evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my body and this is my bloud in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew 2ly That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Christian Church which the Church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the Church did always understand and interpret our Saviour's words in this sense To manifest the groundlesness of this pretence I shall 1. shew by plain testimony of the Fathers in several Ages that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church 2. I shall shew the time and occasion of its coming in and by what degrees it grew up and was establish'd in the Roman Church 3. I shall answer their great pretended Demonstration that this always was and must have been the constant belief of the Christian Church 1. I shall shew by plain Testimonies of the Fathers in several Ages for above five hundred years after Christ that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church I deny not but that the Fathers do and that with great reason very much magnifie the wonderfull mystery and efficacy of this Sacrament and frequently speak of a great Supernatural change made by the divine benediction which we also readily acknowledge They say indeed that the Elements of Bread and Wine do by the divine blessing become to us the Body and Bloud of Christ But they likewise say that the names of the things signified are given to the Signs that the Bread and Wine do still remain in their proper nature and substance and that they are turn'd into the substance of our Bodies that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his natural Body but the sign and figure of it not that Body which was crucified nor that Bloud which was shed upon the Cross and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the Son of man and drinking his bloud literally all which are directly opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and utterly inconsistent with it I will select but some sew Testimonies of many which I might bring to this purpose I begin with Justin Martyr who says expresly that * Apol. 2 p. 98 Edit Paris 1636. our Bloud and Flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food which we receive in the Eucharist But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of Christ for no man will say that that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies The Second is * Lib. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus who speaking of this Sacrament says that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread but the Eucharist or Sacrament consisting of two things the one earthly the other heavenly He says it is no longer common bread but after invocation or consecration it becomes the Sacrament that is bread sanctified consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly the earthly thing is bread and the heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invocation or consecration is added to it And * Lib. 5. c. 2. elsewhere he hath this passage when therefore the cup that is mix'd that is of Wine and Water and the bread that is broken receives the word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is encreased and consists but if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nourish our bodies it must be bread and wine and not the natural body and bloud of Christ There is another remarkable Testimony of Irenaeus which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain yet hath been preserv'd by * Comment in 1 Pet. c. 3. Oecumenius and it is this when says he the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni that is such as had not been admitted to the Sacrament and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians these Servants having nothing to say that might gratisy those who offered violence to them except onely that they had heard from their Masters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Christ they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh declar'd as much to those that questioned them The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Christians discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it To whom Blandina boldly answered How would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that flesh which may lawfully he eaten By which it appears that this which they would have charg'd upon Christians as if they had literally eaten the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament was a false accusation which these Martyrs denied saying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all The next is Tertullian who proves against Marcion the Heretique that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phantasm and appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body otherwise the Sacrament would be an image of an image His words are these * Adverss Marcionem l. 4. p. 571. Edit Rigalâ— Paris 1634. the bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own body saying this is my body that is the image or figure of my body But it could not have been the figure of his body if there had not been a true and real body And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of sense he useth this Argument That if we question our senses we may doubt whether our Blessed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard and saw and touched * Lib. de Anima p. 319. He might says he be deceived in the voice from heaven in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial and in the taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his bloud So that it seems we are to trust our senses even in the matter of the Sacrament and if that be true the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is certainly false Origen in his * Edit Huetii Comment on Matth. 15. speaking of the Sacrament hath this passage That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught which none surely will say of the Body of Christ And afterwards he adds by way of explication it is not the matter of the bread but the word which is spoken
heinous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he says this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that * Gen. 49.11 Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words †Dialog 1. as we call the mystical fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the true Vine viz. of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not liberally and properly but onely figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour changed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or Sign and to the Symbol or Sign the name of his Body thus when he had call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Symbol or Sign his bloud so that in the same sense that he call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the Symbol of his his bloud his bloud For says he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who call'd that which by nature is body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the Symbols with the name of his body and bloud not changing nature but adding grace to nature Where you see he syas expresly that when he call'd the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine his Body and Bloud he made no change in the nature of the things onely added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a Spiritual and Supernatural virtue and efficacy The Second is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholique under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretique under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was chang'd into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutychees he illustrates the matter by this Similitude As says he the Symbols of the Lord's body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing So the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what says the Catholique Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Heretiques Thou art says he caught in thy own net because the mystical Symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature for they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not onely deny the outward figure and appearance of the Symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance and it was necessary so to do otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him The next is one of their own Popes Gelasius who brings the same Instance against the Eutychians * Biblioth Patr. Tom. surely says he the Sacraments which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries that is in the Sacrament To make this Instance of any force against the Eutychians who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ So that here is an infallible authority one of their own Popes expresly against Transubsantiation The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop who lived in the 6th Century Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons he reasons thus * Facund p. 144. edit Paris 1676. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption as the Sacrament of bis body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup is by us called his body and bloud not that the bread says he is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and bloud Can any man after this believe that it was then and had ever been the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Christ By these plain Testimonies which I have produced and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose it is I think evident beyond all denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the Christian Church And this likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman Church
(a) In Sent. l. 4. Dist 11. Q 3. Scotus acknowledgeth that this Doctrine was not always thought necessary to be believed but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And (b) In Sent. l. 4. dist 11. q. 1. n. 15. Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary if the Church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it (c) de Euchar l. 1. p. 146. Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields that before the Lateran Council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament And (d) In 1 Epist ad Corinth c. 7. citante etiam Salmerone Tom. 9. Tract 16. p. 108. Erasmus who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church and than whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing And (e) De Haeres l. 8. Alphonsus a Castro says plainly that concerning the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church I shall now in the Second place give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church The Doctrine of the corporal presence of Christ was first started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other image of himself but the Sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christ's body and bloud but is properly his body and bloud So that the corporal presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid Worship of Images And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion not have been applied to a fitter purpose And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * De Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine's Observation that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies hath put this errour viz of denying Transubstantiation in his Caralogue nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years Which is very true because there could be no occasion then to dispute against those who demed Transubstantiation since as I have shewn this Doctrine was not in being unless among the Eutychian Heretiques for the first 600 years and more But †Ibid. Bellarmine goes on and tells us that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI the opposers of Images after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by