confirming their belief of his Doctrine The Doctrine was to be believed but the miracle was to be seen which confirm'd that Doctrine To instance in one for all When the water was turn'd into wine Ioh. 2. it was now seen and tasted to be true wine only it was much better than common wine Otherwise do you think if it had still had the colour the smell and the taste of water that the people would have been perswaded it was turned into wine Would they have been satisfied with an odd story that the substance was wine though the accidents of water still remain'd or with any such idle unintelligible talk Would such a sort of miracle as this that could no way be perceived ever have been believed Or would the pretence to such miracles ever have gain'd Disciples to our Saviour And yet such a one is this of Transubstantiation L. So very strange and unaccountable it is that it never ought to be admitted without very good proof T. And is it not then almost as strange that ever any man should believe so absurd a Doctrine not only without good proof but even against the express words of Scripture as well as against his reason and senses L. No matter for sense and reason they cry but how do you prove it to be against Scripture T. It may be proved from those places which tell us of our Saviours being received into Heaven as Act. 3. 21. and he cannot at the same time be corporally present upon earth and in heaven too L. But did he not appear to St. Paul and others after his Ascension T. Yes he did so yet does not this prove him to be then corporally present for he might render himself visible to them without descending as he did to St. Stephen or he might appear to them in a Vision and make himself present to their imagination Or he might be said to appear to them by his Angel whom he sent For thus in Scripture it 's commonly said God appear'd to this or that man when he sent his Angel to him with some message But besides this the plain words of the Evangelists when they relate the institution of this Holy Sacrament do directly contradict this Doctrine of Transubstantiation For they tell us that our Saviour took bread and blessed it and brake it even the very same that he took that he blest and what he blest that he broke and what is this but true bread as to its natural substance Only in a mystical and spiritual sense it was made the Body of Christ by Consecration And thus also St. Paul calls it Bread after Consecration no less than three times in three verses together 1 Cor. 11. 26 c. L. This my Author grants but says it 's called so because the external accidents of bread do still remain T. That is because the colour shape and taste of bread do still remain with all other qualities of common bread Now I beseech you can there be any better or surer way to discover what is the substance or nature of a thing than by such accidents such outward sensible appearances as these How can we distinguish bread from a stone or water from wine but by the colour the smell the taste or the like And thus do we here distinguish bread from flesh and wine from blood and do believe that to be bread which is both call'd so in Scripture and which our own eyes discern to be indeed so L. But he says faith will teach us otherwise from the Word of God T. Nay on the contrary you see Gods word calls it bread after the Consecration and therefore both our faith and our senses assure us that it is bread Nor does this in the least contradict our Saviours words when he says This is my body for so it is in a spiritual sense whilst yet the substance of bread remains unchanged and therefore most properly is it called bread which it could in no wise be if no such substance was there Yet still we say that by partaking of these holy Elements of bread and wine we do really partake of Christs body and blood though in a spiritual manner according to St. Pauls expression 1 Cor. 10. 16. Do you judge then who keeps closest to Scripture in this point they or we L. To me it seems plain that the Doctrine and language of our Church is no less agreeable to Scripture than to reason And I still discover what injury they do us whilst they charge us with holding that the Sacrament is only the figure of Christs body T. It is as I have already said a most false charge for though it be the figure of his body and expresly called so by some ancient Writers yet we own it to be much more than so For in this holy Sacrament are given to us Christs body and blood whilst the blessings and benefits of his Death and Passion are made over to and bestow'd upon the worthy receiver And so our Church expresses it in the Office at the Communion We do spiritually eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood Christ dwelleth in us and we in him we are one with Christ and he with us L. Yet they say we make the Sacraments of the New Testament in effect no better than the old since the Passover and such like were figures of Christ whereas in the New Testament is to be given the real verity T. A most plain difference we make whatever they say to the contrary for besides that our Sacraments are few and easie clear and intelligible it is to be considered that under the Law were used types and shadows which prefigured Christ to come and that somewhat obscurely whereas the Sacraments now used do most plainly shew him to be already come and to have died for our sins and risen again according to the Scriptures Herein moreover is made to us a more plenteous communication of grace and comfort as the fruit of his Death and Resurrection according to that of the Evangelist The Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Iesus Christ Joh. 1. 