by it: that we are Bones of his Bones, and Flesh of his Flesh; that Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him:— Yet we say not, either that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is done away, or that Christ's Body is let down from Heaven, or made Really or Fleshly present in the Sacrament. We are taught according to the Doctrine of the Old Fathers, to lift up our Hearts to Heaven, and there to feed upon the Lamb of God— Thus spiritually and with the Mouth of our Faith we eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood; even as verily as his Body was verily broken, and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross— Indeed the Bread that we receive with our Bodily Mouths, is an earthly thing; and therefore a Figure; as the Water in Baptism is likewise also a Figure. But the Body of Christ that thereby is represented, and there is offered unto our Faith, is the thing itself, and not Figure. To conclude, Three things herein we must consider: 1st, That we put a difference between the Sign and the thing itself that is signified: 2. That we seek Christ above in Heaven, and imagine not him to be present Bodily upon the Earth: 3. That the Body of Christ is to be eaten by Faith only, and none otherwise. I shall not trouble the Reader with any more of our Divines who lived in the beginning of this Queen's Reign, Mr. HOOKER. and subscribed the Article before-recited; but pass on directly to him whom our Author first mentions, Tr. I. cap. 2. §. 10. Pag. 6. the Venerable Mr. Hooker, and whose Judgement having been so deservedly esteemed by all sorts of men, ought not to be lightly accounted of by us. And here I must observe, that this. Learned Person is drawn in only by a Consequence, and that no very clear one neither, to favour his Opinion. Difference between the Protestant and Socinian Methods, in answer to the Protestants Plea for a Socinian, pag. 54. The truth is, he has dealt with Mr. Hooker just as himself, or one of his Friends has been observed to have done on the like occasion with the incomparable Chillingworth; has picked up a Passage or two that seemed for his purpose; but dissembled whole Pages in the same place that were evidently against him. For thus Mr. Hooker in the Chapter cited by him, interprets the words of Institution: If we doubt, says he, what those admirable words may import, let him be our Teacher for the meaning of Christ, to whom Christ was himself a Schoolmaster. Let our Lord's Apostle be his Interpreter; content we ourselves with his Explication; My Body, the Communion of my Body; My Blood, the Communion of my Blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear and easy, than that as Christ is termed our Life, because through him we obtain Life: So the parts of this Sacrament are his Body and Blood, because they are Causes instrumental, upon the receipt whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth?— The Real Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament— And again, p. 310. he thus interprets the same words; This Hallowed Food through the concurrence of Divine Power, is in verity and truth unto faithful Receivers instrumentally a Cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving Grace as my sacrificed Body can yield, and as their Souls do presently need. This is to them and in them my Body. And this may suffice in Vindication of Mr. Hooker. Those who desire a fuller Account, may find several Pages to the same purpose in the Chapter which I have quoted. Bishop ANDREWS. 1 Tract. pag. 7. §. xi. n. 1. The next our Author mentions, is the Learned Bishop Andrews, in that much noted passage, as he calls it, in the Answer to Bellarmine. And indeed we need desire no other Passage to judge of his Opinion in this matter; in which 1st. He utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist. 2. He professes that a Presence we believe, and that no less a True one than the Papists. 3. He plainly insinuates that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, was much the same as in Baptism; the very allusion which the Holy † Habemus Christum praesentem ad Baptismatis Sacramentum, habemus eum praesentem ad Altaris Cibum & Potum. Augustin. Stola, quae est Ecclesia Christi, lavatur in ipsius sanguine vivo i. e. in lavacro regenerationis. Origen. Statim baptizatus in sanguine agni Vir meruit appellari. Hieron. Christi sanguine lavaris, quando in ejus mortem Baptizaris. Leo. P. etc. Fathers were wont to make, to express his Presence by in this Holy Sacrament; which since our Adversaries can neither deny, nor yet say is so real, as to be Essential or Corporeal; they must of necessity allow that there may be a true Presence (which is all the Bishop affirms) without such a Substantial one as this Author here contends for. But to show that whatever this Bishop understood by the Real presence, it could not be that Christ's glorified Body is now actually present in this Sacred Mystery, will appear demonstratively from this, that he declares it is not this Body which we either Represent or partake of there; insomuch that he doubts not to say, that could there be a Transubstantiation, such as the Church of Rome supposes, it would not serve our turn, nor answer the design of this Sacrament. 'Tis in his Sermon on 1 Cor. See Sermon seven. on the Resurect. pag. 454. Serm. L●nd. 1641. v. 7, 8. We will mark, saith he, something more: That Epulemur doth here refer to Immolatus: To Christ not every way considered, but As when he was Offered. Christ's Body that now is, true; But not Christ's Body as now it is, but as than it was, when it was offered, rend, and slain, and sacrificed for us. Not as now he is glorified; for so he is not, he cannot be Immolatus; For as he is, he is immortal and impassable; But as then he was when he suffered death, that is passable and mortal. Then in his passable State, he did institute this of outs, to be a memorial of his Passable and Passion both. And we are in this Action not only carried up to Christ (sursum Corda) [so that Christ it seems is not brought down to us] but we are also carried back to Christ, as he was at the very instant, and in the very Act of his offering. So, and no otherwise, doth this Text teach; So, and no otherwise do we Represent him. By the incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit, not He alone, but He as at the very act of his offering is made present to us, and we incorporate into his death, and invested in the Benefits of it. If an Host could be turned into him now glorified as he is, it would not serve; Christ offered is it. Thither must we look; to the Serpent lift up: thither we must repair; even add Cadaver: We must Hoc facere, do that is then done. So and no otherwise is this Epulare to be conceived. And so I think none will say they do or can turn him. Whatsoever Real presence than this Bishop believed, it must be of his crucified Body, and as in the State of his death; and that I think cannot be otherwise present than in one of those two ways mentioned above by Archbishop Cranmer, and both of which we willingly acknowledge; either Figuratively, in the Elements; or Spiritually, in the Souls of those who worthily receive them. And from this Account of Bishop Andrews Opinion, we may conclude what it was that Casaubon and King James understood by the Real Presence, ASAUBON, KING JAMES, A. Bishop of Spalleto. who insist upon that Bishop's words to express their own Notion and meaning of it. Nor can we make any other judgement of the Arch Bishop of Spalleto; See the 1. Tra. who in the next § xi. note 2. pag. 7. * Vol. 3. de Rep. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 11. pag. 200. 201. to that cited by our Adversary is very earnest against those who receive unworthily this Holy Sacrament, and by consequence ties not Christ's natural Body to the Bread; and declares it to be after a Spiritual imperceptible and miraculous manner. As for the term Corporaliter, which he there uses, and which Melancthon and some others had used before him, that may be well enough understood in the same Sense, Celess two. 9, 17. as verè or realiter; and is often so used both in Scripture and in the Holy Fathers. As when St. Paul says of Christ, that in" Him dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead Bodily; that is really, in opposition to the Shechinah or Presence of God in the Tabernacle. And again, The Body of Christ; that is the substance, See Hammend in Coloss 1. Annot. d. the reality, opposed to the types and sigures of the Law. And so in the Hebrew Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for Essence as well as Body, Archbishop LAWD. and applied to Spiritual as well as Corporal things. Nor can I see any more reason to understand Archbishop Lawd in any other Sense. He asserts the true and real Presence of Christ in this Sacred Feast; 1 Tract. §. xiv. pag. 8. but he does not say, that Christ's natural Body which is now in Heaven, is also in this Holy Sacrament, or in the worthy receiver; nor have we any reason to believe that he understood it so to be. * MONT●GVE Origeres Eccles. Tom. prior. par, postor. p. 247, 249, 250. etc. Panis in Sanaxi fit corpus Christi;— Sed et Corpus Christi CREDENIES nunt. Ad eundem utrumque moduin & mensuram; sed non Naturaliter;— Itaque nee Panis ITA est Corpus Christi; Mystice tantum, non P●●sice. vid. plur. And the same must be said of † Bishop HALL.. Bishop Hall, Bishop Montague, and Bishop Bilson; MONTAGVE BILSON. in whose expressions as they are quoted by our Author, I find nothing that proves the Sense he would impose upon them; and whose works had I now by me, I might possibly be able to give some better account of them. Though after all, should one of these in his violence against his Adversaries, or the others in their pacific design of reconciling all Parties as to this Point, have said more than they ought to do, I do not see but that it ought to have been imputed to the circumstances they were in and the designs they pursued, rather than be set up for the measure either of their own, or our Church's Opinion. And now I am mentioning these things, Bishop FORBES. I ought not pass over one other eminent instance of such a charitable undertaking, and which has given occasion to our Author of a Quotation he might otherwise have wanted, in that excellent Bishop of St. Andrews Bishop Forbes; concerning whose Authority in this matter I shall offer only the censure of one, than whom none could have given a more worthy Character of a person, who so well deserved it as that good Bishop did; I do not deny, Author of the Life of Bishop BEDEL; in the Preface. but his earnest desire of a general Peace and Union among all Christians, has made him too favourable to many of the Corruptions in the Church of Rome: But though a Charity that is not well balanced, may carry one to very in iscreet things; yet the principle from whence thdy flowed in him, was so truly good, that the Errors to which it carried him, aught to be either excused, or at to be very gently censured. There remain now but two of all the Divines he has produced to prove his new fancy, which he would set up for the Doctrine of the Church of England; and those as little for his purpose as any he has hitherto mentioned; Bishop TAYLOR. Bishop Taylor and Mr. Thorndyke. For Bishop Taylor, I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication; since it is evident that he has so plainly opposed his Notion, and that in the very Book he quotes, and which he wrote on purpose to show our meaning of the Real Presence, Polemical discourses. p. 182. London. 1674. that he could not but have known that he misrepresented him. I shall set down the state of the Question as it is in the beginning of that Treatise. The Doctrine of the Church of England, and generally of the Protestants in this Article is; That after the Minister of the Holy Mysteries hath rightly prayed and blessed or consecrated the Bread and the Wine; the Symbols become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ after a Sacramental, i.e. in a Spiritual Real manner. So that all that worthily communicate, do by Faith receive Christ Really, Effectually, to all the purposes of his Passion— It is Bread and it is Christ's Body: It is Bread in in Substance, Christ in the Sacrament; and Christ is as really given to all that are truly disposed, as the Symbols are p. 183.