Transubstantiation For I would ask Supposing a Man should Consecrate with the Words of St. Luke This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood would that change the Wine not to say the Cup into the very Blood of Christ Certainly it would not do it by force of those Words for they intimate no such thing and it is not unlikely but those were the very Words our Saviour spake for not only St. Luke uses them but St. Paul and that upon a solemn occasion when it concerned him much to give a true Representation of this Sacrament as you may see 1 Cor. Chap. 11. The occasion of his mentioning the Institution of this Sacrament was very great Irreverence which some were guilty of in receiving of it indeed such as it was almost impossible for them to be guilty of had they believed what the Church of Rome now believes about it it was therefore very necessary that the Apostle should speak clearly and plainly out in this matter and we see he does solemnly usher in what he says with the Authority of Christ For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you in c. And then he repeats the Words as St. Luke does and not only so but calls the other part of the Sacrament Bread near Ten times in that Chapter 4. The Last Argument I shall make use of upon this Head is this That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon another account does not agree with the Words of our Blessed Saviour The Opinion of that Church is That under each Species as they call it whole Christ is contained Body Blood Soul and Divinity so that both are but just the very same Thing in nothing different but in outward appearance which only deceives our Senses And it is upon this Opinion chiefly that they ground the denyal of the Cup to the People because say they should they have the Cup they would have no more but just the very same thing they had in the other Kind And supposing their Opinion true the Argument may for any thing I know have some force in it but then they ought not to deny us leave to Argue the other way That that Opinion must needs be false which makes our Saviour guilty of a great Absurdity in appointing Two Kinds but both really the same thing and one of them perfectly unnecessary But that which I would chiefly take notice of is That this Doctrine of theirs contradicts the Words of our Saviour for what they make but One Thing he plainly makes Two and calls them by Two different Names The one he calls his Body the other he calls his Blood which supposes them to be Two different Things as plain as Words can express them They say indeed That in the Glorified Body of Christ the Body and Blood cannot be separated and therefore were the Words to be taken in such a sense as to consider them separated they would contain a great Absurdity so that wherever the one is the other by concomitancy must be there too But who told them that the Glorified Body of Christ is in the Sacrament The Words of the Institution intimate no such thing but speak of his Body given and his Blood shed which certainly was separate from his Body But however this is arguing from Reason against the Words and is just the very same thing which they condemn as Heretical in us And if this be once allowed they must throw off the whole Doctrine for we can shew them Ten times as many Absurdities in the Doctrine of Transustantiation as they can in supposing the Body and Blood of Christ to subsist separately In short either we must stick to the very Words of our Blessed Saviour or we must not if we must their Opinion must be false which makes what our Saviour calls Two Things to be but One if we must not stick to the very Words but interpret them according to right Reason and other Places of Scripture they then give up their Cause To conclude this Head What Reason can there be imagined why our Saviour should in a solemn manner at different Times and under different Names give the very same thing call the one his Body and the other his Blood when according to the Nature of the Thing he might as well have inverted the Names and have called that his Blood which he calls his Body and so on the other side There cannot I believe be any Reason thought of but only this That the one Kind the Bread was very proper to represent the breaking of his Body the other the Wine to represent the shedding of his Blood which is the very thing that we would have for then there is a sufficient Reason for these Names without any Bodily Presence at all I have been the longer in considering the Sense of the Scripture in this Matter because your Writers commonly boast more of the Scripture being for you in this Case than in any other Controversies betwixt us And I think I have proved more than I need have done in proving that the Sense your Church puts upon the Words of our Saviour cannot be the true Sense of them It being sufficient in a Matter of this Nature which is loaded with so many Absurdities to have shewed that they did fairly admit of another Interpretation But having so fully Confuted this Doctrine out of the Scriptures I am now more at liberty to shew you the gross Absurdities and the monstrous Contradictions that are involved in it tho' in truth it is so full fraught with Contradictions that it 's a hard matter to know where to begin I shall therefore content my self just to repeat some of them which are ready Collected to my hand by a Great Divine of our own Chilligworth p. 165. That there should be Accidents without a Subject that is That there should be length and nothing long breadth and nothing broad thickness and nothing thick whiteness and nothing white roundness and nothing round weight and nothing heavy sweetness and nothing sweet moisture and nothing moist fluidness and nothing flowing many actions and no agent many passions and no patient that is that there should be a long broad thick white round heavy sweet moist flowing active passive nothing That Bread should be turned into the Substance of Christ and yet not any thing of that Bread become any thing of Christ neither the Matter nor the Form nor the Accidents of Bread be made either the Matter or the Form or the Accidents of Christ That Bread should be turned into nothing and at the same time with the same Action be turned into Christ and yet that Christ should not be nothing That the same thing at the same time should have it's just dimensions and just distance of it's Parts one from another and at the same time should not have it but all its Parts together in the felf-same Point That the Body of Christ which is much greater should