Christ himself viz. the bread and wine in the Eucharist which represents the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord but his true body as appears from the VII Synod which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greeks so in the Latin or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII And for this besides the Evidence of History we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome Bellarmine and Sirmondus who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument * De Scriptor Eccles Bellarmine in these words This Authour was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christ's body and bloud in the Eucharist And †In vita Paschasii Sirmondus in these he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholique Church that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he onely first explain'd the sense of the Catholique Church in this Point yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church and it met with great opposition in that Age as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew For Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschasius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ‖ Epist ad Heribaldum c. 33. Some says he of late not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord have said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the Cross and rose from the dead which errour says he we have oppos'd with all our might From whence it is plain by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned Bishops of that Age and of eminent reputation for Piety that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament was then esteem'd an Errour broach'd by some particular Persons but was far from being the generally receiv'd Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning could have condemn'd this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church not onely in that but in all former Ages and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious Heresies Afterwards in the year MLIX when Berengarius in France and Germany had rais'd a fresh opposition against this Doctrine he was compell'd to recant it by Pope Nicholas and the Council at Rome in these words * Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. Lanfranc de corp sing Domini c. 5. Guitmund de
Sacram. l. 1. Alger de Sacram. l. 1. c. 19. that the bread and wine which are set upon the Altar after the consecration are not onely the Sacrament but the true body and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and are sensibly not onely in the Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priest and ground or bruised by the teeth of the faithfull But it seems the Pope and his Council were not then skilfull enough to express themselves rightly in this matter for the Gloss upon the Canon Law says expresly †Gloss Decret de consecrat dist 2. in cap. Ego Berengarius that unless we understand these words of BERENGARIVS that is in truth of the Pope and his Council in a sound sense we shall fall into a greater Heresie than that of BERENGARIVS for we do not make parts of the body of Christ The meaning of which Gloss I cannot imagine unless it be this that the Body of Christ though it be in truth broken yet it is not broken into parts for we do not make parts of the bods of Christ but into wholes Now this new way of breaking a Body not into parts but into wholes which in good earnest is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though to them that are able to believe Transubstantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be sound sense yet to us that cannot believe so it appears to be solid non-sense About XX years after in the year MLXXIX Pope Gregory the VII th began to be sensible of this absurdity and therefore in another Council at Rome made Berengarius to recant in another Form viz. * Waldens Tom. 2. c. 13. that the bread and wine which are placed upon the Altar are substantially changed into the true and proper and quickning flesh and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ and after consecration are the true body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and which being offered for the Salvation of the World did hang upon the Cross and sits on the right hand of the Father So that from the first starting of this Doctrine in the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII till the Council under Pope Gregory the VII th in the year MLXXIX it was almost three hundred years that this Doctrine was contested and before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now setled and establish'd in the Church of Rome Here then is a plain account of the first rise of this Doctrine and of the several steps whereby it was advanced by the Church of Rome into an Article of Faith I come now in the Third place to answer the great pretended Demonstration of the impossibility that this Doctrine if it had been new should ever have come in in any Age and been received in the Church and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual belief of the Church in all Ages For if it had not always been the Doctrine of the Church whenever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bustle about it and the whole Christian World would have rose up in opposition to it But we can shew no such time when first it came in and when any such opposition was made to it and therefore it was always the Doctrine of the Church This Demonstration Monsieur Arnauld a very learned Man in France pretends to be unanswerable whether it be so or not I shall briefly examine And First we do assign a punctual and very likely time of the first rise of this Doctrine about the beginning of the ninth Age though it did not take firm root nor was fully setled and establish'd till towards the end of the eleventh And this was the most likely time of all other from the beginning of Christianity for so gross an Error to appear it being by the confession and consent of their own Historians the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the Christian Church both for Ignorance and Superstition and Vice It came in together with Idolatry and was made use of to support it A fit prop and companion for it And indeed what tares might not the Enemy have sown in so dark and long a Night when so considerable a part of the Christian World was lull'd asleep in profound Ignorance and Superstition And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himself gives in the Parable of the Tares of the springing up of Errours and Corruptions in the Field of the Church * Matth. 13.24 While the men slept the Enemy did his work in the Night so that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came but being sure they were there and that they were not sown at first they concluded the Enemy had done it Secondly I have shewn likewise that there was considerable opposition made to this Errour at its first coming in The general Ignorance and gross Superstition of that Age rendered the generality of people more quiet and secure and disposed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of mystery in Religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the Sacrament and that seemed any way to countenance the worship of Images for which at that time they were zealously concern'd But notwithstanding the security and passive temper of the People the men most eminent for piety and learning in that Time made great resistance against it I have already named Rabanus Arch Bishop of Mentz who oppos'd it as an Errour lately sprung up and which had then gained but upon some few persons To whom I may add Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerres in France Io. Scotus Erigena and Ratramnus commonly known by the name of Bertram who at the same time were employed by the Emperour Charles the Bald to oppose this growing Errour and wrote learnedly against it And these were the eminent men for learning in that time And because Monsieur Arnauld will not be satisfied unless there were some stir and bustle about it Bertram in his Preface to his Book tells us that they who according to their several opinions talked differently about the mystery of Christ's body and bloud were divided by no small Schism Thirdly Though for a more clear and satisfactory answer to this pretended Demonstration I have been contented to untie this knot yet I could without all these pains have cut it For suppose this Doctrine had silently come in and without opposition so that we could not assign the particular time and occasion of its first Rise yet if it be evident from the Records of former Ages for above D. years together that this was not the ancient belief of the Church and plain also that this Doctrine was afterwards received in the Roman Church though we could not tell how and when it came in yet it would be the wildest and most extravagant thing in the world to set up a
doubted whether that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Christian Religion would be strong enough to prove it supposing Transubstantiation to be a part of it Because every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false as he hath that the Christian Religion is true Suppose then Transubstantiation to be part of the Christian Doctrine it must have the same confirmation with the whole and that is Miracles But of all Doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a Miracle For if a Miracle were wrought for the proof of it the very same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the Miracle he hath of the falshood of the Doctrine that is the clear evidence of his Senses For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Christ there is onely the evidence of sense and there is the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not the body of Christ but bread So that here would arise a new Controversie whether a man should rather believe his Senses giving testimony against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or bearing witness to a Miracle wrought to confirm that Doctrine there being the very same evidence against the truth of the Doctrine which there is for the truth of the Miracle And then the Argument for Transubstantiation and the Objection against it would just ballance one another and consequently Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle because that would be to prove to a man by some thing that he sees that he doth not see what he sees And if there were no other evidence that Transubstantiation is no part of the Christian Doctrine this would be sufficient that what proves the one doth as much overthrow the other and that Miracles which are certainly the best and highest external proof of Christianity are the worst proof in the world of Transubstantiation unless a man can renounce his senses at the same time that he relies upon them For a man cannot believe a Miracle without relying upon sense nor Transubstantiation without renouncing it So that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the Doctrine of Christianity and that of Transubstantiation because they draw several ways and are ready to strangle one another For the main evidence of the Christian Doctrine which is Miracles is resolved into the certainty of sense but this evidence is clear and point-blank against Transubstantiation 4. And Lastly I would ask what we are to think of the Argument which our Saviour used to convince his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was really risen and that they were not deluded by a Ghost or Apparition Is it a necessary and conclusive Argument or not * Luk. 24.38 39. And he said unto them why are ye troubled and why do thoughts arise in your hearts Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have But now if we suppose with the Church of Rome