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
the World. And certainly it is so for in the Mass a God is set up to be adored 1. That is made by a Creature a filthy Priest 2. That is made by a Creature of a Creature a piece of Bread. 3. That is made by a Creature of a Creature by a kind of magical muttering over of five Words This God made of Bread and rising out of Transubstantiation is the Idol set up in the Mass and the great Idol that is worshipped by Papists with bowing of Heads bending of Knees elevating of Hands knocking Breasts prostrating of Bodies burning of Tapers ringing of Bells playing on Instruments c. And it is the most absurd horrible abominable and monstrous Idol that is or ever was in the World. An Idol that makes the Christian Religion to become a Scorn and Derision a matter of greatest Detestation and Execration both to Jews and Pagans This I say is the great Scandal and Stumbling-block to both That Christians worship a God made of Bread and eat their God. A Jew conferring with Mr. Wiseheart gave him three Reasons why the Jews could not be perswaded to turn Christians 1. The Uncharitableness of Christians toward the Poor 2. The Multitude of Images in the Temples of Christians And 3. The Sacrament of the Altar A piece of Bread says he baken on the Ashes ye adore and worship and say that it is your God. Acts and Mon. 1156. The Turks are no less scandalized by it who use to call the Roman Pope Rex Morionum the King of Idiots for this reason And Averroes the Arabian Mahometan cryed out Quandoquidem Christiani manducant Deum quem adorant sit Anima mea cum Philosophis Let my Lot be among the Philosophers rather than the Christians who eat that God which they adore And upon the Fact of Lewis the 9th mentioned before who pawned his Pyx and Host the Egyptians wrought a Wafer Cake and a Box in the Borders of their Tapestry which may yet be seen in the Tapestry which is brought out of Egypt And this was done in perpetual Memory of this thing viz. Ridente Turca nec dolente Judaeo That they had the Christian God in Pawn and to make Christianity a Deridiculum a matter to be derided and laughed at all over the World. And so I may allude to Hosea 7.16 This shall be or is their dirision in the Land of Egypt These are some of the Births that Transubstantiation hath blessed the World with And we have viewed it now in its Rise and Original Nature and Constitution Fruits and Consequents From which we may see that it is not only a most stupid and absurd Fiction but also a most gross and monstrous Abomination In the next place we shall consider the chief Foundations that the Romanists would build this Doctrine upon or the principal Arguments they go about to prove it by Now they endeavour to set it up and maintain it four Ways I. By the Scriptures II. By the Fathers III. By Councils and IV. By Reasons First The first sort of Arguments are taken from the Holy Scriptures And so they argue 1. From these Words of our Saviour This is my Body On these Words they bottom Transubstantiation and their chief strength lieth in them And the whole strength of the Argument taken from them rests on this Basis or Bottom viz. That Christ said This is my Body Hence Bellarmine lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 19. argues thus These Words This is my Body do necessarily inferr either a real mutation of the Bread as Catholicks hold or a metaphorical as Calvenists but can in no wise admit the Lutheran Sence For our Lord took Bread into his Hands and blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and said of it This is my Body Therefore he took Bread he blessed Bread he gave Bread and of Bread he said This is my Body either therefore by blessing he changed it into his Body truly and properly or improperly and figuratively by adding a new Signification or he made no Change of it if he changed it properly then he gave changed Bread and of Bread truly changed he said most truly This is my Body that is that which is contained under the form of Bread is not Bread now but my Body And this says he is that which the Catholicks hold to prove that this is the true and genuine Sence of the Word They say 1. That our Saviour spake plainly clearly and properly so as the Disciples might understand him and not figuratively darkly and obscurely 2. That we must keep to the literal Sence and proper signification of our Saviour's Words and he said expresly This is my Body In answer to this Argument I would say 1st That many of the Romanists themselves acknowledg that Transubstantiation cannot be proved from these Words both Cardinals and famous Schoolmen as Cardinal Cajetan in 3 Thom. q. 75. Art. 1. Petrus de Aliaco Card. Cameracensis in 4 Sent. dist 11. q. 6. Art. 1. Card. Roffensis or Fisher of Rochester contra Capt. Bab. Lutheri c. 10. and Perron the great Cardinal of France professeth That he believed Transubstantiation not by virtue of any necessary Consequence or Reason brought by their Doctors but by the Words of Christ as they are expounded by Tradition And Schoolmen as Biel Lec 40. in Can. Missae Occam lib. 4. sent dist 11. q. 6. Vasquez Tom. 3. in 3. dist 180. Canus loc Commun l. 3. c. 3. Cassand in Consult de Trans p. 66. Tannerus in compend relat Colloq Ratisbon par 2. c. 6. p. 37. reckons up Transubstantiation among the Points Non est improbabile non extare locum in Scriptura tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere quae in scriptura sola non continentur nec ea sola evidentur deducuntur Yea Bellarmine after that he had wearied himself on this Argument concludes it with these Words Albeit there were some obscurity or ambiguity in the Words of our Lord yet that is taken away by many Councils and the Consent of