properly This manner of speaking then being so common and familiar with that Nation well may we interpret our Saviour's words This is my Body in the same manner according to the nature of a Sacrament and the subject Matter thereof So it is said that the Rock which followed the Israelites was Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of the Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ Sure there can be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in another manner when this form of Speech was so common among them but it is very agreeable to understand them as we understand them Besides it is but the same form of Speech which was used by the Jews in celebrating the Passover which our Saviour and his Disciples had been just now about And he instituted this Sacrament for the like End as the Passover had been and it was now for ever to succeed in its place This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge we are told was the form among the Jews meaning that it did put them in mind and represent to them the Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the true Paschal Lamb that was to take away the Sins of the World. And at the Passover the Master of the House likewise took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt not the very Bread sure but only a Type or Figure of it So our Saviour in like manner accommodating himself to their Customs and Phrases used the very same Symbols and express'd himself accordingly This is my Body which is broken for you which our Saviour appointed in remembrance of himself ever after in the room of the Paschal Lamb. Now how should we understand our Saviour's words then but agreeably to the old form in the like case Besides it is plain from the words themselves about the Institution that it was very Bread of which he said This is my Body For it is said He took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my Body What he took he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But he took Bread therefore of the Bread he said This is my Body And if it was Bread then it could not be his very Body but only a Symbol or Sign o◠it because it was Bread still And that it was Bread still ever after the Consecration we have also the Apostle's words for it 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread. So that it is Bread still which they are partakers of which was after the Consecration So again Chap. 11. 26 27 28. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be 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. Where he calls it Bread three times in three Verses together even after the Consecration In like manner our Saviour speaking of the Cup when he had said Mat. 26 28. This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately after adds 〈…〉 unto you I will not henceforth drink of this 〈…〉 Vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom From whence it is plain that it was the Fruit of the Vine and real Wine which he drank with his Disciples and that was after the Consecration Besides if the substance of Bread and Wine are changed in the Sacrament into the very substance of the Body and Blood of Christ when is it done Is it done before those words were pronounc'd This is my Body or in them or after them If it was done before When was it done or by what Command or in what way If it be not done till after they are all pronounc'd or till after the word Is is pronounc'd then it is false to say This is my Body before the change is wrought which is not till after the word Is is pronounc'd for these words are only declarative of what is before and are not imperative of what should be And if it was not before these words were pronounc'd then a thing is pronounc'd to be which was not which is a false Proposition And if it had been intended that the change should have been wrought by these words then it should have been Let this be my Body or This shall be my Body and not This is my Body which only declares what a thing was before and doth not command it to be what it was not So that in truth it only means that the Bread was set a-part by our Saviour for the Sign and Token of his Body when he blessed it and gave Thanks Again our Saviour gave to his Disciples his Body as broken But then his Body was really whole and unbroken for it was before his Passion and it was the Bread only that was broken Therefore our Saviour did not give his very Body but the Bread broken only as a Symbol of his Body which was to be broken So that it was really Bread which he gave and not his very natural Body but the Bread as a sign of his Body and for that reason called his Body because signifying it And so these words are to be understood only in a Figure Are not these words to be understood in a Figure 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread Or are all Christians turn'd into Bread first and then into the Body of Christ by their being made partakers of the Bread in the Sacrament It is as good an Argument to argue so from these words as to argue from our Saviour's This is my Body that therefore the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of his Body But the figurative way of speaking is evident and undeniable in the other part of the Sacrament about the Cup Luke 22. 20. And therefore why may not we suppose the like in the former about the Body This Cup says our Saviour is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Here is Figure upon Figure the Cup for the Wine But neither Cup nor Wine is the New Testament nor yet our Saviour's Blood neither but the Seal of it But as our Saviour's Blood was the Seal of the New Testament and of all the Promises and Benefits contained in it So was the Wine a sign of his Blood and as such was given to the Disciples as a Seal of the New Covenant confirmed by our Saviour's Blood. And that this must
