should at the same instant sit whole at the Table and be in each of their Stomachs and whole in every one of them whole in Peter whole in John whole in James and so in the rest What may they not believe that can believe these things Verily he must first resolve to believe any thing things past belief who resolves to be a Papist 4. It is against Scripture as well as Sense Reason and Faith. The Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is clearly against it and affirms the Elements to be Bread and Wine both before and after the Consecration In the Institution it is expresly said that Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body Mat. 26.26 Here that which he took was Bread that which he blessed was Bread that which he brake was Bread that which he gave was Bread and that he spake of when he said This is my Body was Bread for by this he meant that which he then held in his Hands and when he spake these Words he held nothing but Bread in his Hands And therefore by this he meant that Bread and consequently by This is my Body he meant this Bread is my Body that is a Sign of my Body So also in the Institution of the Cup that which he calls his Blood v. 28. he calls the Fruit of the Vine v. 29. Plainly declaring that it was not his proper Blood but Wine as a Sign of his Blood that he gave The Apostle Paul repeating the Institution as he had received it of the Lord calleth it Bread four times over 1 Cor. 11.23 26 27 28. and 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ and v. 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread. So Acts 2.46 The Disciples brake Bread from House to House And Acts 20.7 The Disciples came together to break Bread. Now this as themselves confess is meant of the Eucharist Moreover that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the Scripture is plain for if it were admitted then it would follow either 1. That Christ is not ascended to Heaven Or 2. That he descendeth daily from Heaven Now both these are contrary to express Articles of the Christian Faith and plain Testimony of the Scripture 1. If we say he ascended not It is contrary to Mark 16.19 Luke 24.51 Acts 1.9 10. Acts 2.33 Eph. 4.8 9 10. Col. 3.1 1. Tim. 3.16 Heb. 4.14 Heb. 8.1 Heb. 9.24 c. And to his own express Declaration John 16.28 I leave the World and go to the Father 2. If we say that he descendeth daily from Heaven it is no less repugnant to the Testimony of the Angels Acts 1.10 11. This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven i. e. clearly visibly gloriously as Mat. 24.30 and 25.31 1 Thess 4.16 And to the Testimony of the Apostle Peter Acts 3.19 20 21. and of our Saviour himself Mat. 26.11 Joh. 12.8 Me ye have not always Upon which Words Augustin Tract in Joan. 50. Loquitur de presentia corporis Nam secundum Majestatem suam secundum Providentiam secundum ineffabilem in Visibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi Secundum carnem vero quam verbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Judaeis comprehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod Linteis involutus quod in Sepulchro conditus quod in Resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis me vobiscum hath these Words He speaketh of his Corporal Presence For in respect of his Majesty Providence ineffable and invisible Grace that which he said is fulfilled Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World. But according to the Flesh which was assumed by the Word according to that which was born of the Virgin according to that which was apprehended by the Jews which was Crucified which was taken down from the Cross which was wrapped in Linen which was laid in the Sepulchre which was shewed in the Resurrection Ye have not me alway with you When Jeffrey Hurst of Shakerley in Lancashire was brought before Justice Leland he caused a Mass to be Sung and bad Jeffrey first go and see his Maker and then he would talk with him Jeffrey answered Sir my Maker is in Heaven Christians the Body of Christ is in Heaven Transubstantiation in contradiction to the Scripture places it in the Earth This is the first Transubstantiation is made up of many Absurdities against Sense Reason Faith and Scripture Secondly It is compounded of many manifest Impossibilities and Contradictions Transubstantiation is an impossible Paradox It is impossible that there should be any such thing 1. It is impossible that one and the same Body should simul semel all at once or at one time be both visible and invisible divisible and indivisible one and many in Heaven and upon the Earth all here and all in a thousand other places All these are plain Impossibles yet Transubstantiation carries them all in its Womb. 2. It is impossible that Christ should eat Himself his own Body Now the Papists confess that he ate and drank with the Disciples in the Sacrament whence it necessarily followeth granting Transubstantiation that Christ did eat Himself and was all at once whole at the Table whole in his own Hands whole in his own Mouth whole within Himself whole without Himself devoured by Himself and untouched All these are apparent Contradictions and of such a nature as nothing can be said that is more monstrous or liker to expose Christianity to more open Obliquy and Reproach Yet I say by this Doctrine Christ ate Himself sat at the Table and was in his own Mouth and in his own Stomach Oh Prodigious The Body of Christ was in the Body of Christ Others have told us of Men-eaters but never any but Papists of any Self-eaters who at once eat his whole Self 3. It is impossible that the Body of Christ should be eaten over-night by the Disciples and yet be crucified the next Day What! Could it be both eaten and not eaten It brings to mind the Story of Alice Driver Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 887. She conferring with Dr. Gascoign asked him whether it was Christ's Body that the Disciples did eat over-night He answered Yea. What Body was it then said she that was Crucified the next Day He replied Christ's Body How could that be said she when his Disciples had eaten him over night Except he had two Bodies as by your Argument he had one they did eat over-night and another was Crucified the next Day Such a Doctor such Doctrine This put her Examiners to that Shame that one looked on another and had not another Word to
same Facility This is the first Answer 2. This Reason plainly everts Transubstantiation For if a Consecrated Wafer do retain the Properties and Effects of Bread then it cannot be transubstantiated because the Properties of Bread are founded in the Substance of Bread and the Effects of Bread rise from the very Nature of Bread. So that if the Bread did by Consecration lose its Substance it should therewith also lose both its Properties and Effects They have yet one shift more and say it is called Bread. Fourthly By a Hebraism because phrasi hebraicâ in the Hebrew Idiom or Form of Speech all Meat is called Bread. This is Bellarmin's last Reason and that which he likes best It may says he be called Bread meo judicio optimè quia phrasi hebraicâ nomine panis intelligitur generatim omnis Cìbus But 1. Till Bellarmine have proved that our Saviour and his Apostles called this Sacramental Element by the name of Bread for this reason or more hebraico he doth but beg the question and if we list to grant it him upon his begging we may but if not he hath not nor any of the Tribe of Cardinals or Jesuits can ever prove it 2. The Apostle doth not only call it Bread but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panem hunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27. plainly shewing that he had not respect to that general Signification but spake of it in its most proper sense as it was Food made of Corn or proper Bread as Bread is distinguished and differenced from all other kinds of Meat As in the same place he speaks of Wine as it was the proper Fruit of the Vine by way of distinction from all other sorts of Liquors Thus the Apostle calls it Bread not in the general Signification of the Word but from its own particular Nature and Kind among all other sorts and kinds of Meat that is proper Bread and not any other Fish or Flesh c. We have now the Reasons of Bellarmine and other Papists whereby they do go about to elude and evade this clear and full Argument against Transubstantiation And you may yet further take notice of these four things in general That these Reasons assigned by them why the Bread after its essential Mutation is still called Bread 1. Are divers one from another wherein they fluctuate at great uncertainty Vel quia ex pane conficitur accidentia panis retinet c. Vel alio aliquo modo qui a Doctoribus comprehendi potest a nobis non potest as not knowing where or upon what to fix One while they will have it called Bread because it was Bread another while because it hath the Form and Figure of Bread then because it hath the Effects of Bread. Next not so but by a Hebraism And thus they rove about at uncertainty now say one thing then another It is called Bread in this sense or in that sense or as one of them if not more knowing yet more modest than the rest having reckoned up several Opinions about it concludes or some other way which the Doctors may understand but we do not 2. Are not only divers one from another but adverse and contrary one to another insomuch as they cannot consist and stand one with another but do mutually destroy one another For if it be called Bread 1. Tropically and Figuratively according to the First and Second then not because of its nutritive Property according to the Third 2. Because of its nutritive Virtue then not Figuratively as the First and Second 3. If by a Hebraism then none of the other three ways And 4. If any of the other ways then not more hebraico 3. Are all Figurative and improper And so they who insist so much on and contend so hotly for the literal Signification of our Saviour's Words This is my Body and exclaim on us for departing from it do themselves depart from the literal Signification of this Word Panis Bread and bring in a tropical figurative and improper sense of it For if it be called Bread only because it is made of Bread or hath the Form of Bread or the Properties and Effects of Bread or from the Idiotism of the Hebrews then it is Bread only in an improper Sense And so I say they that will not admit of a Figure in this Proposition This is my Body tho it be necessary and ordinary and constant in the Scripture in this Subject of Sacraments are forced for the Support of their Transubstantiation and literal Signification of this Proposition This is my Body to forge a Figure in this Term Bread and not one but four one on the back of another if they will have their Reasons to signify any thing Besides that by Bread here they will have us to understand Flesh Blood and Bones by some new and uncouth Figure which I understand not 4. The Romanists at this Day cannot endure this form of Speech or to hear the consecrated Wafer called Bread. Should a Priest in the Popish Countreys who is going to sing Mass but say I go to break Bread it might come to cost him his Life 2. Arg. If the Bread be converted into the real Body of Christ the Wine is also converted into the real Blood of Christ But the Wine is not transubstantiated into his Blood Therefore neither is the Bread transubstantiated into his Body For the Confirmation of this Argument this only is to be proved That there is no Transubstantiation of the Cup or Wine For they grant that if both be not neither of them is transubstantiated Now in order to a clearing of this That there is no Transubstantiation of the Wine I shall I. Lay the Words of Institution together as they are recorded by three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul. II. Shew how the Papists would prove Transubstantiation from them III. Shew that there is no such Transubstantiation I. The Words of Institution Mat. 26.28 This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Mark 14.24 This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many Luke 22.20 This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. II. From this Institution they argue for the Transubstantiation of the Cup. 1. In General on this Principle that we must keep unto the literal Signification of the Words and take them as they sound Two things they say necessitate this 1. The Nature of a Sacrament And 2. The quality of a Testament The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Testament and nothing ought to be expressed in more plain and naked Terms than these that all Obscurity and Ambiguity may be prevented For if Sacramental or Testamentary Terms be improper and figurative then their Signification is uncertain and consequently the Sacrament or Testament delivered in such Terms is vain and uncertain This
