piety and virtue to imitate their good examples obey their counsels and please our selves with the forethoughts of that happy time when we shall follow them into glory Moreover since we believe that our prayers cannot profit our friends when they are dead this may well make us more industrious to do them all the good we can whilst they are alive And if by Gods blessing on our endeavours they become truly pious and good in this world we shall have no need to pray for them when they are gone into the other but rather will they have cause to praise God for us By this time I hope you perceive how little cause there is of separation from our Church on account of our not using prayers for the deliverance of souls out of Purgatory Since we have no reason to believe there is any such place nor consequently to use any such prayers But yet I will add if any man should be of another opinion and fancy this to be a lawful piece of charity yet would not this justifie his separation from us for though he thought our publick prayers in this to be defective yet I hope this defect does not render the rest unlawful If he meet not with a prayer agreeable to his own private conceit in this matter yet he may joyn very chearfully in those we do use which are most plainly agreeable to the will of God revealed in his word which holy word ought to be the rule both of our belief and worship And when we vary from this rule we cannot pray in faith with any well-grounded confidence of being heard as particularly they cannot who pray for the release of souls from Purgatory or for the easing of their pains there seeing they have neither precept nor promise no nor so much as any example in all Scripture to warrant their so doing L. I am convinced they have not nor will I by the grace of God ever offer up any such unwarrantable prayers CHAP. VII Of Transubstantiation T. WHAT is the next Popish Doctrine your Author mentions L. That of Christs Personal Presence in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper about which I shall be glad to hear you discourse and to answer the arguments he brings for it T. Now then we come to their great Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. that the natural substance of the Bread and Wine in the Communion is by Consecration changed into the substance of Christs body and blood which is certainly one of the most absurd and unreasonable Doctrines that ever was taught and yet there is nothing they assert with more zeal and fierceness and in Queen Maries days accounted it reason enough to burn poor Protestants for Hereticks if they would not profess it This being commonly one of the first questions put to them What say you to the Sacrament of the Altar For so they used to stile the Eucharist or Holy Communion Well pray let me hear what arguments your Author brings for this strange opinion L. He first attempts to prove it from those words of our Saviour at the institution of this Holy Sacrament This is my body which is given for you Luk. 22. 19. and he adds that Christ now making his Will his words must needs be very clear T. This indeed is the Text they commonly insist on and the words in themselves are clear enough but the strange comment they make on them does certainly render them the most obscure and unintelligible that ever were uttered For pray tell me does it not seem a wonder of wonders past all understanding that our Blessed Saviour who was there alive in the midst of his Disciples should at the same time himself give them his natural body and blood to be eaten and drunk by them and after this still remain alive sound and whole as he was before without any manner of change L. It seems very strange and unlikely I confess at first hearing T. And yet we never find the Apostles making any objection or raising any scruple about it Nor does our Blessed Saviour say any thing to prevent or remove such objections as might easily be made May we not then fairly infer hence that they understood these words in the same plain easie sense which such expressions in like cases do very evidently carry along with them namely that the Bread and Wine were the Symbols and Sacramental signs and tokens of his Body and Blood and the breaking of the one and pouring out of the other did very fitly represent the wounding and bruising of his Body and the shedding of his Blood for our sakes Neither do we say as they accuse us that these are bare figures of Christs Body and Blood but do constantly teach that the benefits of his Death and Passion are hereby effectually communicated to worthy receivers Here we make a solemn and most thankful commemoration of the Sacrifice which Christ offered on the Cross and in feeding on the holy Elements we feast upon that Sacrifice and so renew and confirm our Covenant with God in Christ giving up our selves to him as an holy and obedient people and by these Seals of his Covenant the great God assures us of the truth of his Promises and gives himself to us as our God and reconciled Father in Jesus Christ. And by this means our faith is strengthned our love to God and man is quickned and inflamed and all other graces increased and the Divine comforts of his Spirit afforded and so the flesh of Christ becomes meat indeed and his blood drink indeed nourishing our souls to eternal life L. All this is plain and easie to understand T. It is so and most natural it is after this manner to explain our Saviours words as being most agreeable to the common way of speaking in like cales where that which is a sign or Sacrament is said to be the very thing which it denotes and represents Thus the Paschal Lamb is said to be the Lords Passover of which it was a commemoration Exod. 12. 11. So in Pharaoh's Dream the ears of corn and the kine are said to be years of plenty and of famine because they signified the same And a plain place to this purpose you have 1 Cor. 10. 4. where it 's said that Rock was Christ because it did prefigure or typifie him So when our Saviour says This Cup is the New Testament in my blood what other sense can these words have but that this Wine represents his Blood which was shed to ratifie and confirm the New Testament or Covenant of Grace and mercy which God hath made with all true believers through his Son L. He quotes also Joh. 6. where much is said concerning our eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood But from what you have already said I cannot but think is most reasonable to understand the words in a spiritual sense as signifying our feeding upon Christ by faith and so deriving grace from him into our souls T. You have good reason so