be so is also plain because our Saviour gave it to his Disciples as his Blood shed But his own natural Blood then was not shed unless they will say it was shed before he suffered for this was before his Suffering So that it must needs be understood only figuratively that the Wine poured forth did signify and represent the Blood of his which was shortly to be shed for Sinners and by which the New Testament was confirmed And for that end and because of the use of it mentioned it has the name of the Blood given to it the Sign having the name of the thing signified And though it be thus only in a figurative and not in a proper sense that we are to understand the words of the Institution yet the Benefit and Comfort of the Sacrament will be nevertheless For it may be of equal efficacy and advantage to us if we outwardly receive only the Symbols as if we received the very Body and Blood of Christ themselves for the efficacy doth not lie in the thing received but in the Blessing that goes along with the Institution As the Water in Baptism without a substantial change in the Element with the Divine Blessing is equally serviceable to the Ends of that Sacrament as if there were a substantial change So 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we brake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ We may have Communion with the Body of Christ by partaking of the Bread. As Idolaters may have fellowship with Devils by partaking of the Sacrifices offered to them without having the substance of the things sacrificed to them turned into the substance of Devils 1 Cor. 10. 20. So Believers may have fellowship with Christ by partaking of the Bread and Wine instituted for that End without having the substance of the Bread and Wine changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ We see then it is highly reasonable and necessary to understand the words of Institution as other figurative Expressions of the like nature are to be understood And there is not the least inconvenience or absurdity will follow upon it But to understand them in the sense of Transubstantiation is highly unreasonable and is against the being and design of the Scripture and is also monstrously absurd If the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament be turned into the Body and Blood of Christ then Christ must be with us still with his bodily Presence which is against the whole current of Scripture for he is ascended into Heaven and therefore he is not here Acts 3. 21. The Heavens must receive or retain him until the time of restitution of all things And how is he then in the hands of the Priest Col. 3. 1. Christ sits at the right Hand of God and there we must seek him and not in the hands of a Priest or upon the Altar For said he John 16. 28. I leave the World and go to the Father And therefore in his absence he promised the People another Comforter who should abide with them and supply his place John 14. 10. But Henceforth saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 16. we know him no more after the Flesh he abiding in us only by his Spirit and we know him only by Faith. We are not like the Disciples of the Prophet Elijah who sought on Earth for their Master whom God had taken up into Heaven 2 King. 2. Our Saviour sâ—ith Mat. 26. 11. The Poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always Whereas if he be every where in the Mass we may have him with us always as much as the Apostles had him And when our Saviour told them they had always the Poor with them whom they might shew kindness to but not him and therefore they should not grudg at the expence of a box of Ointment upon him If they had been of the Miâ—d of the Church of Rome they might have answered Lord we shall have thee with us as long as we shall have the Poor and this cost which this poor Woman hath been at is nothing in comparison of what shall one day be laid out upon Thee in hâ—â—ging the Streets with Tapestry in â—â—ecking the Altar◠〈◊〉 inclosing Thee in rich and â—ostly Pieces and in sâ—â—ting Thee up 〈◊〉 stately and magnificent Mansions But then if Christ's Body be with us it seems he must be invisible also and not to be felt which is contrary to the nature of an humane Body In which he is made like unto us Heb. 2. 17. To be invisible is to be more like a Spirit which hath not Flesh and 〈◊〉 Luke 24. 39 40. If the Body of Christ be also in the small Wafer of the Sacrament he must be without proper extension suitable to the nature of an humane Body And if he be whole in every Wafer of the Sacrament he must be whole in many places at once Which is a contradiction for then he would have a Body which is one and not one but many as the places are in which he wholly is And it is against the reasoning of the Angel Mat. 28. 5 6. He is not here for he is risen But according to this Doctrine he might be there and risen too and then the Angel's reasoning was not good And then Christ might be distant from himself as that Body now which is at London would be distant from that that is at Rome many hundred miles and that Body which is at Rome may meet that Body which is at London and so it would be the same and not the same and the same would move towards and meet it self And then Christ's Body might move and not move at the same time and it might be carried and not carried and it might be eaten and not eaten in one place eaten with Rats and at another place worship'd and might be glorious and not be glorious and innumerable such Absurdities follow upon this sensless and unreasonable Doctrine Besides the barbariâ—y and bloodiness of eating and drinking humane Flesh and Blood and devouring ones God. And then the most wicked Men may receive Christ with the mouths of their Body and likewise eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. But Christ tells us this we only do now by believing in him John 6. For the Flesh profiteth nothing The Wicked having not Faith have no part in him they do not dwell in Christ nor Christ in them as they that eat his Flesh and drink his Blood do John 6. 56. And therefore it must be understood spiritually and by Faith. To conclude We have as much assurance that Transubstantiation is false as that Christianity is true that is our Sense and Reason in concurrence with the Holy Scripture And is not this a goodly Doctrine which if granted would raze the Foundation of the Christian Faith and reduce us to the vastest Uncertainty so that we could reasonably believe nothing For what can we be certain of at all if not