have thought that Reason was not peculiar to Men but that the Brutes have had a competent share of it And therefore they have maintained that 't was Religion that made the Difference between us and them of which they never perceived the least Footsteps in them But if these rare Stories may be believed that Opinion of theirs is utterly overthrown And the Truth of it is I could heartily wish that the Popish Missionaries would give over their Attempts on us and lay out their pains on the Conversion of these Creatures and endeavour to propagate their Faith among them An Employment which they need not disdain seeing so many of their Betters have submitted to it St. Anthony among others preaching to little or no purpose to some stubborn Hereticks that would not receive his Message turns away from them Specul Exem Dist 7. Ex. 34. and by Divine Inspiration goes to the Sea-side and calls to the Fishes Ye Fish of the Sea and River hear the Word of the Lord since the Hereticks despise it And 't was a very serious Sermon that he preached to them and to very good Purpose for some of these Fishes his Auditors open'd their Mouths and spoke and the rest of them bowed their Heads Indeed such Creatures as these are the only ones for them to exercise their Talent upon For 't is hardly to be conceived that they should have any reasonable Grounds to hope they shall ever make Rational Creatures Proselytes to such a Bundle of Nonsensical Doctrines as their Church hath embraced and among the rest this of Transubstantiation which contains many Monsters in the Belly of it which is ript up and they sufficiently exposed to the Reader 's view in the following Discourse Wherein if any Critical Eye should chance to espye some small Mistakes tho I do not know of any in it yet it being published without the Author's Consent 't is possible a few have crept in I hope the Reader will easily pardon such Venial Faults and kindly entertain this Stranger that comes out of the Country and appears publickly on no other Design but that of promoting the Common Good. MATTH xxvi 26. This is my Body THE Church of Rome hath brought in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and made it an Article of the Christian Faith that all Persons in her Communion are required to give their Assent unto and receive as necessary to Salvation Yea it is an Article of the Romish Faith that they are most hot in and have now for some Centuries contended for with Fire and Sword to the disturbing of the Peace of Christendom and shedding of Rivers of Christian Blood Anathematizing Cursing Damning and where their Arms are long enough Murthering and Butchering all without difference that refuse to give their Assent unto it And the owning of it together with the Sacrifice of the Mass that is bottomed on it and riseth out of it is the Mark of the Papal Religion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Mark or Note of Distinction betwixt a Papist and a Protestant And therefore this was the particular and main Point that most of our Blessed Martyrs in the Days of Queen Mary were first called to answer unto and declare their Judgment about and then burned at Stakes all over the Nation for denying of it and bearing witness against it And I wish that if ever the Romanists gain another like Opportunity they do not take the same Measures proceed in the same Method and make use of their old Argument Fire and Faggot against whosoever shall not admit and embrace this Doctrine It is therefore the great Concern of all Protestants who would not make Shipwrack of their Faith when it comes to a Fiery Tryal to make it their Business to have their Minds rightly informed and Judgments established in this Matter that so they may stand fast in the Faith. Now these Words of our Saviour are the Foundation upon which they would build this monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation Of which they say 1. That before the Act of Consecration the Elements are true and proper Bread and Wine 2. That after the Consecration there remaineth no Substance of Bread or Wine or any other Substance but the Substance of Christ God and Man Or the very Flesh and Blood of Christ as he was born of the Virgin Mary and did hang upon the Cross The Substance of the Bread by the Strength and Efficacy of Christ's mighty Word spoken by the Priest being converted into the Natural Body and the Substance of the Wine into the Natural Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ under the Terms of Bread and Wine 3. This Transmutation Conversion or turning of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is that which they call Transubstantiation 4. This Transubstantiation is made by the Priest pronouncing with an intention to consecrate these five Words over the Bread viz. Hoc est enim Corpus meum For this is my Body Hereby this strange Change is made yet so as the most Learned of them are not agreed among themselves about the Manner of it that is whether the Substance of the Bread be turned into the Substance of Christ's Body productive so as the Body of Christ is made ex materia panis as one thing is made of another or whether it be adductivè by a Recession of the Substance of the Bread and an Adduction or Succession of the Body of Christ into the room of it as one thing succeeds in the place of another the first being voided Thomas is for the former par 3. p. 75. Art. 3. and Suarez and Bellarmine are for this latter which indeed is no Transubstantiation but a meer Succession But leaving them to wrangle this out among themselves tho I believe it is a Matter wherein they will never accord together we shall proceed to take a view of this new and amusing or amazing Paradox Now that Transubstantiation is a most prodigious and monstrous Opinion or Fiction will be very evident from these Three Particulars I. The Original and Rise of it II. The Nature or Constitution of it III. The Products Consequences and Fruits of it I. Consider the Original and Rise of Transubstantiation from what Root or Fountain it is derived And if Enquiry be made after the Birth and first appearing of it in the World it will appear that this monstrous Opinion crept in and came up by degrees in an Age of universal Darkness and Debauchery wherein an easy Entrance and Admittance was given not onely to this but also unto a Deluge of many other corrupt Doctrines and Practices It is confessed by all that the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries were overspread with Ignorance and Profaneness insomuch that Baronius Platina Genebrard Bellarmine and other approved Writers of the Romish Church Men we may be sure that would not say the worst make very sad Exclamations and Complaints Baronius ad An. 900 hath these Words In
and whereof he that eateth shall live for ever If it be said this cannot be his Meaning for he delivered this Sermon before his Passion yet speaks of an eating and drinking that was a present Duty so that he could not have this Meaning I say it is true Passiō Christi profuit antequam fuit Beneficia Christi valent tam antrorsum quam retrorsum Ex eo tempore valet ad servandum genus humanum ex quo in Adam est vitiatum Aug. both that Christ spake this before his Passion and the eating he speaks of was a present Duty But what then distinguish between the Time of his Death and the Merit of his Death and the Difficulty is solved He is the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. Rev. 13.8 i. e. In regard of the Merit Fruits and Efficacy of his Death and the Faith of Believers Not only before his Passion but before his Incarnation the Fathers did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all drink the same Spiritual Drink For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ 1. Cor. 10.3 4. Abraham saw his Day Joh. 8.56 And the Apostle giveth this Account of him Jesus Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.8 3. In what Respect he here calls them by the Names of Bread Meat and Drink 1. Not in regard of their Nature and Substance As if the very Flesh and Blood of Christ were according to the bare sound of the Words very Meat and Drink such as our Corporeal Food is But 2. In regard of their Effect the saving Benefits of his Flesh and Blood or Passion nourish the Souls of the Faithful and preserve them unto Eternal Life even as Corporal Meat that we eat doth minister Aliment to our Bodies and preserve our Natural Lives And thus as it is the Property of Meat and Drink to maintain the Lives of them that eat and drink thereof and as whatsoever being eaten and drunk doth maintain Life is therefore called Meat and drink So it is the proper Nature of the Fruits and Effects of his Body and Blood to nourish the Souls of them that partake thereof to Eternal Life And therefore for their performing that to Souls which Meat and Drink do to Bodies he calls them by the Names of Meat and Drink 4. What kind of eating and drinking this is that he speaks of Or what our Saviour means by eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood What this Manducation of this Spiritual Meat is Per manducationem nihil aliud intelligit quam actum fidei qui consistit in apprehensione applicatione beneficiorum Christi And this is only Spiritual eating by Faith extra Sacramentum without the use of the Sacramental Signs The Romanists confess that he speaks of this kind of eating in this Chapter from the 32d to the 50th verse but then from ver 50. to 59. of eating Orally and Corporally But we say he speaketh only of Spiritual Manducation in this Chapter which doth consist in a partataking by Faith of the Merit and Virtue of his Death the Fruits and Effects of his Passion for us And thus a true Believer eats the Flesh and drinks the Blood of Christ Spiritually when he 1. Believes that Christ's Body was Crucified and his Blood shed for him for the Remission of Sins And 2. Believeth that by this Passion Jesus Christ hath obtained Remission of Sins and Eternal Life