read them so do we as plainly see that after Consecration the Bread and Wine still remain in their natural substances and therefore are made the Body and Blood of Christ in a spiritual and mystical sense according to the most common acceptance of such Phrases that relate to Sacraments as was before shewn L. You need add nothing more to clear this matter nor can I imagine what reply they can make except they shall say that we must not in this case trust our senses but exercise of our Faith T. This indeed they do say but with no manner of reason For though God requires the Exercise of our Faith in Believing what he hath revealed though our senses cannot reach to or discern it yet we never read in the whole Book of Scripture that ever he requires men to believe any thing directly contrary to the evidence of their Senses to believe it was dark as midnight when they saw the Sun shining at Noon-day to believe the same Man to lye dead in his Grave whom they saw alive walking before them For at this rate all our Saviours Miracles had been wrought in vain if men must not believe their own eyes as we use to say For we must consider that Almighty God hath so framed our Nature that we are to be directed and guided by our Senses in those matters that properly belong to them Nor can we I think in this present state have more clear and full assurance of any thing than what our Senses when sound and perfect convey to us And therefore I have said our Saviour took this way to give assurance of the truth of his Gospel and of his Resurrection by that satisfaction he gave to the very Senses of Men. Thus St. Iohn when he would give the clearest and fullest evidence of the truth of Christian Doctrine he tells us That which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which our hands have handled declare we unto you 1 Joh. 1. 1 2 3. Now all this may assure us that those words This is my body are not to be taken in such a sense as would engage us to the belief of Transubstantiation Nay the Word of God it self assures us that they are not since in this Word as I have shewn from many places the Holy Bread in the Sacrament is called Bread after Consecration and therefore are we so to believe it and are to look upon it as his Body Spiritually and Sacramentally and so neither one Text contradicts another nor will our Faith contradict our Senses L. This is easie and intelligible and neither offers violence to the Word of God nor to the Reason of our own Minds T. Yet further let me add if the Senses of all Men throughout the whole world are thus deceived as they must be if Transubstantiation be true then is all certainty of any thing whatever in a manner utterly destroyed How can I tell that I tread upon the Earth that I see the Heavens over my head or the Sun shining in the Firmament In these and all other things which I think that I see or hear my Senses may be imposed upon as well as in the present Case And how then can I be sure that any Revelation was ever made from God to Man Or how could any Man be sure of it though a Voice came to him from Heaven or a Vision appeared to him All this may be but idle fancy and delusion his Hearing and his Sight are not to be trusted Yea let this opinion be admitted and how can we be certain of the truth of that which God hath in his Word revealed For if he deceive me one way why not another The same Holy and True God who hath revealed his Will in Holy Scriptures hath also made another sort of Revelation in the works of Nature He hath given me Senses of Seeing Hearing c. and hath proposed Objects agreeable thereto Now if I believe him to be so Holy and Good that he will not deceive me in his Word why may I not from the same Goodness argue that he will not deceive me in his Works But if he should do it in the latter why may he not in the former also L. They may say this is a particular Case and therefore though our Senses may herein be mistaken yet we have no reason to suspect them at other times T. A particular Case it is indeed and such as nothing like it can be instanced in nor yet any good reason assigned why our Senses may not at any other time be deceived as well as in this matter But strangest of all it is that we have no warning given us in Scripture not to trust our Senses in this particular Case though in all others we may Nor do we find any thing said to take off the prejudice that might arise in mens minds against so strange a Doctrine We hear of no Objections made of old against it by the Enemies of Christianity nor of any Answers given to silence or prevent such Objections Nay on the contrary as I have said when the Capernaites mistook our Saviour's meaning he let them know that his Discourse was to be understood in a spiritual sense Ioh. 6. 63. Thus certainly the Apostles understood it as also those Words This is my body else surely we should have heard of their doubts and objections at least they would have made some further enquiry about the sense and meaning of them Else how comes it to pass that we never find the least mention of this same Doctrine in any of the Apostles Sermons or in the Epistles written to any of the Churches Nay though there was so fair an occasion offered to St. Paul when he discourses about the Lords-Supper 1 Cor. 11. where he tells them that what he had received of the Lord he delivered to them but he is there so far from explaining or asserting the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that he teaches the direct contrary in calling it Bread over and over after Consecration L. Yet I have heard some arguing for it from those words of his that he who eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Vers. 27. Now say they how could this be so hainous a sin if the natural Body and Blood of Christ were not present in the Sacrament T. For that let the Apostles own words decide it for he there tells us that he who eats this Bread and drinks this Cup unworthily is thus guilty So that it is Bread which is eaten and consequently Wine which is drunk by the Receiver But to do this unworthily and irreverently rushing upon it as a common meal not duly considering the great importance and design of this Holy Sacrament as it is a commemoration of Christ's death and a Spiritual Feast upon his Body and Blood this must needs be an hainous Sin being an affront to Christ himself and a profanation of his Sacred Ordinance This is meant by