the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to be true and that he had instructed his Disciples in it just before his death strange thoughts might justly have risen in their hearts and they might have said to him Lord it is but a few days ago since thou didst teach us not to believe our senses but directly contrary to what we saw viz. that the bread which thou gavest us in the Sacrament though we saw it and handled it and tasted it to be bread yet was not bread but thine own natural body and now thou appealed to our senses to prove that this is thy body which we now see If seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to our senses then we were deceived before in the Sacrament and if they be not then we are not sure now that this is thy body which we now see and handle but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones just as in the Sacrament that which we saw and handled and tasted to be bread was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread Now upon this supposition it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughts of the Disciples For if the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to them that what they saw and handled was his body his very natural flesh and bones because they saw and handled them which it were impious to deny it would as strongly prove that what they saw and received before in the Sacrament was not the natural body and bloud of Christ but real bread and wine And consequently that according to our Saviour's arguing after his Resurrection they had no reason to believe Transubstantiation before For that very Argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his body after his Resurrection doth as strongly prove the reality of bread and wine after Consecration But our Saviour's Argument was most infallibly good and true and therefore the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is undoubtedly false Upon the whole matter I shall onely say this that some other Points between us and the Church of Rome are managed with some kind of wit and subtilty but this of Transubstantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of Mankind And of this the more discerning persons of that Church are of late grown so sensible that they would now be glad to be rid of this odious and ridiculous Doctrine But the Council of Trent hath rivetted it so fast into their Religion and made it so necessary and essential a Point of their belief that they cannot now part with it if they would it is like a Mill-stone hung about the neck of Popery which will sink it at the last And though some of their greatest Wits as Cardinal Perron and of late Monsieur Arnauld have undertaken the defence of it in great Volumes yet it is an absurdity of that monstrous and massy weight that no humane authority or wit are able to support it It will make the very Pillars of St. Peter's crack and requires more Volumes to make it good than would fill the Vatican And now I would apply my self to the poor deluded People of that Church if they were either permitted by their Priests or durst venture without their leave to look into their Religion and to examine the Doctrines of it Consider and shew your selves men Do not suffer your selves any longer to be led blindfold and by an implicit Faith in your Priests into the belief of nonsense and contradiction Think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended Pardons and counterfeit Reliques but let not the Authority of any Priest or Church persuade you out of your Senses Credulity is certainly a fault as well as Infidelity and he who said blessed are they that have
the life which we now live in this world may be a patient continuance in well doing in a joyfull expectation of the blessed hope and the glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory now and for ever Now the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ the great shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant make us perfect in every good work to do his will working in us always that which is well pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ To whom be glory for ever Amen A PERSUASIVE TO Frequent Communion 1 COR. XI 26 27 28. For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come VVherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. MY design in this Argument is from consideration of the Nature of this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and of the perpetual Use of it to the end of the world to awaken men to a sense of their duty and the great obligation which lies upon them to the more frequent receiving of it And there is the greater need to make men sensible of their duty in this particular because in this last Age by the unwary discourses of some concerning the nature of this Sacrament and the danger of receiving it unworthily such doubts and fears have been raised in the minds of men as utterly do deter many and in a great measure to discourage almost the generality of Christians from the use of it to the great prejudice and danger of mens souls and the visible abatement of Piety by the gross neglect of so excellent a means of our growth and improvement in it and to the mighty Scandal of our Religion by the general disuse and contempt of so plain and solemn an Institution of our blessed Lord and Saviour Therefore I shall take occasion as briefly and clearly as I can to treat of these four Points First Of the Perpetuity of this Institution this the Apostle signifies when he saith that by eating this Bread 1 Cor. 11 26. and drinking this Cup we do shew the Lord's Death till he come Secondly Of the Obligation that lies upon all Christians to a frequent observance of this Institution this is signified in that expression of the Apostle as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup which expression considered and compared together with the practice of the Primitive Church does imply an Obligation upon Christians to the frequent receiving of this Sacrament Thirdly I shall endeavour to satisfie the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the minds of men and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians to their great discouragement from their receiving this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought which Objections are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says 1 Cor. 11.27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord and doth eat and drink damnation to himself Ver. 29. Fourthly What Preparation of our selves is necessary in order to our worthy receiving of this Sacrament which will give me occasion to explain the Apostle's meaning in those Words Ver. 28. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. I. For the Perpetuity of this Institution implyed in those Words For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the Lord s Death till he come or the Words may be read imperatively and by way of Precept shew ye forth the Lord's Death till he come In the three verses immediately before the Apostle particularly declares the Institution of this Sacrament with the manner and circumstances of it as he had received it not only by the hands of the Apostles but as the Words seem rather to intimate by immediate Revelation from our Lord himself ver 23. For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus in the same night that he was betrayed took Bread and when he had given Thanks he brake it and said take eat this is my Body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the Cup when he had supped saying this Cup is the New Testament in my Bloud this doe as often as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me So that the Institution is in these Words this doe in remembrance of me In which words our Lord commands his Disciples after his Death to repeat these occasions of taking and breaking and eating the Bread and of drinking of the Cup by way of solemn Commemoration of him Now whether this was to be done by them once only or oftner and whether by the Disciples only during their lives or by all Christians afterwards in all successive Ages of the Church is not so certain merely from the force of these Words doe this in remembrance of me but what the Apostle adds puts the matter out of all doubt that the Institution of this Sacrament was intended not only for the Apostles and for that Age but for all Christians and for all Ages of the Christian Church For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come that is untill the time of his second coming which will be at the end of the World So that this Sacrament was designed to be a standing Commemoration of the Death and Passion of our Lord till he should come to Judgment and consequently the Obligation that lies upon Christians to the observation of it is perpetual and shall never cease to the end of the World So that it is a vain conceit and mere dream of the Enthusiasts concerning the seculum Spiritûs Sancti the Age and dispenstion of the Holy Ghost when as they suppose all humane Teaching shall cease and all external Ordinances and Institutions in Religion shall vanish and there shall be no farther use of them Whereas it is very plain from the New Testament that Prayer and outward Teaching and the Use of the two Sacraments were intended to continue among Christians in all Ages As for Prayer besides our natural Obligation to this duty if there were no revealed Religion we are by our Saviour particularly exhorted to watch and pray with regard to the day of Judgment and in consideration of the uncertainty of the time when it shall be And therefore this will always be a Duty incumbent upon Christians till the day of Judgment because it is prescribed as one of the best ways of Preparation for it
say as he did to the Jews Why call ye me Lord Lord and doe not the things which I say How far the Ignorance of this Institution or the mistakes which men have been led into about it may extenuate this neglect is another consideration But after we know our Lord's will in this particular and have the Law plainly laid before us there is no cloak for our sin For nothing can excuse the wilfull neglect of a plain Institution from a downright contempt of our Saviour's Authority 2. We are likewise obliged hereunto in point of Interest The benefits which we expect to be derived and assured to us by this Sacrament are all the blessings of the new Covenant the forgiveness of our sins the grace and assistance of God's holy Spirit to enable us to perform the conditions of this Covenant required on our part and the comforts of God's holy Spirit to encourage us in well-doing and to support us under sufferings and the glorious reward of eternal life So that in neglecting this Sacrament we neglect our own interest and happiness we forsake our own mercies and judge our selves unworthy of all the blessings of the Gospel and deprive our selves of one of the best means and advantages of confirming and conveying these blessings to us So that if we had not a due sense of our duty the consideration of our own interest should oblige us not to neglect so excellent and so effectual a means of promoting our own comfort and happiness 3. We are likewise particularly obliged in point of gratitude to the carefull observance of this Institution This was the particular thing our Lord gave in charge when he was going to lay down his life for us doe this in remembrance of me Men use religiously to observe the charge of a dying friend and unless it be very difficult and unreasonable to doe what he desires But this is the charge of our best friend nay of the greatest friend and benefactour of all mankind when he was preparing himself to dye in our stead and to offer up himself a sacrifice for us to undergo the most grievous pains and sufferings for our sakes and to yield up himself to the worst of temporal deaths that he might deliver