— It is here as in the other Sacrament; for as there natural Water becomes the laver of Regeneration; so here Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ: but there and here too the first Substance is changed by Grace, but remains the same in nature— We say that Christ's Body is in the Sacrament really, but Spiritually. They (the Papists) say it is there really, but Spiritually. For so Bellarmin is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this Question. Where now is the difference? Here; By Spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit; by Spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only; that is, so as Christ is not present to any other Sense but that of faith or spiritual susception— They say that Christ's Body is truly present there, as it was upon the Cross, but not after the manner of all, or any Body— But we by the real Spiritual Presence of Christ, do understand Christ to be present, as the Spirit of God is present in the Hearts of the faithful, by Blessing and Grace; and this is ALL we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence. Such is the Account which that Excellent Bishop here gives not only of his own, but, as he expressly terms, it of the Church of England's, and the Generality of the Protestants Belief in this Matter. Our Author's dissimulation of it is so much the more inexcusable, Treatise 1st. p. 20th. by how much the more zealous an Advocate he makes him of his Cause, when all this that I have transcribed, was in the very same Section, and almost in the same Page with what he has cited. For his little Remark upon the Title of the Bishop's Book, where he calls it of the Real Presence and Spiritual, whence he would infer a difference between the two Terms, and find something Real that is not Spiritual in this Sacrament; it is evident that the Design of that Distinction was this: There be several sorts of Real Presences; the Papists, the Lutherans, the Church of England, all allow a Real Presence in the Sacrament, but after different Manners; it was therefore necessary to add somewhat more, to show what kind of Real Presence he undertook to maintain, and he knew no word more proper to express it by than Spiritual, which does not therefore imply a Distinction from, but Limitation of the other Term Real. And thus he explains it, N. 6. and 7. of that Section, Pag. 183. where he shows that the Spiritual is also a Real Presence, and indeed more properly so than any other. In short, thus he concludes the State of the Question, Pag 186. in the same Section, between us and the Church of Rome, so that now, says he, The Question is not, Whether the Symbols be changed into Christ's Body and Blood or no? For it is granted on all sides: But whether this Conversion be Sacramental and Figurative? Or whether it be Natural and Bodily? Nor is it whether Christ be taken Really, but whether he be taken in a Spiritual or in a Natural Manner? We say the Conversion is Figurative, Mysterious, and Sacramental; they say, it is Proper, Natural, and Corporal. We affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith, by the Spirit, to all real Effects of his Passion (this is an Explication a little different from our Authors) They say he is taken by the Mouth, and that the Spiritual and the Virtual taking him in Virtue or Effect, is not sufficient, tho' done also in the Sacrament. Hic Rhodus, hic Saltus. If this does not yet satisfy him that he has injured this Learned Man in the Representation of his Opinion, directly contrary to his Sense, I will offer him yet one Passage more, taken from another part of his Works, and which, I hope, will throughly convince him. It is in the 5th. Letter, to a Gentleman that was tempted to the Communion of the Church of Rome. He had proposed to the Bishop this Question. Whether, without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry, we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour, as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host, according to his Humane Nature, in that Host? The Question is certainly every way pertinent to our present Purpose; let us see what the Answer is that he makes to it. See P●l●mi●. 〈…〉 ●ag. 6●. 70. We may not render Divine Worship to him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature, without danger of Idolatry, because he is not there according to his Humane Nature, and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens, which must needs be Idolatry. Well, Treat. 1st. Pag. 10. but still it may be the Bishop does not intent to exclude the Corpus Domini, but only the Corporal or Natural Manner of that Body: Let us therefore hear how he goes on. For Idolum nihil est in mundo, Saith St. Paul, and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non-ens. For it is not true; there is no suchthing. What, not as Christ there, no way as to his Humane nature?— No, he is saith the Bishop, present there by his Divine power, and his Divine Blessing, and the Fruits of his Body, the real effective Consequents of his Passion; but for any other Presence, it is Idolum; it is nothing in the World. Adore Christ in Heaven; for the Heaven must contain him till the time of restitution of all things. This then is Bishop Taylor's Notion of the Real Presence: and now I am confident our Author himself will remit him to the Company of those Old Zuinglian Bishops, Cranmer, Ridley, and the rest, who lived before that Q. Elizabeth had propugned the Real Presence of his new Model into the Heads of the Governors of the Church of England. And now I am afraid his Cause will be desperate unless Mr. Thorndyke can support it. Mr. THORNDYKE. And how unlikely he is to do it, he might have learned from what has been answered to T. G. on the same Occasion. ⸪ T. G. Vialogue 1st. Pag. 21. T. G. Had in his first Dialogue quoted the same place which our Author has done since, to prove his belief of the Real Presence: His * Answer to T. G's. Dial. Pag. 92. Adversary confesses this, but produces another that explains his meaning; † THORNDYKE Laws of the Church. Ch. 4. Pag. 30. if it can any way be showed, says he, that the Church did ever pray that the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of them, than I am content that this be accounted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist. But if the Church only prays that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements— may make them the Body and Blood of Christ, so that they which receive them may be filled with the Grace of his Spirit; then is it not the Sense of the Catholic Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance, because supposing that they remain, they may nevertheless come to be the instruments of God's Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it, no otherwise than his Flesh and Blood conveyed the Efficacy thereof upon Earth. And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the Body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally, that is to say, as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Thus Mr. Thorndyke expresses himself as to the Real Presence: But yet after all, I will not deny but that this Learned Person seems to have had a particular Notion in this matter, and which is far enough from what our Author would fix upon him. He thought that the Elements by Consecration were united to the Godhead of Christ, much after the same manner as his Natural Body was by Incarnation; and that so the very Elements became after a sort his Body. See his Just Weights and Measures, 4 to. Lond. 1662. Pag. 94. The Church from the beginning did not pretend to consecrate by these bare words, This is my Body, this is my Blood, as operatory inchanging the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ; but by that Word of God whereby he hath declared the Institution of this Sacrament, and commanded the use of it; and by the Execution of this Command. Now it is executed, and hath always been executed by the Act of the Church upon God's Word of Institution, praying that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements, may make them the Body and Blood of Christ. Not by changing them into the Nature of Flesh and Blood; as the Bread and Wine that nourished our Lord Christ on Earth, became the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God, by becoming the Flesh and Blood of his Manhood, Hypostatically united to his Godhead, saith Gregory Nyssene. But immediately and ipso facto, by being united to the Spirit of Christ; i. e. his Godhead. For the Flesh and Blood of Christ by Incarnation, the Elements by Consecration being united to the Spirit; i. e. the Godhead of Christ, become both one Sacramentally, by being both one with the Spirit or Godhead of Christ, to the conveying of God's Spirit to a Christian. And thus have I considered the several Divines produced for this new Conceit concerning the Real Presence; and shown the greatest part of his Authors to be evidently against it; some not to have spoken so clearly that we can determine any thing concerning them; but not one that favours what they were alleged for; viz. to show that they believed Christ's Natural Body to be both in Heaven and in the Sacrament; only after another manner than the Papists. It were an easy matter to show how constant our Church has been to the Doctrine of the true, real, spiritual Presence which it still asserts, and which it derived from its first Reformers, whose words have been before set down by a cloud of other Witnesses; as may be seen by the short Specimen I have put together in the * Reformatio legum Eccles. ex Authorit. Henr. 8. & Edw. 6. Lond. 1641. Tit. de Sacram. cap. 4. pag. 29.— Morton de Euch. part. 2. Class. 4. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 224. Lat. 1640. 4 to.— Fr. White against Fisher, pag. 407. Lond. 1624. Fol.— A. B Vster's Answer to a Challenge, c of the Real Presence, p. 44, 45. Lond. 1625. Id. Serm before the House of Commons, pag 16, 1●, &c— Dr. Hownand Pract. Catech. part. ult. Answer to this Question; the Importance of these w●●●●, 〈◊〉 the B●d●; and 〈◊〉 of Christ are verily and indeed taken and receiv●●, p. 132. 〈◊〉 Lond Fol. 1634. Dr. Jachson's Works, Tom. 3. pag. 300, 302. Lond. 1673 Dr. Jo. W●●●●●'s Way to the True Church. Lond. 1624. §. 51. N. 1● pag. 2●9. Cousin's Hist. Transubst. p. 3, 4, 12, etc. Edit. London, 1675, 8vo. Margin. But I have insisted too long already on this matter; and shall therefore pass on to the Third thing I proposed to consider; viz. Thirdly, That the Alterations which have been made in our Rubric, were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions, as is vainly and falsely suggested. To give a rational Account of this Affair, we must carefully consider the Circumstances of the Times, the Tempers and Dispositions of the Persons that lived in them; and what the Designs of the Governing Parties were with reference to them; and then we shall presently see both a great deal of Wisdom and Piety in the making of these Alterations; allowing the Opinions of those who did it, to have continued, as we have seen, in all of them the same. When first this Rubric was put into King Edward's Liturgy, the Church of England was but just rising up out of the Errors and Superstitions with which it had been overrun by the prevalency of Popery upon it. It had the happiness to be reform, not as most others were, by private persons, and in many places contrary to the desires of the Civil Power; but by a Unanimous Concurrence of the Highest Authority both Civil and Ecclesiastical, of Church and State. Hence it came to pass, that Convocations being assembled, Deliberations had of the greatest and wisest Persons for the proceeding in it, nothing was done out of a Spirit of Peevisnness or Opposition; the Holy Scriptures and Antiquity were carefully consulted; and all things examined according to the exactest measures that could be taken from them; and a diligent distinction made of what was Popery, and what true and Catholic Christianity, that so the One only might be rejected, the other duly retained. Now by this means it was that the Ancient Government of the Church became preserved amongst us; a just and wise Liturgy collected out of the Public Rituals: Whatever Ceremonies were requisite for Order or Decency, were retained; and among the rest, that of receiving the Communion kneeling for One, which has accordingly ever since been the manner established amongst us. But that no Occasion of Scandal might hereby be given, whether to our Neighbour-Churches abroad, or to any particular Members of our own at home: That those who were yet weak in the Faith, might not either continue or fall back into Error, and by our retaining the same Ceremony in the Communion that they had been used to in the Mass, fancy that they were to adore the Bread as they did before: For all these great Ends this Caution was inserted; that the true Intent of this Ceremony was only for Decency and Order; not that any Adoration was thereby intended, or aught to be done unto any Real or Essential Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood, which were not there, but in Heaven, it being against the Truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at One time in more places than One. And this is sufficiently intimated in the words of the Rubric to have been the first Cause and Design of it. Thus it continued the remainder of King Edward's time: But now Queen Elizabeth being come to the Crown, there were other Circumstances to be considered. Those of the Reformed Religion abroad were sufficiently satisfied, both by this public Declaration, which had stood so many years in the Liturgy of our Church; and by the Conversation and Acquaintance of our Divines, forced by the dispersion in the foregoing Reign, to seek forrefuge among their Brethren in other Countries, of our Orthodox Faith, as to this Point. Our own Members at home had heard too much of this matter in the public Writings and Disputations, and in the constant Sufferings of their Martyrs, not to know that the Popish Real Presence was a mere Figment, an Idolum, as Bishop Taylor justly styles it; and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored. There was then no longer need of this Rubric upon any of those Accounts for which it was first established; and there was a very just reason now to lay it aside. That great Queen desired, if possible, to compose the Minds of her Subjects, and make up those Divisions which the differences of Religion, and the late unhappy Consequences of them had occasioned. For this, she made it her business to render the public Acts of the Church of England as agreeable to all Parties as Truth would permit. The Clause of the Real Presence inserted in the Articles of her first Convocation, and subscribed by all the Members of it (to show that their belief was still the same it had ever been as to this matter) was nevertheless, as we have seen, struck out for this end their next Session. The Title of Head of the Church, which her Father had first taken, her Brother continued, and was from both derived to her, so qualified and explained, as might prevent any Occasion of quarrelling at it by the most captious persons. That Petition in the Litany inserted by King Henry viij. From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable Enormities, Good Lord, etc. struck out: And in conformity to what was done in the Articles as to this Point, this Rubric 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 show. 