of me farther shew that he meant that Body which was shortly to be given or crucified for them It being the Lord's Death as St. Paul himself interprets it (w) 1 Cor. 11.26 that they were to shew forth thereby and consequently that they were to do what they were now taught in remembrance of him and that And indeed as I do not therefore see how we can honestly understand those words my Body of any other than that Body which he now carried about him and was shortly after to offer So I am farther confirm'd in it by the evil consequences of a figurative interpretation of them which are these two especially First that we shall thereby leave no clear account in them nor indeed in any of the words of the Institution of the thing signified by the Sacrament and which all Men acknowledge to be the Crucified Body of Christ And secondly that we shall give more countenance than we are willing to do to that propitiatory Sacrifice which the Romanists advance in this affair For if by the words my Body be meant the memorial of Christ's Body I do not see why we should not in like manner attribute to that memorial as the Romanists do its being given or broken for us and for our Salvation and consequently make it a propitiatory Sacrifice for us Let it therefore be allow'd or at least till we see better reason to the contrary that as by the word This we ought to understand This Bread even the Bread which our Saviour gave to his Disciples so we ought in like manner to understand by the words my Body my Crucified one that which I now carry about me and am shortly after to offer up Which will consequently leave nothing more to enquire than what our Saviour meant by the word Is and how the Bread before spoken was and is that Body of Christ And here I look for no other than that those with whom we have to do should triumph wonderfully as supposing they have in part at least gain'd their purpose The Romanists by allowing in this Sacrament the crucified Body of Christ the Lutherans by our allowing of that and of the Bread But with how little reason will appear if together with us they will enquire into the word Is and how that whereof our Saviour spake was and is that Body of Christ For the better understanding whereof I will shew 1. That the word Is is oftentimes taken figuratively 2. That it ought to be so taken here 3. What it imports in that figurative interpretation of it 1. That the word Is is many times figuratively taken is evident from what is said concerning the seven Kine and seven Ears (x) Gen. 41.26 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Pharaoh's dream being seven Years and the Bones in the Vision of Ezekiel (y) Ezek. 37.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the whole House of Israel And that I may not now name any more concerning the Sower that sowed the good seed in a Parable of our Saviour being * Mat. 13.37 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Son of Man the Field the World the good Seed the Children of the Kingdom and the like These things as they are link'd together by the words Is and Are according to their respective number as This and my Body are So by all Men understood not literally but figuratively and such as rather signified and represented the things they are said to be than were in propriety of nature such Which suppos'd the same word here may be taken in the like sense and we therefore under no necessity of allowing the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ or the Consubstantiation of the Body of Christ with it 2. But it may be though the word Is may sometime be taken figuratively yet there is no reason for taking it so here or at least no necessity for it Therefore enquire we in the next place whether it ought to be so taken here or rather because I have already undertaken to demonstrate it endeavour to shew that it ought Which I shall make it my business to evince First from the impossibility of the Proposition's being true if it be taken in the literal sense Secondly from the sutableness of the figurative sense to the nature of that which is the subject matter of it Thirdly from the fitness of the word Is to express it That the Proposition cannot be true if the word Is be taken in the literal sense is evident from a known rule of Logick and Reason even that two disparates such as Bread and a humane Body are cannot properly be predicated of one another For neither can Bread continuing such be a humane Body any more than it can be a Stone or a Serpent or any thing else Or than a Mouse can be a Lion or Elephant or the like Which is so true and confess'd that they who stand for the proper and literal signification of the words do not only some of them acknowledg it in express terms but indeed also both Romanists and Lutherans offer a greater violence to them for the avoiding of such an absurdity The one by denying the word This to signifie This Bread though that as was before said were the only thing before spoken of and the thing too that was given to the Disciples to eat upon the pronouncing of it The other by representing the sense of it as being rather in this or under this Bread is my Body than This is my body as the words import But beside that the Proposition cannot be true if the word Is be taken in the literal sense and therefore of necessity to have a figurative one assigned to it The figurative sense is extremely sutable to the nature of that which is the subject matter of it For what is it as was before observ'd that our Saviour affirmed to be his Body but that Bread which he had before taken and blessed and broken As that too not considered in its own natural being or use but as a Sacrament or sacred sign of something else and particularly of the Body of Christ Now what sense where there is any doubt of the meaning of a Proposition concerning that can be more sutable to it than a figurative one What more easy or more adapted to the nature of it And if there be none what more reasonable to be pitch'd upon or indeed more necessary to be affixed to it The sense of words being no doubt to be fitted to the nature of those things which they are employed by the speaker thereof to denote But that which will put the thing in controversie yet more out of doubt at least among unprejudiced Men is the fitness of the word Is to express that figurative sense which we have affixed to it For be it that the word Is denotes essence or being which is the utmost that can be made of it by those who are for the proper signification of it and the
in the Eucharist yet they specifie nothing as to the modus of it and much less intimate any thing concerning their being under the Species thereof That that Body and Blood which is the fourth Capital Assertion in this Matter are truly really and substantially under the Sacramental Species shewn to be as groundless and Evidence made of the contrary by such Arguments from Sense and Reason as are moreover confirmed to us by the Authority of Revelation Some brief Reflections in the close upon the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament and more large ones upon what the Romanists advance concerning the real eating of him in it Where is shewn that that which they call a real eating is a very improper one that it is however of no necessity or use toward our spiritual nourishment by him and not only no way confirm'd by the discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of St. John's Gospel but abundantly confuted by it BUT because whatever Sacramental Relations our Church may content it self with yet it is certain that that which calls it self Catholick hath advanc'd one of a far different nature and those of Luther's Institution another before I pass any farther I will examine both the one and the other the grounds upon which they are built and the supposed Reasonableness thereof That which I intend to examine here is the relation which the Church of Rome advanceth by which as the Council of Trent * Sess 13. c. 4. instructeth us the whole substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood There remaining no more after that †Can. 2. of the Bread and Wine saving only the Species thereof and the Body and Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity coming in the place of those Elements and truly really and substantially * Can. 1.3 contained under the Species of them By which means the same Christ comes to be worshipped with divine Worship in the Sacrament of the Eucharist (a) Can. 6. and to be really (b) Can. 8. eaten in it as well as either Spiritually or Sacramentally Now as such Assertions as these had need to be well prov'd because apparently contrary to Sense and Reason So especially such of them as are the Foundations of Transubstantiation which are these following ones 1. That the whole substance of the Bread is changed into the substance of Christ's Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood 2. That those Substances of Bread and Wine are so changed into the substances of Christ's Body and Blood as to retain nothing of what they were before save only the Species thereof 3. That the true Body and true Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity are under the Species of those Elements 4. That they are truly really and substantially contain'd in or under them Which four Assertions I will consider in their order and after I have examin'd the grounds upon which they stand oppose proper Arguments to them 1. That which is first to be consider'd is that the whole substance of the Bread is chang'd into the substance of Christ's Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood An Assertion which though it require as substantial a Proof yet hath nothing of moment to support it whether as to the Possibility or actual Existence of it For though the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament make mention of substantial changes and from which therefore we may infer a Possibility of the like For thus we read of Moses's Rod being changed by the Divine Power (c) Exod. 4.3 into a Serpent and from a Serpent again (d) Exod. 4.4 into a Rod of Lot's Wife being turn'd (e) Gen. 19.26 into a Pillar of Salt and of Water (f) Joh. 2.9 into Wine Yet is there no appearance of their being chang'd into things that had an actual Existence at the instant when they were chang'd into them which is the change that Transubstantiation imports If there be any change of that Nature to make out the Possibility of this it must be that which is made of the Nourishment we receive into the substance of our Body and Blood But beside that this is a change by augmentation and must consequently be either preceded by an impairing of Christ's glorious Body which is not so consistent with that estate or make it in time grow into a monstrous one It is a change which will not do the Business of Transubstantiation even to bring whole and entire Christ (g) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. cap. 3. under either Species A change by augmentation being a change of the Object of it not into the whole substance of that into which it is chang'd but only into a part of it But it may be there is better proof of the actual being of the change we speak of than there is in any thing else of the possibility thereof As indeed such a stupendous change as this ought to be without Example Be it so But let us at least see so clear and express a Proof that our Faith may acquiesce in it if our Reason cannot let us see it affirm'd by him to whom so great a change is ascrib'd And neither are we without one if the words This is my Body and This is my Blood may pass for such a Proof as they have been hitherto represented to us I will not now say because I have elsewhere shewn it (h) Parts 3-8 that there is much more reason to believe that they ought to be figuratively taken and cannot therefore be any ground for such a change as is sought to be established by them I shall choose rather for once to allow that they may be literally taken and leave it to those that can to inferr such a change from them For whether by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Bread before spoken of As indeed how the change of the substance of the Bread into the substance of Christ's Body can be proved from those words which profess not to speak of that Bread is as hard to conceive as Transubstantiation it self But whether I say be thereby meant the Bread before spoken of or The thing which I now give you there is no appearance in the proposition of any substantial change and much less of such a substantial change as is intended to be inferred from them All that the words profess to say supposing them to mean Bread by the Particle This is that one thing is the other but in what manner or by what kind of change they do not in the least pretend to affirm And if the Text do not determine either where is that clear and express proof of such a substantial change as they profess to speak of Or where our either stupidity or infidelity for not being convinced by it But it
to his Disciples to prove the Body in which he appeared to them to be a real Body and not a Spirit under the appearances of one For handle me saith he * Luk. 24.39 and see For a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have For there as well as we here our Saviour appeal'd to the Senses of his Disciples for the reality and substantialness of that Body of his which then presented it self to their Eyes And there too as well as we do here he appeal'd to the Testimony of the same Senses that it was not a thing different from a body even a Spirit Which last particular is the more to be taken notice of as because according to that the Testimony of Sense may be a sufficient Evidence of the not being of a thing that appears not as well as of the being of a thing that doth So because as the Romanists order the matter concerning the glorified Body of Christ in the Sacrament there is no material difference if any at all between that glorified Body of his and what our Saviour in the place before quoted calls a Spirit They representing that Body as present in an invisible and impalpable manner which is the very presence of a Spirit By the same reason therefore that our Saviour might argue from his own falling under their Eye and Touch that that substance wherein he presented himself to them was a Body and not a Spirit By the same reason may we argue that that which our Senses assure us to be Bread is really such and not such a Body as according to the Romanists is an invisible and impalpable one and so far forth of the nature of a Spirit Of the same force as well as nature I judge the Arguments which Reason offers against the substantial Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament and particularly that which it offers to us from the impossibility of a Body's being in so many places at once as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation obligeth us to believe concerning the Body of Christ For what other is that Argument which the Angels offer'd to the Women (x) Mat. 28.6 that sought Christ in the Grave after he was risen from it He is not here for he is risen as he said Come see the place where the Lord lay For by the same reason that Christ's Body could not be in the Grave because he was risen and departed from it By the same reason it cannot be in this or that particular place on Earth now it is departed from the whole of it to Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God there And I must needs say I could not therefore but wonder when I read in the Council of Trent (y) Sess 13. cap. 1. that they were things no way repugnant to each other for our Saviour to sit always at the right hand of the Father in Heaven after a natural manner of existing and yet in many other places be sacramentally present to us by his substance For as they thereby sufficiently intimate that even the glorified Body of our Saviour cannot be in Heaven and here after its natural manner of existing So setting aside the disguise of the word Sacramentally that Council says nothing at all to hinder our belief of its falling into that very absurdity it self For understanding by Sacramentally no other than substantially and which accordingly they just before express by the same term as well as in other places (z) Ib. Can. 1. of that Session they must consequently because it is a corporeal substance whereof they speak be thought to mean corporally also which is certainly its natural manner of existing For if to be substantially present be no other than to be present after the manner of a substance to be substantially present when applied to such or such a sort of substance must be to be present after the manner of such or such a substance and consequently if we speak of a corporeal substance to be coporally present or after the manner of a Body and not after the manner of a Spirit These four Capital Assertions being thus destroy'd and shewn to be both without Reason and against it we shall not need to concern our selves much about the other two as being only the Consectaries thereof and therefore falling together with them For if the Body and Blood of Christ be not substantially in the Eucharist there can be no ground even in the opinion of the Romanists for worshipping Christ with Divine Worship in it And there can be as little Pretence for his being really eaten in it as well as spiritually and sacramentally Only because these two Assertions are as much stood upon as any of the other and the former is also of pernicious consequence I think it not amiss to say somewhat to each of them and first to the worshipping Christ with Divine Worship in it And here in the first place I cannot but observe that however the Tridentine Fathers may in some places seem to confine this Divine Worship to Christ as present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For so they do both in the Reason they * Sess 13. cap. 5. Nam illum eundem deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus quem pater aeternus in orbem introducens c. give of the Divine Worship of the Host and in the Canon †Can. 6. Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum c. non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum c. they make against those that shall deny it yet do they also extend it to that Sacrament in which they suppose him to be present and as we should therefore think are guilty of gross Idolatry in it though Christ should be allow'd to be worshipp'd with Divine Worship in it For as the title of that Chapter * Cap. 5. De cultu veneratione huic sanctissimo Sacramento exhibenda which professeth to intreat of this Matter is concerning the Worship and Veneration which is to be exhibited to this most holy Sacrament So the Chapter it self begins with these express words (a) Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ semper recepto latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quòd fuerit à Christo domino ut sumatur institutum There is therefore no place for doubt but that all Christ's faithful ones after the manner always receiv'd in the Catholick Church ought with Veneration to exhibit to this most holy Sacrament that Worship of Latria which is owing to the true God For neither is it therefore the less to be worshipped because it was instituted by Christ our Lord to be receiv'd For can there be any thing more plain especially when the very next words (b) Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem
be preferr'd before the figurative willingly allowd But that no exception ought to be made unless where the Scripture it self obligeth us to depart from the literal sense shewn to be neither true in it self nor pertinent to the present Texts because there is enough in the words that follow them to oblige us to preferr the figurative sense before it The Lutherans special Arguments next brought under Consideration and First that which is drawn from the supposed newness and strangeness of the Christian Sacraments at the first and which consequently requir'd that they should be deliver'd in proper and literal Expressions as without which otherwise there could have been no certain knowledge of them Where is shewn that the Christian Sacraments were neither such new and strange things at the first Institution of them as is pretended There having been the like under the Old Testament nor under any necessity if they had been such of being delivered in literal and proper Expressions because figurative Expressions with a Key to open them might have sufficiently declar'd the nature of them What is urg'd in the second place from the nature of a Testament under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20 to have been instituted shewn to be of as little force Partly because it is justly questionable whether what we there render Testament ought not rather to be render'd a Covenant and partly because even Civil Testaments are shewn to admit of figurative Expressions A short Answer made to what is alledg'd in the third and fourth place from the Majesty of him that instituted this Sacrament and from the supposed Conformity there is between the several Evangelists and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in question And a more full one to what is offer'd in the fifth place to shew the absurdity of a figurative Sense from the no place there is for it either in the Subject Predicate or Copula The Copula or the word Is thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in and answer made to what is objected against it from the Rules of Logick and from the Scripture That the literal Sense is not as is pretended in the sixth Argument the only one that can quiet the Mind or secure the Conscience briefly shewn And Enquiry next made whether though the literal Sense of the words should be allow'd Consubstantiation could be inferred from them Which that it cannot is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This to denote that complexum quid which Consubstantiation advanceth IF Transubstantiation be a hard word and such as will not easily down with the Romanists themselves That which the generality of Men call Consubstantiation but the Lutherans themselves †Confess August Art 10. Cons Cassand ad dict Art a true real and substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood will be found to be of no very easie digestion by those that shall take the pains to consider it For though it doth not pretend to annihilate or transform the Sacramental Elements and therefore neither offer that violence to our Senses and the Scripture which Transubstantiation doth Yet which is hard enough to believe it professeth to teach * Gerhard Loc. Commun Tract de Sacr. Caenâ cap. 10. that the Body of Christ is so united to the blessed Bread and the Blood of Christ to the blessed Wine that together with that Bread we receive and eat the Body of Christ by one Sacramental Manducation and together with that Wine receive and drink the Blood of Christ by one Sacramental Draught By which means Christ's glorious Body is not only contrary to the nature of a Body made to be present to many places at once even to Heaven and as many other as this holy Sacrament is celebrated in but for ought that I can discern jumbled together into one Physical Mass with those Sacramental Elements to which it is affirmed to be united which is that Consubstantiation which they seem so desirous to avoid This Union as it is in their own opinion an union of Substances and of corporeal Substances also So so strait a one as to occasion their own affirming that the Body and Blood of Christ are given in with and under their respective Elements which how they should be without the former Consubstantiation is not easie to imagine Now as this opinion of the Lutherans is founded by themselves upon the literal sense of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood and must therefore stand or fall with it So I shall therefore think it enough to enquire 1. Whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense 2. Whether supposing that they should be so understood that which we call Consubstantiation can be inferred from them 1. That the words This is my Body and This is my Blood Vid. Gerhard ubi supra ought to be taken in the literal sense is affirmed by the Lutherans as well as by the Romanists and both general and special Arguments alledged for it Whereof the former are that the literal sense because the first and most natural is generally to be prefer'd before the figurative one That this ought especially to be observ'd in the Interpretation of the Scripture unless the Scripture it self oblige us to depart from it but most of all in divine Precepts Promises and Articles of Faith Partly because of the danger there may be of running into great errours if the literal sense should not generally be adhered to and partly because it is pretended that there is nothing of the former nature which in some place of Scripture or other is not delivered in plain and literal expressions and by which judgment may be made of what is elsewhere deliver'd in figurative ones And I willingly grant that the literal sense because the first and most natural is generally to be prefer'd before the figurative And I grant too that this ought especially to be observ'd in the Interpretation of the Scripture But that no exception ought to be made from this general rule unless the Scripture it self oblige us to depart from the literal sense is a thing I see no reason for where the matter intreated of is a proper matter of Reason or of that law of Nature which is conducted by it Partly because in such a case Reason and Nature may be presum'd to be competent judges of the thing intreated of and consequently may prescribe against the literal sense of such expressions as shall be found to be manifestly contrary to the dictates of it And partly because the great design of Scripture being to direct us in supernatural things it may well enough be presum'd to leave things of the former nature to be judg'd of for the main by that Reason to whose cognisance they do belong Thus for instance because the preservation of those natures which God hath given us is a thing proper enough for the cognisance of
what he did by Authority from the Father to this Element of Bread for the Communion of his Body to his Disciples and Followers This as it was by the Institution it self to be a means of the Communion of his Body and so much the more comfortable one too because it was also manifest to their Senses So being a like object of thankfulness to him who had espous'd his Disciples interest as his own and to those Disciples that were to be profited by it and consequently not to be thought to have been forgotten by him These two great Benefits I think and I suppose not without reason to have been the Benefits our Saviour gave Thanks for and possibly also such Benefits as were preparatory to our Saviour's Death and particularly his Conception and Birth But other Benefits than those I know no ground to believe and much less the creation of this and other the Fruits of the Earth and dispensing them to us by his Providence As because there is not the least ground in the Institution for such a Thanksgiving unto God So because this and the other Element of the Lord's Supper were appointed not for corporal but spiritual sustenance and to which therefore our Saviour's Thankssgiving and ours may seem more properly to referr and because too there is appearance enough from what was before said from St. Luke (d) Luke 22.17 concerning our Saviour's taking a Cup of Wine giving Thanks and distributing it among his Disciples immediately before the Institution of this Sacrament that he satisfied the Jewish Eucharist before even that which had for its end the giving Thanks to God for earthly Benefits and particularly for the means of our Repast If the Antients as it appears they did (e) Part 1. represented this Sacrament as an Eucharist for the Fruits of the Earth as well as for the Blessing of our Redemption and accordingly premis'd such kind of Thanksgivings for it I am apt to think it proceeded at first from its being accompanied or rather immediately preceded as that which our Saviour first celebrated was by the Eucharist of the Jews And when that Eucharist was laid aside from a Willingness in the Christians that followed them to conform their own Eucharist so far to that of the Jews so the better to gain them to their Religion or oblige them to keep closely to it Till at length what was done only out of compliance with the Jews came to be look'd upon as a necessary part of the Christian Eucharist and Men thought themselves obliged to give Thanks to God in it for the Fruits of the Earth as well as for the Blessing of our Redemption Which Opinion the Antients were the more easily perswaded into because Christianity †1 Tim. 4.4 as well as Judaism taught them before their several Repasts to give God Thanks for the Matter of them and so sanctifie the Use thereof unto themselves For that might tempt them farther to believe that our Saviour premis'd such a Thanksgiving to his Eucharist and consequently thereto that we ought to do the like If any Man can give a fairer account of the Antients both Opinion and Practice I who profess my self to have a just regard for them will be glad to receive it and which is more will be as willing to acknowledge my own Errour in the former one But till I see such an account I shall rest satisfied in this and so much the more willingly because they who urge such like Testimonies of the Antients to establish the Sacrifice of the Mass insist as little upon this sort of Thanksgivings as any of the Reformed do 2. But to return to that from which I have diverted even to that Eucharist or Thanksgiving which our Saviour us'd over the Bread of it Where the next thing to be enquir'd into is what Use that Thanksgiving may be supposed to be of to procure the blessing of the Bread For if our Saviour blessed the Bread by the Thankssgiving which he made over it or rather address'd himself to God by Thanksgiving for the blessing of it That Thanksgiving must be suppos'd to be of some use to procure the Divine Blessing on it For the clearing of which Difficulty they who alledge as some do that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Thanksgiving is set to denote Prayer as well as that and so far forth may be of sufficient force to procure the Divine Blessing For what is there that can be suppos'd to be deny'd to Prayer and particularly to the Prayer of him in whom God was well pleased such Men I say alledge that which may perhaps be true and which I shall by and by endeavour to confirm But withall they say that which will not reach the Difficulty nor give any good account of two Evangelists and St. Paul's expressing this Address of Christ to his Father by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving of thanks For whatever else that word may be thought to include in it manifest it is first that Thanksgiving is the primary notion of it and that therefore in it self consider'd of a peculiar use toward the procuring of the Divine Blessing as which otherwise would not have been employ'd to denote the whole Act. As manifest it is secondly that the Blessings * Grot. in Mat. 26.26 of the Jews before and after their Meals were generally Thanksgivings and particularly that Blessing was wherewith the Jews Eucharist was begun and clos'd It is manifest thirdly that Thanksgivings have always had a great part in the consecrating of our Eucharist and is deny'd by no Man that I know of that will allow Prayer to have any part in it Which suppos'd the Question will still return what use they may be supposed to be of toward the procuring of the Divine Blessing and which we must find out some other way to resolve In order whereunto I will consider these Thanksgivings first as to what is common to them with all others and then as to what is peculiar to them as preparatory to our partaking of what we so give Thanks for That which the Thanksgivings of the Eucharist have common to them with all others is that they contain that in them which I have elsewhere (f) Expl. of the Lord's Prayer Discourse 2. Introd shewn makes Prayer it self to be so acceptable even an acknowledgment of our dependance upon God He who thanks God for the Benefits remembred in it or for this sensible conveyance of them as much acknowledging his dependance upon God as he who sues to him for those Benefits or any other And well may that be thought to be of use toward the procuring of the Divine Blessing which is as much an acknowledgment of our dependance upon him as any Prayer whatsoever Of such use are the Thanksgivings of the Eucharist toward the procuring of the Divine Blessing on it when consider'd as to that which is common to them with all others How much more
other words Yet is not that essence or being to be adapted to the nature of that to which it is affixt Now wherein consists the essence or being of such a relative thing as a sacred sign but in the relation which it bears to the thing signified and consequently in its signifying that which it is appointed to mark out And if the essence or being of a sign consists in the relation which it bears to the thing signified may it not as such be said to be that thing which it is intended to signifie For who if ask'd concerning this or that Picture as for instance the Picture of Alexander or Julius Caesar would describe it by a piece of Paper or Cloath or Wood so and so Painted but as such or such a person who did such admirable things in the World Nay who is there that when he sees this or that Picture though he knows them to be but inanimate things doth so much as ask What it is but Who So naturally and almost necessarily do Men take the very being of such a thing to consist in its relation to the person it represents and accordingly do as naturally express themselves in that manner concerning it And if that be the case as to other signs why not in like manner as to this Sacred sign of Christ's Body the Bread Especially if as I shall by and by shew it hath a yet nearer relation to it In order whereunto I will now proceed to shew 3. What the word Is imports in that figurative sense whereof we speak And here in the first place it is easie to observe that the word Is imports that to which it is attributed even the Bread of the Sacrament to be a sign of that Body of Christ which it is affirmed to be Which I do not only affirm upon account of the notion that all Men have of it but upon account of the likeness there is between the Bread broken and the Mortifying of our Saviour's Body and upon account also of the same Body's being affirmed by St. Paul in his History of the Institution to be broken for us There being otherwise no ground for that expression as to the Body of Christ but that the breaking of the Bread was intended to signifie or represent the injury that was offer'd to Christ's Body and consequently that that Bread was so far forth intended as a sign of it Which is no more than the Romanists themselves and particularly Estius have said in this affair and therefore I shall not need to insist upon it I say secondly that as the word Is imports that to which it is attributed to be a sign of Christ's Body so also to be such a sign in particular as was intended to bring Christ's Body and the Crucifixion of it to our own Minds or the Minds of others or in a word to be a memorial of it The former being evident from our Saviour's enjoyning his Disciples presently upon these words to do what he had now taught them in remembrance of himself The latter from St. Paul's telling his Corinthians that as often as they ate that bread and drank that cup they did shew the Lord's death till he came I say thirdly and lastly that the word Is doth likewise import that to which it is attributed to be a means of our partaking of the Body of Christ as well as a sign or a memorial of it Which we shall the less