us from the bitter pains of eternal death And can we deny him any thing he asks of us who was going to doe all this for us Can we deny him this so little grievous and burthensome in it self so infinitely beneficial to us Had such a friend and in such circumstances bid us doe some great thing would we not have done it how much more when he hath onely said doe this in remembrance of me when he hath only commended to us one of the most natural and delightfull Actions as a fit representation and memorial of his wonderfull love to us and of his cruel sufferings for our sakes when he hath only enjoyned us in a thankfull commemoration of his goodness to meet at his Table and to remember what he hath done for us to look upon him whom we have pierced and to resolve to grieve and wound him no more Can we without the most horrible ingratitude neglect this dying charge of our Sovereign and our Saviour the great friend and lover of souls A command so reasonable so easie so full of blessings and benefits to the faithfull observers of it One would think it were no difficult matter to convince men of their duty in this particular and of the necessity of observing so plain an Institution of our Lord that it were no hard thing to persuade men to their interest and to be willing to partake of those great and manifold blessings which all Christians believe to be promised and made good to the frequent and worthy Receivers of this Sacrament Where then lyes the difficulty what should be the cause of all this backwardness which we see in men to so plain so necessary and so beneficial a duty The truth is men have been greatly discouraged from this Sacrament by the unwary pressing and inculcating of two great truths the danger of the unworthy receiving of this holy Sacrament and the necessity of a due preparation for it Which brings me to the III. Third Particular I proposed which was to endeavour to satisfie the Objections and Scruples which have been raised in the minds of men and particularly of many devout and sincere Christians to their great discouragement from the receiving of this Sacrament at least so frequently as they ought And these Objections I told you are chiefly grounded upon what the Apostle says at the 27th verse Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. And again ver 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself Upon the mistake and misapplication of these Texts have been grounded two Objections of great force to discourage men from this Sacrament which I shall endeavour with all the tenderness and clearness I can to remove First That the danger of unworthy receiving being so very great it seems the safest way not to receive at all Secondly That so much preparation and worthiness being required in order to our worthy Receiving the more timorous sort of devout Christians can never think themselves duly enough qualified for so sacred an Action Obj. 1. 1. That the danger of unworthy receiving being so very great it seems the safest way wholly to refrain from this Sacrament and not to receive it at all But this Objection is evidently of no force if there be as most certainly there is as great or a greater danger on the other hand viz. in the neglect of this Duty And so though the danger of unworthy receiving be avoided by not receiving yet the danger of neglecting and contemning a plain Institution of Christ is not thereby avoided Surely they in the Parable that refused to come to the marriage-feast of the King's Son and made light of that gracious invitation were at least as faulty as he who came without a wedding garment And we find in the conclusion of the Parable that as he was severely punished for his disrespect so they were destroyed for their disobedience Nay of the two it is the greater sign of contempt wholly to neglect the Sacrament than to partake of it without some due qualification The greatest indisposition that can be for this holy Sacrament is ones being a bad man and he may be as bad and is more likely to continue so who wilfully neglects this Sacrament than he that comes to it with any degree of reverence and preparation though much less than he ought And surely it is very hard sor men to come to so solemn an Ordinance without some kind of religious awe upon their spirits and without some good thoughts and resolutions at least for the present If a man that lives in any known wickedness of life do before he receive
the Sacrament set himself seriously to be humbled for his sins and to repent of them and to beg God's grace and assistance against them and after the receiving of it does continue for some time in these good resolutions though after a while he may possibly relapse into the same sins again this is some kind of restraint to a wicked life and these good moods and sits of repentance and reformation are much better than a constant and uninterrupted course of sin even this righteousness which is but as the morning cloud and the early dew which so soon passeth away is better than none And indeed scarce any man can think of coming to the Sacrament but he will by this consideration be excited to some good purposes and put upon some sort of endeavour to amend and reform his life and though he be very much under the bondage and power of evil habits if he do with any competent degree of sincerity and it is his own fault if he do not make use of this excellent means and instrument for the mortifying and subduing of his lusts and for the obtaining of God's grace and assistence it may please God by the use of these means so to abate the force and power of his lusts and to imprint such considerations upon his mind in the receiving of this holy Sacrament and preparing himself for it that he may at last break off his wicked course and become a good man But on the other hand as to those who neglect this Sacrament there is hardly any thing left to restrain them from the greatest enormities of life and to give a check to them in their evil course nothing but the penalty of humane Laws which men may avoid and yet be wicked enough Heretofore men used to be restrained from great and scandalous vices by shame and fear of disgrace and would astain from many sins out of regard to their honour and reputation among men But men have hardned their faces in this degenerate Age and those gentle restraints of modesty which governed and kept men in order heretofore signifie nothing now adays Blushing is out of fashion and shame is ceased from among the Children of men But the Sacrament did always use to lay some kind of restraint upon the worst of mer and if it did not wholly reform them it would at least have some good effect upon them for a time If it did not make men good yet it would make them resolve to be so and leave some good thoughts and impressions upon their minds So that I doubt not but it hath been a thing of very bad consequence to discourage men so much from the Sacrament as the way hath been of late years And that many men who were under some kind of check before since they have been driven away from the Sacrament have quite let loose the reins and prostituted themselves to all manner of impiety and vice And among the many ill effects of our past confusions this is none of the least That in many Congregations of this Kingdom Christians were generally difused and deterred from the Sacrament upon a pretence that they were unfit for it and being so they must necessarily incur the danger of unworthy receiving and therefore they had better wholly to abstain from it By which it came to pass that in very many Places this great and solemn Institution of the Christian Religion was almost quite forgotten as if it had been no part of it and the remembrance of Christ's death even lost among Christians So that many Congregations in England might justly have taken up the complaint of the Woman at our Saviour's Sepulchre they have taken away our Lord and we know not where they have laid him But surely men did not well consider what they did nor what the consequences of it would be when they did so earnestly dissuade men from the Sacrament 'T is true indeed the danger of unworthy receiving is great but the proper inference and conclusion from hence is not that men should upon this consideration be deterred from the Sacrament but that they should be affrighted from their sins and from that wicked course of life which is an habitual indisposition and unworthiness St. Paul indeed as I observed before truly represents and very much aggravates the danger of the unworthy receiving of this Sacrament but he did not deter the Corinthians from it because they had sometimes come to it without due reverence but exhorts them to amend what had been amiss and to come better prepared and disposed for the future And therefore after that terrible declaration in the Text Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily is guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord he does not add therefore let Christians take heed of coming to the Sacrament but let them come prepared and with due reverence not as to a common meal but to a solemn participation of the body and bloud of Christ but let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For if this be a good reason to abstain from the Sacrament for fear of performing so sacred an action in an undue manner it were best for a bad man to lay aside all Religion and to give over the exercise of all the duties of piety of prayer of reading and hearing the Word of God because there is a proportionable danger in the unworthy and unprofitable use of any of these The prayer of the wicked that is of one that resolves to continue so is an abomination to the Lord. And our Saviour gives us the same caution concerning hearing the Word of God take heed how you hear And St. Paul tells us that those who are not reformed by the Doctrine of the Gospel it is the savour of death that is deadly and damnable to such persons But now will any man from hence argue that it is best for a wicked man not to pray nor to hear or read the Word of God lest by so doing he should endanger and aggravate his condemmation And yet there is as much reason from this consideration to persuade men to give over praying and attending to God's Word as to lay aside the use of the Sacrament And it is every whit as true that he that prays unworthily and hears the Word of God unworthily that is without fruit and benefit is guilty of a great contempt of God and of our blessed Saviour and by his indevout prayers and unfruitfull hearing of God's Word does further and aggravate his own damnation I say this is every whit as true as that he that eats and drinks the Sacrament unworthily is guilty of a high contempt of Christ and eats and drinks his own Judgment so that the danger of the unworthy performing this so sacred an action is no otherwise a reason to any man to abstain from the Sacrament than it is an Argument to him to cast