more about it for there are so many Absurdities and gross Contradictions in the contrary Opinion that we ought to lay hold of any thing that can but make sense of the Words and avoid those Monstrous Absurdities But I shall now indeavour to prove from the Words themselves that the sense which the Church of Rome puts upon them cannot be the true sense of them 1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome is that our Saviour by pronouncing these words this is my Body made that to be his Body which before was only Bread but certainly the literal sense of the words does not import any thing of this and it 's the literal sense which they must stick to or else the whole support of their cause is gone now according to all the Rules of speaking it ought to have been his Body before he could truly pronounce it to be so but this they deny and say it was only Bread till these words were pronounced and that the calling it his Body made it become so which is a form of Speech quite unknown to the World and I challenge them to bring any Author either Sacred or Prophane that ever made use of words of this kind in such a Sense Since therefore it is confessed that what our Saviour took into his Hands was Bread and that it remained Bread till the speaking of these words This is my Body and since those words in their natural construction cannot be understood to effect any Change it must remain Bread still and be only the Body of Christ in such a sense as Bread may be called his Body that is in such a sense as the Lamb they eat of but just before was called the Passover by being a Representation and Commemoration of it 2. Another Argument I would make use of is this that our Saviour did not by pronouncing those words make what he gave them to be his very Body and Blood because after the pronouncing of them he calls what he gave in the Cup the Fruit of the Vine Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God In which words are contained these three I think plain Reasons which prove that it was Wine and not his Blood that he gave them 1. That He expresly calls it the fruit of the Vine and the Words they say are to be taken in the literal Sense and literally nothing else is the fruit of the Vine but Wine at least the Blood of Christ is not 2. In his saying that he would drink no more of it till he drank it new in the Kingdom of God it is supposed that he had heretofore drank of what he then gave them But I suppose it will hardly be said that he ever before drank his own Blood 3. As the Words suppose that he had drank before of what he then gave them so they do that he would drink of it again which very likely must be understood of his eating and drinking with them after his Resurrestion for then the Kingdom of God that is the new State of the Christian Church was come And therefore unless the Blood of Christ can be properly called the fruit of the Vine unless it can be supposed that he had drank his own Blood before and did design to drink it afterward these Words must evince that it was Wine which he then gave them I would not conceal that tho' St. Matthew and St. Mark recite the Words which I have Quoted after the Consecration of the Cup yet one of the Evangelists St. Luke recites them before and so they may seem to relate to a Cup that went about the Table at the Paschal Supper But this Objection if well considered does rather the more confirm what I have been proving for two of the Evangelists do place it immediately after the Consecration and delivery of the Sacramental Cup and in them it is apparent they can referr to nothing else but that Now if our Opinion about this Sacrament be true the difference betwixt the Evangelists in this Case is not material as importing no difference at all in the Doctrine of the Sacrament though our Saviour's Words are reported different ways and so this secures the Honour and Authority of all the Evangelists But if our Saviour's Words are to be understood as the Church of Rome understands them it 's impossible in any tolerable manner to reconcile the Evangelists for St. Matthew and St. Mark must upon this supposition not only put his Words wrong together and out of that order he spoke them but must also quite misrepresent his meaning and that in a Point of great Consequence Which I believe can be no way consistent with the Opinion which the Church of God has always had of these Gospels But I shall consider this Matter a little more fully in that which I have to urge in the Third Place 3. I desire it may be considered that the Words of our Saviour in the Institution of this Sacrament cannot be understood literally because as they are recited by the Evangelists they are not literally the same but differ as to the literal meaning very materially Mat. 26.28 Mark 14.24 Luke 22.20 St. Matthew and St. Mark in the Instistution of the Cup recite our Saviour's Words thus This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you St. Luke recites them thus This is the New Testament in my Blood Now from this difference among them I would observe these Two Things 1. That the Evangelists being so little curious to recite the very same Words that our Saviour spake could not have any Notion of a strict necessity of a literal meaning and of such a strange Doctrine which could have no foundation but in the literal interpretation of the very Words that he spake this had been at best very strange negligence in a Matter of so great Consequence 2. I would observe that if our Interpretation of the Words be true the Evangelists are easily reconciled as agreeing in the same general Sense tho' differing in the Expressions because both of them denote a Commemoration of the Blood of Christ and of the New Testament or Covenant founded upon it and it is not then very material which is placed first but if they are to be taken literaly it's impossible ever to make them agree and so one of the Evangelists must not only have mis-recited our Saviour's Words but quite have mis-understood his meaning and have done what he could to lead People wrong in a great Point of Faith For certainly the true real Blood of Christ is a very different thing from the New Covenant or Testament which is founded upon it But it will appear still of greater Consequence to keep to the very Words which Christ spake if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be true that it is the repeating the Words of our Saviour which effects the