for them that do unfeignedly believe in him And when 3. By this true and lively Faith he doth embrace and close with Jesus Christ apply him to himself and from him thus received or manducated receiveth a daily Confirmation and Increase of Spiritual Life and Growth Thus then 1. The Meat our Lord speaketh of is Spiritual Meat 2. This Spiritual Meat is the saving Good prepared for us by the Body and Blood of Christ crucified for us 3. He calls these Fruits of his Passion his Body and Blood because they are obtained by and rise out of his Flesh and Blood sacrificed on the Cross 4. This eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood which he calls by the Names of Bread Meat and Drink is a Spiritual manducating or eating by Faith. This is our Saviour's Sense which is embraced by the true Protestants or Calvinists as Bellarmine calls them Secondly The Popish Sense of this Sermon This is hinted before And in short 1. They confess that the kind of Meat he speaketh of is Spiritual Meat But then they affirm 1. That this Meat is truly and properly the true and proper Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And 2. That this eating is an Oral and Corporal eating of his true and proper Flesh and Blood. A Manducation that is performed by Mouth 3. That the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is thus eaten orally and corporally by the Communicants in the Eucharist This is their constant Tenet that in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar under the Forms of Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are received orally and corporally and that is eaten this is drunk 4. That this Bodily eating and drinking in the Sacrament is the eating and drinking that is properly and primarily meant by our Lord in this Sermon Et de quâ agitur This is the Mind of the Romanists Now in the next Place I am to shew Thirdly That our Lord Jesus Christ in this Sermon is not treating properly of the Sacrament and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood much less is he here teaching the Popish Doctrine of Oral and Bodily eating and drinking his true and proper Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament In this Point we have the Consent of the Lutherans Hoc caput non proprie per se ad doctrictrinam de Coena pertinet Chemn Harm p. 1134. De spirituali comestione Dominus ait nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis biberitis ejus sanguineni non habebitis vitam in vobis De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 14. yea we have the Suffrage of divers learned Papists who quit this Argument and positively affirm That our Saviour in this Chapter doth not treat of the Sacrament As Biel in Can. Missae Card. Cajetan in Thom. par 3. q. 80. Art. 8. Card Cusan Ep. 7. ad Bohemos and many others Insomuch that Maldonatus on John 6.53 complains sadly that some Catholicks chose to think and speak in this Controversy as Hereticks rather than as the Orthodox and tho he forbear to name them yet he gives their Character in these Words Scio Catholicos scio Doctos scio Religiosos ac Probos Viros esse So that by the Jesuits own Confession we have Catholicks and Catholicks that are Learned and Religious and Honest good Men on our side Yet if this be nothing we have not only learned Men but an Infallible Pope voting for us and expounding our Lord's Words as we do viz. Innocent the
2. As it is their Addition so it is built upon a false Supposition viz. That Men may eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ in his Sense unworthily Whereas he is here speaking of such eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood as must certainly and necessarily be worthily done and cannot be done otherwise A Man may take the Signs of his Body and Blood unworthily And therefore the Apostle speaks of eating the Bread and drinking the Cup of the Lord unworthily in the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 But no Man can either in or out of the Sacrament receive the thing signified unworthily viz. Christ and his Benefits or truly believe in and apply Christ to himself unworthily If this be done at all it is done worthily and cannot be otherwise 4. The eating and drinking he here speaks of is ever followed with his dwelling in them and they in him who so eat his Flesh and drink his Blood v. 56 He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him He in me and I in him As much as to say as there is a near and inseparable Union betwixt us he is united to me and I am united to him as there is a Union of the Body and Food And this again makes it plain that he speaks not of the Sacramental eating with the Mouth or of receiving the Eucharist For then when wicked Men who are Enemies to the Cross of Christ have once received the Sacrament they should thenceforth dwell in him and he in them have a Spiritual Union to and Communion with him Yet it is certain there is no such a thing as he will one Day make them all to know Mat. 7.23 These four plainly prove this viz. That our Saviour is not here speaking of the participation of the Sacrament or of Sacramental eating and drinking and much less of the Popish Oral and Corporal eating and drinking of his true and proper Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament under the forms of Bread and Wine I may add farther 5. That our Lord Jesus Christ plainly obviates and prevents this gross and carnal Sense of his Words v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life Here I say he expounds his meaning in this Discourse It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing Deitas in Christo seu vis illa Deitatis in Christo est causa propriè cur caro sit vere cibus vivificet Ille Iesus Christi solus qui est totius Christi utriusque naturae valet ad vitam is autem non corporalis sed spiritualis est per fidem Nec audent dicere se unà cum humana Christi natura devorare quoque Deitatem ipsam Rolloc in loc Caro quidem Coeterorum omnium quicquam vere non prodest Caro autem Christi quia in ipse unigenitus Dei filius habitat sola vivificare potest Cyril l. 4. in Joh. c. 23. See Bucan loc 48. qu. 112. i. e. the Humanity profits nothing without the Divinity The Flesh or Human Nature of it self and alone hath no quickning Efficacy but in conjunction with the Spirit or Divine Nature from which it receives this quickning Power and Efficacy The Divinity is the Fountain from which this Vertue flows the Humanity is the Chanel by which it is derived unto us The Words that I speak unto you i. e. of eating my Flesh Verba quae locutus sum ad vos spiritus vita sunt intellexistis spiritualiter Spiritus vita sunt Intellexistis carnaliter etiam sic illa spititus vita sunt sed tibi non sunt spiritus est vita qui non spiritualiter non intelligis Ib. ex Augustino and drinking my Blood they are Spirit and they are Life 1. They are to be understood not after a gross and carnal manner but in a spiritual Sense and so they are Life or confer Life To this the Decretal of the Romish Church agrees in the 2d distinction of Consecration in the Canon prima quidem where we have these Words Understand that which I say spiritually You shall not eat that Body which you see nor drink the Blood which those that crucify me will shed I have recommended a sacred Sign to you which being understood spiritually will quicken you 6. If we should grant them thus much that our Saviour here speaketh of the Bodily eating of his real Body yet this would not serve their turn For they will have the Bread to be transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but this Discourse would prove the quite contrary and that if there be any Transubstantiation it is not the Bread that is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but the Body of Christ that is transubstantiated into Bread. For our Saviour here expresly calls himself Bread ten times over v. 32 33 35 48 50 51 58. So that there is far more ground to believe that the Body of Christ should be turned into Bread than that Bread should be turned into the Body of Christ 7. When they are driven from all their other Artifices whereby they would make this Sermon of our Lord to speak for them they betake themselves to their last Refuge and that is that we must believe the naked Words of Christ without any Disputation or Question about them Thus the Romanist when at a pinch says This one Word of Christ is enough to me when he calls his Flesh Meat indeed I will not deny doubt dispute This was the great Sin of the Capernaits here v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat It came not to their Mind say the Rhemists on the Words that nothing was impossible to God that wickedly said How can this Man give us his Flesh But we may make great Profit of their Sin believing the Mysteries and taking a Lesson never to say or once think How For it is a Jewish Word and worthy of all Punishment To this I say the Sin of the Jews here was 1. That they denied the Matter of Christ's Words viz. that there could be any such thing as the eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood. Their How was a How of denying the Truth of his Words 2. That they understood not but grosly mistook the true meaning of his Words when he had before plainly enough shewed them that this eating he was speaking to them of stood in believing and had promiscuously used the Phrases of eating coming believing for the same thing But it was not their Sin 1. To deny that Oral Manducation whereof they took him to speak as a thing grosly absurd and monstrous Nor 2. To enquire humbly and modestly after the true meaning of our Saviour's Words and manner of eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood. And so we believing Christ Words to be true may and ought to inquire in what Sense they are true and
