how may Christs there may be in the compass of one Host or in the Wine of one Flaggon This is the second it produces a Multipresence makes Christ to be Carnally Substantially and Corporally present in a thousand thousand places at one and the same time Thirdly The Oral Carnal Corporal or Bodily eating of the Body of Christ whereby it entreth in at the Mouth and goeth into the Belly This is another Monster like its Fellows that comes out of the Womb of Transubstantiation 〈◊〉 they that believe Transubstantiation believe that they eat Christ's real Body Flesh Blood and Bones orally in the Sacrament of the Altar In this Sacrament 1. We eat the Body of Christ Sacramentally when we receive the sacred Sign of his Body This is manducatio signi Et manducatio corporalis oralis This may be done by Unbelievers and Wicked who eat the Bread of the Lord. 2. We eat the Body of Christ Sacramentally and Spiritually when we do not only receive the sacred Sign by the Hand into our Mouths but Christ also by Faith into our Hearts Thus true Believers eat him in this Sacrament receiving not only the Bread of the Lord orally but the Bread which is the Lord spiritually 3. Besides that Sacramental eating only proper to Unbelievers and this Sacramental and Spiritual eating simul conjunctim jointly and together proper to Believers There is a spiritual eating only out of the use of the Sacrament This is done as often as a Christian by Faith applies Christ and derives Spiritual Nourishment from him Of this our Saviour treats John 6. and of this Augustin speaks when he says Vt quid puras dentem ventrem Crede manducasti credere enim in cum hoc est panem vivum manducare But this Carnal Corporal Oral eating introduced by the Papists and growing out of Transubstantiation is 1. Horribly impious and abominable Turning Christians into Canibals Man-eaters Savages that for this are justly loathed and abhorred by Mankind 2. Utterly impossible How is it possible that Christ's glorious Body now immortal and impassible in Heaven should be eaten by poor sinful Mortals upon Earth 3. Wholly unprofitable If it were possible yet I would ask what profit or benefit should we obtain by a Carnal and Capernaitical eating of his Flesh in the Sacrament The Papists confess that it is a Spiritual Feast a Feast for the Soul not for the Body Con. Triden Sess 13. cap. 2. Now how can the Food of the Soul be received by the Mouth of the Body Or how can that which entreth by the Mouth into my Stomach and Belly nourish my Soul This is a great Mystery 4. Grosly absurd For on this it will follow that Christ did orally eat his own Flesh and drink his own Blood and died twice once in the Administration of the Supper and again upon the Cross 5. Plainly inconsistent with the Spiritual Manducation or eating of his Body in the Sacrament And 6. Manifestly repugnant to the Scriptures Fourthly The Sacrifice of the Mass or Missal Oblation of a piece of Bread which they believe to be the true and proper Body of Christ under the kind or form of Bread unto God the Father as a propitiatory and expiatory Sacrifice both for the quick and dead This is another Birth of the same Belly or Product of Transubstantiation A blasphemous Sacrifice 1. Directly contrary to the Scripture Heb. 9.26 28. and Chap. 10.10 12 14. 2. Highly opprobrious to the Person Priesthood and Sacrifice of Christ Evacuating the Sacrifice of his Death overthrowing his perpetual Priesthood and putting his Person under a lower degree of Humiliation than the lowest that he condescended unto in his state of Humiliation Then he took upon him the forth of a Servant was made in the likeness of Men and was found in fashion as a Man Phil. 2◠7 8. But now he is put into the form of a Wafer the likeness of a piece of Bread and is found every where upon their Altars in the Priests Hands and Peoples Pockets in fashion as a bit of Bread. 3. Intolerably injurious to Christians As taking away the Lord's Table or driving the Lord's Supper out of the Church For the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Lord's Supper are diametrically opposite one to the other in many respects Ego medicus tu aegrotus ille minister gratia Antidotum vas Sacramentum So hereby Christian Congregations are quite deprived of this last and great Ordinance of their dying Lord which is a Mirror of the ineffable Love of God and Christ a visible Word preaching Christ to the Eye an Epitome of the Gospel the Seal of Christ's Testament and as a sacred Dish wherein the Father exhibits Christ with all his Fulness unto Believers Fifthly The Superstitious Reservation of the Host or Wafer after Consecration omitting the distribution receiving and eating in remembrance of Christ Nihil habet rationem Sacramenti exrra usum divinitûs insticutum it is reposited and kept to be carried about and accommodated to other Uses contrary to the institution of Christ example of the Apostles practise of the Primitive Church and nature of the Sacrament For a Sacrament out of the use appointed by God hath not the nature of a Sacrament This is another practise of the same Descent and Race and confirmed by the Council of Trent Sess 13. Cap. 6. Sixthly The Theatrical Circumgestation or carrying of the Host in Procession This came in at the same Door Transubstantiation is the Mother of Popish Processions wherein the Host is carried about with great Solemnity for staying of Fires laying of Tempests driving away Devils c. Yea they have a stated Annual Feast Corporis Christi i. e. Sacramenti Corporis Jesu Christi of the Body or Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ kept for the Honour of the Sacrament This Feast was instituted by Vrban the 4th about the Year 1264 