which the Prince resides and to Worship the Prince residing in that Palace To say that no Catholick is bound to believe more than that Christ in the Sacrament is to be Worshipped because this is enjoyned under a particular Anathema the other of Worshipping the Sacrament not is nothing to the purpose The intent of the Decrees is veritatâ—m dicere to set forth the true doctrin of the Church as the Council has declared Every jot of this doctrin is to be received whether there be a particular Curse denounced against the Refusers of it or no. The Curse doth not make the obligation to comply with the doctrin but shews only the danger which those incur who refuse it If the Church of Rome does not think fit always to set before us the danger in a particular Anathema upon some prudential considerations best known to her self yet the obligation to entertain her doctrin doth not cease but remain in full force Her Authority is as much in a Decree without an Anathema as in a Canon with one and it is her authority which creates the obligation To say that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Council speaks of falls upon the Accidents of the Bread and Wine in an inferiour manner cannot be reconciled with any good reason For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is either internal or external Internal imports a superlative esteem in the mind of infinite Excellency External the doing some action or speaking such words as are appropriated to signifie this internal veneration Neither of these can be terminated upon the Bread and Wine in an inferiour manner For what is outwardly done or spoken being but an expression or indication of internal veneration and the inward veneration being of the highest nature if it falleth upon any thing in an inferiour manner or degree it ceaseth to be what it was the superlative degree being essential to it and not separable from it Neither do they mend the matter who assert that Latria as it is terminated upon the outward Elements is not absolute but relative Christ only under the Elements is adored per se or absolutely the Symbols by virtue of their relation to Christ as the garments with which he was cloathed when he was upon the Earth were worshipped when adoration was given to his person When the Council says that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is due to the Sacrament absolute and not relative Latria is intended It is in express words such a Latria quae debetur vero Deo and that is undoubtedly absolute Tho' there may be relative honour yet if we speak properly there can be no such thing as relative Latria For it is agreed that the word signifies that Veneration which is peculiar to the Supreme Being and if this be divided into two species Absolute and Relative then it may be predicated of both for every Genus is predicated of its species and if so then either equally or unequally not equally for then the relative species will participate as much of the nature of the Genus as the absolute not unequally because Latria as I have before intimated consists in a point of which there can be no unequal participations An inferiour Latria is as much as an inferiour Superiority I grant an honour due to many things upon the account of their relation to God but to make this honour equal to that which is due immediately to God is highly injurious For the relation which the Creature has to the Creator is but a finite mode or accident And a finite mode cannot merit the same species of Worship or Honour which the infinite perfection of the Divine Nature does When our blessed Lord was upon the Earth 〈◊〉 garments were not worshipped by the same individual act with which his person was For Worship is an acknowledgment of excellency and none will assert that the same acknowledgment of excellency can without a palpable injury be terminated upon his Person and his Garment As the Accidents are worshipped so likewise is the substance of the Bread and Wine The Church of Rome believes that by the Priest's pronouncing the words of Consecration the Body and Blood of Christ become corporally present upon the Altar that by the same words in the same moment the substance of the Bread and Wine is changed into them that what the substance of the Bread and Wine is converted into must have the same worship terminated upon it which is peculiar to the person of Christ God-man Now if there be no such change as is pretended but the Bread and Wine retain their pristine nature it must necessarily follow that the substance of the Bread is Worshipped in the place of Christ If it be said that this cannot with justice be charged upon a Romanist because he believes that the substance of the Bread and Wine do not remain and we must not impute the Worshipping of that to him which he believes not to be in the Sacrament I answer that tho' this excuse at the first sight may appear plausible yet upon a due examination it will be found to be of no validity By the same method of Reasoning it may be concluded that a Jew reflects no dishonour upon the True Messias when in the Synagogue thrice a day he curseth Jesus of Nazareth because he believes that Jesus of Nazareth is not the True Messias or that the Persians do not Worship a creature when they make their religious Addresses to the Sun because they apprehend he is the first Being and maker of all things or that the Heathens did not sacrifice to Devils as they are accused in the holy Scripture because they were far from believing that their Idols were animated by infernal Spirits It must be confessed that an error springing from the nature of the object may contribute something to an excuse Suppose there had been a Man when our blessed Lord was upon the Earth every way like him in the features of his face and all the lineaments of his Body and another induced by that similitude had given to him the veneration which is due only to Jesus Christ it had been tolerable in him to have pleaded his error it deriving its original from that which it was not in his power to help But whâ—â— the error springs from a voluntary distemper in the Subject it can have no propitious influence upon his justification And this we have too much reason to believe is the case of those who adhere to the Community of Rome who when they assert the Body of Christ to be corporally present in the Eucharist and the substance of the Bread and Wine not put the highest affront upon those Topicks from which we usually derive our assurance in all other points of Divinity namely the Scripture Antiquity Reason Sence 1. Scripture They affirm that which is contrary to the Words of the institution when Christ says This is my Body he means This is a sign or memorial of it To this interpretation we
