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
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
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
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
2. The manner of our Saviour's expressing himself in this matter doth also prove it For that he directed his Speech to the Disciples and spoke these Words to them of the Bread is past all dispute But common Sense will tell us That if our Saviour had intended any such thing as a Popish Consecration and Transubstantiation by them he would have directed his Speech to God the Father in this or the like Form Let this Bread be my Body or to the Bread saying Be thou my Body and not to the Disciples 3. The Words of our Saviour This is my Body are Words of Signification not of Transubstantiation assertive and declarative not operative and conversive Words I say they are declarative Words of that which is signifying what the Bread is before the Words be pronounced and not imperative and effective of that which is not but shall be after they are pronounced that is they signify that the Bread is his Body before and not only after they are pronounced The Romanists being pluched with this do some of them as is shewed by Duâ—and Rut. l. 4. r. 41. n. 15. and Thom. par 3. q. 78. Art. 1. make this Evasion That Christ in the institution of this Sacrament used these Words twice first secretly to consecrare the Communion and then openly to instruct the Communicants in this order 1. He took the Bread 2. He blessed it by saying This is my Body and then 3. He brake it and gave it saying Take eat This is my Body first he used it to Consecrate and then the second time to shew his Apostles the form of Consecration This they say but if we will not be so kind as to take their bare word they can never prove it 4. There is as good ground to infer and conclude that our Saviour is really and substantially changed into a Door a Vine a Rock a Foundation a Lamb a Lion a Rose a Star a Sun c. from Joh. 10.7 Joh. 15.1 1 Cor. 10.4 Isa 28.16 Joh. 1.29 Revel 5.5 Cant. 2.1 Rev. 22.16 Mal. 4.2 as there is to infer Transubstantiation from these words 5. If it were true as it is not that our Lord Jesus Christ did convert the Bread into his Body by pronouncing these words over it yet how doth it follow That the massing Priest doth the same by saying over the same words Till they can prove that their Priests have this Power from Christ lodged in them it may more rationally be inferred that as often as they read these words Let there be Light they make Light by reading of them because God did make it by them 6. The true meaning of the words This is my Body is not then as the Romanists say this that was Bread is now transubstantiated into my Body For when he said This is my Body by This he meant and understood that which he then held in his Hands now when he pronounced the word This he held nothing but Bread in his Hands and therefore by This he meant the Bread that he had in his Hands and gave and commanded them to eat as before But the meaning is This Bread I have taken blessed broken and give you to take and eat is my Body that is a sacred Sign of my Body my Body Sacramentally and Symbolically as much as to say a Representation and Memorial of my Body The Change is in Signification not of Substance in regard of Use and Office not of Nature and Being It remains to be Bread as it was before in Nature and Substance and is the Body of Christ in Signification and Representation which it was not before Yet this is not a bare Significative Form as this The Field is the World Mat. 13.38 i. e. signifies the World Or as that Rev. 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches i. e. do signify the seven Angels and Churches and many such like But it is a Sacramental Form wherein together with the Representation and Signification there is a real Exhibition of the Thing signified The Bread is his Body a representing exhibiting and conveying Sign of his Body at once both representing and exhibiting and conveying Christ crucified with the Benefits of his Cross and Passion to the Faith of a true Christian or Believer We come to the Reasons alledged for the Popish Sense First They say Christ spoke clearly and plainly so as the Disciples might easily understand his meaning 1. And I say so also It is not to be called once into question whether our Lord spoke plainly and apertly so as the Disciples might understand him or no. 2. I say moreover that it is as unquestionable that the Disciples did both readily and well understand our Lord's words and also in the Sense that we understand them Cum istis verbis non sint turbati planum est intellexisse