CHAP. I.
Of TRANSUBSTANTIATION, Or the Real Presence Establish'd by the CHURCH of ROME.
TRansubstantiation is defined by the * Council of Trent, to be
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 † particular care that this should not be too much ex∣plain'd 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 consider'd in it:
Again: When 'tis said,
II.
Page 10 III.
For the rest, the Conversion its self,
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 acknowledg in this Holy Eucharist, as we shall hereafter shew; nor by con∣sequence of the Truth of Christs Words which we undoubtedly believe: But only about this Man∣ner of his Presence, viz. Whether the Bread and Page 11 the Wine be changed into the very natural Bo∣dy and Blood of Christ, so that the Bread and Wine themselves do no longer remain; But that under the Appearance of them is contain'd that same Bo∣dy of Christ, which was Born of the Blessed Vir∣gin, with his Soul and Divinity; which same Bo∣dy of Christ, tho extended in all its parts in Hea∣ven, is at the same time in the Sacrament with∣out 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 ve∣ry same instant that it exists whole and intire in every consecrated Host, or Chalice; nay more, is whole and intire, 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 Tasts, to be Bread and Wine, is not changed into the very natural Flesh and Blood of a Body actually before existent; had it not entred into the Minds of so great a part of the Christian Church to joyn in the main∣taining of a Paradox, which has nothing to defend it, but that fond Presumption they have certain∣ly done well to take up, That they cannot possibly Page 12 be in the wrong, and without which it would be very difficult for them to perswade any sober man that they are here in the right.
To shew 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 con∣fessedly the unavoidable Consequences of this Do∣ctrine, have no such force nor interpretation as they pretend; I must desire it may be remembred what I before remark'd, That this Holy Sacrament was establish'd by our Saviour in the room of the Jewish Passover, 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 allu∣sive 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 Savi∣our 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 Re∣membrance of his delivery of the Jews out of the Land of Egypt, when he slew all the first-born of the Egyptians, Exod. xii. The Lamb which they ate 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 Fore-fathers 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 * same manner that Page 13 Christ did of the very same Loaf, Take, eat, this is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt; they esteem'd a Type and Figure, of that unleaven'd Bread which their Forefathers so many Ages before had eaten there; and upon that account called it *
Now all these Idea's with which the Apostles had so long been acquainted, could not but pre∣sently suggest to them the same design of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of this Holy Sa∣crament: That when He, as the Master of the Feast, took the Loaf, Blessed, and brake 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
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.
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 Cere∣monies 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.
Page 15 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 brake it, and gave it to those who were at the Table with Him, saying, This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate 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 Fi∣gure, a Memorial of it: So neither could those to whom our Saviour Christ now spake, and who as being Jews had so long been used to this Phrase, ever imagine, that the pieces of that Loaf which He brake, and gave them, saying,
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 Page 16 Jewish Passover, was not the original remark of any Protestant, or indeed of any other Christians differ∣ing from the Church of Rome in this point: But was objected to them long before the Refor∣mation, by the * Jews, themselves to shew that in their literal Interpretation of these Words, they had manifestly depar∣ted from the intention of our Blessed Sa∣viour, 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 † St. Augustine, who I suppose will not be thought a Heretick by either party, may be allow'd 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 suffer'd, or rose from the dead, but the return or remembrance of that day on which Christ was born, or suffer'd, or rose again.