17. Yet after all we assert that the Elements made use of in these Sacraments of the New Testament are no more changed as to their natural substance than those of the Old that is they are still Sacraments outward visible signs and representations of Spiritual things and are not changed into those very things themselves which they are designed to represent and hold forth to us And this is granted by the Papists themselves as to one of the Sacraments viz. that of Baptism For the water herein made use of still remains water It is not turned into the natural blood of Christ and yet by virtue of that blood which this water represents are our sins washt away in this Laver of Regeneration Hence then it is most evident that the efficacy of a Sacrament consists not in having the natural substance of the Elements altered for then
read them so do we as plainly see that after Consecration the Bread and Wine still remain in their natural substances and therefore are made the Body and Blood of Christ in a spiritual and mystical sense according to the most common acceptance of such Phrases that relate to Sacraments as was before shewn L. You need add nothing more to clear this matter nor can I imagine what reply they can make except they shall say that we must not in this case trust our senses but exercise of our Faith T. This indeed they do say but with no manner of reason For though God requires the Exercise of our Faith in Believing what he hath revealed though our senses cannot reach to or discern it yet we never read in the whole Book of Scripture that ever he requires men to believe any thing directly contrary to the evidence of their Senses to believe it was dark as midnight when they saw the Sun shining at Noon-day to believe the same Man to lye dead in his Grave whom they saw alive walking before them For at this rate all our Saviours Miracles had been wrought in vain if men must not believe their own eyes as we use to say For we must consider that Almighty God hath so framed our Nature that we are to be directed and guided by our Senses in those matters that properly belong to them Nor can we I think in this present state have more clear and full assurance of any thing than what our Senses when sound and perfect convey to us And therefore I have said our Saviour took this way to give assurance of the truth of his Gospel and of his Resurrection by that satisfaction he gave to the very Senses of Men. Thus St. Iohn when he would give the clearest and fullest evidence of the truth of Christian Doctrine he tells us That which we have heard which we have seen with our eyes which our hands have handled declare we unto you 1 Joh. 1. 1 2 3. Now all this may assure us that those words This is my body are not to be taken in such a sense as would engage us to the belief of Transubstantiation Nay the Word of God it self assures us that they are not since in this Word as I have shewn from many places the Holy Bread in the Sacrament is called Bread after Consecration and therefore are we so to believe it and are to look upon it as his Body Spiritually and Sacramentally and so neither one Text contradicts another nor will our Faith contradict our Senses L. This is easie and intelligible and neither offers violence to the Word of God nor to the Reason of our own Minds T. Yet further let me add if the Senses of all Men throughout the whole world are thus deceived as they must be if Transubstantiation be true then is all certainty of any thing whatever in a manner utterly destroyed How can I tell that I tread upon the Earth that I see the Heavens over my head or the Sun shining in the Firmament In these and all other things which I think that I see or hear my Senses may be imposed upon as well as in the present Case And how then can I be sure that any Revelation was ever made from God to Man Or how could any Man be sure of it though a Voice came to him from Heaven or a Vision appeared to him All this may be but idle fancy and delusion his Hearing and his Sight are not to be trusted Yea let this opinion be admitted and how can we be certain of the truth of that which God hath in his Word revealed For if he deceive me one way why not another The same Holy and True God who hath revealed his Will in Holy Scriptures hath also made another sort of Revelation in the works of Nature He hath given me Senses of Seeing Hearing c. and hath proposed Objects agreeable thereto Now if I believe him to be so Holy and Good that he will not deceive me in his Word why may I not from the same Goodness argue that he will not deceive me in his Works But if he should do it in the latter why may he not in the former also L. They may say this is a particular Case and therefore though our Senses