these things But that which is here to be enquired and examined is Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought not according to the institution of Christ and by his authority to be administred in both kinds 15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament against Christs Institution in both kinds of Bread and Wine is so plain from the words of its Institution that this is acknowledged in the (d) Ubi sup c. 1. Council of Trent And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church (e) Sacris c. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum Dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum Dicens Accipite quod trado vasoulum Omnes ex eo bibite Sic Sacrificium istud instituit He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood saying Take this Cup which I deliver drink ye all of it Thus did he institute that Sacrifice These expressions have a particular respect to that Command concerning the Cup Matt. 26 27. Drink ye all of it And it may be further observed that those words in the Institution Do this in remembrance of me are a Precept which hath special respect to the receiving both the kinds both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words Do this to establish the whole Institution that as (f) Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expresseth their sense ut hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus ab eo quod Christus docuit fecit non recedatur that we should do what our Lord did and should not depart from what Christ taught and did Yet these words have a more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament For Do this c. in S. Luke and S. Paul comes in the place of take eat c. in S. Matt. and S. Mark and in these words of S. Paul Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me the words as oft as ye drink it do plainly import thus much that the Command do this in that place doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup. 16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians that from hence (g) de Consecrat di 2. c. 7. Cum omne Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses which had in some places been entertained Insomuch that he declares against delivering the Bread dipt in the Cup upon this reason because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels concerning the Master of truth who when he commended to his Apostles his Body and his Blood Seorsum panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians where he useth this as an Argument to all particular Christians against communicating in any Idolatrous Worship 1 Cor. 10.21 ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned And the Council of Trent (h) Sess 21. c. 2. owns that from the beginning of Christianity the Sacrament was given in both kinds But they following much the steps of the Council of Constance account neither the Institution of Christ nor the practice of the ancient Church to be in this case any necessary guide but they declare the custom then received to be changed upon just reasons 17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ might be eluded and a Mist cast before the Sun divers Romanists and particularly (i) de Euchar l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communicants Bellarmine declare that Christs command drink ye all of it was given to the Apostles only and not to all Communicants To which I answer 1. That the Apostles at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament were not consecrating but communicating and therefore the Command given to them as receiving the Sacrament is a rule for Communicants Which binds all Communicants and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest And indeed the ancient Church made no such distinction in this case between Priest and People but acknowledged as (k) Chrys Hom. 18. in 2 Epist ad Corinth S. Chrysostome expresseth it that the same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup And agreeable hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England which declare (l) Art 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike 2. That this device would serve as effectually if it were considerable to take away the Bread with the Cup from the people that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them 3. The Command of Christ with the reason annexed Matt. 26.27 28. Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins doth give sufficient light to discern to whom this Precept is designed to wit to all them who desire to partake in the Communion of the blood of the New Testament for the Remission of sins and that is to all Communicants in that Sacrament 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25 26. plainly applys Christ's Command concerning the Cup to all who come to the Holy Communion in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution concerning the Cup he immediately says to the Corinthians For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come And he re-inforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup indefinitely to all who are to Communicate v. 28. Let a Man not only the Priest examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. 18. But here the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Churches authority and power in the Sacrament (m) Ubi sup c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum salva illorum substantia statuere vel mutare to appoint and change things in dispensing the Sacraments still preserving their substance And they seem to intimate that the Communion in both kinds No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People is not of the substance of the Sacrament because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacrament we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament according to his Institution The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature and therefore to change this
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.