their not discerning the Lords body vers 29. And to receive these Holy Elements without reverence thankfulness and true devotion was to be guilty of dishonouring the Body and Blood of Christ which were here represented and exhibited to Believers But all this while we have no reason hence to fancy that the natural substance of Christ's Body and Blood are present in the Sacrament Had the Apostle thought of any such thing surely he would have exprest himself in another manner and have said somewhat to explain so Mysterious a Doctrine And had he and his Brethren taught the same as the Church of Rome now does surely the unbelieving Iews or Gentiles would have poured forth their Objections against it whereas we hear not a word of that nature neither in the Apostles Days or the next Ages after In all the Apologies that the first Christian Writers set forth in defence of our Religion we find nothing said in vindication of any such Opinion as this whilst they give large Answers to many other Objections for which there was nothing like so good a pretence Nor do we read of any controversy amongst Christians themselves about this matter for many Ages whereas in latter times since this Opinion was first broached there have been many Volumes written for and against it L. But they pretend that this was the Ancient Opinion of the Fathers and first Christians T. Pretend it they do but as in other points of Controversy betwixt them and us so here it is a very vain and false pretence For we read nothing of it in the old Creeds or the Canons of General Councils or in the genuine works of any Father for many hundred years after our Saviour L. Yet they alledge that the Fathers commonly stile the Holy Elements the Body and Blood of Christ and will frequently quote places to that purpose T. No doubt but they may easily do that though without any advantage to their Cause since its plain enough in what sense those expressions are to be understood from other places of the same Fathers For they themselves do sometimes tell us that Christ's Words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood are to be taken Spiritually that in the Communion there is a commemoration of his Death and a representation of his Body and Blood yea sometimes they expresly call the Bread and Wine the Figures thereof Now these and such like sayings cannot possibly be reconciled with the Popish opinion of Transubstantiation Therefore when they speak of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament we may most reasonably understand them in the very same sense that I have told you our Church frequently uses the like expressions So do our Writers very commonly in their Books of devotion and in practical discourses on the Communion speak at the same rate whilst they intend nothing more but that these Holy Elements are made Christ's Body and Blood Mystically and Spiritually But how far this opinion of Transubstantiation is from being an Ancient Doctrine of the Christian Church hath been made sufficiently evident amongst many others by the Learned Bishop Cozens who in his History of it gives us an account about what time it was first publickly taught what opposition was then made to it by sundry Learned men of that Age and how long it was before it could be established by any Council even amongst Papists themselves or could obtain to be the general avowed Doctrine of their Church Nay to this very day their chief Writers are strangely divided in the accounts they give of it setting their Wits upon the rack to explain and defend it some this way and some that having so very little help from Holy Scripture in the Case as some of them are so ingenuous as to acknowledg L. Methinks its strange that they should with so much eagerness maintain and with so much violence impose a Doctrine which to me seems impossible to be understood or firmly believed T. Strange it is and very unreasonable but yet some account may be given of it for beside that natural pride which inclines men to defend the opinion which they have once espoused especially a Church which boasts of Infallibility besides this I say we may consider how mightily the admitting of this opinion makes for the Honour of the Priest who can thus with four words speaking work one of the most wonderful Miracles that ever was known in the World indeed such a one as can neither be seen felt nor understood But the people who can be perswaded to believe it must needs have a mighty veneration for the Priest that works it and be almost ready to make a god of him who can so easily make a god for them by turning the Bread into the very person of our Saviour his Divinity and Humanity whom therefore they worship and adore as God though after that they eat him L. This may seem indeed to make for the Honour of the Priest that he can work such wonders but surely it makes little for the honour either of Priest or people to be guilty of such false and absurd opinions and of such corrupt practices which are the natural consequence of them For are they not guilty of Idolatry in Worshipping the Bread as God though I know they say there is no Bread there after Consecration pray let me know your judgement because I find my Author endeavouring to vindicate their Church from this heavy censure T. I do not see how they can possibly excuse themselves from this charge if the Bread still remains Bread in its natural substance as we may most certainly conclude it does from what hath been alledged both from Scripture Reason and our Senses Wherefore whilst they worship that for God which is not God giving to the creature what is due alone to the Creator they may justly be reckoned guilty of Idolatry L. But will it not serve to excuse them that they worship that which they take to be God and therefore do design and direct their Worship to God and not to the Bread which they believe not to be there after Consecration though they see it before them T. What allowances it may please our good God to make for the ignorance and mistakes of honest well-meaning men I still say it doth not beseem us to determine But as to the thing it self for my own part I cannot see how this pretence will any more excuse a Papist from Idolatry than it would excuse an Heathen for his Worship of the Sun that he did verily believe the Sun to be God or that God did in some extraordinary manner dwell in the Sun the substance of it being turned into God whilst only the accidents of Light and Heat and the like do still remain Nay one would think the Heathen in some respect more excusable of the two since the Sun looks much liker a God than does a Wafer or bit of Bread But ' there is no great need of disputing against them in this