to be observed the 5th Day after the Octaves of Whitsunday upon the pretended Revelation of one Eva then an Anchoress or rather the Bawd of Vrban as Baley confesseth as is evident from the Bull of Vrban to this Eva whereby he ordains this new Festivity to be observed devota Turba fidelium throughout the World It is celebrated with great Pomp and Ceremony The Body of Christ as they call it being placed in a rich Coffer upon a costly Cushion is carried on a white Horse gorgeously attired and trapped c. through the Streets Lanes and High-ways to be beheld and adored by all People Thomas Aquinas made the Office for this Day for which the Pope gave him a Silver Dove whence it is that he is pictured with a Dove at his left Shoulder Seventhly The Idolatrous Adoration of the Host Transubstantiation hath brought an Idol into the Church As the blessed Martyr Ann Askew said The Mass as it is now used in our Days I do say and believe it to be the most abominable Idol that is in
and whereof he that eateth shall live for ever If it be said this cannot be his Meaning for he delivered this Sermon before his Passion yet speaks of an eating and drinking that was a present Duty so that he could not have this Meaning I say it is true Passiō Christi profuit antequam fuit Beneficia Christi valent tam antrorsum quam retrorsum Ex eo tempore valet ad servandum genus humanum ex quo in Adam est vitiatum Aug. both that Christ spake this before his Passion and the eating he speaks of was a present Duty But what then distinguish between the Time of his Death and the Merit of his Death and the Difficulty is solved He is the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. Rev. 13.8 i. e. In regard of the Merit Fruits and Efficacy of his Death and the Faith of Believers Not only before his Passion but before his Incarnation the Fathers did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all drink the same Spiritual Drink For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ 1. Cor. 10.3 4. Abraham saw his Day Joh. 8.56 And the Apostle giveth this Account of him Jesus Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.8 3. In what Respect he here calls them by the Names of Bread Meat and Drink 1. Not in regard of their Nature and Substance As if the very Flesh and Blood of Christ were according to the bare sound of the Words very Meat and Drink such as our Corporeal Food is But 2. In regard of their Effect the saving Benefits of his Flesh and Blood or Passion nourish the Souls of the Faithful and preserve them unto Eternal Life even as Corporal Meat that we eat doth minister Aliment to our Bodies and preserve our Natural Lives And thus as it is the Property of Meat and Drink to maintain the Lives of them that eat and drink thereof and as whatsoever being eaten and drunk doth maintain Life is therefore called Meat and drink So it is the proper Nature of the Fruits and Effects of his Body and Blood to nourish the Souls of them that partake thereof to Eternal Life And therefore for their performing that to Souls which Meat and Drink do to Bodies he calls them by the Names of Meat and Drink 4. What kind of eating and drinking this is that he speaks of Or what our Saviour means by eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood What this Manducation of this Spiritual Meat is Per manducationem nihil aliud intelligit quam actum fidei qui consistit in apprehensione applicatione beneficiorum Christi And this is only Spiritual eating by Faith extra Sacramentum without the use of the Sacramental Signs The Romanists confess that he speaks of this kind of eating in this Chapter from the 32d to the 50th verse but then from ver 50. to 59. of eating Orally and Corporally But we say he speaketh only of Spiritual Manducation in this Chapter which doth consist in a partataking by Faith of the Merit and Virtue of his Death the Fruits and Effects of his Passion for us And thus a true Believer eats the Flesh and drinks the Blood of Christ Spiritually when he 1. Believes that Christ's Body was Crucified and his Blood shed for him for the Remission of Sins And 2. Believeth that by this Passion Jesus Christ hath obtained Remission of Sins and Eternal Life for them that do unfeignedly believe in him And when 3. By this true and lively Faith he doth embrace and close with Jesus Christ apply him to himself and from him thus received or manducated receiveth a daily Confirmation and Increase of Spiritual Life and Growth Thus then 1. The Meat our Lord speaketh of is Spiritual Meat 2. This Spiritual Meat is the saving Good prepared for us by the Body and Blood of Christ crucified for us 3. He calls these Fruits of his Passion his Body and Blood because they are obtained by and rise out of his Flesh and Blood sacrificed on the Cross 4. This eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood which he calls by the Names of Bread Meat and Drink is a Spiritual manducating or eating by Faith. This is our Saviour's Sense which is embraced by the true Protestants or Calvinists as Bellarmine calls them Secondly The Popish Sense of this Sermon This is hinted before And in short 1. They confess that the kind of Meat he speaketh of is Spiritual Meat But then they affirm 1. That this Meat is truly and properly the true and proper Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And 2. That this eating is an Oral and Corporal eating of his true and proper Flesh and Blood. A Manducation that is performed by Mouth 3. That the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is thus eaten orally and corporally by the Communicants in the Eucharist This is their constant Tenet that in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar under the Forms of Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are received orally and corporally and that is eaten this is drunk 4. That this Bodily eating and drinking in the Sacrament is the eating and drinking that is properly and primarily meant by our Lord in this Sermon Et de quâ agitur This is the Mind of the Romanists Now in the next Place I am to shew Thirdly That our Lord Jesus Christ in this Sermon is not treating properly of the Sacrament and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood much less is he here teaching the Popish Doctrine of Oral and Bodily eating and drinking his true and proper Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament In this Point we have the Consent of the Lutherans Hoc caput non proprie per se ad doctrictrinam de Coena pertinet Chemn Harm p. 1134. De spirituali comestione Dominus ait nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis biberitis ejus sanguineni non habebitis vitam in vobis De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 14. yea we have the Suffrage of divers learned Papists who quit this Argument and positively affirm That our Saviour in this Chapter doth not treat of the Sacrament As Biel in Can. Missae Card. Cajetan in Thom. par 3. q. 80. Art. 8. Card Cusan Ep. 7. ad Bohemos and many others Insomuch that Maldonatus on John 6.53 complains sadly that some Catholicks chose to think and speak in this Controversy as Hereticks rather than as the Orthodox and tho he forbear to name them yet he gives their Character in these Words Scio Catholicos scio Doctos scio Religiosos ac Probos Viros esse So that by the Jesuits own Confession we have Catholicks and Catholicks that are Learned and Religious and Honest good Men on our side Yet if this be nothing we have not only learned Men but an Infallible Pope voting for us and expounding our Lord's Words as we do viz. Innocent the
2. As it is their Addition so it is built upon a false Supposition viz. That Men may eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ in his Sense unworthily Whereas he is here speaking of such eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood as must certainly and necessarily be worthily done and cannot be done otherwise A Man may take the Signs of his Body and Blood unworthily And therefore the Apostle speaks of eating the Bread and drinking the Cup of the Lord unworthily in the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 But no Man can either in or out of the Sacrament receive the thing signified unworthily viz. Christ and his Benefits or truly believe in and apply Christ to himself unworthily If this be done at all it is done worthily and cannot be otherwise 4. The eating and drinking he here speaks of is ever followed with his dwelling in them and they in him who so eat his Flesh and drink his Blood v. 56 He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him He in me and I in him As much as to say as there is a near and inseparable Union betwixt us he is united to me and I am united to him as there is a Union of the Body and Food And this again makes it plain that he speaks not of the Sacramental eating with the Mouth or of receiving the Eucharist For then when wicked Men who are Enemies to the Cross of Christ have once received the Sacrament they should thenceforth dwell in him and he in them have a Spiritual Union to and Communion with him Yet it is certain there is no such a thing as he will one Day make them all to know Mat. 7.23 These four plainly prove this viz. That our Saviour is not here speaking of the participation of the Sacrament or of Sacramental eating and drinking and much less of the Popish Oral and Corporal eating and drinking of his true and proper Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament under the forms of Bread and Wine I may add farther 5. That our Lord Jesus Christ plainly obviates and prevents this gross and carnal Sense of his Words v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life Here I say he expounds his meaning in this Discourse It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing Deitas in Christo seu vis illa Deitatis in Christo est causa propriè cur caro sit vere cibus vivificet Ille Iesus Christi solus qui est totius Christi utriusque naturae valet ad vitam is autem non corporalis sed spiritualis est per fidem Nec audent dicere se unà cum humana Christi natura devorare quoque Deitatem ipsam Rolloc in loc Caro quidem Coeterorum omnium quicquam vere non prodest Caro autem Christi quia in ipse unigenitus Dei filius habitat sola vivificare potest Cyril l. 4. in Joh. c. 23. See Bucan loc 48. qu. 112. i. e. the Humanity profits nothing without the Divinity The Flesh or Human Nature of it self and alone hath no quickning Efficacy but in conjunction with the Spirit or Divine Nature from which it receives this quickning Power and Efficacy The Divinity is the Fountain from which this Vertue flows the Humanity is the Chanel by which it is derived unto us The Words that I speak unto you i. e. of eating my Flesh Verba quae locutus sum ad vos spiritus vita sunt intellexistis spiritualiter Spiritus vita sunt Intellexistis carnaliter etiam sic illa spititus vita sunt sed tibi non sunt spiritus est vita qui non spiritualiter non intelligis Ib. ex Augustino and drinking my Blood they are Spirit and they are Life 1. They are to be understood not after a gross and carnal manner but in a spiritual Sense and so they are Life or confer Life To this the Decretal of the Romish Church agrees in the 2d distinction of Consecration in the Canon prima quidem where we have these Words Understand that which I say spiritually You shall not eat that Body which you see nor drink the