2. c. 4. Bellarmine was so apprehensive of the force and reasonableness of this consideration with respect to the Mass and the frequent repetition thereof that he thought it necessary to assert that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not of infinite value for saith he si missae valor infinitus esset frustra multae missae if the value of the Sacrifice of the Mass was infinite it would be in vain that there should be many Masses But he might also have discerned that upon the same reason he would be obliged to acknowledge in derogation from the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross and in opposition to the testimony of the Scriptures that that offering of the Sacrifice of Christ which he himself made in our nature was but of a finite value and not compleat so as thereby to perfect for ever them who are sanctified because if this had been effected by that one offering it would be in vain to have repeated offerings of that Sacrifice 23. But others of their Writers entertain different notions and opinions from this and conclude (u) Barrad Concord Evangel Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. that the merits of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist must be infinite because they are the same merits with those of the Sacrifice upon the Cross And this must needs be so according to the Council of Trent which declares (w) Sess 22. c. 2. it to be the very same Sacrifice which is now offered by the Priest and which was then offered upon the Cross and differeth only in the manner of offering and then its merit and vertue must be the same Now this conception of the value of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in asserting it to be so compleatly propitiatory doth not only derogate from the Sacrifice of Christ which himself offered upon the Cross but in truth it makes it so void as to take away any necessity thereof For since our Lord instituted and makes them void and consecrated the Eucharist before his death if he had therein offered himself a compleat expiatory Sacrifice then the work of redemption and expiation must have been fully performed before that great work of his passion upon the Cross and consequently his death upon the Cross as a Sacrifice must be in vain This was (x) Hist Conc. Trident. p. 443 451. again and again urged in the Council of Trent by some whose apprehensions were not agreeable to what that Council determined Nor can it be otherwise solidly answered than by acknowledging that our Lord when he instituted and celebrated the Eucharist did not in that action properly offer himself a propitiatory Sacrifice And whereas in the Institution of the Eucharist our Saviour spake of his blood which is shed not only divers particular Writers of the Romanists own the expression of the present tense to denote what was future but soon to be accomplished but even the Vulgar Latin both in S. Matthew and S. Luke expresseth it effundetur shall be shed to which agreeth the expressing the same in the Canon of the Mass The like may be observed concerning the phrase of his Body being given or broken which the Vulgar Latin also in the words of the institution 1 Cor. 11.24 renders tradetur shall be given Nor is it either pious or reasonable to think that the Eucharist celebrated by an ordinary Priest must be more properly and fully an expiatory and propitiatory Sacrifice than that which was celebrated by Christ himself in the first institution of it when his act then was made the Rule to guide theirs by his giving this commandment Do this in remembrance of me 24. Cons 2. Cons 2. The body of Christ is not now capable of being Sacrificed A proper Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood is not now capable of being offered in the Eucharist Indeed that Sacrament beareth a particular respect to the death of Christ to his Body as broken and his Blood as shed and therein his death is shewed forth 1 Cor. 11.26 But after his resurrection he dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him Rom. 6.9 And therefore his Body as having been once really dead and his Blood as once shed may be commemorated and represented in the Eucharist But there is now no exhibiting his Body and Blood in that Sacrament really dead which cannot be and so properly offered a Sacrifice to God And the defenders of the Romish Sacrifice seem here to be put to a great loss 25. In (y) de Missa l. 1. c. 2. Bellarmin's definition of a Sacrifice the last clause thereof declares that the thing sacrificed ritu mystico consecratur transmutatur is by a mystical right consecrated and changed And explaining the former of these he saith it must ex prophana fieri sacra of a prophane thing be made sacred and that Sacrificare is Sacrum facere But though the elements of the Eucharist before the consecration may be called profane things or not sacred and so may be consecrated by the Priest the glorious body of Christ is capable of no such thing And explaining the latter clause he saith it must be changed so ut destruatur that it may be destroyed or that desinat esse quod ante erat that it may cease to be what it was before and this is as far from agreeing with the uncorruptible body of Christ as the other and therefore the Cardinal in making and explicating this definition seems to have laid aside or else to have forgotten the interest he was to maintain 26. And (z) Conc. Evang. To ◠l. 3. c. 6. Barradius acutely tells us that immolatio oblatio and consumptio staying offering and consuming are the things essential to a Sacrifice and he undertakes so great an adventure as to shew how all of them even the first and the last may be affirmed concerning the body of Christ in the Sacrifice of the Mass He saith that as a lamb is slain when the blood is separated from the body by a knife Christ is here slain when vi consecration is sanguis Christi à Corpore Christi separatur by force of the Consecration the blood of Christ is separated from the body of Christ Now it is a thing very hard to be conceived how such a real division and actual shedding of blood should be suffered by the incorruptible and glorious body of Christ and it is yet more difficult to conceive how this can be reconciled with the Council of Trent which declares that after the Consecration (a) Sess 21. c. 3. in the Sacrament of the Eucharist sub singulis speciebus totum atque integrum Christum sumi all and whole Christ is by the Communicants received under each of the species which could not be done unless whole Christ was there and they anathematize him who shall say the contrary which I suppose this Author was not aware of 27. With like nicety and trifling he further says (b) Barrad ibid. the Body
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