the Fathers A Tacit Confession But afterwards Chap. 23. he is more express when he says It is not improbable that there is not any place extant in the Scripture so express as may without the declaration of the Church evidently enforce the admission of Transubstantiation Thus their own greatest Divines have not been satisfied that this Scripture nor yet any other doth afford a Foundation for Transubstantiation 2. The Popish Sense is not true Our Saviour by these Words This is my Body did not change the Bread into his real Body 1. The order of our Saviour's Words doth evince and evidence this For he took Bread and had them Take and Eat before he pronounced these Words This is my Body which doth plainly imply and import that the Bread was his Body before the pronouncing of these Words and not made or transubstantiated into his Body by the pronunciation of them
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
have been hard indeed to understand yea a matter passing all Understanding that could never have been beaten into their Brains Secondly They say the literal Sense and proper Signification of our Saviour's Words must be kept and he says of that he gave This is my Body this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very plain Letter of the Words and from this literal Sense we must not depart in this matter Answer 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 1. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost inspiring not only the Matter but the Words and Phrases delivered by them which Words and Phrases do always signify and express his Mind unto us about the Matter so delivered in them 2. When the proper and literal Signification of Words and Phrases in the holy Scripture doth contain and carry in it manifest Absurdities Contradictions or Impossibilities that cannot be the Sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those Words and Phrases but they must necessarily be taken in an improper and figmative Sense Hence 3. In interpreting of many Scripture-Words and Forms of Speech we must depart from the Letter of the Words if we will understand and take them according to the true and proper sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in them And the Sense of the Scripture is the Scripture Thus we must understand Gen. 40.12 The three Branches are three Days And Vers 18. The three Baskets are three Days Gen. 41.26 The seven Kine are seven Years and the seven Ears are seven Years Ezek. 37.11 These Bones are the whole House of Israel Dan. 7.17 The four Beasts are four Kings Mat. 11.14 This is Elias Mat. 13.38 The Field is the World. John 10.9 I am the Door Joh. 15.1 I am the true Vine Rev. 1.20 The seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches Rev. 17. The seven Heads are seven Mountains c. In all which we must depart from the literal Sense and by the Signs figuratively signifying understand the Things signified and represented And so we must go from the literal Signification in all those places which speak of God as having a Mouth Eyes Ears Hands and other Parts of a Human Body c. 4. In Sacramental Propositions nothing is more frequent and familiar than improper and figurative Forms of Expression qua signo tribuitur nomen rei significata wherein the Sign is called by the Name of the Thing signified this we may see in the Sacraments of both Testaments in the Institution whereof the Lord used improper Expressions The Rock that followed the Israelites is called Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 now it was but a Figure of Christ In the Institution of Circumcision Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 which properly was but a Seal or Sign of the Covenant Ver. 11. In the Passeover the Lamb is called the Passeover Exod. 12.11 which properly was only the Sign of the Lord 's passing over the Houses of the Israelites And so in the Institution of this Sacrament there are as the Papists cannot deny several improper and figurative Terms as when the Cup is put for the Wine in the Cup 1 Cor. 11.25 Drinking of the Cup for drinking of the Wine Mat. 26.27 The Cup which is the Seal of the New Testament is called the New Testament Luke 22.20 And so here when he saith of the Bread This is my Body he speaks of it not in a proper and literal but in a sacramental and figurative Sense calling the Sign by the Name of the Thing signified thereby viz. his Body and this is the true Sense of the Words this Bread is the Sign of my Body which Sense whosoever gainsays and rejects to take the Popish Sense bringeth all the fore-named Absurdities Contradictions Impieties and Blasphemies into our Saviour's Words But certainly this could never be the meaning of our Lord in them 5. The Papists who contend thus earnestly for the literal Signification do not keep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the plain Letter of our Lord's Words for he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresly This is my Body but they understand it as spoken of that which is contained under the Accidents of Bread and resolve this Proposition This is my Body thus This that is contained under the form of Bread is my Body Or thus Hoc complexum Accidentium Panis Corporis mei est Corpus meum this Compound of the Accidents of Bread and my Body is my Body a plain departure from the Letter Moreover Christ meant his own true and natural Body signified by the Bread they understand an invisible Body without human Shape just Dimensions distance of Parts c. hid under the Accidents of Bread. 