Page  [unnumbered]Page  i

THE PREFACE.

THE nature of the Holy Eucharist is a subject that hath been both so frequently insisted upon, and so fully explain'd 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 Re∣flections upon it. For not to mention now those Emi∣nent Men who have heretofore labour'd in this work, nor to run beyond the points that are here designed to be examined; What can be said more evidently to shew 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 shewn not only to be a novel invention, contrary to the practice of all Antiquity, but the danger of it evi∣dently 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 unanswer'd; but if we may be allow'd to judge either Page  ii 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 my self 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 publick view. But since our Adversaries still con∣tinue, without taking notice of any of these things, to cry up their Great Diana no less than if she had never at all been shewn 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 sollicitous 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 in∣to Error.

'Twas an ingenious Apology that Seneca once made, for his often repeating the same things;

And I remember an antient Father has left it as his O∣pinion, that it was useful for the same truths to be vin∣dicated by many, And a greater than either of these, S. Paul, has at once left us both an example and a warrant for this sol∣licitude; Phil. 3. 1.

Indeed I think if there be any need of an excuse for this undertaking, it ought to be rather to Apologize for a Page  iii far greater absurdity which we all commit in writing at all against those Men, who in these Disputes con∣cerning the Holy Sacrament, have most evidently shewn that to be true of Christians, which was once said of the antient Philosophers, That there can be nothing so absurd which some Men will not ad∣venture to maintain.

In most of our other Controversies with those of the Church of Rome, we shew them to be Errone∣ous; in this they are Extravagant; And as an emi∣nent Pen has very justly express'd it,

The truth is, as the same Person goes on,

And if such things as these must be disputed, and this Evidence,

Page  iv 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 vashly 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 pro∣fess to have laid aside theirs; as in charity to such deluded Persons as are unhappily led away with these Errors, to shew them their unreasonableness: To convince them that Christianity is a wise and rati∣onal 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 Ob∣ject; that to deny this is to overthrow the greatest external Evidence we have for our Religion, which is founded upon their judgment; 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 Transubstan∣tiation.

And this I perswade my self I have in the follow∣ing Discourse sufficiently shewn, 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 endeavour'd to render it plain and intelligi∣ble even to the meanest Capacity. And I have some cause to hope that the most learned will not be dis∣satisfied with the design, what ever they may be with Page  v 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 scat∣tered 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 shew 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 a∣mongst the rest of the Rabbinical Follies: Now * however the very name of Galatinus be sufficient to Learned Men to make them esteem his Judgment in his Jewish to be much the same as in his Chri∣stian Antiquity which follows after, in those eminent pieces of S. Peter's and S. Matthew's Liturgies, * S. Andrew's work of the Passion of our Lord; Dionysius's Ecclesiast. Hierarch. &c. 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 shew what the true no∣tions 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 con∣ceit 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 consider'd by them, who have freely declared that there is not in Scripture any evi∣dent proof of Transubstantiation; nay some of whom have thought so little engagement upon them either from that or any other Authority to believe it, Page  vi that they have lived and died in their Church without ever embracing of it.

And of this the late Author of the * Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation, and which is just now set forth in our own Language, may be an e∣minent 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 re∣ceive 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 own'd by the greatest Men in any Ages since. The truth is, if we enquire precisely into this business of Transubstantiation, we shall find the first foundation of it laid in a Clayster by an unwary Monk about the beginning of the * 7th Century: carried on by a Cabal of Men, as∣sembled under the name of a a General Council to introduce the worship of Images into the Church, Ann. 787. b formed into a better shape by another c Monk Ann. 818. and He too op∣posed by almost all the Learned Men of his Age; and at last confirmed by a d Pope of whom their own Authors have left us but a very indifferent e character; and in a f Synod of which I shall ob∣serve only this, that it gave the Pope the power of unmaking Kings, as well as the Priests that of ma∣king their God.