need to doubt when St. Paul (a) 1 Cor. 10.16 doth in express terms represent the Bread which is broken in the Sacrament as the Communion or Communication of the Body of Christ and the Cup of Blessing which is blessed in it as the Communion of his Blood Now if a sign even where it is hardly such may be said to be that which it signifies How much more such a sign as is also by the Institution of Christ a means of its conveyance and of which whosoever doth worthily partake shall as verily partake together with it of the Body of Christ and of the Benefits that accrue to us thereby I may not forget to add what St. Luke and St. Paul have added to the words This is my Body even This is my Body which is given for you as the former which is broken for you as the latter Both to the same purpose though in different expressions even to mark out to us more clearly how we are to consider that Body that is to say as a crucified one The giving of Christ or his Body being sometime express'd by giving him for our sins (b) Gal. 1.4 and at other times by giving him (c) Tit. 2.10 to redeem us from them which we know by the same Scripture to have been compassed by his death As indeed under what other notion can we conceive the giving of his Body when it is not only consider'd apart from his Blood but that Blood afterward affirm'd to be shed for the remission of sins and accordingly so requir'd to be consider'd here The expression of St. Paul which is broken for you is yet more clear because more manifestly pointing out the violence that was offer'd to Christ's Body With this farther advantage as was before said that it doth not obscurely intimate the breaking of the Bread to have been intended to represent what was done unto his Body and under what notion we are to consider it Though to put it farther out of doubt St. Paul after his account of the History of the Institution affirms both the one and the other Element of this Sacrament to relate to our Saviour's Death and consequently to respect his Body as mortist'd as well as his Blood as shed He relling his Corinthians that he that did eat that Bread as well as he that drank that Cup did thereby shew forth the Lord's Death till he came Only if it be enquir'd why our Saviour should even then represent his Body as broken or given when it was not to be so till the day after the Institution of this Sacrament I answer partly because it was very shortly to be so but more especially because he intended what he now enjoyn'd as a prescription for the time after his Death as his willing his Disciples to do this in remembrance of him doth manifestly imply That importing the thing to be remembred to be past and gone as which otherwise could not be capable of being remembred It follows both in St. Luke and St. Paul Do this and Do this in remembrance of me Words which the Romish Church hath pick'd strange matters out of even no less as was before observ'd out of Baronius than the Priesthood of the A postles as which was collated upon them by these words and the Sacrifice of the Mass For then also saith that Author the Apostles when the Lord commanded them to do the very same thing in remembrance of him were made Priests and that very Sacrifice which they should offer was ordain'd By what Alchymie the
receiving God's Creatures of Bread and Wine according to his Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood In fine it gives us to understand * Art of Rel. 28. which is yet more express that to such as rightly worthily and with a true Faith receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the Bread which we break is the partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing a partaking of the Blood of Christ For what more could have been said unless it had made use of that particular Expression which yet it doth use where it declares the general nature of a Sacrament what more I say could have been said to shew that this Sacrament is no naked or ineffectual Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ but such a Sign as is also ordained as a Means whereby we receive the same and so sure and certain a one that if we rightly and worthily receive that Sign we do as verily receive the Body and Blood of Christ as we do the Sacrament thereof How well the Scripture agrees with the Doctrine of our Church in this Particular will not be difficult to shew whether we do consider its making use of the most emphatical Phrase which our Church doth concerning this Sacrament or the Effects which it attributeth to it For it is St. Paul (a) 1 Cor. 10.16 as well as our Church that affirms that the Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ and that the Cup which we bless is the Communion of his Blood Words which considering the place they have in that Chapter from whence they are borrowed cannot admit of a lower sense than that the elements of this Sacrament are at least a Means of that Communion because alledged by him as a proof or at least as an illustration of their really having fellowship with Devils that partook of the Sacrifices that were offer'd to them For if the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament were not a Means as well as a sign of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ Neither could the Gentiles Sacrifices be a Means of their or other Men's Communion with those Devils to whom they were offer'd and therefore neither charge them with any real fellowship with Devils but only with a sign or semblance of it Which how it agrees with St. Paul's charging the partakers of those Sacrifices with having fellowship with Devils as that too upon the account of the Gentiles Sacrificing to Devils and not to God I shall leave all sober Men to judge Such evidence there is from that one place of St. Paul concerning the Lords Supper being a Means as well as a Sign whereby we come to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ And we shall find it no less confirm'd by an effect which the Scripture attributes to one of its Symbols and which is in that place by an usual Synecdoche set to denote the whole Sacrament That I mean where St. Paul affirms (b) 1 Cor. 12.13 that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit For as the foregoing mention of Baptism makes it reasonable to believe that these words ought to be understood of the Cup or Wine of the Lord's Supper So we cannot without great violence to the words understand less by being made to drink into one Spirit than our partaking by Means of that Cup of the Blood of Christ and the Benefits thereof of which the Spirit of God is no doubt one of the principal ones To be made to drink into that Blood or the Spirit of God importing somewhat more even in common understanding than to receive a naked sign of them And though I know that some of the Reformed Churches and particularly those of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius's institution have been charg'd with meaner thoughts concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Yet whosoever shall take the pains to peruse what our Cosins (c) Hist Transubstant Papal cap. 2. hath collected upon this Argument and particularly what he quotes from Bucer (d) ibid. will find that they always thought or at least now do that Christ's true Body and Blood are truly exhibited given and taken together with the visible signs of Bread and Wine as well as signified by them But because the question is not so much at present concerning this Sacrament's being a Means whereby we receive the Body and Blood of Christ as what kind of Means it is how it conveys to us the Body and Blood of Christ and how we receive them by it Therefore enquire we so far as we may what our Church delivers in these particulars and what evidence there is from the Scripture of our Churches Orthodoxy therein Now though we may not perhaps find in any Monument of our Church a distinct and particular Answer to the questions before propos'd Yet we may find that in the eight and twentieth Article of our Church which may serve for a general Answer to them all and for a particular answer too to the last of them The Doctrine thereof being that the Body of Christ and the same mutatis mutandis must be said of his Blood is given taken and eaten in the Supper after an heavenly and spiritual manner only and again that the mean whereby the Body of Christ is receiv'd and taken in the Supper is Faith For if the Body and Blood of Christ be given taken and eaten or drunken in the Supper after a heavenly and spiritual manner only that Supper must so far forth be a means purely heavenly and Spiritual the conveyance thereof of the same heavenly and spiritual nature and the reception of it also And if again the Mean whereby the Body and Blood of Christ are receiv'd and taken in the Supper is Faith then do we in the opinion of our Church receive them by Faith which will serve for a particular answer to the last of the questions propos'd To all which if we add our Churches teaching us to pray to God even in the prayer of Consecration that we receiving the Creatures of Bread and Wine according to our Saviour Jesus Christ's Holy Institution may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood so we shall be able to make out a more particular answer to the questions propos'd and such as we shall find reason enough to allow For it appears from the premisses and particularly from the prayer of Consecration that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is such a spiritual Mean as depends for the force of it not upon any vertue that is infus'd into it and much less upon any natural union there is between that and the Body and Blood of Christ but upon our receiving it on the one hand according to our Saviours Holy Institution and God's bestowing on the other hand Christ's Body and Blood upon such a reception of it It appears therefore that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper
will be said it may be that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially changed into that which it is said to be and therefore if the Bread be Christ's Body it must be substantially chang'd into it To which I answer that they who say that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be do either mean that it cannot be so standing the ordinary Laws of Nature or that it cannot be so even by the extraordinary Power of God If the former of these be their meaning they say nothing that can be of force to perswade that one thing can be another even by being substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be Because standing the ordinary Laws of Nature at the same time any thing is substantially chang'd into another it is no more that which it sometime was and cannot therefore in propriety of speech be said to be that which it is substantially chang'd into On the other side if they who say that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be mean thereby that it cannot be so even by the extraordinary Power of God They do not only take away from themselves the power of pressing upon our Belief the contradictions of Christ's corporal Presence in the Sacrament upon the score of God's extraordinary Power For it should seem by that that there are things to which even an extraordinary Power cannot reach but leave us at liberty where the like impossibilities occurr to order our Interpretations of Scripture accordingly and consequently if the literal sense of a Text lead to them to abdicate that and impose upon it a figurative one Which if we do we shall find a necessity of putting a figurative sense upon those very words which are the subject of the present Consideration For how is it more impossible for God to make Bread continuing Bread to be Christ's Body than it is to make that Body continuing a Body to be circumscrib'd and not circumscrib'd as it must be if it be whole and entire in this or that particular Sacrament and yet at the same time be in ten thousand others and as many more as they shall be pleas'd to consecrate So little reason is there to believe that if by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Bread of the Sacrament any substantial change of it can be inferred from them And there is as little reason to believe it if by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Thing which I now give you For either our Saviour meant the Bread by it and then the former exceptions will recurr or there are no footsteps in the words of any change whatsoever and much less of that substantial change which is endeavour'd to be inferred from them But beside that the change we speak of hath no ground in the former words though they should be literally understood There is enough to oppose against it from other places of Scripture and particularly from those which represent the Bread of the Eucharist as remaining after Consecration Such as they are that mention it as eaten by the Communicants (i) 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and as the Communion (k) 1 Cor. 10.16 of that Body which it was intended as a Symbol of For how is that eaten in the Sacrament which hath not now any existence or how the Communion of Christ's Body which hath no being of its own But it may be for all St. Paul's naming it Bread he meant nothing such but either the Body of Christ under the species of Bread or only those species themselves I will not now say though I might that the Scripture will be a very uncertain thing if such forc'd interpretations as these be easily admitted But I say that neither of these interpretations alone will fit the texts we speak of and that there is as little reason to admit them both For thus for instance though we should allow the word Bread to signifie the Body of Christ under the species of Bread where the Scripture makes mention of its being eaten by the Communicants Yet can we not allow it the same signification where it is affirmed to be the Communion of Christ's Body Because that which is the Communion of any thing must be a distinct thing from that which it pretends to be the Communion of On the other side though we should allow the word Bread to signifie only the species thereof where the Scripture makes mention of its being the Communion of Christ's Body Yet can we not with the like reason allow it the same signification where it is said to be eaten by the Communicants Because it is such Bread as makes the unworthy eaters of it to be guilty of Christ's Body (l) 1 Cor. 11.27 which according to the Doctrine of the Romanists nothing but the eating of that Body it self can do If any thing be to be said in this particular it must be that the word Bread is sometime to be taken for the Body of Christ under the species of Bread and sometime also for those species themselves But beside that as Tully sometime spake concerning those that assign'd Atoms a motion of declination this is as it were to allot words their respective Provinces and prescribe them what they shall signifie in this or that particular place I do not see how either of these senses can without great violence to the text be impos'd upon those words of St. Paul The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Because if as is probable enough the Bread were then broken as it was in our Saviour's Eucharist before the words This is my Body pass'd upon it no other Bread can be meant by it even in the opinions of the Romanists themselves than true and proper Bread and not either the Body of Christ under the species of Bread or the species of Bread separate from the substance of it Agreeable hereto is the testimony of Sense and which is the more considerable here because it hath not only no clear revelation against it but as appears from the premisses hath plain revelation for it For whatever pretence may be made against the testimony of Sense where there is any just surmise of revelations being against it Yet can there not certainly be any where there is not only no such surmise but as plain and express revelation as can be reasonably desir'd To question our Senses in such a case being to question revelation also because concurring with the Testimony thereof Only if any think that revelation not to be clear enough because as hath been sometime suggested St. Paul may as well give the title of Bread to that Body of Christ which was made of it as Moses (m) Exod. 7.12 did that of a Rod to those Serpents which arose from