unsutable carriage at the Lord's Supper They came to it very disorderly one before another It was the custom of Christians to meet at their Feast of Charity in which they did communicate with great sobriety and temperance and when that was ended they celebrated the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Now among the Corinthians this order was broken The rich met and excluded the poor from this common Feast And after an irregular feast one before another eating his own supper as he came they went to the Sacrament in great disorder one was hungry having eaten nothing at all others were drunk having eaten intemperately and the poor were despised and neglected This the Apostle condemns as a great profanation of that solemn Institution of the Sacrament at the participation whereof they behaved themselves with as little reverence as if they had been met at a common supper or feast And this he calls not discerning the Lord's body making no difference in their behaviour between the Sacrament and a common meal which irreverent and contemptuous carriage of theirs he calls eating and drinking unworthily for which he pronounceth them guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord which were represented and commemorated in their eating of that bread and drinking of that cup. By which irreverent and contemptuous usage of the body and bloud of our Lord he tells them that they did incur the Judgment of God which he calls eating and drinking their own judgment For that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Translatours render damnation does not here signifie eternal condemnation but a temporal judgment and chastisement in order to the prevention of eternal condemnation is evident from what follows He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself And then he says For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep That is for this irreverence of theirs God had sent among them several diseases of which many had dyed And then he adds For if we would judge our selves we should not be judged If we would judge our selves whether this be meant of the publick Censures of the Church or our private censuring of our selves in order to our future amendment and reformation is not certain If of the latter which I think most probable then judging here is much the same with examining our selves ver 28. And then the Apostle's meaning is that if we would censure and examine our selves so as to be more carefull for the future we should escape the judgment of God in these temporal punishments But when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world But when we are judged that is when by neglecting thus to judge our selves we provoke God to judge us we are chastened of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the world that is he inflicts these temporal judgments upon us to prevent our eternal condemnation Which plainly shews that the judgment here spoken of is not eternal condemnation And then he concludes Wherefore my Brethren when ye come together to eat tarry for one another And if any man hunger let him eat at home that ye come not together unto judgment where the Apostle plainly shews both what was the crime of unworthy receiving and the punishment of it Their crime was their irreverent and disorderly participation of the Sacrament and their punishment was those temporal judgments which God inflicted upon them for this their contempt of the Sacrament Now this being I think very plain we are proportionably to understand the precept of examination of our selves before we eat of that bread and drink of that cup. But let a man examine himself that is consider well with himself what a sacred Action he is going about and what behaviour becomes him when he is celebrating this Sacrament instituted by our Lord in memorial of his body and bloud that is of his death and passion And if heretofore he have been guilty of any disorder and irreverence such as the Apostle here taxeth them withall let him censure and judge himself for it be sensible of and sorry for his fault and be carefull to avoid it for the future and having thus examined himself let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. This I think is the plain sense of the Apostle's Discourse and that if we attend to the scope and circumstances of it it cannot well have any other meaning But some will say Is this all the preparation that is required to our worthy receiving of the Sacrament that we take care not to come drunk to it nor to be guilty of any irreverence and disorder in the celebration of it I answer in short this was the particular unworthiness with which the Apostle taxeth the Corinthians and which he warns them to amend as they desire to escape the judgments of God such as they had already felt for this irreverent carriage of theirs so unsutable to the holy Sacrament He finds no other fault with them at present in this matter though any other fort of irreverence will proportionably expose men to the like punishment He says nothing here of their habitual preparation by the sincere purpofe and resolution of a good life answerable to the rules of the Christian Religion This we may suppose he took for granted However it concerns the Sacrament no more than it does Prayer or any other religious duty Not but that it is very true that none but those who do heartily embrace the Christian Religion and are sincerely resolved to frame their lives according to the holy rules and precepts of it are fit to communicate in this solemn acknowledgment and profession of it So that it is a practice very much to be countenanced and encouraged because it is of great use for Christians by way of preparation for the Sacrament to examine themselves in a larger sense than in all probability the Apostle here intended I mean to examine our past lives and the actions of them in order to a sincere repentance of all our errours and miscarriages and to fix us in the steady purpose and resolution of a better life particularly when we expect to have the forgiveness of our sins sealed to us we should lay aside all enmity and thoughts of revenge and heartily forgive those that have offended us and put in practice that universal love and charity which is represented to us by this holy Communion And to this purpose we are earnestly exhorted in the publick Office of the Communion by way of due preparation and disposition for it to repent us truly of our sins past to amend our lives and to be in perfect charity with all men that so we may be meet partakers of those holy mysteries And because this work of examining our selves concerning our state and condition and of exercising repentance towards God and charity towards men is incumbent upon us as we are Christians and can
long before his death Greater love than this hath no man that a man lay down his life for his friend ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you It is a wonderfull love which he hath expressed to us and worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance And all that he expects from us by way of thankfull acknowledgment is to celebrate the remembrance of it by the frequent participation of this blessed Sacrament And shall this charge laid upon us by him who laid down his life for us lay no obligation upon us to the solemn remembrance of that unparallel'd kindness which is the fountain of so many blessings and benefits to us It is a sign we have no great sense of the benefit when we are so unmindfull of our benefactour as to forget him days without number The Obligation he hath laid upon us is so vastly great not only beyond all requital but beyond all expression that if he had commanded us some very grievous thing we ought with all the readiness and chearfulness in the world to have done it how much more when he hath imposed upon us so easie a commandment a thing of no burthen but of immence benefit when he hath onely said to us Eat O friends and drink O beloved when he onely invites us to his table to the best and most delicious Feast that we can partake of on this side heaven If we seriously believe the great blessings which are there exhibited to us and ready to be conferred upon us we should be so far from neglecting them that we should heartily thank God for every opportunity he offers to us of being made partakers of such benefits When such a price is put into our hands shall we want hearts to make use of it Methinks we should long with David who saw but the shadow of these blessings to be satisfied with the good things of God's house and to draw near his altar and should cry out with him O when shall I come and appear before thee My soul longeth yea even fainteth for the courts of the Lord and my flesh cryeth out for the living God And if we had a just esteem of things we should account it the greatest infelicity and judgment in the world to be debarred of this privilege which yet we do deliberately and frequently deprive our selves of We exclaim against the Church of Rome with great impatience and with a very just indignation for robbing the People of half of this blessed Sacrament and taking from them the cup of blessing the cup of salvation and yet we can patiently endure for some months nay years to exclude our selves wholly from it If no such great benefits and blessings belong to it why do we complain of them for hindring us of any part of it But if there do why do we by our own neglect deprive our selves of the whole In vain do we bemoan the decay of our graces and our slow progress and improvement in Christianity whilst we wilfully despise the best means of our growth in goodness Well do we deserve that God should send leanness into our souls and make them to consume and pine away in perpetual doubting and trouble if when God himself doth spread so bountifull a Table for us and set before us the bread of life we will not come and feed upon it with joy and thankfulness A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSVBSTANTIATION Concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion there are two main Points of difference between Vs and the Church of Rome One about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in which they think but are not certain that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side and that so plainly that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it Of the first of these I shall now treat and endeavour to shew against the Church of Rome That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversaries to dispute a matter of Sense which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute It might well seem strange if any man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Bloud And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do not see why any man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the Sense and Reason of Mankind It is a most Self-evident Falshood and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the World that is of it self more evidently true than Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-Catholick Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other Society of Christians to be any part of it So Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth and nothing else is true for it cannot be true unless our Senses and the Senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this he true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing And yet notwithstanding all this there are a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Errour and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation And therefore to undeceive if possible these deluded Souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of