6. The Words of our Saviour are against Transubstantiation and being taken in their own Sense do overturn it For they say 1. That they must be taken in their proper Sense uti sonant 2. That thus taken they do infer Transubstantiation But now take them so and according to their Principles they neither infer Transubstantiation nor can there be any Transubstantiation For if there be any such a thing it must be either 1st Before the Words are pronounced Or 2dly Not until the Words are fully pronounced Or 3dly Together with the Pronunciation and while the Words are in pronouncing Or 4thly In an instant and uncertain moment of Time. But it can be in none of these and therefore there can be no Transubstantiation Scharp Curs Theol. de Coena p. 1482. Transubstantiation cannot be 1st Before the Pronunciation of the Words This is my Body For tho they disagree not a little among themselves about the Form of Consecration yet they are most generally of this mind That it is done by the Virtue of these Words canted over the Bread and that before they are used it is very Bread. 2dly Nor not until the Words are fully pronounced For if so this Proposition would be false This is my Body and instead of saying This is my Body it should be said This shall be my Body For est is in its proper Sense signifies a thing then in being and presupposeth that to be whereof it is spoken So that if the Bread be not transubstantiated before the Priest have said over these Words then he lies every time he saith them in calling that which is very Bread and nothing else the very Body of Christ 3dly During the Pronunciation of the Words or while they are in pronouncing For then it should not be in an instant but successively pedetentim by little and little as the words are successively pronounced by Letters Syllables and Words one after another but this they all deny 4thly In an instant this they are for Bellarmin determines that it is done simul in the time of the pronunciation of the words of Consecration but not in the whole time that the Pronunciation takes up but in an instant or moment of that Time. To this it may
be said 1. Then the Priest lies in saying This is and should say This shall be my Body 2. Then the great operative and conversive Virtue of these mighty Words lies in the last Syllable um this seems to be the Opinion of Thomas Conversio Panis in Corpus Christi fit in tèrmino prolationis horum verborum Tunc enim completur significatio hujus locutionis in 1 Cor. 11.24 3. Then as the Body of Christ is created in an instant so the Bread is annihilated or ceaseth to be in an instant 4. Then it is either at one and the same instant that the Bread vanisheth and the Body of Christ succeedeth in the room or another instant but it is neither of these 1. Not the same instant For then the Bread and Body of Christ should be both together and at the same time under the same Accidents But this the Papists will not hear of but affirm constantly That first the Bread only and secondly the Body of Christ alone is under the Accidents one after the other but never together 2. Not another instant For then in the interspace the Accidents should subsist without either the Substance of the Bread or Body of Christ under them but they say it is never thus but either the Bread or Body of Christ is contained under the Accidents and to say otherwise would be most absurd And thus if they will be constant to their own Sentiments tho we should grant them their own Sense of our Saviour's Words they will not serve their turn nor be a Foundation to build Transubstantiation upon but contrary-wise will quite subvert this Dagon For there can be no Transubstantiation 1. Before the Words are pronounced 2. After they are pronounced 3. In the time of Pronunciation 4. In any other instant and therefore there can be none at all We have done with their first Argument Secondly They argue from the Sermon which our Saviour preached unto the Capernaits John 6. wherein they say he opens the great Meat and Mystery of the blessed Sacrament of the Altar In which his true Body and Blood or Himself is eaten and drunken under the forms of Bread and Wine which doth necessarily infer a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his very Body and Blood. The places urged for this are Vers 41. unto Vers 59. but they insist especially on Vers 51 53 55. here say they our Saviour expresly affirms 1. That his Flesh is Bread. Vers 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World. 2. When the Jews contended about this Saying as absurd or impossible Vers 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat he again with an ingeminated asseveration affirms That what he had asserted was not only true and no way absurd nor impossible but also that this eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood was most necessary and beneficial Vers 53 54. Verily verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you Whose eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day 3. That his Flesh is Meat and his Blood is Drink indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vere Vers 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed i. e. true Meat and Drink or truly Meat and Drink or very Meat and Drink so that say they it is plain that here he doth not speak improperly but most properly of his Body as proper Meat and of his Blood as proper Drink and of the proper and bodily eating and drinking of his very Body and Blood with the Mouth in the Eucharist And this doth undeniably prove Transubstantiation that the Bread is turned into his real Body and the Wine into his Blood. This is the Argument for Transubstantiation drawn form this Sermon of our Saviour preached at Capernaum Our Saviour having miraculously fed five thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes a great Multitude flocked after him whereupon he took an occasion to preach to them of Spiritual Meat under a Metaphor taken from the present matter as in Chap. 4. he had taken occasion from the Water of Jacob's Well to preach to the Samaritan Woman of the Water whereof whosoever drinks shall never thirst And in this Sermon he shews them 1. That there was a kind of Meat which would endure to everlasting Life which they should seek for rather than the Meat which perisheth 2. Who it is that giveth this Meat 3. What this Meat is viz. his Flesh and Blood. 