are led by the context This do in remembrance of me When he pronounces the demonstrative This he points at that which he took and had in his hand and this is called Bread and therefore in the Latin Translation of the Aethiopick Version these words occur Hic panis Corpus meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must import his dead body as it is in the Syriack 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc cadaver meum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a dead body 1 Sam. 17.46 Isa 14.19 These we have reason to believe were the words of our blessed Lord who at the institution of the Sacrament did undoubtedly use that language which was then familiar to the Jews and that was the Syriack which by reason of its affinity with the Hebrew is sometimes called by the same name Joh. 19.13 17. Act. 21.20 Now it is evident that what Christ gave at his last Supper could not be his dead body in a literal sence and therefore it must be so in a figurative which will amount to this This is a memorial of my Body as crucified for you Christ's body in the Sacrament is not given as living but dead upon our account and his blood not as contained in his veins but shed for our sins We have not only the Words to justifie our interpretation but the scope aimed at by him that spoke them It is agreed on all sides that God did design by them the institution of a Sacrament It is as unanimously asserted that in every Sacrament there must be a visible Sign and a Thing signified There is nothing here to import the outward Sign but the Demonstrative This or the Thing signified but that which is predicated of it my Body Now the sign is never essentially but always figuratively the thing which is signified by it As when we say of the formal sign or picture of Augustus or Tiberius This is Augustus This is Tiberius we do not mean their persons really but representations of them In the other part of the Sacrament it is said This Cup is the New Testament This cannot be true essentially as tho' the Cup was changed into the nature of the New Testament but figuratively only We have just reason to believe the same concerning the Words under debate that the Bread is no otherwise the Body of Christ than the Cup is the New Testament When this manner of Speech is used in relation to other Sacraments as Circumcision and the Passover Circumcision is my Covenant the Lamb is the Lord 's Passover it constantly bears this sence Neither Circumcision or the Lamb were really and essentially the things which are predicated of them but signs and memorials only The admitting a Trope in the Words is not contrary to the design of Christ in his last Will which undoubtedly was to deliver his mind clearly We may speak as plainly when we use a Trope or Figure as when our speech is without it If we walk in a Gallery adorned with Pictures and say this is Julius Caesar this is Constantine the Great we are as well understood as if we had said this is the Picture of such a Person That is not obscure whether figuratively or literally spoken which is expressed according to the manner which is familiar to those to whom the words are directed The known custom at the time when these words This is my Body were used was to speak after the like manner about the Passover into whose place the Sacrament of the Supper came It was the usual language of the Jews to call the Lamb the Body of the Passover The Lamb being a Figure of Christ our Passover and he putting a period to the old Institution and substituting Bread in the room of it to be a memorial and Type of himself under the Gospel he calls it by the same name As the Paschal Lamb had been his Typical Body under the Old Testament So now he declares that the Bread shall be his figurative Body under the New If a Trope makes the Words obscure and unfit to be a branch of the last Will of Jesus Christ then the interpretation of the Church of Rome is condemned by her own acknowledgment For she believes that when it is said This is my Body a living Body is meant and therefore Body by a Synecdoche is put for the Body and Soul The other part of the Sacrament is contained in his last Will as well as this and yet in the words which set it forth there is no less than two Tropes This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood The Cup is put for the Wine contained in it and the New Testament for the Sacrament of the New Covenant As the scope of our Saviour confirms the sence which we have given So likewise do the antecedents and consequences Before these words This is my Body were spoken it is said Jesus took Bread and blessed and brake it c. what can he mean by This but that which he took into his hand and blessed and brake and that is expresly called Bread After Consecration as that which is termed his Blood is stiled the Fruit of the Vine so that which he named his Body is by his Spirit in the holy Apostle said to be Bread As often as ye eat this bread 1 Cor. 11.26 Whosoever shall eat of this bread v. 27. Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread v. 28. If before and after Consecration that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This doth import is called Bread then no such mutation is made as is contended for and the words must be interpreted in a Sacramental and Figurative Sence We have not only the Antecedents and Consequences to favour our interpretation but likewise the Analogy of Faith This says that Christ as man was made like unto his Brethren Heb. 2.17 This car not be true if he be corporally in the Sacrament The bodies of his Brethren are naturally confined to a certain place But according to this apprehension his Body may be in a thousand places at once even upon all the Altars in the World Wheresoever the Host is consecrated it is wholly in the whole and wholly in every part of it The Analogy of Faith asserts that Christ it gone to heaven in his bodily presence I am no more in the world Jo. 17.11 The interpretation which the Church of Rome gives of the words under debate makes him to be more in the World than when he conversed with his Disciples upon the Earth For then he was but in one place at a time but now according to the Creed of the Romanists he is the same moment in Millions of places The Analogy of Faith assures us that the body or flash of Christ shall see no corruption Act. 2.27 31. But if it be in the Sacrament then it is corporally eaten turned into Chyle and Nutriment and subject to all the corruption
the Mass 〈…〉 Christum esse in Eucharistia vere realiter substanitaliter ut Concilium reclè lequitur non corporaliter c. imò contradici possit spiritualiter ut Bernardus dicit in Sermone c. ubi affirmat in Sacramâ—nto exhiberi verron carnis substantiam sed spiritualiter non carnaliter L. 1. de Sac. Euch. c. 2. p. 351. The consideration of these particulars makes Bellarmine to shrink notwithstanding the great authorities he boasts of when he comes to express his own thoughts about the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament as appears by his own words Therefore we will say Christ is in the Eucharist truly really substantially as the Council rightly speaks not corporally c. yea on the contrary it may be said spiritually as Bernard speaks in his Sermon c. where he affirms that the true substance of the flesh is offered to us in the Sacrament spiritually but not carnally If the defenders of Transubstantiation did believe Antiquity to be favourable to them what is the reason why they use so many devices to keep us from the knowledg of it S. Chrysostome's Epistle ad Caesarium Monachum has been a great while suppressed by the Romanists because of the opposition which it bears to their Sentiments about the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament Peter Martyr found the Manuscript at Florence Bigotius of late has done the same and had published it had he not been prevented by the interpoposals of some more byassed with a respect to the interest of Rome than a sincere love to the Truth It is at last come to light tho' very imperfect and mutilated If our Adversaries did know Antiquity to be propitious to them in this and other points of controversie they would not use so much collusion as they do In the Proposition presented to Prince Henry when he had thoughts to erect a Royal Library these words occur