changed into Christ's Body For when the Church of Rome would oblige me to believe that what my Senses behold is not Bread and Wine but the true Body and Blood of Christ it is clear that it is contrary to them for my Eyes see them to be Bread and Wine I smell nothing but Bread and Wine I taste nothing but Bread and Wine and my Hands feel nothing but Bread and Wine Object We confess say they that it is contrary to Senses but Senses ought not to be Judges in the Mysteries of Faith I Answer That Jesus Christ made use of the Senses to prove to his Apostles that he was not a Spirit but a Body when he said unto them Handle me and see for a spirit has not flesh and bones as ye see me have Luke 24. 32. And if the Fathers disputing against the Marcionites and Euthicheens the former of which believed that Jesus Christ had not a true Body but only the appearance and the latter that the Substance of his Body was changed into the Godhead after his Resurrection they made use of the very words of Jesus Christ Handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have I may after their Example make use of my Senses in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and say to let the Church of Rome know that what they believe to be the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is true Bread and Wine Handle and see Object The reason say they why Christ's Body is not seen in the Sacrament is because he is there miraculously I Answer That if the Bread be turned into the very Body of Christ by a Miracle then should it appear visibly so For the Nature of every Miracle is to be visibly to the outward Eyes and Senses As when Jesus Christ turned Water into Wine it was visibly Wine when Moses Rod was turned into a Serpent it was visibly a Serpent And so if the Bread were turned into the very Body of Christ it should be visibly a Body if they will hold a Miracle in this Sacrament But St. Austin answereth that there is no Miracle in the Sacraments Honorem saith he tanquam Religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt Tom. 1. 8. c. 12. Thirdly I say that this Doctrine is contrary to Reason 1. Because it supposes the same Body in several places at one time A Body may be considered objectively at one time in several places but that it should be really or substantially in many places at one time altogether as the Church of Rome would have which teaches and obliges to believe that the Body of Jesus Christ is Substantially in Heaven and Earth and in every place where the Priest pleases to Consecrate or pronounce these words This is my Body this is my Blood and in every part of the Consecrated Bread so that if you divide it into a thousand Parts no bigger than the Point of a Needle he is there in every part wholly that is contrary to Reason For according to Reason a Body of six Foot in Dimension cannot occupy no more place than the Circumference of six Foot and though it may be successively in several places yet it cannot at the same time And these words of St. Peter Acts 3. 22. Whom the Heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things Prove my saying evidently for though he has a glorified Body yet he retains the Nature and Property of a true Body still which cannot be but in one place at once And so saith St. Austin in Joan. Tract 3. Corpus Domini in quo resurrexit uno tantùm loco esse potest 2. This Doctrine is contrary to Reason because it makes Accidents exist without any Subject It is the Nature of Accidents to be joyned to their Subject As for Example It is the nature of the whiteness of a Stone to be joyned to the Stone so that if you destroy the Nature or Substance of this Stone you must of necessity destroy its Whiteness and other its Accidents And according to the Opinion of Modern Philosophers who say that Accidents are nothing else than Matter modified that is to say as it is disposed to this or that Fashion it follows that Matter cannot be destroyed without its Accidents being destroyed likewise with it It is the Opinion of Iraeneus who saith That we cannot consider Water without its Humidity nor Fire without Heat nor a Stone without Hardness these things being so United that the one cannot be without the other but that they must exist together Nevertheless those of the Church of Rome teach the contrary for in their Mystery of Transubstantiation they put Accidents without any Subject they put Colour and Quantity without Matter Smell and Taste without Substance Hardness and Humidity without there being any thing that is hard and moist I may then very well say and affirm that this Doctrin is contrary to Reason Fourthly I say that it is contrary to the Holy Fathers for St. Chrysostome Epist ad Caesar saith That the mystical Symbols do not lose their proper Nature but remain in their first Substance as the Body of Christ has preserved the true Substance of a Body when it was Glorified And Writing to the People of Antioch Hom. 6. he saith That God gives us things Spiritual under things Visible and Natural and that Bread being Sanctified is delivered from the Name of Bread and 〈◊〉 exalted to the Name of the Lord's Body although the nature of the Bread still remains Origines in Matth. 15. speaks thus The Bread that is Sanctified with the Word of God as touching the material Substance thereof goes into the Belly and forth again like other Meats Justin Martyr and Iraeneus Bishop of Lyon say That our Flesh is nourished with the Cup which is the Blood of Christ and is increased with the Bread which is the Body of Christ These words do destroy those of the Roman Church who because they believe that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ are forced to say that our Body is not nourished with the Bread and Wine but with their Accidents or by some Substance that God Createth Tertullian L. 4. Advers Marci c 40. saith that Jesus Christ took the Bread and giving it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body That is to say as Tertullian himself explains it the Figure of my Body St. Austin Cont. Adam c. 12. is of that Opinion The Lord saith he doubted not to say this is my Body when he gave but the Signs of his Body And in Psal 8. He saith That the admirable Patience of Christ admitted Judas to the Banquet wherein he delivered to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood And in the third Book of the Christian Doctrine he speaks thus When the Lord saith if ye do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you