4. That this is a more excellent Meat than that Corporal Food which they had been fed with and followed him for and than the Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the Wilderness as it was Corporal Food only and received by the Mouth into the Belly and so he here speaketh of it and not as it was a Temporary Sacrament to their Fathers But to come to the Matter lying before us In order to a clear and satisfactory Answer to the Argument drawn hence which they place great Confidence in I shall endeavour to shew 1. our Saviour's Sense in this Sermon 2. The Popish Sense that is put upon it 3. That our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Body and Blood. But 4. That our Saviour is here treating of the Spiritual eating and drinking of his Body and Blood out of or without the Sacrament And so Transubstantiation will fall to the Ground if they have no better Foundation to fix it upon First Our Saviour's Sense in this Sermon and how we must understand him if we will understand him in the Sense intended by him And here are four Things to be enquired into 1. What kind of Meat this is which our Saviour discourses of to the Capernaits in this Sermon And it is not Corporeal Meat but Spiritual Meat Even as Chap. 4. He speaketh to the Samaritan Woman of a Water whereof whosoever shall drink shall never thirst which is not meant of a Material Water but Spiritual Grace as the Papists do confess Yea this they do freely grant here For tho they will have it to be Material Food and to be eaten Orally and Corporally yet they confess that it is Spiritual Meat Meat for the Soul not for the Belly Mentis non ventris animae non corporis 2. What this Spiritual Meat properly is Now this is Christ himself with all the Benefits and Fruits of his Cross and Passion This Meat is made up of and consisteth in the saving Benefits prepared for us by the Body and Blood of Christ crucified and rising out of his Passion This is the Food Meat Bread which he here speaketh of that giveth Life to the World
same Facility This is the first Answer 2. This Reason plainly everts Transubstantiation For if a Consecrated Wafer do retain the Properties and Effects of Bread then it cannot be transubstantiated because the Properties of Bread are founded in the Substance of Bread and the Effects of Bread rise from the very Nature of Bread. So that if the Bread did by Consecration lose its Substance it should therewith also lose both its Properties and Effects They have yet one shift more and say it is called Bread. Fourthly By a Hebraism because phrasi hebraicâ in the Hebrew Idiom or Form of Speech all Meat is called Bread. This is Bellarmin's last Reason and that which he likes best It may says he be called Bread meo judicio optimè quia phrasi hebraicâ nomine panis intelligitur generatim omnis Cìbus But 1. Till Bellarmine have proved that our Saviour and his Apostles called this Sacramental Element by the name of Bread for this reason or more hebraico he doth but beg the question and if we list to grant it him upon his begging we may but if not he hath not nor any of the Tribe of Cardinals or Jesuits can ever prove it 2. The Apostle doth not only call it Bread but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panem hunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27. plainly shewing that he had not respect to that general Signification but spake of it in its most proper sense as it was Food made of Corn or proper Bread as Bread is distinguished and differenced from all other kinds of Meat As in the same place he speaks of Wine as it was the proper Fruit of the Vine by way of distinction from all other sorts of Liquors Thus the Apostle calls it Bread not in the general Signification of the Word but from its own particular Nature and Kind among all other sorts and kinds of Meat that is proper Bread and not any other Fish or Flesh c. We have now the Reasons of Bellarmine and other Papists whereby they do go about to elude and evade this clear and full Argument against Transubstantiation And you may yet further take notice of these four things in general That these Reasons assigned by them why the Bread after its essential Mutation is still called Bread 1. Are divers one from another wherein they fluctuate at great uncertainty Vel quia ex pane conficitur accidentia panis retinet c. Vel alio aliquo modo qui a Doctoribus comprehendi potest a nobis non potest as not knowing where or upon what to fix One while they will have it called Bread because it was Bread another while because it hath the Form and Figure of Bread then because it hath the Effects of Bread. Next not so but by a Hebraism And thus they rove about at uncertainty now say one thing then another It is called Bread in this sense or in that sense or as one of them if not more knowing yet more modest than the rest having reckoned up several Opinions about it concludes or some other way which the Doctors may understand but we do not 2. Are not only divers one from another but adverse and contrary one to another insomuch as they cannot consist and stand one with another but do mutually destroy one another For if it be called Bread 1. Tropically and Figuratively according to the First and Second then not because of its nutritive Property according to the