The Pope gathereth all the Manuscripts he can Fowlis p. 128. into his Library the Vatican and then useth them at his pleasure One of his Tricks is notorious They have men which can counterfeit any hand and write the old hand 500. or 1000. years ago Then they have artificial Ink which within three days after the writing looks as if it had been written 500. years afore Thus having altered and taken out all that makes for us they suppress all the true Copies and produce the new ones they being written by themselves as before as the Authentick Books All this will manifest that what the Church of Rome asserts concerning the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is contrary to Antiquity 3. Reason If the Bread be converted into the Body of Christ let us suppose the conversion to be made in two places at Paris and Rome and the Body of Christ in one of these places to stand upon the Altar and in the other to be carried in Procession According to this Hypothesis the same individual body is moved and not moved at the same time God whose concourse is requisite to all motion concurs and not concurs His Will which is the spring of all concourse consents to the motion and not consents His Intellect which has a knowledge of what he wills knows and not knows the same individual and all this at the same time In a word God is represented as making at the same instant two contrary declarations Those who maintain the conversion under debate say That the Essences of things do not fall immediately under the notice of Sence and the only way which the Author of Nature has provided for us to come to the knowledge of them is by their external modes and accidents If God declares in the Scripture that what is in the Sacrament after Consecration is not bread and yet suffers at the same time all the accidents to remain which he has appointed to declare that it is Bread he makes two declarations the same moment diametrically opposite one to the other Such contradictions are not reconcileable to his Nature It is destructive of his Veracity to speak two things contrary to each other the same instant in relation to the same matter Indeed it is said That reason is not to be admitted to this debate there being a clear revelation on the contrary side The sacred Mystery of the Trinity is without hesitancy believed altho' equal exceptions from reason lye against it To which I reply that there is no revelation of any such mutation in the Bread as is contended for Those words This is my Body import no such matter as I have before demonstrated S. Paul calls what remains after Consecration in the Sacrament by the name of bread 1 Cor. 11.28 and we cannot have a better Interpreter of the mind of Christ than he is The Revelation pretended cannot be true in any sence which is contradictory to reason Tho' many things before their manifestation are beyond the discovery of Reason Tho' after a disclosure is made it is not in the power of reason to dive to the bottom of them yet they are never contradictory to it Reason and Revelation differ but as a lesser and greater light The understanding which is the Candle of the Lord is no more opposite to Revelation than the Lights which are known by that name to the Celestial Luminaries with which the Firmament is adorned Tho' reason be not allowed in the sacred mystery of the Trinity to judge what is contradictory yet it may in the present case There the object is infinite and far above the comprehension of our narrow faculties but here sinite and every way fit and proportionable to them In the Eucharist we are conversant about a finite Body the nature of which is very agreeable to our measures In the Trinity about an infinite and incomprehensible Being Reason is undoubtedly the gift of God This gift is bestowed for some purpose The apparent design of it is to discern the true nature of those objects which lie within its sphere In this number we must necessarily reckon what appears in the Sacrament it being so far from exceeding the capacity of our intellect that it falls under the notice of Sense If Reason in this case may not he permitted to judg what is contradictory the design in giving of it will be totally frustrated and no certainty attainable in the most obvious matter Thus it is evident that Transubstantiation is contradictory to Reason 4. Sense Our blessed Lord has manifested that it is a competent judg in the present case by appealing to it concerning the reality of his Body Luk. 24.39 Jo. 20.27 What appears in the Sacrament has all the conditions requisite to qualifie it for sensation The parts of it are big enough to move the Nerves The distance from the object is very suitable and convenient The space thro' which the Species pass is clear and perspicuous If Sense rightly disposed may not be trusted 〈◊〉 certainty of all things will fail There can be
no evidence in Courts of Justice sufficient to ground a condemnatory Sentence upon Eye-witnesses tho' of the greatest integrity will be of no signification all will be left in a perfect state of Scepticism The grand pillars which support Religion will be utterly overthrown and demolished How can we be assured that there is a God but by his Word and Works And how can we perceive the Contents of his Word or be acquainted with his Works without using our Senses We cannot be sure that The Heavens declare the Glory of God or that this Proposition This is my Body is contained in the New Testament if we may not conside in our eyes Miracles the great Seals of Evangelical Verity are rendered insignificant if the Senses of those who were present when they were wrought may not be trusted to their attestation will be of no value Indeed we are told that the Sense is not deceived in the Sacrament The accidents of the Bread and Wine are its proper objects and they remain there according as they appear but as for the Substance that is miraculously changed and Sense is no competent Judg about it To which the reply is easie Accidents alone are not the proper objects of Sense but Accidents together with those material subjects in which they inhere It is matter which properly makes the impression upon our Nerves the Particles of it are under diverse modes and figures commonly stiled Accidents The Essence of these consists in inhesion Accidentis esse est inesse So that if they be separated they presently cease to be and by consequence have no power to make any impulse upon Sense They can have no more a solitary existence than the height breadth and length of a house with all the colours and modes of every room may remain after the whole fabrick is demolished If there be any miraculous change in the substance of the Bread and Wine nothing can be more sit to discern it than our Senses The essential effect of a Miracle is to work wonder and admiration and nothing can produce this but that which is manifest to our faculties Tho' the mode of doing is latent yet the thing done is clear and accommodated to the apprehension of every Spectator These four Topicks Scripture Antiquity Reason Sense standing in an irreconcileable opposition to the doctrin of Transubstantiation nothing is left to support it except these two pretences the Declaration of the present Church and an impossibility that what she declares should be an Innovation As for the first If by the Church we understand the Universal no such thing is done by her The Eastern Churches declare the contrary The Greeks in their Liturgies have nothing of this nature expressed They adhere to the seven first General