form and figure and circumscription and in a word the essence of a Body But after the resurrection it became immortal and above corruption and was thought worthy to sit at the right hand of God and is worshipped by every creature as being called the Body of the Lord of nature So that if the two natures of Christ ought to be look'd upon even now as two distinct and different ones and not one nature swallowed up into the other We also in the opinion of this Holy Man ought to look upon this Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament as two distinct things and upon the Sacrament in particular however dignified with a noble relation yet as of the same nature and figure and form as it was before it was advanced to it For Theodoret arguing the distinction of Christ's two natures from the distinction there is between the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament and particularly from that Sacrament's continuing in its former nature and essence must consequently suppose that to have been a thing then known and confess'd as from which otherwise he could not reasonably have argued the other I am not ignorant indeed that even these passages have met with subtle evasions and such as shew in some measure the art of those that fram'd them But as whosoever shall compare them with those words to which they are apply'd will find them to be rather subtle than solid So they put such a sense upon the words of their respective Authors as if they should be admitted would make them look rather like Sophisters than Fathers of the Church like Men who intended to impose upon their Disciples rather than to enlighten them in the Truth For what other would it have been in Theodoret to have argued against the change of Christ's Body into the divine essence from the continuing of the Symbols of it in their essence and figure and form if he had meant no more thereby than that they remained what they were in their outward appearances as the Romanists are willing to understand him or as they are sometime pleas'd to phrase it in their outward substance For so the Body of Christ also might have remain'd as to the outward appearances thereof and yet have been as substantially chang'd into the divine essence or nature as the Bread of the Sacrament is said to be into the substance of Christ's Body But beside that the Antients represent the Sacramental Elements as continuing what they were and thereby sufficiently impugne that substantial change of them into Christ's Body and Blood which this first Assertion imports They represent them also as Types and Symbols and Images thereof and as we should therefore think as distinct things from them No like being the same with that to which it is said to be like nor indeed any more capable of being so than that which is the most different from it Now how standing the substantial change of the Sacramental Elements can these titles be admitted Or what is there to build that Typicalness or Symbolicalness or resemblance on Certainly no other than those aiery species thereof which in the opinion of those that maintain them have themselves no subject to uphold them But as it doth not appear that the Antients believ'd any such species and one (x) August ep ad Dardan 57. Tolle ipsa corporae qualitatibus corporum non erit ubi sint Et ideo necesse est ut non sint Veruntamen si moles ipsa corporis quantacunque vel quantulacunque sit penitus auseratur qualitates ejus non erit ubi sint quamvis non mole metiendae sint of the Learnedest of them deni'd the possibility thereof So they sometime place the Symbolicalness of the Sacramental Elements in such properties thereof as can belong to no other than their respective substances For thus they apparently do when they represent them as Symbols of Christ's mystical Body upon the account of their being made up of the substance of sevelal granes and several Grapes as that Body of Christ is of the respective members of it This importing the union of several substances into a Mass or Body and consequently that that is much more a substance which is made up of an aggregation of them 2. It appearing from the premisses how little ground there is to believe that the whole substance of the Bread is chang'd into the substance of Christ's Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of Christ's Blood We shall the less need to concern our selves in the examination of that which follows even that those substances of Bread and Wine are so chang'd into the substances of Christ's Body and Blood as to retain nothing of what they were before save only the species thereof For if they can in no sense be said to be substantially chang'd how much less to such a degree as to retain nothing of what they were save only the species thereof But as this Assertion whatever it is hath something peculiar in it in the common understanding of the World So it may not therefore be amiss especially when the Council of Trent seems to have made a peculiar Article of it to consider it apart and both enquire what grounds it hath to support it self and oppose proper reasons to it In order whereunto I will consider it as importing first that nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine remains and secondly as importing that the species or accidents thereof do If they who affirm that nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine remains mean no more thereby than that nothing thereof remains in the form or essence of Bread and Wine as one would think they should not by their affirming them to be chang'd into the substance of Christs Body and Blood They may then be thought to say somewhat which may seem to have some foundation in those words This is my Body and This is my Blood because those words make no mention of any thing else but them But then as they must also suppose that the matter thereof remains though in another form or essence because otherwise the substance thereof will not be chang'd but annihilated So they must suppose too an addition made thereby to the substance of Christ's Body because a new accession of matter to it Which being granted the change will be made not into the whole substance of Christ's Body and Blood as Transubstantiation was before said to import but only into that part thereof into which they are affirmed to be chang'd On the other side if they who affirm that nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine remains mean thereby that nothing remains in the form of Bread and Wine or any other substance They then do not only destroy the change of them into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood because that change supposeth the former matter of them to abide though in another form or essence but take away all pretence of founding
that Doctrine savours at all of Popery because the signification we give to the breaking of the Bread is of a quite different nature from what the Papists suggest and indeed no other than the Institution it self offers to us For we no more than the Lutherans believe that the Host ought to be broken into just three parts or for the reasons that are given by them for it so I see as little how our Doctrine ministers to Socinianism even in the point that is now before us Because though we declare the breaking of the Bread to have been intended for a representation of our Saviour's crucified Body yet we do not believe as they do that that was the sole intendment of that and other the usances of the present Sacrament but that as Christ meant we should shew forth by them what he suffered in his Body so we should also thereby be made partakers of it and of the Benefits thereof 2. But not any longer to insist upon the breaking of the Bread because as I suppose sufficiently clear'd Let us go on to enquire because a Question of far greater moment whether he who administers this Sacrament is oblig'd by the words of the Institution or otherwise to make an Offering to God of Christ's Body and Blood as well as to make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men The Council of Trent as is well known avowing that to be the importance of the words Do this in remembrance of me and that the Apostles were by the same words appointed Priests to offer them For my more advantageous resolution whereof I will shew 1. What they who advance this Offering declare concerning it 2. The vanity of those Grounds upon which it is built and 3. Oppose proper Arguments to it 1. That which the Council of Trent teacheth concerning this pretended Offering is that it hath for the matter of it the Body and Blood of Christ (h) Sess 22. cap. 1 2. Can. 3. or rather Christ himself under the Species of Bread and Wine That the Offering which is made of it is no simple tender of it to the Father but the offering of it up by way of a Sacrifice and accordingly he himself sacrificed or slain in it but after an unbloody manner That this Sacrifice is not only an Eucharistical or Commemorative Sacrifice but a truly propitiatory one for quick and dead and by which God is so far appeas'd as to grant Pardon and Grace to the one and a Refrigerium to the other 2. How well these things agree either with one another or with that Sacrifice which Christ made of himself upon the Cross shall then be considered when I come to oppose proper Arguments to it My present Business shall be to examine the Grounds upon which it is built and shew the vanity thereof Where again I will insist upon no other Grounds than what the same Council of Trent offers for it and which therefore those of the Roman Communion must think themselves obliged either to stand or fall by Now that which the Council of Trent principally founds it self upon in this Affair is on the one hand the conversion of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ as without which there could be no Pretence for the offering of them up under the Species of the other And on the other hand those known words of Christ to his Apostles and their Successors Do this in remembrance of me These words as that Council tells us having been always understood and declar'd by the Catholick Church as a Command of Christ to them to offer up his Body and Blood But as enough hath been said already (i) Part 7. to shew the unsoundness of the former of these grounds and that therefore no just foundation of the offering of Christ's Body and Blood in the present Sacrament So we shall find there is as little solidity in that supposed Command of Christ to his Apostles and their Successors in the words Do this in remembrance of me For neither can those words be fairly drawn to signifie the offering up of Christ's Body and Blood neither doth it appear whatever is pretended that the Catholick Church hath had that understanding of them That the words themselves cannot be fairly drawn to signifie the offering up of Christ's Body and Blood will appear if we consider them either as referring to the several things before spoken of and particularly to what he himself had done or enjoined them to do or as referring only to that Body and Blood which immediately precede them and in which sense they are suppos'd to signifie the sacrificing or offering of them If we consider the words Do this in remembrance of me as referring to the several things before spoken of even those which Christ himself had done or enjoined them to do So there is no appearance of their being a Command to the Apostles or their Successors to offer up his Body and Blood unless there had been any precedent mention of Christ's offering them up himself or any kind of intimation of his enjoining them to do it The latter of which two as it is not to by affirm'd by those who make the words Do this in remembrance of me to be those which constituted both the Sacrifice and the offerers of it So I see as little reason for the affirming of the former how confidently soever the Church of Rome advanceth it For what mention can we expect for instance of Christ's offering up his Body under the Species of Bread when till he had spoken the words This is my Body which was not till he had done all appertaining to that Element there was no such thing under the Species of Bread for Christ to offer up because not to be till those words had pass'd upon it But it may be there is more force in the words Do this as referring to that Body and Blood which immediately precede them in which sense they are suppos'd to signifie the sacrificing or offering of them And so no doubt there is or they will be found to have little force in them But what if we should say first that there is as little appearance of their referring to the words Body and Blood as what St. Paul subjoineth to them and the very Canon of the Mass perswades For St. Paul inferring upon those words that as oft as they ate that Bread and drank that Cup they did shew forth the Lord's death till he came And again that whosoever should eat that Bread and drink that Cup of the Lord unworthily should be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord He doth not obscurely intimate that when our Saviour said with relation to each Element Do this in remembrance of me his meaning was that they should do what he had before enjoin'd them concerning each in remembrance of himself and particularly that they should eat and drink them with that design Which they of all Men
ought not to refuse who are taught by the Canon of the Mass to look upon the words Hoc est enim corpus meum and Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei for so the Roman Missal expresseth them as a Reason of what is before enjoin'd and particularly of the Disciples eating and drinking the things given to them For if those very words referr'd to what was before enjoyn'd and particularly to their eating and drinking the things given to them The words Do this in remembrance of me ought in reason to referr to the same eating and drinking and no otherwise to the Body and Blood of Christ than as that was an inducement to them to do what they did in remembrance of Him and of his Death But let us suppose however because some of the Roman Communion will have it so that the words Do this c. referr to the Body and Blood of Christ and that it must therefore be somewhat about those that this Precept of Christ must be thought to enjoin Yet how doth it appear which is the only thing that can advantage them that we are to understand thereby Sacrifice or make an Offering of them For though I grant that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be considered with respect to Christ's Body and Blood it must have another sense than we are wont to put upon it Yet why should it not signifie make as well as sacrifice especially when that sense is both the most natural and the most obvious one For so it will yet more agree with the opinion these Men have of their converting the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ and accordingly producing that Body and Blood out of them And indeed as one would think that they who give the Priest the priviledge of making his God should be willing to understand the words in that sense because setting those aside there is nothing else from whence that Power can be colourably deduc'd So one would think too that they should secure to themselves that Power before they pretend to offer him as without which there can be no place for it But let that Notion also how natural soever even in their own opinion be laid aside with the rest if it be only to make way for that other of sacrificing or offering Yet how will it appear that this latter one ought to have place here or if it hath that it denotes such a sacrificing or offering as they advance For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeably to the notion of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signifie to sacrifice or offer for so it doth Lev. 15 15-30 and in other places according to the Septuagint Version * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet as even there it comes to have that sense rather from the matter intreated of than from any natural signification of the word So there is nothing in the present Argument to determine it to that sense or oblige us to such an understanding of it Though if that also should be allow'd which yet there is not the least necessity of doing yet will not the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reach that Sacrifice which is intended to be superstructed upon them Because he who commands Men to sacrifice or offer in remembrance of himself doth rather enjoin a Commemorative than Expiatory one and consequently not that Sacrifice which is intended So little is there in the words themselves how favourably soever consider'd to oblige us to understand them of such an Offering as the Church of Rome advanceth And we shall find them to signifie as little though we take in the sense of the Catholick Church upon them how conformable soever the Council of Trent affirms it to be unto its own Because though the Antients did all agree upon a Sacrifice and which is more look'd upon those words as either directly or indirectly obliging to the offering of it yet as hath been elsewhere (k) Part 2. shewn they advanc'd other kind of Sacrifices than what the Church of Rome now doth and consequently cannot be suppos'd to give any countenance to it And I shall only add that though Justin Martyr (l) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 259 c. represented that Offering of fine Flour which was offer'd for those that were cleansed from the Leprosie as a Type of the Bread of the Eucharist Though he moreover appli'd the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that Bread and if any of the Fathers therefore did affirm'd Christ to command us to make or offer that Bread to God Yet he adds that he commanded us to do so in remembrance of that Passion which he suffered for those that were cleansed in their Souls And again that we might at the same time give thanks to God for his having made the World and all things in it for the sake of Man and for his having delivered us by Christ from that wickedness in which we sometime were and dissolv'd all noxious Principalities and Powers Which shews him not to have thought in the least of our being commanded to offer Christ's Body and Blood under the Species of Bread or indeed of any other Sacrifice than a Commemorative or Eucharistical one The principal Argument of the Tridentine Fathers being thus discharg'd and the Sacrifice of the Mass so far forth depriv'd of its support We shall the less need to concern our selves about those which are of an inferiour rank and in truth rather Assistants to the former Argument than any proper proofs of the Sacrifice it self For what boots it to alledge that our Saviour's Priesthood like that of Melchizedek being not to be extinguished by death we are in reason to presume that upon his departure hence he appointed his Apostles and their Successors to offer up continually that Offering which Melchizedek first and after him our Saviour offer'd For beside that there is no appearance of Melchizedek's offering up Bread and Wine and we therefore not to argue from the Bread and Wine which he brought forth that our Melchizedek was either to offer or appoint any such Sacrifice Our Melchizedek was to abide for ever as well as his Priesthood yea he was to abide in his Priesthood for ever as well as in his Person Witness not only the Psalmist's affirming that he was to be a Priest for ever but St. Paul's affirming also that (m) Heb. 7.23 24. whereas the Aaronical Priests were of necessity to pass over their Priesthood from one to another because no one of them could continue by reason of Death our Melchizedekian Priest because he was to abide for ever was invested with an unchangeable Priesthood and such as should not pass away from him For what was this but to say that he should keep his Priesthood in his own Person and should not therefore either need or be in a capacity to appoint other Priests in his room