It is wonderful to consider with what confidence our new Missionaries produce these words on all oc∣casions; and thereby shew us how fond they would be of the Holy Scripture, and how willingly they would make it their Guide in Controversie, 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 mean∣ing, I will not deny, but that those words might as Page 17 evidently prove Bread to be Christs 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 ex∣pressions, 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 nei∣ther 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 shewn the ground of this mistake to be their want of considering the Cu∣stoms and Phrases of the Jewish Passover, and upon which, both the Holy Eucharist it self, and these Expressions in it were founded: And I will only add this farther, in confirmation of it; That in the Stile of the Hebrew Language in general, there is nothing more ordinary, than for things to be said to * Be that which they Signifie or Repre∣sent. Thus Joseph interpreting Pharaoh's Dream, Page 18 Gen. xli. 26. The seven good Kine, says he, are seven years; and again, The seven good Ears of Corn are seven years, i. e. as is plain, they signify seven years. And so in like manner in this place; Christ took Bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, Eat, this is my Body which is Broken for you: That is, this Bread thus Taken, and Blessed, and Broken, and Given to you; This Bread, and this Action, signi∣fies 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 interpreta∣tion. † We have shewn before, how little confi∣dence their greatest Schoolmen had of this Doctrine; those who have stood the most stifly for it, could never yet * agree how to explain these words, so as to prove it: And Cardinal Bellarmine alone, who reckons up the most part of their several ways, and argues the weakness too of every one but his own, may be sufficient to assure us, that they are never likely to be: And might serve to shew what just cause their own great * Catharinus had so long since to cry out, upon his Enquiry only into the meaning of the very first word, This:
Page 19 'Twas this forced so many of their † greatest and most learned men before Luther, ingenuously to profess, That there was not in Scripture any evi∣dent proof of this Doctrine; and even Cardinal Ca∣jetan since to own, That had not the Church de∣termined for the literal sense of those words, This is my Body, they might have passed in the Metaphorical.
It is the general acknowledgment of their ‖ greatest Writers at this day, That if the Pronoun THIS in that Proposition, This is my Body, be referr'd to the Bread, which our Saviour Christ held in his Hand, which he bless'd, which he brake and gave to his Disciples, and of which therefore certainly, if of any thing, he said This is my Body, the natural repug∣nancy that there is between the two things affirm'd of one another, Bread and Christs Body, will force them to be taken in a figurative Interpretation: For as much as 'tis impossible that Bread should be Christ's Body otherwise than in a figure. And how∣ever, to avoid so dangerous a Consequence, they will rather apply it to any thing, nay to nothing at all than to the Bread; yet they would do well to consider, whether they do not thereby fall into as great a danger on the other side; since if the Relative THIS do's not determine those words to the Bread, 'tis evident that nothing in that whole Proposition do's; And then how those words shall work so great a change in a Subject to which Page 20 they have no manner of Relation, will, I believe, be as difficult to shew, as the change its self is incomprehensible to conceive.
And now after so plain an evidence of the weakness of that foundation which is by all con∣fessed to be the chief, and has by many of the most Learned of that Church been thought the only Pillar of this Cause; I might well dispense with my self from entring on any farther exami∣nation of their other pretences to establish it. But because they have taken great pains of late to apply the † sixth Chapter of St. John to the Holy Eucharist, tho' it might be sufficient in gene∣ral to say that no good Argument for a matter of such consequence, can be built upon a place which so many of the * most Eminent and Learned of that Commu∣nion have judged not to have the least Relation to this matter; yet I will never∣theless beg leave very briefly to shew the Weakness of this Second Attempt too; and that 'tis in vain that they rally these scatter'd Forces, whilst their main Body continues so intirely de∣feated.
Page 21 It is a little surprizing in this matter, that they universally tell us, That neither the begin∣ning nor ending of our Saviours 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 Ar∣gument, is two thirds of it Figure, and on∣ly otherwise in one Clause to serve their Hy∣pothesis.