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 offered for the Proof of it. And now when Panic 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 though by the good hand of God our King and our Peace were again restored, yet the minds of the People were still unsettled, and in danger of being again blown up upon the least Occasion; what could be more advisable to justify ourselves from all suspicion of Popery in this matter, and induce them to a Conformity with us in a Ceremony they had entertained such a dread of, than to revive that ancient Rubric; and so quiet the Minds of the People now, by the same means by which they had been settled and secured before? This I am persuaded is so rational an Account, as will both justify the proceed of our Governors in these Changes, and show 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 'tis in the Words, not the Sense: And if our Governors 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, etc. or (as we choose rather) join 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 Rubric 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 shown 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 shown to have been the constant belief of our Divines consistent with this Rubric, 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 Rubric, 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 alleged 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 considered. 4thly. that the Reason mentioned in our Rubric 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. 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. 1st. 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 Nonsense. 'Tis 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 believed 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 TAILORS Polem. Disco. of the Real presence. Sect. two. pag. 231. and as Fisher the Jesuit once told King James 1st. with reference to this very Subject, the rather to be believed because it is contrary to Reason. But if this be indeed our Author's 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 persuaded, 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, does neither understand himself nor them. Reason is the voice of God as well as Revelation, and what is opposite to the one, can no more be agreeable to the other, than God can be contrary to himself. And though, if the Revelation be clear and evident, we submit to it, because we are then sure it cannot be contrary to Reason, whatever it may appear to us; yet when the contradiction is manifest, as that a natural Body should be in more places than one at the same time, we are sure that interpretation of Holy Scripture can never be the right which would infer this, but especially when there is another, and much more reasonable, that does not. And in this we are after all justified by one whose Authority I hope our Author will not question, even his own self; If, says he, Treatise 1st. §. 29. pag. 21. we are certain there is a contradiction, than we are certain 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. And let him that sticks to this rule, interpret Christ's words for Transubstantiation if he can. But do not our own Authors sometimes say, that notwithstanding all the difficulties brought against Transubstantiation, yet if it can be shown that God has revealed it, they are ready to believe it? Perhaps some may have said this, because for that very Reason that there are so many contradictions in it, they are sure it cannot be shown that God has revealed it. But if he means, as he seems to insinuate, that notwithstanding such plain contradictions as they charge it with, they thought it possible nevertheless, that God might have revealed it, and upon that supposition, they were ready to believe it; I answer from his own words, that their supposal then was Absurd and impossible; since he himself assure us, Treatise 1st. §. xx. n. 3. pag. 14. that None can believe a thing true, upon what motive soever, which he first knows to be certainly false, or which is all one, certainly to contradict. For these we say are not verifyable by a divine Power; and Ergo, here I may say, should a divine power declare a truth, it would transcend its self. Which last words if they signify any thing and do not transcend Sense, must suppose it impossible for such a thing as implies a certain Contradiction, to be revealed. II. Observation, But our Author goes on, I conceive that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a Perfect Contradiction, can no more be effected by divine Power than another, or than many others the like may. Seeing then we admit that some seeming Contradictions to Reason may be verified by the Divine power in this Sacrament, there is no reason to deny but that this may be also as well as any other. Now not to contend with him about words; whoever told our Author, that we allowed that there was any thing in this Sacrament, as received by us, that seemed to us to include a Perfect Contradiction? Perfect Contradictions we confess are all of them equally verifyable by a divine Power, that is, are all of them impossible. And for this we have his own word before. Now if there be any such things as perfect contradictions to be known by us, that which seems to us to be a perfect contradiction, must really be a perfect contradiction; unless contradictions are to be discovered some other way than by seeming to our Reason to be so. And such it not only seems, but undoubtedly is, for the same One, natural, finite Body, to be in more places than one at the same time; if to be and not to be, be still the measure of Contradictions. He that says of such a Body, that it is in Heaven and on Earth, at London and Rome, at the same time, says in Effect that 'tis one and not one; finite and not finite; in one place and not in one place, etc. All which are such seemingly perfect contradictions, that I fear 'twill be a hard matter to find out any Power by which they can be verified. III. Observation, Treatise 1st. §. xxii. p. 15. He observes Thirdly; That those who affirm a Real and Substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant, contradistinct to any such other Real presence of Christ's Body, as implies only a presence or it in Virtue, and Spiritual Effects, etc. must hold this particular seeming Contradiction to be True, or some other equivalent to it. If by the Real Presence of the very Body of Christ, he means, as he before explains it, That Christ's Natural Body, that very Body which is now in Heaven, should be also at the same time here upon Earth; it is, I think, necessary for those who will affirm this, to hold some such kind of Contradiction, as he says: And 'tis for that very Reason, I am persuaded, he will find but few such Persons in the Church of England; which so expressly declares, that Christ's Natural Body is in Heaven, and not here, upon this very account, That it is contrary to the truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than one at the same time. However, if any such there be, as they herein departed from the Doctrine of their Church, so it is not our concern to answer for their Contradictions. iv He observes, lastly: It seems to me that some of the more judicious amongst them (the Divines he means of the Church of England) have not laid so great a weight on this Philosophical Position, Tract. 1. §. xxviii. p. 20. as wholly to support and regulate their Faith in this matter by it; as it stands in opposition not only to Nature's, but the Divine Power: because they pretend not any such certainty thereof, but that if any Divine Revelation of the contrary can be showed, they profess a readiness to believe it. I shall not now trouble myself with what some of our Divines may seem to him to have done in this matter; 'tis evident our Church has laid stress enough upon this Contradiction. Indeed where so many gross Repugnancies both to Sense and Reason are crowded together, as we have seen before there are in this Point, it ought not to be wondered if our Divines have not supported and regulated their Faith wholly upon this one alone. We do not any of Us think it either safe or pious to be too nice in determining what God can, or cannot do; we leave that to the bold Inquisitiveness of their Schools. But this we think we may say, that if there are any unalterable Laws of Nature, by which we are to judge of these things; then God can no more make one Body to exist in ten thousand places at the same time, than he can make one, continuing one, to be ten thousand, than he can divide the same thing from its self, and yet continue it still undivided. And if any of our Divines have said, that they cannot admit that one Body can be in several places at once, till the Papists can demonstrate the possibility thereof by Testimony of Holy Scripture, or the ancient Tradition of the Primitive Church, or by apparent Reason. We need not suppose that they said this, doubting whether it implied a Contradiction, but because the certainty of the Contradiction secured them against the possibility of any such Proof. * This is evident in B. Taylor, who thought that God could not do this, because it implied a Contradiction: Real Presence, §. xi. n. 1. p. 230. and Ibid. n. 27. He saith 'tis utterly impossible. So also Dr. White professes, that according to the Order which God has fixed by his Word and Will, this cannot be done: Confer. pag. 446, 447. and before, pag. 181. to this Objection, That though in Nature it be impossible, for one and the same Body to be in many places at once, yet because God is Omnipotent, he is able to effect it: We answer, says he, It implieth a Contradiction, that God should destroy the nature of a thing, the nature of the same thing remaining safe: See 〈◊〉, p. 180, 181. White 's Works, Lond. 1624. And now I know but one Objection more that is, or can be offered against what I have said, and which having answered, I shall close this Point: For if this be all the Church of England understands, when it speaks of a Real Presence, viz. A Real Sacramental Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Signs, and a real Spiritual Presence in the inward Communion of them to the Soul of every worthy Receiver; will not this precipitate us into downright ‖ See 1. Treatise, pag. 23. §. xxxii. p. 24. §. xxxii. p. 25. §. xxxvi, xxxvii, etc. Zuinglianism, and render us after all our pretences as very Sacramentaries as they? Indeed, I am not able directly to say whether it will or no, because I find the Opinion of Zuinglius very variously represented as to this matter. But yet, First, If by Zuinglianism he means that which is more properly * Smalcius de Coen. Dom. p. 347. Id Disp. 9 de Hypocr. p. 289. Volkelius lib. iv. cap. 12. p. 304, 319, etc. Socinus in Paraenesi, c. iv. Sclichtingius disp. de Coeu. Dom. p. 701. Socinianism, viz. a mere Commemoration of Christ's Death, and a Thanksgiving to God for it; 'tis evident it does not, forasmuch as we positively confess, that in this Holy Sacrament, there is a Real and Spiritual Grace communicated to us, even all the benefits of that Death and Passion which we there set forth. And this, or somewhat very like it, I find sometimes to have been maintained by † Zuingl. See de Provide. Dei, cap. 6, etc. Zuinglius. But now, Secondly, If by Zuinglianism he understands such a Real presence, as denies only the Coexistence of Christ's Natural Body now in Heaven, at the same time in this Holy Sacrament, but denies nothing of that Real and Spiritual * And this our Author seems to insinuate: See the places above cited: And indeed others have alleged this as the true Opinion of Zuinglius: See Calvin. Tract. de Coen. Dom. Defence. Sacram. Admonit. ad Westphal. & Passim. alibi. Vid. insuper libr. de Orthod. Consens. c. 7: And especially Hospin. p. 42, 55, 177, etc. Hist. Sacr. pa●● 2. Communion, of it we have be fore mentioned; this is indeed our Doctrine, nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any ill Names he is able to put upon it. But yet I wonder why he should call this Zuinglianism; since if the common name of Catholic, or Christian Doctrine, be not sufficient, he might have found out a more ancient Abettor of this Real Presence, than Zuinglius, and the truth is, one of the most dangerous Opposers both of their Head and their Faith that ever was; I mean St. Paul, who has not only clearly expressed himself against them, as to this Point of the Eucharist, 1 Cor. x. 16. but in most of their other Errors left such pernicious Say to the World; as all their Authority and Infallibility, let me add, nor all their Anathema's neither, will not be able to overcome. I shall close up this Discourse of the Real Presence acknowledged by us in this Holy Sacrament, with a plain familiar Example, and which may serve at once both to illustrate, and confirm the Propriety of it. A Father makes his last Will, and by it bequeathes his Estate and all the Profits of it to his Child. Vid. Cousin's Hist. Transubstantionis, cap. v. §. 