may herein be mistaken yet we have no reason to suspect them at other times T. A particular Case it is indeed and such as nothing like it can be instanced in nor yet any good reason assigned why our Senses may not at any other time be deceived as well as in this matter But strangest of all it is that we have no warning given us in Scripture not to trust our Senses in this particular Case though in all others we may Nor do we find any thing said to take off the prejudice that might arise in mens minds against so strange a Doctrine We hear of no Objections made of old against it by the Enemies of Christianity nor of any Answers given to silence or prevent such Objections Nay on the contrary as I have said when the Capernaites mistook our Saviour's meaning he let them know that his Discourse was to be understood in a spiritual sense Ioh. 6. 63. Thus certainly the Apostles understood it as also those Words This is my body else surely we should have heard of their doubts and objections at least they would have made some further enquiry about the sense and meaning of them Else how comes it to pass that we never find the least mention of this same Doctrine in any of the Apostles Sermons or in the Epistles written to any of the Churches Nay though there was so fair an occasion offered to St. Paul when he discourses about the Lords-Supper 1 Cor. 11. where he tells them that what he had received of the Lord he delivered to them but he is there so far from explaining or asserting the Doctrine of Transubstantiation that he teaches the direct contrary in calling it Bread over and over after Consecration L. Yet I have heard some arguing for it from those words of his that he who eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Vers. 27. Now say they how could this be so hainous a sin if the natural Body and Blood of Christ were not present in the Sacrament T. For that let the Apostles own words decide it for he there tells us that he who eats this Bread and drinks this Cup unworthily is thus guilty So that it is Bread which is eaten and consequently Wine which is drunk by the Receiver But to do this unworthily and irreverently rushing upon it as a common meal not duly considering the great importance and design of this Holy Sacrament as it is a commemoration of Christ's death and a Spiritual Feast upon his Body and Blood this must needs be an hainous Sin being an affront to Christ himself and a profanation of his Sacred Ordinance This is meant by
piety and virtue to imitate their good examples obey their counsels and please our selves with the forethoughts of that happy time when we shall follow them into glory Moreover since we believe that our prayers cannot profit our friends when they are dead this may well make us more industrious to do them all the good we can whilst they are alive And if by Gods blessing on our endeavours they become truly pious and good in this world we shall have no need to pray for them when they are gone into the other but rather will they have cause to praise God for us By this time I hope you perceive how little cause there is of separation from our Church on account of our not using prayers for the deliverance of souls out of Purgatory Since we have no reason to believe there is any such place nor consequently to use any such prayers But yet I will add if any man should be of another opinion and fancy this to be a lawful piece of charity yet would not this justifie his separation from us for though he thought our publick prayers in this to be defective yet I hope this defect does not render the rest unlawful If he meet not with a prayer agreeable to his own private conceit in this matter yet he may joyn very chearfully in those we do use which are most plainly agreeable to the will of God revealed in his word which holy word ought to be the rule both of our belief and worship And when we vary from this rule we cannot pray in faith with any well-grounded confidence of being heard as particularly they cannot who pray for the release of souls from Purgatory or for the easing of their pains there seeing they have neither precept nor promise no nor so much as any example in all Scripture to warrant their so doing L. I am convinced they have not nor will I by the grace of God ever offer up any such unwarrantable prayers CHAP. VII Of Transubstantiation T. WHAT is the next Popish Doctrine your Author mentions L. That of Christs Personal Presence in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper about which I shall be glad to hear you discourse and to answer the arguments he brings for it T. Now then we come to their great Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. that the natural substance of the Bread and Wine in the Communion is by Consecration changed into the substance of Christs body and blood which is certainly one of the most absurd and unreasonable Doctrines that ever was taught and yet there is nothing they assert with more zeal and fierceness and in Queen Maries days accounted it reason enough to burn poor Protestants for Hereticks if they would not profess it This being commonly one of the first questions put to them What say you to the Sacrament of the Altar For so they used to stile the Eucharist or Holy Communion Well pray let me hear what arguments your Author brings for this strange opinion L. He first attempts to prove it from those words of our Saviour at the institution of this Holy Sacrament This is my body which is given for you Luk. 22. 