communicate in the Sacrament We do not deny this Spiritual Communion without which the other is ineffectual But our Saviour appointed not only a Spiritual Communion but a Sacramental Communion and this Sacramental Communion cannot be had without the Sacramental Action that is without communicating in the Sacrament Which therefore by our Saviour's Commandment all Christian People should do and not the Priest alone by himself CHAP. XXIX That the Sacrament is to be administred in one kind only and that the People are not to have the use of the Cup. Council of Trent Sess 21. chap. 2 3. Can. 1 2 3. AGainst that which is written Mat. 26. 27. And he took the Cup and gave Thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it Note then that the Cup is contained in our Saviour's Institution as well as the Bread and is as essential a part of it And if by virtue of the Institution all Christians are obliged to the use of the Bread then by virtue of the same Institution they are likewise obliged to the use of the Cup. Or if notwithstanding the Institution they may take away the Cup then notwithstanding the same Institution they may take away the Bread also and so they may make void the whole Sacrament Note also that in the same quality that the Apostles received the Cup in the same quality also they received the Bread. If they received the Cup as Priests and so that belongs only to Priests then they received the Bread as Priests likewise for there was no alteration made in them between the two Receivings of the Cup and the Bread. And by the same reason they may take away the Bread â—oo from all but Priests as well as the Cup. But indeed the Apostles were not there at the Supper in the quality either of Apostles or Priests But Jesus Christ did the Office of a Pastor and they were the Flock and so partak'd of the Supper as Christ's Disciples and not as Apostles or Priests Again vers 28. For this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Here we have the Reason of our Saviour's Command why all should drink of the Cup because this represents his Blood which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Now to all Christian People there belongs pardon of Sins by the Blood of Jesus Christ and not only to the Priest And therefore all Christian People are to partake of the Cup and not the Priests only For to whom the reason of the Command belongs to all such belongs the Command Again note It is by the Blood of Jesus Christ shed and separated from his Body that Remission of Sins is obtained of which they are to keep up a Commemoration in the Sacrament And this Commemoration therefore cannot be kept up by the use of the Bread alone without the Cup which hath a particular relation to his Blood shed or poured out So that there is a proper and peculiar use of the Cup in the Sacrament as well as of the Bread. And the use of it as it is said belongs to all those to whom Remission of Sin by Christ's Blood shed and poured out belongs which is here in this way represented and sealed to them Mark 14. 23. And he took the Cup and when he had given Thanks he gave it to them and they All drank of it Note that as Jesus Christ said Drink ye all of this so it is here expresly observed by this Evangelist that they All drank of it This Communion of All is particularly observed touching the Cup and not touching the Bread surely not without Reason but as if the Holy Spirit would thereby purposely forewarn us against this sacrilegious presumption of the Church of Rome in debarring the People the use of the Cup. John 16. â—3 Verily verily I say unto you Except 〈◊〉 at the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood 〈◊〉 have no liâ—e iâ— you Our Adversaries believe that in this place he speaks of the Lord's Supper and by consequence they deprive as much as in them lies all the poor People of Eternal Life if it be to be meant as they interpret it because they do not permit them to drink of the Blood of Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. They did all eat the same spiritual Meaâ—â— and did all drink the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and this Rock was Christ The Israelites did not only eat of the Manna which was a Figure of the Body of Christ but they also drank of his Blood in a Mystery And why should they with-hold from Christian People the same priviledg when our Saviour hath allowed it to them For vers 16. The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ It is the Cup that is the Communion of the Blood of Christ And why will they hinder the Christian People then from the Cup which is the Communion of his Blood. For if the Cup be the Communion of his Blood it is in vain to pretend that whole Christ is contained and communicated under the Species of Bread. Vers 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread and of that one Cup as it is added in some Copies But whether these words were in the beginning or were added afterwards 't is plain that whensoever they were inserted the Cup was then in use among the People 1 Cor. 11. 25. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. Here the Apostle repeating the Institution of the Supper lets us know that it is the Cup that is the Seal of the New Testament confirmed by the Blood of Christ And should not those then who have part in the Covenant have part also in the Seals of the Covenant Now all Believers have part in the Covenant therefore they ought also to partake of the Cup that is the Seal of the Covenant And upon this the Command follows Do this as oâ—t as ye drink it in remembrance of me So that all those who are in the Covenant and so ought to celebrate the memory of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament where the Covenant is confirmed ought to partake of the Cup for this End. But all true Christians ought to do this and consequently ought to partake of the Cup For if the Command of Doing this in remembrance of Christ added after the Bread Luke 22. 19 20. make it the Duty of all Christians to partake of the Bread for that End. Then the same Command added after the Cup which is here mentioned by St. Paul makes it their Duty in like manner to partake of the Cup. And if they are not obliged by this to the use of the Cup neither are they obliged by that to the use of the Bread and so they may take away from them the