properly This manner of speaking then being so common and familiar with that Nation well may we interpret our Saviour's words This is my Body in the same manner according to the nature of a Sacrament and the subject Matter thereof So it is said that the Rock which followed the Israelites was Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of the Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ Sure there can be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in another manner when this form of Speech was so common among them but it is very agreeable to understand them as we understand them Besides it is but the same form of Speech which was used by the Jews in celebrating the Passover which our Saviour and his Disciples had been just now about And he instituted this Sacrament for the like End as the Passover had been and it was now for ever to succeed in its place This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge we are told was the form among the Jews meaning that it did put them in mind and represent to them the Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the true Paschal Lamb that was to take away the Sins of the World. And at the Passover the Master of the House likewise took Bread and brake it and gave it to them saying This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt not the very Bread sure but only a Type or Figure of it So our Saviour in like manner accommodating himself to their Customs and Phrases used the very same Symbols and express'd himself accordingly This is my Body which is broken for you which our Saviour appointed in remembrance of himself ever after in the room of the Paschal Lamb. Now how should we understand our Saviour's words then but agreeably to the old form in the like case Besides it is plain from the words themselves about the Institution that it was very Bread of which he said This is my Body For it is said He took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave to his Disciples saying Take eat This is my Body What he took he blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gave to his Disciples What he gave to his Disciples of that he said This is my Body But he took Bread therefore of the Bread he said This is my Body And if it was Bread then it could not be his very Body but only a Symbol or Sign o◠it because it was Bread still And that it was Bread still ever after the Consecration we have also the Apostle's words for it 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread. So that it is Bread still which they are partakers of which was after the Consecration So again Chap. 11. 26 27 28. As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examine himself and so let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup. Where he calls it Bread three times in three Verses together even after the Consecration In like manner our Saviour speaking of the Cup when he had said Mat. 26 28. This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately after adds 〈…〉 unto you I will not henceforth drink of this 〈…〉 Vine until I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom From whence it is plain that it was the Fruit of the Vine and real Wine which he drank with his Disciples and that was after the Consecration Besides if the substance of Bread and Wine are changed in the Sacrament into the very substance of the Body and Blood of Christ when is it done Is it done before those words were pronounc'd This is my Body or in them or after them If it was done before When was it done or by what Command or in what way If it be not done till after they are all pronounc'd or till after the word Is is pronounc'd then it is false to say This is my Body before the change is wrought which is not till after the word Is is pronounc'd for these words are only declarative of what is before and are not imperative of what should be And if it was not before these words were pronounc'd then a thing is pronounc'd to be which was not which is a false Proposition And if it had been intended that the change should have been wrought by these words then it should have been Let this be my Body or This shall be my Body and not This is my Body which only declares what a thing was before and doth not command it to be what it was not So that in truth it only means that the Bread was set a-part by our Saviour for the Sign and Token of his Body when he blessed it and gave Thanks Again our Saviour gave to his Disciples his Body as broken But then his Body was really whole and unbroken for it was before his Passion and it was the Bread only that was broken Therefore our Saviour did not give his very Body but the Bread broken only as a Symbol of his Body which was to be broken So that it was really Bread which he gave and not his very natural Body but the Bread as a sign of his Body and for that reason called his Body because signifying it And so these words are to be understood only in a Figure Are not these words to be understood in a Figure 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread Or are all Christians turn'd into Bread first and then into the Body of Christ by their being made partakers of the Bread in the Sacrament It is as good an Argument to argue so from these words as to argue from our Saviour's This is my Body that therefore the substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of his Body But the figurative way of speaking is evident and undeniable in the other part of the Sacrament about the Cup Luke 22. 20. And therefore why may not we suppose the like in the former about the Body This Cup says our Saviour is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Here is Figure upon Figure the Cup for the Wine But neither Cup nor Wine is the New Testament nor yet our Saviour's Blood neither but the Seal of it But as our Saviour's Blood was the Seal of the New Testament and of all the Promises and Benefits contained in it So was the Wine a sign of his Blood and as such was given to the Disciples as a Seal of the New Covenant confirmed by our Saviour's Blood. And that this must