It must be confessed, that this is an Arbi∣trary 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 Con∣sideration. But for us, who can see no reason for this sudden change of our Saviours Discourse; Page 22 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 there∣fore not a little scandalized at so Capernaitical a Comment, as indeed
He that desires a fuller account of this Cha∣pter, may please to recur to the late ex∣cellent † Paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it, and which will be a∣bundantly sufficient to shew the reason∣ableness of that Interpretation which we give of it. I shall only add, to close all, that one Remark which * 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:
And now having thus clearly, I perswade my self, shewn 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 establish'd; I shall but very little insist on any other Argu∣ments 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 shew this Doctrine op∣posite, 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 shew 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 * Treatise just now publish'd 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 deny'd, but that in their popu∣lar 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 be∣lieve that were the Sermons and De∣votional Treatises of our own Divines alone, since the Reformation, searcht in∣to, one might find Expressions among them, as much over-strain'd. * And Page 25 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 * substance what they were be∣fore, Bread and Wine: That they re∣tain 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 Ho∣ly Sacrament they are Images, Figures, Signes, 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 faithful Receiver, but in a Spiritual and Heavenly manner, as we confess: That, in propriety of speech the Wicked receive not in this Ho∣ly Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ, al∣though 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 Saviours words which are supposed to work this great Change, 'tis evident from the Liturgies of the Eastern Church, Page 26 that the Greek Fathers did not believe them to be words * of Consecration; but to be the same in this Holy Eu∣charist 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 * African Churches, they at this day expound them in this very Sacrament after such a manner, as them∣selves confess to be inconsi∣stent 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 Christs 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, had they then be∣lieved the Cup of Eucharist to have been truly and really Page 27 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 man∣ner 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? That had * neither Voice, nor Life, nor Motion; Ex∣posed to Age, to Corruption, to Dust, to Worms, to Fire, and other Acci∣dents. 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 then 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? Could it defend its self, I do not say from publick Enemies, or private Robbers, but even from the very Vermine, 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 Page 28 themselves were more notoriously guil∣ty; yet were there no * Heathens, that had wit enough to recriminate? The other † Articles of our Faith they suf∣ficiently traduced; That we should wor∣ship a Man, and He too a Malefactor, crucified by Pilate; How would they have triumph'd, could they have added, That they worshipped a bit of Bread too; which Coster himself thought a more ridiculous Idola∣try than any the Heathens were guilty of? Since this Doctrine has been started, we have heard of the Re∣proaches of all sorts of Men, Jews, Heathens, Maho∣metans, against us on this account. ‖ Were there no Apostates that could tell them of this secret before? Not any Julian that had malice enough to publish their Con∣fusion? Certainly had the Ancients been the Men they are now endeavour'd 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 attacque their Enemies for that very Crime, of which them∣selves were more notoriously guilty.
V. Nor does their manner of Disputing against the Heretical Christians any less speak their Opinion in this Point, than their * way of Opposing the Idolatry of the Heathens. It was a great argument a∣mongst 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 Page 29 Eucharist; That as there the Bread and the Wine, says P. Gelasius,
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? * No talk of Accidents existing without Subjects, of the Senses being liable to Page 30 be deceived in judging of their proper Objects; in short, no Philosophy corrupted to maintain this Para∣dox. No Adorations, Processions; Uows paid to it, as to Christ himself. It is but a very little time since the † Bell came in play, to give the People notice that they should fall down and Worship this new God. The ‖ Feast in honour of it, is an Invention of Yesterday; the Adoring of it in the Streets no ∴ older: Had not those first Christians respect sufficient for our Bles∣sed Saviour? Or, did they perhaps do all this? Let them shew it us if they can; But till then, we must beg leave to con∣clude, That since we find not the least Footsteps of any of these necessary Appendages of this Do∣ctrine 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 ‖ burnt what remained of the Consecrated Ele∣ments; * In others, they gave it to lit∣tle Children to Eat: † In some, they bu∣ried 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 Page 31 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 ∴ Poultices of the Bread; they mix'd the ∴ Wine with their Ink; all which we can never imagine such holy Men would have presumed to do, had they indeed believed them to be the very Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord.
VIII. Lastly: Since the prevalence of this Do∣ctrine in the Church, what Opposition has it met with? What Schisms has it caused? What infinite Debates have there risen about it? I shall not need to speak of the Troubles of Berenger in the Eleventh: Of the Waldenses, Albigenses, and others in the Twelfth Century. Of Wickliff, Hus, &c. who continued the Opposition; and finally, of the great Reformation in the beginning of the last Age; by all which this Heresy has been opposed ever since it came to any Knowledg in the Church. Now is it possible to be believed, that so many Centuries should pass, so many He∣resies should arise, and a Doctrine so full of Con∣tradictions 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?