the nine hundredth year of Christ the third Indiction a new Age begins which by reason of its Asperity and Barrenness of Good is wont to be called the Iron Age from the Deformity of abounding Wickedness the Leaden and from the Scarcity of Writers the obscure Age. And ad An. 974 he saith That the whole World was overspread with Darkness as thick as that in Egypt and again ad An. 992 that at that time as it was reported there were scarce any Learned Men at Rome And abundance more to the same Purpose Platina calls the Popes of those days monstra portenta hominum Genebrard in Chron. of the 9th Century calls it the unhappy Age being barren of ingenions and learned Men and complains that the Popes were altogether fallen from the Vertue of their Predecessours and were rather Apostates than Apostles Bellarmine cries out vide Seculum infelix Behold the unhappy Age in which were not to be found any famous Writers or Councils Pope Sergius was a Slave to all Vices and a most wicked Man. Baronius ad An. 908. Severall succeeding Popes were of the Breed of this Sergius and his famous Strumpet Murazia who had a great Hand in making and unmaking of Popes John the 13th one of Murozia's Brats made Deacons in his Stable among his Horses and Boys Bishops drank a Health to the Devil and was given to Sacriledge Perjury and Adultery as Baleus from Sylvester the 2d An. 999 to Hildebrand or Gregory the 7th inclusively An. 1075. The Popes says Benno were all Negromancers This Gregory or Lurva Diaboli as Luther stiled him poysoned 6 or 7 Popes before he could obtain the Chair he threw the Sacrament into the Fire and was at last deposed for his intolerable Enormities It were easy to prosecute this to a great Length and produce Multitudes of Instances out of their own Authors of the lamentable Ignorance and Wickedness both of Clergy and Laity in those Ages Now in this time when Darkness and Profaneness were grown over the Face of the Church and Church-men minded nothing but the Advancement of their Lusts and secular Interests this deformed and mishapen Monster first appeared And Disputes arose about the real Presence which some begun then to assert but were opposed by Bertram Erigena Rabanus and others in the 9th Century and by Berengarius in the 11th About the year 1170 Lombard begun to assert that the Substance of the Bread was turned into the Body and the Substance of the Wine into the Blood of Christ Sent. L. 4. dist 10. Lit. D. yet Distinct 11 Lit. A. He confesseth that he was not able to define the Manner of it But having reckoned up several Opinions he concludes that there is no Substance left but the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore Distinct 12. Lit. A. determines that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine exist sine Subjecto After Lombard this Subject became the great Apple of Contention among the School-Men who ventilated it to and fro by many Disputations whereby it was kept alive till at last in the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the 3d An. 1215. It was established as a Decree of the Sacred Council and Point of Faith That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly contained under the kinds of Bread and Wine the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of Christ This Decree the Council of Trent Sess 13. Can. 2 hath confirmed with an Anathema thundered out against all that deny Transubstantiation And thus this Monster was brought forth and came out in the Midnight of the Church when upon the Matter all Men were fast asleep II. The monstrousness of this Opinion will appear from the Consideration of the Constitution and Nature of Transubstantiation Look upon it in this respect and it will be found to be the most prodigious Monster that ever was brought forth A Monster that is constituted and compounded of many 1. Gross and inextricable Absurdities 2. Manifest Impossibilities and Contradictions 3. Open and abominable Impieties 4. Horrible Blasphemies There is such a Colluvies Cloaca or Sink of all these meeting in Transubstantiation as never met together in any of the most absurd Opinions that the Pagan World hath been given up unto First It is compounded of many gross Absurdities Absurdities against Sense Reason Faith Scripture 1. It goes against Sense Sense when duly disposed or rightly circumstantiated that is when the Organ is sound and right the Medium or Mean fitly qualified and the Object duly proportionated is a competent Judg of things that are the proper Objects of Sense St. Luke therefore brings this as the great Evidence and Proof of the Truth and Certainty of those things which he communicated by Writing unto the World concerning our Saviour's Person Doctrine and Miracles Luke 1.1 2 3. And St. John useth the same Argument 1 Joh. 1.2 3. Yea our Lord Jesus Christ himself when he would convince the Apostles who thought he had been a Spirit at his appearing to them after his Resurrection that it was he himself sends them for Conviction and Satisfaction to their own Senses Luk. 24.36 37 38 39 40. Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have And Joh. 20.27 he useth the same Argument to doubting Thomas Reach hither thy Finger and behold my Hands and reach hither thy Hand and thrust it into my Side and be not faithless but believing Thus Sense is a competent Judg of matters of Sense But now if we receive Transubstantiation we must renounce and go against or clean cross to all our Senses For if we make our Senses when best disposed Judges in this Case and bring a Popish Host or Wafer to this Bar they will all with one accord conclude that it is Bread and not Flesh Bread and nothing else The Eye the Touch the Taste the Smell will all agree in this Yea if Indians or Americans who are perfectly unconcerned in these Matters and know nothing of our Differences be called in to give their Vote in this Controversy they will without all Controversy forthwith determine against Transubstantiation For it is plainly contrary to the common Sense of all Mankind He must have something more than his five Wits about him nay go quite out of all his Senses that finds another Substance and Body than that of Bread in a consecrated Wafer If it be said But our Senses may be deceived and represent things to us otherwise than they are I say true it may be so when there is some indisposition of the Organ or Medium or Object But then if Transubstantiation be true and there be a deception in this Case it must be granted that the Senses of all Men are deceived and that the Senses of all Men are deceived not for once or at some times but constantly Day after Day and Year after Year And that
speak Thirdly It is compounded of many abominable Impieties even such as deserve to be had in utter Detestation and Abomination among all them that name the Name of Christ It is execrable Impiety to say 1. That the Son of God and Saviour of Man and the Devil both entered into Judas together 2. That the Body and Blood of Christ may kill and destroy the Bodies of Men. Yet this supposed viz. that Transubstantiation is true it may be yea hath been so the Emperor Henry the 7th was poysoned in the Host and Pope Victor the 3d was poysoned in the Chalice Now they must grant that the Poyson which killed them was either 1. In the Elements or in the bare Accidents or in the Body and Blood of Christ The first they must flatly deny if they will be constant to their own Hypothesis the second is grosly absurd and therefore they must grant the third and that is horribly impious 3. It is execrable Impiety to say that the Body of Christ 1. May be inclosed in a Wafer 2. May be devoured and eaten by wicked Men. 3. May be gnawed and torn with the Teeth of Men. 4. May be mangled and cut in pieces with Swords or Knives 5. May be eaten by Mice and Rats and other Vermin 6. May grow mouldy and rot away 7. May breed Worms and Maggots 8. May be stolen as Laban's Gods Gen. 31.30 and never found again 9. May be thrown into the Mire and trodden under the Feet of Men and Beasts 10. May be cast out into the Draught or Jakes 11. May be swept to the stinking Dunghil All these are horrible to be once named yet granting Transubstantiation they may be done are done and many of them cannot but be done almost every Day If Transubstantiation be true then the Body of Christ is inclosed in a Wafer eaten by wicked Men may be torn with Teeth mangled with Swords gnawed by Vermin c. Whatsoever entereth in at the Mouth goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught Mat. 15.17 I shall shut up this with the Saying of Margery Baxter to one who told her that she believed that the Sacrament of the Altar after Consecration was the very Body of Christ in form of Bread. Margery answered your Belief is naught for if every such Sacrament were God and the very Body of Christ there should be an infinite Number of Gods. Because that a thousand Priests and moe do make a thousand such Gods and afterward eat them every day and void them out again by their hinder parts filthily stinking under the Hedges where you may find a great many such Gods if you will seek for them Act. and Mon. 610. Fourthly It is compounded of many horrible Blasphemies Transubstantiation is a name and thing that is full of Blasphemy For 1. It overthrows the Humanity of Christ Jesus Christ hath not a true human Body if it want a human Shape the Figure Quantity and essential Properties of a Body Now a Body that is invisible impalpable without Extention or Quantity Parts or Members scituated apart in their places due distance of Parts just Dimensions Place or Room taken up by it wants the Figure and essential Properties of a Body and is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And such a Body is Christ's Body made by Transubstantiation It is true they are not agreed in what manner the Body of Christ is in the Host Some will have it to be there absque magnitudine without quantity Others will have it to be there in quantity but without Figure Extension or Distinction of Parts See Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 5. We have a remarkable instance of this in the dissention betwixt Dr. Kenall and Dr. Chadsey as they were examining one Thomas Wood. Kenall having asked Wood this question Dost thou not believe that after the Priest hath spoken these Words This is my Body that there remains no more Bread and Wine but the very Flesh and Blood of Christ as he was born of the Virgin and did hang upon the Cross Wood answered I pray you Master Chancellor give me leave to ask you another When God commanded Ezekiel to shave off his Hair and to burn a third part in the Fire and this Ezek. 5.5 saith he is Jerusalem I pray you was it Hair that was burnt or Jerusalem Kenall answered It did signify Jerusalem Even so these Words of Christ are to be understood said Wood. Upon this Chadsey replyed I will prove that Christ is here present under the Form of Bread and Wine but not in quantity and quality Yes saith Kenall he is here present in quantity and quality Chadsey returned he is here present under a Form but not in quantity and quality And thus the one said Yes the other said No Till the Contention grew so hot that they foamed again and Kenall departed in a great Rage Whereupon Wood said Behold good People they would have us to believe that which they do not believe themselves nor can agree upon Yet tho they cannot agree in what Manner the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament they are thus far at one viz. That the Body of Christ is inclosed in the Wafer and not only so but that the Body of Christ is whole and entire in every Crum and Point of the Wafer and Drop of the Wine And whole and entire as many times as there are Crumbs and Drops in the Bread and Wine Now this must necessarily destroy his Humanity For a Body in all Points like unto ours Sin only excepted as our Saviour's was Heb 2.17 I say a Body of such Dimensions cannot be in so small a room as a little thin Wafer and so often over also as there are smallest Points in that Wafer But it must be without Figure distinct Parts Extension c. A Body without bigness long without length broad without breadth thick without thickness A Body with two Eyes two Hands two Feet all in one self-same Point 2. It turneth the Body of Christ into a Monster or mishapen Thing into the Figure and Form of a round Cake that hath neither Shape nor any Part of a human Body If a Woman should bring forth a round Cake of Bread when she is in Travail instead of a Manchild of right Shape all the Countrey would presently ring of it as a very strange and monstrous Birth and is it not much more monstrous to hear this of the Body of our blessed Lord What Christian Ear can endure such Blasphemy 3. It investeth Man with a Power to make God and the Creature with a Power to create his Creator This every silly and filthy massing Priest pretends to do each day viz. make Jesus Christ Hence proceedeth their Manner of speaking He that created me hath given me Power to create him and he that created me without my Help is created by me And so of lifting up God when the Priest lifts up the Host and going to see their Creator when