ea metonymicè ex more Scripturae praesertim cùm paulo antè comedissent Agnum qui eodem sensu Pascha id est transitus appellatur Exod 12.27 Bucan Loc. Com. Loc. 48. q. 50. this can be no more doubted of by any that are not prepossessed with their own Sense than the other For they were both acquainted with the Language of the Scripture wherein our Sense of these Words of our Saviour is very ordinary and frequent in many Propositions and Expressions and they were also acquainted with their own Language that hath not as is observed any proper word for signify but makes use of is instead thereof whence this Stile and Sense was usual and common among them an ordinary form of Speech Besides all this the Disciples never questioned their Lord and Master about the meaning of this Proposition whereas we find them often asking him of the meaning of Speeches that he used which were incomparably more easy for them to understand than the meaning of these words if they had apprehended or suspected them to carry any thing of such a meaning in them as the Papists put upon them And therefore I say again 3. That this Reason they bring for their Sense of them doth quite destroy and overthrow their Sense of them if he spoke plainly and so as the Disciples might well understand his meaning when he said This is my Body as they say he did then certainly he did not mean that the Bread he had in his Hand was transubstantiated and converted into his real Body and that his very Body was contained under that Form of Bread in his Hand For verily this is a Sense not easie to be understood but must without all question have startled amused and posed them all exceedingly to conceive or understand how he could fit at the Table with them as they saw he did and at the same time give to every one of them his whole Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk yea to eat his own Body and drink his own Blood before their very Faces this would
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
the nine hundredth year of Christ the third Indiction a new Age begins which by reason of its Asperity and Barrenness of Good is wont to be called the Iron Age from the Deformity of abounding Wickedness the Leaden and from the Scarcity of Writers the obscure Age. And ad An. 974 he saith That the whole World was overspread with Darkness as thick as that in Egypt and again ad An. 992 that at that time as it was reported there were scarce any Learned Men at Rome And abundance more to the same Purpose Platina calls the Popes of those days monstra portenta hominum Genebrard in Chron. of the 9th Century calls it the unhappy Age being barren of ingenions and learned Men and complains that the Popes were altogether fallen from the Vertue of their Predecessours and were rather Apostates than Apostles Bellarmine cries out vide Seculum infelix Behold the unhappy Age in which were not to be found any famous Writers or Councils Pope Sergius was a Slave to all Vices and a most wicked Man. Baronius ad An. 908. Severall succeeding Popes were of the Breed of this Sergius and his famous Strumpet Murazia who had a great Hand in making and unmaking of Popes John the 13th one of Murozia's Brats made Deacons in his Stable among his Horses and Boys Bishops drank a Health to the Devil and was given to Sacriledge Perjury and Adultery as Baleus from Sylvester the 2d An. 999 to Hildebrand or Gregory the 7th inclusively An. 1075. The Popes says Benno were all Negromancers This Gregory or Lurva Diaboli as Luther stiled him poysoned 6 or 7 Popes before he could obtain the Chair he threw the Sacrament into the Fire and was at last deposed for his intolerable Enormities It were easy to prosecute this to a great Length and produce Multitudes of Instances out of their own Authors of the lamentable Ignorance and Wickedness both of Clergy and Laity in those Ages Now in this time when Darkness and Profaneness were grown over the Face of the Church and Church-men minded nothing but the Advancement of their Lusts and secular Interests this deformed and mishapen Monster first appeared And Disputes arose about the real Presence which some begun then to assert but were opposed by Bertram Erigena Rabanus and others in the 9th Century and by Berengarius in the 11th About the year 1170 Lombard begun to assert that the Substance of the Bread was turned into the Body and the Substance of the Wine into the Blood of Christ Sent. L. 4. dist 10. Lit. D. yet Distinct 11 Lit. A. He confesseth that he was not able to define the Manner of it But having reckoned up several Opinions he concludes that there is no Substance left but the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore Distinct 12. Lit. A. determines that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine exist sine Subjecto After Lombard this Subject became the great Apple of Contention among the School-Men who ventilated it to and fro by many Disputations whereby it was kept alive till at last in the fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the 3d An. 1215. It was established as a Decree of the Sacred Council and Point of Faith That the Body and Blood of Christ were truly contained under the kinds of Bread and Wine the Bread being transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of Christ This Decree the Council of Trent Sess 13. Can. 2 hath confirmed with an Anathema thundered out against all that deny Transubstantiation And thus this Monster was brought forth and came out in the Midnight of the Church when upon the Matter all Men were fast asleep II. The monstrousness of this Opinion will appear from the Consideration of the Constitution and Nature of Transubstantiation Look upon it in this respect and it will be found to be the most prodigious Monster that ever was brought forth A Monster that is constituted and compounded of many 1. Gross and inextricable Absurdities 2. Manifest Impossibilities and Contradictions 3. Open and abominable Impieties 4. Horrible Blasphemies There is such a Colluvies Cloaca or Sink of all these meeting in Transubstantiation as never met together in any of the most absurd Opinions that the Pagan World hath been given up unto First It is compounded of many gross Absurdities Absurdities against Sense Reason Faith Scripture 1. It goes against Sense Sense when duly disposed or rightly circumstantiated that is when the Organ is sound and right the Medium or Mean fitly qualified and the Object duly proportionated is a competent Judg of things that are the proper Objects of Sense St. Luke therefore brings this as the great Evidence and Proof of the Truth and Certainty of those things which he communicated by Writing unto the World concerning our Saviour's Person Doctrine and Miracles Luke 1.1 2 3. And St. John useth the same Argument 1 Joh. 1.2 3. Yea our Lord Jesus Christ himself when he would convince the Apostles who thought he had been a Spirit at his appearing to them after his Resurrection that it was he himself sends them for Conviction and Satisfaction to their own Senses Luk. 24.36 37 38 39 40. Behold my Hands and my Feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have And Joh. 20.27 he useth the same Argument to doubting Thomas Reach hither thy Finger and behold my Hands and reach hither thy Hand and thrust it into my Side and be not faithless but believing Thus Sense is a competent Judg of matters of Sense But now if we receive Transubstantiation we must renounce and go against or clean cross to all our Senses For if we make our Senses when best disposed Judges in this Case and bring a Popish Host or Wafer to this Bar they will all with one accord conclude that it is Bread and not Flesh Bread and nothing else The Eye the Touch the Taste the Smell will all agree in this Yea if Indians or Americans who are perfectly unconcerned in these Matters and know nothing of our Differences be called in to give their Vote in this Controversy they will without all Controversy forthwith determine against Transubstantiation For it is plainly contrary to the common Sense of all Mankind He must have something more than his five Wits about him nay go quite out of all his Senses that finds another Substance and Body than that of Bread in a consecrated Wafer If it be said But our Senses may be deceived and represent things to us otherwise than they are I say true it may be so when there is some indisposition of the Organ or Medium or Object But then if Transubstantiation be true and there be a deception in this Case it must be granted that the Senses of all Men are deceived and that the Senses of all Men are deceived not for once or at some times but constantly Day after Day and Year after Year And that
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