to understand it especially if you consider that though this Discourse in the sixth of St. Iohn may in a secondary sense be applied to this holy Sacrament yet it seems most probable that our Saviour in this Chapter is chiefly speaking of his Doctrines especially that great one of his dying for the sins of the world and of his precepts and promises these are to be believed and embraced duly improved and thoroughly digested into our souls for their spiritual nourishment as common food is received for the support of the body For when the people followed him chiefly for the loaves as he tells them ver 26. he thence took occasion to exhort them not so much to labour for the meat which perisheth as for that which endures to everlasting life As in Ioh. 4. from the womans coming to draw water he enters upon a discourse of that living water which he will give to all that believe on him Now who is so dull as not to take this spiritually as being meant of the graces and comforts of the Spirit And why should we not so understand this sixth Chapter where he represents himself and Doctrine under the notion of bread To omit many other reasons that might be alledged for it our Saviour himself in my apprehension does plainly tell us that we ought so to understand him v. 63. for when the Capernaites mistook his meaning and seemed to take his words in some such gross and carnal sense as Papists at this day put upon them he tells them that the flesh profiteth nothing that the spirit gives life and his words are spirit and life such as that by our embracing of them there is a spiritual and divine life convey'd to our souls quickning and renewing them and so disposing them for life eternal L. But says my Author his flesh did profit much in that he gave it for the redemption of the world T. Most true it did so but our eating of his flesh the very natural substance of it supposing it could be done would profit us nothing What goes into the month can no more sanctifie the heart than it can defile it But it is by our believing in a Crucified Saviour by our loving and serving him and conforming our selves to his likeness that we attain eternal life Whilst his words remain in us and have power over us for the forming and governing of our hearts and lives this while Christ dwells in us and we in him And whilst the graces of his Spirit are communicated to us by his Word and Sacraments we are truly fed and nourished by him in a spiritual manner L. To this purpose my Author himself sometimes seems to speak for he says the manner of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament is not gross sensual and carnal like that of other flesh which is daily eaten but as the Church holds and believes it Mystical and Sacramental T. How wisely then had their Church done to have been content with saying it to be thus Mystical and Sacramental without presuming positively to define after what manner the Body and Blood of Christ are here present as most unreasonably they have done and have murdered thousands for not assenting to these their bold determinations And this your Author plainly contradicts himself for he asserts that the Sacramental Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ by the mighty power of God as the water was turned into wine Ioh. 2. and that certainly was true plain wine in which there was nothing mystical or obscure And according to this their Doctrine must the eating of Christs Body be understood in a carnal sense why else does he say soon after that if Christ should be seen they should have an horrour to eat him So that eat him it seems they do and that in such a manner as they should have an horrour to do it if they could see him L. And so one would think they should have at the very thought of it though they see him not T. But in the mean time does it not seem strange that the Natural body and blood of Christ should be there and yet neither of them seen nor any way perceived L. Yes truly very strange but they say this is no more than what we find Luk. 4. 30. where Christ made himself invisible and so past through the midst of his enemies without being seen of them T. It 's only said there that he past through the midst of them and so he might do by conveying himself swiftly away Or suppose he made himself invisible for a while this we may easily enough apprehend that it might be done by hindring the clearness of their sight or by other ways But now for thousands of people in all ages and places having their senses sound and the object at a due distance to be so strangely deceived is a thing utterly incredible Nor do we read a syllable in that or any other place that our Saviour presented to the people some object which had the appearance of quite another thing and yet was really himself and not that other thing which it appeared to be For thus they teach it is in the present case Here is the most plain appearance of Bread and Wine and yet no such substance but the substance of Christs Body and Blood whilst there 's no appearance of them Christ is before them and yet they cannot see him they take him into their hands and yet cannot feel him Nay their sight their feeling their smell and taste do all perceive Bread and Wine and nothing else and yet do they confidently affirm that no Bread or Wine is there but the very substance of Christs flesh and blood though they discern no such thing L. This is all wonderful indeed but they say this change is wrought by the mighty power of God in a miraculous manner as he made the world of nothing T. If any such change there were we should grant it to be miraculous but what a strange sort of miracle is this that after it s wrought there 's yet no appearance of it We dispute not about the manner how it 's wrought but we say we can perceive no such thing to be done It was not thus in the instance he gives for though the world was made of nothing in a miraculous manner yet being made the works of God do visibly appear and so do declare his invisible power and Godhead But if now a man should tell us that God had created a New Heaven and a New Earth whilst we can see no manner of change but all things continue as they were in the old world who would believe him yet such is the invisible change they plead for in the Sacrament which is such a sort of miracle as never was heard tell of either in the Old Testament or the New For the miracles which our Blessed Saviour wrought they plainly appear'd to the senses of those who were present by that means