Third 2. Because of its nutritive Virtue then not Figuratively as the First and Second 3. If by a Hebraism then none of the other three ways And 4. If any of the other ways then not more hebraico 3. Are all Figurative and improper And so they who insist so much on and contend so hotly for the literal Signification of our Saviour's Words This is my Body and exclaim on us for departing from it do themselves depart from the literal Signification of this Word Panis Bread and bring in a tropical figurative and improper sense of it For if it be called Bread only because it is made of Bread or hath the Form of Bread or the Properties and Effects of Bread or from the Idiotism of the Hebrews then it is Bread only in an improper Sense And so I say they that will not admit of a Figure in this Proposition This is my Body tho it be necessary and ordinary and constant in the Scripture in this Subject of Sacraments are forced for the Support of their Transubstantiation and literal Signification of this Proposition This is my Body to forge a Figure in this Term Bread and not one but four one on the back of another if they will have their Reasons to signify any thing Besides that by Bread here they will have us to understand Flesh Blood and Bones by some new and uncouth Figure which I understand not 4. The Romanists at this Day cannot endure this form of Speech or to hear the consecrated Wafer called Bread. Should a Priest in the Popish Countreys who is going to sing Mass but say I go to break Bread it might come to cost him his Life 2. Arg. If the Bread be converted into the real Body of Christ the Wine is also converted into the real Blood of Christ But the Wine is not transubstantiated into his Blood Therefore neither is the Bread transubstantiated into his Body For the Confirmation of this Argument this only is to be proved That there is no Transubstantiation of the Cup or Wine For they grant that if both be not neither of them is transubstantiated Now in order to a clearing of this That there is no Transubstantiation of the Wine I shall I. Lay the Words of Institution together as they are recorded by three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul. II. Shew how the Papists would prove Transubstantiation from them III. Shew that there is no such Transubstantiation I. The Words of Institution Mat. 26.28 This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Mark 14.24 This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many Luke 22.20 This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. II. From this Institution they argue for the Transubstantiation of the Cup. 1. In General on this Principle that we must keep unto the literal Signification of the Words and take them as they sound Two things they say necessitate this 1. The Nature of a Sacrament And 2. The quality of a Testament The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Testament and nothing ought to be expressed in more plain and naked Terms than these that all Obscurity and Ambiguity may be prevented For if Sacramental or Testamentary Terms be improper and figurative then their Signification is uncertain and consequently the Sacrament or Testament delivered in such Terms is vain and uncertain This
they are thus deceived when and while they are in every respect best disposed and fitted for performance of their proper Acts. And further that they are deceived after this manner about a most sensible Object and in a matter wherein it is as hard to think how they should be thus universally deceived as in any one thing whatsoever that is the Object of Sense And now if this be once granted it takes away and quite overthrows all certainty of Sense and consequently all certainty of Faith and Belief in the main Points of Religion as of our Saviour's Person Doctrine Miracles Passion Resurrection Ascension And so undermines the very Foundation and shakes the chief Pillars of Christianity 2. It is against Reason Reason goes beyond Sense but this Transubstantiation goes beyond Reason and not only beyond Reason but against Reason And is contrary to the broadest Light of Reason For Transubstantiation 1. Makes the Body of Christ to be in Heaven on the Earth and in Millions of places of the Earth at one and the self-same Time. Non potest unum corpus esse localiter in duobus locis quia ita idem a seipso divideretur Thom. part 4. dist 44. q. 2. Art. 2. Now this is against Reason Reason dictates this that all corporal Substances or Bodies are in loco circumscriptivè circumscribed in a certain Place and cannot be in more than one at one time It is wholly inconsistent with Reason to say that the same Man is at London and at Rome sitting in his House and walking in his Fields at the same time And is it not as absurd to say that the Body of Christ is locally in Heaven and yet at the same time really substantially and locally in a thousand thousand different and distinct places of the Earth 2. Gives a nutritive vertue unto meer Accidents That the Elements received in the Sacrament do nourish the Bodies of the Communicants cannot be denied Now according to their Doctrine there remains no Substance of Bread and Wine but the Accidents only as length breadth thickness whiteness redness And therefore it must be these that refresh and nourish But what can be more absurd and irrational than such a Fancy Can a Body receive nourishment from Length and Colour and other bare Accidents This is above Reason Yet if Transubstantiation be true this whatever Reason may suggest to the contrary is most true The Monk Amonius lib. 5. de gestù Franc. cap. 29. reports that Ludovicus Pius received nothing but the Eucharist for 40 Days together And other Authors among them have reported that they have had