speak Thirdly It is compounded of many abominable Impieties even such as deserve to be had in utter Detestation and Abomination among all them that name the Name of Christ It is execrable Impiety to say 1. That the Son of God and Saviour of Man and the Devil both entered into Judas together 2. That the Body and Blood of Christ may kill and destroy the Bodies of Men. Yet this supposed viz. that Transubstantiation is true it may be yea hath been so the Emperor Henry the 7th was poysoned in the Host and Pope Victor the 3d was poysoned in the Chalice Now they must grant that the Poyson which killed them was either 1. In the Elements or in the bare Accidents or in the Body and Blood of Christ The first they must flatly deny if they will be constant to their own Hypothesis the second is grosly absurd and therefore they must grant the third and that is horribly impious 3. It is execrable Impiety to say that the Body of Christ 1. May be inclosed in a Wafer 2. May be devoured and eaten by wicked Men. 3. May be gnawed and torn with the Teeth of Men. 4. May be mangled and cut in pieces with Swords or Knives 5. May be eaten by Mice and Rats and other Vermin 6. May grow mouldy and rot away 7. May breed Worms and Maggots 8. May be stolen as Laban's Gods Gen. 31.30 and never found again 9. May be thrown into the Mire and trodden under the Feet of Men and Beasts 10. May be cast out into the Draught or Jakes 11. May be swept to the stinking Dunghil All these are horrible to be once named yet granting Transubstantiation they may be done are done and many of them cannot but be done almost every Day If Transubstantiation be true then the Body of Christ is inclosed in a Wafer eaten by wicked Men may be torn with Teeth mangled with Swords gnawed by Vermin c. Whatsoever entereth in at the Mouth goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught Mat. 15.17 I shall shut up this with the Saying of Margery Baxter to one who told her that she believed that the Sacrament of the Altar after Consecration was the very Body of Christ in form of Bread. Margery answered your Belief is naught for if every such Sacrament were God and the very Body of Christ there should be an infinite Number of Gods. Because that a thousand Priests and moe do make a thousand such Gods and afterward eat them every day and void them out again by their hinder parts filthily stinking under the Hedges where you may find a great many such Gods if you will seek for them Act. and Mon. 610. Fourthly It is compounded of many horrible Blasphemies Transubstantiation is a name and thing that is full of Blasphemy For 1. It overthrows the Humanity of Christ Jesus Christ hath not a true human Body if it want a human Shape the Figure Quantity and essential Properties of a Body Now a Body that is invisible impalpable without Extention or Quantity Parts or Members scituated apart in their places due distance of Parts just Dimensions Place or Room taken up by it wants the Figure and essential Properties of a Body and is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And such a Body is Christ's Body made by Transubstantiation It is true they are not agreed in what manner the Body of Christ is in the Host Some will have it to be there absque magnitudine without quantity Others will have it to be there in quantity but without Figure Extension or Distinction of Parts See Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 5. We have a remarkable instance of this in the dissention betwixt Dr. Kenall and Dr. Chadsey as they were examining one Thomas Wood. Kenall having asked Wood this question Dost thou not believe that after the Priest hath spoken these Words This is my Body that there remains no more Bread and Wine but the very Flesh and Blood of Christ as he was born of the Virgin and did hang upon the Cross Wood answered I pray you Master Chancellor give me leave to ask you another When God commanded Ezekiel to shave off his Hair and to burn a third part in the Fire and this Ezek. 5.5 saith he is Jerusalem I pray you was it Hair that was burnt or Jerusalem Kenall answered It did signify Jerusalem Even so these Words of Christ are to be understood said Wood. Upon this Chadsey replyed I will prove that Christ is here present under the Form of Bread and Wine but not in quantity and quality Yes saith Kenall he is here present in quantity and quality Chadsey returned he is here present under a Form but not in quantity and quality And thus the one said Yes the other said No Till the Contention grew so hot that they foamed again and Kenall departed in a great Rage Whereupon Wood said Behold good People they would have us to believe that which they do not believe themselves nor can agree upon Yet tho they cannot agree in what Manner the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament they are thus far at one viz. That the Body of Christ is inclosed in the Wafer and not only so but that the Body of Christ is whole and entire in every Crum and Point of the Wafer and Drop of the Wine And whole and entire as many times as there are Crumbs and Drops in the Bread and Wine Now this must necessarily destroy his Humanity For a Body in all Points like unto ours Sin only excepted as our Saviour's was Heb 2.17 I say a Body of such Dimensions cannot be in so small a room