Blood which those that crucify me will shed I have recommended a sacred Sign to you which being understood spiritually will quicken you 6. If we should grant them thus much that our Saviour here speaketh of the Bodily eating of his real Body yet this would not serve their turn For they will have the Bread to be transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but this Discourse would prove the quite contrary and that if there be any Transubstantiation it is not the Bread that is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but the Body of Christ that is transubstantiated into Bread. For our Saviour here expresly calls himself Bread ten times over v. 32 33 35 48 50 51 58. So that there is far more ground to believe that the Body of Christ should be turned into Bread than that Bread should be turned into the Body of Christ 7. When they are driven from all their other Artifices whereby they would make this Sermon of our Lord to speak for them they betake themselves to their last Refuge and that is that we must believe the naked Words of Christ without any Disputation or Question about them Thus the Romanist when at a pinch says This one Word of Christ is enough to me when he calls his Flesh Meat indeed I will not deny doubt dispute This was the great Sin of the Capernaits here v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat It came not to their Mind say the Rhemists on the Words that nothing was impossible to God that wickedly said How can this Man give us his Flesh But we may make great Profit of their Sin believing the Mysteries and taking a Lesson never to say or once think How For it is a Jewish Word and worthy of all Punishment To this I say the Sin of the Jews here was 1. That they denied the Matter of Christ's Words viz. that there could be any such thing as the eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood. Their How was a How of denying the Truth of his Words 2. That they understood not but grosly mistook the true meaning of his Words when he had before plainly enough shewed them that this eating he was speaking to them of stood in believing and had promiscuously used the Phrases of eating coming believing for the same thing But it was not their Sin 1. To deny that Oral Manducation whereof they took him to speak as a thing grosly absurd and monstrous Nor 2. To enquire humbly and modestly after the true meaning of our Saviour's Words and manner of eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood. And so we believing Christ Words to be true may and ought to inquire in what Sense they are true and
A PLAIN REPRESENTATION OF Transubstantiation As it is received in the Church of Rome WITH The Sandy FOUNDATIONS it is built upon and the ARGUMENTS that do clearly evert and overturn it By a Countrey Divine Transubstantiation or the Change of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ But it is repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions Articles of the Church of England Art. 28. Nullum hic errori velúm nullus ignorantiae pratextus neque enim vel vereum Dei praeit vel ratio vel sensus errori ac ignorantiae tum demum aliquid datur ubi obscuritas reperitur sive ex parte objecti sive ex parte medii aut modi illud cognoscendi non veto ubi vitium in subjecto tantum idque voluntarium ac affectatum Spanhem â—ub Evang. Part. 2. Dub. 50. p. 450. London Printed for J. Johnson 1687. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER IT 's an odd Story that some tell us concerning the Py'd Piper of Halberstadt who being denied the Reward he was promised for drowning those Rats wherewith they were much troubled Tuned his Pipes a second Time and draw all the Children in the Town after him till he had brought them to a Hill which opening it self to receive them presently closed upon them again Many of the Romish Communion have of late been blowing their Pipes in our Streets and 't is not much to be admired at that some Vermin Men of flagitious Lives and some Children in Understanding have been tripping and dancing after them to the mighty danger if not to the eternal ruine of their Souls Our Enemies have been busily sowing their Tares and no doubt had the good Men but slept they would have reaped a much larger Harvest But the Orthodox and Learned Clergy of our City have stood upon their Watch have behaved themselves faithfully towards God and the Souls of Men have so convincingly answered and confuted every Book that hath crawl'd out against our Religion that if Men can but read and understand they have sufficient Antidotes against this Poyson laid before them The Truth of it is all the Arguments our Adversaries have produced are but like the Gibeonites old Shoes only they have new vampt them up again The same Souldiers that have been so often beaten out of the Field only they have new Cloath'd ' em What Success Dragooning hath had in our Neighbouring Kingdom is well known but certainly by their arguing their Priests are like to prevail but little among Us. Indeed 't is an extravagant and most unaccountable thing that they should undertake to perswade any to go over to their Communion For they cannot offer at this without pretending to give Men some good Reason for so doing And yet no Man can forsake our Church and enter into theirs but he must renounce his Reason in order to it For what can be more contradictory to the Reason as well as the Senses of all Mankind than that monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Subject of this following Discourse 'T is an Argument indeed that hath been frequently treated upon both formerly and of late in our own Language as well as in others to very good Purpose This Dagon which some are