confirming their belief of his Doctrine The Doctrine was to be believed but the miracle was to be seen which confirm'd that Doctrine To instance in one for all When the water was turn'd into wine Ioh. 2. it was now seen and tasted to be true wine only it was much better than common wine Otherwise do you think if it had still had the colour the smell and the taste of water that the people would have been perswaded it was turned into wine Would they have been satisfied with an odd story that the substance was wine though the accidents of water still remain'd or with any such idle unintelligible talk Would such a sort of miracle as this that could no way be perceived ever have been believed Or would the pretence to such miracles ever have gain'd Disciples to our Saviour And yet such a one is this of Transubstantiation L. So very strange and unaccountable it is that it never ought to be admitted without very good proof T. And is it not then almost as strange that ever any man should believe so absurd a Doctrine not only without good proof but even against the express words of Scripture as well as against his reason and senses L. No matter for sense and reason they cry but how do you prove it to be against Scripture T. It may be proved from those places which tell us of our Saviours being received into Heaven as Act. 3. 21. and he cannot at the same time be corporally present upon earth and in heaven too L. But did he not appear to St. Paul and others after his Ascension T. Yes he did so yet does not this prove him to be then corporally present for he might render himself visible to them without descending as he did to St. Stephen or he might appear to them in a Vision and make himself present to their imagination Or he might be said to appear to them by his Angel whom he sent For thus in Scripture it 's commonly said God appear'd to this or that man when he sent his Angel to him with some message But besides this the plain words of the Evangelists when they relate the institution of this Holy Sacrament do directly contradict this Doctrine of Transubstantiation For they tell us that our Saviour took bread and blessed it and brake it even the very same that he took that he blest and what he blest that he broke and what is this but true bread as to its natural substance Only in a mystical and spiritual sense it was made the Body of Christ by Consecration And thus also St. Paul calls it Bread after Consecration no less than three times in three verses together 1 Cor. 11. 26 c. L. This my Author grants but says it 's called so because the external accidents of bread do still remain T. That is because the colour shape and taste of bread do still remain with all other qualities of common bread Now I beseech you can there be any better or surer way to discover what is the substance or nature of a thing than by such accidents such outward sensible appearances as these How can we distinguish bread from a stone or water from wine but by the colour the smell the taste or the like And thus do we here distinguish bread from flesh and wine from blood and do believe that to be bread which is both call'd so in Scripture and which our own eyes discern to be indeed so L. But he says faith will teach us otherwise from the Word of God T. Nay on the contrary you see Gods word calls it bread after the Consecration and therefore both our faith and our senses assure us that it is bread Nor does this in the least contradict our Saviours words when he says This is my body for so it is in a spiritual sense whilst yet the substance of bread remains unchanged and therefore most properly is it called bread which it could in no wise be if no such substance was there Yet still we say that by partaking of these holy Elements of bread and wine we do really partake of Christs body and blood though in a spiritual manner according to St. Pauls expression 1 Cor. 10. 16. Do you judge then who keeps closest to Scripture in this point they or we L. To me it seems plain that the Doctrine and language of our Church is no less agreeable to Scripture than to reason And I still discover what injury they do us whilst they charge us with holding that the Sacrament is only the figure of Christs body T. It is as I have already said a most false charge for though it be the figure of his body and expresly called so by some ancient Writers yet we own it to be much more than so For in this holy Sacrament are given to us Christs body and blood whilst the blessings and benefits of his Death and Passion are made over to and bestow'd upon the worthy receiver And so our Church expresses it in the Office at the Communion We do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood Christ dwelleth in us and we in him we are one with Christ and he with us L. Yet they say we make the Sacraments of the New Testament in effect no better than the old since the Passover and such like were figures of Christ whereas in the New Testament is to be given the real verity T. A most plain difference we make whatever they say to the contrary for besides that our Sacraments are few and easie clear and intelligible it is to be considered that under the Law were used types and shadows which prefigured Christ to come and that somewhat obscurely whereas the Sacraments now used do most plainly shew him to be already come and to have died for our sins and risen again according to the Scriptures Herein moreover is made to us a more plenteous communication of grace and comfort as the fruit of his Death and Resurrection according to that of the Evangelist The Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ Joh. 1. 17. Yet after all we assert that the Elements made use of in these Sacraments of the New Testament are no more changed as to their natural substance than those of the Old that is they are still Sacraments outward visible signs and representations of Spiritual things and are not changed into those very things themselves which they are designed to represent and hold forth to us And this is granted by the Papists themselves as to one of the Sacraments viz. that of Baptism For the water herein made use of still remains water It is not turned into the natural blood of Christ and yet by virtue of that blood which this water represents are our sins washt away in this Laver of Regeneration Hence then it is most evident that the efficacy of a Sacrament consists not in having the natural substance of the Elements altered for then