5. p. 57 He delivers it into the Hands of his Son, and bids him take there his House and Lands, which by this his last Will he delivers to him. The Son in this case receives nothing but a Roll of Parchment, with a Seal tied to it from his Father; but yet by virtue of this Parchment he is entitled to his Estate, performing the Conditions of his Will, and to all the Benefits and Advantages of it: And in that Deed he truly and effectually received the very House and Lands that were thereby conveyed to him. Our Saviour Christ in like manner, being now about to leave the World, gives this Holy Sacrament, as his final Bequest to us; in it he conveys to us a right to his Body and Blood, and to all the Spiritual Blessings and Graces that proceed from them. So that as often as we receive this Holy Eucharist, as we ought to do, we receive indeed nothing but a little Bread and Wine into our Hands; but by the Blessing and Promise of Christ, we by that Bread and Wine, as really and truly become Partakers of Christ's Body and Blood, as the Son by the Will of his Father was made Inheritor of his Estate: Nor is it any more necessary for this, that Christ's Body should come down from Heaven, or the outward Elements which we receive, be substantially turned into it, than it is necessary in that other case, that the very Houses and Lands should be given into the Hands of the Son to make a real delivery or conveyance of them; or the Will of the Father be truly and properly changed into the very Nature and Substance of them. PART II. CHAPTER III. Of the Adoration of the Host, as prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome. WE are now arrived at the last Part of this Discourse; in which I must thus far change the Method I pursued in the Other Subject, as to consider, First, What the Doctrine of the Church of England as to this Point is; and what our Adversaries Exceptions against it are. Secondly, What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and whether what this Author has said in favour of it, may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this Matter. For the former of these, The Doctrine of the Church of England, we shall need go no farther than the Rubric we have beforementioned; wherein it is expressly declared, with reference to this Holy Sacrament, Rubr. at the end of the Communion. That no Adoration is intended, or aught to be done, either to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or to any Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood: For that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all Faithful Christians) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, are in Heaven and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body, to be at One time in more places than One. This then being sufficiently cleared, let us see what this Author has to observe against it. 1. He supposes that we will grant, Treatise 1. Ch. 4. §. 39 p. 27. that if there were a Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Body in this Holy Sacrament, then Kneeling and Adoration would be here also due upon such an Account. He means, that were Christ himself here in his Body actually present, He ought to be adored; and this he need not doubt of our readiness to grant. 2. Tho the Corporeal Presence of Christ's Body, Ib. §. xl i.e.. of its being there ad modum Corporis, or clothed with the ordinary Properties of a Body, be denied; as it is, not only by the English Divines, but by the Lutheran and Roman: Yet let there be any other manner of Presence (known from Divine Revelation) of the very same Body and Blood; and this as Real and Essential, as if Corporeal; and then I do not see but that Adoration will be no less due to it thus, than so, Present. Now to this I shall at present only say, That the Supposition being absurd, does not admit of a rational Consideration. Those who deny a bodily Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, and ask whether Adoration may not be paid to his Body, which is confessed not to be bodily present there, supposing it to be there some other way; aught to have no other satisfaction than this, that they suppose an Impossibility, a thing which cannot be; and therefore concerning which no reasonable Answer can be given. Some I know have been more free, and allowing for the unreasonableness of the Supposal, have resolved contrary to our Author: But I think it very needless to dispute of the Affections of a Chimaera; and wrangle about Notions that have neither Use nor Existence. 3. Treatise 1. p. 28. §. xli. He observes, lastly, That the Church of England hath believed and affirmed such a Presence (he means of Christ's Body in the Eucharist) to which they thought Adoration due. I presume it was then in the Times of Popery; for since the Reformation, I have shown before, that she has always held the contrary. But our Author will prove it, and that since the Reformation; Ibid. For, he says, he has in his time met with no less than five of our Writers, and those of no mean Account neither, that have been of this Opinion. This indeed is a very notable way of proving the Doctrine of our Church: But what now if I should bring him fifteen Others that have denied it; then I hope the Doctrine of the Church of England may be as fair for the contrary. But we will examine his Evidence. First; Treatise 1. §. xlii. p. 28. Bishop Andrews, he says, declares, that though we adore not the Sacrament, yet we adore Christ in and with the Sacrament, besides and without the Sacrament: and assures the World, that K. James looked upon Christ to be truly present, and truly to be adored in it. How this Bishop thought Christ truly present in the Sacrament we have seen before; and may from thence easily conclude how he supposed he might be adored there: viz. As in all other Holy Offices, in which we confess Him by his Divine Power to be present with us, but especially in this Sacred Mystery. And thus we all adore him, both in and with, and without the Sacrament; we confess him to be truly present, and therefore truly to be adored by us. But now for Christ's Natural Body, (of which, and not of Christ himself, our Dispute is) if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before showed, let it be remembered, that according to this Bishop, it must not be his Glorified Body, See above. his Body as it now is; but his Body Crucified, his Body as offered for us, and in the State of his Death; so He expressly affirms; and this I believe our Author himself will confess in his sense to be impossible. His next Witness is Bishop Taylor: We worship, Treatise 1. §. xliii. p. 28. He means, says this Author, the Body, or the Flesh of Christ [in the Eucharist]. But is he sure the Bishop meant so? If he be, I am sure the Bishop thought we all of us committed Idolatry in so doing. For being consulted, as we have seen above, whether without all danger of Idolatry we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host, See Polemical Discourses 5. Letter, at the end, p. according to his Humane Nature in that Host? He expressly declares, We may not render Divine Worship to Him as present in the Blessed Sacrament, according to his Humane Nature, without danger of Idolatry, because he is not there according to his Humane Nature; and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens, which must needs be Idotry. And indeed this our Author knew very well was his Opinion, who himself in his next Treatise, citys the xiiith Section of his Real Presence, Treatise 2. p .9. §. vi. n. 2. which was written on purpose to prove the unlawfulness of worshipping Christ's Body in this Sacrament. But dissimulation of other men's Opinions in matter of Religion, is perhaps as lawful on some Occasions, as if it were their own: And why may not an Author prevaricate the Doctrine of his Adversary in defence of the Catholic Faith, since I have read of a * The Story was published in the Memoirs of Monsieur D'eageant, printed with permission at Grenoble, 1668. pag. 246 I will set it down in his own words. Il'y avoit deja quelque tems que D'eageant avoit gagné l'un des Ministres de la Province de Languedoc, qui etoit des plus employez aux Affaires & meneés de ceux de la R. P. R. & en l'Estime particuliere de Monsieur de Lesdiguiers. Il avoit meme secrettement moyenne sa Conversion; & obtenu un Bref de Rome, portant qu' en core qu' il eut etè receu au giron de l'Eglise, il luy etoit permis de continuer son Ministere durant 3 Ans, pourveu qu'en says preches il ne dit rien de contraire à la creance de la uraye Eglise, & qu' il ne celebrât ponit la cene. Le Bref fût obtenu, afinque le Ministre pût estre continué dans les Emplois qu'il avoit, & decovurir les meneés qui se faisoient dans le Royaume. Protestant Minister, who in the Troubles of France being brought over to the King's Interest, was secretly reconciled to the Church of Rome, and permitted so far to dissemble his own Opinion, as not only to continue in the outward profession of the Protestant Religion, but even to exercise the Functions of his Ministry as before; and that by the express leave of his Holiness, for three whole Years, the better to carry on the Catholic Cause in betraying the Secrets, and managing the Debates of his Brethren. As for Bishop Forbes, and the Archbishop of Spalatto, it is not to be wondered if Men that had entertained the Design of reconciling all Parties, were forced to strain sometimes a little farther than was fit for the doing of it. And for Mr. Thorndyke, we have seen that his Notion of the Real Presence was particular, and widely different both from theirs and ours; and therefore that we are not to answer for the Consequences of it. But however, to quit these just Exceptions against them: Will he himself allow every thing to be the Doctrine or not of the Church of Rome, which I shall bring him three of their Authors to affirm or deny? If he will, than Transubstantiation is not their Doctrine, for I have already quoted above twice three of their most Learned Men against it. To adore an unconsecrated Host by mistake, is Idolatry; for so S. Thomas, Paludanus, Catharine, and others, assure us: To worship the Host, supposing their Doctrine of Transubstantiation false, a worse Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty of; so several of their Writers confess. But now if our Author will not allow this to be good arguing against them, with what reason does he go about to urge it against us? Secondly; We must in the next place consider what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to this Point is; and whether what this Author has advanced in favour of it, may be sufficient to warrant their practice of this Adoration. For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, I find it thus clearly set down by the Council of Trent: Concil. Trid. Sess. xiii. cap. 5. p. 57 Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur, quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholicâ Ecclefiâ semper recepto Latriae cultum, qui Vero deo Debetur, huic Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant. Neque enim ideò minùs est Adorandum quòd fuerit à Christo D. ut sumatur institutum: Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem IN EO adess● Credimus, quem Pater aternus introducens in Orbem Terrarum, dicit; Et adorent eum omnes Angeli D●i. Hebr. I. There can be no doubt, but that all the Faithful of Christ, after the manner that has ever been received in the Catholic Church, aught to give that Supreme Worship which is due to the true God, to his Holy Sacrament. For it is nevertheless to be adored, because it was instituted by our Lord Christ that it might be received; Forasmuch as we believe the same God to be present in it, of whom the Eternal Father when he brought him into the World, said, And let all the Angels of God worship him. That therefore, according to this Council is to be worshipped, which Christ instituted to be received; and in which they believe Christ to be present: But 'tis no other than the Holy Sacrament, as these Trent-fathers' here expressly and properly style it; which we all confess Christ instituted to be received, and in which they suppose Christ to be present: And therefore 'tis the Sacrament which is to be adored. Card. Pallavicino Istoria del Concilio di Trento: parte seconda, l. 12. c. 7. pag. 298. Ora è notissimo, che, accióche un Tutto s'adori con adorazione di Latria, basta che una parte di quel rutto meriti questo culto.