for the former their representing Baptism as the laver (k) Tit. 3.5 of Regeneration which is a thing we must have from God (l) Joh. 3.5 and as a thing by which we must obtain forgiveness of sins (m) Act. 2.38 which is as undoubtedly (n) Expl. of the Lords Pr. forgive us c. another For the latter the same Scriptures requiring us to look upon the elements thereof as that body of Christ which was (o) Luk. 22.19 given for us and that blood which was shed for many (p) Matt. 26.28 for the forgiveness of sins For as these and the former benefits are such as manifestly come from God so they are alike manifestly represented as the consequents of the former Sacraments and a Sacrament therefore as such to be looked upon as having a relation to that which flows from God to us The only difficulty in my opinion is to shew a Sacrament to relate equally to that which passeth from us to God and imports our duty and service But besides that the Antients apprehended no such difficulty in it because giving it the title of a Sacrament in respect of that Obligation * See the prec Disc which it lays upon the Receivers of it The Scriptures have said enough concerning Baptism and the Lords Supper to confirm us in the belief of this relation of them Only because I would not too much anticipate my Discourse concerning those Sacraments and beside that may have another occasion to speak more largely to this Argument I will content my self at present with what St. Peter hath observ'd of Baptism (q) 1 Pet. 3.21 and which I have elsewhere (r) Explic. of the Prel Quest and Answers c. given a more particular account of For if as that Apostle insinuates and hath accordingly been more largely confirmed the stipulation or answer of a good conscience toward God be a considerable part of Baptism If it be so considerable a part of it as to give it much of that savingness which it hath Then must that Sacrament be thought because the stipulation of a good Conscience is of that nature to relate to something that must come from us as well as to those things which flow from God to us It is true indeed that our Church where it sets it self to define a Sacrament takes no notice of this object of it Whether it were through a simple inadvertency and from which our Church doth no where pretend it self to be free or which I rather think that it might give so much the more particular an account of that other and more considerable object of it even that inward and Spiritual Grace which it was intended to signifie and exhibit and assure For that our Church did not wholly forget this second object of a Sacrament even that duty and service of ours which it doth equally signifie and prompt us to declare is evident from its before minding the Catechumen of his Baptismal vow (ſ) Prelim. Quest and Answ of the Cat. and from the declaration it elsewhere (t) Office of Publ. Bapt. makes that they who are to be baptized must also for their parts promise the renouncing of the Devil and his works and both Faith and Piety toward God That as it shews her to have looked upon Baptism as a federals rite or ceremony so that she equally believed it to relate to our duty and service as well as to those divine benefits we receive from the Author of it Let it remain therefore for an undoubted truth and the acknowledged Doctrine of our Church that a Sacrament relates as well to what is to pass from us to God as to what is to come from God to us and that accordingly it may be so far forth defined such an outward and visible sign whereby we make a declaration of our piety toward God as Mr. Calvin (u) Instit li. 4. c. 14. §. 1. hath very well observed I may not forget to add for the farther clearing of this head that as a Sacrament relates first and chiefly to that which passeth from God to us so we are to conceive of that to which it so relates under the notion of a Grace given unto us yea of an inward and spiritual one That we ought to conceive of it under the notion of a grace given unto us is evident from those Texts which I but now made use of to shew that a Sacrament relates to that which passeth from God to us For instancing in such things as have the nature of benefits and so far forth therefore are to be looked upon as Graces or Favours instancing moreover in such benefits as are manifestly the issues of the Divine Goodness yea which the Scripture expresly affirms to be given to us by him for so it doth as to that (w) Luk. 22.19 Body of Christ which is the foundation of them all they must consequently oblige us to conceive of that to which a Sacrament relates as a Grace given unto us But neither will there be less evidence from thence if those Texts be well considered that that Grace to which a Sacrament relates is an inward and Spiritual one For as our Church means no other by an inward and Spiritual Grace than that which conduceth in an especial manner to the welfare of our inward man or Spirit as is evident from its making the Body and Blood of Christ the inward and Spiritual Grace of the Lords Supper and which it cannot be in any other sense than that it hath such an effect upon us so the Texts before alledged attribute such Graces to the Sacraments as are in that sense at least inward and Spiritual ones Witness their attributing to them the Graces of regeneration and forgiveness which are as it were the formal causes of our welfare and the grace of Christs Body and Blood which is the meritorious cause thereof and under God and by his acceptation in the place of an Efficient also I observe farther that as a Sacrament relates to such things as have the nature of divine Graces or humane duties so those graces and duties being parts of the New Covenant and receiving all their force from it a Sacrament must consequently relate to that New Covenant to which they do belong and from which they receive all their force Of which yet if there remain any doubt it will not be difficult to clear it from what the Scripture assures us concerning Baptism and the Lords Supper St. Peter (x) 1 Pet. 3.21 representing the former under the notion of a Stipulation or Contract as our Saviour the Cup of the other (y) Luk. 22.20 Matt. 26.28 as the New Covenant in his Blood for the remission of those sins for which it was shed For that that is in truth the meaning of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not as we usually render it the New Testament in it is not only evident from the word 〈◊〉
particular because there is no appearance of the actual existing of those things into which the change was made at the instant the other were chang'd into them As little force shewn to be in the words This is my Body and This is my Blood to prove the actual change of the Sacramental Elements whether we consider the word This in the former words as denoting the Bread and Wine or The thing I now give you That supposed change farther impugned by such Scriptures as represent the Bread of the Eucharist as remaining after Consecration by the concurrent Testimony of Sense and the Doctrine of the Antient Fathers Enquiry next made into that Assertion which imports that the substances of the Sacramental Elements are so chang'd as to retain nothing of what they were before save only the Species thereof Where is shewn that if nothing of their respective Substances remain there must be an annihilation rather than a change and that there is as little ground for the remaining of the Species without them either from the nature of those Species the words of Consecration or the Testimony of Sense That the true Body and true Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements a third Capital Assertion in this Matter but hath as little ground in the words of Consecration as either of the former First because those words relate not to Christ's glorified Body and Blood which are the things affirmed to be contain'd under the Species of the Sacramental Elements but to Christ's Body as broken and to his Blood as shed at his Crucifixion Secondly because however they may import the being of that Body and Blood in the Eucharist yet they specifie nothing as to the modus of it and much less intimate any thing concerning their being under the Species thereof That that Body and Blood which is the fourth Capital Assertion in this Matter are truly really and substantially under the Sacramental Species shewn to be as groundless and Evidence made of the contrary by such Arguments from Sense and Reason as are moreover confirmed to us by the Authority of Revelation Some brief Reflections in the close upon the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament and more large ones upon what the Romanists advance concerning the real eating of him in it Where is shewn that that which they call a real eating is a very improper one that it is however of no necessity or use toward our spiritual nourishment by him and not only no way confirm'd by the discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of St. John's Gospel but abundantly confuted by it pag. 227. The Contents of the Eighth Part. Of Consubstantiation AN account of that Doctrine which is by us called Consubstantiation out of the Augustan Confession and Gerhard And as it is founded by him and other the Lutheran Doctors in the letter of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood so Enquiry thereupon made first whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense Secondly whether if so taken Consubstantiation can be inferred from them That the former words ought to be taken in the literal sense is endeavour'd by the Lutherans to be prov'd by general and special Arguments and those Arguments therefore propos'd and answer'd What is alledg'd in the general concerning the literal sense of Scripture being for the most part to be preferr'd before the figurative willingly allow'd But that no exception ought to be made unless where the Scripture it self obligeth us to depart from the literal sense shewn to be neither true in it self nor pertinent to the present Texts because there is enough in the words that follow them to oblige us to preferr the figurative sense before it The Lutherans special Arguments next brought under Consideration and First that which is drawn from the supposed newness and strangeness of the Christian Sacraments at the first and which consequently requir'd that they should be deliver'd in proper and literal Expressions as without which otherwise there could have been no certain knowledge of them Where is shewn that the Christian Sacraments were neither such new and strange things at the first Institution of them as is pretended There having been the like under the Old Testament nor under any necessity if they had been such of being delivered in literal and proper Expressions because figurative Expressions with a Key to open them might have sufficiently declar'd the nature of them What is urg'd in the second place from the nature of a Testament under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20 to have been instituted shewn to be of as little force Partly because it is justly questionable whether what we there render Testament ought not rather to be render'd a Covenant and partly because even Civil Testaments are shewn to admit of figurative Expressions A short Answer made to what is alledg'd in the third and fourth place from the Majesty of him that instituted this Sacrament and from the supposed Conformity there is between the several Evangelists and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in question And a more full one to what is offer'd in the fifth place to shew the absurdity of a figurative Sense from the no place there is for it either in the Subject Predicate or Copula The Copula or the word Is thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in and answer made to what is objected against it from the Rules of Logick and from the Scripture That the literal Sense is not as is pretended in the sixth Argument the only one that can quiet the Mind or secure the Conscience briefly shewn And Enquiry next made whether though the literal Sense of the words should be allow'd consubstantiation could be inferred from them Which that it cannot is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This to denote that complexum quid which Consubstantiation advanceth p. 249. The Contents of the Ninth Part. Of the foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward parts of the Lord's Supper THE foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward parts of this Sacrament shewn from some former Discourses to be the Institution of Christ not so much as delivered by him as applied to those Elements that are to put it on by the Minister's executing the Commands of it and Christ's fulfilling the Promises thereof What is the foundation of this relation on the part of the former the subject of the present Enquiry and his pronouncing the words Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est calix c. shewn not to be it from the insufficiency of those grounds on which it is built What is urg'd in the behalf of those words more particularly considered and evidence made that as there wants not in the Prayers and Praises of the Communion-Office that which may tend to the founding of this
be us'd were dry entertainments or that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Greeks were only drinking ones But because it cannot be deny'd that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had other kind of names of old and such as may seem to be of a higher strain than any I have as yet assign'd And because Cardinal Baronius (t) Annal. Eccl. ad Ann. 34. n. 48. c. hath insisted much on them to justify from thence the Doctrine of his Church concerning it Therefore I will instance in three on which he seems to lay the greatest stress I mean those of the Body of Christ an Oblation or Sacrifice and the Mass That the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had antiently the name of the Body of Christ several places are alledged out of Tertullian and two in particular out of his book de Oratione * cap. ult Similiter stationum diâ—bus non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini Ergo devotum deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit an magis deo obligat Nonne solennior erit statio tua si ad aram dei steteris Accepto corpore Domini reservato utrumque salunm est participatio sacrificii executio officii which cannot be otherwise understood And God forbid that any should deny that name to the element which Christ himself hath declar'd to be his Body But as the question is not Whether the outward element either is or hath been called by the name of Christ's Body but in what sense we are to understand it either to be or to be so called so what Tertullian meant is evident from what he saith upon that argument against Marcion who made our Saviour's natural body to have been a phantastical one Therefore saith he †Adv. Marc. lib. 4. c. 40. Professus itaque se concupiscentiû concupisse edere Pascha ut suum indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus illum suum fecit hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non suisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset professing himself with desire to have desir'd to eat that Passover as his own for it were unworthy that God should desire that which is another's he made that Bread which he took and distributed to his disciples to be his own Body saying This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body Now it could not have been a figure unless the body were of truth But an empty thing such as a phantasm is could not be capable of any figure Now can any Man think after this that Tertullian when he call'd the Eucharist the Body of Christ understood it to be such in propriety of speech Or that they do other than transubstantiate his and the Church's meaning who make such an inference from his words His I say who made the words This is my Body to signifie This is the figure of my Body and argued against Marcion from that very figure the reality of that Body of which it was one How much more proper had it been for Tertullian if he had so understood this title of the Eucharist or our Saviour's words to have prest him with the Eucharist's being in truth and in the sense of the Church his true and substantial body and therefore also because the same with that which was given for us that that was a true and substantial one or rather how much more proper had it been for that Father not at all to have argued from Christ's body there Lest Marcion seeing no true and substantial body of a Man in it he should have been more confirm'd in his opinion of Christ's having had only an imaginary one But as it appears from hence that Tertullian had not so gross a conceit of that August Title which was given to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper So that Title had no doubt its original from the intimate relation there is between the sign and the thing signified by it It being not unusual or improper to give unto the sign the name of the thing signified but especially to such a sign as is also a conveyer of those Blessings it declares For thus Baronius himself observes out of St. Augustine * De peccat merit lib. 1. c. 24. Optimè Punici Christiani Baptismum ipsum nihil aliud quà m salutem Sacramentum corporis Christi nihil aliud quà m vitam vocant That the Carthaginian Christians called Baptism it self health or salvation and the Sacrament of the body of Christ life Which they could not be in any other sense than as the means of the conveyance of them or as St. Paul expresseth it concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the Communion or Communication of them For from whence as the same St. Augustine †Vnde nisi ex antiquâ ut existimo Apostolicâ traditione quâ Ecclesiae Christi insitum tenent praeter Baptismum participationem dominicae mensae non solum non ad regnum Dei sed nee ad salutem vitam aeternam posse quenquaem hominum pervenire goes on those titles of Salvation and Life but from an antient and Apostolical Tradition in the Church That no Man can come to salvation and eternal life without the participation of those Sacraments any more than he can do to the kingdom of God But because the foremention'd Baronius tells us that the Sacrament whereof we speak had also the name of an Oblation or Sacrifice as that too because of the offering there made for sin or an expiatory one Therefore it will be necessary for us to go on to enquire into that name and so much the rather because the same Author is so copious in his Quotations concerning it And I readily grant that this Sacrament is frequently so call'd by the Antients but that it was call'd so for the reason alledg'd is utterly deny'd neither can there be produc'd any convincing proof of it The utmost that is said by those who are the most antient is that it is an Eucharistical oblation as that too for the blessings of this World and particularly for the fruits of the earth as well as for the blessing of our Redemption And to that purpose and no other are the sayings before quoted out of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and Origen Which how they agree with their designs who represent this Sacrament as an expiatory Oblation or Sacrifice I shall leave to all indifferent Men to judge And though it be true that some of those who followed spake in another strain and represented it also as an oblation for the benefit of the Offerers and others as well as an Eucharistical oblation for benefits receiv'd yet it is evident from Mr. Mede (u) Disc on Mal. 1.11 cap. 9. that