the Wilderness that were not circumcised no doubt died in that time Josh 5. 5. And shall we think therefore they were all deprived of eternal Salvation And what became of the other Sex that were not capable of Circumcision if the Sacrament of Circumcision were absolutely necessary to Salvation And if that was not absolutely necessary then why is Baptism so For if Baptism be so absolutely necessary to eternal Salvation that all Children dying without it should be excluded from the Grace of Christ then an infinite number of Children would meerly perish by the Fault or negligence of others without their own This would make the Salvation of a Child to depend upon the Will of a Midwife If she baptizeth the Child after his coming forth of the Womb behold he is saved but if she crusheth him behold he is lost for ever What can be more unreasonable than this Ezek. 18. 20. The Soul that sinneth it shall die The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father But if a little Child be not baptized this doth not come from his Fault and sure he shall not be punish'd for the negligence of his Parents or for want of opportunity When Moses neglected to circumcise his Son Exod. 4. God spared the Child in that he was Innocent but sought to kill Moses for his carelesness in the omission Note therefore that when it is said Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved It is plain from the following words that Baptism is not of the same necessity with Faith for it is added only and he that believeth not shall be damned But it is not said He that is not baptized shall be damned if so be he hath Faith. But that Baptism is join'd to Faith in the Promise it is to signify and express our duty of publickly testifying our Faith in Christ by our being baptized in his Name So that Baptism is here required only as it denotes our external profession of the Faith of Christ which is to be notified by Baptism as the solemn and visible Sign of it Baptism being a Right divinely instituted for that end So again when it is said Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of Sin. And Chap 22. 16. Arise and be baptized and wash away thy Sins calling on the Name of the Lord. It is so required and exprest because Men express and testify their Faith and Repentance by Baptism that they may obtain remission of Sin. And 't is by Baptism that God seals to them remission of Sin upon their Repentance and Faith in Christ therein testified and express'd 'T is the faithful undertaking of the Baptismal Covenant that is the condition of Salvation And Baptism it self is required only as it is necessary to notify and own this our Consent and Covenant unto others And if we perform the Condition the want of the use of the Sign when it doth not arise from our own neglect shall not hurt us As for John 3. 5. and Tit. 3. 5. see in the former Chapter Observe only this farther that by reason of the Opinion of the absolute necessity of Baptism to Salvation the Church of Rome hath impowred Midwives or any other Person to administer it in case of peril of Death But this Opinion being overthrown it is evident that that Practice is groundless it being the contempt which is a virtual rejection of the Christian Faith and not a bare want of it that is damning Moreover it is plain that our Saviour hath committed the administration of the Sacrament to those to whom he committed the Office of Teaching Matth. 28. 19 20. Go teach all Nations baptizing them But this Office was committed to the Apostles and their Successors in the Ministry and not to Women to whom the Apostle hath prohibited it therefore so is the administration of Baptism prohibited to them likewise Of the Lord's Supper CHAP. XXV That after the Consecration there remains no more of the Substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament but that there is a Transubstantiation or a change of the substance of Bread and Wine into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ Council of Trent Sess 13. chap. 4. Can. 2. THE Foundation upon which this portentous Doctrine is built are our Saviour's words of Institution Mat. 26. 27 28. and Luke 22. 19. Jesus Christ took Bread and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given unto you this do in remembrance of me Now we do not question but that our Saviour made his words good but the Question is In what sense our Saviour's Words are to be understood whether in a literal and proper or in a figurative Sense The Church of Rome saith in the literal and proper we say in the figurative Sense and so consequently that in them there is no Foundation of Transubstantiation Now to make this clear we argue thus If there be no necessity to understand them in the sense of Transubstantiation and there be a great deal of Reason to understand them in the figurative Sense in which we understand them and that it is very absurd and unreasonable to understand them otherwise then they ought to be understood in the Sense in which we understand them For we ought certainly to understand them in that Sense which it is most reasonable to understand them in Now that there is no necessity to understand them in the Sense of Transubstantiation and that there is a great deal of Reason to understand them otherwise may appear by these following Observations The Sense in which we understand them is very agreeable to the Custom and Usage and Manner of speaking which was very familiar among the Jews with whom such figurative Expressions were very common For we have many of this sort in Scripture it being usual in the Hebrew Language to say Things are that which only thy signify and represent As Gen. 41. 26. Joseph tells Pharaoh The seven good Kine are seven Years i. e. they signify and represent them And the seven good Ears of Corn are seven Years And so in the matter of the Sacraments as Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17. 9. and yet in the following Verse is expounded to be only the Token of it So the Paschal Lamb is called the Lord's Passover Exod. 12. 11. Yet by Verse 13. appears as in all reason it was to be only a sign of it So Baptism is called the washing of Regeneration because it was the Sign and Seal of it And the Cup is by our Saviour called the New Testament because likewise it was the Seal of it where the Cup is also taken for the Wine in the Cup. Our Saviour speaking of himself saith I am the Door Joh. 10. 9. and I am the true Vine Joh. 15. 1. the Church of Rome would have mightily triumphed in it if it had been said This is my true Body yet no Body takes these Expressions
