properly This manner of speaking then being so common and familiar with that Nation well may we interpret our Saviour's words This is my Body in the same manner according to the nature of a Sacrament and the subject Matter thereof So it is said that the Rock which followed the Israelites was Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of the Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ Sure there can be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in another manner when this form of Speech was so common among them but it is very agreeable to understand them as we understand them Besides it is but the same form of Speech which was used by the Jews in celebrating the Passover which our Saviour and his Disciples had been just now about And he instituted this Sacrament for the like End as the Passover had been and it was now for ever to succeed in its place This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge we are told was the form among the Jews meaning that it did put them in mind and represent to them the Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the true Paschal Lamb that was to take away the Sins of the World. And at the Passover the Master of the House likewise took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt not the very Bread sure but only a Type or Figure of it So our Saviour in like manner accommodating himself to their Customs and Phrases used the very same Symbols and express'd himself accordingly This is my Body which is broken for you which our Saviour appointed in remembrance of himself ever after in the room of the Paschal Lamb. Now how should we understand our Saviour's words then but agreeably to the old form in the like case Besides it is plain from the words themselves about the Institution that it was very Bread of which he said This is my Body For it is said He took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my Body What he took he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But he took Bread therefore of the Bread he said This is my Body And if it was Bread then it could not be his very Body but only a Symbol or Sign o◠it because it was Bread still And that it was Bread still ever after the Consecration we have also the Apostle's words for it 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread. So that it is Bread still which they are partakers of which was after the Consecration So again Chap. 11. 26 27 28. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. Where he calls it Bread three times in three Verses together even after the Consecration In like manner our Saviour speaking of the Cup when he had said Mat. 26 28. This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately after adds 〈…〉 unto you I will not henceforth drink of this 〈…〉 Vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom From whence it is plain that it was the Fruit of the Vine and real Wine which he drank with his Disciples and that was after the Consecration Besides if the substance of Bread and Wine are changed in the Sacrament into the very substance of the Body and Blood of Christ when is it done Is it done before those words were pronounc'd This is my Body or in them or after them If it was done before When was it done or by what Command or in what way If it be not done till after they are all pronounc'd or till after the word Is is pronounc'd then it is false to say This is my Body before the change is wrought which is not till after the word Is is pronounc'd for these words are only declarative of what is before and are not imperative of what should be And if it was not before these words were pronounc'd then a thing is pronounc'd to be which was not which is a false Proposition And if it had been intended that the change should have been wrought by these words then it should have been Let this be my Body or This shall be my Body and not This is my Body which only declares what a thing was before and doth not command it to be what it was not So that in truth it only means that the Bread was set a-part by our Saviour for the Sign and Token of his Body when he blessed it and gave Thanks Again our Saviour gave to his Disciples his Body as broken But then his Body was really whole and unbroken for it was before his Passion and it was the Bread only that was broken Therefore our Saviour did not give his very Body but the Bread broken only as a Symbol of his Body which was to be broken So that it was really Bread which he gave and not his very natural Body but the Bread as a sign of his Body and for that reason called his Body because signifying it And so these words are to be understood only in a Figure Are not these words to be understood in a Figure 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread Or are all Christians turn'd into Bread first and then into the Body of Christ by their being made partakers of the Bread in the Sacrament It is as good an Argument to argue so from these words as to argue from our Saviour's This is my Body that therefore the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of his Body But the figurative way of speaking is evident and undeniable in the other part of the Sacrament about the Cup Luke 22. 20. And therefore why may not we suppose the like in the former about the Body This Cup says our Saviour is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Here is Figure upon Figure the Cup for the Wine But neither Cup nor Wine is the New Testament nor yet our Saviour's Blood neither but the Seal of it But as our Saviour's Blood was the Seal of the New Testament and of all the Promises and Benefits contained in it So was the Wine a sign of his Blood and as such was given to the Disciples as a Seal of the New Covenant confirmed by our Saviour's Blood. And that this must