again as the Relative which would not hinder this Proposition from being Metaphorical likewise these words which was broken for you hinder not the other Proposition from being Improper and Metaphorical Mark that his Body was not broken before he Suffered upon Golgotha How did he say then which is broken before it was broken There is no sense of it but this The Bread was broken and signified that his Body should be broken Now as the breaking of the Bread did signifie the breaking of his Body so the Bread must signifie his Body And as his Body was not broken indeed when the Bread was broken so the Bread could not be his Body indeed for then his Body should have been broken when the Bread was broken If because Christ saith This is my Body this is my Blood they will have these words to be expounded litterally why then do they not expound the other words of Christ litterally also concerning the Cup For the Text saith that he took the Cup and said This is my Blood I am sure that those of the Church of Rome will not say that the Cup was the Blood of Christ as the words declare it to be but that there is a Figure in these words namely Continens pro Contento that by the Cup is meant the Wine in it If then they will admit a Figure in this Proposition why there may not be a Figure in the other namely Signatum pro Signo that these words This is my Body should be understood thus the Bread is a sign of my Body I may prove as well that Christ is a Door because he saith I am the Door and that he is a Vine because he saith I am a Vine for his sayings are alike But Figurative Speeches must not be construed litterally Now that they may see that not we only say 't is Bread and Wine after Consecration Jesus Christ himself doth call them so I will drink no more saith he of the fruit of the Vine Jesus Christ assures that it was the fruit of the Vine which he drank therefore Wine and not Blood was his drink therefore after Consecration Wine was still Wine And St. Paul 1 Cor. c. 11. does confirm it when he plainly saith that the Communicant doth eat Bread Therefore the Bread remains Bread after the words of Consecration For if it were transubstantiated into the Body of Christ then were there no Bread to eat the Body of Christ should be the thing that should be eaten and consequently should not be called Bread What I say may be seen by these words of Jesus Christ wherein he assures us That he was the bread of life which came down from Heauen which if any man eat he shall live for ever John 6. 50. His Disciples hearing these words murmured until he had expounded them And how did he expound them thus He that comes unto me has eaten and he that believes in me has drunk Afterwards when He Instituted this Sacrament in like words they murmured not which they would as before if he had not resolved them before that to eat his Body and to drink his Blood was nothing but to come to him and believe in him For as it is plainly said This is my Body so it is plainly said These words are Spirit that is they must be understood spiritually and not litterally so saith St. Austin Believe and thou hast eaten It was Christ's manner to speak by Similitudes Figures and Parables shewing one thing by another For example Christ calls the Lamb the Passover in place whereof this Sacrament succeeded And yet the Passover was this An Angel passed over the house of the Israelites and struck the Aegyptians Exodus 12. 27. This was not a Lamb and yet because a Lamb was a sign of this Passover as the Bread and Wine are of Christ's Body and Blood because of that Christ called the Lamb the Passover as he called the Bread and Wine his Body and Blood This may be seen again in Circumcision Baptism and the Cup. Circumcision is called the Covenant and yet Circumcision was nothing but the cutting away of a Skin and the Covenant is this In Abraham's seed all nations shall be blessed I will be their God and they shall be my People I will defend and save them and they shall serve and worship me This is not Circumcision and yet as though the Circumcision were the Covenant it self it is called the Covenant Likewise Baptism is called Regeneration and yet Baptism is a dipping our Bodies in Water and Regeneration is the renewing of our mind to the Image of God wherein it was Created This is not Baptism and yet as though Baptism were Regeneration it self it is so called because it signifies Regeneration And the Cup is called the New Testament and yet the Cup is but a piece of Metal filled with Wine And the New Testament is He that believes in the Son of God shall be saved This is not a Cup and yet as though the Cup were the New Testament it self it is called the New Testament So the Bread and Wine are called Christ's Body and Blood because they signifie Christ's Body and Blood This Doctrine of ours may be confirmed because every Sacrament was called by the thing which it signified and yet never any Sacrament was taken for the thing it self What reason have they then to take this Sacrament for the thing it self more than all the rest It is the consent of all Divines that a Sacrament is a Sign therefore it is no more the thing signified than the Bush at the Door is the Wine in the Cellar But what then will the Papists say is there nothing in this Sacrament but Bread and Wine We do not say that this Sacrament is nothing but a bare Sign or that we receive no more than what we see For Christ saith that it is his Body and St. Paul assures that it is the Communion of Christ Body and Blood Therefore there is more in this Sacramental Bread than in the common Bread we Eat in our Houses for though the nature of Bread be not changed yet the use is changed It doth not only serve the Body as it did before but also it serves for the nourishing of our Souls for as sure as we receive Bread so sure we receive Christ And you may see this by this Similitude You have an Obligation in your hand and I ask you what have you there and you answer I have here an hundred thousand Crowns How say I I see nothing but Paper Ink and Wax Oh but by this say you I shall recover a hundred thousand Crowns and that is as good So when ye receive these Signs in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ye receive the Vertue of Christ's Body and Blood by Faith and it is all one as if ye should eat his Body and drink his Blood indeed Secondly I say that it is contrary to Senses that the Bread Consecrated by Popish Priests be really
