so false a Doctrine and to lay open the monstrous absurdity of it And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not onely in reason excused from believing this Doctrine but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine Which must be one or more of these five Either 1 st The Authority of Scripture Or 2 ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my body in this sense Or 3 ly The Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith Or 4 ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5 ly To magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1st They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason nay that it is very absurd and unreasonable to understand them otherwise First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for the Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words be literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the bloud of Christ but into the new Testament or new Covenant in his bloud Besides that his bloud is said then to be shied and his body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the institution and first celebration of this Sacrament But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie (a) de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine (b) in 3. dis 49. Qu. 75. Sect. 2. Suarez and (c) in 3. part disp 180. Qu. 75. art 2. c. 15. Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge (d) in Sent. l. 4. dist 11. Qu. 1. n. 15. Durandus to have said as much (e) in 4. Sent. Q 5. Quodl 4. Q. 3. Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrine which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture (f) in 4. Sent. Q. 6. art 2. Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray says plainly that the Doctrine of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrine viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture (g) in canon Miss Lect. 40. Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a wan may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal (h) in Aquin 3. part Qu. 75. art 1. Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the authority of the Church nay he goes farther that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my body in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope (i) Aegid Conink de Sacram Q. 75. art 1. n. 13. Pius V. Cardinal (k) de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. Contarenus and (l) Loc. Theolog. l. 3. c. 3. Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr (m) contra captiv Babylon c. 10. n. 2. Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whether we consider the like expressions in Scripture as where our Saviour says he is the door and the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said this is my true body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body and the Rock which followed the Israelites to be Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 They drank of that Rock which followed them and that rock was Christ All which and innumerable more like expressions in Scripture every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal
evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my body and this is my bloud in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew 2ly That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Christian Church which the Church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the Church did always understand and interpret our Saviour's words in this sense To manifest the groundlesness of this pretence I shall 1. shew by plain testimony of the Fathers in several Ages that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church 2. I shall shew the time and occasion of its coming in and by what degrees it grew up and was establish'd in the Roman Church 3. I shall answer their great pretended Demonstration that this always was and must have been the constant belief of the Christian Church 1. I shall shew by plain Testimonies of the Fathers in several Ages for above five hundred years after Christ that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Christian Church I deny not but that the Fathers do and that with great reason very much magnifie the wonderfull mystery and efficacy of this Sacrament and frequently speak of a great Supernatural change made by the divine benediction which we also readily acknowledge They say indeed that the Elements of Bread and Wine do by the divine blessing become to us the Body and Bloud of Christ But they likewise say that the names of the things signified are given to the Signs that the Bread and Wine do still remain in their proper nature and substance and that they are turn'd into the substance of our Bodies that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament is not his natural Body but the sign and figure of it not that Body which was crucified nor that Bloud which was shed upon the Cross and that it is impious to understand the eating of the flesh of the Son of man and drinking his bloud literally all which are directly opposite to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and utterly inconsistent with it I will select but some sew Testimonies of many which I might bring to this purpose I begin with Justin Martyr who says expresly that * Apol. 2 p. 98 Edit Paris 1636. our Bloud and Flesh are nourished by the conversion of that food which we receive in the Eucharist But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of Christ for no man will say that that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies The Second is * Lib. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus who speaking of this Sacrament says that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread but the Eucharist or Sacrament consisting of two things the one earthly the other heavenly He says it is no longer common bread but after invocation or consecration it becomes the Sacrament that is bread sanctified consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly the earthly thing is bread and the heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invocation or consecration is added to it And * Lib. 5. c. 2. elsewhere he hath this passage when therefore the cup that is mix'd that is of Wine and Water and the bread that is broken receives the word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the bloud and body of Christ of which the substance of our flesh is encreased and consists but if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nourish our bodies it must be bread and wine and not the natural body and bloud of Christ There is another remarkable Testimony of Irenaeus which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain yet hath been preserv'd by * Comment in 1 Pet. c. 3. Oecumenius and it is this when says he the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni that is such as had not been admitted to the Sacrament and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians these Servants having nothing to say that might gratisy those who offered violence to them except onely that they had heard from their Masters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Christ they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh declar'd as much to those that questioned them The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Christians discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it To whom Blandina boldly answered How would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that flesh which may lawfully he eaten By which it appears that this which they would have charg'd upon Christians as if they had literally eaten the flesh and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament was a false accusation which these Martyrs denied saying they were so far from that that they for their part did not eat any flesh at all The next is Tertullian