that which we perceive clearly with all our Senses and which we can reason as plainly about as about any thing whatsoever Or if our Saviour and his Apostles were now preaching or working Miracles in the World how should we judg of all they said or did but by those Mediums which about Transubstantiation we must entirely renounce CHAP. XXVI That the Mass is not only a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross but that the self-same Christ is therein offered that offered himself upon the Cross and that this Sacrifice performed by the Priest is truly propitiatory for the Remission of Sins of the Quick and Dead Council of Trent Sess 22. chap. 2. Can. 1 2 3. THis is a consequent of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament without which it cannot subsist For if the very Body of our Saviour be not substantially and properly present in the Sacrament then how can there be a proper Oblation of the Body of Christ there For how can there be a proper Oblation of that that is not properly and substantially there The Body of Christ being there in a Figure or Representation there is a commemoration of the Sacrifice of his Body which he offered on the Cross and there is a representation of the Sacrifice of his Body made there upon which account it may be called a Commemorative Sacrifice But there being no proper or corporal Presence of his Body there can be no proper Oblation of it So that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being refuted before this being a Consequent of it must fall with it There is the Sacrifice of Christ in a Figure indeed that is there is a Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ by the Bread broken and the Wine poured forth which represents to us the breaking of his Body and the shedding of his Blood in the Offering which he made of himself on the Cross So the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come So that therein the Death of Christ is shewed forth and we have Communion with him in his Benefits by an Act of Faith when we partake of the Symbols of his Body and Blood. And it was for this End for the nourishing and confirming our Faith and the expressing our gratitude to our dying Lord by keeping up a grateful remembrance of his Death that this holy Rite was instituted But read the Institution entire Luk. 22. there is not the least intimation of any sacrificial Act there performed by our Saviour or commanded the Disciples He took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat this is my Body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of me A Sacrifice is offered to God but here is nothing offered to God but a representation of thatâ— Body that was to be broken and offered and the Bread distributed to the Disciples to nourish their Faith. And indeed that which our Saviour did then could not possibly be a propitiatory Sacrifice unless they will say that Propitiation was made by Christ before he suffered on the Cross for this that Christ did was certainly before his Suffering And what need then of the following Oblation on the Cross if Propitiation was made before For what need that be done again that is sufficiently done already So that we conclude that there was no propitiatory Sacrifice offered in the Supper because there was no Propitiation made before the Oblation on the Cross And if there was no Propitiation made in the Sacrament then neither is there now the Institution being always the same and that only being required to be done by the Disciples which was then done and appointed by our Saviour and for the same Ends and no other And we in many places find that the purging away of our Sin and our Sanctification and Redemption which is the Fruit and Consequent of Propitiation is entirely attributed to that offering of the Body of Jesus Christ which was made by himself on the Cross and which was offered but once and that by this once offering all this was done so that there is to be no more offering then for Propitiation Heb. 7. 26 27. For such an High Priest became us who needed not as the legal Priests to offer up Sacrifices first for his own Sins and then for the Peoples and to do this often as they did it every Year and often For this he did once when he offered up himself And that once in him was sufficient to all the Ends of a propitiatory Offering Chap. 9. 12. For by his own Blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtain'd â—ternal Redemption for us by that once Offering If the Blood of Christ shed once upon the Cross â—e of such infinite and eternal efficacy and merit for our Redemption what need can there be of more For v. 13 14. How should not the Blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your Conscience from dead Works And Chap. 10. 10. We are sanctified and our Sins expiated by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ onâ—e for all And vers 13. This Man Christ Jesus after he had offered one Sacrifice for Sin for ever sat down on the right Hand of God as having fulfilled his Offering Vers 14. For by one Offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Therefore saith God in consideration of this once Offering of Christ Vers 17. 18. Their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Now where Remission of these is there is no more Offering for Sin. There is Faith and Repentance indeed required on our part that we may have benefit in the Offering made but there is no more Offering for Sin that being sufficiently done already by Christ's own Offering So that to talk of the necessity of more or repeated Offerings and Sacrifices for Propitiation is in the necessary construction of the Fact whatever is pretended to impeach the once Offering of Christ which he made himself for us of insufficiency for the Ends of Propitiation And by this the Apostle argued the insufficiency of the legal Offerings Heb. 10. 1 2. For the Law having only a weak shadow of good things to come and not the very Image and solidity of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered Year by Year continually make the comers thereunto perfect as touching remission of Sin. For then would they not have ceased to be offered because that the Worshippers once purged should have had no more Conscience of Sins for which there had been made sufficient atonement So that according to the Apostle the repetition and reiteration of Sacrifices is a note of their Imperfection And by the same reason the Sacrifice of Christ once offered upon the Cross would be imperfect if there were a necessity of its being frequently offered Which is manifestly