— Come dunque non douremo parimente adorare questo Sacramento, il quale è un Tutto che contiene come part principale il Corpo di Christo. Which reasoning I find Card. palavicini thus improving in his History of this Council: It is well known, says he, that to make a Whole Adorable with the Supreme Adoration, it is sufficient that One part of that Whole merits such a Worship. This he illustrates in the Example of Christ's Humanity; and thence concludes, How then ought we not in like manner to adore this Sacrament which is a Whole, that contains as its principal part the Body of Christ? It is therefore, as I conceive, the undoubted Doctrine of the Church of Rome, that the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, for the Reason here given, is to be adored, with that Supreme Adoration that is due to the true God. Now to warrant their Practice in this Matter, our Author thus proceeds in proof of it: I. He premises some Propositions, which he calls, Answer to his second Discourse. Protestant Concessions. II. Some others, which he styles, Catholic Assertions. And then, III. Goes on to show what warrant they have for that Belief on which this Adoration is founded. I shall distinctly follow him in every one of these. In his first Part, which he calls, I. Part, Protestant Concessions. Protestant Concessions, I will go on with him thus far: 1st. * §. I. pag. 1. That Supreme and Divine Adoration is due to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2dly, † Ibid. §. II. That wherever the Body of our Lord now is, there must also his whole Person be. And therefore, 3dly, ‖ Ibid. §. III. That wherever Christ's Body is truly and really present, there his Divine Person is supremely adorable. But now for his next Assertion; * §. V n. 1. p. 2. That it is affirmed by many Protestants, especially those of the Church of England, that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present, not only in Virtue, but in Substance in the Encharist. † See Treatise 1. p. 5. §. 7. If he means, as in his former Treatise he explained himself, that the very natural Body of Christ, that Body that was born of the Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, and is now in Heaven, is also as to its Substance truly and really present on Earth in the Holy Eucharist, or to the worthy Receiver: I have in the foregoing Chapter fully shown this new Fancy to be neither the Doctrine of the Church of England, nor the Opinion of those very Writers whom he produces for proof of it. And as to the ‖ Disc. 2. p. 8. §. vi. n. 1. adoration of it upon any such account, I have just now declared his Mistake of them in that Point too. And I shall not follow our Author's ill Example in repeating it all over again. For his * §. seven. p. 10. fifth Remark, That the Lutherans affirm that Christ's Body and Blood are present, not only to the worthy Communicants, but to the Consecrated Symbols, and whilst so present, which is during the Action of the Lord's Supper (i. e. says he, as I conceive them from the Consecration, till the end of the Communion) are to be Adored. I answer; First, As to the former part, it is confessed that the Lutherans do indeed suppose Christ to be present, not only to the worthy Communicants, but also to the Consecrated Symbols. But now, secondly, for the other part, that during the Action of the Lord's Supper, He is to be Adored there; this is not so certain. For, 1. I do not find any thing established amongst them as to this matter, neither in the Confession of Auxpourg, nor in any other public Acts of their Church. 2. I find several of their Divines utterly denying, that Christ's Body is to be Adored in the Holy Sacrament; and our * See below, Disc. 2. p. 16. Author himself confesses it. Tho now, 3. † Conrade. Schlusselburgius, Catal. Haeret. l. 3. arg. 45. p. 205. Item Arg. 103. p. 280. It. arg. 174. p. 327. Francof. 1605. And Hospinian quotes it of Luther himself, that it was his Opinion, Concord. discor. p. 358. n. 16. Genev. 1678. I will not deny but that some others of them do allow, if not that Christ's Body, yet that Christ himself is to be Adored after a peculiar manner in the Action of the Lord's Supper; and as far as I conceive, do by the Action mean, as our Author here represents it, from the Consecration to the end of the Communion. So that then, with this Limitation, his Proposition I presume may be admitted; That the Lutherans do acknowledge, that Christ is present during the Action of the Lord's Supper; and therefore it is by several of them supposed, that he ought to be adored in it. As to the sixth and last Concession, §. vi. p. 10, 11. which he draws from Monsieur Daille's Apologi●●. That though we do not ourselves belive the Real Presence of Christ' s Body in the Signs, yet neither do we esteem the belief of it so criminal, as to oblige us to break off Communion with all those that hold it; and therefore, that had the Roman Church no other Error but this, that it would not have given us any sufficient cause of separation from it; we are ready to admit it; always supposing that the belief of it had not been pressed upon us neither, as a necessary Article of Communion; nor any Anathema pronounced against us for not receiving it. And for the other part of it which he subjoins, Ibid. pag. 11. That a Disciple giving Divine Honour, upon mistake, to another Person, much resembling our Saviour Christ, would have been no Idolater; from whence he would infer, That therefore allowing a Consecrated Host to be truly Adorable, a Person that should by mistake adore an unconsecrated One, would not be guilty of Idolatry. We are content to allow it; though what use he can make of it in this Controversy, unless against his own Brethren, S. Thomas, Paludanus, and others, I do not understand; since he knows we utterly deny any Host, consecrated or not, to be fit to be worshipped. And this may serve for his first Foundation of Protestant Concessions,; which were they every one as certain as his first is, that Christ is to be adored, I cannot see what his Cause would gain by it; and he has not by any Application of them in this Treatise, given us the least reason to think that they are of any moment in it. But some Men have a peculiar faculty of amusing the World with nothing: and I remember, I once heard a judicious and modest Man give this Character of an Author much resembling ours, with reference to his Guide in Controversy, that for a Book which carried a great appearance of Reasoning, it had the least in it of any he ever met with. But I go on, II. 2. Part. Catholic Assertions. To his Catholic Assertions. And first: Catholics (as he calls them) affirm in the Eucharist after the Consecration, Pag. 13. §. ix. a Sign, or Symbol to remain still distinct, and having a divers Existence from that of the thing signified, or from Christ's Body contained in or under it. This 'tis true the Papists, or if you please, the Catholics do affirm; because that otherwise they could not call it a Sacrament. But now, if we inquire what that which they call a Sign, or a Symbol in this Holy Sacrament is, we shall find it to be neither such as our Blessed Saviour established, nor indeed any thing that can in propriety of Speech be so termed. For our Saviour Christ, 'tis evident that the Symbols instituted by him, were Bread and Wine: They were these that he took and blessed, and gave to his Disciples; and commanded them also in like manner to take, and bless, and give to others in remembrance of him; and as the Symbols of his Body and Blood in this Holy Eucharist. But now for the Papists; they destroy the Bread and the Wine; they leave only a few airy, empty Species, that is, appearances of something, but which are really nothing, have no substance to support them. The Symbols established by Christ were Festival Symbols, a matter apt for our Corporal Nourishment; so signify to us, that as by them, viz. by Bread and Wine, our Bodies are nourished to a Corporal Life; so by the Body and Blood of Christ, which they both represent and communicate to us, our Souls are fed to Life Everlasting. But for that which hath no Substance, i. e. nothing which can be converted into our Bodily Nourishment; how that can be a Symbol of this Spiritual Food, I do not very well understand. Indeed our Author tells us, Pag. 14. §. x. That though after Consecration, the Substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain, yet is Substance here taken in such a sense, as that neither the hardness, nor the softness, nor the frangibility, nor the savour, nor the odour, nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread, nor nothing visible or tangible, or otherwise perceptible by any Sense, is involved in it: That is to say, that the Symbol or external Sign then in this Eucharist, is according to them, a hard, soft, frangible, gustible, odoriferous, nutritive, visible, tangible, perceptible nothing. Verily a fit external Species indeed to contain, a one, manifold; visible, invisible; extended, unextended; local, illocal; absent, present; natural, supernatural; corporal, spiritual Body. Secondly; Concerning the Adoration of the Sacrament, he tells us, That this word Sacrament, Pag. 14. §. xi. is not to be taken always in the same sense; but sometimes to be used to signify only the external Sign, or Symbols; sometimes only the Res Sacramenti, or the thing contained under them, which is the more principal part thereof. This indeed is a sort of new Divinity. I always thought hitherto, that when we talked of a Sacrament, properly so called, we had meant an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace: and that this particular Sacrament had been a whole composed of the External Species, (whatever they are) as the Sign; and the Body and Blood of Christ as the inward part, or thing signified. Thus I am sure the Catechism of the Council of Trent instructs us. First, for the name; it tells us, Catech. ad Parach. part 2. de Sacram. n. iii. & v. p. 92. that The Latin Doctors have thought that certain Signs, subjected to the Senses, which declare, and as it were set before the Eyes, the Grace which they effect, may fitly be called Sacraments. And for the nature of them, thus it defines a Sacrament from S. Austin, It is the sign of a holy thing; or more fully, as I before said; a visible sign of an invisible Grace, instituted for our Justification. So that neither then Symbols alone, nor the invisible part, or Grace alone, can with any manner of propriety be called a Sacrament; but the Sign referred to the Grace; and as it is the Symbol instituted by Christ for the conferring of it. This therefore can with no good reason be called a Catholic Assertion; being neither general nor true: But however, since he seems content to allow it to be an impropriety of Speech, and that, I confess, the * Catec. Conc. Trid. part 2. de Euch. §. viij. nota p. 144. Catechism of the Council of Trent does lead him into it; let us see what use he can make of it. † Pag. 15. §. xi. And as Protestants much press, so Catholics (Roman Catholics) willingly acknowledge a great difference between these two, The worshipping of the Sacrament, as this word is taken for the Symbols; and the worshipping of Christ's Body in the Sacrament. There is, no doubt, a great difference between these two: but then they who tell us, the Sacrament is to be Adored, if they will speak rationally, must mean neither the one nor other of these, but the Host; that is, as Card. palavicini expounds it, The whole, of which Christ's Body is a part; in the language of the Council of Trent; the Sacrament IN WHICH they believe Christ to be present, and for that Cause adore it; as the Cardinal again argues; * See above, pag. 91, 92. that, To make a Whole Adorable, it is sufficient that one part be so; and therefore since the Body of Christ is adorable, the Sacrament for its sake is to be worshipped. It is therefore a mere shift to tell us that the Sacrament is to be adored; i. e. Christ's Body in the Sacrament. Nor will the remark of our Author help us out, that though the Chapter indeed calls it the Sacrament IN WHICH is Christ's Body, Pag. 16 §. xiii. yet the Canon speaks more precisely, and calls it Christ in the Sacrament; unless he supposes the Council to have been infallible in the Canons only, and not in the Chapters; as some have thought, that they may be out in their Proofs, but cannot be in their Conclusions. But however, since he so much desires it, for my part I shall be content to allow them this too; for I should be glad by any means to see them sensible of their Errors. But yet so as that it be esteemed only a private Opinion this, not a Catholic Assertion. Thirdly; Catholics, he means the Papists still, P. 21. §. xvii. ground their Adoration, not upon Transubstantiation; as if Transubstantiation defeated, Adoration is so too; but on a Real Presence with the Symbols, which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans together with them. By which Assertion, if he means only to make this Discovery, That Christ's Real Presence, together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine, is in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration, as if he were there only with the Species of the Bread, the Substance being changed into his Body; I have no more to say to it. But if he would hereby make us believe, that 'tis all one whether Christ be adored, as supposed here by the Lutherans in this Holy Eucharist, and as imagined there by the Papists; I must then deny his Assertion; and desire him to keep home to his own manner of Real Presence, and which I shall presently convince him, will leave them in a much worse condition than their Neighbours, whom he would draw into the same Snare with them. And therefore, whereas he concludes, Fourthly; P. 22. §. xviii. That supposing Transubstantiation to be an Error, yet if the Tenent of Corporal or Real Presence (as held by the Lutherans, or others) be true; Catholics (he would say Papists) plead their Adoration, is no way frustrated, but still warrantable: I must tell him, that the Adoration of those among the Lutherans, who worship Christ in this Sacrament upon the account of his Real Presence in, or with the Bread, though it be an Error, yet is infinitely more excusable than theirs, who suppose the Bread to be turned into Christ's Body; and because it may not be thought that I speak this out of any prejudice against them, I will here offer my Reasons for it. 1st, They that adore Christ as really present, together with the Bread, do no violence to their Senses: They confess, that what they see, and taste, and feel, and smell, is really Bread and Wine. Whilst the Papist in denying the Bread and Wine to remain; or that what he sees, and feels, and smells, and tastes, is what all the World perceives and knows it is, contradicts his Senses, and in them the Law of Nature, that Means which God has given us to direct and lead us into the search of Truth; and by Consequence errs against infinitely greater Means of Conviction, and so is more inexcusable than the Other. 