and absurd sense And it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signifie so and so than to say that it is so and so Thus Joseph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him Gen. 41.26 Says the seven good kine are seven years and the seven good ears of corn are seven years that is they signified or represented seven years of plenty and so Pharaoh understood him and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions nor do I believe that any sensible man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour this is my body would upon reading the institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been this Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Bloud and this which you see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me But surely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and give away himself from himself with his own hands Or whether we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as (n) Dialog cum Tryp p. 297. Edit Paris 1639. Justin Martyr tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Passover is our Saviour and our refuge not that they believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias the Saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it But this Lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the world And nothing is more common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign As the delivery of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an Estate and it is really so not the delivery of mere wax and parchment but the conveyance of a real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material houses and lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and man are given to the Signs or Seals of that Covenant By Baptism Christians are said to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6.4 And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are said to communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us that is of the real benefits of his death and passion And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10.16 The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ But still it is bread and he still calls it so v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one body for we are partakers of that one bread The Church of Rome might if they pleased as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by their participation of the Sacrament because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body And the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup v. 26. Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of that cup v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had said this is my bloud of the new Testament immediately adds * Matth. 26.29 but I say unto you I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine untill I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom that is not till after his resurrection which was the first step of his exaltation into the Kingdom given him by his Father when the Scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his Disciples But that which I observe from our Saviour's words is that after the consecration of the Cup and the delivering of it to his Disciples to drink of it he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of that fruit of the Vine which he had now drank with them till after his Resurrection From whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the Vine real wine which our Saviour drank of and communicated to his Disciples in the Sacrament Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural body and bloud of Christ because it was his body broken and his bloud shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his natural body broken and his bloud shed then these words this is my body which is broken and this is my bloud which is shed could not be true because his Body was then whole and unbroken and his bloud not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacrament to be unless they will say that propitiation was made before Christ suffer'd And it is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not onely plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given not his body broken and his bloud shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be that they should not tell him we see this to be Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken and thy Bloud not shed From all which it must needs be very
And vers 17. These things I command you that ye love one another As if this were the end of all his Precepts and of his whole Doctrine to bring us to the practice of this Duty And so St. John the loving and beloved Disciple speaks of it as the great Message which the Son of God was to deliver to mankind 1 Joh. 3.11 This is the Message which ye have heard from the beginning that ye should love one another And ver 23. This is his Commandment that we should believe on the Name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another as he gave us Commandment And chap. 4. v. 21. This Commandment have we from him that he who loveth God love his Brother also But besides the Authority of our Saviour we have precedent obligation to it from our own Nature and from the Reasonableness and Excellency of the thing it self The frame of our Nature disposeth us to it and our inclination to Society in which there can be no pleasure no advantage without mutual love and kindness And Equity also calls for it for that we our selves wish and expect kindness from others is conviction enough to us that we owe it to others The fulfilling of this Law is the great perfection of our Natures the advancement and enlargement of our Souls the chief ornament and beauty of a great mind It makes us like to God the best and most perfect and happiest Being in that which is the prime excellency and happiness and glory of the Divine Nature And the advantages of this temper are unspeakable and innumerable It freeth our souls from those unruly and Troublesom and disquieting Passions which are the great torment of our Spirits from Anger and Envy from Malice and Revenge from Jealousie and Discontent It makes our minds calm and cheerful and puts our souls into an easie posture and into good humour and maintains us in the possession and enjoyment of our selves It preserves men from many mischiefs and inconveniences to which enmity and ill-will do perpetually expose them It is apt to make Friends and to gain Enemies and to render every condition either pleasant or easie or tolerable to us So that to love others is the truest love to our selves and doth redound to our own unspeakable benefit and advantage in all respects It is a very considerable part of our Duty and almost equall'd by our Saviour with the first and great Commandment of the Law It is highly acceptable to God most beneficial to others and very comfortable to our selves It is the easiest of all Duties and it makes all others easie the pleasure of it makes the pains to signifie nothing and the delightful reflection upon it afterwards is a most ample reward of it It is a Duty in every man's power to perform how strait and indigent soeever his fortune and condition be The poorest man may be as charitable as a Prince he may have as much kindness in his heart though his hand cannot be so bountiful and munificent Our Saviour instanceth in the giving of a cup of cold water as a Charity that will be highly accepted and rewarded by God And one of the most celebrated Charities that ever was how small was it for the matter of it and yet how great in regard of the mind that gave it I mean the Widow 's two mites which she cast into the Treasury One could hardly give less and yet none can give more for she gave all that she had All these excellencies and advantages of Love and Charity which I have briefly recounted are so many Arguments so many obligations to the practice of this Duty V. We will consider the great Instance and Example which is here propounded to our imitation As I have loved you that ye also love one another The Son of God's becoming man his whole Life his bitter Death and Passion all that he did and all that he suffered was one great and continued proof and evidence of his mighty love to mankind The greatest Instance of love among men and that too but very rare is for a Man to lay down his life for another for his Friend but the Son of God died for all mankind and we were all his enemies And should we not cheerfully imitate the Example of that great Love and Charity the effects whereof are so comfortable so beneficial so happy to every one of us Had he not loved us and died for us we had certainly perish'd we had been miserable and undone to all eternity And to perpetuate this great Example of Charity and that it might be always fresh in our memories the great Sacrament of our Religion was on purpose instituted for the Commemoration of this great love of the Son of God in laying down his life and shedding his precious blood for the wicked and rebellious Race of mankind But I have not time to enlarge upon this noble Argument as it deserves VI. The last thing to be considered is the place and rank which this Precept and Duty holds in the Christian Religion Our blessed Saviour here makes it the proper badg and cognisance of our Profession By this shall all men know that ye are my Disciples if ye love one another The different Sects among the Jews had some peculiar Character to distinguish them from one another The Scholars of the several great Rabbi's among them had some peculiar Sayings and Opinions some Customs and Traditions whereby they were severally known And so likewise the Disciples of John the Baptist were particularly remarkable for their great Austerities In allusion to these distinctions of Sects and Schools among the Jews our Saviour fixeth upon this mark and character whereby his Disciples should be known from the Disciples of any other Institution A mighty love and affection to one another Other Sects were distinguish'd by little Opinions or by some external Rites and Observances in Religion but our Saviour pitcheth upon that which is the most real and substantial the most large and extensive the most useful and beneficial the most humane and the most divine quality of which we are capable This was his great Commandment to his Disciples before he left the World This was the Legacy he left them and the effect of his last Prayers for them And for this end among others he instituted the Sacrament of his blessed Body and Blood to be a lively remembrance of his great Charity to mankind and a perpetual bond of Love and Union amongst his Followers And the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour do upon all occasions recommend this to us as a principal Duty and Part of our Religion telling us That in Christ Jesus that is in the Christian Religion nothing will avail no not Faith it self unless it be enlivened and inspired by Charity That Love is the end of the Commandment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the end of the Evangelical declaration the first Fruit of the Spirit the spring and root of all those