use of the Bread too as well as the Cup or else they ought to continue both aâ— there is the same Command for both Vers 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till be come So that they must drink this Cup as well as eat this Bread to shew the Lord's Death This is to be done by both together and not by either singly And all those for whom Christ died then are obliged to shew his Death in the Sacrament by the use of the Cup as well as by the use of the Bread. But Christ died not only for the Priests or Ministers of the Gospel but also for the People And therefore this order concerns both Vers 28. But let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. This is spoken to the People of Corinth and it is plain from many Passages in this and the foregoing Chapter that the People of the Church of Corinth did drink of the Cup and committed great excess in their drinking But notwithstanding this Abuse the Apostle doth not presume to alter the Institution or to take it away And what shall we thinkâ— then of the presumptuous boldness of the Church of Rome that dares to do this in manifest defiance of and open contradiction to our Saviour's Command and Institution and without the least colour of any good reason If they say whole Christ is contained in the Bread was it not so in the beginning of our Saviour's Institution as well as now And if our Saviour notwithstanding instituted the Cup how do they dare to take it away upon this vain Presumption as if they knew better than our Saviour what was fit to be done This Doctrine of Concomitancy of the Blood with the Body did not keep our Saviour from instituting the Cup and how comes it to be so good a Reason now to take away what he was instituted He hath appointed different Symbols one for his Body alone and another for his Blood as shed and separated from his Body the one to eat and the other to drink And how should the Bread which is to be eaten which represents his Body without the Blood represent to us the Blood as shed and separated from his Body by way of concomitancy when they are considered as asunder If so then the Blood of Christ must be eaten too with the Bread but is not drank whereas our Saviour instituted the Cup as a Symbol of his Blood shed and so to be drank apart as the Symbol of it and not eat by way of concomitancy with the Bread which is the particular Symbol or Figure of his Body But some have urged that some of the Blood may be apt to hang upon Mens Beards and so be profaned and therefore for this reason the People ought not to have the use of the Cup. As if there were not Beards in our Saviour's Time also as well as now but they were new sprung up or new come in fashion in these latter Ages But it seems our Saviour did not consider this very weighty Reason SOME PREJUDICES OF THE Church of ROME Answered SECT I. They accuse our Doctrine of Novelty THIS the Pharisees likewise alledged against our Lord Jesus Christ and urged the same Prejudices Mark 1. 27. They question among themselves saying What thing is this What new Doctrine is this And Acts 17. 19. St. Paul being brought to Areopagus they demanded of him May we know what this New Doctrine whereof thou speakest is So likewise this is the Tone of the Romish Doctors who call the Reformation an upstart Religion and say that our Doctrine is new and still are insisting upon the thread-bare Question Where was your Religion before Luther As the Ancient Heathens no doubt would be almost perpetually questioning the Jews in the same manner Where was your Religion before Abraham And the same Answer for substance will serve for our Defence that would do for theirs For as our Saviour said to the Pharisees Whatever they may pretend about the Antiquity of their Religion the like the Jews might say to the Heathen and so we may say to the Church of Rome That from the beginning it was not so Idolatry and the worship of Idols was not from the beginning So neither was the Mass Purgatory worship of Images Invocation of Saints believed or taught from the beginning of Christianity But our Religion is as ancient as Christianity it self as the Jewish Religion in worshipping the True God in opposition to the Heathen Idolatry was as old as that of Noah or Enoch or Adam For we believe and receive nothing as absolutely necessary to Salvation but what our Saviour and his Apostles taught and delivered to the World and what is contained in the Ancient Creeds But as the Worship of the one True God and the True Religion was greaâ—ly corrupted in the Ancient Times which Abraham was raised up to reform and so his Reformation was new in comparison of the Abuses that were before So indeed the Reformation of the Corruptions and Errors which for many Ages had obtained in these Western Parts of the World did not begin very long ago And if this be accused of Novelty we cannot help that but are sorry it was no sooner All Reformation is new in comparison of the Abuses that went before and so therefore was that set aâ—oot by Luther But how could this be remedied unless there should be no Reformation at all or because things are once â—ad they should never be better For they cannot be better without being reformed and whenever a Reformation begins it is certainly New. So that the Question is Whether those were Errors and Abuses which the Reformation cut off and so whether it were a Reformation really or no And if this be so as may appear in part by the foregoing Treatise then the Reformation justifies it self though it was pâ—â—y it had not been sooner And all those Negative Articles which we hold in opposition to the Errors of the Church of Rome and which now make up part of our Confession of Faith in opposition to those Errors are only New because the Reformation is New. And so it must be whensoever Men renounce or protest against Errors or unless they will err still SECT II. They say That we had no Call. THey say we had no Call to do as we did we had no Call to separate from the Church of Rome or to set aâ—oot this pretended Reformation But were those Errors or no which the Church of Rome taught And were they Innovations and Corruptions or no which they practised If they were as hath appeared in part before have we no Call to renounce Errors or to reject Corruptions or must there never be a Reformation of Things that are amiss If they say we should have stay'd till the Church had done it If they mean by the Church the Church of Rome we see it