2dly; They who worship Christ, as supposing Him to be together with the Bread in this Holy Eucharist, are erroneous indeed in this, that they take Christ's Body to be where really it is not; but yet their Object is undoubtedly right, and in that they are not mistaken. But now for the Papist; he adores, 'tis confessed, what he thinks to be Christ's Body; and would not otherwise adore it: But yet still 'tis the Host that he adores, the Substance that is under those Species which he sees; and which if it be not Christ, but mere Substance of Bread, the Case is vastly altered between the Lutheran and Him. The former adores Christ, only as in a place where he is not; the latter not only does this, but moreover adores a Substance for Christ which is not his Body and Blood, but a mere Creature of Bread and Wine. Monsieur Daille therefore might rightly enough say of a Lutheran, that his Adoration is mistaken, P. 23. §. nineteen. not in this— that it addresseth itself to an Object not adorable, but only that by Error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not; and so becomes only vain and unprofitable: And yet our Author has no manner of Reason from thence to pretend, that a Papist who terminates his Adoration upon a Substance which really is not Christ's Body, but only mistaken by him to be so, shall be in the same Condition: there being an apparently vast difference between worshipping Christ in a place where he is not, and worshipping that for Christ which really is not Christ, but only a created Substance. And this in truth our Author seems to have been sensible of, and therefore thinks to evade it, by saying, That they do not worship the Substance that is in that place, Ibid p. 23. under such Accidents whatever it be, (which if Bread should happen to be there, he confesses would make them Bread-worshippers) but they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christ's Body, and not Bread. Well, be this so: But what now if they are mistaken in their Supposition: They worship, he confesses, the Substance that is under those Accidents, supposing it to be Christ's Body; but still, mistaken or not, that Substance which is under those Species, whatever it be, they do worship: And if they have, as he thinks, a rational ground for this Supposition, which we shall see by and by, yet this will only excuse them from being formal Idolaters; but will not hinder but that their Worship is still directed to an undue Object, if that which is under the Species be indeed but Bread, and not Christ's Body as they imagine. And this than may serve to argue the falseness of what he lays down as his Fifth, P. 22. §. nineteen. Catholic Assertion: That supposing both the Lutherans and Papists mistaken in their Opinion, yet there can be no pretence why the One should not be as excusable as the others. Since as I have said; 1st, They err more grossly in abandoning the conviction of their Senses, which the Lutherans do not; 2dly, They worship a Substance for Christ, which really is not: To which if this be not enough, I will add yet two other Reasons: 3dly, That they make the Consecration, without which Christ is not present upon their own Principles, to depend on such uncertainties (as I shall more fully show anon) that they can never be sure that Christ is there, which the Lutherans are free from: And lastly; They Anathematise those who descent from them as to this Point, and so make a Schism in dividing the Unity of the Church, which the Lutherans are so far from doing, that they neither establish any Doctrine of Adoration at all, nay many of them do not believe it; and upon occasion, freely communicate with those who descent from them in their belief, both of their way of the Real Presence, and of the Adoration. And for the same reason I cannot totally assent to his Sixth Assertion: P. 25. §. xxi. That supposing there be no such Real Presence as either of them believes, yet that their adoration of Christ, who is a true Object of Supreme Adoration, and only by them mistaken to be in some place where He is not, cannot be termed any such Idolatry, as is the worshipping of an Object not at all adorable. This as to what concerns those of the Lutherans who adore Christ in the Sacrament, is true: But for the Papist it is not. He intends, I allow it, to worship Christ, but he mistakes an Object for Christ, which is only a piece of Bread. He worships his Host, supposing it to be our Saviour's Body, but his Error is gross, and he not only mistakes Christ to be in a place where he is not, but he mistakes that to be Christ which indeed is not, but only a simple Wafer. His Worship therefore is not like the Manichees worshipping of Christ in the Sun; but rather as if the Manichee should, from some mistaken grounds, have fancied the Sun itself to be turned into Christ's Body; and then in defiance of all Scripture, Sense, and Reason, should have fallen down before it; but with a good Intention not to adore the Sun, but the Body of our Blessed Lord under the Species or Accidents of the Sun. This is the true Parallel; only that herein still the Manichee would have been the more excusable of the two, by how much the Sun is a more likely Object to be mistaken for Christ's glorified Body than a Morsel of Bread; and less capable of being discovered by our Senses and Examination not to be so. It remains then, that these Lutherans only adore Christ where he is not; the Papists not only do this, but moreover they adore that for Christ which really is not, but a mere created Substance. Both the One and the Other are Erroneous; but the Papist's Mistake, renders him at the least guilty of material Idolatry, whereas the Lutherans is only an undue Application of his Worship as to the Place, but right as to the Person. Let us see, Seventhly; How far their Mistake will excuse them, P. 26. §. xxii. in answer to his seventh Assertion: That however a Manichaean may be guilty of Idolatry for worshipping Christ in the Sun; and an Israelite for worshipping God as specially resident in the Calves of Dan and Bethel, because it is adoring a Fancy of their own, without any rational Ground or Pretence thereof; and however merely a good Intention, grounded upon a culpable Ignorance, can excuse none from Idolatry, or any other Fault; yet if Catholics, (i.e. the pretended Roman Catholics) can produce a rational Ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist, though possibly mistaken in it, they are to be excused from Idolatry. Which Proposal is so just, that I am very willing to allow it; and shall be hearty glad that the Grounds of their Mistake may in the End prove to have been so reasonable as to excuse them. But than it must be remembered too, that he confesses if these Grounds be not reasonable, but as he says of the Manichees, their adoring of the Host be indeed an adoring a Fancy of their own without any rational Ground; So that their ignorance in this Matter is culpable, then by their own allowance they are Idolaters. This therefore brings me to the last Thing to be enquired into. III. What Grounds they have for this Adoration? and whether they be such as, should they be mistaken in it, will be sufficient to excuse them? And thus after a great deal of Preamble, but very little to the purpose, we are at last come to the main Question. I have already so largely shown our Reasons against Transubstantiation, or that Real Presence on which this Adoration is built, that I shall not need to insist here. Yet because the stress of this Controversy depends principally on this last Part, I will, 1st, Examine the strength of those Grounds which this Author has offered, to warrant their Adoration. 2dly, I will propose an Argument or two upon their own allowed Principles against it. But before we proceed to these Points, we must yet have one touch more upon the old String: Pag. 26. §. xxiii. For the Lutherans, he says, being allowed to have such a plausible Ground or Motive 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 Catholics 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 itself, 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 inferred, that Christ's Body is in this Holy Sacrament: But whence does 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 does, 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 does 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 found'st his Adoration upon the Corporal Presence: Does he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation exclusive to all others, or no? If he does, then 'tis 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 does it upon the account of Transubstantiation. If he does not believe this, 'tis 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 Anathematised 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 shown 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, though 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 BOND to interpret them so, as to avoid these Impossibilities. And this I am confident I have at large shown 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 Universal 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 Prelates, such as are all those to which he refers us, assembled against Berengarius, were the most supreme 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 compossed of two great parts; Catholic Christianity, common in some measure to us all; and Protestations against Popery. Now 'tis true, for what concerns the latter of these, we allow Popery to have the advantage of us, as to the Point of Antiquity, nor are we ashamed to own it: It being necessary that they should have fallen into Errors, before we could protest against them; but as to the present matter, our Author in his * Disc. 1. p. 55. §. lvii. Guide, to which he refers us, confesses that Berengarius, against whom these little Synods were called, proceeded upon Protestant Grounds, i. e. in effect was a Protestant as to this Point: And therefore 'tis false in him now to say, that these Councils were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism. But I return to his Church Authority; and answer; 1. If this Doctrine be certainly contrary to Sense and Reason, as was before said, than he has told us before, that no Motive whatever, no Revelation, though never so plain, can be sufficient to engage us to believe it. 2. For his Councils, the eldest of them was above a thousand Years after Christ, when by our own Confession, the Error, though not of Transubstantiation, yet of the Corporal Presence, was creeping into the Church. 3. These Councils were themselves a Party against Berengarius, and therefore no wonder if they condemned him. 4. They were neither universal of the whole Church, or even of the Western Patriachate in which they assembled; and therefore we can have no security that they did not err, though we should grant this Privilege to a truly General Council that it could not. 5. 'Tis evident that some of them did err; forasmuch as the very * In the first Formulary prescribed him by P. Nicholas 2. in the Siynod of Rome, 1059. He thus declares, Panem & Vinum quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem non solum Sacramentum sed etiam verum Corpus & Sanguinem, D. N. J. Christi esse; & sensualiter non solùm SACRAMENTO, said in Veritate manibus Sacerdotum, tractari, frangi, & fidelium dentibus atteri. The former Part of which Confession is Lutheran; the latter utterly denied by the C. of R. at this day. In the second Formulary prescribed him by Gregory viith, 1078. Confiteor Panem & Vinum— converti in veram ac propriam Carnem & Sanguinem J. C. D. N. Et post consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi— non tantùm per signum & virtutem Sacramenti, sed in proprietate naturae, & veritate substantiae. This speaks of a Conversion, but of what kind it says not; and Lombard and the other Schoolmen, to the very time of the Council of Lateran, were not agreed about it: and P. Gregory himself in his MS. Work upon St. Ma●. knew not what to think of it. Formularies of Recantation prescribed to Berengarius, do not agree the one with the other; and one of them was such, that their own † Jo. Semeca ad Can. Ego Berengar. not. ad Jus Canon. Nisi sanè intelligas verba Berengarii in majorem incides Haeresim quam ipse habuit; & ideò onmia referas ad species ipsas; nam de Christi Corpore partes non facimus. So Hervaeus in 4. dist. qu. 1. art. 1. says, that to speak the more expressly against the Heretics, be declined a little too much to the opposite side. So Ricardus de Media Villa in 4. dist. princip. 