shall have no life in you He seems to command a Wickedness and a great Crime therefore it is a Figure whereby it is injoyned unto us to think upon our Lord's Passion and remember that his Flesh was Crucified and Wounded for us He saith also in an Epistâ—â— to Boniface That the Sacraments are called by the name of the things they represent The Sacrament then of the Lord's Supper may be taken either conjunctively with what it represents and in this Sense it is said to be the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ or separately from the things which it signifies and in this Sense it is the Type the Symbole or Figure of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that is to be seen in the Affairs of the World as when we say that the Letters which are brought wherein is contained the Pardon which the King gives to a Criminal are the King's Pardon Theodoret Dial. 2. saith That the mystical Signs after Consecration do not depart from their Nature but they abide still in their former Substance Figure and Form and may be both seen and felt as before And Dial. 1. he saith That Jesus Christ has honoured the visible Symbols with the Name of his Body and Blood not in changing their Nature but in adding Grace to it The Pope Gelasius in lib. de duab nat advers nest Eutich saith That the substance or nature of Bread doth not cease and verily there is the Image and Similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ celebrated in the action of the Mysteries of the Body of Christ Baronius An. 648. N. 15. and 869. N. 3. saith That Theodorus Bishop of Rome for the Condemnation of Pyrrhus and that the Council held at Constantinople for the Condemnation of Photius took the Consecrated Cup and poured Ink into it and having dipp'd their Pens into these two mixt Liquors they subscribed the depositions of these Men. If they had believ'd that the Consecrated Wine was the Blood of Jesus Christ as now the Church of Rome believes is it credible that they would have mixt Ink with it and dipp'd their Pens with it No it is not to be believed for the Church of Rome would not do so now but would believe they should commit an horrible Sacrilege Moreover if the holy Fathers had believed Transubstantiation that is the conversion of Bread and Wine into the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ they would not have failed to instruct us that a Body is under a point that it has Accidents without any Subject and that it is after the manner of a Spirit They would have taught us what nourishes our Bodies in receiving of this Sacrament and from whence come the worms which are ingendred in the Bread They would have told us what kind of action it is which makes Christ Exist under the Species of Bread and Wine whether it was a Reproduction or Adduction or Ubification I say they would have taught us all these things since the Church of Rome gives now a particular instruction in it Now since they were as Learned as the present Doctors of the Church of Rome are at this time and since they said nothing of it it is a certain sign that this Doctrin was contrary to their Opinion And for the confirmation of what I say is that when the Fathers disputed against Idolaters they confuted them with these words Why do you adore what your Hands have made and which has neither Speech nor Motion but is subject to Fire and to Corruption and to be stolen away by Thieves This was the Argument they made use of to prove that they were Idolaters If at that time they had believed Transubstantiation the Idolaters would not have failed to retort their Argument and since we find they have not retorted it it is a certain sign that this Doctrin was contrary to the holy Fathers The Origine of Transubstantiation was a Dream of Paschasius a Monk of Corbis and Innocent the Third in the Year of our Lord 1215. set it up amongst the Articles of Faith in the Council of Latran So many years were past before Transubstantiation was named Then the Pope set it on foot and so it came out from Rome and for want of the holy Scripture of Reason and holy Fathers to maintain it they have since defended and do still defend it at this day with Sword and Fire It is then manifest that the Bread Consecrated by the Popish Priests is not really changed into the Body of Jesus Christ and therefore that the Church of Rome is Idolater since in Worshiping a bit of Bread baked upon the Fire in Praying to it in carrying it in Procession in shewing it to the People in their Mass in offering Frankincense unto it in bowing before it at the Ringing of a small Bell or Cymbal as the People did before the Image of Nebuchadnezzar and taking it for their God She Worships the Creature for the Creator Object We believe that what we do Worship is God and that therefore hinders us from being Idolaters I Answer If this Reason were good and sufficient the Heathens which did Worship Jupiter had not been Idolaters because they believed him to be the true God And yet the Church of Rome maintains that all those who did Worship Jupiter were Idolaters It is then true that to Worship as a God that which is not God tho' it be taken for a God is a gross and flat Idolatry and therefore that the Church of Rome is Idolater because she Worships for her God a bit of Bread which is not God although she believe and take it for her God 2dly I say that she is Idolater because she makes graven Images of the Godhead and bows before them and because she kneels down before those of Saints prays to them kisses and serves them offers Frankincense unto them Crowns them with Flowers Cloaths them with Fine Garments and Orders as it may be seen in the II. Council of Nice that they shall not only be placed in Churches Chappels and Oratories where the Divine Majesty is Worshiped but shall be also Honoured and Worshiped Which is directly contrary to these words of Samuel Prepare your hearts to the Lord and serve him only and to those of Christ in St. Matthew Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve as also to those of God in the XX Chapter of Exodus Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image nor any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or that is in Earth beneath or that is in the Waters under the Earth Thou shalt not bow down thy self to them nor serve them Objection This forbidding say they is against Idols and not against Images and when we bow to them and serve them we do not render them a Worship of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only First I Answer That these words Nor any likeness of any thing