the dispensing out of these superabounding Merits and Satisfactions to others is a vain thing For this is to pretend to give that that is not than which what can be more vain And consequently to sell about these Indulgences for Mony and thereby to give People hope of Pardon of their Sins is both to cheat and deceive their Souls and pick their Pockets by pretending to sell to them that that is not But suppose there were such a Treasury why must the Pope be the Dispenser Why should it not be supposed that that is left in the hands of Christ Jesus alone who is only able to discern who are fit to have benefit thereby and who hath the Key of David who openeth and no Man shutteth and who shutteth and no Man openeth Rev. 3. 7. But whatsoever Satisfactious or Merits even of Christ himself any Person hath share in Surely these are not to be sold by Mony nor hath any one an application thereof made to him by such a Traffick but upon his Faith and Repentance alone which Christ alone and not Man can judg of the sincerity of and accordingly apply the Benefits of his Redemption Indulgences of Canonical Penance in the Church upon the humiliation and submission of the Penitents are allowed But Indulgences to dispense an imaginary Treasury of imaginary Satisfactions and there to be bought by Mony or some very slight Performances are a bold and unaccountable rashness and presumption CHAP. XIX That there is a Purgatory or place of Torment after this Life for the expiation of the Sins of good Men that are not sufficiently purged here And that the Souls there detained are help'd by the Masses Prayers Alms and other good Works of the Living Council of Trent Sess 6. Can. 30. Sess 25. Decret de Purgat THE Foundation upon which this Doctrine of Purgatory is built is That there is a Debt of Temporal Punishment remaining to be paid even by those that are absolved and in a state of Grace tho the Eternal Punishment be forgiven And that every Man therefore must undergo these Temporal Pains in proportion to his Sins Christ having not at all satisfied for them And if this be not done in this Life that then it must be done in the next in Purgatory before a Man can have entrance into Heaven Now this having been refuted before and it having been proved that Christ hath satisfied fully for all our Sins and that we have compleat and perfect Remission of Sin through the free Grace of God upon the account alone of Christ's meritorious Satisfaction and so that there is no proper Satisfaction to be made by us for Sin at all the Foundation upon which Purgatory is built is taken away And all those Texts serve to the refuting of it which are before produc'd to prove the compleatness of our Saviour's Satisfaction and of the free Remission of our Sins upon it But yet if it were admitted that there were a reserve of some proper Satisfactory Punishments which God may think fit to inflict upon some Men in some Cases here yet unless it could be proved that this were a perpetual Ordinance and perpetually observed by God it would not signify any thing to the purpose of what is intended And yet if this were admitted likewise that it were perpetually so here yet what is this to prove a Purgatory hereafter For who can tell but for such Punishments as are to be undergone it may be all done here unless God reveals to us to the contrary But there being neither one nor other of these things proved but the contrary rather appearing we cannot otherwise think of Purgatory but that 't is a fond Thing vainly invented Moreover 't is directly contrary to all those Texts of Scripture that assert the Happiness and Rest of the Saints after this Life As Isa 57. 1 2. The Righteous is taken away from the Evil to come He shall enter into Peace they shall rest in their Beds Is this to be taken away from the Evil to come to be put into a condition where they must undergo heavier Is that to enter into Peace and to be at Rest to be burning in Fire seven times hotter than ours and which differs from that in Hell in nothing but in respect of duration Rev. 14. 13. Blessed are the Dead that die in the Lord from henceforth that they may rest from their Labours and their Works do follow them that is their good Works in the gracious Reward that is given them not their Sins and Punishments Now all the Faithful that die die in the Lord Rom. 14. 5. So that they all rest from their Labours But to be tormented in burning Fire sure that is not to rest from their Labours but to be put to worse In the Book of Wisdom which the Church of Rome holds for Canonical and therefore cannot deny its Testimony Chap. 3. 1. it is said The Souls of the Righteous are in the Hand of God and there shall no torment touch them What can be more express John 5. 24. Our saviour says Verily verily I say unto you That he who heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me hath eternal Life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from Death to Life Note that it is not said That he who believeth in Jesus Christ shall pass from Death unto Torment but he that shall pass from Death to Life that is a blessed Life for the other would be to pass from Death to Death at least for a while Therefore 2 Cor. 5. 1. We know saith the Apostle that if our earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands eternal in the Heavens It is not Purgatory then or a Place of Torment that the Saints remove into when they remove from their Bodies And therefore saith he vers 2. In this we groan earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our House which is from Heaven But if Death were followed with Torment so horrible as those are represented to be which are in Purgatory there would be reason rather for one to be affrighted at it and to fly from it than to desire it with so much ardour and earnestness and to wish to continue in this present state of Life still for fear of the worst Yet again vers 6 7 8. Whilst we are at home in the Body we are absent from the Lord and are willing rather to be absent from the Body and to be present with the Lord. Implying that that would be presently upon the leaving the Body Now our Lord sure is in Heaven and not in Purgatory Therefore so shall the Saints be also when they die Hence saith the Apostle Phil. 1. 21. To me to live is Christ and to die is Gain But according to the Romish Church to die is a damage to us The fear of Purgatory may make the best Men fearful of dying But vers 23. I am in a