1. qu. 1. Berengarius suerat infamatus quòd non credebat-Corpus Christi realiter contineri sub pane, ideò ad sui purgationem, per verba excessiva contrarium Asseruit. Authors tell us it must be very favourably interpreted, or it will lead us into a worse Error than that which it condemned. 6. Were they never so infallible, yet they none of them defined Transubstantiation, but only a Corporal Presence; and so whatever Authority they have, it is for the Lutherans, not the Papists. 7. And this their own Writers seem to own; forasmuch as none of them pretend to any definition of Transubstantiation before the Council of Lateran; and till which time they freely confess it was no Article of Faith. Such is the Church Authority which this Discourser would put upon us. But now that I have mentioned the Council of Lateran, as I have before observed, Pag. 28. that it was the same Council which established this Error, that also gave power to the Pope to depose Princes, and absolve their Subjects from their Obedience; so I cannot but remak further in this place, the Zeal of our Author in the defence of its Authority. It is but a very little while since another of their Church, ‖ Lond. 1616. Pag. 362, etc. Father Walsh, in his Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln, did not think that the * Mr. Dodwel Consid. of present Concernment, §. 31. Learned Person of our Church, to whom he refers us, had so clearly proved these Canons to have been the genuine † Monsieur du Pin utterly denies these Canons to have been the Decrees of the Council. Dissert. seven. c. iii. §. 4. Acts either of the Council, or even of the Papist himself, but that a Man might still have reason to doubt of both: But indeed, though that Father be of another mould, yet there are still some in the World, and I believe of this Author's acquaintance, who like this Council, never the worse for such a decision; but think the third Canon as necessary to keep Princes in a due Obedience to the Church, as the first, de Fide Catholià, to help out the obscurity of the Text in favour of Transubstantiation. But he goes on; Pag. 28, 29. §. xxv. and upon these Premises, Ask us, What more reasonable or secure course in matters of Religion can a private and truly humble Christian take, than where the sense of a Divine Revelation is disputed, to submit to that Interpretation thereof, which the Supremest Authority in the Church, that hath heretofore been convened about such matters hath so often, and always in the same manner decided to him, and so to act according to its Injunction? Now, not to say any more as to his Expression of the Supremest Church Authority, which it may be he will interpret not absolutely, but with this Reserve, that hath been convened about such matters; I answer from himself, 1. It is a more reasonable and secure course to follow that Interpretation which is agreeable to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind, and against which he tells us, not only the Authority of a Synod, but even a Divine Revelation is not sufficient to secure us. 2. These Synods, as I have showed, besides that they were particular, were moreover Parties in the case. And then, 3. It is false to say that they always decided the same, or, that that which they decided is the same which the Church of Rome now holds in this matter. All which our * Particularly Elondel, to whom this Author refers us, Eclairciss. de l'Euch. c. 20, etc. Albertinus de Euch. lib. 3. p. 947. Authors have fully proved, and this Discourser therefore aught to have answered. III. Ground. But now, he says, P. 29. §. xxvi. if these Councils be declined, as not being so ancient as some may expect; i. e. not held before some Controversy happened in the Church touching the Point they decided: They have yet another very rational Ground of their belief, and that is, the evident Testimony of the more Primitive Times. It would have been more to the purpose, if he could honestly have said of the most Primitive Times. But however his Modesty is the greater now, though his Argument be not so strong. As to the Point of Antiquity, Treatise of Transubstantiation, by an Author of the C. of R. I have already fully discussed it above; and we are but very lately assured by one of their own Authors, that Antiquity is of our side in this Point. For the six or seven Fathers he has mentioned, ‖ S. Ambrose de Sacramentis. Euseb. Emyssen. de Paschate. some of them are spurious; others have been † Cyril Hierosol. in the Relat. of the Conference at my Lady T. 1676. in the Paper sent my Lady T. p. 50, 51, 52. And for S. Ambrose de Sacr. allowing the Book, yet see the Explication of what is there said, given by himself, l. 5. c. 4. See a late Treatise of the Doct. of the Trinity and Transubst. compared, Part 1. p. 46, 47. expressly answered by us; and all of them at large by Monsieur Aubertine, Larrogue, and others. If this does not satisfy him, he may shortly expect a fuller account in our own Language; * Transubstantiation no Doctrine of the Primitive Fathers. Cyrill 's Authority examined, p. 13, 14. Ambrose's, p. 18, 19 Chrysostom's, p. 40. Greg. Nyssen's, p. 48. a Specimen of which has already been given to the World in Earnest of what is suddenly to follow. iv Ground. His next Ground is taken from the universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's Time, and at present also excepting his Followers. To which I answer; That this Ground is not certainly true, and if it were, yet certainly 'tis nothing to the purpose. 1. It is not certainly true: Indeed, that the latter Ages of the Western Churches before Luther, that is, from the time of the Council of Lateran, did profess the belief of Transubstantiation is confessed: And that a great part of the Greek Church at this day does the same, since their new College at Rome, and their Money and Missionaries sent among them have corrupted their Faith, I do not deny: But that this was so before Luther is not so certain; and whosoever shall impartially read over the long debate between the late Monsieur Claude, and Monsieur Arnaud concerning this matter, will, I believe, confess that this can be no rational Ground for their belief. Hist Ethiop. l. 3. c. 5. n. 48. Ludolphus tells us of the Ethiopian Church, that at this day, it neither believes Transubstantiation, Ibid. nor Adores the Host: and Tellezius confesses it, because they consecrate with these words," This Bread is my Body: For the * De Eccles. Graec. Stat. Hodiern. D. Smith, p. 116. Lond. 1678. Claude Reponse au 2. Traitte; liv. 3. c. 8. p. 434, etc. Charenton. 1668. Id. ult. resp. à Quevilly 1670. lib. 5. c. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Histoire Critic de la creance & des Coutumes', des Nations, du Levant.— Voyage du Mont Liban. Hemarques, p. 302, 303, etc. Larrogue Hist. de l'Eucharistie, liv. 2. c. 19 pag. 781. Edit. Amst. 12ᵒ. Albertinus de Eucharistiâ, p. 988, 989. fol. Daventriae 1654. Greeks, the Muscovites, the Armenians, the Nestorians, Maronites, etc. those who please to interest their Curiosity in a matter of so little moment as to their Faith, may satisfy themselves in the Authors, to which I refer them. Tho now, 2. To allow the matter of Fact to be true, I pray, what force is there at last in this Argument, The Church both Eastern & Western, in these last Ages have believed Transubstantiation; therefore the Papists have a rational Ground to believe it. That is to say, you Protestants charge us for believing Transubstantiation, as Men that act contrary to the design of Christ in this Holy Eucharist, that have forsaken the Tradition of the Primitive Ages of the Church; that destroy the nature of this Holy Sacrament, and do violence to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind: Be it so; yet at least we have this rational Ground for our belief, though it should be false, viz. That we did all of us peaceably and quietly believe it, till you came with your Scripture, and Antiquity, and Sense, and Reason, to raise Doubts and Difficulties about it; nay more, we all of us still do believe it, except those that you have persuaded not to do so. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis Amici? V Ground. P. 31. §. xxviii. Of no greater strength is his last Ground for their belief, viz, That since Luther's Time no small number of Protestants, even all the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, have proceeded thus far, as to confess a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, and Adoration of it, as present there. For, 1. If we did acknowledge this, yet it seems we are mistaken in it; and than what grounds can it be for a Papist to believe Transubstantiation, that we Heretics by a Mistake do not believe it, but only a real spiritual Presence, and as such are Anathematised by them for our Error? 2. I have before shown, that were this a rational Ground, yet it fails them too; for neither do the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, nor any other that I know of, either believe Christ's natural Body to be substantially present in the Holy Eucharist, or to be adored there: I am sure if there be any such, they cannot be the Genuine Sons of the Church of England in this Matter, who believe so expressly contrary to her formal Declaration, as this Author has himself observed. And then for the Lutherans, Ibid. Pag. 32. to whom he again returns; it is hard to conceive what rational ground of Security they can derive from their practice; that because they commit no Idolatry in worshipping what they know certainly to be Christ, the Papist commits none for worshipping what he does not know certainly is Christ; in truth what, if he pleased, he might know certainly is not Christ. And now after a serious and impartial Consideration of the Grounds produced in Vindication of this Worship; though I could have wished I might have found them as rational as our Author pretends them to be, and shall be glad, as they are, that they may hereafter prove sufficient to excuse them from the Gild of formal Idolatry in this Adoration; yet I must needs say, I do in my Conscience think 'tis more an excess of 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 candour 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 merely 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 judge by two or three Observations. 1. It is confessed 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 allowed, 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 does involve a certain Contradiction, than 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 relied 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, does necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions, then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them. But that it does so, and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it, I thus show. 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 shown 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 than it is confessed, 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 confessed. But, 2dly, let us quit this Reflection, and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation. Yet still it is confessed 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 than 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 mere 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 mere Creature, can never be sure that he does not commit Idolatry: But whosoever worships the Host, worships that which he can never be sure is more than a mere Creature; and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he does 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 mere Creature, be it considered, what jealousy God has at all times expressed 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 aught he knows, be a very great Sin. And for the second; Whether every Roman Catholic, 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 consecrated. 1. With reference to the Holy Elements to be consecrated: If the Bread be not all, or at least the greater part, of Wheat-flower; See all this in the beginning of the Missal, de defectibus circa Missam. if it be not mixed with pure Water; if the Bread be corrupted, or the Wine sour; if the Grapes of which the Wine was made were not ripe; if any thing be mingled with the Wine but Water; or if there be so much Water mixed with it, that that becomes the prevailing Ingredient; in all these Cases, and many others which I omit, there is no Consecration. And of all this, he who adores either the Bread or Wine, can have no security. But, 2. Be the Elements right, yet if the Priest, being either ignorant, or in haste, or unmindful of what he is about, should by mistake, or otherwise, err in pronouncing of the words of Consecration; whether by Addition, or by Diminution, or by any other Alteration, there is no Consecration: The Bread and Wine continue what they were; and of this too he that worships them can never be certain. 