ART to fhew that Pafchafe's opinion was an innovation broached XXVIII. in the ninth century, and was oppofed by all the great

men of that

age.

The tenth century was the blackest and most ignorant of all the ages of the Church: there is not one writer in that age that gives us any clear account of the doctrine of the Church: fuch remote hints as occur do ftill favour of Ratramne's doctrine. All men were then asleep, and fo it was a fit time for the tares that Paschase had fown to

grow up in it. The Popes of that age were fuch a fucceffion of monfters, that Baronius cannot forbear to make the faddeft exclamations poffible against their debaucheries, their cruelties, and their other vices. About the middle of the eleventh century, after this difpute had flept almost two hundred years, it was again revived.

Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius his Archdeacon, maintained the doctrine of Ratramne. Little mention is made of the Bishop; but the Archdeacon is fpoken of as a man of great piety; fo that he paffed for a faint, and was a man of fuch learning, that when he was brought before Pope Nicolaus, no man could refift him. He writ against Paschase, and had many followers: the hiftorians of that age tell us, that his doctrine had overfpread all France. The books writ against him by Lanfranc and others are filled with an impudent corrupting of all antiquity. Many councils were held upon this matter; and thefe, together with the terrors of burning, which was then beginning to be the common punishment of herefy, made him renounce his opinion: but he returned to it again; yet he afterwards renounced it: though Lanfranc reproached him, that it was not the love of truth, but the fear of death, that brought him to it. And his final retracting of that renouncing of his opinion is lately found in France, as I have been credibly informed. Thus this opinion, that in the ninth century was generally received, and was condemned by neither Pope nor Council, was become fo odious in the eleventh century, that none durft own it: and he who had the courage to own it, yet was not refolute enough to ftand to it: for about this time the doctrine of extirpating heretics, and of depofing fuch princes as were defective in that matter, was univerfally put in practice: great bodies of men began to feparate from the Roman communion in the fouthern parts of France; and one of the chief points of their doctrine was their believing that Chrift was not corporally present in the eucharift; and that he was there only in a figure or myflery. But now that the contrary doctrine was established,

established, and that those who denied it were adjudged ART. to be burnt, it is no wonder if it quickly gained ground, XXVIII. when on the one hand the priests faw their intereft in promoting it, and all people felt the danger of denying it. The anathemas of the Church, and the terrors of burning, were infallible things to filence contradiction at leaft, if not to gain affent.

Soon after this doctrine was received, the Schoolmen began to refine upon it, as they did upon every thing Lib. iv. elfe. The mafter of the fentences would not determine Dift. 11. how Chrift was prefent; whether formally or fubftantially, or fome other way. Some Schoolmen thought that the matter of bread was deftroyed; but that the form remained, to be the form of Chrift's body, that was the matter of it. Others thought that the matter of the elements remained, and that the form only was deftroyed: but that to which many inclined, was the affumption of the elements into an union with the body of Chrift, or a hypoftatical union of the Eternal Word to them, by which they became as truly a body to Chrift, as that which he has in heaven: yet it was not the fame, but a different body.

Stephen Bishop of Autun was the first that fell on the De Sacram. word Tranfubftantiation. Amalric, in the beginning of Altaris, the thirteenth century, denied in exprefs words the corporal prefence: he was condemned in the fourth Council of the Lateran as an heretic, and his body was ordered to be taken up and burnt: and in oppofition to him Tranfubftantiation was decreed. Yet the Schoolmen continued to offer different explanations of this for a great while after that: but in conclufion all agreed to explain it as was formerly fet forth. It appears, by the crude way in which it was at first explained, that it was a novelty; and that men did not know how to mould and frame it: but at laft it was licked into fhape; the whole philofophy being caft into fuch a mould as agreed with it. And therefore in the present age, in which that philofophy has loft its credit, great pains are taken to fupprefs the new and freer way of philofophy, as that which cannot be fo easily fubdued to fupport this doctrine, as the old one was. And the arts, that thofe who go into the new philofophy take to reconcile their scheme to this doctrine, fhew that there is nothing that fubtile and unfincere men will not venture on: for, fince they make extenfion to be of the effence of matter, and think that accidents are only the modes of matter, which have no proper being of themfelves, it is evident, that a body cannot be without its ex

tenfion,

ART. tenfion, and that accidents cannot fubfift without their fubXXVIII. ject; fo that this can be in no fort reconciled to Transubftantiation: and therefore they would willingly avoid this fpecial manner of the prefence, and only in general affert that Chrift is corporally prefent. But the decrees of the Lateran and Trent Councils make it evident, that Tranfubftantiation is now a doctrine that is bound upon them by the authority of the Church and of tradition; and that they are as much bound to believe it, as to believe the corporal prefence itself. Thus the going off from the fimplicity in which Chrift did deliver the facrament, and in which the Church at firft received it, into fome fublime expreffions about it, led men once out of the way, and they ftill went farther and farther from it. Pious and rhetorical figures, pursued far by men of heated imaginations and of inflamed affections, were followed with explanations invented by colder and more defigning men afterwards, and fo it increafed till it grew by degrees to that to which at laft it fettled on.

