Scribler who now appears supposes he hath solved that argument as easily as Sampson broke the withes wherewith Delilah had tied him Judg. 16.9 Yet I hope to make him sensible of his mistake SECT I. The Popish Figment of Transubstantiation briefly Confuted and the Authors argument against it vindicated from the exceptions of the Pamphleter PAssing by his undervaluing and approbrious words I first take notice that p. 112. he says I bring only a Philosophical Argument to prove that these words This is my Body are to be taken in a Figurative sense But if he be pleased to review what I said he will find I brought an Argument from a Scripture-Medium and confirmed the sence of Protestants with the testimony of Austin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and Tertull. contra Iud. cap. 40. None of which this vain-glorious disputant adventures to examine I was so far from looking upon that Argument which I brought as the only supporter of our Doctrine that I advertised Mr. Dempster Pap. 7. pag. 127. of armies of Arguments brought by Whittaker Chamier Morton Nethenus c. to prove the same conclusion Doth not the senses of all men in the world find real bread after consecration Did ever God deceive the senses of all men through so many ages If the Argument from senses were fallacious when the Organ and Medium are rightly disposed and the object within coâ—venient distance how did Christ use it Luk. 24.38 39. Why do thoughts arise in your hearts behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have Doth not consecrated Bread and Wine nourish Bodies as other Bread and Wine Do they not putrifie and turn to worms when long kept Have not persons been poysoned thereby Will either meer accidents or the true glorified body of Jesus do so Was it ever heard that the blessing and consecration of a thing did destroy or annihilate it What have Romanists here to consecrate but Bread and Wine The glorified Body of our Lord Jesus Christ I hope is above their consecration and doth the benediction of the Bread make it cease to be Doth not two things verbum and elementum as Austin well observed Trac 80. in Joh. A visible element and an audible word concur to make up a Sacrament If the substance of Bread and Wine cease where have they a remaining element which hath a Sacramental Analogy with the Body and Blood of Jesus Will they say that a specter of meer accidents without a subject are an element with such an Analogical resemblance Is not the end of a Sacrament to confirm us by things visible in the faith of invisible my steries Is not the figment of transubstantiation a thing so incredible to reason that it tends rather to shake faith than to confirm it is it credible if Christ had meant by these words that the Bread was Transubstantiated into his Body that the Disciples who were scrupulous about far less matters would not have moved one scruple concerning this stupendious mysterie Are not figurative expressions very frequent in Sacramental purposes as Gen. 17.10 Circumcision is my Covenant Exod. 12.11 The Lamb is the Passcover 1 Cor. 10.3 the Rock is Christ Doth not Romanists acknowledge multitude of figurative expressions in the justification of the Supper As when the said 1 Cor. 11.24 This is my Body which is broken was it then broken Was there not there Enallage temporis So in Verse 25. This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood are there not more figures than one Is not the cup put for that which was contained in the cup Can either the cup or that which was in the cup be called the New Testament without a Trope Why then judge they it so piacular a crime to expound these words in the same institution This is my body figuratively Is it not often called bread after the consecration as 1 Cor. 10.16 1 Cor. 11.26 27. Let a man Examine himself and so let him Eat of this Bread Can they reconcile these expressions with their notion of Transubstantiation without making all these figurative Think they it not a Cyclopick-like practice to devour the living body of a Man much more of their Saviour Must not the Heavens receive Christ till he come again Act. 3.21 Are we not prohibited to believe these who say loe here is Christ or there or in secret Chambers Math. 24.23.25 Do not the principles of Romanists in this thing expose them to perpetual hazard of Idolatry not only through the uncertainty of the Priests intention upon which according to them depends the consecration but also through many other contingencies such as the Priests erring in the pronunciation of the words whereof the people can never have certainty they being but secretly whispered and though heard doth every one understand Latin Heard he never of the Priest who having many Wafers to consecrate said Haec sunt corpora mea What should I blot Paper with the absurdities which many have deduced from the replication of Christ's body in many thousand not contiguous places the penetration of all the parts of the body of Jesus in every point and the existence of accidents without a