Page  vii But indeed I think we ought not to charge the Council with either of these Attempts; since, contra∣ry to the manner of proceeding in such Assemblies, received in all Ages, nothing was either judged or debated by the Synod: † The Pope only himself formed 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 dissent from it. a 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 Durandus doubted not to assert the continuance of the Matter of the Elements, whatever became of the form; and that 'twas c rashness to say that Christ's Body could be there no otherwise than by Transubstan∣tiation: To which d Scotus also subscribed, that the truth of the Eucharist might be saved with∣out Transubstantiation, e and that in plain terms ours was the easier, and to all appearance the truer interpretation of Christ's words; in which f Ockam and * d'Alliaco concurr'd with him. g Fisher confess'd that there was Page  viii nothing to prove the true presence of Christ's Body and Blood in their Mass: a Ferus would not have it inquired into, How Christ's Body is there; and b Tonstall thought it were better to leave Men to their Liberty of belief in it. Those who in respect to their Churches definition did accept it, yet freely declared that c before this Coun∣cil it was no matter of Faith, nor but for its de∣cision would have been now; That the Ancients did not believe it; that the Scripture does not ex∣press it; in short, that the interpretation which we give is altogether as agreeable to the words of Christ, and in truth free from infinite inconveni∣ences with which the other abounds. All which plainly enough shews that not only the late private

has op∣posed 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 Authori∣ty 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, were * Page  ix there nothing else remaining of his Life, might be sufficient to render him detestable to all good Men, ought 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 it self, in obe∣dience 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 Coun∣cil 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 be∣fore, 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 igno∣rance and a blind obedience, the two great Go∣spel perfections with some men, disposed to swal∣low 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 perswade my self 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 mid-day light. But yet that all those, who nevertheless continue to live in the external Communion of the Church of Rome, are not thus Page  x sincere in the belief of it, is what I think I may with out uncharitableness affirm; and because it will be a matter of great importance to make this appear, espe∣cially to those of that Perswasion; 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 ac∣quainted 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 † Picherellus, of whom the testimonies prefix'd to his Works speak so advantagiously, that I shall not need say any thing of the esteem which the learned World had of him. * I must transcribe his whole Treatise should I insist on all he has delivered repugnant to their Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Suffice it to ob∣serve that in his Exposition of the words of Institution, This is my Body, He gives this plain inter∣pretation of them, This Bread is my Body which is both freely al∣lowed by the Papists themselves to be inconsistent with their belief as to this matter; and which he largely shews 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 open∣ly dissent from her in this: It will more be wondred that a person so eminent amongst them as Cardinal du Perron, and that has written so much in defence Page  xi of Transubstantiation, should nevertheless all the while Himself believe nothing of it. And yet this we are assured he freely confess'd to some of his Friends not long before hisdeath: That he thought the Doctrine to be Monstrous; that He had done his endeavour to co∣lour 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 maintain'd. But I will set down the re∣lation as I find it in Monsieur Drelincourt's * Answer to the Landgrave of Hesse; and who would not have presum'd to have offer'd a relation so considerable, and to a person of such Quality, had he at all fear'd that he could have been disproved in it.

And thus far Monsieur Drelincourt. I could to this add some farther circumstances which I have learnt of this matter, but what is here said may suffice to shew what the real Opinion of this great Cardinal, after all his Voluminous Writings, as to this Doctrine was; unless some future Obligations shall perhaps en∣gage me to enter on a more particular account of it.