they go to Mass and to receive their Creator when they are to receive at Easter and so also the Priest carries it to the Sick with these Words Behold my Friend God thy Creator whom I have brought unto thee Thus they ascribe a Power to Man to make God. And Biel setteth every Priest in this respect Virgo Maria si in gratiae plenitudinae creaturas supergrediatur universas Hierarchis tamen cedit Ecclesiae in commissi mysterii executione Illa nempe prolatis octo verbulis Ecce Ancilla Domini fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum semel concepit Dei filium Mundi Redemptorem Isti a Domino consecrati quinque verbis contextam consecrationis formam cum debita intentione proferentes eundem Dei Virginisque filium invocant quotidie corporaliter in sacrificium criminum purgationem Biel Lect. 4. in Can. Missae above the Blessed Virgin. She conceived and bare Christ but once but a Priest can make him as often as he will. But let those Wretches go on in their God-making as long as they will let us say of this breaden God as Katharine Hut Martyr to Bonner I deny it to be God because it is a dumb God and made with Mens Hands 4. It carrieth this Blasphemy also in it that as a Priest can make God so he can make God of a Piece of Bread of that which was but a little before growing in the Field cut by the Reapers threshed out with a threshing Instrument ground in the Mill kneaded and made by the Baker and baken in the Oven Fit Cibus ex Pane Caro Deus ex Elemento What can be more monstrous than this The Athemans sentenced Anaxagoras to Death for affirming that the Sun was nothing else but a fiery Stone those Idolaters counting it a great Blasphemy to make their God a Stone and shall we consent to them who would make our God a Piece of Bread I shall say to you as the holy Martyr John Noyes to the People when he was at the Stake Good People they tell you that they can make a God of a piece of Bread but believe them not When the Chancellor of Norwich asked Cicely Ormes what it was that the Priest held up over his Head she said Bread and if you would make it any better it is worse I mention the Sayings of our English Martyrs and I do profess that I mention them with great Content and esteem them worthy to be graven with an Iron Pen and Lead in the Rock for ever Being the Sayings of those more than Conquerours who sealed the Truth with their dearest Blood and by it they being dead yet speak every drop of their Blood preaching this Truth to us which they sacrificed it in the Defence of dying not only with invincible Courage and Constancy but also with an Exuberancy of Joy and Comfort professing that if they had a hundred Lives they should all go in this Cause 5. Yet it is big with another Blasphemy which is worse if there can be a worse And that is that Man may eat his Maker the Creature his Creator and a People may devour their God. This is their constant Practice first they lift up the Host next they adore it as God and then forthwith eat it up But Cicero could say Quem tam amentem esse putas who dost thou think is so mad and beside himself as to believe that to be a God that he eats Surely it is no less than amazing Madness in any to believe that that they eat can be a God but it is something worse than Folly and Madness for any to eat that which they believe is their God. When Pharaoh King of Egypt gave way that the Hebrews should sacrifice to their God in the Land Moses returned this Answer It is not meet so to do for we shall sacrifice the Abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God Lo shall we sacrifice the Abomination of the Egytians before their Eyes and will they not stone us Exod. 8.26 that is to say if we should sacrifice those Beasts to the Lord our God before the Eyes of the Egyptians which they do worship and give Divine Honour unto animalia quae abominando cultu colunt quae abominantur occidi they would be so enraged with this Fact as they would certainly stone us Will they not stone us doubtless they will. They will never abide to see their Gods sacrificed But tho the Egyptians would not have born this yet the Papists can yea instead of stoning others they daily sacrifice their God with their own Hands eat him when they have done and sacrifice those in Flames that will not do as they do 6. Once more it is a Doctrine that puts God into the Power and makes him subject to the Will and Pleasure of every sorry Priest Who can 1. Make God when he will. 2. Carry him whither he will 3. Keep him where he will in his Pocket or Purse or Trunk or Chest or Box or any where else 4. Do with him what he will tread him under foot cast him to Dogs or Hogs to be devoured by them throw him into Fire or Water as Pope Gregory the 7th who cast the Sacrament or Host into the Fire because it answered not his Demands concerning his Success against the Emperour Yea he may pawn him for Security of Debts As Lewis the 9th of France who being conquered and taken Captive by the Turks in Egypt was restored on Condition that he should pay a great Ransom Lewis for Security of the Mony pawned to the Turk his * The Pyx is a Box wherein the Host or Consecrated Wafer is put and preserved Pyx and Host and he was four Years before he could get his Ransom and redeem his God by which time we may suppose it was in a very pitiful Pickle Fuller's holy War ad An. 1249. Thus Transubstantiation is a Doctrine that carries Blasphemies in Capital Letters upon its Forehead We have now finished the second Particular and from what is said may see that Transubstantiation is constituted of many Absurdities Impossibilities Impieties and Blasphemies III. The Abominableness of this Doctrine will appear from the Consideration of the Consequents Products and Fruits of it And certainly nothing but what is monstrous can come out of the Womb of such a Monster It is the Mother of Abominations that hath brought forth and bred up among many others these Seven Monsters of Abomination and Impiety First The real Presence in the Sacrament or the Carnal and Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood as born of the Virgin The Efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all that is here presented to be received as is confessed by the true Protestant Churches of our Confession But first and principally Christ himself for there is a Participation saith the Apostle of the Body and Blood of Christ who is exhibited as really and truly present not opposing real to
spiritual but to chimerical or phantastical nor intending his presence in the Elements as contained in them but to the Faith of the Receiver who hath Vnion with him c. Vines on the Sacrament p. 118. We hold that the Body and Blood of Christ is really that is truly exhibited and present to the Faith of the Receiver and we might express the real Presence as real is opposed to imaginary or chimerical were it not for Caption and Misunderstanding None of ours deny the Body of Christ to be really the spiritually eaten by a Believer c. Id. 125. We do positively and constantly assert and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Sacrament in the following Sense that is that Christ is present not only in regard of 1. His Divinity or Divine Nature which is in all Places and indistantly present with every Being 2. His Spirit by whose Operation the Benefits of Christ are applied to Believers 3. Our Commemoration of him and shewing forth of his Death in this Action As things that are past and absent are made in a sort present to us by a Solemn Commemoration 4. Our Meditations and Contemplations of him in this Action As Contemplation brings the Object of it before the Eyes of the Mind and presents it to them 5. Our Affections that are or should be here fixed upon him The Heart and Affections fixing upon an Object make it present bring it to have a kind of Being with them The Apostle Paul Phil. 1.7 tells the Philippians that he had them in his Heart Tho in regard of his Personal Presence he was at a great distance from them yet in regard of his dear Affection unto them they were in his very Heart And so in this Ordinance Jesus Christ and the Affections of true Christians do meet I add that 6. The Body and Blood of Christ are present yet not 1st Locally per indistantium as included in or affixed to the Elements as the Wine is in the Cup. In this Sense they are as far distant from the Elements as the place where the Sacrament is celebrated is distant from Heaven Nor 2dly Substantially or Corporally This follows on the former The Signs are with us but the Substance is in Heaven But they are thus truly and really present 1. Sacramentally and Symbolically in the sacred Signs and Symbols of them His real Body is in Heaven but we have his representative Body present with us in the Sacrament Here the corporal Signs of it are corporally present 2. Vertually in their Vertue and Efficacy or by a Vertual Presence and an Efficacious Influence as the Body of the Sun is present not only upon the Surface but in the Bowels of the Earth Deut. 33.14 Thus there is a true and real Vertue Power and Efficacy of his Body and Blood really present Yea the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Blood the benefits of his Passion are no less present and communicated to Believers than if he were locally present In actione Coenae praesens est Dominus non in Signo nec pani participato sed cordi participantis non exhibitione carnis vel animae suae sed exhibitione spiritus gratiae quae non ore excipiantur sed fide cujus est id sibi praesens reddere quod apprehendit ut oculus quod videt Spanh Dub. Evang. part 3. Dub. 143. p. 839. The Presence with or under the Elements is one thing and the presence to the Soul and Faith of a Believer is another Vines 125. 3. Spiritually that is not in respect of their Essence but of our perceiving and receiving of them and their Vertue and Efficacy in nourishing us The Spirits or Souls of Believers by Faith only do receive them and by them through the Efficacy of the Holy Spirit are truly and really nourished to Spiritual and Eternal Life Thus the Body and Blood of Christ are really present Non pani ori sed fidei cordi credentium As August Nos Christum in Coelis sedentem manu contrecture non possumus sed Christum fide contingere possumus Et haec praesentiae spiritualis corporis Christi est verissima realissima Wend. Theol. 516. And thus we assert and believe that the Body of Christ is truly and really present in this threefold Sense but we do utterly disown and detest this real or corporal Presence of the Papists in or under the Signs which is the Daughter of Transubstantiation a Daughter like her Mother i. e. a very Monster repugnant to the nature of a Sacrament the end of the Lord's Supper to the nature of a true Human Body to the state of Christ's glorious Body to the Ascension of Christ to Heaven and as is before shewed to the express Testimony of the Scriptures And this is the First-born of Transubstantiation and I may say of it as the Martyr Elizabeth Folks said who when asked Whether she believed the Presence of Christ's Body to be in the Sacrament substantially and really or no answered That she believed it was a substantial Lye and a real Lye. Or as Thomas Watts Martyr who being examined by Bishop Bonner about the Sacrament of the Altar told him That he believed Christ's Body to be in Heaven and no where else and that he would never believe that it was in the Sacrament And that the Mass was abominable Idolatry Secondly The Multipresence or manifold Presence of Christ's Body This is another Birth of Transubstantiation and it is fruitful this way to a Wonder yea to a Miracle It is recorded in Story as a thing that was very monstrous and miraculous that Margaret of Holland Countess of Hausburg brought forth 364 Children at one Birth Belg. Com. Wealth p. 127. But this was a sorry thing to be stranged at Behold here Transubstantiation bringing forth ten times so many Christs on a Day and Day after Day without any intermission for one Day in a whole Year By this miraculous power of Transubstantiation and the wonderful fecundity of her Womb it comes to pass 1. That Christ is not only in Heaven but upon the Earth at the same time 2. That he is not only both in Heaven and Earth but also in many parts and places of the Earth at the same time In England France Spain Italy America and no Body knows in how many places at once Yea 3. That he is in several Parts and Corners of the same Church at once in one Man's Hand in another Man's Mouth in a third Man's Pyx and Pocket c. And in their private Masses which are celebrated in several Corners of the same Church and the Body of Christ created in six or seven Corners at once Nay 4. That he is in several parts of the same Host at once For they tell us in plain English and without any Circumlocution that he is whole in every Crumb and Point of the Host and in every Drop of the Wine And if so who can tell