subject Doth not Renatus Des Cartes and many great Philosophers question if there be such accidents in the world as the Schools did commonly teach about the time of the Lateran Council Is it not a goodly article of Faith which is calculated to the variable and problematick Hypotheses of Philosophers which may have the vogue in one age and may perhaps with more reason be exploded in another Must Religion stand and fall with the Sect of Peripateticks Is it not the height of Impudence to say that the words of the Institution are clear for their Transubstantiated presence seeing Scotus their subtle Doctor confesses that had nor the Church interposed her definition no man could have from them concluded Transubstantiation It 's not the perspicuity of Scripture according to Scotus that made the mysterie of Transubstantiation clear but the Lateran definition and yet it s questioned also if in that Lateran Council it were defined Are we the first who held the sence of these words figurative Did not Austin positively say as much contra Adimant cap. 12. Is not Theod. very express Dial. 1. Dominus imposuit signo nomen corperis And a little after our Saviour saith he exchanged names corpori suo imposuit nomen signi signo imposuit nomen corporis sui ita qui se vitem ipse vocabit vocabit signum sanguinem suum and again he honoured saith he visible Symbols with the Names of his body and blood Non naturam mutando sed gratiam naturae adjiciendo not by changing their Nature or substance but by adding grace thereto What need I more may not their own Canon Law stop their mouths dist 2. de consecrat Can. hoc est and the gloss thereupon where it is
root Pasal signifie dolare sculpere Hence the Chaldee renders it Tsalma an Image Do not their own Pagnin and Montanus render it sculptile But whatever be of that is it not added in the Hebrew Ve celtemuna or any likeness of any thing Are not here then all Images in so far as they are made objects of Adoration prohibited But grant that it ought to be rendred an Idol yet doth not the Adoration of an Image make it an Idol Did not Adoration make the Brazen Serpent an Idol which before was not one Hence is that of Tertull. lib. de Idololatria cap. 4. Imaginum consecratio est Idololatria and Isidore lib. 8. Orig. cap. 11. Idolum est similaehrum quodâ—humana effigie factum consecratum est according to the known Distich Qui sacros fingit auro vel marmore vultus Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit Yea so evident is this that their great School-man Vasq Tom. 1. in 3. Part. q. 25. disp 104. cap. 2. confesses that by this Command all Adoration of Images was prohibited to the Jews whence I conclude therefore also to Christians the Moral Law standing still in force Rom. 3.31 Do we by Faith make void the Law nay rather we establish it I might run through other Points in difference betwixt Romanists and us for I know none of them but may be disproved by luculent Scriptures Whereas he says these three Scriptures Mat. 26.26 Jam. 2.24 2 Thes 2.13 are flatly against Protestants he too flatly discovers either his own ignorance or impudency the harmony betwixt these and the Doctrine of Protestants hath been abundantly cleared by our Authors who handle the Controversies of the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Justification and Traditions Now shortly I say first that these words This is my Body make no more for the Transubstantiation of Bread into the Body of Christ than these 1 Cor. 10.4 the Book was Christ for a Transubstantiation of the Rock into Christ Yea their Transubstantiating sense cannot be admitted without falsifying the words of Christ as I demonstrated against M. Demster and shall shew in its own place that my Argument stands yet in force notwithstanding the Pamphleters insignificant attempts to the contrary In evidence hereof after Consecration it 's frequently called Bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27. I proceed therefore to the second Scripture Jam. 2.24 Ye see that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only That this place is not so clear for them may appear by joyning them with some other places from the Apostle Paul Rom. 3.28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 4.5 6. To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly is Faith counted for righteousness even as David described the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the Faith of Jesus Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi per fidem which Esthius upon the place acknowledges to be equivalent to sed tantum per fidem but only by Faith And he affirms that the most Learned both of Greek and Latin Interpreters do agree in that Exposition These and other Texts of the Apostle Paul seem to stand in so full contradiction to the fense which Romanists impose upon the words of James that they have devised many Cob web distinctions to clude those luculent testimonies of the Apostle S. Paul Some affirming that he excludes only from Justification the works of the Ceremonial