any Prayer put up to any Creature It may be it will be said That the Saints were not then in Heaven and so were not in a condition to hear the Prayers that should be put up to them and had not so much Favour with God as they may be supposed to have now since the Resurrection of Christ that he has admitted them so nearly into his Presence Now in Answer to this I shall not at present pretend to determine whether the Saints of the Old Testament were in Heaven before Christ's Resurrection or not nor whether they and other Saints since are there now because a great many Christians of no mean Authority in the Church of God have been of different Opinions in these Matters only I think these two or three Things are very plain 1. That Enoch and Elias were supposed by a great many before our Saviour's time to be in Heaven and they must have been looked upon by them to be very great Favourites of God by being taken out of this World in so strange and wonderful a manner as the Scripture tells us they were and yet we hear as little of praying to them as to any other Person 2. Supposing it not agreed upon then whether Saints were in Heaven yet all agreed that the Angels were And they were altogether as well capacitated to hear and answer Prayers which should have been put up to them then as they are now and yet we find as little of Mens praying to Angels as they did to Saints in those Times 3. Whatever Reason can be assigned for praying to Creatures now would have held as well then whatever necessity or conveniency or advantage or fitness there may be in it were all the same and indeed much greater then than they are now upon these Two Accounts 1. Because the Christian Religion is of it self a State of much greater Perfection than any Dispensation that was before it God has in it revealed himself more clearly and plainly to the World has more evidenced his Love and Tenderness to Mankind has given us greater incouragements to draw near to him He speaks to us in the Gospel as a Father to his Children as a reconciled Father in Jesus Christ and therefore accordingly in that Form of Prayer which our Saviour has left us that is the Appellation which he has taught us to make use of Our Father which art in Heaven Now why should a Child be afraid to approach the Presence of his Father Or what need has he of any body to introduce him Under the Jewish Dispensation when the Law was given with Thunderings and Lightnings when God was called by the terrible Name of the Lord of Hosts there might be more reason to think of some body to introduce them to his Presence which yet we do not find was ever recommended or practised among them How much more may Christians come with boldness to the Throne of Mercy and expect to find Grace to help in time of need But what is more considerable 2. Christians have Christ for their Mediator who is able to save to the uttermost all those that come to God by him He is in Heaven ready to plead their cause and to get their Prayers heard and their Persons accepted and they that have such an Advocate need not fly to any else But it was not so with the Church before Christ and therefore if the thing had been at all lawful they had much more reason to make Saints and Angels their Patrons than Christians have And yet we see that in the Account which we have in the Bible of the Church of God before Christ for near 4000 Years there is not the least hint of any thing of this kind 3. What I have said already that all along in the Old Testament Prayer is appropriated to God and that without any reserve or distinction may be sufficient to shew the Mind of God in that Case But I have this further to add That the same Scripture adds with the same general words condemn as Idolatrous all the Old Heathen Worship Now I have shewed before that much of this Worship was paid to Creatures under the same Notions and Apprehensions that those of the Church of Rome Worship Saints and Angels indeed there was this difference that most of those Worshipped in the Church of Rome were probably good Creatures as most of those whom the Heathens Worshipped were bad ones and it may be Devils But this distinction of good or bad Creatures may make the Worship more or less Impious but not more or less Idolatrous whatever will make it Idolatry in the one Case will make it so in the other The Worship appropriated to God is no more due to a good Creature than it is to a bad one since therefore I have shewed that the Scripture every where condemns the Worship which the Heathen gave to what they owned not to be God and which they did not intend to Worship as the Supreme God I say since this is condemned not only as Impious for choosing ill Creatures but as Idolatrous for giving what belonged only to God this must equally prove all Creature Worship to be Idolatrous 4. This Creature Worship is as litle heard of in the New Testament as it is in the Old Heard of it is indeed but what approbation it met with we may see by considering these particulars The first Instance is that of the Devil desiring our Saviour to worship him upon promise to give him all the Kingdoms of the World But let us see what our Saviour answers he does not put him off with telling him either the Dignity of his own Person or the unfitness of the thing in Worshipping him because he was a Devil but he gives such a Reason as will hold against all Worshipping of Creatures Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve From which words I would observe these Two Things 1. That the Worship which the Devil desires and which our Saviour says must be given only to God was not to offer Sacrifice to him which the Writers of the Church of Rome make the only outward Worship appropriated to God but it was to fall down and adore him from whence we may inferr that to fall down and adore any Creature must be Idolatry which part of Worship its apparent the Church of Rome give to their Saints and Angels 2. I would observe here that the Devil did not pretend to be the Supreme God but plainly the contrary for when he shews our Saviour all the Kingdoms of the World he tells him that all these things were given to him Luke 4.6 in which he plainly professes not a Supreme But a Delegated Power so that had not our Saviour in his Answer condemned the Worship of Creatures tho' owned and acknowledged to be Creatures he had not given a full Answer to the Devil for the Devil did not desire to be Worshipped as the Supreme God Another