That outward Teaching likewise and Baptism were intended to be perpetual is no less plain because Christ hath expresly promised to be with the Teachers of his Church in the use of these Ordinances to the end of the World Matth. 28.19 20. Go and disciple all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and lo I am with you always to the end of the World Not only to the end of that particular Age but to the end of the Gospel Age and the consummation of all Ages as the phrase clearly imports And it is as plain from this Text that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was intended for a perpetual Institution in the Christian Church till the second coming of Christ viz. his coming to judgment Because St. Paul tells us that by these Sacramental Signs the Death of Christ is to be represented and commemorated till he comes Doe this in remembrance of me For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come And if this be the End and Use of this Sacrament to be a solemn remembrance of the Death and Sufferings of our Lord during his absence from us that is till his coming to Judgment then this Sacrament will never be out of date till the second coming of our Lord. The consideration whereof should mightily strengthen and encourage our Faith in the hope of Eternal Life so often as we partake of this Sacrament since our Lord hath left it to us as a memorial of himself till he come to translate his Church into Heaven and as a sure pledge that he will come again at the end of the World and invest us in that Glory which he is now gone before to prepare for us So that as often as we approach the Table of the Lord we should comfort our selves with the thoughts of that blessed time when we shall eat and drink with him in his Kingdom and shall be admitted to the great Feast of the Lamb and to eternal Communion with God the Judge of all and with our blessed and glorified Redeemer and the holy Angels and the Spirits of just men made perfect And the same consideration should likewise make us afraid to receive this Sacrament unworthily without due Preparation for it and without worthy effects of it upon our Hearts and Lives Because of that dreadfull Sentence of condemnation which at the second coming of our Lord shall be past upon those who by the profanation of this solemn Institution trample under foot the son of God and contemn the bloud of the Covenant that Covenant of Grace and Mercy which God hath ratified with Mankind by the Bloud of his Son The Apostle tells us that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord and eateth and drinketh damnation to himself This indeed is spoken of temporal Judgment as I shall shew in the latter part of this Discourse but the Apostle likewise supposeth that if these temporal Judgments had not their effect to bring men to Repentence but they still persisted in the Profanation of this holy Sacrament they should at last be condemned with the World For as he that partaketh worthily of this Sacrament confirms his interest in the promises of the Gospel and his Title to eternal Life so he that receives this Sacrament unworthily that is without due Reverence and without fruits meet for it nay on the contrary continues to live in sin whilst he commemorates the Death of Christ who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity this man aggravates and seals his own Damnation because he is guilty of the Body and Bloud of Christ not only by the contempt of it but by renewing in some sort the cause of his sufferings and as it were crucifying to himself afresh the Lord of life and glory and putting him to an open shame And when the great Judge of the world shall appear and pass final Sentence upon men such obstinate and impenitent wretches as could not be wrought upon by the remembrance of the dearest love of their dying Lord nor be engaged to leave their sins by all the tyes and obligations of this holy Sacrament shall have their portion with Pilate and Judas with the chief Priests and Souldiers who were the betrayers and murtherers of the Lord of life and glory and shall be dealt withall as those who are in some sort guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Which severe threatning ought not to discourage men from the Sacrament but to deter all those from their sins who think of engaging themselves to God by so solemn and holy a Covenant It is by no means a sufficient Reason to make men to fly from the Sacrament but certainly one of the most powerfull Arguments in the world to make men forsake their sins as I shall shew more fully under the third head of this Discourse II. The Obligation that lyes upon all Christians to the frequent observance and practice of this Institution For though it be not necessarily implyed in these Words as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup yet if we compare these Words of the Apostle with the usage and practice of Christians at that Time which was to communicate in this holy Sacrament so often as they solemnly met together to worship God they plainly suppose and recommend to us the frequent use of this Sacrament or rather imply an obligation upon Christians to embrace all opportunities of receiving it For the sense and meaning of any Law or Institution is best understood by the general practice which follows immediately upon it And to convince men of their obligation hereunto and to engage them to a sutable practice I shall now endeavour with all the plainness and force of persuasion I can And so much the more because the neglect of it among Christians is grown so general and a great many persons from a superstitious awe and reverence of this Sacrament are by degrees fallen into a profane neglect and contempt of it I shall briefly mention a threefold Obligation lying upon all Christians to frequent Communion in this holy Sacrament each of them sufficient of it self but all of them together of the greatest force imaginable to engage us hereunto 1. We are obliged in point of indispensable duty and in obedience to a plain precept and most solemn institution of our blessed Saviour that great Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy as St. James calls him He hath bid us doe this And S. Paul who declares nothing in this matter but what he tells us he received from the Lord admonisheth us to doe it often Now for any man that professeth himself a Christian to live in the open and continued contempt or neglect of a plain Law and Institution of Christ is utterly inconsistent with such a profession To such our Lord may
off all Religion He that unworthily useth or performs any part of Religion is in an evil and dangerous condition but he that casts off all Religion plungeth himself into a most desperate state and does certainly damn himself to avoid the danger of damnation Because he that casts off all Religion throws off all the means whereby he should be reclaimed and brought into a better state I cannot more fitly illustrate this matter than by this plain Similitude He that eats and drinks intemperately endangers his health and his life but he that to avoid this danger will not eat at all I need not tell you what will certainly become of him in a very short space There are some conscientious persons who abstain from the Sacrament upon an apprehension that the sins which they shall commit afterwards are unpardonable But this is a great mistake our Saviour having so plainly declared that all manner of sin mall be forgiven men except the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost such as was that of the Pharisees who as our Saviour tells us blasphemed the Holy Ghost in ascribing those great miracles which they saw him work and which he really wrought by the Spirit of God to the power of the Devil Indeed to sin deliberately after so solemn an engagement to the contrary is a great aggravation of sin but not such as to make it unpardonable But the neglect of the Sacrament is not the way to prevent these sins but on the contrary the constant receiving of it with the best preparation we can is one of the most effectual means to prevent sin for the future and to obtain the assistence of God's grace to that end And if we fall into sin afterwards we may be renewed by repentance for we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous who is the propitiation for our sins and as such is in a very lively and affecting manner exhibited to us in this blessed Sacrament of his body broken and his bloud shed for the remission of our sins Can we think that the primitive Christians who so frequently received this holy Sacrament did never after the receiving of it fall into any deliberate sin undoubtedly many of them did but far be it from us to think that such sins were unpardonable and that so many good men should because of their carefull and conscientious observance of our Lord's Institution unavoidably fall into condemnation To draw to a conclusion of this matter such groundless fears and jealousies as these may be a sign of a good meaning but they are certainly a sign of an injudicious mind For if we stand upon these Scruples no man perhaps was ever so worthily prepared to draw near to God in any duty of Religion but there was still some defect or other in the disposition of his mind and the degree of his preparation But if we prepare our selves as well as we can this is all God expects And for our fears of falling into sin afterwards there is this plain answer to be given to it that the danger of falling into sin is not prevented by neglecting the Sacrament but encrcased because a powerfull and probable means of preserving men from sin is neglected And why should not every sincere Christian by the receiving of this Sacrament and renewing his Covenant with God rather hope to be confirmed in goodness and to receive farther assistences of God's grace and holy Spirit to strengthen him against sin and to enable him to subdue it than trouble himself with fears which are either without ground or if they are not are no sufficient reason to keep any man from the Sacrament We cannot surely entertain so unworthy a thought of God and our blessed Saviour as to imagine that he did institute the Sacrament not for the furtherance of our Salvation but as a snare and an occasion of our ruine and damnation This were to pervert the gracious design of God and to turn the cup of Salvation into a cup of deadly poison to the souls of men All then that can reasonably be inferred from the danger of unworthy receiving is that upon this consideration men should be quickned to come to the Sacrament with a due preparation of mind and so much the more to fortifie their resolutions of living sutably to that holy Covenant which they solemnly renew every time they receive this holy Sacrament This consideration ought to convince us of the absolute necessity of a good life but not to deter us from the use of any means which may contribute to make us good Therefore as a learned Divine says very well this Sacrament can be neglected by none but those that do not understand it but those who are unwilling to be tyed to their duty and are afraid of being engaged to use their best diligence to keep the commandments of Christ And such persons have no reason to fear being in a worse condition since they are already in so bad a state And thus much may suffice for answer to the first Objection concerning the great danger of unworthy receiving this holy Sacrament I proceed to the 2. Second Objection Obj. 2. which was this That so much preparation and worthiness being required to our worthy receiving the more timorus sort of Christians can never think themselves duly enough qualified for so sacred an Action For a full Answer to this Objection I shall endeavour briefly to clear these three things First That every degree of Imperfection in our preparation for this Sacrament is not a sufficient reason for men to refrain from it Secondly That a total want of a due preparation not only in the degree but in the main and substance of it though it render us unfit at present to receive this Sacrament yet it does by no means excuse our neglect of it Thirdly That the proper Inference and conclusion from the total want of a due preparation is not to cast off all thoughts of receiving the Sacrament but immediately to set upon the work of preparation that so we may be fit to receive it And if I can clearly make out these three things I hope this Objection is fully answered 1. That every degree of imperfection in our preparation for this Sacrament is not a sufficient reason for men to abstain from it For then no man should ever receive it For who is every way worthy and in all degrees and respects duly qualified to approach the presence of God in any of the duties of his Worship and Service Who can wash his hands in innocency that so he may be perfectly fit to approach God's Altar There is not man on earth that lives and sins not The Graces of the best men are imperfect and every imperfection in grace and goodness is an imperfection in the disposition and preparation of out minds for this holy Sacrament But if we do heartily repent of our sins and sincerely resolve to obey and perform the terms of the Gospel and of