be so is also plain because our Saviour gave it to his Disciples as his Blood shed But his own natural Blood then was not shed unless they will say it was shed before he suffered for this was before his Suffering So that it must needs be understood only figuratively that the Wine poured forth did signify and represent the Blood of his which was shortly to be shed for Sinners and by which the New Testament was confirmed And for that end and because of the use of it mentioned it has the name of the Blood given to it the Sign having the name of the thing signified And though it be thus only in a figurative and not in a proper sense that we are to understand the words of the Institution yet the Benefit and Comfort of the Sacrament will be nevertheless For it may be of equal efficacy and advantage to us if we outwardly receive only the Symbols as if we received the very Body and Blood of Christ themselves for the efficacy doth not lie in the thing received but in the Blessing that goes along with the Institution As the Water in Baptism without a substantial change in the Element with the Divine Blessing is equally serviceable to the Ends of that Sacrament as if there were a substantial change So 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we brake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ We may have Communion with the Body of Christ by partaking of the Bread. As Idolaters may have fellowship with Devils by partaking of the Sacrifices offered to them without having the substance of the things sacrificed to them turned into the substance of Devils 1 Cor. 10. 20. So Believers may have fellowship with Christ by partaking of the Bread and Wine instituted for that End without having the substance of the Bread and Wine changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ We see then it is highly reasonable and necessary to understand the words of Institution as other figurative Expressions of the like nature are to be understood And there is not the least inconvenience or absurdity will follow upon it But to understand them in the sense of Transubstantiation is highly unreasonable and is against the being and design of the Scripture and is also monstrously absurd If the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament be turned into the Body and Blood of Christ then Christ must be with us still with his bodily Presence which is against the whole current of Scripture for he is ascended into Heaven and therefore he is not here Acts 3. 21. The Heavens must receive or retain him until the time of restitution of all things And how is he then in the hands of the Priest Col. 3. 1. Christ sits at the right Hand of God and there we must seek him and not in the hands of a Priest or upon the Altar For said he John 16. 28. I leave the World and go to the Father And therefore in his absence he promised the People another Comforter who should abide with them and supply his place John 14. 10. But Henceforth saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 16. we know him no more after the Flesh he abiding in us only by his Spirit and we know him only by Faith. We are not like the Disciples of the Prophet Elijah who sought on Earth for their Master whom God had taken up into Heaven 2 King. 2. Our Saviour sâ—ith Mat. 26. 11. The Poor ye have always with you but me ye have not always Whereas if he be every where in the Mass we may have him with us always as much as the Apostles had him And when our Saviour told them they had always the Poor with them whom they might shew kindness to but not him and therefore they should not grudg at the expence of a box of Ointment upon him If they had been of the Miâ—d of the Church of Rome they might have answered Lord we shall have thee with us as long as we shall have the Poor and this cost which this poor Woman hath been at is nothing in comparison of what shall one day be laid out upon Thee in hâ—â—ging the Streets with Tapestry in â—â—ecking the Altar◠〈◊〉 inclosing Thee in rich and â—ostly Pieces and in sâ—â—ting Thee up 〈◊〉 stately and magnificent Mansions But then if Christ's Body be with us it seems he must be invisible also and not to be felt which is contrary to the nature of an humane Body In which he is made like unto us Heb. 2. 17. To be invisible is to be more like a Spirit which hath not Flesh and 〈◊〉 Luke 24. 39 40. If the Body of Christ be also in the small Wafer of the Sacrament he must be without proper extension suitable to the nature of an humane Body And if he be whole in every Wafer of the Sacrament he must be whole in many places at once Which is a contradiction for then he would have a Body which is one and not one but many as the places are in which he wholly is And it is against the reasoning of the Angel Mat. 28. 5 6. He is not here for he is risen But according to this Doctrine he might be there and risen too and then the Angel's reasoning was not good And then Christ might be distant from himself as that Body now which is at London would be distant from that that is at Rome many hundred miles and that Body which is at Rome may meet that Body which is at London and so it would be the same and not the same and the same would move towards and meet it self And then Christ's Body might move and not move at the same time and it might be carried and not carried and it might be eaten and not eaten in one place eaten with Rats and at another place worship'd and might be glorious and not be glorious and innumerable such Absurdities follow upon this sensless and unreasonable Doctrine Besides the barbariâ—y and bloodiness of eating and drinking humane Flesh and Blood and devouring ones God. And then the most wicked Men may receive Christ with the mouths of their Body and likewise eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. But Christ tells us this we only do now by believing in him John 6. For the Flesh profiteth nothing The Wicked having not Faith have no part in him they do not dwell in Christ nor Christ in them as they that eat his Flesh and drink his Blood do John 6. 56. And therefore it must be understood spiritually and by Faith. To conclude We have as much assurance that Transubstantiation is false as that Christianity is true that is our Sense and Reason in concurrence with the Holy Scripture And is not this a goodly Doctrine which if granted would raze the Foundation of the Christian Faith and reduce us to the vastest Uncertainty so that we could reasonably believe nothing For what can we be certain of at all if not