Councils only which are wholly silent in this matter Tho' they have a proper word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express Transubstantiation by yet they never use it when they speak of the Eucharist When they call the Bread the Body of Christ it is with an extenuating term as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi or the like After Consecration they give no adoration to it They deny that an unworthy Communicant receives the Body and Blood of Christ Cyril Patriarch of Constantinople says in the name of the Greek Church Vid. Hotting An. Appen p. 422. We confess and believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the true and firm Presence of our Lord Jesus to wit that which Faith offers and gives us and not that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the invented Transubstantiation doth inconsiderately teach These are his words in his Oriental Confession of the Christian Faith To say notwithstanding all this that Transubstantiation is the declared belief of the Universal Church is to cut off the Greeks from being any part of it altho' they receive the Holy Scriptures embrace the ancient Creeds submit to the seven first General Councils have an uninterrupted succession of Bishops If it be said That Schism and Heresie has deprived them and all other Churches of this priviledge and dignity who do not submit to the Papal Supremacy this may be as easily denied as asserted The Universality of jurisdiction contended for is a perfect usurpation which can never be legitimated by length of time against the institution of our blessed Lord who constituted all the Apostles in a parity No Man can with justice be charged with Schism or Heresie for not owning of that which bears an opposition to the appointment of the Supreme Head of the Church If we must believe the declaration of the present Church in the point under consideration what were those obliged to do who lived in the time of Pope Gelasius when there was a declaration diametrically opposite The present Pope declares That the Bread and Wine do not remain in the Sacrament Gelasius a person of equal Authority and every jot as Infallible declares That they do Both these we cannot be obliged to believe they being contrary one to the other If the present Church of Rome must be credited whensoever she thinks sit to declare her self How is this to be known She has no peculiar promise made to her That to the Universal is nothing to the purpose she being but a part and a very corrupt one too All that the promise imports is that there shall be always a people with their Pastors in the World retaining all the points which are fundamental and of peremptory necessity to Salvation which may be tho' the Community of Rome utterly cease As for any Universal Tradition about this matter it is but a futilous and vain pretence as is evident by the contests betwixt the Roman and African Bishops If the last had known of any such Tradition and believed the first to be infallible a sudden stop would have been put to all contradiction No man will dare to oppose a Church which he believes cannot err Neither are there any motives of Infallibility efficacious enough to induce us to receive this doctrin Bellarmine has reckoned up fifteen but they are so far from evincing that the Church of Rome is Infallible in her declarations that they will not amount to prove her a True Church as will be manifest in the Fourth Section As for the Second pretence the impossibility of Innovation it is in vain to alledge it against so much evidence as may be produced for the matter of fact The antient Church for many Centuries did assert That the substance of the Bread and Wine remains after Consecration as I have already proved The doctrin of the present Church of Rome is That it doth not remain Here is an undeniable change To set up an imaginary demonstration against so clear a matter of fact and to commend it to our belief with all the advantages of Art is a method not unlike to that of Pericles who when he had received a fair fall by his Antagonist attempted to impose upon his Spectators with his Rhetorical flourishes and
Upon this piece of Spiritual Homage an agnition of divine perfection is as conspicuous as Caesar's Image upon the Roman Penny When we pray for wisdom and holiness we cannot give a more lively signification of our acknowledgment that these perfections reside in God in a peerless degree As Prayer so Praises in Hymns and Psalms is a part of Natural Worship All Nations have expressed their esteem of their Deities in this way It was in use among the Greeks as appears by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first sung to the gods or goddesses which they believed did favour them the second to those whom they accounted not to be propitious to them Amongst the Romans the same way of Worship obtained as is evident by their Assamenta Junonia Minervia Poems composed in the Honour of those Deities whose names they bear Amongst the Hebrews as is manifest from the poetical compositions in the old Testament the Christians as is plain from the Apostolical exhortation to the Ephesians and Colossians and Pliny's report to Trajan concerning their practice Tho' Prayers and Praises may be directed to men upon a civil account yet this doth not hinder them from being appropriate parts of the Worship of God When we say that they with other actions are by nature peculiar to the Deity we mean not as they are taken materially So they are of a common nature like matter considered in the abstract without any particular form But we take them formally together with their individuating circumstances which do determine and limit them We may pray to men but to do it when they are not present for such things which none but the Supreme being can confer in such an assembly as is met solely upon a Religious account would be by all impartial Expositors interpreted an invading the right of Heaven and an inexcusable injury to the Divine Glory To Prayer and Praise we may add the taking an Oath the making a solemn Vow to God as parts of natural Worship All the Heathens which had nothing to direct them but the light of Nature were fully acquainted with them as appears by clear testimonies in their writings which to mention would be superfluous They both involve a plain acknowledgment of the perfections of the Divine Nature He who takes an Oath invocates God to be a witness and a revenger which address includes a confession of his Omniscience that he is privy to that which is secret and unknown to others his Veracity that he takes pleasure in truth and has a perfect detestation of that which is opposite to it his Power that he is able to take vengeance and assert the dignity of the Law which is violated He who makes a solemn Vow if it be to engage himself to some expressions of gratitude doth thereby declare his deep sence of the Divine Benignity if to bind himself the faster to a loyal deportment in his conversation the dominion of Heaven over him If any doubt notwithstanding what has been represented whether this part of Worship is to continue under the Evangelical dispensation he may satisfie himself by considering that this is plainly foretold by the Prophet Isaiah c. 19.21 The taking away of what was given to God by Vow is condemned by the Apostle Rom. 2.22 and death was afflicted upon Ananias and Saphira for their miscarriage in this particular Act. 5.5 10. The devoting of things to God by Vow is grounded upon reason common to all ages as well the times of