who proves against Marcion the Heretique that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phantasm and appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body and if there be an image of his body he must have a real body otherwise the Sacrament would be an image of an image His words are these * Adverss Marcionem l. 4. p. 571. Edit Rigalâ— Paris 1634. the bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own body saying this is my body that is the image or figure of my body But it could not have been the figure of his body if there had not been a true and real body And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of sense he useth this Argument That if we question our senses we may doubt whether our Blessed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard and saw and touched * Lib. de Anima p. 319. He might says he be deceived in the voice from heaven in the smell of the ointment with which he was anointed against his burial and in the taste of the wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his bloud So that it seems we are to trust our senses even in the matter of the Sacrament and if that be true the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is certainly false Origen in his * Edit Huetii Comment on Matth. 15. speaking of the Sacrament hath this passage That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer as to that of it which is material goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught which none surely will say of the Body of Christ And afterwards he adds by way of explication it is not the matter of the bread but the word which is spoken
heinous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he says this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that * Gen. 49.11 Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words †Dialog 1. as we call the mystical fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the true Vine viz. of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not liberally and properly but onely figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour changed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or Sign and to the Symbol or Sign the name of his Body thus when he had call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Symbol or Sign his bloud so that in the same sense that he call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the Symbol of his his bloud his bloud For says he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who call'd that which by nature is body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the Symbols with the name of his body and bloud not changing nature but adding grace to nature Where you see he syas expresly that when he call'd the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. Bread and Wine his Body and Bloud he made no change in the nature of the things onely added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a Spiritual and Supernatural virtue and efficacy The Second is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholique under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretique under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was chang'd into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutychees he illustrates the matter by this Similitude As says he the Symbols of the Lord's body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing So the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what says the Catholique Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Heretiques Thou art says he caught in thy own net because the mystical Symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature for they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not onely deny the outward figure and appearance of the Symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of the word substance and it was necessary so to do otherwise he had not given a pertinent answer to the similitude urg'd against him The next is one of their own Popes Gelasius who brings the same Instance against the Eutychians * Biblioth Patr. Tom. surely says he the Sacraments which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing so that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine and certainly the image and resemblance of Christ's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the mysteries that is in the Sacrament To make this Instance of any force against the Eutychians who held that the body of Christ upon his ascension ceas'd and was chang'd into the substance of his Divinity it was necessary to deny that there was any substantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Christ So that here is an infallible authority one of their own Popes expresly against Transubsantiation The last Testimony I shall produce is of Facundus an African Bishop who lived in the 6th Century Upon occasion of justifying an expression of one who had said that Christ also received the adoption of Sons he reasons thus * Facund p. 144. edit Paris 1676. Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption as the Sacrament of bis body and bloud which is in the consecrated bread and cup is by us called his body and bloud not that the bread says he is properly his body and the cup his bloud but because they contain in them the mysteries of his body and bloud hence also our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he gave to his Disciples his body and bloud Can any man after this believe that it was then and had ever been the universal and received Doctrine of the Christian Church that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are substantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Christ By these plain Testimonies which I have produced and I might have brought a great many more to the same purpose it is I think evident beyond all denial that Transubstantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the Christian Church And this likewise is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman Church
(a) In Sent. l. 4. Dist 11. Q 3. Scotus acknowledgeth that this Doctrine was not always thought necessary to be believed but that the necessity of believing it was consequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And (b) In Sent. l. 4. dist 11. q. 1. n. 15. Durandus freely discovers his inclination to have believed the contrary if the Church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it (c) de Euchar l. 1. p. 146. Tonstal Bishop of Durham also yields that before the Lateran Council men were at liberty as to the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament And (d) In 1 Epist ad Corinth c. 7. citante etiam Salmerone Tom. 9. Tract 16. p. 108. Erasmus who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church and than whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers doth confess that it was late before the Church defined Transubstantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing And (e) De Haeres l. 8. Alphonsus a Castro says plainly that concerning the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ there is seldom any mention in the ancient Writers And who can imagine that these learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been so much Strangers to this Doctrine had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church I shall now in the Second place give an account of the particular time and occasion of the coming in of this Doctrine and by what steps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romish Church The Doctrine of the corporal presence of Christ was first started upon occasion of the Dispute about the Worship of Images in opposition whereto the Synod of Constantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus That our Lord having left us no other image of himself but the Sacrament in which the substance of bread is the