Apostles Priesthood and the Sacrifice of the Mass are endeavour'd to be extracted out of these words must be consider'd in another place where such kind of questions will be more fit to be debated At present it may suffice to say that as it doth not appear from the Institution that our Saviour made any other Offering of his Body in the Symbol of Bread than what he did to his Disciples nor indeed how he could unless he meant both to prevent and vacate the future Offering of himself upon the Cross by which yet as the Author to the Hebrews (d) Heb. 10.14 instructs us he perfected for ever them that are sanctified So it can much less therefore appear how the doing what Christ had before done or taught them to do could make the Apostles Priests or the Celebration of this Sacrament to be a Sacrifice All that can be fairly deduced from the words Do this and Do this in remembrance of me is that they should for the future take Bread bless it and break it and when they had done so both eat of it themselves and give it to others to eat of in remembrance of him and of his Death Or if we should think that the words Do this ought to have a nearer Antecedent that they should take and eat what had been before taken and blessed and broken and given to them by the Consecrator of it in remembrance of him That as it is the thing and the only thing just before enjoyn'd upon the Disciples For what he saith concerning the thing given them being his Body doth rather point out what regard they ought to have in the eating of it to that Body of which it was a Symbol than any new injunction or precept concerning it so it is the thing and the only thing therefore which he immediately referr'd to when he said This do in remembrance of me Which St. Paul doth yet more clearly insinuate when immediately after the History of the Institution and which he closeth in each Element with This Do in remembrance of me he adds as by way of explication of that passage For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come This I take to be a clear and natural account of what Christ enjoyn'd the Disciples to do and not any intimation at all either of the Apostles Priesthood or of the Sacrifice of the Mass And what he adds concerning their doing what he now enjoyn'd them in remembrance of him agrees as well to it because as appears from the words but now quoted they were to eat of that Bread as well as drink of that Cup with reference to him and to his Death or as St. Paul expresseth it to shew it forth Which will consequently leave nothing more to be consider'd upon this Head than what our Saviour means by in remembrance of him Do this in remembrance of me Now as there cannot well be any doubt concerning the Object of this Remembrance partly because Christ doth here represent himself as the Object of it and partly because he represents himself throughout this whole Sacrament as giving himself to Death for us and consequently he to be consider'd as such in our remembrance of him So I shall therefore need only to enquire what that remembrance of him doth import and how the thing enjoyned to be done serves to the exciting of it Now there are two things again which the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or remembrance signifies and which we shall find upon enquiry that it signifies also here The recalling that to our own mind which is the Object of it or recalling it to the mind of others The former of these as it is the most simple and obvious notion of the word so no doubt principally intended here if Christ's giving his Body to death for us be the thing wherein we are to remember him because we are requir'd to take and eat the Bread exhibited to us as a Symbol thereof But therefore as we are to understand by doing what we do in remembrance of him and of his Death or as the Greek (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would perhaps be more commodiously rendred for the remembrance of him of our celebrating this Holy Sacrament so the better to recall him and his Death to our own Minds So it is alike evident from what St. Paul subjoins as a kind of Comment upon these words that we ought to do the same thing to recall it to the Minds of others and prompt them to reflect upon it St. Paul declaring thereupon that as often as we eat that Bread and drink that Cup we do shew forth or declare or preach his Death till he come Only as it is not to be thought that our Saviour would have instituted this Sacrament simply to bring the thing signified by it to our own or others Minds but to stir up in them and us affections sutable to the thing remembred So we are consequently to think because the thing signified by it was Christ's giving his Body to Death for us and for our Salvation that it was design'd to stir up us and other Men to remember his Death and the benefits thereof with a thankful Mind with a Mind sensible of so great a favour and ready to express that sense of its by all the ways it can possibly devise This I take to be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or remembrance for which our Saviour requir'd his Disciples to do as he himself had before directed and enjoyn'd them And how well fitted that whole Ceremony is to excite such a remembrance in us and others will appear if we consider that remembrance either as a simple remembrance of Christ's Death and the Benefits thereof or as also a grateful one For it serves to the former of these by the representation it makes to our Eyes of the violence that was offer'd to his Crucified Body and by the known Laws and ends of the Institution of it And it serves in like manner to the latter of them by representing that Death of his to our Eyes not in bloody and cruel Rites as the ill usage of some of the Heathen Deities were sometime represented but in the innocent and useful and comfortable Elements of Bread and Wine and which whilst the Partakers thereof reflect upon they cannot but at the same time read in them the both usefulness and comfortableness as to themselves of that Body and Blood which they were intended to represent and be thereby excited to a joyful and thankful remembrance of them both and of the benefits that accrue to them thereby An account being thus given of the Bread of this Sacrament and of all that was said or done about it It remains that I entreat of the other Element thereof represented to us by the three Evangelists and St. Paul under the name of the Cup. Whether it were that they could not otherwise well express what
a danger of shedding in carrying about the Cup in the Church when among us who practise it in great Congregations no such danger doth appear and when that danger may in a great measure be prevented by bringing those that are to receive to the Rails of the Communion Table to take it from the Priest there And a Man would wonder no less thirdly why so much ado should be made about the carrying of it to sick Folks and the danger that attends it especially when it is over Mountains Because if Men were prompted as they ought to a frequent Communion in the publick Assemblies there would be the less need of carrying it to them when sick Or if it were thought meet however that they should receive the Communion when sick it might be consecrated as well as administred to them at home and a reasonable number of Communicants provided to receive with them as it is with us Or if that were not thought fit neither but that they must by all means be debar'd the Cup because of the danger of the Liquors growing sowre by being kept for them or of its shedding in the carriage yet is there no imaginable reason why they that are whole and come to it instead of expecting its being brought to them should be therefore deprived of it even in the Church because it may not be convenient to be brought to their Houses it may be once These things I say a Man might well wonder at but especially when they are urg'd as they are for a total removing of the Cup. But a Man would more than wonder fourthly if he did not know the force of Prejudice and Custom that the hanging of the Liquor in the Lay-men's Beards should be made so great a difficulty and danger as to debar them of the use of it For not to say that it is strange that if that were so considerable a thing neither our Saviour should be aware of it when he instituted the Cup nor the Church in so many Centuries of Years take care to prevent it especially when Beards were more in Fashion than they have been of late A Man would think that if the Blood of Christ and the observation of a Command of his were a matter of as great moment as the fear of the loss of any of that Blood in the Lay-mens Beards A Man would think I say that in such a Case both the Priests should have enjoin'd the Laity and the Laity for that time have willingly submitted to the shaving of their Beards rather than have suffered themselves for the sake of such an excrement to be robb'd of Christ's Blood or go against his Institution and Command To take away the Cup of the Sacrament for such like Fears as these being somewhat more extravagant than Lycurgus King of Thrace's cutting down all the Vines of his Kingdom for fear of the ill use that might be made of the Fruit of them In fine a Man might wonder if such like things as these were an affront to the Holy Sacrament and as such of sufficient force to remove the use of the Cup why our Saviour should not have found out some more decent place than the Stomach of the Faithful to bestow one Element of the Sacrament in or than the Stomach of the Priest to bestow them both They who are acquainted with the inside of that knowing it in that respect to be a more unseemly place for one or the other Element to be lodged in than many of those which they seem to be so jealous of and for fear of any pollution by which they deprive the Faithful of the benefit of the Cup and of that whether Wine or Blood that is contained in it The third thing pretended for depriving the Faithful of the Cup is that whole and entire Christ is contained under one only Species (r) Trid. Conc. Sess 21. cap. 3. Which the Council of Trent doth so peremptorily affirm that it pronounceth an Anathema upon any one that shall deny (s) ib. Can. 3. that whole and entire Christ the Fountain and Author of all Graces is receiv'd under the only Species of Bread For if that be true what need is there of the receit of the Cup by them or indeed what presumption of Christ's having given any Command concerning it But are they so sure as they would be thought to be that whole and entire Christ is contain'd under the sole Species of Bread Or if it were that it were therefore indifferent whether we receiv'd the Cup or no Nay is there not sufficient reason to believe that whole and entire Christ is not contained under it but under the one and other Species For beside that our Saviour by making choice of two distinct Elements to become them made as manifest a separation between his Body and Blood in the Sacrament as he did upon the Cross and may therefore be presum'd to give them if he gave them at all in their sense not conjunctly but apart and in that separate estate in which he had put them Beside that he requir'd not only two distinct and separate Acts those of eating and drinking I mean but two Acts that were distant in time toward the partaking of that Body and Blood and may therefore be yet more presum'd to give them not conjunctly but apart and agreeably to those Acts which he enjoin'd for the partaking of them If the Body and Blood of Christ are contained under and received with the sole Species of Bread as to be fure they must if whole and entire Christ be It must be either by vertue of those words Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body or by vertue of those words and the words that follow even This is my Blood of the New Testament As one would think that they who lay so much stress upon those words should readily grant either the one or the other or by vertue of that natural Connexion and Concomitancy to speak the words (t) Sess 13. cap. 3. of the Trent-Council whereby the parts of the Lord Christ who is now risen from the dead no more to die again are joined together between themselves If they who maintain whole Christ and consequently his Body and Blood to be contained under the Species of Bread affirm that to be by the sole vertue of those words Hoc est corpus meum or This is my Body They must consequently make them signifie This is my Blood as well as my Body as without which even in their own opinion so omnipotent an Effect is not to be produc'd Which suppos'd I would fain know whether they signifie so much always or only when the Sacrament is administred in one kind and to those alone to whom it is so administred If the words Hoc est corpus meum signifie so always and the like will follow if the Body and Blood of Christ be by any means brought together under the Species of Bread then is there no
that Assertion of theirs in This is my Body and This is my Blood For though those words may assure me that the Body and Blood of Christ are there where I discern the species of the Sacramental Elements to be and consequently that naturally speaking the substances of those Elements cannot Yet as they do not so much as hint that the substances of those Elements neither are nor can be there by the extraordinary power of God so they say nothing to let us understand by what means they are convey'd away if they do not remain there But because this Assertion imports as well the remaining of the species or accidents of the Sacramental Elements as the not remaining of the substances thereof Therefore enquire we so far as we may what the grounds of that part of the Assertion are and if there be any need of it after such an enquiry oppose proper Arguments to it For the truth is that as those accidents are forc'd to subsist without a subject so they seem to have no other support save what the necessity of a bad cause and a confident asseveration can give them For is there any thing in the nature of an accident to persuade us that the thing is so much as possible and that though the substance of the Sacramental Elements remains not yet the species or accidents thereof may On the contrary they who believe any such thing as an accident make the inhering thereof in a subject to be of the very essence of it and that at the same time it ceaseth to inhere as it must do when the subject thereof is remov'd it also ceaseth to be Is it then that those separate species or accidents have any thing in the words This is my Body and This is my Blood to afford them any support But alas as the words my Body and my Blood are so far from giving any countenance to them that they rather bid defiance to them because professing to contain nothing less in them than the August Body and Blood of Christ So the word This is as much afraid of owning them for fear it should injure the substances thereof and instead of betokening the conversion of those into the substances of Christ's Body and Blood proclaim the conversion of the species or accidents thereof into them and so bid a far greater defiance to our already too much offended Senses Shall we then which is all we have to trust to at the last appeal to the testimony of our Senses for them But beside that no wise Transubstantiator ought to give any belief to his Senses as which will tell him farther if he listen to them that there is the substance of Bread and Wine under them Those Senses of ours do never represent those species as things distinct from their proper substances and much less as separate from them but as inherent in them and proper characters of them and so leading us more to the contemplation of their respective substances than to that of their own particular natures So little reason is there to believe the being of such Species or Accidents after their proper Substances are remov'd And there is this substantial Reason against it that the admission of such Species or