five or seven years and that if they die without them they may be saved But Layman declares Laym l. 5. Tr. 6. c. 2. n. 6. That the Precept and Duty of Repentance is satisfied by coming once in a year with Attrition to Confession and the Sacrament of Penance and by doing the same at the time of Death But is not this a Religion set up to undermine the Holy Gospel of our Saviour and to intitle those workers of Iniquity to Heaven whom his Doctrine will condemn to Hell And our other Parties give too much allowance to some particular miscarriages which I have before mentioned And many of them lay not that stress they ought on a Holy Life in general which is included under Conversion and Repentance in that they do not account it a necessary condition or previous qualification for the obtaining the Favour of God and the Pardon of Sin or which is all one for Justification Having now gone through these Heads of Discourse I shall further here observe three things First That the Romanists are not only thus far guilty of equal but are chargeable with much greater miscarriages than those of the Scribes and Pharisees I might have run on the Parallel farther as when the one devoured Widows Houses under a pretence of long Prayers the other carry on the like designs of Covetousness and Extortion by their Indulgences and Masses for the Dead But the Pharisees were not so degenerate as to offer their Prayers or Sacrifices to Saints or even to Angels though the Law was given by their Ministration but to such the Romish Church directs a great part of her Religious Worship They gave not Divine Honour either to the Temple which was the place of God's Presence or to any Sacrifice as the Papists do to the Host They worshipped not the Invisible God under the debasing representation of an Image as the Samaritans did and the Romanists do And when God appointed a continual Burnt-Offering with a Meat-Offering and Drink-Offering they did not make so bold as to alter his Institutions and withdraw one part thereof as they at Rome have done concerning the distribution of the Eucharistical Cup. And when the Pharisees had only so much Pride as vainly to account themselves righteous and far better than others they did not as the Romanists do pretend to such Supererogation and so great a stock of Merits as to be able thereby to supply the defects of others But if they at Rome had what they pretend it had need be a vast Treasury of good Works to make amends for the notorious bad ones which are the result of the Positions allowed and maintained in that Church The Pharisees claimed a great Authority to be Masters of the Faith of others but it doth not appear that they founded this in so high and unreasonable a claim to Infallibility as they at Rome do the holding of which engageth them to continue in all their other Errors Nor were they so deeply uncharitable as utterly to exclude the Essens and all other Sects from the favour of God as the Romanists deal with all other Churches nor did they debar the people from reading the Scriptures Secondly I observe that other Dividing Parties though they are very different among themselves and are not all to be alike esteemed of yet either all or most of them have some miscarriages not received by the Scribes and Pharisees for instance the Pharisees did not slight or neglect the Sacraments of the Old Testament either Circumcision or the Passover as too many now do one or both the Sacraments of the New They never gave way that the Temple-Sacrifices and other such like Services of God should be performed by any other but only those Priests whom God had appointed for that purpose when many in our days can admit and allow the performance of Christian Ministrations by those who have no Regular Authoritative and Justifiable Ordination And such things however some esteem of them are of the greater moment because they violate the peculiar Institutions of our Lord and the ordinary way that he hath appointed for the conveying and applying the Grace of the Gospel and the benefits of his Death and Passion Thirdly I observe also that it must be acknowledged there were other great Crimes of the Scribes and Pharisees which are not chargeable on any of those Parties of whom I have discoursed Such were their professed disowning our Saviour and his Doctrine their actual contriving his Death and their obstinacy under those various mighty Miracles which were frequently wrought before their Eyes But as the former Transgressions which I mentioned have been particularly proved destructive so I think them to be especially intended in this severe censure of our Saviour of the insufficiency of their Righteousness For these words were uttered soon after he began to teach and before the Scribes and Pharisees had declared their greatest enmity to his Person their obstinacy under his Miracles or their contrivement of his Death and therefore they must have respect to their Righteousness according to that time when these words were spoken And the scope of his Discourse shews him to condemn as greatly defective such Rules of Doctrine and Practice as they then directed and proposed I now come in the third place as my Conclusion to note the result of these Enquiries in two particulars First This should warn those of the Romish and other opposite Perswasions to consider seriously of their own Danger and of what may conduce to their Safety If they think themselves sufficiently secure so did also the Scribes and Pharisees of whom our Saviour judged otherwise And I could heartily wish that all persons of their several Divisions were really free from all things sinful and dangerous I think my self obliged to express as much Charity to others as can be consistent with Truth and a sober Judgment And therefore I freely acknowledge that the several Parties who divide from our Church are not all equally chargeable with many things I have insisted on and I verily hope that in all these various divisions there may be several particular persons led aside by meer mistake and misapprehension and whose uprightness of intention may be a preservative to them from much of that evil they might otherwise be engaged in And though all Sin is every where prejudicial I hope also that those miscarriages which such persons are brought into by their undiscerned Errors will not exclude them from the Mercy of God and many of their Practices may be better than their Principles But whilst any of us may express our Charity towards them and hope the best it becomes them to have that care of themselves as to fear the worst For Charity doth not make the Condition of other Men safe unto whom it is extended but this must be determined by the Judgment of God Those Persons whose Minds or Practices are really worse than other Men hope them to be are in never the