there would be no virtue in Baptism And consequently neither doth the excellency of the Sacraments of the New Testament above those of the Old consist in any such alteration for if it did then Baptism should not be prefer'd before Circumcision or any of the washings and sprinklings used under the Law since in Baptism water still remains true water And if this be no disadvantage or dishonour to the holy Sacrament of Baptism then no more is it to the other Sacrament that the Bread and Wine used therein do still remain true Bread and Wine as to their natural substance after Consecration L. I cannot imagin any reason for the putting a difference in this case betwixt the two Sacraments And I do a little wonder they should be so careless as to use an argument which if it had any truth er force in it would plainly tend to the disparaging of the Sacrament of Baptism T. You must not expect good arguments in a bad cause but has your Author no better than these L. I find no more arguments on this subject only he makes use of a sumilitude that if a Father should leave to his Son his House and Garden by his last Will would the Son understand by this the picture of the House and Garden or the things themselves in truth In like manner he infers that our Saviour has not left us the bare figures of his Body and Blood but these very substances in the Sacrament T. Rather we may infer that in like manner did our Blessed Saviour truly give up himself for us on the Cross there shedding his blood for the remission of our sins and doth in this Holy Sacrament really confer the blessings purchased by his death upon all true believers and by this means he does most truly give himself to them according to his promise even much more to their advantage than if he had given them his natural flesh and blood in the Sacrament L. I think my Authors Simile does him little service T. Service do you say rather if you consider it well it will be found to make directly against his own opinion For suppose your Father had left you an House and Land by his Will and appointed some body after his death to put you in possession of it by giving you a key and a turf or twig when this is done do you take this key to be the very house or the turf or twig to be the land no surely but only in effect and in the sense of the Law they are so since by these the house and land are made over to you and by receiving them you are put in actual possession of them as fully and effectually as if the whole house and all the land had been put into your hands if that had been possible And thus I say by these Holy Elements doth our Blessed Saviour make over himself and all the blessings of the Covenant to his faithful people L. The resemblance is very plain and helps me still better to understand how fitly the Body and Blood of Christ may be said to be verily and indeed received by the faithful in the Lords Supper without giving the least coununance to this Doctrine of Transubstantiation T. That you may be sure of these being the very words used in our Church-Catechism and many the like expressions we find in the Office at the Communion some of which I mention'd before Yet all this while it 's well known how utterly our Church disowns this absurd opinion so contrary to sense and reason and to the express words of Scripture as I have shew'd Yet give me leave in a few words further to manifest how without admitting this opinion we may very properly affirm That Christ is verily and indeed received by the faithful in this holy Supper viz. 1 In a moral sense as servants receive their Master by taking earnest and subjects their Prince by taking the Oath of Allegiance For here we do solemnly profess our selves the disciples servants and subjects of the blessed Jesus and by taking these holy symbols of bread and wine do receive him as our Lord and Saviour to whom we promise and vow all humble obedience and through whom alone we hope for mercy and salvation 2 Here also do we receive those graces of his holy Spirit which transform us into his likeness so that Christ himself may be said to come into us to take possession of us and to dwell in us and we in him even by saith and love and by our likeness to him in all humility purity charity and those other graces which make us partakers of a Divine Nature and may well be stiled Christ in us the hope of glory all which are confirmed and increased by our worthy communicating at this holy Table So that passing by other things that might be added to this purpose you may hence see how properly the holy Elements may be called the Body and Blood of Christ of which they are the Sacrament and Symbol and which they do really convey to us as much to our advantage as if they were changed into the very natural substance of what they represent For suppose we should eat Christs natural flesh and drink his blood what are our souls the better for this if the graces of his Spirit do not accompany them But if these graces are bestow'd on us by our worthy receiving of the holy Elements of Bread and Wine what loss is it to us that these remain unchanged as to their substance L. None at all that I can imagin T. You may be sure of it since what is bodily reaches only to the body and not to the soul of man For as our Saviour tells us Mat. 15. 11. That what enters into the mouth defiles not a man of which he after gives the reason because it passeth into the belly and thence into the draught So neither can that which enters into the mouth of it self purifie and cleanse the soul of man because it 's only received into the body and so passes through it And this is that Doctrine which I have formerly told you our Blessed Saviour himself most plainly teaches Ioh. 6. 63. when he corrected the gross mistake of the dull Capernaites L. Yet how gross soever it was the Papists at this day seem to continue in it as if Christ had promised to give men his natural Flesh to eat T. And this they do contrary to our Saviours own explication of himself in vers 63. and to other places of Scripture before named and also contrary to all true Reason We will not set up our own shallow reasonings against the Holy Scripture but are ready most firmly to believe whatever we find therein plainly revealed And there we may find some things above our Reason though nothing contrary to it But now this Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation it is both contrary to plain Scripture and is also full of so many palpable absurdities and contradictions that