as a little thin Wafer and so often over also as there are smallest Points in that Wafer But it must be without Figure distinct Parts Extension c. A Body without bigness long without length broad without breadth thick without thickness A Body with two Eyes two Hands two Feet all in one self-same Point 2. It turneth the Body of Christ into a Monster or mishapen Thing into the Figure and Form of a round Cake that hath neither Shape nor any Part of a human Body If a Woman should bring forth a round Cake of Bread when she is in Travail instead of a Manchild of right Shape all the Countrey would presently ring of it as a very strange and monstrous Birth and is it not much more monstrous to hear this of the Body of our blessed Lord What Christian Ear can endure such Blasphemy 3. It investeth Man with a Power to make God and the Creature with a Power to create his Creator This every silly and filthy massing Priest pretends to do each day viz. make Jesus Christ Hence proceedeth their Manner of speaking He that created me hath given me Power to create him and he that created me without my Help is created by me And so of lifting up God when the Priest lifts up the Host and going to see their Creator when
and such things they are therefore done The Psalmist says He hath done whatsoever he pleased not whatsoever he could He can do whatsoever he will but he will not do whatsoever he can Ps 115.3 Omnia quae voluit non quae potuit Omnia quae vult potest non vero quae potest vult Potest enim perdere mundum sed non vult Damas Omnipotens est Deus ad facienda majora minora Omnipotens est ad Coelestia Terrestria Omnipotens est ad mortalia immortalia Omnipotens est ad facienda spiritualia corporalia visibilia invisibilia Omnipotens est ad facienda omnia quae voluerit Alias aliqua non potest non potest mori non potest peccare non potest mentiri non potest falli Aug. Serm. 119 de Temp. We may at this rate fancy any thing of God as if he had done it because it was in his Power to do it He could have made Men with Wings to flie as Birds and as Angels are painted or with Horns as some Beasts and as Moses is pictured doth it follow that he hath He could have made the Horse or the Ox to go upright as Man it doth not follow that he hath He is able of Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham Mat. 3.9 but we do not find that he ever hath turned or will turn Stones into Children By this way of arguing the Alcaran and all that is contained in it may be maintained yea this is the compendious and sure way to prove any thing that the wildest Heads in the World can invent God is omnipotent 3dly We affirm that Arguments may not be drawn from the Omnipotence of Christ to confirm Doctrines that are 1. Contrary to the Scriptures Or 2. Carry in them manifest Contradictions or plain Impossibilities 1. Contrary to the Scriptures For Christ is not Yea and Nay 2 Cor. 1.19 nor can he deny himself 2 Tim. 2.13 and therefore to set that up by the Power of Christ which is contrary to the Word of Christ is to set his Omnipotence in opposition to his Veracity and by his Power to destroy his Truth and make him a Liar And this is the Fraud whereby the Papists seek to delude the simple What Is not Christ Omnipotent Will you question the Omnipotent Power of Christ's Word Look look at the many and mighty Miracles that were done by it and be not faithless but believing What say you said Bonner to Mr. Philpot to the Omnipotency of God Act. Mon. 3 vol. p. 555. Is not he able to perform that which he spoke This is my Body I tell thee that God by his Omnipotency may make himself to be this Carpet if he will. But hold a little That our Lord Jesus Christ is Omnipotent we no way doubt but we are as sure that he is also most true and cannot lie or deceive And therefore must notwithstanding his Omnipotence peremptorily deny your Transubstantiation because it is inconsistent with the Truth and contrary to the express Word of Christ which plainly declares as is shewed before that he is ascended into Heaven and that the Heavens must receive him so as he shall descend no more before that great Day when he shall descend from Heaven with a Shout with the Voice of the Arch-angel and with the Trump of God. Thus Transubstantiation is contrary to the Word of Christ And therefore till they have proved that Christ will act in Contradiction to his own Word and like unto us sinful Men say one thing and then do quite and clean contrary let them tell us no more what Christ can do by his Omnipotence in this case Divine Omnipotence is to be called in for a Confirmation of the Scripture-Revelations and Articles of Faith grounded on the Scriptures and not for the