the Wilderness that were not circumcised no doubt died in that time Josh 5. 5. And shall we think therefore they were all deprived of eternal Salvation And what became of the other Sex that were not capable of Circumcision if the Sacrament of Circumcision were absolutely necessary to Salvation And if that was not absolutely necessary then why is Baptism so For if Baptism be so absolutely necessary to eternal Salvation that all Children dying without it should be excluded from the Grace of Christ then an infinite number of Children would meerly perish by the Fault or negligence of others without their own This would make the Salvation of a Child to depend upon the Will of a Midwife If she baptizeth the Child after his coming forth of the Womb behold he is saved but if she crusheth him behold he is lost for ever What can be more unreasonable than this Ezek. 18. 20. The Soul that sinneth it shall die The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father But if a little Child be not baptized this doth not come from his Fault and sure he shall not be punish'd for the negligence of his Parents or for want of opportunity When Moses neglected to circumcise his Son Exod. 4. God spared the Child in that he was Innocent but sought to kill Moses for his carelesness in the omission Note therefore that when it is said Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is plain from the following words that Baptism is not of the same necessity with Faith for it is added only and he that believeth not shall be damned But it is not said He that is not baptized shall be damned if so be he hath Faith. But that Baptism is join'd to Faith in the Promise it is to signify and express our duty of publickly testifying our Faith in Christ by our being baptized in his Name So that Baptism is here required only as it denotes our external profession of the Faith of Christ which is to be notified by Baptism as the solemn and visible Sign of it Baptism being a Right divinely instituted for that end So again when it is said Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of Sin. And Chap 22. 16. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy Sins calling on the Name of the Lord. It is so required and exprest because Men express and testify their Faith and Repentance by Baptism that they may obtain remission of Sin. And 't is by Baptism that God seals to them remission of Sin upon their Repentance and Faith in Christ therein testified and express'd 'T is the faithful undertaking of the Baptismal Covenant that is the condition of Salvation And Baptism it self is required only as it is necessary to notify and own this our Consent and Covenant unto others And if we perform the Condition the want of the use of the Sign when it doth not arise from our own neglect shall not hurt us As for John 3. 5. and Tit. 3. 5. see in the former Chapter Observe only this farther that by reason of the Opinion of the absolute necessity of Baptism to Salvation the Church of Rome hath impowred Midwives or any other Person to administer it in case of peril of Death But this Opinion being overthrown it is evident that that Practice is groundless it being the contempt which is a virtual rejection of the Christian Faith and not a bare want of it that is damning Moreover it is plain that our Saviour hath committed the administration of the Sacrament to those to whom he committed the Office of Teaching Matth. 28. 19 20. Go teach all Nations baptizing them But this Office was committed to the Apostles and their Successors in the Ministry and not to Women to whom the Apostle hath prohibited it therefore so is the administration of Baptism prohibited to them likewise Of the Lord's Supper CHAP. XXV That after the Consecration there remains no more of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament but that there is a Transubstantiation or a change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ Council of Trent Sess 13. chap. 4. Can. 2. THE Foundation upon which this portentous Doctrine is built are our Saviour's words of Institution Mat. 26. 27 28. and Luke 22. 19. Jesus Christ took Bread and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given unto you this do in remembrance of me Now we do not question but that our Saviour made his words good but the Question is In what sense our Saviour's Words are to be understood whether in a literal and proper or in a figurative Sense The Church of Rome saith in the literal and proper we say in the figurative Sense and so consequently that in them there is no Foundation of Transubstantiation Now to make this clear we argue thus If there be no necessity to understand them in the sense of Transubstantiation and there be a great deal of Reason to understand them in the figurative Sense in which we understand them and that it is very absurd and unreasonable to understand them otherwise then they ought to be understood in the Sense in which we understand them For we ought certainly to understand them in that Sense which it is most reasonable to understand them in Now that there is no necessity to understand them in the Sense of Transubstantiation and that there is a great deal of Reason to understand them otherwise may appear by these following Observations The Sense in which we understand them is very agreeable to the Custom and Usage and Manner of speaking which was very familiar among the Jews with whom such figurative Expressions were very common For we have many of this sort in Scripture it being usual in the Hebrew Language to say Things are that which only thy signify and represent As Gen. 41. 