some Holy Men who would feed upon nothing but the Eucharist and so according to their Opinion lived on meer Accidents And thus all the Romanists may live on bare Accidents For as Tolet de instruct Sacerd. l. 2. c. 25. a Priest may transubstantiate at once a whole Pantrey of Bread and a whole Cellar of Wine 3. Sets up the Accidents of Bread as Colour Figure Smell Taste without any Subject or Body in which they subsist They affirm that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is totally avoided yet confess that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine remain such as Whiteness Redness Moisture Now where or in what Subject do these Accidents subsist In the Elements This cannot be for the Elements are quite annihilated or voided at least Do they exist in the Body of Christ By no means this they all deny Where then Why certainly no where Here is color nihil coloratum sapor nihil saporatum quantitus nihil quantum qualitas nihil quale Whiteness and nothing white Savour and nothing that savoureth Length and nothing long Breadth and nothing broad Now this is such Divinity as crosses Reason and offers violence to Nature For accidens est ens in alio Accedentis esse est in esse i. e. esse in subjecto The very Being of an Accident consisteth in its existing in a Substance or Subject and it can be no longer than its Subject is in being 4. Makes that which is plain Bread to be no Bread. This again puts Reason to a Nonplus to conceive how a Wafer that hath the form of Bread the quantity of Bread the whiteness of Bread the smell of Bread and the taste of Bread should yet be no Bread but very Flesh and a whole Human Body This amuseth Reason and is so contrary to it that every Christian who will but make use of his Reason must say as Thomas Spurdance the Martyr when the Chancellor of Norwich asked him Do'st thou not believe that after the Words of Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar there is the same Body of Christ as was born of the Virgin Mary No said Spurdance for that Body consisted of Flesh Blood and Bones and here is no such thing Thus Transubstantiation is against Reason and brings in such things to be received as no Man can receive without doing open violence to his Reason 3. It is against Faith. As Reason goes beyond Sense so Faith goes beyond Reason and sees farther than Reason can reach when most elevated But Transubstantiation outgoes them all Sense cannot reach it Reason cannot overtake it Faith cannot fathom it It imposes things upon the Belief of Men that are not only very hard to be believed but things that are wholly incredible past Credit or Belief It is altogether incredible 1. That a Priest can make a Body that was made and existent long before he himself had any Being Can make the Body of Christ now in a Wafer which was made more than sixteen hundred Years agoe in the Womb of the Virgin. Can a Father beget a Son that is already begotten and born Can a Man that was born at London 40 50 or 60 Years since be born to Day or to Morrow at Lancaster Who can believe this For as one says factum facere factum intectum facere are equally both incredible and impossible 2. That our Saviour had two Bodies two contrary Bodies and both these at one and the same Time. Is not this incredible Yet whosoever will believe Transubstantiation must believe this Believe that when he instituted and celebrated his last Supper with the Disciples he had two Bodies 1. One speaking moving acting in blessing breaking and giving the Bread another without motion or action 2. One visible and palpable another altogether invisible and hidden under the forms of Bread and Wine 3. One mortal weak and ready to be crucified another impassible and obnoxious to no Suffering 4. One sitting at the Table among the Disciples another at the same time in the Mouths and Stomachs of the Disciples 5. One Body breaking another Body and dividing it among them or rather one giving another whole and entire Body to every one of them Are not all these hard things Is it not past Belief that Christ whole Christ should be eaten by every one of them and yet sit among them That he
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
spiritual but to chimerical or phantastical nor intending his presence in the Elements as contained in them but to the Faith of the Receiver who hath Vnion with him c. Vines on the Sacrament p. 118. We hold that the Body and Blood of Christ is really that is truly exhibited and present to the Faith of the Receiver and we might express the real Presence as real is opposed to imaginary or chimerical were it not for Caption and Misunderstanding None of ours deny the Body of Christ to be really the spiritually eaten by a Believer c. Id. 125. We do positively and constantly assert and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Sacrament in the following Sense that is that Christ is present not only in regard of 1. His Divinity or Divine Nature which is in all Places and indistantly present with every Being 2. His Spirit by whose Operation the Benefits of Christ are applied to Believers 3. Our Commemoration of him and shewing forth of his Death in this Action As things that are past and absent are made in a sort present to us by a Solemn Commemoration 4. Our Meditations and Contemplations of him in this Action As Contemplation brings the Object of it before the Eyes of the Mind and presents it to them 5. Our Affections that are or should be here fixed upon him The Heart and Affections fixing upon an Object make it present bring it to have a kind of Being with them The Apostle Paul Phil. 1.7 tells the Philippians that he had them in his Heart Tho in regard of his Personal Presence he was at a great distance from