But after all, if the doctrine of the Corporal Prefence had refted only in a fpeculation, though we fhould have judged those who held it to be very bad philofophers, and no good critics; yet we could have endured it, if it had refted there, and had not gone on to be a matter of practice, by the adoration and proceffions, with every thing elfe of that kind, which followed upon it; for this corrupted the worship.

The Lutherans believe a Consubstantiation, and that both Chrift's body and blood, and the fubftance of the elements, are together in the facrament: that fome explain by an ubiquity, which they think is communicated to the human nature of Chrift, by which his body is every where as well as in the facrament; whereas others of them think, that fince the words of Chrift muft needs be true in a literal fenfe, his body and blood is therefore in the facrament, but in, with, and under the bread and wine. All this we think is ill grounded, and is neither agreeable to the words of the inftitution, nor to the nature of things. A great deal of that which was formerly fet forth in defence of our doctrine falls likewise upon this. The ubiquity communicated to the human nature, as it feems a thing in itself impoffible, fo it gives no more to the facrament than to every thing elfe. Chrift's body may be faid to be in every thing, or rather every thing may be faid to be his body and blood, as well as the elements in the facrament. The impoffibility of a body's being without extenfion, or in more places at once, lies

againft

against this, as well as against Tranfubflantiation. But yet, ART. after all, this is only a point of fpeculation, nothing fol. XXVIIL lows upon it in practice, no adoration is offered to the elements; and therefore we judge that fpeculative opinions may be borne with, when they neither fall upon the fundamentals of Chriftianity, to give us falfe ideas of the effential parts of our religion, nor affect our practice; and chiefly when the worship of God is maintained in its purity, for which we fee God has expreffed fo particular a concern, giving it the word which of all others raises in us the moft fenfible and the ftrongeft ideas, calling it jealoufy; that we reckon, we ought to watch over this with much caution. We can very well bear with fome opimions, that we think ill grounded, as long as they are only matters of opinion, and have no influence neither on men's morals nor their worthip. We ftill hold communion with bodies of men, that, as we judge, think wrong, but yet do both live well, and maintain the purity of the worship of God. We know the great defign of religion is to govern men's lives, and to give them right ideas of God, and of the ways of worshipping him. All opinions that do not break in upon thefe, are things in which great forbearance is to be used; large allowances are to be made for men's notions in all other things; and therefore we think that neither Confubftantiation nor Tranfubflantiation, how ill grounded foever we take both to be, ought to diffolve the union and communion of Churches: but it is quite another thing, if under either of these opinions an adoration of the elements is taught and practifed.

This we believe is plain idolatry, when an infenfible piece of matter, fuch as bread and wine, has divine honours paid it: when it is believed to be God, when it is called God, and is in all refpects worshipped with the fame adoration that is offered up to Almighty God. This we think is grofs idolatry. Many writers of the Church of Rome have acknowledged, that if Tranfubflantiation is not true, their worship is a ftrain of idolatry beyond any that is practised among the most depraved of all the heathens.

The only excufe that is offered in this matter is, that fince the declared object of worship is Jefus Chrift, believed to be there prefent, then, whether he is prefent or not, the worship terminates in him; both the fecret acts of the worshippers and the profeffed doctrine of the Church do lodge it there. And therefore it may be faid, that though he should not be actually prefent, yet the act of

adora

ART. adoration being directed to him, must be accepted of God, XXVIII. as right meant, and duly directed, even though there fhould happen to be a mistake in the outward application

of it.

In answer to this, we do not pretend to determine how far this may be pardoned by God; whofe mercies are infinite, and who does certainly confider chiefly the hearts of his creatures, and is merciful to their infirmities, and to fuch errors as arife out of their weaknefs, their hearts being fincere before him. We ought to confider this action as it is in itself, and not according to men's apprehenfions and opinions about it. If the conceits that the ancient idolaters had both concerning their Gods, and the Idols that they worshipped, will excufe from idolatry, it will be very hard to say that there were ever any idolaters in the world. Those who worshipped the Sun, thought that the great Divinity was lodged there, as in a vehicle or temple; but yet they were not by reafon of that mifconception excufed from being idolaters.

If a falfe opinion upon which a practice is founded, taken up without any good authority, will excufe men's fins, it will be eafy for them to find apologies for every thing. If the worship of the elements had been commanded by God, then an opinion concerning it might excufe the carrying of that too far: but there being no command for it, no hint given about it, nor any infinuation given of any fuch practice in the beginnings of Chriftianity; an opinion that men have taken up cannot juftify a new practice, of which neither the firft, nor a great many of the following ages knew any thing. An opinion cannot juftify men's practice founded upon it, if that proves to be falfe. All the foftening that can be given it is, that it is a fin of ignorance; but that does not change the nature of the action, how far foever it may go with relation to the judgments of God: if the opinion is rafhly taken up and stiffly maintained, the worship that is introduced upon it is aggravated by the ill foundation that it is built upon. We know God by his effence is every where; but this will not justify our worshipping any material object upon this pretence, because God is in it; we ought never to worship him towards any vifible object, unless he were evidently declaring his glory in it; as he did to Mofes in the flaming bufh; to the Ifraelites on mount Sinai, and in the cloud of glory; or to us Chriftians in a fublimer manner in the human nature of Jefus Chrift.

But by this parity of reafon, though we were fure that