To these two great instances of another Nation I will beg leave to subjoyn a third of our own Country: Father Barnes the Benedictine, who in his Pacific Discourse of most of the points in Controversie between * us and the Papists, expresly declares,

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 Page  xiii necessary for Others, to receive it, but clearly shews that he did not believe it himself, is the Illustrious Monsieut de Marca, late Archbishop of Paris, and * well known to the World for his great Learning and Eminence. His Treatise of the Eucharist was pub∣lish'd with Authority, by one of his near Relations the Abbé Faget at Paris 1668. with some other little Tracks which he had received from the Archbishops own hands. In the close of that Treatise he thus deli∣vers his Opinion:

And here I suppose any one who reads this passage alone of this Treatise might without the help of * Monsieur Baluze's Animadversion easily have con∣cluded,

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 publick know∣ledge: And which might give us some cause to sus∣pect, 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 shewn in another Trea∣tise with reference to S. Chrysostom; whose * Epistle to Caesarius some of the Sorbonne Doctors caused most shamefully to be out out of Monsieur Bigot's Edi∣tion of Palladius, because it too plainly spoke the Do∣ctrine of the Protestants as to this point. And the same has almost happened to this Treatise of Monsieur de Marca here mentioned: † Before it came to a publick sight, the passages that seemed most visibly to op∣pose Page  xv their Doctrine, were either changed or sup∣press'd; * (of which the passage before cited is one) as appears by the Paris Edition now extant of them. But † the Providence of God that brought to light the other, has discover'd this cheat too; For before the alarm was given, and that the Chancellor, a the Sorbonne Doctors, but especially Monsieur Baluze by his Letters to the President de Marca, the Arch∣bishop's Son, upon this occasion, had awakened the Abbé Faget to consider more nearly what he had done; b several Presents had been made of the intire 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 Monsieur Claude's Books against the Perpetuire, 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 sup∣press his opinion discovered.

To this eminent Person I will beg leave to sub∣joyn a fifth, and he too no less known to the World both for his Learning and Reputation, nor less a Heretick in this point, however not hitherto so openly discovered as the other: and that is Father Sirmond the Jesuit. In his life of Paschasius Rad∣bertus, he tells us,

and indeed if what * Blondel and some others have observed concerning him be true, that it was for Impanation, not Tran∣substantiation; Page  xvi the Jesuit perhaps spoke his real judgment 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 confess'd he thought it had herein departed from the antient 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 publick, 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 Lyons about this matter, the Jesuit confess'd 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 Sir∣mond whom upon this account he reflected upon in his Book, de bonis & malis Libris, where he ob∣serves,

When Monsieur Bigot return'd to claim the perfor∣mance 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 offer'd him a Copy of the Treatise, which he told him was tran∣scribed from Father Sirmonds Original. This Mon∣sieur Page  xvii 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 candor 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 excel∣lent Writings and great Abilities. A little be∣fore his death, which happen'd about the begin∣ning of the Year 1681. being desirous to free his Conscience as to the point of the Holy Eucha∣rist, in which he supposed their Church to have many ways departed from the right Faith, he cau∣sed 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 un∣deceive them in this matter. One of these Persons, to whom this Present was made, having been plea∣sed to communicate to me the very Paper which by the Abbot's order was brought to him, it may not perhaps be amiss to gratifie the Reader's curiosity, if I here insert it at its full length.

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 shewn 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 † Moyens surs & Honnestes, &c. that he did not believe Transubstantiation himself, yet this is clear,

Whether Monsieur de Meaux believes this Do∣ctrine or not, his authority is become of so little im∣portance, that I do not think it worth the while to examine. Yet the first French * Answer to his Ex∣position observes, that in the suppress'd Edition of Page  xxv it he had not at all mentioned

those words in the close of that Paragraph which we now read, viz. being put in † for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile, since.

But now for his Vindicator, 'tis evident, if he understands his own meaning, that he is not very well instructed about it. *

In which words, if his meaning be to exclude total∣ly the

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, &c. from being a mat∣ter of Faith, he ought not then to have deny'd the man∣ner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, which their Church has absolutely defined to be by that wonderful and singular Conversion so aptly called Transubstan∣tiation; but more precisely to have explain'd his School∣nicety Page  xxvi 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 Des-cartes, that Ac∣cidents are nothing else but the Modes of Matter, must here either renounce his Doctrine or their Churches 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 per∣swaded justifie him even to those of the Roman Communion: and it is the learned Archbishop Usher, * who having been so happy as to convert several Roman Priests from their errors, and inquiring 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 in∣stantes 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 Hereticks in Page  xxvii this point; may I beseech those who are still mis-led with this great Error, to stop a while, and seri∣ously examine with me two or three plain considerations, and in which I suppose they are not a little con∣cerned.