them yet in regard of his dear Affection unto them they were in his very Heart And so in this Ordinance Jesus Christ and the Affections of true Christians do meet I add that 6. The Body and Blood of Christ are present yet not 1st Locally per indistantium as included in or affixed to the Elements as the Wine is in the Cup. In this Sense they are as far distant from the Elements as the place where the Sacrament is celebrated is distant from Heaven Nor 2dly Substantially or Corporally This follows on the former The Signs are with us but the Substance is in Heaven But they are thus truly and really present 1. Sacramentally and Symbolically in the sacred Signs and Symbols of them His real Body is in Heaven but we have his representative Body present with us in the Sacrament Here the corporal Signs of it are corporally present 2. Vertually in their Vertue and Efficacy or by a Vertual Presence and an Efficacious Influence as the Body of the Sun is present not only upon the Surface but in the Bowels of the Earth Deut. 33.14 Thus there is a true and real Vertue Power and Efficacy of his Body and Blood really present Yea the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Blood the benefits of his Passion are no less present and communicated to Believers than if he were locally present In actione Coenae praesens est Dominus non in Signo nec pani participato sed cordi participantis non exhibitione carnis vel animae suae sed exhibitione spiritus gratiae quae non ore excipiantur sed fide cujus est id sibi praesens reddere quod apprehendit ut oculus quod videt Spanh Dub. Evang. part 3. Dub. 143. p. 839. The Presence with or under the Elements is one thing and the presence to the Soul and Faith of a Believer is another Vines 125. 3. Spiritually that is not in respect of their Essence but of our perceiving and receiving of them and their Vertue and Efficacy in nourishing us The Spirits or Souls of Believers by Faith only do receive them and by them through the Efficacy of the Holy Spirit are truly and really nourished to Spiritual and Eternal Life Thus the Body and Blood of Christ are really present Non pani ori sed fidei cordi credentium As August Nos Christum in Coelis sedentem manu contrecture non possumus sed Christum fide contingere possumus Et haec praesentiae spiritualis corporis Christi est verissima realissima Wend. Theol. 516. And thus we assert and believe that the Body of Christ is truly and really present in this threefold Sense but we do utterly disown and detest this real or corporal Presence of the Papists in or under the Signs which is the Daughter of Transubstantiation a Daughter like her Mother i. e. a very Monster repugnant to the nature of a Sacrament the end of the Lord's Supper to the nature of a true Human Body to the state of Christ's glorious Body to the Ascension of Christ to Heaven and as is before shewed to the express Testimony of the Scriptures And this is the First-born of Transubstantiation and I may say of it as the Martyr Elizabeth Folks said who when asked Whether she believed the Presence of Christ's Body to be in the Sacrament substantially and really or no answered That she believed it was a substantial Lye and a real Lye. Or as Thomas Watts Martyr who being examined by Bishop Bonner about the Sacrament of the Altar told him That he believed Christ's Body to be in Heaven and no where else and that he would never believe that it was in the Sacrament And that the Mass was abominable Idolatry Secondly The Multipresence or manifold Presence of Christ's Body This is another Birth of Transubstantiation and it is fruitful this way to a Wonder yea to a Miracle It is recorded in Story as a thing that was very monstrous and miraculous that Margaret of Holland Countess of Hausburg brought forth 364 Children at one Birth Belg. Com. Wealth p. 127. But this was a sorry thing to be stranged at Behold here Transubstantiation bringing forth ten times so many Christs on a Day and Day after Day without any intermission for one Day in a whole Year By this miraculous power of Transubstantiation and the wonderful fecundity of her Womb it comes to pass 1. That Christ is not only in Heaven but upon the Earth at the same time 2. That he is not only both in Heaven and Earth but also in many parts and places of the Earth at the same time In England France Spain Italy America and no Body knows in how many places at once Yea 3. That he is in several Parts and Corners of the same Church at once in one Man's Hand in another Man's Mouth in a third Man's Pyx and Pocket c. And in their private Masses which are celebrated in several Corners of the same Church and the Body of Christ created in six or seven Corners at once Nay 4. That he is in several parts of the same Host at once For they tell us in plain English and without any Circumlocution that he is whole in every Crumb and Point of the Host and in every Drop of the Wine And if so who can tell
