have thought that Reason was not peculiar to Men but that the Brutes have had a competent share of it And therefore they have maintained that 't was Religion that made the Difference between us and them of which they never perceived the least Footsteps in them But if these rare Stories may be believed that Opinion of theirs is utterly overthrown And the Truth of it is I could heartily wish that the Popish Missionaries would give over their Attempts on us and lay out their pains on the Conversion of these Creatures and endeavour to propagate their Faith among them An Employment which they need not disdain seeing so many of their Betters have submitted to it St. Anthony among others preaching to little or no purpose to some stubborn Hereticks that would not receive his Message turns away from them Specul Exem Dist 7. Ex. 34. and by Divine Inspiration goes to the Sea-side and calls to the Fishes Ye Fish of the Sea and River hear the Word of the Lord since the Hereticks despise it And 't was a very serious Sermon that he preached to them and to very good Purpose for some of these Fishes his Auditors open'd their Mouths and spoke and the rest of them bowed their Heads Indeed such Creatures as these are the only ones for them to exercise their Talent upon For 't is hardly to be conceived that they should have any reasonable Grounds to hope they shall ever make Rational Creatures Proselytes to such a Bundle of Nonsensical Doctrines as their Church hath embraced and among the rest this of Transubstantiation which contains many Monsters in the Belly of it which is ript up and they sufficiently exposed to the Reader 's view in the following Discourse Wherein if any Critical Eye should chance to espye some small Mistakes tho I do not know of any in it yet it being published without the Author's Consent 't is possible a few have crept in I hope the Reader will easily pardon such Venial Faults and kindly entertain this Stranger that comes out of the Country and appears publickly on no other Design but that of promoting the Common Good. MATTH xxvi 26. This is my Body THE Church of Rome hath brought in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and made it an Article of the Christian Faith that all Persons in her Communion are required to give their Assent unto and receive as necessary to Salvation Yea it is an Article of the Romish Faith that they are most hot in and have now for some Centuries contended for with Fire and Sword to the disturbing of the Peace of Christendom and shedding of Rivers of Christian Blood Anathematizing Cursing Damning and where their Arms are long enough Murthering and Butchering all without difference that refuse to give their Assent unto it And the owning of it together with the Sacrifice of the Mass that is bottomed on it and riseth out of it is the Mark of the Papal Religion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Mark or Note of Distinction betwixt a Papist and a Protestant And therefore this was the particular and main Point that most of our Blessed Martyrs in the Days of Queen Mary were first called to answer unto and declare their Judgment about and then burned at Stakes all over the Nation for denying of it and bearing witness against it And I wish that if ever the Romanists gain another like Opportunity they do not take the same Measures proceed in the same Method and make use of their old Argument Fire and Faggot against whosoever shall not admit and embrace this Doctrine It is therefore the great Concern of all Protestants who would not make Shipwrack of their Faith when it comes to a Fiery Tryal to make it their Business to have their Minds rightly informed and Judgments established in this Matter that so they may stand fast in the Faith. Now these Words of our Saviour are the Foundation upon which they would build this monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation Of which they say 1. That before the Act of Consecration the Elements are true and proper Bread and Wine 2. That after the Consecration there remaineth no Substance of Bread or Wine or any other Substance but the Substance of Christ God and Man Or the very Flesh and Blood of Christ as he was born of the Virgin Mary and did hang upon the Cross The Substance of the Bread by the Strength and Efficacy of Christ's mighty Word spoken by the Priest being converted into the Natural Body and the Substance of the Wine into the Natural Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ under the Terms of Bread and Wine 3. This Transmutation Conversion or turning of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is that which they call Transubstantiation 4. This Transubstantiation is made by the Priest pronouncing with an intention to consecrate these five Words over the Bread viz. Hoc est enim Corpus meum For this is my Body Hereby this strange Change is made yet so as the most Learned of them are not agreed among themselves about the Manner of it that is whether the Substance of the Bread be turned into the Substance of Christ's Body productive so as the Body of Christ is made ex materia panis as one thing is made of another or whether it be adductivè by a Recession of the