how may Christs there may be in the compass of one Host or in the Wine of one Flaggon This is the second it produces a Multipresence makes Christ to be Carnally Substantially and Corporally present in a thousand thousand places at one and the same time Thirdly The Oral Carnal Corporal or Bodily eating of the Body of Christ whereby it entreth in at the Mouth and goeth into the Belly This is another Monster like its Fellows that comes out of the Womb of Transubstantiation 〈◊〉 they that believe Transubstantiation believe that they eat Christ's real Body Flesh Blood and Bones orally in the Sacrament of the Altar In this Sacrament 1. We eat the Body of Christ Sacramentally when we receive the sacred Sign of his Body This is manducatio signi Et manducatio corporalis oralis This may be done by Unbelievers and Wicked who eat the Bread of the Lord. 2. We eat the Body of Christ Sacramentally and Spiritually when we do not only receive the sacred Sign by the Hand into our Mouths but Christ also by Faith into our Hearts Thus true Believers eat him in this Sacrament receiving not only the Bread of the Lord orally but the Bread which is the Lord spiritually 3. Besides that Sacramental eating only proper to Unbelievers and this Sacramental and Spiritual eating simul conjunctim jointly and together proper to Believers There is a spiritual eating only out of the use of the Sacrament This is done as often as a Christian by Faith applies Christ and derives Spiritual Nourishment from him Of this our Saviour treats John 6. and of this Augustin speaks when he says Vt quid puras dentem ventrem Crede manducasti credere enim in cum hoc est panem vivum manducare But this Carnal Corporal Oral eating introduced by the Papists and growing out of Transubstantiation is 1. Horribly impious and abominable Turning Christians into Canibals Man-eaters Savages that for this are justly loathed and abhorred by Mankind 2. Utterly impossible How is it possible that Christ's glorious Body now immortal and impassible in Heaven should be eaten by poor sinful Mortals upon Earth 3. Wholly unprofitable If it were possible yet I would ask what profit or benefit should we obtain by a Carnal and Capernaitical eating of his Flesh in the Sacrament The Papists confess that it is a Spiritual Feast a Feast for the Soul not for the Body Con. Triden Sess 13. cap. 2. Now how can the Food of the Soul be received by the Mouth of the Body Or how can that which entreth by the Mouth into my Stomach and Belly nourish my Soul This is a great Mystery 4. Grosly absurd For on this it will follow that Christ did orally eat his own Flesh and drink his own Blood and died twice once in the Administration of the Supper and again upon the Cross 5. Plainly inconsistent with the Spiritual Manducation or eating of his Body in the Sacrament And 6. Manifestly repugnant to the Scriptures Fourthly The Sacrifice of the Mass or Missal Oblation of a piece of Bread which they believe to be the true and proper Body of Christ under the kind or form of Bread unto God the Father as a propitiatory and expiatory Sacrifice both for the quick and dead This is another Birth of the same Belly or Product of Transubstantiation A blasphemous Sacrifice 1. Directly contrary to the Scripture Heb. 9.26 28. and Chap. 10.10 12 14. 2. Highly opprobrious to the Person Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ Evacuating the Sacrifice of his Death overthrowing his perpetual Priesthood and putting his Person under a lower degree of Humiliation than the lowest that he condescended unto in his state of Humiliation Then he took upon him the forth of a Servant was made in the likeness of Men and was found in fashion as a Man Phil. 2◠7 8. But now he is put into the form of a Wafer the likeness of a piece of Bread and is found every where upon their Altars in the Priests Hands and Peoples Pockets in fashion as a bit of Bread. 3. Intolerably injurious to Christians As taking away the Lord's Table or driving the Lord's Supper out of the Church For the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Lord's Supper are diametrically opposite one to the other in many respects Ego medicus tu aegrotus ille minister gratia Antidotum vas Sacramentum So hereby Christian Congregations are quite deprived of this last and great Ordinance of their dying Lord which is a Mirror of the ineffable Love of God and Christ a visible Word preaching Christ to the Eye an Epitome of the Gospel the Seal of Christ's Testament and as a sacred Dish wherein the Father exhibits Christ with all his Fulness unto Believers Fifthly The Superstitious Reservation of the Host or Wafer after Consecration omitting the distribution receiving and eating in remembrance of Christ Nihil habet rationem Sacramenti exrra usum divinitûs insticutum it is reposited and kept to be carried about and accommodated to other Uses contrary to the institution of Christ example of the Apostles practise of the Primitive Church and nature of the Sacrament For a Sacrament out of the use appointed by God hath not the nature of a Sacrament This is another practise of the same Descent and Race and confirmed by the Council of Trent Sess 13. Cap. 6. Sixthly The Theatrical Circumgestation or carrying of the Host in Procession This came in at the same Door Transubstantiation is the Mother of Popish Processions wherein the Host is carried about with great Solemnity for staying of Fires laying of Tempests driving away Devils c. Yea they have a stated Annual Feast Corporis Christi i. e. Sacramenti Corporis Jesu Christi of the Body or Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ kept for the Honour of the Sacrament This Feast was instituted by Vrban the 4th about the Year 1264 to be observed the 5th Day after the Octaves of Whitsunday upon the pretended Revelation of one Eva then an Anchoress or rather the Bawd of Vrban as Baley confesseth as is evident from the Bull of Vrban to this Eva whereby he ordains this new Festivity to be observed devota Turba fidelium throughout the World It is celebrated with great Pomp and Ceremony The Body of Christ as they call it being placed in a rich Coffer upon a costly Cushion is carried on a white Horse gorgeously attired and trapped c. through the Streets Lanes and High-ways to be beheld and adored by all People Thomas Aquinas made the Office for this Day for which the Pope gave him a Silver Dove whence it is that he is pictured with a Dove at his left Shoulder Seventhly The Idolatrous Adoration of the Host Transubstantiation hath brought an Idol into the Church As the blessed Martyr Ann Askew said The Mass as it is now used in our Days I do say and believe it to be the most abominable Idol that is in
2. The manner of our Saviour's expressing himself in this matter doth also prove it For that he directed his Speech to the Disciples and spoke these Words to them of the Bread is past all dispute But common Sense will tell us That if our Saviour had intended any such thing as a Popish Consecration and Transubstantiation by them he would have directed his Speech to God the Father in this or the like Form Let this Bread be my Body or to the Bread saying Be thou my Body and not to the Disciples 3. The Words of our Saviour This is my Body are Words of Signification not of Transubstantiation assertive and declarative not operative and conversive Words I say they are declarative Words of that which is signifying what the Bread is before the Words be pronounced and not imperative and effective of that which is not but shall be after they are pronounced that is they signify that the Bread is his Body before and not only after they are pronounced The Romanists being pluched with this do some of them as is shewed by Duâ—and Rut. l. 4. r. 41. n. 15. and Thom. par 3. q. 78. Art. 1. make this Evasion That Christ in the institution of this Sacrament used these Words twice first secretly to consecrare the Communion and then openly to instruct the Communicants in this order 1. He took the Bread 2. He blessed it by saying This is my Body and then 3. He brake it and gave it saying Take eat This is my Body first he used it to Consecrate and then the second time to shew his Apostles the form of Consecration This they say but if we will not be so kind as to take their bare word they can never prove it 4. There is as good ground to infer and conclude that our Saviour is really and substantially changed into a Door a Vine a Rock a Foundation a Lamb a Lion a Rose a Star a Sun c. from Joh. 10.7 Joh. 15.1 1 Cor. 10.4 Isa 28.16 Joh. 1.29 Revel 5.5 Cant. 2.1 Rev. 22.16 Mal. 4.2 as there is to infer Transubstantiation from these words 5. If it were true as it is not that our Lord Jesus Christ did convert the Bread into his Body by pronouncing these words over it yet how doth it follow That the massing Priest doth the same by saying over the same words Till they can prove that their Priests have this Power from Christ lodged in them it may more rationally be inferred that as often as they read these words Let there be Light they make Light by reading of them because God did make it by them 6. The true meaning of the words This is my Body is not then as the Romanists say this that was Bread is now transubstantiated into my Body For when he said This is my Body by This he meant and understood that which he then held in his Hands now when he pronounced the word This he held nothing but Bread in his Hands and therefore by This he meant the Bread that he had in his Hands and gave and commanded them to eat as before But the meaning is This Bread I have taken blessed broken and give you to take and eat is my Body that is a sacred Sign of my Body my Body Sacramentally and Symbolically as much as to say a Representation and Memorial of my Body The Change is in Signification not of Substance in regard of Use and Office not of Nature and Being It remains to be Bread as it was before in Nature and Substance and is the Body of Christ in Signification and Representation which it was not before Yet this is not a bare Significative Form as this The Field is the World Mat. 13.38 i. e. signifies the World Or as that Rev. 