the Gospel as the Law The whole world is a Community under the regency of one supreme Monarch This Community he has parcell'd out into Kingdoms and committed the government of them to his Vicegerents In every kingdom the members have their properties bounded and limited by Law These rights they are so invested in that they have withal a power of alienation The natural signs of their will when they exert this power are promissory words There is no reason why this way of exchange may not as well prevail in the universal Community betwixt the Supreme Rector and his Subjects as in any particular betwixt his Vicegerents and those who are under their regency A Vow is nothing but a solemn promise made unto God 9. Instituted Acts are such as have their foundation in positive institution For the right understanding of them it must be premised that the new Covenant of which our blessed Lord is the Mediator was made by the positive pleasure of the Divine Will It is the product of free Grace as is apparent by the case of the fallen Angels They have no overtures of reconciliation made to them Christ did not shed his blood to quench the fire of Hell for them God having a design to publish and make known this gracious Covenant he has made choice of his Word and Sacraments to do it by The preaching hearing reading this Word and receiving the Holy Sacraments may be truly stiled acts of instituted Worship they become a duty to us by the positive institution of the new Covenant and import an acknowledgment of the benignity and goodness of God to mankind Preaching and publishing with integrity of heart the methods of divine Grace in the work of redemption is an undeniable expression of a serious and devout sence of the benignity of Heaven Those who preach Christ who is the brightness of the divine Glory must necessarily by the same action give Glory and Worship to God Tho' preaching the Gospel as it imports teaching is a religious duty and looks down upon men only yet as it signifies the proclaiming before men the inestimable goodness of Heaven it looks upwards to God and may challenge a place amongst the parts of his Worship Upon this account Ministers are said to be a sweet favour unto God whether their Hearers will be saved or perish admit or refuse their instructions The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alludes to the perfumed offerings under the Law and intimates that God is as really worshipped by the preaching of the Gospel as he was by those Oblations Upon this account the Apostle represents himself as one that sacrificeth the Gospel 2 Cor. c. 2. v. 14 15. Rom. 15.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysostom interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He calls a Preacher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 〈◊〉 Cor. 2. c. 3. a royal censer upon which this spiritual oblation is offered This is part of that pure offering which Malachi foretold should in every place as well among the Gentiles as the Jews be tendered unto God This Sacrifice is like the Peace-offerring of which some was given unto God and some to the people It is stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sacrifice of Faith Phil. 2.17 The Faith of the Gospel is of so excellent nature that the Ministerial publishing of it implies a solemn oblation of Praise to him who is the fountain of it To this part
which the ingredients of a humane body are exposed unto To what is received in the Eucharist the primitive Church in relation to the body attributes the power of Nutrition The Analogy of Faith obligeth us to believe that God will not command inhumanity But if the sence of the Church of Rome be true the greatest inhumanity is practised according to his Will What is more savage than to eat the body of a living man much more must it be to champ with our Teeth and swallow down the living Body of our blessed Lord to whom supreme Veneration is due This made a Pagan to say Who dost thou think Cott. in Cicer. de nat Decr. l. 3. can be so mad as to believe that to be his God which he eats It was an abomination to the Aegyptians to eat with the Hebrews Gen. 43.32 The Chaldee paraphrast gives the reason because the Hebrews eat those Cattle which the Aegyptians use to worship Those words except ye eat the flesh of the son of man c. Joh. 6.55 give no countenance to what is asserted by the Church of Rome By Flesh is meant the bread spoken of v. 51. The bread that I will give you is my flesh and by the Bread we are to understand our blessed Lord himself I am the bread of life v. 35. and by eating believing on him as is evident by the consequent words he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst As eating and drinking satisfie our natural appetite so believing in Christ our spiritual By faith we draw out of his fulness and plenitude a supply of our necessities This spiritual Sence is pointed at v. 56. and very agreeable to the manner of speaking amongst the Jews with whom Christ conversed when he spoke the words under consideration Maimon More Nevoâ— par 1. c. 30. The Hebrews use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comedere not only to express the feeding upon that which conduceth to the nourishment of the body but likewise the acquisition of Learning and Wisdom such as faith imports which tends to the nutrition of the Soul Psal 33. or 34 v. 2. S. Basil says that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an intellectual mouth of the inward Man With this we receive the impressions made by external objects and ruminate upon and digest them by meditation All this being considered it is evident that Transubstantiation is contrary to the Holy Scripture 2. Antiquity Those who assert the Body of Christ to be corporally present in the Sacrament and the substance of the Bread and Wine not speak contrary to the sence of all the primitive Fathers Ignatius who lived in the first Century 〈…〉 calls that which is broken and given in the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Martyr in the second Century Apol. 2. stiles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and attributes to it a nutritive power in relation to the body Tertullian in the third Century asserts L. 4 cont Marc. that Christ made the bread which he took to be his body that is a figure of his body Origen says L. 8. cont Celsum we have a symbol of thanksgiving to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread which is called the Eucharist S. Cyprian affirms 〈…〉 that the Lord calls the bread compounded of many grains his Body Eusebius in the fourth Century terms L. 1 â—emon Evan. c. ult what is received in the Sacrament symbols of the Body and blood of Christ Cyril of Jerusalem stiles it Bread and Wine Catech. Mystagog 1.3 and compares the change which is made by consecration to that in consecrated Oil which doth not lose its old Nature but is dedicated and set apart to a higher use and purpose S. Ambrose affirms L. 4. de Saâ— c. 4. that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament sunt a â—â—â—e panis vinum altho changed into the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ Gregory Nissen owns that which he calls the Body of Christ by the name of Bread Orat. de San. Bapr and expresseth at large that the Bread and Wine being Consecrated retain their pristine nature even as Baptismal Water an Altar a Priest do after Consecration has passed upon them Gaudentius represents the Sacrament as an image of the passion and figure of the Body and Blood of Christ Tract 