so zealously setting up again hath been often beaten down I hope it will not be thought a needless thing to give it a Few Blows more utterly to dash the Stump of this Idol in pieces That is the end of publishing the following Treatise the Author whereof I need not tell thee is a Learned Man the Work it self if thou peruse it will prove that All that I shall say concerning him is this that his Modesty is proportionable to his Learning he lives retired far from the Noise of the World and that he cannot be a greater Stranger to thee than he is to this present publishing of his Writings on this Subject The Manuscript was put into my Hands by a Friend of his and upon the perusal of it judging it to be an excellent Piece I was resolved that it should not continue in the same Retiredness and Obscurity as its Author does And in a time of common Danger when we are invaded by a formidable Enemy I see no reason why Books as well as Men should not be pressed and forced into the Field I thought it also very hard that our learned Clergy here in the City should always be upon Duty and not he a little relieved by some Forces drawn out of the Country However I was not willing to go on my own Head but communicated these Papers to a very learned Person in this City who encouraged me to pursue my Design by his high Approbation of it And indeed tho so many have bater'd this most absurd Article of the Romish Faith yet it can hardly be too ill used 'T is a Point that hath cost many thousand Lives and therefore it deserves no Mercy nor Pity seeing it hath been the occasion of so much Bloodshed and Cruelty Nay not only have Multitudes suffered a Temporal Death because they could not swallow this extravagant Doctrine but Holy Church hath also sentenced them to Eternal Damnation for it And yet as much pains as they take to cram it down our Throats and to impose the Belief of it upon us with such severe Methods and such terrible Threatnings I am perswaded they would be glad to be fairly rid of it themselves if they did but know how But this Brat they cannot drop because of their pretence to Infallibility For there is no one Doctrine of their whole Faith equally absurd and ridiculous with this in the Apprehensions of all Men none which they are so hard put to to defend and none that more exposes them to the Scorn and Contempt of the Infidel Nations as well as that of the Reformed Churches The severe Censure of Avertoes Perr de l' Euch. l. 3. c. 29. Sr. Ed. Sands Europae Specul p. 230. Edit 1629. Orat. 3. c. 25. p. 18 19. cited by Daillâ— against Adam and Cottiby pt 1. p. 116. related by Cardinal Perron himself on the Credit of Sarga a Jesuit is well known that he never found a worse or a more sottish Sect than that of the Christians who eat the God whom they worship This is a thing that is matter of great Scandal to the Jews A thing as one saith that had reason enough to know which they can at no hand digest And Joseph Albon a Spanish Jew in his Book entituled Ikkarim sets forth the many Absurdities of it and in the close of all saith they are things as can neither be comprehended by the Mind nor expressed with the Tongue nor endured by the Ear they are contrary to the Understanding and Sense and consequently cannot be believed nor have any room among the Articles of Faith. Nor do the Mahometans come behind the
should at the same instant sit whole at the Table and be in each of their Stomachs and whole in every one of them whole in Peter whole in John whole in James and so in the rest What may they not believe that can believe these things Verily he must first resolve to believe any thing things past belief who resolves to be a Papist 4. It is against Scripture as well as Sense Reason and Faith. The Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is clearly against it and affirms the Elements to be Bread and Wine both before and after the Consecration In the Institution it is expresly said that Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body Mat. 26.26 Here that which he took was Bread that which he blessed was Bread that which he brake was Bread that which he gave was Bread and that he spake of when he said This is my Body was Bread for by this he meant that which he then held in his Hands and when he spake these Words he held nothing but Bread in his Hands And therefore by this he meant that Bread and consequently by This is my Body he meant this Bread is my Body that is a Sign of my Body So also in the Institution of the Cup that which he calls his Blood v. 28. he calls the Fruit of the Vine v. 29. Plainly declaring that it was not his proper Blood but Wine as a Sign of his Blood that he gave The Apostle Paul repeating the Institution as he had received it of the Lord calleth it Bread four times over 1 Cor. 11.23 26 27 28. and 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ and v. 