Substance of the Bread and an Adduction or Succession of the Body of Christ into the room of it as one thing succeeds in the place of another the first being voided Thomas is for the former par 3. p. 75. Art. 3. and Suarez and Bellarmine are for this latter which indeed is no Transubstantiation but a meer Succession But leaving them to wrangle this out among themselves tho I believe it is a Matter wherein they will never accord together we shall proceed to take a view of this new and amusing or amazing Paradox Now that Transubstantiation is a most prodigious and monstrous Opinion or Fiction will be very evident from these Three Particulars I. The Original and Rise of it II. The Nature or Constitution of it III. The Products Consequences and Fruits of it I. Consider the Original and Rise of Transubstantiation from what Root or Fountain it is derived And if Enquiry be made after the Birth and first appearing of it in the World it will appear that this monstrous Opinion crept in and came up by degrees in an Age of universal Darkness and Debauchery wherein an easy Entrance and Admittance was given not onely to this but also unto a Deluge of many other corrupt Doctrines and Practices It is confessed by all that the 9th 10th and 11th Centuries were overspread with Ignorance and Profaneness insomuch that Baronius Platina Genebrard Bellarmine and other approved Writers of the Romish Church Men we may be sure that would not say the worst make very sad Exclamations and Complaints Baronius ad An. 900 hath these Words In
they are thus deceived when and while they are in every respect best disposed and fitted for performance of their proper Acts. And further that they are deceived after this manner about a most sensible Object and in a matter wherein it is as hard to think how they should be thus universally deceived as in any one thing whatsoever that is the Object of Sense And now if this be once granted it takes away and quite overthrows all certainty of Sense and consequently all certainty of Faith and Belief in the main Points of Religion as of our Saviour's Person Doctrine Miracles Passion Resurrection Ascension And so undermines the very Foundation and shakes the chief Pillars of Christianity 2. It is against Reason Reason goes beyond Sense but this Transubstantiation goes beyond Reason and not only beyond Reason but against Reason And is contrary to the broadest Light of Reason For Transubstantiation 1. Makes the Body of Christ to be in Heaven on the Earth and in Millions of places of the Earth at one and the self-same Time. Non potest unum corpus esse localiter in duobus locis quia ita idem a seipso divideretur Thom. part 4. dist 44. q. 2. Art. 2. Now this is against Reason Reason dictates this that all corporal Substances or Bodies are in loco circumscriptivè circumscribed in a certain Place and cannot be in more than one at one time It is wholly inconsistent with Reason to say that the same Man is at London and at Rome sitting in his House and walking in his Fields at the same time And is it not as absurd to say that the Body of Christ is locally in Heaven and yet at the same time really substantially and locally in a thousand thousand different and distinct places of the Earth 2. Gives a nutritive vertue unto meer Accidents That the Elements received in the Sacrament do nourish the Bodies of the Communicants cannot be denied Now according to their Doctrine there remains no Substance of Bread and Wine but the Accidents only as length breadth thickness whiteness redness And therefore it must be these that refresh and nourish But what can be more absurd and irrational than such a Fancy Can a Body receive nourishment from Length and Colour and other bare Accidents This is above Reason Yet if Transubstantiation be true this whatever Reason may suggest to the contrary is most true The Monk Amonius lib. 5. de gestù Franc. cap. 29. reports that Ludovicus Pius received nothing but the Eucharist for 40 Days together And other Authors among them have reported that they have had some Holy Men who would feed upon nothing but the Eucharist and so according to their Opinion lived on meer Accidents And thus all the Romanists may live on bare Accidents For as Tolet de instruct Sacerd. l. 2. c. 25. a Priest may transubstantiate at once a whole Pantrey of Bread and a whole Cellar of Wine 3. Sets up the Accidents of Bread as Colour Figure Smell Taste without any Subject or Body in which they subsist They affirm that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is totally avoided yet confess that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine remain such as Whiteness Redness Moisture Now where or in what Subject do these Accidents subsist In the Elements This cannot be for the Elements are quite annihilated or voided at least Do they exist in the Body of Christ By no means this they all deny Where then Why certainly no where Here is color nihil coloratum sapor nihil saporatum quantitus nihil quantum qualitas nihil quale Whiteness and nothing white Savour and nothing that savoureth Length and nothing long Breadth and nothing broad Now this is such Divinity as crosses Reason and offers violence to Nature For