2. in Exo. S. Chrysostome in the fifth Century useth these words Epist ad Casâ—arium Monashum Before the Bread is sanctified we call it Bread when the Divine Grace hath sanctified it by means of the Priest it loseth the name of Bread and is held worthy to be called the Lord's Body altho the nature of the Bread doth remain in it and is not called two bodies but the body of the Son S. Austin says Ad Adamantum â— 12. That the Lord doubted not to say This is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body Cyril of Alexandria asserts L. 4. c. 14. in Evang. Joan. that our Lord gave fragments of Bread saying Take eat This is my Body Theodoret affirms 1. Dial. cont Eutyc that our Saviour honoured the visible Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood not changing the nature but adding grace to nature Gelasius is of the same mind De duabus Christi naturis The Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing by means whereof we are made partakers of the Divine Nature and yet the substance of the Bread and Wine doth not cease to be Bellarmine in his Polemical Discourse concerning the Eucharist useth most of the names which I have mentioned to a contrary purpose and brings them into the field with a great deal of pomp His policy seems to resemble that of a great Commander When he had drawn up his Souldiers into a military order and was ready to engage the enemy a great part of them declared they would not fight He being not in a capacity to retreat with honour or security told them that the only kindness which he desired of them was to march to a Hill a little way of and there be Spectators of the courage and fate of their fellow Souldiers hoping they might appear to the enemy as a Reserve and prove as great a discouragement to them as if they had actually engaged them I cannot imagine why these antient Fathers who have so positively declared in the Testimonies above-cited that they will not fight should be continued in view except it be with the like design to impose upon the Faith of those who are strangers to their intentions To the Authorities already produced I might add many more which do evidently manifest that the Church was a stranger to the doctrin of Transubstantiation for many hundred years What might be alledged I will sum up in the following particulars 1. They all agree in an imitation of the stile of Scripture and
call the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ 2. They say that they are not so essentially but figuratively and therefore stile them signs Symbols Figures Antitypes Memorials It is usual to call the sign and the thing signified by the same name 3. They affirm that after Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine remains and the change made is only in respect of Use Office and Dignity 4. They say That they nourish our flesh and blood and have the same effect that other food has and therefore they use to give the remains of the Euchariscical Bread to boyes and to abstain from the Communion upon Fasting days 5. They assert that wicked men do not eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ but interpret the eating of his flesh Jo. 6. the receiving of him in a spiritual manner namely by Faith 6. When they deny the Eucharist to be a figure or sign they mean a bare sign The Sacrament is more than so It feals and exhibits It is a means whereby we receive the Body and Blood of Christ not only the benefits of them but Christ himself in a spiritual manner as crucified for us and is a real pledge to assure us thereof Tho' the crucified body of Christ is in Heaven yet that spirit which dwells in it being communicated to a worthy Receiver in the Sacramental action we are made to drink into one Spirit it produceth such a union betwixt us and Christ Jesus as laies a clear foundation of Communion with and participation of him 7. When they say there is a mutation in the nature of the Bread they mean by nature the use and property only as is manifest by their own explications Before Consecration it was appropriated to the nourishment of the body but now by Consecration it is exalted to a higher purpose A new dignity is put upon it It becomes a means whereby a worthy Communicant gains Communion with our blessed Lord. 8. When it 's said That the Senses are deceived and no competent judges of the mutation this may be very true altho' the change be Sacramental only The change is not the proper object of sense but of faith The knowledge of it with its effects is conveyed to us by a Divine Testimony extant in the holy Scriptures 9. When it is affirmed That under the species of Bread is given the Body and under the species of Wine the Blood by Species we must not understand the Accidents without their proper subjects This apprehension never entred into the thoughts of the antient Fathers They were perfect strangers to this kind of Philosophy S. Aust l. 4. cal â—â— Tâ—in Serm. de Temp. 38. S. Ambr. l. 4. de Init. By species they understand the specifical nature of a thing and by the species of Bread and Wine True Bread and True Wine as is manifest to any who consult their discourses 10. Where it is said That the Lord who changed Water into Wine could change in the Eucharist Wine into Blood the intention of Cyril is not to make these two conversions in every thing parallel Jerus as is manifest by the words that follow he presently asserts That the eating of Christ's flesh must be understood spiritually and calls the Table mystical and intellectual And therefore all that his words can import is this He who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed Water into Wine by a corporal mutation changed at his mystical Table Wine into Blood not corporally but spiritually and mystically Lastly It must be acknowledged that there are many Hyperbolical expressions in the Fathers Hom 23. in Mat Par. 〈◊〉 as S. Chrysostome and others in relation to the Sacrament The design of them is to secure it from contempt and to elevate and raise the devotion of Communicants They being improper Speeches must not be expounded in such a sence as is inconsistent with what is elsewhere expressed by the same Authors in plain words without any figure They all agree in this in as clear expressions as can be desired That the substance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharist Their Rhetorical flourishes cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of that which is plain and manifest When S. Chrysostome says That Christ mingles himself with us and not by Faith only but indeed makes us to be his Body His meaning is not That there is any corporal mixture or immediate contact betwixt us and his body but that when we receive the figure of his body which is in Heaven the Spirit which dwells in it is communicated to the worthy Receiver and produceth a union betwixt them and therefore what we receive â— 870. he presently calls the Grace of the Spirit Damascen who lived in the eighth Century was one of the first who deserted the Orthodox doctrin of the Fathers He being concerned in the controversie concerning Images and the opposers of them asserting that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament were the only Image and representation which Christ allowed of himself he was transported with an intemperate zeal and affirmed they were no image or figure at all L. 4. c. sid Oâ—t ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tho' in these words he did not design any real conversion of the Elements but rather a corporal presence or