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread. So Acts 2.46 The Disciples brake Bread from House to House And Acts 20.7 The Disciples came together to break Bread. Now this as themselves confess is meant of the Eucharist Moreover that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the Scripture is plain for if it were admitted then it would follow either 1. That Christ is not ascended to Heaven Or 2. That he descendeth daily from Heaven Now both these are contrary to express Articles of the Christian Faith and plain Testimony of the Scripture 1. If we say he ascended not It is contrary to Mark 16.19 Luke 24.51 Acts 1.9 10. Acts 2.33 Eph. 4.8 9 10. Col. 3.1 1. Tim. 3.16 Heb. 4.14 Heb. 8.1 Heb. 9.24 c. And to his own express Declaration John 16.28 I leave the World and go to the Father 2. If we say that he descendeth daily from Heaven it is no less repugnant to the Testimony of the Angels Acts 1.10 11. This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven i. e. clearly visibly gloriously as Mat. 24.30 and 25.31 1 Thess 4.16 And to the Testimony of the Apostle Peter Acts 3.19 20 21. and of our Saviour himself Mat. 26.11 Joh. 12.8 Me ye have not always Upon which Words Augustin Tract in Joan. 50. Loquitur de presentia corporis Nam secundum Majestatem suam secundum Providentiam secundum ineffabilem in Visibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi Secundum carnem vero quam verbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Judaeis comprehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod Linteis involutus quod in Sepulchro conditus quod in Resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis me vobiscum hath these Words He speaketh of his Corporal Presence For in respect of his Majesty Providence ineffable and invisible Grace that which he said is fulfilled Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World. But according to the Flesh which was assumed by the Word according to that which was born of the Virgin according to that which was apprehended by the Jews which was Crucified which was taken down from the Cross which was wrapped in Linen which was laid in the Sepulchre which was shewed in the Resurrection Ye have not me alway with you When Jeffrey Hurst of Shakerley in Lancashire was brought before Justice Leland he caused a Mass to be Sung and bad Jeffrey first go and see his Maker and then he would talk with him Jeffrey answered Sir my Maker is in Heaven Christians the Body of Christ is in Heaven Transubstantiation in contradiction to the Scripture places it in the Earth This is the first Transubstantiation is made up of many Absurdities against Sense Reason Faith and Scripture Secondly It is compounded of many manifest Impossibilities and Contradictions Transubstantiation is an impossible Paradox It is impossible that there should be any such thing 1. It is impossible that one and the same Body should simul semel all at once or at one time be both visible and invisible divisible and indivisible one and many in Heaven and upon the Earth all here and all in a thousand other places All these are plain Impossibles yet Transubstantiation carries them all in its Womb. 2. It is impossible that Christ should eat Himself his own Body Now the Papists confess that he ate and drank with the Disciples in the Sacrament whence it necessarily followeth granting Transubstantiation that Christ did eat Himself and was all at once whole at the Table whole in his own Hands whole in his own Mouth whole within Himself whole without Himself devoured by Himself and untouched All these are apparent Contradictions and of such a nature as nothing can be said that is more monstrous or liker to expose Christianity to more open Obliquy and Reproach Yet I say by this Doctrine Christ ate Himself sat at the Table and was in his own Mouth and in his own Stomach Oh Prodigious The Body of Christ was in the Body of Christ Others have told us of Men-eaters but never any but Papists of any Self-eaters who at once eat his whole Self 3. It is impossible that the Body of Christ should be eaten over-night by the Disciples and yet be crucified the next Day What! Could it be both eaten and not eaten It brings to mind the Story of Alice Driver Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 887. She conferring with Dr. Gascoign asked him whether it was Christ's Body that the Disciples did eat over-night He answered Yea. What Body was it then said she that was Crucified the next Day He replied Christ's Body How could that be said she when his Disciples had eaten him over night Except he had two Bodies as by your Argument he had one they did eat over-night and another was Crucified the next Day Such a Doctor such Doctrine This put her Examiners to that Shame that one looked on another and had not another Word to
3d. under whom Transubstantiation was first decreed who speaking of our Saviour's Words John 6.53 hath these Words The Lord speaketh of Spiritual eating saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you Now that our Lord Jesus Christ is not here speaking of the Participation of the Sacrament or eating of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament will be evident from these 1. The Sacrament of the Eucharist was not then instituted nor as some think of two years after this or as others who make the Passover v. 4. the third Passover after his Baptism not until more than a full year after And therefore he could not speak of an eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood in the Sacrament that was not then in being nor of so long a time after If it be said True indeed it was not then in being but yet he spoke with reference to it and to instruct them beforehand in the Mystery of this Meat which was to be prepared for them in the Eucharist To this I say 1. How could they to whom he spake possibly understand any thing of his meaning when speaking with relation to a thing that was not nor whereof they had either then or before any intimation or least insinuation that such a thing should be They say elsewhere that he spoke plainly and intelligibly and it may very reasonably be supposed that now he spake to be understood and of a matter that might be understood by them but it can hardly be imagined how they could understand this Discourse to be meant of a Sacrament a Sacrament neither before nor then once mentioned nor instituted and in being of a Year or two after 2. Jesus Christ was the Bread of Life at that very time when he preached this Sermon v. 35. I am the