accidens est ens in alio Accedentis esse est in esse i. e. esse in subjecto The very Being of an Accident consisteth in its existing in a Substance or Subject and it can be no longer than its Subject is in being 4. Makes that which is plain Bread to be no Bread. This again puts Reason to a Nonplus to conceive how a Wafer that hath the form of Bread the quantity of Bread the whiteness of Bread the smell of Bread and the taste of Bread should yet be no Bread but very Flesh and a whole Human Body This amuseth Reason and is so contrary to it that every Christian who will but make use of his Reason must say as Thomas Spurdance the Martyr when the Chancellor of Norwich asked him Do'st thou not believe that after the Words of Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar there is the same Body of Christ as was born of the Virgin Mary No said Spurdance for that Body consisted of Flesh Blood and Bones and here is no such thing Thus Transubstantiation is against Reason and brings in such things to be received as no Man can receive without doing open violence to his Reason 3. It is against Faith. As Reason goes beyond Sense so Faith goes beyond Reason and sees farther than Reason can reach when most elevated But Transubstantiation outgoes them all Sense cannot reach it Reason cannot overtake it Faith cannot fathom it It imposes things upon the Belief of Men that are not only very hard to be believed but things that are wholly incredible past Credit or Belief It is altogether incredible 1. That a Priest can make a Body that was made and existent long before he himself had any Being Can make the Body of Christ now in a Wafer which was made more than sixteen hundred Years agoe in the Womb of the Virgin. Can a Father beget a Son that is already begotten and born Can a Man that was born at London 40 50 or 60 Years since be born to Day or to Morrow at Lancaster Who can believe this For as one says factum facere factum intectum facere are equally both incredible and impossible 2. That our Saviour had two Bodies two contrary Bodies and both these at one and the same Time. Is not this incredible Yet whosoever will believe Transubstantiation must believe this Believe that when he instituted and celebrated his last Supper with the Disciples he had two Bodies 1. One speaking moving acting in blessing breaking and giving the Bread another without motion or action 2. One visible and palpable another altogether invisible and hidden under the forms of Bread and Wine 3. One mortal weak and ready to be crucified another impassible and obnoxious to no Suffering 4. One sitting at the Table among the Disciples another at the same time in the Mouths and Stomachs of the Disciples 5. One Body breaking another Body and dividing it among them or rather one giving another whole and entire Body to every one of them Are not all these hard things Is it not past Belief that Christ whole Christ should be eaten by every one of them and yet sit among them That he
should at the same instant sit whole at the Table and be in each of their Stomachs and whole in every one of them whole in Peter whole in John whole in James and so in the rest What may they not believe that can believe these things Verily he must first resolve to believe any thing things past belief who resolves to be a Papist 4. It is against Scripture as well as Sense Reason and Faith. The Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is clearly against it and affirms the Elements to be Bread and Wine both before and after the Consecration In the Institution it is expresly said that Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body Mat. 26.26 Here that which he took was Bread that which he blessed was Bread that which he brake was Bread that which he gave was Bread and that he spake of when he said This is my Body was Bread for by this he meant that which he then held in his Hands and when he spake these Words he held nothing but Bread in his Hands And therefore by this he meant that Bread and consequently by This is my Body he meant this Bread is my Body that is a Sign of my Body So also in the Institution of the Cup that which he calls his Blood v. 28. he calls the Fruit of the Vine v. 29. Plainly declaring that it was not his proper Blood but Wine as a Sign of his Blood that he gave The Apostle Paul repeating the Institution as he had received it of the Lord calleth it Bread four times over 1 Cor. 11.23 26 27 28. and 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ and v. 