Page 32 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, 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 shew the Weakness of the Proof, viz. That from all these, and many other Observations, that might be offer'd of the like kind, 'tis Evi∣dent 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 Con∣tradictions that might be offer'd to prove this;
But I shall insist rather upon such Instances as the Primitive Fathers have judged to be absurd and impossible; and which will at once shew both the Falseness and Novelty of this monstrous Do∣ctrine; and such are these; * That a thing already existing should be produced anew: That a finite thing should be in ma∣ny places at the same time; That a Bo∣dy should be in a place, and yet take up no room in it; That a Body should pene∣trate the dimensions of another Body; That a Body should exist after the manner of a Spirit; That a real body should be invisible and impassible: That the same thing should be its self, and the figure of its self: That the same thing should be contained in, and participate of its self; † That an Accident should exist by its self without a Subject, after the manner of a Sub∣stance. All these things the primitive Fathers have declared to be in their Opinions gross Absurdities and Contradictions, without making any exception of the Divine Power for the sake of the Eucharist, as some do now.
And indeed it were well if the impossibilities stopp'd here: but alas! the Repugnancies extend Page 35 to the very Creed it self, and destroy the chiefest Articles of our Faith, the Fundamentals of Chri∣stianity. How can that man profess that he be∣lieves our Saviour Christ to have been born xvi. Ages since, of the Virgin Mary, whose very Bo∣dy he sees the Priest about to make now before his Eyes? That he believes him to have Ascended into Heaven, and behold he is yet with us upon Earth? There to Sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, till in the end of the World He shall come again with Glory to judg both the Quick and the Dead? And behold he is here carried through the Streets; lock'd up in a Box; Adored first, and then Eaten by his own Creatures; carried up and down in several manners, and to several places, and sometimes Lost out of a Priests Pocket.
These are no far-fetch'd Considerations; they are the obvious Consequences of this Belief; and if these things are impossible, as doubtless, if there be any such thing as Reason in the World, they are; I suppose it may be very much the concern of every one that professes this Faith, to reflect a little upon them, and think what account must one day be given of their persisting obstinately in a point so evidently erroneous, that the least degree of an impartial judgment, would presently have shewn them the falseness of it.
But God has not left himself without farther witness in this matter; but has given us, Thirdly,
III. The Conviction of our Senses against it.
An Argument this, which since it cannot be Answered, they seem resolved to run it down; as the Stoick in Lucian, who began to call names, when he had nothing else to say for him∣self.
But if the Senses are such ill Informers, that they may not be trusted in matters of this mo∣ment, would these Disputers please to tell us, What Authority they have for the truth of the Christian Religion? Was not Christianity first found∣ed 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? * 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, Hoc est Corpas Meum: Now not to enquire how far those words will serve to war∣rant this Doctrine, is it not evident that he Page 37 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 as 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 Transubstan∣ation to confirm it: i. e. Great Wonders confidently asserted, but such as every ones sense and reason would tell him were both falsely asserted, and im∣possible to be performed.
But now whil'st we thus oppose the Errors of some by asserting the continuance of the Natu∣ral Substance of the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Holy Eucharist; let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mi∣stakes of others; as if this Holy Sacrament were nothing more than a meer Rite and Ceremony, a bare Commemoration only of Christ's Death and Passion.
Our Church indeed teaches us to believe, That the Bread and Wine continue still in their True and Natural Substance; but it teaches us Page 38 also that 'tis the Body and Blood of * Christ, which every faithful Soul re∣ceives in that Holy Supper: Spiritu∣ally indeed, and after a Heavenly man∣ner, but yet most truly and really too.
The Primitive Fathers, of whom we have be∣fore spoken, sufficiently assure us, that they were strangers to that Corporeal change that is now pre∣tended; 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 re∣ceived 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 cer∣tainly separated to a Holy use and signification, ought 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 testifie our just esteem of Page 39 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 acknowledg him to be no less Really Present, tho 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 car∣nally into their Mouths.
Let our Office of Communion be examined; let the Reverence and Devotion, with which we Ce∣lebrate this Sacred Feast, be consider'd; all these will shew how far the Church of England is from a light esteem of this great Mystery; indeed, that it is im∣possible 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 Reputa∣tion in their Communion, was so happy as to finish his Days in our Church; upon his first receiving the Blessed Communion among us:
Porro haec quae narravi & trita nimis ac vulgo nota Videbuntur fratribus nostris Reformatae Ecclesiae: Nova omnino & fortè incredibilia Apparebunt Romanae Con∣gregationis * 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.
