Friends; and when he was left alone, it was an eafy matter to come to his Person, and in him to the Monarchy; so that the very next thing that followed immediately upon it, was the Black Bill of Exclusion: And next to that it was the very Mafter piece of little Achitophel's Wickedness. But to return to my Argument.

What is meant by Transubstantiation is a thing altogether unknown and uncertain, especially to the Persons chiefly concerned, the Nobility and Gentry of the Kingdom: It is a Word and a Notion chiefly handled by the Schoolmen and Metaphysicians Skill, in whose Writings is the leaft part of a Gentlemans Education, their Learning is more polite and practicable in the civil affairs of Humane Life, to understand the Rules of Honour and the Laws of their Country, the Practice of Martial Difcipline, and the Examples of great Men in former Ages, and by them to square their own actions in their respective Stations, and the like; but for the Wars between Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, the Nominalists and the Realists, and the several Common-wealths in the Metaphysical World, they are not more beyond than they are below their Knowledge, and yet these numberless Sects of Difputers do not quarrel and differ more about any one thing, than the Notion of Transubstantiation.

How unreasonable a thing then is it, to impofe

pose it upon the Nobility and Gentry of a whole Nation under Forfeiture of all their Share in the Government, to abjure a thing that is morally impossible for them to understand? this seems too bold and profane an Affront to Almighty God, in whose Prefence the Proteftation is made; and onely declares that Men will swear any thing, they know not what, before the great Searcher of Hearts, rather than lose any worldly Interest : And I dare appeal to the Honourable Members of both Houses, if (when they confider serioufly with themselves) they have any distinct Idea or Notion in their minds of the thing they here so folemnly renounce. I fancy if every Man were obliged to give his own account of it, whatever Transubstantiation may be, it would certainly be Babel.

The Two Fathers or rather Mid-Wifes of the first Transubstantiation Teft, in the Year 1673. were the two famous Burgesses of Oxon, who brought it forth without so much as consulting their learned University. How much the Gentleman Burgess understood, I can onely guess; But I am very apt to believe that his Brother, the Alderman (if the Tryal were made) cannot fo much as pronounce the word, much less hammer out the Notion. In short, there feems. to be but a prophane Levity in the whole matter, and a shameless abuse put upon God and Religion, to carry on the wicked designs of a Rebel Faction, as the Event hath proved.

But for the true state of this Matter, I find my felf obliged to give a brief hiftoricalAccount of the Rife and Progress of this Controverfie of Transubstantiation; which when I have done, the result and fumm of the Account will be, that there is no one thing in which Christendom more both agrees and disagrees. All Parties consent in the thing, and differ in the manner. And here the History will branch it self into Two parts:

1. As the Matter is stated in the Church of Rome.

II. As it hath been determined in the Protestant Churches.

Where the first part will fub-divide it self into Two other branches.

1st. The Ecclefiaftical account of the thing; that is, the Authoritative Definitions and Determinations of the Church about it. And,

2ly. The Scholaftical account of the various Disputes of the School-men among themselves in their Cells and Cloysters, none of which were ever vouched by the Authority of the Church: and when I have represented the whole matter of Fact,I may fafely leave it to the Honour and Wifedom of the Nation to judge, whether of all things in the World Transubstantiation be

not

not the unfittest thing in it to set up for a State TEST?

In the first place then it is evident to all Men, that are but ordinarily conversant in Ecclefiaftical Learning, That the Ancient Fathers, from Age to Age afferted the real and substantial Prefence in very high and expressive terms. The Greeks stiled it, Μεταβολή, μεταρρύθμισις, μετασκευασ μός, μεταπτίσις, μεταστιχείωσις.

And the Latines agreeable with the Greeks, Conversion, Transmutation, Transformation, Tranffiguration, Transelementation, and at length Tranfubftantiation: By all which they expressed nothing more nor less than the real and substantial Prefence in the Eucharift.

But to represent their Affertions at large, would require much too long a Difcourse for this short Essay. And therefore I shall onely give an account of it from the time that it first became a Controverfie.

And the first Man that made it a publick Dispute, was Berengarius Arch Deacon of Angers, in the Eleventh Century, about the Year 1047, who pleaded in his own behalf, the Authority of a Learned Man Johannes Scotus Erigena, who paffed without Censure in the Ninth Century; but, to pass him by, it is certain that Berengarius publickly denyed the Doctrine of the Real and Substantial Presence of the Body and

C

and Bloud of Christ, and refolved the whole Mystery into a meer Type and Figure? for this he is condemned of Herefie in the Year 1050, in a Council at Rome, under Leo the Ninth; and in the fame Year, in a Synod at Verfelles, and another at Paris; and afterwards by Victor the Second, in the Year 1055. Upon which Berengarius, in a Council held at Tours, in the fame Year, fubmitted, and folemnly recanted his Opinion.

But foon relapfing, Pope Nicholas the Second, fummons a Council at Rome, of 113 Bishops, in the Year 1509, where Berengarius abjures his Opinion in this form, viz. "That be Anathe"matizes that Opinion, that afferts, That the "Bread and Wine, after the Confecration upon the "Altar, is onely a Sacrament, and not the true "Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Chrift: and "that it is not sensibly handled, and broke by the Prieft's hands, and fo caten by the Communi"cants. And this declaration he feals with an Dath to the bleffed Trinity upon the Evangelist.

But upon the Death of Pope Nicholas, or rather of King Henry the first of France, a vehement Enemy of Berengarius his Doctrine, (who therefore had fummoned the fore-mentioned feveral French Councils against him) Berengarius returns to his old Principles,and publickly juftifies them in writing to the World. For which he is cenfured by several Provincial Councils. But