3. Let the words be never so rightly pronounced, yet if the Priest had no intention to consecrate; if he be a secret Atheist, or Jew, or Moor: If he be a careless negligent Man; it may be does not believe he has any Power to make such a Change, (as I have shown that several of their greatest Men in this very Age have doubted of it): If he consecrate a number of Wafers for a Communion, and in his telling Mistakes, intending to consecrate but twenty, and there are one and twenty before him; in all these Cases, for want of a due intention in the Priest, there it no Consecration; but that which is adored, is only a little Bread and Wine. 4. Let the Priest have a good Intention, See above in the Preface. yet if he be no Priest; if he were not rightly Baptised, or Ordained; if he were a Simoniac, or Irregular, or a Bastard, etc. Or if there were no defect in his Ordination, yet if there was any in his who ordained him; or in the Bishops that ordained that Bishop that ordained him; and so back to the very Time of the Apostles, if in the whole Succession of Priests to this day, there has been but any one Invalidity, whether by Error or Wilfulness, or for want of a due Intention, or by Ignorance, or by any other means; then he that consecrates is no true Priest, and by consequence has no Power to consecrate; and so all is spoiled, and whosoever worships in any of his Masses, adores only a piece of Bread instead of our Saviour's Body. When therefore so many Defects may interpose upon their own Principles to hinder this Conversion, that 'tis exceeding probable, nay 'tis really great odds, that not one Host in twenty is consecrated; it must certainly be very hazardous to worship that for God, which upon their own Principles they can never be sure is so; nay, which 'tis twenty to one is not God, but a mere inanimate Creature of Bread and Wine. 'Tis this has forced their most Learned Men to confess, * See Bellarm. de Justif. c. 8. that they can never be sure of a Consecration; Pag. 23. and our Author himself to declare, That they do not worship the Substance that is under the Accidents of Bread and Wine, WHATEVER IT BE, but UPON SUPPOSITION that it is CHRIST'S BODY; Adr. VI quodlibet. Sect. 10. Suppos. 2. Which is what Pope Adrian 6th, following herein the Authority of the Council of Constance, prescribed; that they ought always to adore the Host with such a reserve: See Gerson, Tract. de Exam. doctr. consid. 6. The Council of Constance, says he, excuses those who in their simplicity adore an unconsecrated Host, because this condition is tacitly implied, if it be rightly consecrated: And therefore he advises, let them so adore the Host, I ADORE THEE IF THOU ART CHRIST. But now if, as the Apostle tells us in another case, Whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin; and, He that doubts, is damned if he eats: I shall leave it to any sober Christian to say what security there can be in such a Worship, which is neither advised, encouraged, or commanded in Holy Scripture; and which they themselves confess they can never be certain is addressed to a right Object; and therefore are forced to such Shifts and Reserves, as were they once admitted, might make any other Creature in the World as warrantably adorable as their Host. How much better were it for them to adore their Blessed Saviour in Heaven, where his glorified Body most certainly is: Where there can therefore be no danger to lift up our Hearts unto him. Were his Sacred Body indeed substantially present in this Blessed Sacrament, yet still it would be in a manner to us imperceptible, in the state of his Death, and by consequence of his Humiliation; and we might therefore have some cause to doubt whether, since we have received no Command concerning it, it were our Saviour's Pleasure that his Body should be adored by us in that State: So that there could be no Sin in the not doing of it. But now amidst so many Doubts, not only upon Ours, but even upon their own Principles, that they dare not themselves worship at a venture, that which yet they do worship; though I shall leave them to their own Master to stand or fall at the Great Day, yet I must needs profess I think there is very much hazard in it. A great Sincerity, and great Ignorance, may excuse a poor untaught, and therefore blindly obedient Multitude: but for their Guides, who lead them into Error, for those to whom God has given Capacities and Opportunities (as to those now among us he has done, of being better informed) I can only say, Lord, lay not this Sin to their Charge! And this may suffice to have been said to the third Thing proposed, of their Rational Grounds for this Worship. Pag. 37. §. xxxiii. For what our Author finally adds; That to adore that which the Adorer believes not to be our Lord, but Bread, would be unlawful to be done by any, so long as the Person continues so persuaded— But then if we suppose the Church justly requiring such Adoration upon such a true Presence of our Lord, neither will the same Person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his Conscience, and in his not adoring. I Answer: It will then be time enough to consider this, when either the Church to which we own an Obedience, shall require it of us, or they be able to prove that in such a Case the Church would not sin in Commanding, and not we in refusing to obey her. But, blessed be God, there is no great danger of either of these: Our Church is too well persuaded of the unlawfulness of such a Worship, ever to require it of us. And for that Church which has so uncharitably undertaken to Anathematise all those who will not own her Authority, and receive her Errors, though never so gross, as Articles of Faith: We are so fully convinced of the unreasonableness of her Pretences, and of our own Liberty, that we shall hardly be brought to submit ourselves to the Conduct of such a blind Guide, lest we shall into the same Ditch, into which she herself is tumbled. And it would certainly much better become our Author, and his Brethren, to consider how they can justify their Disobedience to their own Mother, than to endeavour at this rate to lead us into the same Apostasy, both to our Religion and our Church with them. The Conclusion. AND thus by the Blessing of God, and the Advantage of a good Cause, have I very briefly passed through this Author's Reflections, and I am persuaded sufficiently shown the weakness and falsity of the most of them. If any one shall think that I ought to have insisted more largely upon some Points, he may please to know, that since by the importunate Provocations of those of the other Communion, we have been forced too often to interrupt those Duties of our Ministry, in which we could rather have wished to have employed our Time, for these kind of Controversies which serve so very little to any purposes, either of true Piety, or true Charity among us: We have resolved thus far at least to gratify both ourselves and others, as to make our Disputes as short as is possible; and lose no more time in them, than the necessary Defence of ourselves and the Truth do require. I have indeed passed by much of our Author's Discourses, because they are almost entirely made up of tedious and endless Repetitions of the same things, and very often in the same words. But for any thing that is Argumentative, or otherwise material to the main Cause, I do not know that I have either let the Observation of it slip, or dissembled at all the Force of it. It was once in my thoughts to have made some Reflections in the Close upon the Changes of their Rituals, in requital for our Author's Observations on the Alterations of our Liturgy; but I have insisted longer than I designed already, and shall therefore content my myself to have given the Hint of what might have been done, and shall still be done, if our Author, or any in his behalf desire it of me. In the mean time I cannot but observe the unreasonableness of that Method which is here taken; from the Expressions of some of our Divines, and the Concessions of others, whose professed Business it was to reconcile, if possible, all Parties, and therefore were forced sometimes to condescend more than was fit for the doing it; and even these too miserably mangled and misrepresented, to pretend to prove the Doctrine of our Church contrary to the express Declarations of the Public Acts and Records of it. This has been the endeavour of several of our late Writers, but of this Discourser above any. Had those worthy Persons, whose Memory they thus abuse, been yet living, they might have had an ample Confutation from their own Pens; as, in the very Instance before us, has been given them for the like ill use made by some among them, of the pious Meditations of a most Excellent and Learned Father of our Church; and who might otherwise in the next Age have been improved into a new Witness against us. I do not think that Bp Taylour ever thought he should have been set up as a favourer of Popery, who had written so expressly and warmly against it. Yet I cannot but observe a kind of Prophetic Expression in his Book of the Real Presence, which being so often quoted by these Men, I somewhat wonder it should have slipped their Remark: Where speaking of their Shifts to make any One they please of their side, Real Presence, §. xii. n. 28. pag. 261. he has these words; And— I know no reason, says he, but it may be possible, but a WITTY MAN may pretend, when I am dead, that in this Discourse I have pleaded for the Doctrine of the Roman Church. We have now lived to see some of those WITTY MEN that have done but little less than this; though how Honest they are in the mean time, I will not determine. But I hope this Design too shall be from henceforth in good measure frustrated: And therefore, since neither their New Religion, nor their New Advocates will do their Business; since it is in vain that they either misrepresent their own Doctrine, or our Authors in favour of it; may they once please either honestly to avow and defend their Faith, or honestly to confess that they cannot do it. Such shuffling as this, does but more convince us of the weakness of their Cause; and instead of defending their Religion by these Practices, they only increase in us our ill Opinion of that, and lessen that good One which we willingly would, but shall not always be able to conserve of those, who by such indirect means as these, endeavour to support it. FINIS. Books lately printed for Richard Chiswell. A Dissertation concerning the Government of the Ancient Church: more particularly of the Encroachments of the Bishops of Rome upon other Sees. By WILLIAM CAVE, D. D. Octavo. An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's [Sure Footing in Christianity] concerning the Rule of Faith: With some other Discourses. By WILLIAM FALKNER, D.D. 4o. A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England; in Answer to a Paper written by one of the Church of Rome, to prove the Nullity of our Orders. By GILBERT BURNET, D. D. Octavo. An Abridgement of the History of the Reformation of the Church of England. By GILB. BURNET, D. D. Octavo. The APOLOGY of the Church of England; and an Epistle to one Signior Scipio, a Venetian Gentleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Bishop of Salisbury: Made English by a Person of Quality. To which is added, The Life of the said Bishop: Collected and written by the same Hand. Octavo. The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL, D. D. Bishop of ●ilmore in Ireland. Together with Certain Letters which passed betwixt him and James Waddesworth (a late Pensioner of the Holy Inquisition of Sevil) in Matter of Religion, concerning the General Motives to the Roman Obedience. Octavo. The Decree made at ROME the Second of March, 1679. condemning some Opinions of the Jesuits, and other Casuists. Quarto. A Discourse concerning the Necessity of Reformation, with respect to the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Quarto. First and Second Parts. A Discourse concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown Tongue. Quarto. A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants. Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to [A Papist Misrepresented and Represented]. Quarto. An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, [in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church]. Quarto. A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England; against the Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his Vindicator. 4o. A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the Church of Rome. With an Answer thereunto. By a Protestant of the Church of England. 8o. A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented, being an Answer to the First, Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Papist Misrepresented and Represented]; and for a further Vindication of the CATECHISM, truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome. Quarto. The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. Quarto. The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholic Missionaries. 24o. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the Authority of the Catholic Church in Matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto. A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholic Church, and the Reformation of the Church of England. Quarto.