it were almost endless to name them Yet the more to confirm you against it if need be let me mention a few of those many As for instance according to this opinion our Saviours body would be in ten thousand places at one viz. where ever the Consecrated host as they call it is At Rome and at Paris in the East-Indies and the West and in thousands of Churches where it 's reserved And in one place Christs body would rest upon the Altar in another it might be carrying toward a sick man It would be in one Priests box and in anothers hand in this mans mouth and in that mans stomach and all this one and the same body still Yea thus it must have been ever since the first institution of this Sacrament above sixteen hundred years ago Millions of men in the several ages and places of the world would all have eaten this self same body a thousand times over and yet still it remains whole and untouched the very same that it was from the beginning neither multiplied nor divided neither encreased nor diminished Again by this Doctrine every wafer and every part of the wafer is the whole body and a thousand wafers are only that one Yea what is more prodigious if any thing can be so according to this opinion our Blessed Saviour when he was present with his Apostles alive and well did then give himself into their hands to be eaten by them So that he was in their mouths and bellies at the same time that he was sitting amongst them and yet never shewed the least sign nor felt the least effect of any such change upon him And yet after all this same Body was next day offered up and his Blood poured out on the Cross. It deserves also to be considered how the breaking of Christ's natural Body and eating and swallowing it is consistent with its being still alive as surely they will grant it is Yea how this same Body should be at God's right hand shining in honour and glory and yet at the same time be set upon the Altar or carried in a Box yea eaten by Mice or by Worms and Flies But no questions must be asked no doubts or scruples raised all must be swallowed with an implicite Faith and they think to solve all well enough with crying nothing is impossible with God which any Man may as well pretend to justifie the grossest falshoods and absurdities in the World Though truly I think none can be imagined greater than what this opinion stands justly charged with That so mighty a change should be made in the very natural substance of the Bread and yet that there is no manner of appearance of it but still here is the same colour tast smell and all other accidents or qualities of Bread after Consecration as before And notwithstanding all this we must believe that there is no substance of Bread to which these accidents belong but the substance of Flesh without any accidents at all What strange prodigious fancies are these And what a scandal is it to our Religion what a mighty hindrance to the belief of it when such an unreasonable opinion shall be proposed as an Article of Faith And be made of equal necessity to be believed with the great Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation though it has no manner of support from the Holy Scripture as I have before shewn L. I confess if a Man thought he could not be a Christian without receiving this Opinion it would be a strong temptation to Infidelity and go nigh to make him reject our whole Religion T. Doubtless it would and I fear it has often produced this effect Woe be to them by whom the offence cometh Yea further it will appear that on some other accounts this Doctrine directly tends to promote Infidelity whilst as many Learned Writers have observed it does in a great measure evacuate and overthrow the main proofs of the Truth of Christianity For one great Argument our Saviour made use of was the Miracles which he wrought The works which I do saith he bear witness of me If you believe not me believe me for the works sake Now to make this Argument of any force it must be supposed that their Senses did not deceive them but what they saw and heard was really true For if our Senses are not to be relied on in judging of their own proper Objects at a due distance how could the people tell but that all these Miracles were meer cheats and delusions But if they had sufficient assurance that they were truly wrought because they saw them with their own eyes and thereupon had sufficient ground to believe that Religion to be true which was confirmed by them then have we as good reason to believe Transubstantiation to be most false since our Senses do as fully assure us that it is so And hence we are very certain that this could be none of the Doctrines which our Saviour taught because there would have been a direct contradiction betwixt the Doctrine it self and the Argument made use of to prove it for whilst he appeals to his Miracles he supposes that Men may trust their Senses in the discerning of proper Objects whereas according to this Doctrine no trust is to be given to them Moreover we know that our Saviours Resurrection was the great confirmation of his Doctrine and did demonstrate him to be the Son of God the promised Messiah Now how should it be known that the same Jesus who was Crucified was indeed risen from the dead but by their sight of him and converse with him Thus we read what full satisfaction it pleased our Saviour to give to St. Thomas in this respect permitting him to put his Fingers into the print of the Nails and to thrust his hand into his side and by this means all his doubts were removed Now the same ground that St. Thomas had to believe that the Body which was wounded and hung dead on the Cross was after raised again the very same have we to believe that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are not turned into the natural substance of Christ's Body and Blood even the full evidence of our Senses Whereas if St. Thomas and the rest of the Apostles at the institution of this Holy Sacrament a little before Christs Death had found their Senses to be so grosly deceived as Papists would perswade us I know not how they could well have trusted them so soon after his Resurrection as we find they did If then the Apostles had good reason to believe the Resurrection of Christ to be true so have we to rest assured that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation is most false Yea let me add if we are sure that these words This is my body are in the Gospel then so sure we may be that they cannot be taken in that gross sense which Papists put upon them for as we know them to be there because there we see them and