image of his body we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In answer to this Argument the second Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare that the Sacrament after Consecration is not the image and antitype of Christ's body and bloud but is properly his body and bloud So that the corporal presence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament was first brought in to support the stupid Worship of Images And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occasion not have been applied to a fitter purpose And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with * De Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine's Observation that none of the Ancients who wrote of Heresies hath put this errour viz of denying Transubstantiation in his Caralogue nor did any of the Ancients dispute against this errour for the first 600 years Which is very true because there could be no occasion then to dispute against those who demed Transubstantiation since as I have shewn this Doctrine was not in being unless among the Eutychian Heretiques for the first 600 years and more But †Ibid. Bellarmine goes on and tells us that the first who call'd in question the truth of the body of the Lord in the Eucharist were the ICONOMACHI the opposers of Images after the year DCC in the Council of Constantinople for these said there was one image of Christ instituted by Christ himself viz. the bread and wine in the Eucharist which represents the body and bloud of Christ Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admonish us that the Eucharist is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord but his true body as appears from the VII Synod which agrees most exactly with the account which I have given of the first rise of this Doctrine which began with the corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Transubstantiation And as this was the first occasion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greeks so in the Latin or Roman Church Paschasius Radbertus first a Monk and afterwards Abbot of Corbey was the first broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII And for this besides the Evidence of History we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Persons in the Church of Rome Bellarmine and Sirmondus who do in effect confess that this Paschasius was the first who wrote to purpose upon this Argument * De Scriptor Eccles Bellarmine in these words This Authour was the first who hath seriously and copiously written concerning the truth of Christ's body and bloud in the Eucharist And †In vita Paschasii Sirmondus in these he so first explained the genuine sense of the Catholique Church that he opened the way to the rest who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the same Argument But though Sirmondus is pleased to say that he onely first explain'd the sense of the Catholique Church in this Point yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us that this was the first time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church and it met with great opposition in that Age as I shall have occasion hereafter to shew For Rabanus Maurus Arch-Bishop of Mentz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paschasius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine hath this remarkable passage concerning the novelty of it ‖ Epist ad Heribaldum c. 33. Some says he of late not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord have said that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the Cross and rose from the dead which errour says he we have oppos'd with all our might From whence it is plain by the Testimony of one of the greatest and most learned Bishops of that Age and of eminent reputation for Piety that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament was then esteem'd an Errour broach'd by some particular Persons but was far from being the generally receiv'd Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it possible that so eminent a Person in the Church both for piety and learning could have condemn'd this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty had it been the general Doctrine of the Christian Church not onely in that but in all former Ages and no censure pass'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article in the Church of Rome and esteemed by them one of the greatest and most pernicious Heresies Afterwards in the year MLIX when Berengarius in France and Germany had rais'd a fresh opposition against this Doctrine he was compell'd to recant it by Pope Nicholas and the Council at Rome in these words * Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. Lanfranc de corp sing Domini c. 5. Guitmund de
Friend How can he possibly use him more barbarously than to feast upon his living flesh and bloud It is one of the greatest wonders in the world that it should ever enter into the minds of men to put upon our Saviour's words so easily capable of a more convenient sense and so necessarily requiring it a meaning so plainly contrary to Reason and Sense and even to Humanity it self Had the ancient Christians owned any such Doctrine we should have heard of it from the Adversaries of our Religion in every page of their Writings and they would have desired no greater advantage against the Christians than to have been able to hit them in the teeth with their feasting upon the natural flesh and Bloud of their Lord and their God and their best Friend What endless triumphs would they have made upon this Subject And with what confidence would they have set the cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament against their God Saturn's eating his own Children and all the cruel and bloudy Rites of their Idolatry But that no such thing was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrine was then believed 3. It is scandalous also upon account of the cruel and bloudy consequences of this Doctrine so contrary to the plain Laws of Christianity and to one great end and design of this Sacrament which is to unite Christians in the most perfect love and charity to one another Whereas this Doctrine hath been the occasion of the most barbarous and bloudy Tragedies that ever were acted in the World For this hath been in the Church of Rome the great burning Article and as absurd and unreasonable as it is more Christians have been murthered for the denyal of it than perhaps for all the other Articles of their Religion And I think it may generally pass for a true observation that all Sects are commonly most hot and furious for those things for which there is least Reason for what men want of Reason for their opinions they usually supply and make up in Rage And it was no more than needed to use this severity upon this occasion for nothing but the cruel fear of death could in probability have driven so great a part of mankind into the acknowledgment of so unreasonable and senseless a Doctrine O blessed Saviour I thou best Friend and greatest lover of mankind who can imagine thou didst ever intend that men should kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their senses for being unwilling to think that thou shouldst make one of the most horrid and barbarous things that can be imagin'd a main Duty and principal Mystery of thy Religion for not flattering the pride and presumption of the Priest who says he can make God and for not complying with the folly and stupidity of the People who are made to believe that they can eat him 4. Upon account of the danger of Idolatry which they are certainly guilty of if this Doctrine be not true and such a change as they pretend be not made in the Sacrament for if it be not then they worship a Creature instead of the Creatour God blessed for ever But such a change I have shewn to be impossible or if it could be yet they can never be certain that it is and