And the first is, Of their own danger: but espe∣cially, upon their Own Principles.

It is but a very little while since an ingenious Per∣son now living in the French Church, the Abbé Petit publish'd a Book which he calls

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 Page  xxviii 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 perswaded that it is; 'twill need no long de∣duction to shew how dangerous an influence their un∣belief must have had, in some of the chiefest instances of their constant Worship.

For 1. It is the Doctrine of the e Council of Trent that to make a Sacrament, the Priest must have, if not an Actual, yet at least a Virtual In∣tention of doing that which the Church does: And in the f Rubricks 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 Ro∣man Catholick 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 im∣possible to do.

Now if there were no Consecration, but that the Bread continued meer Bread as it was before; then Secondly, All those who attended at their Masses, and Adored their Hosts, pay'd the supream worship of God to a bare Wafer, and no more. How far the Page  xxix 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 excel∣lent Treatise written purposely on this Subject, and * where they will find the weakness of this supposal sufficiently exposed. But since a many of their own greatest Men confess that if any one by mi∣stake should worship an Unconsecrated Host, ta∣king 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 Di∣vine Adoration to that which all their Senses tell them is but a bit of Bread; to the hinderance of whose Conversion so many things may interpose, that were their Doctrine otherwise as infallible, as we are certain it is false, it would yet be a hundred to one that there is no Consecration: in a word; how they can worship that which they can never be secure is changed into Christ's Body, nay when, as the examples I have before given shew, they have all the reason in the World to fear, whether even the Priest himself who says the Mass does in∣deed believe that he has any Power, or by conse∣quence can have any intention, to turn it into the Flesh of Christ.

And the same consideration will shew, Thirdly; How little security their other Plea of Concomi∣tance, which they so much insist upon, to shew the sufficiency of their Communicating only in one kind, viz.

can give to the Laity, to satisfie their Page  xxx 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 meer Wafer: And if by reason of the Priest's infidelity, the Host should be indeed nothing else, of which we have shewn they can never be sure; neither can they ever know whe∣ther what they receive be upon their own Principles, an intire Communion.

And then Lastly, for the main thing of all, The Sacrifice of the Mass; it is clear that if Christ's Body be not truly and properly there, it cannot be truly and properly offer'd; nor any of those great benefits be derived to them from a morsel of Bread, which themselves declare can proceed only from the Flesh and Blood of their Blessed Lord.

It is I know an easie matter for those who can believe Transubstantiation, to believe also that there is no hazard in all these great and apparent dan∣gers. But yet in matters of such moment Men ought to desire to be well assured, and not exposed even to any possible defects. I do not now insist upon the common re∣marks, * which yet are Authorized by their own Missal, and may give just grounds to their fears;

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; * the Re∣lations I have given, are no• of counterfeit Jews and Moors, who to escape the danger of the Inqui∣sition have sometimes become Priests, and administred all the Sacraments for many years together, without ever having an intention to Ad∣minister truly any one of them, and of which I could give an eminent instance in a certain Jew now living; who for many Years was not only a Priest, but a Professor of Divinity in Spain, and all the while in reality a meer Jew as he is now. The Persons here mention'd were Men of undoubted re∣putation, of great learning and singular esteem in their Church; and if these found the impossibili∣ties of Transubstantiation so much greater than ei∣ther 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 conse∣quence 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. * It is the Doctrine of the Page  xxxii Roman Church that to the Validity of every Sa∣crament, and therefore of that of Orders as well as the rest three things must concur,