is far enough from being unanswerable Now let us hear the second L. It cannot be proved that the Religion and Faith of the Holy Roman Catholick Church hath been any way changed in any Article that belongs to the Religion by any Pope Council or Catholick Bishop nor can any of them be produced that have changed it But it is rather proved that the very same Faith hath remain'd entire and inviolate from the times of the Apostles to this very day and by continual succession or from hand to hand as it were is come to our hands Whence is manifestly gathered that it is the very same Faith which the Apostles taught and therefore the same that they learned from Christ their Master in his School T. The Answer which I have just now given to his first Proposition doth wholly take off the force of this second also For pray consider we do not charge those of the Church of Rome with directly changing the Articles of the Christian Faith for we grant they still retain the Apostles Creed wherein that Faith is briefly comprized and the Holy Scriptures where it is more largely taught But our great charge against them is their adding to this old Faith new Articles of their own devising some of them utterly uncertain some notoriously false which yet they impose as of absolute necessity to be believed in order to Salvation even as much as the Apostles Creed it self And for the vindication of these Novelties they give very corrupt and false interpretations of the ancient Articles and of the holy Scriptures themselves such as the first Christian Writers never gave Thus for instance they would have the Catholick Church mentioned in the Creed to signifie the Roman Church and so to comprehend only those who acknowledg the Bishop of Rome to be Head of the Church and Christ's Vicar upon Earth whereas none of the Ancients did ever thus explain this Article So that by their corrupt glosses they do in some instances very much change the Doctrine whilst they retain the Words But as to these novel additions which they would thrust upon us we do utterly deny that they were ever taught by Christ or his Apostles nor consequently could be delivered down from them successively to this present Age. Nay our Learned Writers shew as to many of them the very time when they were introduced by what Degrees and what Arts it was done and with what difficulties and oppositions they met They name the very Pope who first obtain'd the Title of Supreme Bishop of the Universal Church they name the Council where Image-worship was first established and after that when Transubstantiation and the Popes Power of Deposing Princes were Decreed c. Though as our Writers commonly urge it is a most foolish and ridiculous thing when we demonstrate the Errors of their Church for them to say there are none because we cannot shew the precise time when they were first brought in As if when the Tares were plainly seen in the field the Servant should have denied there were any because no body could exactly tell when they were Sown it being done while the Master slept It 's enough that we can tell the time long after the Apostles when their erroneous Doctrines were not received in the Church and that proves them to be no part of the Ancient Faith of Christians which has been always and every where received in the Catholick Church Nay as to one most corrupt custom of their Church that of taking the Cup from the Laity when they first established it by a Decree viz. in the Council of Constance not three hundred years ago they themselves do there acknowledg that it was permitted in the Primitive Church yet it now seem'd fit to the Church of Rome for what reason you must not enquire to order the contrary to that primitive practice But to conclude That faith which indeed the Apostles learn'd in Christs School and from him taught to their followers and which from them hath been transmitted from one age to another down to this present time this we do most readily own and imbrace even that faith which is delivered in the holy Scriptures and comprized in the Creed and so far as they of Rome do acknowledg this faith we have no quarrel with them But the new Articles decreed by late Councils of their own by no means can we admit not a syllable of them being mention'd in the ancient Creeds nor can they be proved by the Holy Scriptures but many of them are directly contrary thereto as hath been already shewn and will yet further appear in my answer to his following argument to which you may proceed L. His third Proposition is That it cannot be shew'd that either the Ceremonies Sacraments or any Doctrine of their Church contains any thing contrary to holy Scripture but rather their learned Doctors clearly teach and demonstrate all the foresaid things to be plainly consonant to Holy Writ Such be these Words This is my Body and others Whence it follows that Lutherans Calvinists and other Sectaries have ungroundedly and without reason separated themselves from the Roman Church That also they who withdraw themselves from the Catholick Churches bosom can give no reason why they turn rather to the Lutherans than to the Calvinists Anabaptists or such other Hereticks T. That the Church of Rome hath brought in Customs contrary to the Holy Scripture is very evident from that instance I gave under the last Head viz. their taking away the Cup from the people at the Communion contrary to our Saviours own institution and practice who gave the Cup as well as the Bread to his Apostles requiring them all to drink of it and this not as Apostles meerly but as they were his Disciples And he enjoyn'd them to do this hereafter in remembrance of him and consequently to give both the Bread and the Wine to all Christians that should come to the Lords Table And so the Apostle Paul expresly requires Let a man examine himself every man that is whether of the Clergy or Laity and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup. According to the Apostle then every Man that is bound to examine and prepare himself for this Holy Sacrament ought to drink of the Cup as well as eat of the Bread And thus it was generally used in the Primitive Church by their own confession as you have heard And yet in these latter ages out of I know not what pretended reverence for the Cup no body must partake of it ordinarily but the Priest that consecrates which is I say most expresly contrary to the Scripture But for their excuse they have devised forsooth a fine Doctrine of Concomitancy which if you will do them the small favour to grant that of Transubstantiation to be true they think well enough solves all For they tell you that the Blood so accompanies the Flesh that he who receives one partakes of the other also and