19. and he adds that Christ now making his Will his words must needs be very clear T. This indeed is the Text they commonly insist on and the words in themselves are clear enough but the strange comment they make on them does certainly render them the most obscure and unintelligible that ever were uttered For pray tell me does it not seem a wonder of wonders past all understanding that our Blessed Saviour who was there alive in the midst of his Disciples should at the same time himself give them his natural body and blood to be eaten and drunk by them and after this still remain alive sound and whole as he was before without any manner of change L. It seems very strange and unlikely I confess at first hearing T. And yet we never find the Apostles making any objection or raising any scruple about it Nor does our Blessed Saviour say any thing to prevent or remove such objections as might easily be made May we not then fairly infer hence that they understood these words in the same plain easie sense which such expressions in like cases do very evidently carry along with them namely that the Bread and Wine were the Symbols and Sacramental signs and tokens of his Body and Blood and the breaking of the one and pouring out of the other did very fitly represent the wounding and bruising of his Body and the shedding of his Blood for our sakes Neither do we say as they accuse us that these are bare figures of Christs Body and Blood but do constantly teach that the benefits of his Death and Passion are hereby effectually communicated to worthy receivers Here we make a solemn and most thankful commemoration of the Sacrifice which Christ offered on the Cross and in feeding on the holy Elements we feast upon that Sacrifice and so renew and confirm our Covenant with God in Christ giving up our selves to him as an holy and obedient people and by these Seals of his Covenant the great God assures us of the truth of his Promises and gives himself to us as our God and reconciled Father in Jesus Christ. And by this means our faith is strengthned our love to God and man is quickned and inflamed and all other graces increased and the Divine comforts of his Spirit afforded and so the flesh of Christ becomes meat indeed and his blood drink indeed nourishing our souls to eternal life L. All this is plain and easie to understand T. It is so and most natural it is after this manner to explain our Saviours words as being most agreeable to the common way of speaking in like cales where that which is a sign or Sacrament is said to be the very thing which it denotes and represents Thus the Paschal Lamb is said to be the Lords Passover of which it was a commemoration Exod. 12. 11. So in Pharaoh's Dream the ears of corn and the kine are said to be years of plenty and of famine because they signified the same And a plain place to this purpose you have 1 Cor. 10. 4. where it 's said that Rock was Christ because it did prefigure or typifie him So when our Saviour says This Cup is the New Testament in my blood what other sense can these words have but that this Wine represents his Blood which was shed to ratifie and confirm the New Testament or Covenant of Grace and mercy which God hath made with all true believers through his Son L. He quotes also Joh. 6. where much is said concerning our eating Christs flesh and drinking his blood But from what you have already said I cannot but think is most reasonable to understand the words in a spiritual sense as signifying our feeding upon Christ by faith and so deriving grace from him into our souls T. You have good reason so
there would be no virtue in Baptism And consequently neither doth the excellency of the Sacraments of the New Testament above those of the Old consist in any such alteration for if it did then Baptism should not be prefer'd before Circumcision or any of the washings and sprinklings used under the Law since in Baptism water still remains true water And if this be no disadvantage or dishonour to the holy Sacrament of Baptism then no more is it to the other Sacrament that the Bread and Wine used therein do still remain true Bread and Wine as to their natural substance after Consecration L. I cannot imagin any reason for the putting a difference in this case betwixt the two Sacraments And I do a little wonder they should be so careless as to use an argument which if it had any truth er force in it would plainly tend to the disparaging of the Sacrament of Baptism T. You must not expect good arguments in a bad cause but has your Author no better than these L. I find no more arguments on this subject only he makes use of a sumilitude that if a Father should leave to his Son his House and Garden by his last Will would the Son understand by this the picture of the House and Garden or the things themselves in truth In like manner he infers that our Saviour has not left us the bare figures of his