Law not remembring that he excludes the works of that Law which is established by the Gospel as is clear comparing Rom. 3.28 with verse 31. but that is surely the Moral Law Others finding that they cannot deny but he excludes the works of the Moral Law yet say that only these works as done before Conversion and without Grace are excluded Others say that the Apostle S. Paul speaks only of the first Justification but not of the second But the Apostle S. Paul Rom. 4. to confirm his Assertion of Justification by Faith without the works of the Law brings in the instances of David and Abraham long after their Conversion and therefore he excludes not only works before Conversion neither speaks he only of that which Romanists call the first Justification I shall not digress to examine that distinction of the first and second Justification but surely in the Romish sense it presupposes a Justification by inherent holiness or by works and so is a begging of the question Only to prevent Logomachies and mistakes about words it would be considered that the chief question betwixt Romanists and us in this thing is concerning the meritorious cause of Justification what it is that purchases to us Remission of sin and right to Eternal Life Now I might appeal to all serious and imprejudiced persons what else can do this but the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ Can our good works either before or after Conversion satisfie Divine Justice or merit to us remission of sins and a right to eternal life Is there any proportion betwixt our works and that Eternal and far more exceeding weight of Glory or the wrath to the uttermost due to us for our sins Are we not bound Luke 17.10 When we have done all that we are commanded to acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants for we have but done that which was our duty to do Are not our best performances stained with gradual defects Eccles 7.20 Esay 64.6 All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Is not that saying of S. Greg. known lib. 9. Moral in Job cap 11. Omnis humana justitia injustitia esseconvincitur si districtè judicetur prece ergo post justitiam indiget ut quae succumbere discussa poterat ex sola judicis pietate convalescat Does any man love God so well as he ought says not S. Austin Epist 29. Plenissima charitas est in nemine Illud autem quod minus est quam esse debet in vitio est Do we not stand in need of mercy to our best works Neh. 13.22 Are they not made acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1 Pet. 2.5 Can we then be pronounced by God perfectly just on the account of these or are we not rather pronounced just upon the account of the obedience of Christ for which these are accepted and we our selves also Ephes 1.6 He hath made us accepted in the beloved Is not that Scripture luculent Rom. 5.19 By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous If any might have placed confidence on their works to be justified thereby then surely the Apostle S. Paul might have done it but he durst not adventure on it 1 Cor. 4.4 I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified It remains then to be expounded in what sense a man is said Jam. 2.24 to be justified by works and not by Faith only
Transubstantiated presence so as the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed a specter of accidents without a Subject remaining and the body and blood of Christ being substituted under the accidents In this we and not Romanists are consonant to the Faith of the Ancient Church Hence Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. the bread after consecration is not now common bread but an Eucharist consisting of two things the terren and the heavenly Then in the Eucharist two things are exhibited to believers the terren viz Bread and Wine and the Heavenly the body and blood of Christ And therefore the usual Objection which the Pamphleter takes out of the same cap. of Irenaeus where the Father concluds against Hereticks that Jesus is the Son of the maker of the World because that bread upon which thanks is given is the body of the Lord and that cup his blood makes nothing for Transubstantiation Nay it distroys it Bread cannot be the body of Christ nor the cup his blood in a proper sense but in a figurative and the force of Irenaeus argument appears to be this he that instituted the creatures of God as sacred and exhibitive Symbols of his body and blood must be the Son of God Christ did so Ergo c. Tertullian is no less luculent lib. 4. Cont. Marcio cap. 40. expresly calling the Bread a figure of his body and then drawes an argument against Marcion and other Hereticks to prove that Christ had a true and real body because it could not be the figure of his body if he had not a true body But if Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation were true Tertull could never have used a more unhappy argument against Marcion for if there be no real bread in the Sacrament but a Phantasm of accidents without a subject this had rather given