consubstantiation yet he gave occasion to some in the ninth Age to dispute for a substantial mutation Paschasius Ratbertus was the first who writ seriously and copiously about it as Bellarmine asserts His sentiments about this argument were received with a warm opposition Rabanus Maurus Bertram Joannes Scotus Erigena did strongly assert the contrary doctrin In the tenth Age which was a night of ignorance all things fell asleep controversies were laid aside Darkness did reconcile them as the want of light does various colours In the eleventh Age Berengarius was awakened and did with great perspicuity assert the Truth Tho' the violence of his enemies and infirmity of his nature induced him to submit to a recantation The controversie all this while was managed with so much ambiguity that Joannes Duns Scotus asserts That it was not necessary for any to believe a substantial conversion or Transubstantiation till the Lateran Council held under Innocent the Third in the year 1215. and therefore the master of the Sentences who flourished in the Century before about the year 1145. useth these words What kind of conversion it is 〈…〉 illa 〈…〉 whether formal or substantial I am not able to determine The truth is that Transubstantiation was brought forth by Paschasius confirmed by Innocent the Third and at last so firmly married to the See of Rome by the Council of Trent that there was no possibility of a divorce tho' there is just reason to believe that the most Learned of that Community could heartily desire it The issue produced by this unhappy conjunction is the mutilation of the Sacrament the Adoration of the Host the Sacrince of
and acceptance or else upon some person who is willing to become a surety for the Delinquent and is able by his sufferings to restore that honour which publick order has been impaired in and by this means content the mind of the Supreme Rector and this is properly satisfaction What is usually said That if the nature of God doth oblige him to punish sin then he is by the same necessity ingaged to punish it in the offender is of no moment His hatred being not primarily terminated upon the person but the sin if the guilt be transferred by imputation to a Surety it is not incongruous to assert That the sin may be punished in him Some acts which are in general natural to God are free and undetermined in respect of the modification To Govern the World supposing the Creation is essential to him yet the mode whether he will do it immediately by himself only or make use of the Ministry of Men is his free choice So tho' to punish Sin is natural yet the manner of doing of it whether in the person offending or his undertaker is at his election If it be further added That if it be natural to punish it must be done so soon as the transgression is committed and in the extremity That which is natural admits of no delay The reply is easie This is true of that which is natural in Creatures which want freedom and life but it is otherwise in the Creator who is an Intellectual Being Supposing the Creation it is natural to him to do good and yet it is free for him to time his bounty as he pleaseth and to communicate it in what degrees and methods he judgeth most convenient It is natural for him to give a Law to his Creature but he is not determined to the circumstances of publication whether by innate Ideas only or by revelation The necessity he is under is intellectual which admits of the interposal of Counsel about the modes and circumstances of his actions If it be replied That what is natural in God tho' it may be free in these respects yet it must be always expressed in some measure or other which cannot be affirmed of his punishing sin I answer That Sin in some measure is always punished Jans Augtom 2. l. 3. cap. 3. so soon as it is committed from the first moment the Transgressour is deprived of that contentment which doth naturally emerge from a sence of a compliance with the Law of Creation The Worm of Conscience presently grows out of the feculency and pollution the Soul is defiled with The serenity of mind wherein our present beatitude consists is instantly lost and the anticipations of future torments succeed The sparks of infernal fire are quickly kindled A sence of the just judgment of God That he who doth such things is worthy of death fills the Soul with horrour and the deepest consternation Those blessings which before the Delinquent was encircled with are Metamorphised into curses Plough-shares converted into Swords Pruning-hooks into Spears every thing assumes a direful shape and menacing aspect If it be added That punishment is a debt and every one has power freely to remit his debts I answer this is not true of all kinds of debt There is a debt of Active Obedience which we owe to God from which he cannot give us a full discharge The Law of Nature is as unchangeable as his Essence Those who are guilty of open defamation are indebted to the defamed and obliged by pensive agnitions to re-invest them with that honour they have robbed them of This debt the persons injured have no more right to remit than they have to murder themselves their credit being as valuable as their lives Sin deprives God of his glory which he can by no means part with and therefore in justice must require restitution by some convenient satisfaction before he remit the penalty due to the Transgressour and receive him into favour This satisfaction which is so necessary before we can have an interest in the divine acceptance Jesus Christ has made He has repaied the damae which publick order and the Laws of Heaven received from our Sins and fully contented the mind of the Supreme Rector who in justice was obliged to vindicate the honour of his appointments This will be manifest if we consider the following particulars Jesus Christ has suffâ—red the punishment of our sin What he suffered was in our stead The damage done by sin is repaired and the mind of the Supreme Rector fully appeased and reconciled unto us upon the terms of the New Covenant 1. Christ Jesus has suffered the punishment of our Sin It is plain to every one who consults the Sacred Oracles That his sufferings were of the highest nature if we consider the words by which they are represented 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sets forth the extremity of his grief ad satietatem usque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaks his sorrow to be so great That it produced a stupefaction in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports nothing short of these two words his Soul was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beseized on every side with grief Heaven above did forsake him in his apprehension Hell below did conspire against him The Jews on the one hand stood ready to betray him The Gentiles on the other were prepared to crucifie him Nothing but occasions of grief were administred to his Senses His Eyes beheld the fury of his adversaries His Ears were filled with their blasphemies The most Nervous parts of his body were pierced with instruments of cruelty The drops of Blood which fell from his sacred Body argue That nothing was wanting to consummate the most exquisite torment The circumstances of his Passion were so amazing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Dionysius in Aegypt when he saw the Sun in mourning at his crucifixion used these words Either the Divinity suffers or sympathizeth with him that does For all this there must be some important reason It cannot be imagined That he who was interested in the highest degree of the Love of his Father That never had done any thing to merit the least unkindness should be treated with so much severity upon some unnecessary grounds The could be no motives of an inferiour Nature which did induce the eternal Father to suffer his only Son the Lord of Life to die The Lord of Glory to be obscured with the clouds of ignominy and reproach There must be something in the case which could not be accomplished in any other method All confess that What the Socinians alledge as the reason might have been brought to pass upon far easier terms They tell us That Christ suffered to confirm the Covenant induce us to perform the conditions of it to make way for his ingress into Heaven in order to the performing the Office of a Priest The First of these might have been done by the working of Miracles which are the broad Seal of Heaven What can