overthrowing of them which would be the readiest way to overthrow all Christianity 2. Carry in them manifest Contradictions or plain Impossibilities We may not thus make Divine Omnipotence an Argument to prove and establish things that imply plain Contradictions or argue from the Divine Power to the Being of Impossibles Now things are impossible in a threefold respect 1. Simpliciter simply and absolutely that is such things as are contrary unto and inconsistent with the Nature and infinite Perfection of God As for God to die lie sin deceive These are simply impossible Magna in Deo potentia est non posse mentiri Aug. l. 1. de Symbol c. 1. and to say That because God is Omnipotent he may therefore die lie c. is no less than Blasphemy Nor doth this derogate any thing from his Omnipotence because they are things that suppose and argue Impotence and Imperfection And this Impossibility is not from Impotency but immense Perfection in God. 2. Ex Hypothesi seu Presupposito upon a Pre-supposition That is such things as are contrary unto and inconsistent with his immutable Counsel and Will revealed in his Word Thus it is not a thing simply impossible with God to annihilate the Devils or to save the Damned Yet this is impossible ex supposito upon this Supposition that God hath decreed and revealed the contrary viz. That he will never annihilate the one or save the other Thus I say this is impossible in regard of his constant and immutable Truth 3. Ex natura rerum in regard of the Nature of the Things themselves that is such things as imply a Contradiction These are not only impossible Naturae to Nature and the Power of Secondary Causes But they are impossible Naturâ in Nature or in the Nature of the things themselves And so impossible with God Arrows Chain 247 248. yet it is not through defect of Power in God that such things cannot be done but through want of Capacity in the things which are simply impossible The Popish Schoolmen confess Thom. 1. q. 25. Art. 3 4. that things which imply Contradiction fall not under the Divine Power and grant that God cannot make Contradictories to be true together quia Contradictio ponit esse Qui diceret idem simul esse non esse posse nemo omnium post homines natos unquam repertus fuit Quodlibet est vel non est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Metaph. 3. affirmatio negatio ut homo non homo ens non ens non sunt simul verae Contradictoria nec simul vera nec simul falsa esse possunt prima sunt ista principia mentibus hominum naturaliter insita non esse simul It makes a thing to be and not to be and to be and not to be at the very same time a thing that is impossible For every thing is or is not Nothing can both be and not be at the same time It is impossible that the same Body should be in many places or in more than one place at one time That a Man should be both alive and dead at once That
a Child should be before and beget his own Father c. We may not argue from the Divine Power to the Being of Things that are impossible any of these ways But Transubstantiation is impossible all these ways 1. Simply It is a thing contrary unto Potenter non potest efficere ut corpus Christi fit simul actu corpus non corpus simul actu circumscriptum non circumscriptum quia sunt ista contradictoria Aug. and inconsistent with the Nature of God who cannot lie 2. From a supposition of his Will manifested in his Word So it is a thing most contrary unto and inconsistent with his immutable Truth 3. As implying a Contradiction and not only so but big with many Contradictions and those as gross obvious and notorious as can be imagined as hath been shewed When Bonner had affirmed to Philpot That God by his Omnipotence may make himself a Carpet Philpot answered God is able to do whatsoever he willeth but he willeth nothing which is not agreeable to his Word Non potest Deus facere quae sunt naturae suae contraria It is contrary to the Nature of God to be a Carpet for the Creator to be a Creature 4thly We say Arguments taken from the Omnipotent Power of God to prove the being of a thing are only conclusive and cogent or valid when we have a Signification of his Will to do such a thing In this case they conclude For whatsoever he will do that he can do and what he hath signified that he will do we may firmly build upon it that it shall be done whatsoever Difficulties or Impediments may lie in the way Omnipotence can easily level the highest Mountains roll away the greatest Stones dry up deepest Seas It was Tertullian's saying Credo quia impossibile I believe because it is impossible a strange Expression as one would think Yet thus must we says Dr. Stillingfleet taking Impossibility as relating