advantage to Marcion who affirmed Christ to have a Phantastical body Here I cannot but notice the prevarication of the Pamphleter he mentions only these words of Tertull the Bread taken and distributed he made his body and then crys out what more cleer for Transubstantiation But had he not mutilated Tertullians words it would have appeared nothing could be more clear to overturn Transubstantiation for presently Tertull thus explains himself hoc est figura corporis mei that is this is the figure of my Body Yea Beatus Rhenanus in admon de Tertul. dogm reckons this as one of Tertullians sentiments that the body of Christ is only figuratively in the Eucharist By this also may be cleared what the Phamphleter objects out of Ignatius Epist ad Smyrnenses that the Saturnian Hereticks did not admit of Eucharists and oblations because they do not confess the Eucharist to be our Saviours Flesh For as Spalat lib. 5. cap. 6. Num. 151. well observes though the Eucharist be not properly the Flesh of Christ yet being a Symbol of his Flesh it receives the denomination of the thing signified and strongly proves that Christ hath real Flesh and a proper humane nature which those Hereticks denyed They therefore seeing the strength of this Argument rejected the Eucharist I add another testimony of Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 17. the senses saith he are not deceived about their own objects lest thereby something of advantage might be yeelded to Hereticks making but a Phantasm of Christ c. But according to the tenet of Transubstantiators the senses of all the World are ludified with Tertullian accords Cyprian who Epist 76. calls the Bread the body of Christ and the Wine his blood which were a manifest falshood if not figuratively understood So likewise Origen in Math. 15. that which is sanctified by the word of God and Prayer according to the material part of it goes into the belly and is sent into the draught I desire to know by a Romanist what is this material part of the Sacrament which goes into the draught if the substance of bread do not remain when therefore Origen saith we eat and drink the body and blood of the Lord in the place objected by the Pamphleter he can only be understood of a Symbolical and Mystical Eating and Drinking With those Fathers of the first three ages these of following times do agree as appears by Theod. dial 1. where he says that by the blessing of consecration the nature of the elements is not changed but grace added unto nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but abide in their proper nature shape and figure so much is affirmed by Gelasius lib. de duabus naturis Christi contra Eutych Nestor in bib pat tom 5. part 3. So also Augustin contra Adimantum cap. 12. and the Author of the Books de sacramentis going under the name of Ambrose lib. 4. cap. 4. ut sint quae erant in aliud convertantur that they may be what they were and be converted into another thing If they remain what they were then sure their conversion into another thing must be only Symbolical A volume would hardly contain the testimonies of this nature which may be heaped up Scarce doth any testimony remain objected by the adversary which we have not cleared on the by as we were bringing testimonies for the truth His spurious testimonies I value not and such is not only that from Deny's lib. de Eccles Hierarch cap. 3. but also that from Cyprian de caena domini as is demonstrated by Criticks and yet neither of them make for Transubstantiation Not the first or the Pseudo Deny's exclamation O divinissimum sacramentum whither it be taken with Dr. Morton as a Rhetorical apostrophe or with Spalat as an invocation of Christ himself who is the thing signified in the Sacrament Nor the other ascribed to Cyprian wherein the Elements are said to be changed not in shape but in nature for nature is not taken for substance else this should be repugnant to the true Cyprian but for the condition of these Elements as when we say that things are of different nature some common and prophane others holy and Divine in this sense the Elements after consecration are changed in their nature beginning then to be of holy use and Divine vertue albeit Learned Salmasius in Simplicio Verino Pag. 78. suspects that testimony to be vitiated and that it ought to be read nec specic nec natuna neither changed in shape nor in nature Romanists have committed many such parricids on the writings of Fathers so that here also I may conclude with a fourth demonstration of Romish Novelty That the substance of Bread and Wine are destroyed in the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ are substituted in their place was no essential of Faith in the first three ages But this is an essential of the present Romish Faith Ergo c. SECT V. A fifth instance of Novelty concerning Purgatory examined and Retorted THe Pamphleter in his fifth Instance saith that Protestants deny Purgatory and Prayers for the dead Where Sophistically he throwes two Popish errors together Well he knew