Accidents in the Sacrament would render the Testimony of our Senses uncertain in other things Because whatever Pretence there may be from Revelation for the being of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament yet there is no Pretence at all from that for the being of any such separate Species or Accidents and we therefore as much at liberty to believe them elsewhere as there and so boggle at any farther notice that may be suppos'd to come to us by the Species of any thing whatsoever 3. The third Assertion on which the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is founded is that the true Body and true Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements An Assertion which the Romanists seem to be so confident of from the words This is my Body and This is my Blood that they make no end of inculcating it and think all Men either blind or obstinate who will not as readily assent to it But with how little reason and how much against it also will soon appear if we compare them together whether as to that Body and Blood of Christ which they both profess to intreat of or as to the being of them in the Sacrament There being a manifest difference in each of these between the Assertion I am now upon and those words from which they profess to deduce it For first whereas the Body and Blood of Christ in the words of our Saviour are his Body and Blood as broken and shed at his Crucifixion and not as they were at the time of our Saviour's uttering those words or since his resurrection from the Dead The Body and Blood of Christ affirmed to be contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ in that glorious estate wherein they now are now no more to fall under those Accidents which they sometime underwent For it is no way repugnant saith the Council of Trent (s) Sess 13. cap. 1. that our Saviour himself should alway sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven according to a natural manner of existing and yet nevertheless be Sacramentally present to us by his substance in other places after that way of existing which though we can scarce express in words yet we believe to be possible to God And again (t) Ib. cap. 3. which shews it yet more to speak of Christ's glorified Body the Faith of the Church hath always been that presently after the Consecration the true Body and true Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity are under the Species of Bread and Wine But the Body indeed under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine by vertue of the words but the Body it self under the Species of Wine and the Blood under the Species of Bread and the Soul under both by vertue of that natural Connexion and Concomitancy by which the parts of Christ our Lord who is now risen from the Dead now no more to die are coupled among themselves Than which what can be more plain that it is the Body and Blood of Christ as they now are which they affirm to be contained under the Species of those Elements and not as broken and shed for us It is true indeed that when the same Tridentine Fathers come to entreat of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Propriety of that Sacrifice they may seem to sing another Song because as was before * Part 5. observed representing it as the very same Sacrifice with that which he offer'd up upon the Cross But as they sufficiently unsay it again when they represent it as an unbloody Sacrifice and as an Oblation that is made of Christ's Body and Blood
is spiritual as if the latter though undoubtedly the principal were an imaginary one But as we gain thus much by it that that Council by real must consequently mean a corporal one so I shall therefore make no farther use of that opposition at present than to enquire into the truth of that real manducation understood as is before describ'd In order whereunto that which I shall in the next place take notice of is that the word manducare which the Council makes use of signifies primarily and properly chewing and consequently where intended to denote a corporal manducation ought to be understood of such a one as is made by the breaking of the thing eaten by the Teeth And indeed as this is the true corporal manducation and which alone therefore deserves the name of a real one So the Church of Rome appears to have been heretofore of the same mind by the recantation it put into the Mouth of Berengarius The words thereof so far being (g) Baron Annal. Eccl. ad Ann. 1059. that he believ'd the true Body of Christ to be sensually not only in Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priest and ground in pieces by the Teeth of the faithful And thus if the Romanists were still persuaded they might pretend to a real manducation indeed and such as had some title to that name which they bestow upon it But as they saw such a manducation to agree but ill with that glorious Body to which they ascrib'd it and have not therefore fail'd to set a brand upon those words which were made use of to express the Churches mind So they now put off that manducation to those Capernaites to whom our Saviour discours'd in St. John concerning eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood and make that to be the very eating which our Saviour faulted them for the imagination of and not that more refined one which they themselves advance But what then is that real manducation or eating of Christ which the Romanists advance What is that which they think fit to give that name unto Nothing for ought that I can discern save the receiving of him with their mouth and transmitting him from thence into their stomachs If there be any thing else that looks like manducation the poor species are fain to bear it For that is the Sum and substance of their eating Christ in them But in conscience can this manducation of Christ look like a real one Is this answerable to that literal sense which they seem to be so fond of in other things For why if the letter of the text persuades that the very Body of Christ is in the Sacrament as that too not figuratively or spiritually but properly and substantially should not the same letter persuade that it is eaten as literally and properly and not only spiritually and sacramentally Especially when they themselves advance a real manducation as well as a sacramental and spiritual one But as they who contend so eagerly for the very Body of Christ being in the Sacrament and which is more will have it to be substantially there do yet arbitrarily enough assert its being only spiritually there or after the manner of a Spirit So out of the same meer will and pleasure they assert also a real manducation and yet at the same time make that real manducation to be no other than Mens receiving Christ's Body into their Mouths and transmitting it from thence into their Stomachs As if our Saviour had given them an absolute Empire over his words and empower'd them to give those words a proper and improper Sense as best suited with their own Hypotheses and interests For if the letter of the words will prevail so far as to make us understand the eating enjoyn'd of such an eating as is performed by the Mouth I do not see without the Empire before spoken of why they should not understand it of such an eating as is also performed by the Teeth and profess as Berengarius was taught to do that the Body of Christ is sensually not in Sacrament but in truth handled and broken by the hands of the Priest and ground in pieces by the Teeth of the Faithful Beside to what purpose any corporal eating at all To what purpose our so much as receiving Christ with our Mouths and transmitting him from thence into our Stomachs when for ought appears by the Council of Trent it self this Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood was intended not for the corporal nourishment of our Bodies but for the spiritual nourishment of our Souls That Council where it professeth to intreat of the Reason of the Institution of this most holy Sacrament (h) Sess 13. cap. 2. affirming only that our Saviour would have this Sacrament to be taken as the Spiritual Food of Souls whereby they are nourished and strengthened living by the Life of him that said He that eateth me even he shall live by me For such as the Food is such in reason ought to be that eating by which it is to be receiv'd And therefore if the Body of Christ in the Sacrament were intended for the Spiritual Food of our Souls to be spiritually eaten also and not after a corporal manner But that which will shew yet more the no necessity there is of this corporal eating of Christ's Body any more than of that Body's being really and locally present in the Sacrament is what is assign'd by Mons Claud (i) Resp au â— Traite de la Perpet c. 4. where he intreats of the no necessity of the latter and which because I know not how to do better I will express in that Author's words To wit that the Flesh and Blood of Christ are indeed a Principle of Peace and Life and salvation to our Bodies and Souls not in the quality of Physical Causes which act by contact and by the position of their substances but in the quality of meritorious Causes which act morally or of Causes Motives which do not only operate and produce their Effects being absent but when they themselves are not as yet in being as appears by the Examples of the Antient Patriarchs who were sav'd by the vertue of Jesus Christ even as we For what necessity can there be of any corporal eating of Christ's Body when that Body is not a Principle of Life to us in the quality of a Physical Cause but of a meritorious and moral one And when moreover they who were antienly saved by it as well as we now are were not in a capacity so to eat of it because that which was to be the matter of it had not at that time a being in the World Agreeable hereto is the discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of St. John's Gospel and after which it is a wonder that any Man should think of eating Christ's Flesh after a corporal manner For when they who were present at it desir'd him evermore to give them of that Bread
(k) Joh. 6.34 which he had but just before affirm'd to give Life unto the World he not only declar'd to them in express words that he (l) Joh. 6.35 was that Bread of Life but sufficiently intimated that the way for them to attain it and that Life together with it was by coming to him and believing on him For he that cometh to me saith our Saviour (m) Ibid. shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst And he farther confirms that sort of eating by suggesting as he goes that it was the Will of his Father that every one which seeth the Son (n) Joh. 6.40 and believeth on him should have everlasting Life and that he that believeth on him (o) Joh. 6.47 hath everlasting Life For how was that either pertinent to the account he gave of his being the Bread of Life or but consistent with what he afterward saith that except (p) Joh. 6.53 they ate his Flesh and drank his Blood they had no Life in them if that belief in him were not the thing intended by the eating of him and that eating therefore a spiritual rather than a corporal one In like manner when some of his Disciples conceiving he intended another sort of eating were offended with that Discourse of his and represented it as an hard (q) Joh. 6.60 and unnatural one After he had ask'd them What if they should see the Son of Man ascend up (r) Joh. 6.62 where he was before whether the more to enhance the Difficulty before he resolv'd it or by the mention of his ascending into Heaven to take them off from understanding him in a carnal sense he hath these following words (s) Joh. 6.63 It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life The most plain and obvious meaning of which words is that it was the spiritual eating and not the carnal one that availed unto Life and that it was of such an eating that he had spoken all along as the only one from which eternal Life could be expected And indeed as the latter part of the words cannot well bear any other sense because words cannot be Spirit and Life unless it be as to the sense and meaning of them So I do not see how any other sense can answer that Design for which these and the former words were produc'd even the softning of that hard saying which the Disciples were so offended at To say as the Romanists (t) Annot. in loc in Vers de Mons do that our Saviour intended thereby that it was his Spirit or Divinity which made that Flesh of his to be such living Food and not any Property of the Flesh consider'd as separated from it answering in some measure what scruple they might have concerning its giving eternal Life to those that eat of it but answering not at all the scruple they had concerning the possibility of that Flesh of his being divided among so many or the lawfulness of their eating of it though it could be so divided For so far is the sense of the Romanists from answering the latter of these Scruples that it makes it yet more painful by how much more unnatural it is to eat the Flesh of him that was God-man as well as a living one than that of a meer Man and one that is also dead Sure I am St. Augustine was so choak'd with the literal sense of that which Christ's Disciples and the Jews are said to have been offended at that he took occasion from thence to assert (u) De Doct. Christ li. 3. cap. 15. Si autem praeceptiva locutio flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem an t beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit carnem filii hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis faâ—inus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni Domini esse Communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoriâ quòd pro nobis caro ejus Crucifixa vulnerata sit not only that that and other such like Precepts as seem to command any great wickedness ought to be look'd upon rather as figurative than proper but resolv'd the meaning of what is said concerning the eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood to be that we ought to communicate with his Passion and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Conformably to which he elsewhere (w) In Joh. Tract 26. En. in Psal 98. understands by those words They are Spirit and they are Life They ought to be spiritually understood and will be Spirit and Life to those which have that understanding of them And therefore as I cannot but wonder that the Romanists should think to free themselves from the Carnality of Christ's Disciples and the Jews because they do not understand our Saviour here of tearing his Flesh with their Teeth as the other are thought to have done For to take that Flesh into their Mouths which is their avow'd opinion and transmit it from thence into their Stomachs though it look like an improper eating yet will hardly pass for a figurative or spiritual one as the Scripture and St. Augustine represent the eating here enjoin'd so I cannot forbear with the same St. Augustine to admonish even with respect to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament (x) Nolite parare fauces sed cor Inde commendata est ista coena Ecce credimus in Christum cum fide accipimus In accipiendo novimus quid cogitemus Modicum accipimus in corde saginamur Non ergo quod videtur sed quod creditur pascit De verbis Dom. Serm. 33. that we prepare not our Jaws but our Heart because the commendation of that Supper is that it was prepar'd for the latter Behold we then believe in Christ we receive him with Faith In receiving we know what we ought to think upon We receive a little and are fatned in the Heart It is not therefore that which is seen that feeds but that which is believ'd PART VIII Of Consubstantiation The Contents An account of that Doctrine which is by us called Consubstantiation out of the Augustan Confession and Gerhard And as it is founded by him and other the Lutheran Doctors in the letter of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood so Enquiry thereupon made first whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense Secondly whether if so taken Consubstantiation can be inferred from them That the former words ought to be taken in the literal sense is endeavour'd by the Lutherans to be prov'd by general and special Arguments and those Arguments therefore propos'd and answer'd What is alledg'd in the general concerning the literal sense of Scripture being for the most part to