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; † The Bishop delivers the Cup with some Wine, and the Paten with Bread into the Hands of the person whom he Ordains, saying, So that then the intention necessary to the conferring the Order of Priesthood is this; to give a Power to con∣secrate, 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 Page  xxxiii Power, they could not certainly have any Intenti∣on 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 ce∣lebrated by those Priests whom these two Bishops Ordained, were only meer Bread, and not the Bo∣dy of Christ; And as many of them, as being af∣terwards advanced to a higher dignity, were conse∣crated Bishops, received no Episcopal Character, because they were destitute of the Priestly before. Thus the danger still encreases: 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 fore-going instances is this: What reliance we can make upon the Pretended Infallibi∣lity of their Church; when 'tis thus plain that so many of the most learned Men of their own Com∣munion did not only not believe it to be Infalli∣ble, 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 be∣tween Us.

Page  xxxiv It is plain from what has been said in the forego∣ing reflection, that disbelieving Transubstantiation, they must also have lookt upon all the other Conse∣quences of it, viz. the Adoration of the Host, the Sacrifice of the Mass, &c. as Erroneous too. Nom 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 anathematized all those that shall pre∣sume 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 Ca∣tholick 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 Ob∣liged 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 our selves better able to judge in matters of Faith, than the most General Council that was ever yet as∣sembled. 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 em∣ploy Page  xxxv his Understanding with the utmost skill and dili∣gence 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 judgments 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 ac∣cording 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 enquire why; He that is a Jew must continue a Jew still; he that is a Turk, a Turk; a Protestant must always be a Pro∣testant: 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.

* And indeed after all their clamours against us on this occasion, yet is this no more than what them∣selves 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 Page  xxxvi 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 Exam∣ples of those Eminent Persons of their own Com∣munion before named; who notwithstanding the Au∣thority of their Church, and the decision of so ma∣ny Councils esteemed by it as General, have yet both thought themselves at liberty to examine their De∣crees, 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 allow'd 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 free∣ly 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 allow'd to them to dissent themselves from the recei∣ved Doctrine of their Church, which they found to be erroneous, could not but in their Consciences ju∣stifie us, who, as a national Church, no way subjected Page  xxxvii to their Authority, did the same; and by the right which every such Church has within it self, reform∣ed 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 in∣timate 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 remon∣strance to them; That since it is thus evident, that for above 1200 years this Doctrine was never esta∣blish'd in the Church, nor till then, in the opinion of their own most learned Men, any matter of Faith; since the Greatest of their Writers in the past Ages have declared themselves so freely concerning it as we have seen above, and some of the most eminent of their Communion in the present have ingenuously acknowledged that they could not believe it; since 'tis confess'd that the Scripture does not require it; Sense and Reason undoubtedly oppose it, and the Primitive Ages of the Church, as one of their own Authors has very lately shewn, received it not; They will at least suffer all these things to dispose them to an indif∣ferent Examination, wherefore at last it is that they do believe this great Error? Upon what Au∣thority they have given up their Senses to Delu∣sion; their Reason to embrace Contradictions; the Holy Scripture and Antiquity, to be submitted to the dictates of two Assemblies, which many of them∣selves esteem to have been rather Cabals than Coun∣cils: Page  xxxvi 〈1 page duplicate〉 Page  xxxvii 〈1 page duplicate〉 Page  xxxviii And all to support a Doctrine, the most inju∣rious that can be to our Saviour's Honour; destructive in its nature not only of the certainty of the Christi∣an 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 Ob∣jects, and if this be so, we can then be sure of no∣thing.

These Considerations, if they shall incline them to an impartial view of the following Discourses, they may possibly find somewhat in them, to shew the rea∣sonableness 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 Ar∣guments; and convince them how dangerous it is for Men to give up themselves to such prejudices, as nei∣ther Sense nor Reason, nor the word of God, nor the Authority of the best and purest Ages of the Church, are able to overcome.