consequently are always in danger of Idolatry and that they can never be certain that such a change is made is evident because according to the express determination of the Council of Trent that depends upon the mind and intention of the Priest which cannot certainly be known but by Revelation which is not pretended in this case And if they be mistaken about this change through the knavery or crossness of the Priest who will not make God but when he thinks fit they must not think to excuse themselves from Idolatry because they intended to worship God and not a Creature for so the Persians might be excus'd from Idolatry in worshipping the Sun because they intend to worship God and not a Creature and so indeed we may excuse all the Idolatry that ever was in the world which is nothing else but a mistake of the Deity and upon that mistake a worshipping of something as God which is not God II. Besides the infinite scandal of this Doctrine upon the accounts I have mentioned the monstrous absurdities of it make it insupportable to any Religion I am very well assur'd of the grounds of Religion in general and of the Christian Religion in particular and yet I cannot see that the foundations of any revealed Religion are strong enough to bear the weight of so many and so great absurdities as this Doctrine of Transubstantiation would load it withall And to make this evident I shall not insist upon those gross contradictions of the same Body being in so many several places at once of our Saviour's giving away himself with his own hands to every one of his Disciples and yet still keeping himself to himself and a thousand more of the like nature but to shew the absurdity of this Doctrine I shall only ask these few Questions 1. Whether any man have or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than any man hath of the falshood of Transubstantiation Infidelity were hardly possible to men if all men had the same evidence for the Christian Religion which they have against Transubstantiation that is the clear and irresistible evidence of sense He that can once be brought to contradict or deny his senses is at an end of certainty for what can a man be certain of if he be not certain of what he sees In some circumstances our senses may deceive us but no Faculty deceives us so little and so seldom And when our senses do deceive us even that errour is not to be corrected without the help of our senses 2. Supposing this Doctrine had been delivered in Scripture in the very same words that it is decreed in the Council of Trent by what clearer evidence or stronger Argument could any man prove to me that such words were in the Bible than I can prove to him that bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still He could but appeal to my eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible and with the same reason and justice might I appeal to several of his senses to prove to him that the bread and wine after consecration are bread and wine still 3. Whether it be reasonable to imagine that God should make that a part of the Christian Religion which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole I mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles the assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense For if the senses of those who say they saw them were deceived then there might be no Miracles wrought and consequently it may justly be
and absurd sense And it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signifie so and so than to say that it is so and so Thus Joseph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him Gen. 41.26 Says the seven good kine are seven years and the seven good ears of corn are seven years that is they signified or represented seven years of plenty and so Pharaoh understood him and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions nor do I believe that any sensible man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour this is my body would upon reading the institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been this Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Bloud and this which you see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me But surely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and give away himself from himself with his own hands Or whether we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as (n) Dialog cum Tryp p. 297. Edit Paris 1639. Justin Martyr tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Passover is our Saviour and our refuge not that they believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias the Saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it But this Lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the world And nothing is more common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign As the delivery of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an Estate and it is really so not the delivery of mere wax and parchment but the conveyance of a real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material houses and lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and man are given to the Signs or Seals of that Covenant By Baptism Christians are said to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6.4 And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are said to communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us that is of the real benefits of his death and passion And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10.16 The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ But still it is bread and he still calls it so v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one body for we are partakers of that one bread The Church of Rome might if they pleased as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by their participation of the Sacrament because they are said thereby to be one bread and one body And the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup v. 26. Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of that cup v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had said this is my bloud of the new Testament immediately adds * Matth. 26.29 but I say unto you I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine untill I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom that is not till after his resurrection which was the first step of his exaltation into the Kingdom given him by his Father when the Scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his Disciples But that which I observe from our Saviour's words is that after the consecration of the Cup and the delivering of it to his Disciples to drink of it he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of that fruit of the Vine which he had now drank with them till after his Resurrection From whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the Vine real wine which our Saviour drank of and communicated to his Disciples in the Sacrament Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural body and bloud of Christ because it was his body broken and his bloud shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his natural body broken and his bloud shed then these words this is my body which is broken and this is my bloud which is shed could not be true because his Body was then whole and unbroken and his bloud not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacrament to be unless they will say that propitiation was made before Christ suffer'd And it is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not onely plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given not his body broken and his bloud shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be that they should not tell him we see this to be Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken and thy Bloud not shed From all which it must needs be very