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches i. e. do signify the seven Angels and Churches and many such like But it is a Sacramental Form wherein together with the Representation and Signification there is a real Exhibition of the Thing signified The Bread is his Body a representing exhibiting and conveying Sign of his Body at once both representing and exhibiting and conveying Christ crucified with the Benefits of his Cross and Passion to the Faith of a true Christian or Believer We come to the Reasons alledged for the Popish Sense First They say Christ spoke clearly and plainly so as the Disciples might easily understand his meaning 1. And I say so also It is not to be called once into question whether our Lord spoke plainly and apertly so as the Disciples might understand him or no. 2. I say moreover that it is as unquestionable that the Disciples did both readily and well understand our Lord's words and also in the Sense that we understand them Cum istis verbis non sint turbati planum est intellexisse ea metonymicè ex more Scripturae praesertim cùm paulo antè comedissent Agnum qui eodem sensu Pascha id est transitus appellatur Exod 12.27 Bucan Loc. Com. Loc. 48. q. 50. this can be no more doubted of by any that are not prepossessed with their own Sense than the other For they were both acquainted with the Language of the Scripture wherein our Sense of these Words of our Saviour is very ordinary and frequent in many Propositions and Expressions and they were also acquainted with their own Language that hath not as is observed any proper word for signify but makes use of is instead thereof whence this Stile and Sense was usual and common among them an ordinary form of Speech Besides all this the Disciples never questioned their Lord and Master about the meaning of this Proposition whereas we find them often asking him of the meaning of Speeches that he used which were incomparably more easy for them to understand than the meaning of these words if they had apprehended or suspected them to carry any thing of such a meaning in them as the Papists put upon them And therefore I say again 3. That this Reason they bring for their Sense of them doth quite destroy and overthrow their Sense of them if he spoke plainly and so as the Disciples might well understand his meaning when he said This is my Body as they say he did then certainly he did not mean that the Bread he had in his Hand was transubstantiated and converted into his real Body and that his very Body was contained under that Form of Bread in his Hand For verily this is a Sense not easie to be understood but must without all question have startled amused and posed them all exceedingly to conceive or understand how he could fit at the Table with them as they saw he did and at the same time give to every one of them his whole Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk yea to eat his own Body and drink his own Blood before their very Faces this would
be said 1. Then the Priest lies in saying This is and should say This shall be my Body 2. Then the great operative and conversive Virtue of these mighty Words lies in the last Syllable um this seems to be the Opinion of Thomas Conversio Panis in Corpus Christi fit in tèrmino prolationis horum verborum Tunc enim completur significatio hujus locutionis in 1 Cor. 11.24 3. Then as the Body of Christ is created in an instant so the Bread is annihilated or ceaseth to be in an instant 4. Then it is either at one and the same instant that the Bread vanisheth and the Body of Christ succeedeth in the room or another instant but it is neither of these 1. Not the same instant For then the Bread and Body of Christ should be both together and at the same time under the same Accidents But this the Papists will not hear of but affirm constantly That first the Bread only and secondly the Body of Christ alone is under the Accidents one after the other but never together 2. Not another instant For then in the interspace the Accidents should subsist without either the Substance of the Bread or Body of Christ under them but they say it is never thus but either the Bread or Body of Christ is contained under the Accidents and to say otherwise would be most absurd And thus if they will be constant to their own Sentiments tho we should grant them their own Sense of our Saviour's Words they will not serve their turn nor be a Foundation to build Transubstantiation upon but contrary-wise will quite subvert this Dagon For there can be no Transubstantiation 1. Before the Words are pronounced 2. After they are pronounced 3. In the time of Pronunciation 4. In any other instant and therefore there can be none at all We have done with their first Argument Secondly They argue from the Sermon which our Saviour preached unto the Capernaits John 6. wherein they say he opens the great Meat and Mystery of the blessed Sacrament of the Altar In which his true Body and Blood or Himself is eaten and drunken under the forms of Bread and Wine which doth necessarily infer a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his very Body and Blood. The places urged for this are Vers 41. unto Vers 59. but they insist especially on Vers 51 53 55. here say they our Saviour expresly affirms 1. That his Flesh is Bread. Vers 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World. 2. When the Jews contended about this Saying as absurd or impossible Vers 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat he again with an ingeminated asseveration affirms That what he had asserted was not only true and no way absurd nor impossible but also that this eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood was most necessary and beneficial Vers 53 54. Verily verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you Whose eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day 3. That his Flesh is Meat and his Blood is Drink indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vere Vers 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed i. e. true Meat and Drink or truly Meat and Drink or very Meat and Drink so that say they it is plain that here he doth not speak improperly but most properly of his Body as proper Meat and of his Blood as proper Drink and of the proper and bodily eating and drinking of his very Body and Blood with the Mouth in the Eucharist And this doth undeniably prove Transubstantiation that the Bread is turned into his real Body and the Wine into his Blood. This is the Argument for Transubstantiation drawn form this Sermon of our Saviour preached at Capernaum Our Saviour having miraculously fed five thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes a great Multitude flocked after him whereupon he took an occasion to preach to them of Spiritual Meat under a Metaphor taken from the present matter as in Chap. 4. he had taken occasion from the Water of Jacob's Well to preach to the Samaritan Woman of the Water whereof whosoever drinks shall never thirst And in this Sermon he shews them 1. That there was a kind of Meat which would endure to everlasting Life which they should seek for rather than the Meat which perisheth 2. Who it is that giveth this Meat 3. What this Meat is viz. his Flesh and Blood. 4. That this is a more excellent Meat than that Corporal Food which they had been fed with and followed him for and than the Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the Wilderness as it was Corporal Food only and received by the Mouth into the Belly and so he here speaketh of it and not as it was a Temporary Sacrament to their Fathers But to come to the Matter lying before us In order to a clear and satisfactory Answer to the Argument drawn hence which they place great Confidence in I shall endeavour to shew 1. our Saviour's Sense in this Sermon 2. The Popish Sense that is put upon it 3. That our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Body and Blood. But 4. That our Saviour is here treating of the Spiritual eating and drinking of his Body and Blood out of or without the Sacrament And so Transubstantiation will fall to the Ground if they have no better Foundation to fix it upon First Our Saviour's Sense in this Sermon and how we must understand him if we will understand him in the Sense intended by him And here are four Things to be enquired into 1. What kind of Meat this is which our Saviour discourses of to the Capernaits in this Sermon And it is not Corporeal Meat but Spiritual Meat Even as Chap. 4. He speaketh to the Samaritan Woman of a Water whereof whosoever shall drink shall never thirst which is not meant of a Material Water but Spiritual Grace as the Papists do confess Yea this they do freely grant here For tho they will have it to be Material Food and to be eaten Orally and Corporally yet they confess that it is Spiritual Meat Meat for the Soul not for the Belly Mentis non ventris animae non corporis 2. What this Spiritual Meat properly is Now this is Christ himself with all the Benefits and Fruits of his Cross and Passion This Meat is made up of and consisteth in the saving Benefits prepared for us by the Body and Blood of Christ crucified and rising out of his Passion This is the Food Meat Bread which he here speaketh of that giveth Life to the World
3d. under whom Transubstantiation was first decreed who speaking of our Saviour's Words John 6.53 hath these Words The Lord speaketh of Spiritual eating saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you Now that our Lord Jesus Christ is not here speaking of the Participation of the Sacrament or eating of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament will be evident from these 1. The Sacrament of the Eucharist was not then instituted nor as some think of two years after this or as others who make the Passover v. 4. the third Passover after his Baptism not until more than a full year after And therefore he could not speak of an eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood in the Sacrament that was not then in being nor of so long a time after If it be said True indeed it was not then in being but yet he spoke with reference to it and to instruct them beforehand in the Mystery of this Meat which was to be prepared for them in the Eucharist To this I say 1. How could they to whom he spake possibly understand any thing of his meaning when speaking with relation to a thing that was not nor whereof they had either then or before any intimation or least insinuation that such a thing should be They say elsewhere that he spoke plainly and intelligibly and it may very reasonably be supposed that now he spake to be understood and of a matter that might be understood by them but it can hardly be imagined how they could understand this Discourse to be meant of a Sacrament a Sacrament neither before nor then once mentioned nor instituted and in being of a Year or two after 2. Jesus Christ was the Bread of Life at that very time when he preached this Sermon v. 35. I am the Bread of Life v. 48. I am the Bread of Life And again v. 50. Thus he speaks of that which then was before the Sacrament of his Supper was instituted 3. Our Saviour proposeth and presseth the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood as a present and necessary Duty A Duty that all those that were present and heard him were then obliged unto And therefore it must necessarily be granted that this Meat was then in being and might be eaten by the Faithful but they could not then eat it in the Sacrament which had no being nor was instituted This is the first thing that plainly proves that our Lord and Saviour is not here treating of Sacramental eating and drinking the Sacrament was not instituted 2. The eating and drinking which he here speaks of are necessary to Salvation Acts that he makes so necessary Conditions of Life as no Man can be saved without them V. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you It is an eating and drinking without which none can have Life So that if our Saviour mean it of Sacramental eating and drinking no Man can be saved that hath not received the Sacrament And from hence it was that the Fathers who took this Sermon to be meant of the Sacrament being moved by these Words ordered the Eucharist to be given and gave it to Infants as soon as they were baptized as necessary to their Salvation And indeed this doth necessarily follow this Exposition of our Saviour's Words But from this very thing it is evident that our Saviour's Words cannot be meant of Sacramental eating because that Sacramental eating is not absolutely necessary to Salvation so as no Man can be saved except he have once at least taken the Sacrament For many who never ate his Flesh nor drank his Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are certainly saved All the Faithful that lived and dyed before the Incarnation of Christ ate the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink and are saved as our Adversaries will not deny yet none of them did ever once eat it in the Eucharist The penitent Thief went from the Cross to Paradise immediately yet had never eaten the Sacrament Many thousand Infants and Children of Christian Parents dye one Generation after another before they have once tasted of the Sacrament Are all these Damned There have been and are abstemious Persons who cannot brook the least sup or drop of Wine Must all these who are suspended from Drinking by a natural and sinless Infirmity or Antipathy to Wine be given up for Lost They think to evade the Force of this Argument that falls so convincingly upon them by this sorry shift viz. That our Saviour here speaks of them only who have Means and Opportunities of receiving his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist which those here instanced in never had But I answer That the Words of Christ are true simply and absolutely without Exception or Limitation And no one can have Life or be saved without a real and actual participation of the saving Benefits prepared for Souls by the Body and Blood of Christ Crucified And this Participation is the only manducation or eating that is meant in this place 3. The eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood which he here speaks of is always accompanied with Life and Salvation to all those who so eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. See v. 50 51 54 58. A Man may eat thereof and not dye If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever And whoso eateth hath Eternal Life Mark this is an eating whereby all Men whosoever have Life and are certainly saved And therefore this eating is not Sacramental eating with the Mouth nor doth stand in partaking of the Eucharist For many eat and drink in the Sacrament who have no Life nor are saved It is believed by many that Judas did partake in the Sacrament as well as the other eleven yet was the Son of Perdition And it is plain in the case of Hypocrites and Wicked Men who receive the Sacrament again and again may be a hundred times over yet have no Life nor dying so as we may fear not a few do after many a Sacrament are saved But if our Saviour had indeed meant this of Sacramental eating then it would follow that the worst of Men by participating if but once in all their Lives of the Sacrament should thereby have their Salvation infallibly secured Yet here again the Papists would creep out by the help of a pretended Implication in our Saviour's Words viz. That eating and drinking worthily is implyed and to be understood as necessary to the sense of the Words And so when our Saviour expresseth himself in those Terms used v. 50 51 54 58. he means all and only of them who eat and drink his Flesh and Blood worthily But 1. This worthily is their own Addition to our Saviour's Words For our Saviour neither hath it nor any thing that implieth it in these Verses or in this whole Sermon on this Subject
concerning the Cup are This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Take these properly and then 1. The New Testament is the Contents of the Cup. and 2. The New Testament is shed for us And could this be Can it be said without monstrous Absurdity that the New Testament was shed for us Or that it was Letters Words Syllables Lines that were shed for us for the Remission of Sins Thus which way soever they turn them the literal Sense is absurd and makes our Saviour's Words ridiculous And this may be enough to shew the Sandiness and Unsoundness of the Foundation whereon they bottom this Doctrine Now the Foundation being overturned the Super-structures fall therewith of themselves To wit that that which is in the Cup is real Blood or Wine turned into the very Blood of Jesus Christ because 1. He calls it his Blood. 2. He calls it the New Testament in his Blood. And 3. Saith of it that it is shed I say this Interpretation falls with the Foundation that it is built on and needs no Answer Yet I shall say a Word 1. In general that all these Forms of Speech are Sacramental Terms and must not be taken in a literal and proper Sense but in a Sacramental and improper Signification whereby the Names of the things signified are given to the Signs that do signify them 2. In particular 1. When he saith of that in the Cup This is my Blood the meaning is this is that which signifieth or representeth my Blood the Sign of my Blood. 2. When he saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood the meaning is the Wine in this Cup is the Sign and Seal of the New Testament established in my Blood shed upon the Cross or the Sign of my Blood whereby the New Testament is confirmed 3. When he saith it is shed the meaning is it is the Sign of the shedding of my Blood. The Effusion made in the Sacrament was a Sign or Representation of the Effusion which was to be made the next day upon the Cross I have now done with the Plea they make for the Transubstantiation of the Wine from the Words of the Institution III. We shall now come to the 3d in a word to shew that the Wine is not transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ And this may be evinced First From the Absurdities Contradictions and Blasphemies that it carrieth in it These are too many to be enumerated here besides those even now named arising out of the literal Construction of the Words and those mentioned before that attend the Transubstantiation of the Bread which come in again here It labours with these four great Absurdities Grant but Transubstantiation and then according to their own Principles 1. The Wine is transubstantiated into the Cup. 2. The Cup is transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ 3. The Blood of Christ is transubstantiated into a Testament 4. The Testament is shed for the Remission of Sins All these are absurd enough Secondly From its plain Contrariety unto and Inconsistency with the great End and Fruit of Christ's Death Nothing is more plain in Scripture than these two 1. That Christ died or shed his Blood on the Cross to merit and obtain for us Remission of Sins 1 Cor. 15.3 Gal. 1.4 Eph. 5.2 Rom. 4.25 Isa 53.10 c. And 2. That by his Death and Blood-shed on the Cross Remission was obtained Colos 1.20 and 1.14 Eph. 1.7 Revel 1.5 But if as Transubstantiation supposeth the Wine in the Cup was turned into the Blood of Christ and this Blood of Christ was shed in the Sacrament for the Remission of the Sins of the World then the Passion Death and Bloodshed of Christ upon the Cross was both needless and fruitless He attained not his End in dying his Death profited nothing for that which he died for was obtained before he died to obtain it So that as the Apostle said of Justification by works Gal. 2.21 If Righteousness come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain so I may say if Remission of Sins come by the Blood shed in the Sacrament then Christ is dead in vain Thus it takes away the End and Fruit of Christ's Death the Love of God in giving him to die for our Sins the Love of Christ in laying down his Life for us and makes him die in vain Thirdly From the express Words of Christ Matt. 26.29 Mark 14.25 Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine until the day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God. These are our Lord 's own Words after he had instituted and celebrated this Sacrament and they put the Matter out of question for he could not more plainly and clearly have said that it was Wine which he had drunk and not Blood. 3. Arg. If in the Eucharist the Elements be transubstantiated into the proper Body and Blood of Christ then the Church of the Jews in the Old Testament did not eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink in their Sacrament that the Christian Church now in the New Testament eats and drinks in her Sacrament But the Church of the Jews did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that the Christian Church now doth And therefore there is no Transubstantiation Here are two things to be proved 1. That if there be any such a Transubstantiation as the Papists maintain then the Church of the Jews did not eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that Christians now do in the Sacrament And this is plain and evident for granting Transubstantiation the Christian Church now eats the Body and drinks the Blood of Christ as he was born of the Virgin Mary But so did not the Church of the Jews nor could for Christ was not then Incarnate nor had either Body or Blood. 2. That the Church of the Jews did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that the Christian Church now doth And this is as plain and evident from the express Words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.3 4. And did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all drink the same Spiritual Drink For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. Observe 1st They did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink That is Eandem escam potum non tantum inter se sed nobiscum habuerunt Quid est eandem nisi quia eam quam etiam nos Eandem ergo cibum eandem potum sed intelligentibus credentibus non intelligentibus autem Manna sola Aqua Credentibus autem idem qui nunc Tunc enim Christus venturus modo Christus venit venturus venit diversa verba sunt idem autem Christus Aug. Tract 26. in Joh. 1. Not in regard of the external and visible Symbols or Signs For they ate Manna and drank Water We eat Bread and drink Wine 2. But in