to Second Causes when the thing exceeds all probabilities and possibilities of Second Causes and the ground of Faith to be some Divine Prediction Orig. Sacr. p. 184. But where we want this Evidence of his Will we shall but unwarrantably and without ground expect the Effect in respect of his Power For he can do many things that he will not do He could have made many Worlds at once when this was made he could have made many Suns as well as one he could have prevented the Fall of Man recovered the lapsed Angels but he hath done none of these nor of Miriads of other things easy to have been done in regard of his Power He can maintain our Lives without the use of Meat or Drink give us Bread-corn without sowing and reaping and make our Bodies immortal never to see Death but he doth none of these And that Man would be thought to reason very weakly and absurdly who should argue on this manner God is Omnipotent therefore I shall live without eating or reap without sowing or be immortal and live for ever Arguments from the Power of God only conclude the Being of those things which he hath declared it to be his Will to give a Being unto But here in this matter of Transubstantiation we do not only want the Evidence of his Will for it but have most evident Indications and Manifestations of his Will against it I add 5thly That if we would grant this to them that must never be granted that is That Transubstantiation is no way impossible nor doth imply any Contradiction yet it would rest on them to prove that Jesus Christ doth exert and put forth his Almighty and Infinite Power in changing a bit of Bread into his very Body Blood and Bones as born of the Virgin For we can in no wise on no fashion see it Bernard was wont to say that there are tria mirabilia mirabilissima 1. Deus homo 2. Virgo Mater 3. Fides Cor Hominis This if true might well be added as a fourth being as great and far greater than any of the three If there be such a Transmutation we must say that it is a very strange Change nay a miraculous Change A Miracle a great Miracle as great if not much greater than his Incarnation That God should become Man was a great wonder as all confess and we cannot but think it a greater wonder and more strange that a piece of Bread should become God that that which was Bread in the Baker's Hand half an hour before is now very God our Creator Redeemer and Saviour in the Priest's hand But we cannot for our Hearts believe this that there is any such a wonderful and miraculous Transmutation For 1. It is contrary to the nature of all Miracles that ever were known to be done It was never known that any Miracle did at once destroy and take away the Substance or natural Properties of the Subject whereupon it was wrought and also leave them remaining When Moses's Rod was turned into a Serpent it was not both a Rod and a Serpent at once assuming the form of a Serpent yet keeping the perfect form of a Rod. When the Water was turned into Wine it was not both Wine and Water or Wine under the Accidents of Water But this new Miracle both destroys the whole Substance of the Bread and at the same time preserves and continues in their former place all the Properties and Accidents of Bread without the least change one way or other 2. In true and real Miracles where a Change is made from one thing to another the Change is obvious to the Eye and manifest to the other Senses striking Men ordinarily with great wonder and amazement The Miracles of our Lord Jesus Christ were very visible and conspicuous as when he raised the Dead dispossessed the Devils cleansed the Lepers stopped the Flux healed the Palsie restored Sight to the Blind Hearing to the Deaf Speech to the Dumb Legs to the Lame c. they were all very conspicuous evident and plain to be seen Both they upon whom the Miracles of healing were wrought and others who were Spectators saw them and were taken with great wonder at the beholding of them Mat. 15.30 31. Great Multitudes came unto him having with them those that were lame blind dumb maimed and many others and cast them down at Jesus feet and he healed them Insomuch that the Multitude wondred when they saw the dumb to speak the mained to be whole the lame to walk and the blind to see and they glorified the God of Israel John 6.2 A great Multitude followed him because they saw his Miracles which he did on them that were diseased When he wrought that Miracle on the Fig-tree the Disciples saw it and marvelled Mat 21.19 20. Yea his Miracles were so open and evident that his greatest Adversaries could not deny them John 11.47 the Council that was called against him gave in this Testimony This Man doth many Miracles But now here