26. Joseph tells Pharaoh The seven good Kine are seven Years i. e. they signify and represent them And the seven good Ears of Corn are seven Years And so in the matter of the Sacraments as Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17. 9. and yet in the following Verse is expounded to be only the Token of it So the Paschal Lamb is called the Lord's Passover Exod. 12. 11. Yet by Verse 13. appears as in all reason it was to be only a sign of it So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it was the Sign and Seal of it And the Cup is by our Saviour called the New Testament because likewise it was the Seal of it where the Cup is also taken for the Wine in the Cup. Our Saviour speaking of himself saith I am the Door Joh. 10. 9. and I am the true Vine Joh. 15. 1. the Church of Rome would have mightily triumphed in it if it had been said This is my true Body yet no Body takes these Expressions
be so is also plain because our Saviour gave it to his Disciples as his Blood shed But his own natural Blood then was not shed unless they will say it was shed before he suffered for this was before his Suffering So that it must needs be understood only figuratively that the Wine poured forth did signify and represent the Blood of his which was shortly to be shed for Sinners and by which the New Testament was confirmed And for that end and because of the use of it mentioned it has the name of the Blood given to it the Sign having the name of the thing signified And though it be thus only in a figurative and not in a proper sense that we are to understand the words of the Institution yet the Benefit and Comfort of the Sacrament will be nevertheless For it may be of equal efficacy and advantage to us if we outwardly receive only the Symbols as if we received the very Body and Blood of Christ themselves for the efficacy doth not lie in the thing received but in the Blessing that goes along with the Institution As the Water in Baptism without a substantial change in the Element with the Divine Blessing is equally serviceable to the Ends of that Sacrament as if there were a substantial change So 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we brake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ We may have Communion with the Body of Christ by partaking of the Bread. As Idolaters may have fellowship with Devils by partaking of the Sacrifices offered to them without having the substance of the things sacrificed to them turned into the substance of Devils 1 Cor. 10. 20. So Believers may have fellowship with Christ by partaking of the Bread and Wine instituted for that End without having the substance of the Bread and Wine changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ We see then it is highly reasonable and necessary to understand the words of Institution as other figurative Expressions of the like nature are to be understood And there is not the least inconvenience or absurdity will follow upon it But to understand them in the sense of Transubstantiation is highly unreasonable and is against the being and design of the Scripture and is also monstrously absurd If the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament be turned into the Body and Blood of Christ then Christ must be with us still with his bodily Presence which is against the whole current of Scripture for he is ascended into Heaven and therefore he is not here Acts 3. 21. The Heavens must receive or retain him until the time of restitution of all things And how is he then in the hands of the Priest Col. 3. 1. Christ sits at the right Hand of God and there we must seek him and not in the hands of a Priest or upon the Altar For said he John 16. 28. I leave the World and go to the Father And therefore in his absence he promised the People another Comforter who should abide with them and supply his place John 14. 10. But Henceforth saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 16. we know him no more after the Flesh he abiding in us only by his Spirit and we know him only by Faith. We are not like the Disciples of the Prophet Elijah who sought on Earth for their Master whom God had taken up into Heaven 2 King. 2. Our Saviour sâ—ith Mat. 26. 11. The Poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always Whereas if he be every where in the Mass we may have him with us always as much as the Apostles had him And when our Saviour told them they had always the Poor with them whom they might shew kindness to but not him and therefore they should not grudg at the expence of a box of Ointment upon him If they had been of the Miâ—d of the Church of Rome they might have answered Lord we shall have thee with us as long as we shall have the Poor and this cost which this poor Woman hath been at is nothing in comparison of what shall one day be laid out upon Thee in hâ—â—ging the Streets with Tapestry in â—â—ecking the Altar◠〈◊〉 inclosing Thee in rich and â—ostly Pieces and in sâ—â—ting Thee up 〈◊〉 stately and magnificent Mansions But then if Christ's Body be with us it seems he must be invisible also and not to be felt which is contrary to the nature of an humane Body In which he is made like unto us Heb. 2. 