third and fourth generation That one may be punished for another was not accounted unjust amongst those who were governed by the light of Nature as is evident by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sureties in capital matters which did engage life for life There can be no pretence of injury where the person suffering freely consents and has a dominion over his own life he having power to dispose of himself in his submission to the greatest passion he does no injury to any other and he consenting upon the clearest considerations no injury is done to himself When the understanding is weak and not a competent guide an injury may be done altho' the party concerned be willing But the case before us is quite otherwise Our Blessed Lord upon the clearest dictate of reason became willing to bear our sins He did in this comply with the propensities of his own benignity serve the necessities of Mankind justifie publick Order and assert the Majesty of the Law against all that contempt which our Sins had exposed it unto The Premises being well considered will make it manifest That Christ suffered the punishment of our Sins 2. What He suffered was in our stead This will be evident if we consider his blood which he shed either as a Sacrifice or a ransom as a Sacrifice The offering which he made to God was expiatory a Sacrifice for sin Heb. 10.20 This oblation must necessarily have the nature which is common to all offerings under the Old Testament of the same kind They were figures of this great Oblation and there must be an agreement betwixt the Type and the thing typified in that which is essential to the nature of the Type Now it is manifest That all the expiatory offerings in the Old Testament were in lieu of those persons for whom they were offered The Law did require death of every one that did not remain in the obedience of it The offences against it were of two sorts either such as were punished with the death of the offender as Murder and Idolatry c. without the benefit of Sacrifice Or else such for the expiation of which a Sacrifice was appointed and slain in the room of the Transgressour The blood of the beast in which the life consists was given upon the Altar to make atonement for the Souls of Men Lev. 17.11 As the Law was satisfied by the death of the offender in the first case So likewise by the death of the Sacrifice in the second The sin of the Delinquent was symbolically derived upon the Piacular Sacrifice and therefore he which carried the skin and flesh without the Camp to be burnt did by touching of them contract pollution and might not be admitted into the Camp again before he had washed his cloaths and bathed his flesh in water Lev. 16.28 This was the cause why he for whom the offering was made was obliged to lay his hand upon the head of it Theodoret says That the hand did import action and signifie That the actions of the Transgressour were laid upon the Sacrifice This was the apprehension of the ancient Jews as is evident by the form of words used when a sin-offering was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec sit expiatio mea which they expound thus The evil which I have deserved let it fall upon the head of the Sacrifice Now If the expiatory offerings under the Mosaical Oeconomy were Types of the offering of Jesus Christ and it was essential to them to be slain in the room of the Transgressour we have just reason from hence to infer That our blessed Lord suffered not only for our good and advantage but in our stead and place In order to the disappointing the force of this argument Crellius says That Christ was not a Priest till he came into Heaven and that those Sacrifices only which were offered for the whole Congregation and at some stated times especially That upon the day of expiation were Types of his oblation and that those which were designed for this use did not represent him in his mactation but in that one action only whereby their blood was carried into the holy place and sprinkled before the Lord. To all which I will reply in order 1. Christ did execute the office of a Priest here upon the earth The Apostle says he gave himself as an Offering and Sacrifice unto God Eph. 5.2 The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports such a Sacrifice as is put to death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jo. 10. v. 10. Reconciliation the proper effect of a Sacrifice is attributed to the blood of the Cross Col. 1.20 His purging our sins did precede his sitting down on the right hand of the Majesty on high Heb. 1.3 His having obtained eternal redemption is antecedent to his entring into the holy place Heb. 9.12 He is said to be once offered up Heb. 9.28 And after this to sit down at the right hand of God Heb. 10.12 If this offering has been in Heaven it would not have been said to have been once done The representation of this oblation there is every day He continually makes intercession The offering upon which the Apostles words have an aspect imports passion For he says in case it was to be repeated then Christ must have often suffered since the foundation of the World but the Passion of Christ was over before he entred into Heaven Those words If he were on earth he should not be a Priest Heb. 8.4 do not imply That he did not execute his Sacerdotal Function when he was upon the earth All that can be collected from them is That if after he had made an offering upon the Cross he had remained upon the earth he could not have been our High-Priest Because He who was to bear this office was not only to die for us upon the Earth but to appear in Heaven and there by presenting the merit of that oblation which was made here below procure those aids which we stand in need of 2. Those Sacrifices which were offered for the whole Congregation at some set times were not the only Types of the offering of the Messias The Apostle when he tells us That the Sacrifice of Christ was substituted in the room of the Legal Offerings and that the first was taken away that the second might be established Heb. 10.9 He must necessarily have his eye upon such oblations which as if they were shadows which when the body came did disappear and vanish Now it is plain That the Apostle there has his eye upon more Sacrifices than those which were offered for the whole Congregation He useth so many words as can comprehend no less than all the Mosaical Oblations as Sacrifice Offering Burnt-offerings Offering for sin 3. It is not true That those Sacrifice which typified Christ did represent him only in that action whereby the blood was carried into the holy place and sprinkled before the Lord. The