over it which profiteth him that worthily eateth the Lord and this he says he had spoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body So that the matter of bread remaineth in the Sacrament and this Origen calls the typical and Symbolical body of Christ and it is not the natural body of Christ which is there eaten for the food eaten in the Sacrament as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught This Testimony is so very plain in the Cause that Sextus Senensis suspects this place of Origen was depraved by the Heretiques Cardinal Perron is contented to allow it to be Origen's but rejects his testimony because he was accused of Heresie by some of the Fathers and says he talks like a Heretique in this place So that with much ado this testimony is yielded to us The same Father in his * Cap. 10. Homilies upon Leviticus speaks thus There is also in the New Testament a letter which kills him who doth not Spiritually understand those things which are said for if we take according to the Letter that which is said EXCEPT YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOVD this Letter kills And this also is a killing Testimony and not to be answered but in Cardinal Perron's way by saying he talks like a Heretique St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle * Ep. 63. to Cecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water only without Wine mingled with it and his main argument against them is this that the bloud of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the Cup when there is no Wine in the Cup by which the Bloud of Christ is represented and afterwards he says that contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical Doctrine water was in some places offer'd or given in the Lord's Cup which says he alone cannot express or represent the bloud of Christ And lastly he tells us that by water the people is understood by Wine the bloud of Christ is shewn or represented but when in the Cup water is mingled with Wine the people is united to Christ So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental Cup is no otherwise chang'd into the Bloud of Christ than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ I omit many others and pass to St. Austin in the fourth Age afâ—er Christ And I the rather insist upon his Testimony because of his eminent esteem and authority in the Latin Church and he also calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and sign of Christ's body and bloud In his Book against Adimantus the Manichee we have this expression * Aug. Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit Basil 1569. our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body And in his explication of the third Psalm speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last Supper in which says he †Enarrat in Psal Tom. 8. p. 16. he commended and delivered to his Disciples the figure of his Body Language which would now be censur'd for Heresie in the Church of Rome Indeed he was never accus'd of Heresie as Cardinal Perron says Origen was but he talks as like one as Origen himself And in his Comment on the 98 Psalm speaking of the offence which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud c. he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them ‖ Id. Tom. 9. p. 1105. ye must understand Spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat this body which ye see and to drink that bloud which shall be shed by those that shall crucifie me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being Spiritually understood will give you life What more opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation than that the Disciples were not to eat that Body of Christ which they saw nor to drink that bloud which was shed upon the Cross but that all this was to be understood spiritually and according to the nature of a Sacrament For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven in his Comment upon these words me ye have not always * Id Tract 50. in Johan He speaks says he of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his Disciples forty days he is ascended up into heaven and is not here In his 23 d. Epistle †Id Tom. 2. p. 93. if the Sacrament says he had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all but from this resemblance they take for the most part the names of the things which they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christ's body and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Christ So the Sacrament of faith meaning Baptism is faith Upon which words of St. Austin there is this remarkable Gloss in their own Canon Law ‖ De Consecr dist 2. Hoc est the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly whence it is said that after a manner but not according to the truth of the thing but the Mystery of the thing signified So that the meaning is it is called the body of Christ that is it signifies the body of Christ And if this be St. Austin's meaning I am sure no Protestant can speak more plainly against Transubstantiation And in the ancient Canon of the Mass before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine it is expresly call'd a Sacrament a Sign an Image and a Figure of Christ's body To which I will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin cited by * De consecrat dist 2. Sect. Vtrum Gratian that as we receive the similitude of his death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud that so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain I will mention but one Testimony more of this Father but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have utter'd It is in his Treatise * Lib. 3. Tom. 3. p. 53. de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If says he the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime or commanding us to do good it is not figurative but if it seem to command any
pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain Experience and matter of Fact This is just Zenoe's Demonstration of the impossibility of motion against Diogenes walking before his Eyes For this is to undertake to prove that impossible to have been which most certainly was Just thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonstrated that the tares were wheat because they were sure none but good seed was sown at first and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any tares were sown or by whom and if an Enemy had come to do it he must needs have met with great resistance and opposition but no such resistance was made and therefore there could be no tares in the field but that which they call'd tares was certainly good wheat At the same rate a man might demonstrate that our King his Majesty of great Britain is not return'd into England nor restor'd to his Crown because there being so great and powerfull an Army possess'd of his Lands and therefore obliged by interest to keep him out it was impossible he should ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloudshed but there was no such thing therefore he is not return'd and restor'd to his Crown And by the like kind of Demonstration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom last year and besiege Vienna because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have employed it against him but Monsieur Arnauld certainly knows no such thing was done And therefore according to his way of Demonstration the matter of fact so commonly reported and believed concerning the Turks Invasion of Christendom and besieging Vienna last year was a perfect mistake But a man may demonstrate till his head and heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly is or was never to have been For of all sorts of impossibles nothing is more evidently so than to make that which hath been not to have been All the reason in the world is too weak to cope with so tough and obstinate a difficulty And I have often wonder'd how a man of Monsieur Arnauld's great wit and sharp Judgment could prevail with himself to engage in so bad and baffled a Cause or could think to defend it with so wooden a Dagger as his Demonstration of Reason against certain Experience and matter of Fact A thing if it be possible of equal absurdity with what he pretends to demonstrate Transubstantiation it self I proceed to the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that is The Infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith And this in truth is the ground into which the most of the learned men of their Church did heretofore and many do still resolve their belief of this Doctrine And as I have already shewn do plainly say that they see no sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it And that they should have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church obliged them otherwise But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by virtue of the Authority of the Roman Church and the Declaration of the Council under Pope Gregory the VII th or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is a plain Innovation in the Christian Doctrine and a new Article of Faith impos'd upon the Christian world And if any Church hath this power the Christian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men please and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine nay any thing though never so absurd and unreasonable may become an Article of Faith obliging all Christians to the belief of it whenever the Church of Rome shall think fit to stamp her Authority upon it which would make Christianity a most uncertain and endless thing The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is the necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive it But there is no colour for this if the thing be rightly consider'd Because the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the blessing annexed to the Institution And as Water in Baptism without any substantial change made in that Element may by the Divine blessing accompanying the Institution be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration So there can no reason in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divide blessing accompanying this Institution make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit designed to us thereby without any substantial change made in those Elements since our Lord hath told us that verily the flesh profiteth nothing So that if we could do so odd and strange a thing as to eat the very natural flesh and drink the bloud of our Lord I do not see of what greater advantage it would be to us than what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him For the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received supposing we receive what our Lord appointed and receive it with a right preparation and disposition of mind but upon the supernatural blessing that goes along with it and makes it effectual to those spiritual ends for which it was appointed The Fifth and last pretended ground of this Doctrine is to magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle And this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a transcendent instance of the Divine wisedom to find out so admirable a way to raise the power and reverence of the Priest that he should be able every day and as often as he pleases by repeating a few words to work so miraculous a change and as they love most absurdly and blasphemously to speak to make God himself But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himself for he did not nor cannot make himself nor do any thing that implies a contradiction as Transubstantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God For to make that which already is and to make that now which always was is not onely vain and trifling if it could be done but impossible because it implies a contradiction And what if after all Transubstantiation if it were possible and actually wrought by the Priest would yet be no Miracle For there are two things necessary to a Miracle that there be a supernatural effect wrought and that this effect be evident to sense So that though a supernatural effect be wrought yet if it be not evident to sense it is to all the ends and purposes of a Miracle as if it were not and can be no testimony or proof of any