17. To be invisible is to be more like a Spirit which hath not Flesh and 〈◊〉 Luke 24. 39 40. If the Body of Christ be also in the small Wafer of the Sacrament he must be without proper extension suitable to the nature of an humane Body And if he be whole in every Wafer of the Sacrament he must be whole in many places at once Which is a contradiction for then he would have a Body which is one and not one but many as the places are in which he wholly is And it is against the reasoning of the Angel Mat. 28. 5 6. He is not here for he is risen But according to this Doctrine he might be there and risen too and then the Angel's reasoning was not good And then Christ might be distant from himself as that Body now which is at London would be distant from that that is at Rome many hundred miles and that Body which is at Rome may meet that Body which is at London and so it would be the same and not the same and the same would move towards and meet it self And then Christ's Body might move and not move at the same time and it might be carried and not carried and it might be eaten and not eaten in one place eaten with Rats and at another place worship'd and might be glorious and not be glorious and innumerable such Absurdities follow upon this sensless and unreasonable Doctrine Besides the barbariâ—y and bloodiness of eating and drinking humane Flesh and Blood and devouring ones God. And then the most wicked Men may receive Christ with the mouths of their Body and likewise eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. But Christ tells us this we only do now by believing in him John 6. For the Flesh profiteth nothing The Wicked having not Faith have no part in him they do not dwell in Christ nor Christ in them as they that eat his Flesh and drink his Blood do John 6. 56. And therefore it must be understood spiritually and by Faith. To conclude We have as much assurance that Transubstantiation is false as that Christianity is true that is our Sense and Reason in concurrence with the Holy Scripture And is not this a goodly Doctrine which if granted would raze the Foundation of the Christian Faith and reduce us to the vastest Uncertainty so that we could reasonably believe nothing For what can we be certain of at all if not
A COLLECTION OF Texts of Scripture WITH Short Notes upon them And some other Observations against the Principal Popish Errors IMPRIMATUR Julii 9. 1688. Guil. Needham LONDON Printed for W. Booker over against the King's-Head Inn in Old-change 1688. The Epistle to the Reader IT is agreed on all hands that the Mind and Will of God revealed to us howsoever the Revelation be made is the proper and adequate Rule of Conscience by which we are to direct both our Faith and Practice And that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain at least a part of this Divine Revelation is granted by the Church of Rome it self From whence it will clearly follow that whatsoever is contrary to that Revelation which we have in the Holy Scriptures ought not to be received for Divine Doctrine and Truth unless we will suppose an inconsistence in Divine Revelation or that God doth contradict himself which none will have the folly to assert We must remember therefore how we have received and heard in the Holy Scriptures and hold that fast And if there be any Doctrine or Tradition which contradicts the Doctrine of God delivered in the Holy Scriptures or makes his Commandment therein contain'd of none effect we are taught by our Saviour to reject it So that if an Apostle or an Angel from Heaven and much more if a Father or if a Church preach to us any other Gospel than what is therein delivered to us we should do the same Whether the Doctrines that are contested between us and the Church of Rome are of this Nature is the Question in dispute To make a right Judgment of which we need but consider the several Doctrines and then compare them with the Holy Scriptures and observe their agreeableness and disagreeableness thereunto To assist the Reader in which is the Design of this small Treatise wherein you have a Collection of the chief Points in Controversy between us and in the head of the several Chapters is first set down the Romish Doctrine as it is defined and received or generally taught in the Church and then the Texts of Scripture are subjoined with short and easy Notes and Observations deduced from them to apply them to the present purpose whereby it is easy to make a Comparison between the several Doctrines and the Scripture and the Contrariety between them will be manifest to the meanest Capacity But yet that it might be made more useful to prevent all misunderstanding and to make the Matters in Difference the more clear where it was thought needful the Controversies also are briefly stated and some farther Considerations added and the principal Objections are briefly obviated So that it is hoped it may be of good