Bread of Life v. 48. I am the Bread of Life And again v. 50. Thus he speaks of that which then was before the Sacrament of his Supper was instituted 3. Our Saviour proposeth and presseth the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood as a present and necessary Duty A Duty that all those that were present and heard him were then obliged unto And therefore it must necessarily be granted that this Meat was then in being and might be eaten by the Faithful but they could not then eat it in the Sacrament which had no being nor was instituted This is the first thing that plainly proves that our Lord and Saviour is not here treating of Sacramental eating and drinking the Sacrament was not instituted 2. The eating and drinking which he here speaks of are necessary to Salvation Acts that he makes so necessary Conditions of Life as no Man can be saved without them V. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you It is an eating and drinking without which none can have Life So that if our Saviour mean it of Sacramental eating and drinking no Man can be saved that hath not received the Sacrament And from hence it was that the Fathers who took this Sermon to be meant of the Sacrament being moved by these Words ordered the Eucharist to be given and gave it to Infants as soon as they were baptized as necessary to their Salvation And indeed this doth necessarily follow this Exposition of our Saviour's Words But from this very thing it is evident that our Saviour's Words cannot be meant of Sacramental eating because that Sacramental eating is not absolutely necessary to Salvation so as no Man can be saved except he have once at least taken the Sacrament For many who never ate his Flesh nor drank his Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are certainly saved All the Faithful that lived and dyed before the Incarnation of Christ ate the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink and are saved as our Adversaries will not deny yet none of them did ever once eat it in the Eucharist The penitent Thief went from the Cross to Paradise immediately yet had never eaten the Sacrament Many thousand Infants and Children of Christian Parents dye one Generation after another before they have once tasted of the Sacrament Are all these Damned There have been and are abstemious Persons who cannot brook the least sup or drop of Wine Must all these who are suspended from Drinking by a natural and sinless Infirmity or Antipathy to Wine be given up for Lost They think to evade the Force of this Argument that falls so convincingly upon them by this sorry shift viz. That our Saviour here speaks of them only who have Means and Opportunities of receiving his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist which those here instanced in never had But I answer That the Words of Christ are true simply and absolutely without Exception or Limitation And no one can have Life or be saved without a real and actual participation of the saving Benefits prepared for Souls by the Body and Blood of Christ Crucified And this Participation is the only manducation or eating that is meant in this place 3. The eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood which he here speaks of is always accompanied with Life and Salvation to all those who so eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. See v. 50 51 54 58. A Man may eat thereof and not dye If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever And whoso eateth hath Eternal Life Mark this is an eating whereby all Men whosoever have Life and are certainly saved And therefore this eating is not Sacramental eating with the Mouth nor doth stand in partaking of the Eucharist For many eat and drink in the Sacrament who have no Life nor are saved It is believed by many that Judas did partake in the Sacrament as well as the other eleven yet was the Son of Perdition And it is plain in the case of Hypocrites and Wicked Men who receive the Sacrament again and again may be a hundred times over yet have no Life nor dying so as we may fear not a few do after many a Sacrament are saved But if our Saviour had indeed meant this of Sacramental eating then it would follow that the worst of Men by participating if but once in all their Lives of the Sacrament should thereby have their Salvation infallibly secured Yet here again the Papists would creep out by the help of a pretended Implication in our Saviour's Words viz. That eating and drinking worthily is implyed and to be understood as necessary to the sense of the Words And so when our Saviour expresseth himself in those Terms used v. 50 51 54 58. he means all and only of them who eat and drink his Flesh and Blood worthily But 1. This worthily is their own Addition to our Saviour's Words For our Saviour neither hath it nor any thing that implieth it in these Verses or in this whole Sermon on this Subject