A PLAIN REPRESENTATION OF Transubstantiation As it is received in the Church of Rome WITH The Sandy FOUNDATIONS it is built upon and the ARGUMENTS that do clearly evert and overturn it By a Countrey Divine Transubstantiation or the Change of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy Writ But it is repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture overthroweth the Nature of a Sacrament and hath given occasion to many Superstitions Articles of the Church of England Art. 28. Nullum hic errori velúm nullus ignorantiae pratextus neque enim vel vereum Dei praeit vel ratio vel sensus errori ac ignorantiae tum demum aliquid datur ubi obscuritas reperitur sive ex parte objecti sive ex parte medii aut modi illud cognoscendi non veto ubi vitium in subjecto tantum idque voluntarium ac affectatum Spanhem â—ub Evang. Part. 2. Dub. 50. p. 450. London Printed for J. Johnson 1687. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER IT 's an odd Story that some tell us concerning the Py'd Piper of Halberstadt who being denied the Reward he was promised for drowning those Rats wherewith they were much troubled Tuned his Pipes a second Time and draw all the Children in the Town after him till he had brought them to a Hill which opening it self to receive them presently closed upon them again Many of the Romish Communion have of late been blowing their Pipes in our Streets and 't is not much to be admired at that some Vermin Men of flagitious Lives and some Children in Understanding have been tripping and dancing after them to the mighty danger if not to the eternal ruine of their Souls Our Enemies have been busily sowing their Tares and no doubt had the good Men but slept they would have reaped a much larger Harvest But the Orthodox and Learned Clergy of our City have stood upon their Watch have behaved themselves faithfully towards God and the Souls of Men have so convincingly answered and confuted every Book that hath crawl'd out against our Religion that if Men can but read and understand they have sufficient Antidotes against this Poyson laid before them The Truth of it is all the Arguments our Adversaries have produced are but like the Gibeonites old Shoes only they have new vampt them up again The same Souldiers that have been so often beaten out of the Field only they have new Cloath'd ' em What Success Dragooning hath had in our Neighbouring Kingdom is well known but certainly by their arguing their Priests are like to prevail but little among Us. Indeed 't is an extravagant and most unaccountable thing that they should undertake to perswade any to go over to their Communion For they cannot offer at this without pretending to give Men some good Reason for so doing And yet no Man can forsake our Church and enter into theirs but he must renounce his Reason in order to it For what can be more contradictory to the Reason as well as the Senses of all Mankind than that monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Subject of this following Discourse 'T is an Argument indeed that hath been frequently treated upon both formerly and of late in our own Language as well as in others to very good Purpose This Dagon which some are so zealously setting up again hath been often beaten down I hope it will not be thought a needless thing to give it a Few Blows more utterly to dash the Stump of this Idol in pieces That is the end of publishing the following Treatise the Author whereof I need not tell thee is a Learned Man the Work it self if thou peruse it will prove that All that I shall say concerning him is this that his Modesty is proportionable to his Learning he lives retired far from the Noise of the World and that he cannot be a greater Stranger to thee than he is to this present publishing of his Writings on this Subject The Manuscript was put into my Hands by a Friend of his and upon the perusal of it judging it to be an excellent Piece I was resolved that it should not continue in the same Retiredness and Obscurity as its Author does And in a time of common Danger when we are invaded by a formidable Enemy I see no reason why Books as well as Men should not be pressed and forced into the Field I thought it also very hard that our learned Clergy here in the City should always be upon Duty and not he a little relieved by some Forces drawn out of the Country However I was not willing to go on my own Head but communicated these Papers to a very learned Person in this City who encouraged me to pursue my Design by his high Approbation of it And indeed tho so many have bater'd this most absurd Article of the Romish Faith yet it can hardly be too ill used 'T is a Point that hath cost many thousand Lives and therefore it deserves no Mercy nor Pity seeing it hath been the occasion of so much Bloodshed and Cruelty Nay not only have Multitudes suffered a Temporal Death because they could not swallow this extravagant Doctrine but Holy Church hath also sentenced them to Eternal Damnation for it And yet as much pains as they take to cram it down our Throats and to impose the Belief of it upon us with such severe Methods and such terrible Threatnings I am perswaded they would be glad to be fairly rid of it themselves if they did but know how But this Brat they cannot drop because of their pretence to Infallibility For there is no one Doctrine of their whole Faith equally absurd and ridiculous with this in the Apprehensions of all Men none which they are so hard put to to defend and none that more exposes them to the Scorn and Contempt of the Infidel Nations as well as that of the Reformed Churches The severe Censure of Avertoes Perr de l' Euch. l. 3. c. 29. Sr. Ed. Sands Europae Specul p. 230. Edit 1629. Orat. 3. c. 25. p. 18 19. cited by Daillâ— against Adam and Cottiby pt 1. p. 116. related by Cardinal Perron himself on the Credit of Sarga a Jesuit is well known that he never found a worse or a more sottish Sect than that of the Christians who eat the God whom they worship This is a thing that is matter of great Scandal to the Jews A thing as one saith that had reason enough to know which they can at no hand digest And Joseph Albon a Spanish Jew in his Book entituled Ikkarim sets forth the many Absurdities of it and in the close of all saith they are things as can neither be comprehended by the Mind nor expressed with the Tongue nor endured by the Ear they are contrary to the Understanding and Sense and consequently cannot be believed nor have any room among the Articles of Faith. Nor do the Mahometans come behind the