use to all that desire to be guarded against the Errors of Rome especially to those that have not Mony to buy or Time or Capacity to read and understand larger or more learned Discourses for whose service it was principally intended And some such Thing in so plain and easy a Method seemed to be desired The Gentlemen of the Church of Rome we may be sure will not be pleased with this Method because we do not take the Scriptures in their Sense and with their Interpretations But those we think are Comments which destroy the Text and therefore we have no mind to them And we should not have the Text neither by their good will for they do not love that that dangerous Book should come into the hands of the Common People for fear lest they should think that the Text is against them But however they endeavour to make themselves Masters of the Sense and Interpretation that that may be for them Thus if the Text be ready to strike them they put out its Eyes by the Exposition that it shall not know how to direct its Blow and then they are safe enough But we cannot think our selves obliged to take every thing upon trust that they say But they refer us also to Tradition and the Consent of the Fathers for the understanding of the Scripture-Doctrine which we are not against But unless we will take this Tradition and this Consent of the Fathers from their Mouth likewise they will not be pleased So that as they would have it our Faith must be ultimately resolved only into the present Voice of their Church And we must not condemn any of her Doctrines because they say they shall not be condemned that is they will be Judges in their own Case for fear of the worst It is well known that we make use of Tradition and the Judgment of the Fathers as well as they And we do not fear to refer our selves to them in the Matters contested between us but then they must give us leave to make use of Tradition a little more Catholickly than they do and not to seek it only from the Voice of their Church For we hope as long as we have Eyes we may read the Fathers as well as they and we do not know why we may not as well understand their Sense as also the Sense of the Holy Scriptures having the same means for it only the worst is we want Infallible Parts which we do not know but they may want as well as we But what is it but a great derogation from the Holy Scripture and the Holy Ghost the Author of it to think that of it self it is equally apt to deceive as to instruct to induce into Error as to lead into Truth What is this but to level it with the Heathen Oracle that spake always with that ambiguity that no Body knew what to make of it and therefore they were as soon deceived by it as not But yet is not this in effect the very Sense of the Church of Rome Or why else doth she so studiously with-hold the Bible from her Members for fear lest they should have more hurt by it than good if they take it by it self What is this but under pretence of taking care of her Children to call her Father and Husband whom she pretends so great respect to all to naught and to commend her self that she hath more tenderness and love to her Children than they But is it not rather her own Grandeur and Height which she takes care of which these Doctrines do subserve to And therefore she is resolved to maintain them and must use the means for it which iâ— by with-holding the Light that would discover them For it is to be truly feared that if the Bible were in every one's Hand and read with any attention it would soon scatter this Darkness which the Church of Rome well perceives And if that be to deceive the Scripture will deceive And if Instruction consists only in learning their Errors the Scripture will never instruct us to the World's End So that in this the Church of Rome is in the Right and is a very wise Mother for her self but let others judg how kind she is to her Children or
that which we perceive clearly with all our Senses and which we can reason as plainly about as about any thing whatsoever Or if our Saviour and his Apostles were now preaching or working Miracles in the World how should we judg of all they said or did but by those Mediums which about Transubstantiation we must entirely renounce CHAP. XXVI That the Mass is not only a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross but that the self-same Christ is therein offered that offered himself upon the Cross and that this Sacrifice performed by the Priest is truly propitiatory for the Remission of Sins of the Quick and Dead Council of Trent Sess 22. chap. 2. Can. 1 2 3. THis is a consequent of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament without which it cannot subsist For if the very Body of our Saviour be not substantially and properly present in the Sacrament then how can there be a proper Oblation of the Body of Christ there For how can there be a proper Oblation of that that is not properly and substantially there The Body of Christ being there in a Figure or Representation there is a commemoration of the Sacrifice of his Body which he offered on the Cross and there is a representation of the Sacrifice of his Body made there upon which account it may be called a Commemorative Sacrifice But there being no proper