Body and Blood but these very substances in the Sacrament T. Rather we may infer that in like manner did our Blessed Saviour truly give up himself for us on the Cross there shedding his blood for the remission of our sins and doth in this Holy Sacrament really confer the blessings purchased by his death upon all true believers and by this means he does most truly give himself to them according to his promise even much more to their advantage than if he had given them his natural flesh and blood in the Sacrament L. I think my Authors Simile does him little service T. Service do you say rather if you consider it well it will be found to make directly against his own opinion For suppose your Father had left you an House and Land by his Will and appointed some body after his death to put you in possession of it by giving you a key and a turf or twig when this is done do you take this key to be the very house or the turf or twig to be the land no surely but only in effect and in the sense of the Law they are so since by these the house and land are made over to you and by receiving them you are put in actual possession of them as fully and effectually as if the whole house and all the land had been put into your hands if that had been possible And thus I say by these Holy Elements doth our Blessed Saviour make over himself and all the blessings of the Covenant to his faithful people L. The resemblance is very plain and helps me still better to understand how fitly the Body and Blood of Christ may be said to be verily and indeed received by the faithful in the Lords Supper without giving the least coununance to this Doctrine of Transubstantiation T. That you may be sure of these being the very words used in our Church-Catechism and many the like expressions we find in the Office at the Communion some of which I mention'd before Yet all this while it 's well known how utterly our Church disowns this absurd opinion so contrary to sense and reason and to the express words of Scripture as I have shew'd Yet give me leave in a few words further to manifest how without admitting this opinion we may very properly affirm That Christ is verily and indeed received by the faithful in this holy Supper viz. 1 In a moral sense as servants receive their Master by taking earnest and subjects their Prince by taking the Oath of Allegiance For here we do solemnly profess our selves the disciples servants and subjects of the blessed Jesus and by taking these holy symbols of bread and wine do receive him as our Lord and Saviour to whom we promise and vow all humble obedience and through whom alone we hope for mercy and salvation 2 Here also do we receive those graces of his holy Spirit which transform us into his likeness so that Christ himself may be said to come into us to take possession of us and to dwell in us and we in him even by saith and love and by our likeness to him in all humility purity charity and those other graces which make us partakers of a Divine Nature and may well be stiled Christ in us the hope of glory all which are confirmed and increased by our worthy communicating at this holy Table So that passing by other things that might be added to this purpose you may hence see how properly the holy Elements may be called the Body and Blood of Christ of which they are the Sacrament and Symbol and which they do really convey to us as much to our advantage as if they were changed into the very natural substance of what they represent For suppose we should eat Christs natural flesh and drink his blood what are our souls the better for this if the graces of his Spirit do not accompany them But if these graces are bestow'd on us by our worthy receiving of the holy Elements of Bread and Wine what loss is it to us that these remain unchanged as to their substance L. None at all that I can imagin T. You may be sure of it since what is bodily reaches only to the body and not to the soul of man For as our Saviour tells us Mat. 15. 11. That what enters into the mouth defiles not a man of which he after gives the reason because it passeth into the belly and thence into the draught So neither can that which enters into the mouth of it self purifie and cleanse the soul of man because it 's only received into the body and so passes through it And this is that Doctrine which I have formerly told you our Blessed Saviour himself most plainly teaches Ioh. 6. 63. when he corrected the gross mistake of the dull Capernaites L. Yet how gross soever it was the Papists at this day seem to continue in it as if Christ had promised to give men his natural Flesh to eat T. And this they do contrary to our Saviours own explication of himself in vers 63. and to other places of Scripture before named and also contrary to all true Reason We will not set up our own shallow reasonings against the Holy Scripture but are ready most firmly to believe whatever we find therein plainly revealed And there we may find some things above our Reason though nothing contrary to it But now this Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation it is both contrary to plain Scripture and is also full of so many palpable absurdities and contradictions that