forsooth is a Miracle of Christ a great Miracle a greater Miracle than any that he did and greater than all that he did in the days of his Flesh viz. A bit of Bread changed in a moment into Flesh Blood and Bones A sorry Creature that a little Mouse may carry away and eat at once turned into the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and yet all this done without the least indication or appearance of any Change at all For when this bit of Bread is thus changed if we look upon it as fixedly intently earnestly as ever we can we can see no Change if we handle it it is the same the very same that it was if we smell it why the Smell is the same if we taste it it hath no other taste and if we break and crumble it as small as we can devise still neither Flesh Blood nor Bone is to be found nor the least appearance of any other Substance than the Substance of Bread. 3. When our Lord Jesus Christ took a Human Nature and became Man he plainly shewed himself to be God by such real Miracles as were convincing Arguments of his Deity But now when a piece of Bread or a Wafer is become God this Wafer manifests no Deity for the Conviction of the World. Nay instead of doing Miracles that might convince us of a Deity it is still liable to those things that do prove and proclaim it to be no God. For when a Wafer is made a God by Transubstantiation we may still eat it throw it to the Ground cast it into Fire or Water unto Dogs or Hogs no less than when it was but a Wafer or bit of Bread and it can no more resist or hinder us than it could while it was but a piece of Bread. And are these things Marks and Indications of a Deity This may suffice to be said to this Argument taken from divine Omnipotence And I have also done with their Scripture Proof or Arguments drawn from the Scripture L. 3. de Euchar. c. 20. II. They argue from the Fathers From the Testimony and Authority of the Fathers Here Bellarmine brings in 17 Fathers for it I shall not enter into this Debate between them and us having cleared the Holy Scriptures of it it may suffice to say as to the Fathers Eph. 2.20 1. That our Faith must be grounded upon the Word of God not upon the Sayings or Writings of Men The Opinion of the Fathers without the Word of God is not sufficient for us to build our Faith upon 2. That tho the Fathers were Learned and Holy Men which we readily grant yet they were but Men Men subject to Errors and Mistakes yea and Men as none will deny that had their Errors and Mistakes 3. That no Authority of Man ought to prevail in matters of Faith unless it have the Authority of God to back it It is not their Judgment or Authority that must sway us but the ground of their Judgment i. e. if they have Scripture-Warrant for what they say We gladly hear the Fathers when they speak the Language of our heavenly Father But in whatsoever they depart from this we must depart from them Si quis de antecessoribus vel ignoranter vel simpliciter non hoc observavit quod nos Dominus facere exemplo magisterio suo docuit potest simplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi nobis vero non poterit ignosci qui nunc a Domino admoniti instructi sumus ut ubique lex Evangelica traditio Dominica servetur ab eo quod Christus docuit fecit non recedatur Cypr. L. 2. Ep. 3. Sine divina Literatura nullius momenti est antiquitas Tertul. Apol. c. 47. When the Donatists urged Augustine with the Writings and Authority of Cyprian he replied Whatsoever in them agreeth with the Authority of the Holy Scriptures I receive it with his Praise but whatsoever agreeth not I refuse it with his Leave And so must we For as one tho Antiquity be for a Thing yet if Scripture be against it the Cause is as good as ought to be wish'd Antiquity it self sitting Judg. Omnes Patres tota Schola as another are not the Old and New Testament 4. But in this Controversy about Transubstantiation and the real Presence the Fathers are most express plain and full against them It is true indeed that they bestowed all their Eloquence on this Subject of the Eucharist and spake many things very Rhetorically and Hyperbolically both to procure more reverence to the Ordinance and raise the Affections of the Communicants which Hyperbolles and high Expressions as in other Matters must have their grains of Allowance But when they come down from these high and lofty Strains of Rhetorical Florishes they deliver themselves as positively plainly and fully against Transubstantiation as can be Calling the Elements Bread and Wine Commemorations Types Figures Symbols Signs c. of Christ's Body and Blood. For this I might refer to many who have fully handled this Subject As Dr. Crackenthorp Defence c. 73. against Marcus Antonius de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato who came into England An. 1616. And here asserted that all the Fathers are against the real Presence but after his last revolt revoked this and affirmed the contrary And Dr. Burnet's Discourse annexed to the Relation of a Conference held at London April 3 1676. by Dr. Stillingfleet and Dr. Burnet with some of the Church of Rome c. L. 3. de Euchar. cap. 21. Una apex verbi ratione valentior omni est Milleque decretis conciliisque prior III. They argue from Councils from the Authority Definitions and Decrees of Councils Bellarmine makes this another Argument and tells us that for 500 Years before that time the truth of Transubstantiation was defined sub Anathemate in six Councils one after another But this is of least weight for Bellarmine's six Councils were of the Pope's making and such as decreed more Errors than this IV. In the last place Bellarmine argues for it from its agreeableness to Reason But in Articles of Faith we must draw our Conclusions not from the Dictates of Reason but from the Rule of the Scripture Yet his Reasons are very frivolous and ludicrous It is says he most Consentaneous to Reason to admit it 1. Because otherwise the simple will be exposed to the danger of Idolatry in adoring the Bread. 2. Because it seems not very agreeable to Reason that the same Sacrament should be both Corporal and Spiritual Food Meat both mentis ventris 3. Because otherwise a Christian taking the Sacrament on a Fasting-Day sure should break his Fast This Stuff needs no answer Only instead of bringing in Transubstantiation to prevent the Adoration of Bread by the Ignorant he might have done better to have put them in a way of avoiding the peril of Idolatry as often as they worship the Host For if there be no real Presence