The Publisher to the Reader

Many doubtesse will wonder that I, who cannot well endure the very Name even but of a Papist in Masquerade, should yet translate and publish a Book of popery, and this too in a point peradventure of higher concerne then any other now in debate betwen Papists and Protestants. To give therefore some account of my proceeding herein, it is to be noted, that the Church of England (if I apprehend her doctrine aright concerning the Sacrament of the last Supper) hath receded from the Tenent of the Church of Rome, not so much in the thing received, as in the manner of receiving Christs Body and Blood: both Churches agree, that Christ our Saviour is truely, really, wholy, yea and substantially (though not exposed to our externall senses) present in the Sacrament. And thus they understand the words of Christ: This is my Body which shall be delivered for you. This is my Blood which shall be shedd for the remission of sins: my Flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed, &c. Only the Papists say, This reall presence is effected by Transsubstantiation of the elements; and Protestants say, noe; but by some other way unintelligible to us. Nor is the adoration of Christ acknowledged present under the formes of bread and wine so great a Bugbeare as some peradventure imagine. For as John Calvin rightly intimates adoration is a necessary sequel to reall presence.¹ What is more strange (saith he) then to place him in Bread and yet not to adore him there? And if JESUS-CHRIST be in the bread, tis then under the bread he ought to be adored. Much lesse is the Oblation of Christ when present upon the Altar, under the symboles, such an incongruity as to render the Breach between Papists and Protestants (by Protestants I mean Church of England men) wholy irreparable; for if Christ be really present under the consecrated species upon the Altar, why may he not so present be offered a gratefull Sacrifice to his heavenly Father, in thanksgiving for blessings received, in a propitiation for sin, and in commemoration of his Death and Passion?²

But the main stone of offence and Rock of scandall in this grand Affaire is Communion under one kinde,³ wherein the Roman Clergy are by some heartily blamed for depriving tke Laity of halfe Christ, and halfe the Sacrament. For my part I am not for making wider Divisions already too great; nor do I approve of the spirit of those who teare Christs seamelesse Garment, by fomenting and augmenting schismes in the universall Church. Indeed I do not finde it any Part or Article of the Protestant faith to beleeve that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, one halfe of Christ is in the bread, and the other halfe in the Wine; but on the contrary, that in some exigences (as of sicknesse) a man may receive under one kind or species, all Christ, and an entire Sacrament. So that upon the whole matter the difference herein betweene the Church of England and the Roman, seemes to me from the concessions of the most learned and antient Protestants (for I wave the figments of moderne Novelists) reducible in great measure to mere forme and Ceremony. It is true Christ instituted this Sacrament at his Iast Supper under two kinds [which he did as well to signify by a corporeall Analogy to bread and wine, the full effect and refreshment this divine food workes in the soule; as also (say the Papists) to render the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood upon the Altar, distinctly commemorative or representative of his Passion; and therefore when he said:⁴ This is my Body which is (now) given (not only to you but) for you,⁵ he added, This (not only eat but) doe (that is Offer or Sacrifice) in remembrance of mee:⁶ Hence the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles are found Ministring that is, as the Greeke text hath it, sacrificing to the Lord, of which Sacrifice Saint Paul also speaks, Wee have an Altar (saith he) whereof they have no right to eat who serve the Tabernacle] But that Christ gave his Body seperated from his Blood under one element, and his Blood squeezed from his Body under another, and that, by consequence, he that receives under one kind receives only halfe Christ, and halfe a Sacrament, is (as Saint Austin attests) a Judaicall way of understanding this Mystery no wise agreable (as is before said (to the doctrine of the Church of England.⁷ Neverthelesse this Communion under one kind, though in my judgement but a bare Ceremony, yet hath beene since the reformation alwayes regarded as a mighty eye-sore, and alleaged as one sufficient cause of a voluntary departure and seperation from the preexistent Church of Rome. Wherefore being conscious of the dreadfull guilt, danger and mischeife of Shisme, and unwilling to shutt my selfe out of Christs visible sheepfold upon dislike of a Ceremony, so to loose the substance for the shadow; after having duly examined the Arguments made by some Protestant divines against the Papists on this subject, I thought it prudence and justice, both to my selfe and them, to heare also what the Papists could say in their owne defence: And least I might be imposed upon by the malice or ignorance of any in a businesse of this high nature, I made choice of an Author, whose learning and vertue renders him omni exceptione major above the reach of calumny to denigrate, or even criticisme to finde a blemish in. A person who (were he not a Romanist) might justly be stiled the Treasury of Wisdome, the Fountaine of Eloquence, the Oracle of his age. In breife to speake all in a word, 'Tis the great James formerly Bishop of Condom now of Meaux. Whether the Author enoble the worke or the worke the Author I dare not say, but 'tis certain that if he write reason he deserves to be believed; if otherwise he deserves to be confuted; And however it be, 'Tis no fault (especially in Protestants who adhere to the Dictamen of their own Judgement without penning their Faith on Church-Authority) to read him, and this too without Passion or Prejudice. To which end I have here, as a friend to Truth and lover of unity, translated his Treatise into English, for the benefit of such as being of the same spirit with me, are yet strangers to the French language.