or corporal Presence of his Body there can be no proper Oblation of it So that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation being refuted before this being a Consequent of it must fall with it There is the Sacrifice of Christ in a Figure indeed that is there is a Representation of the Sacrifice of Christ by the Bread broken and the Wine poured forth which represents to us the breaking of his Body and the shedding of his Blood in the Offering which he made of himself on the Cross So the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come So that therein the Death of Christ is shewed forth and we have Communion with him in his Benefits by an Act of Faith when we partake of the Symbols of his Body and Blood. And it was for this End for the nourishing and confirming our Faith and the expressing our gratitude to our dying Lord by keeping up a grateful remembrance of his Death that this holy Rite was instituted But read the Institution entire Luk. 22. there is not the least intimation of any sacrificial Act there performed by our Saviour or commanded the Disciples He took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying Take eat this is my Body which is given for you Do this in remembrance of me A Sacrifice is offered to God but here is nothing offered to God but a representation of thatâ— Body that was to be broken and offered and the Bread distributed to the Disciples to nourish their Faith. And indeed that which our Saviour did then could not possibly be a propitiatory Sacrifice unless they will say that Propitiation was made by Christ before he suffered on the Cross for this that Christ did was certainly before his Suffering And what need then of the following Oblation on the Cross if Propitiation was made before For what need that be done again that is sufficiently done already So that we conclude that there was no propitiatory Sacrifice offered in the Supper because there was no Propitiation made before the Oblation on the Cross And if there was no Propitiation made in the Sacrament then neither is there now the Institution being always the same and that only being required to be done by the Disciples which was then done and appointed by our Saviour and for the same Ends and no other And we in many places find that the purging away of our Sin and our Sanctification and Redemption which is the Fruit and Consequent of Propitiation is entirely attributed to that offering of the Body of Jesus Christ which was made by himself on the Cross and which was offered but once and that by this once offering all this was done so that there is to be no more offering then for Propitiation Heb. 7. 26 27. For such an High Priest became us who needed not as the legal Priests to offer up Sacrifices first for his own Sins and then for the Peoples and to do this often as they did it every Year and often For this he did once when he offered up himself And that once in him was sufficient to all the Ends of a propitiatory Offering Chap. 9. 12. For by his own Blood he entred in once into the Holy Place having obtain'd â—ternal Redemption for us by that once Offering If the Blood of Christ shed once upon the Cross â—e of such infinite and eternal efficacy and merit for our Redemption what need can there be of more For v. 13 14. How should not the Blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your Conscience from dead Works And Chap. 10. 10. We are sanctified and our Sins expiated by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ onâ—e for all And vers 13. This Man Christ Jesus after he had offered one Sacrifice for Sin for ever sat down on the right Hand of God as having fulfilled his Offering Vers 14. For by one Offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Therefore saith God in consideration of this once Offering of Christ Vers 17. 18. Their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Now where Remission of these is there is no more Offering for Sin. There is Faith and Repentance indeed required on our part that we may have benefit in the Offering made but there is no more Offering for Sin that being sufficiently done already by Christ's own Offering So that to talk of the necessity of more or repeated Offerings and Sacrifices for Propitiation is in the necessary construction of the Fact whatever is pretended to impeach the once Offering of Christ which he made himself for us of insufficiency for the Ends of Propitiation And by this the Apostle argued the insufficiency of the legal Offerings Heb. 10. 1 2. For the Law having only a weak shadow of good things to come and not the very Image and solidity of the things can never with those Sacrifices which they offered Year by Year continually make the comers thereunto perfect as touching remission of Sin. For then would they not have ceased to be offered because that the Worshippers once purged should have had no more Conscience of Sins for which there had been made sufficient atonement So that according to the Apostle the repetition and reiteration of Sacrifices is a note of their Imperfection And by the same reason the Sacrifice of Christ once offered upon the Cross would be imperfect if there were a necessity of its being frequently offered Which is manifestly