occasion of those words of our Saviour This is my Blood of the New Testament or The New Testament in it which is shed for many for the remission of Sins For since it should seem by those expressions that that Sacrament was instituted under the form of a Testament the words whereof ought in reason to be taken in the literal sense as without which all Testaments would be very uncertain and litigious Therefore the words of this Sacrament and particularly such of them as respect the principal Legacies in it ought to be taken in the literal sense and not in a figurative one If a Man should make answer as I have elsewhere (a) Expl. of the â—â—â—r in Gen. Part â— done and I think too not without great reason that what we render Testament ought to be rendred a Covenant all that argument would be spon'd and whatever the promoters of it have brought concerning Testaments out of the Body of the Civil Law or the Interpreters thereof But I will however allow for once the usual rendring of the Word and answer directly to that Argument which is formed from it As indeed what should hinder me when those very Laws which they pretend to do not prove what they are designed for For such I look upon that (b) Ille aut ille D. de legat fidei commiss which saith that when there is no ambiguity in the words there ought to be no question made concerning the Will of the Testatour For who will allow these Men to suppose that there is no ambiguity in the words of the present Testament strictly and literally understood and particularly in those words that are the subject of the present controversie As little force is there in that Law (c) L. Non aliter D. de legatis c. which saith that we ought not otherwise to depart from the natural signification of words than when it is manifest that the Testatour meant somewhat else than what seems to have been expressed in them For one would think that should consider what impossibilities and contradictions the literal sense of This is my Body and This is my Blood involves one would think I say that those alone should make it manifest enough that the Testatour meant somewhat else than what the literal sense of the words will necessarily lead Men to So little reason is there to believe that there is any thing even in the Civil Law to persuade a strict and literal interpretation of all that a Testament contains And they who produce the two former Laws to persuade such an Interpretation are the more inexcusable in it because if they had pleas'd to read on to the paragraph Titius in the latter of them they would have seen enough to make them asham'd of their pretensions Because it is there affirm'd in express terms that we are not in a cause of Testaments to descend to a strict definition of words since for the most part Testatours speak abusively neither do they always use proper Names and Titles All which things I have said not as constrain'd thereto by the force of the present Argument For I know no reason why the sense of the New Testament should be judg'd of by the niceties of the Law but to let the World see how partial Men are in the allegations of such proofs as they think to be of use to them For beside what was before quoted from the Law concerning Testatours speaking abusively and improperly the same Law gives us to understand (d) L. ex facto D. de haered institu Paragr Rerum aubem Italicarum that the will of the deceased doth all and that (e) L. Siquis â—ta D. de adimendis vel tâ—ansferendis c. Par. Condit Legati his sense is more to be regarded than the words Which could have no sense in it if Legitimate Testaments were alway to be taken in the strictness of the letter For then the will or sense of the Testatour and the words of his Testament would be perfectly the same The next argument for the literal sense of the words in question is taken from the Majesty of him that instituted this Sacrament and from all those glorious Attributes that make it up Such as are his Truth and the place he holds under God of our Instructer his being the very wisdom of the Father and omniscient his being nigh unto death when he instituted this Sacrament and so much the more likely still to weigh all the words he utter'd in this important affair as in fine his being so far from giving any indication of other than a literal Interpretation of the present words that when he was advanced to Heaven he reveal'd the Doctrine of the Eucharist in the very same words wherein he had before exhibited it Things which for the most part must be acknowledg'd to be duly attributed to Christ but which have no force at all to conclude the thing in question For what if Christ be true and appointed by God to be our Instructer Will it therefore follow that we must understand all he saith in the Letter though we want not sufficient Indications even from some of his own words that we ought to understand him in a figurative sense All that they who press us with Christ's Truth and the Place he holds under God seem to pretend to is that we ought to hear him and be guided by him in our Belief Which I suppose they do to very good purpose who submit their Belief to that which all things consider'd they are firmly perswaded to be his Mind and Will But it is farther alledg'd that Christ is the very Wisdom of the Father and one who could therefore express his Mind clearly and plainly and in proper and literal Expressions as well as in figurative ones And whoever doubted of it or could doubt of it who look'd upon him but as an ordinary Prophet and not as one who was also of the same Essence with the Father But as the Question is not What Christ could do but What he hath done So we find no reason to grant but that our Saviour hath spoken plainly enough to those that are willing to understand him The Argument goes on to alledge that our Saviour was omniscient and as he could not therefore but know what Contentions would arise about this part of heavenly Doctrine to the certain destruction of Souls So it is not at all likely that he would so far contribute to it as of set purpose to wrap the true and certain meaning of this holy Mystery in the dark coverings of figurative words But as I do not find any necessity to grant that Christ was bound to do all he could to prevent the Contentions that might afterwards happen because as St. Paul spake (f) 1 Cor. 11.19 concerning Heresies this Good might accrue by them that they that were approved might thereby be made manifest So I see as little reason to grant that Christ did
any way contribute to those Contentions or the ruine of Souls by them by those figurative Expressions which he made use of in the present instance Those Coverings wherein the Doctrine of the Sacrament is suppos'd to be wrap'd up being not so thick or obscure but that they may be seen through by Men of unprejudiced Minds I know not why it is added unless it be to fill up the number of its forces that our Saviour was near to death when he instituted this Sacrament and therefore no doubt well weighed before-hand what he spake concerning it For who but a blasphemous Heretick ever thought or said that our Saviour under any Circumstances knew not what he spake And therefore I shall only take notice of that which concludes the present Argument even that our Saviour was so far from giving any indication of other than a literal interpretation that after he was advanced to Heave he reveal'd the Doctrine of it in the same words wherein it was at first delivered For not to say any thing at present to the latter part of this Allegation Our Saviour as was before shewn gave sufficient Indications of a figurative Interpretation when he represented the things given as his Body broken and Blood shed which they were not then nor can be now and moreover willed his Disciples to partake of what he gave them in remembrance of him and of his death A fourth Argument for the literal sense of the words in question is the great Conformity there is between the several Historians of the Institution as to the words we are now upon It being not to be thought but that if they had been to be taken in other than a simple and proper sense one or other of those holy Men would have added an Explication of them But neither is there that Conformity between them as to the words whereof we speak neither can it be said that none of those Historians have given an Explication of them For though for instance This is my Body is indeed in all of them and we so far forth oblig'd to acknowledge a Conformity between them in their account of the present words Yet St. Luke and St. Paul add to those words which is given for you and which is broken for you which are not only Additions but if what I have elsewhere said (g) Part 5. be well weigh'd due Explications of them also and such as shew them not to be capable of that literal Interpretation which they are so willing to put upon them There is as little truth in what is added that none of those Historians have given any explication of them For not to repeat what was but now said concerning the words which is given or broken for you St. Luke and St. Paul take care to remark that our Saviour enjoin'd his Disciples to eat what he gave them in remembrance of him and of his Death which is no obscure Indication of those words being to be figuratively understood The fifth Argument for the literal Sense is the supposed Absurdity of the figurative Which the better to evince it is pretended that there is no place for any Figure either in the Subject Predicate or the Copula that ties them together And if there be no Figure in either of these there is no Figure at all and the Propositions therefore that are compos'd of them to be literally understood Now as I have elsewhere (h) Part 3. affirm'd the figurativeness of these Propositions to consist in the word Is as which I have there shewn to be the same in sense with signifies and accordingly so us'd in Speeches of the like nature So I shall therefore content my self to return an Answer to what is objected as to the figurativeness of that word whether it be from Logick or from the Scripture Now the first thing that is objected from the former of these Heads is that the Copula or the word Is is no part of a Proposition according to Aristotle and others and therefore the figurativeness of the whole not to be placed in it I will leave it to the Sophisters to answer to Aristotle's Authority because I think that Office is fitter for them than for a Divine It shall suffice me to make answer that as a Man of good natural Understanding would take that to be a part of a Proposition without which in many Propositions the Subject and Predicate could have no connexion nor any more constitute a Proposition than Stone and Timber and other Materials do a House till they are united to one another and compacted into a Building of that Shape and use So men that have had a Name for this Art of Reasoning have been of a quite different opinion from the Objectors and not only not look'd upon the word Is as no part of the Proposition but as the very Soul of it For the Copula saith Petrus à Sancto Joseph (i) Idea Phil. Ration li. 2. Art 4. is to the Subject and Predicate as the Form is to the material parts of any thing and gives them the Essence of a Proposition After the same manner as the formal part of a House is not the Stones and Timber of it but that by which they are connected And Burgersdicius an Author better known and as terrible a Man at the Art of Reasoning is not only of the same Mind with the former as to the word Is being part of a Proposition but tells us moreover (k) Instit Log. li. 1. cap. 27. that it is a part of the Predicate and indeed the very Form and Soul of it Which he proves by a thing that is agreed on among the differing Parties even that the word Is when included in another Verb is part of the Predicate For if saith he the word Is when included in another Verb is part of the Predicate why shall it not be a part of the Predicate when it is set by it self Which with the Instance which he subjoins and another Reason for it I shall leave to the Logicians of the other side to answer But beside that more remote Objection of the Copula's being no part of a Proposition and therefore the figurativeness of the present ones not to be placed there It is farther added that this Copula or the word Is is a word of no certain signification in it self For I forbear the mention of that hard Name which the Logicians give it whereas Tropes and Figures can have place only in words of certain signification because altering them from their native signification to a foreign one And it must be granted that the word Is is so far forth of an uncertain signification that it may and is wont to be appli'd to several sorts of Predications and particularly to such as are only accidental as well as to those that are essential For thus we may and do affirm that Socrates for instance is of this or that Colour which denotes only an Accident as well as
that he is a reasonable Creature which points out the very Essence of him But as the word Is hath this certain signification in the general as to point to somewhat that naturally belongs to the Subject to which it relates whether it be of the Essence or only an Accident thereof So it may so far forth be capable of being alter'd from its native signification to a foreign one which is the thing this Argument was intended to impugne But leaving such Niceties as these to such as take more pleasure in them that so we may with more freedom apply our selves to the Consideration of the Scriptures Let us as is no doubt more for our Profit consider what they alledge from thence to impugn the figurativeness of this so much controverted word Is Where the first thing that occurrs is that in those words which respect the Cup the word Is in the original Greek is wanting in St. Luke For whatever is pretended it is not wanting in S. Paul though it be out of its usual order And this for ought I can see is made one of those potent Arguments which confounded Piscator and caused him after he had many years stoutly defended the Figurativeness thereof to retract his Opinion in that Particular But as I see no such force in this or the other Arguments to occasion any change of Opinion So the word Is is so often understood that St. Luke might upon that account take the less care to express it especially having before made use of it in the matter of the other Element And I shall only add that if there be any thing which seems to press hard upon the supposed figurativeness of the word Is it must be that the Hebrew for ought appears hath no word to express Is or Are and our Saviour therefore when he pronounc'd the present Propositions to have uttered them without any word to answer to it only mentioning This my Body and This my Blood as the Scripture speaks in the like Cases Which suppos'd one would think the figurativeness of those Propositions should not be plac'd where we have done it and because there seems nothing else to place it in to be utterly banish'd from them But as it is plain from the Evangelists translating those words This is my Body and This is my Blood that the word Is though not express'd yet was always understood by the Hebrews So to suppose the contrary is to destroy the literal Sense as well as the figurative because there can be no Sense at all unless it be either expressed or understood By the same Reason therefore that they who advance the literal Sense of those Propositions place that literal Sense in the word Is though it be rather suppos'd than express'd By the very same Reason may we place the figurativeness thereof in it and interpret those Propositions by it One only Argument remains if yet it deserve that Name that the literal sense is the only one that can bring Men to a setledness in the Doctrine of the Eucharist or give us any good Assurance when we come to appear before Christ's Judgment-Seat They who run after Tropes and Figures knowing not where to fix as appears by the differences that are between them and much less likely to stand in the day of Temptation or in that more terrible day of the Lord Jesus But as it is now pretty evident that they who follow a figurative Sense are neither so uncertain in themselves nor so different from one another (l) Vid. Cosins Hist Trans Papal cap. 2. that any Man can with Reason reproach them upon that account So they who pretend to follow the literal Sense are so far from coming to any settledness in this Affair that they cannot agree what that literal Sense is and ought not therefore to be more confident of their own future standing at the day of Trial than a sincere pursuit of the Truth and a belief they have it will be able to give them Which as it is not deni'd to them by us so will it is hoped be as easily granted to us by them when they consider more calmly of our Opinions and the grounds of them 2. But let us suppose that the words in controversie were to be taken in the literal sense and whatever can be fairly deduc'd from thence to be the genuine issue of Christianity Yet how doth it appear that that which we call Consubstantiation and they though improperly enough a true real and substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament can receive any countenance from it For not only do the Lutherans maintain a simple Presence of them in the Eucharist but so intimate a Presence also that they and the Sacramental Elements make up one compound By means whereof as the Person of Christ by the union of his Divine and Humane Nature may be said to be either God or Man so that which is made up of the Sacramental Element and the thing of the Sacrament may by that union of theirs be in like manner affirm'd to be either the one or the other without any kind of impropriety or figure Consequently whereto as our Saviour call'd this Compound thing by the Name of his Body and Blood so St. Paul might as well give it the Title of Bread or Wine where he speaks so often of its being eaten or drunken by both the worthy and unworthy partakers of it Now what is there in the letter of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood to found such a Doctrine on What is there in them that they themselves can think of any moment to inferr it Nothing for ought that I can discern but the Neuter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hoc and which because it agrees not in Gender with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bread must be taken not adjectively but substantively and consequently for that complexum quid or compound thing which they advance But if the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hoc being of the Neuter Gender do not hinder its referring to the Bread If it be so far from being any impropriety in construction when so referr'd that it is agreeable to the use of the best Authors both in Greek and Latin Lastly if the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hoc may as well be rendred This thing meaning the Bread before spoken of as this Compound of the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament as hath been heretofore (m) Part 3. declar'd at large Then is all this Presence and Union without any kind of foundation in the Text and they must either believe as we do that Christ meant no more by This is my Body and Blood than This is the Sacrament thereof Or that that Bread and Wine which he gave to his Disciples is by his Almighty Power transubstantiated into his very Body and Blood Or that his Body and Blood are in the Sacrament but after what manner they are utterly