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread. So Acts 2.46 The Disciples brake Bread from House to House And Acts 20.7 The Disciples came together to break Bread. Now this as themselves confess is meant of the Eucharist Moreover that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the Scripture is plain for if it were admitted then it would follow either 1. That Christ is not ascended to Heaven Or 2. That he descendeth daily from Heaven Now both these are contrary to express Articles of the Christian Faith and plain Testimony of the Scripture 1. If we say he ascended not It is contrary to Mark 16.19 Luke 24.51 Acts 1.9 10. Acts 2.33 Eph. 4.8 9 10. Col. 3.1 1. Tim. 3.16 Heb. 4.14 Heb. 8.1 Heb. 9.24 c. And to his own express Declaration John 16.28 I leave the World and go to the Father 2. If we say that he descendeth daily from Heaven it is no less repugnant to the Testimony of the Angels Acts 1.10 11. This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven i. e. clearly visibly gloriously as Mat. 24.30 and 25.31 1 Thess 4.16 And to the Testimony of the Apostle Peter Acts 3.19 20 21. and of our Saviour himself Mat. 26.11 Joh. 12.8 Me ye have not always Upon which Words Augustin Tract in Joan. 50. Loquitur de presentia corporis Nam secundum Majestatem suam secundum Providentiam secundum ineffabilem in Visibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi Secundum carnem vero quam verbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Judaeis comprehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod Linteis involutus quod in Sepulchro conditus quod in Resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis me vobiscum hath these Words He speaketh of his Corporal Presence For in respect of his Majesty Providence ineffable and invisible Grace that which he said is fulfilled Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World. But according to the Flesh which was assumed by the Word according to that which was born of the Virgin according to that which was apprehended by the Jews which was Crucified which was taken down from the Cross which was wrapped in Linen which was laid in the Sepulchre which was shewed in the Resurrection Ye have not me alway with you When Jeffrey Hurst of Shakerley in Lancashire was brought before Justice Leland he caused a Mass to be Sung and bad Jeffrey first go and see his Maker and then he would talk with him Jeffrey answered Sir my Maker is in Heaven Christians the Body of Christ is in Heaven Transubstantiation in contradiction to the Scripture places it in the Earth This is the first Transubstantiation is made up of many Absurdities against Sense Reason Faith and Scripture Secondly It is compounded of many manifest Impossibilities and Contradictions Transubstantiation is an impossible Paradox It is impossible that there should be any such thing 1. It is impossible that one and the same Body should simul semel all at once or at one time be both visible and invisible divisible and indivisible one and many in Heaven and upon the Earth all here and all in a thousand other places All these are plain Impossibles yet Transubstantiation carries them all in its Womb. 2. It is impossible that Christ should eat Himself his own Body Now the Papists confess that he ate and drank with the Disciples in the Sacrament whence it necessarily followeth granting Transubstantiation that Christ did eat Himself and was all at once whole at the Table whole in his own Hands whole in his own Mouth whole within Himself whole without Himself devoured by Himself and untouched All these are apparent Contradictions and of such a nature as nothing can be said that is more monstrous or liker to expose Christianity to more open Obliquy and Reproach Yet I say by this Doctrine Christ ate Himself sat at the Table and was in his own Mouth and in his own Stomach Oh Prodigious The Body of Christ was in the Body of Christ Others have told us of Men-eaters but never any but Papists of any Self-eaters who at once eat his whole Self 3. It is impossible that the Body of Christ should be eaten over-night by the Disciples and yet be crucified the next Day What! Could it be both eaten and not eaten It brings to mind the Story of Alice Driver Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 887. She conferring with Dr. Gascoign asked him whether it was Christ's Body that the Disciples did eat over-night He answered Yea. What Body was it then said she that was Crucified the next Day He replied Christ's Body How could that be said she when his Disciples had eaten him over night Except he had two Bodies as by your Argument he had one they did eat over-night and another was Crucified the next Day Such a Doctor such Doctrine This put her Examiners to that Shame that one looked on another and had not another Word to
the World. And certainly it is so for in the Mass a God is set up to be adored 1. That is made by a Creature a filthy Priest 2. That is made by a Creature of a Creature a piece of Bread. 3. That is made by a Creature of a Creature by a kind of magical muttering over of five Words This God made of Bread and rising out of Transubstantiation is the Idol set up in the Mass and the great Idol that is worshipped by Papists with bowing of Heads bending of Knees elevating of Hands knocking Breasts prostrating of Bodies burning of Tapers ringing of Bells playing on Instruments c. And it is the most absurd horrible abominable and monstrous Idol that is or ever was in the World. An Idol that makes the Christian Religion to become a Scorn and Derision a matter of greatest Detestation and Execration both to Jews and Pagans This I say is the great Scandal and Stumbling-block to both That Christians worship a God made of Bread and eat their God. A Jew conferring with Mr. Wiseheart gave him three Reasons why the Jews could not be perswaded to turn Christians 1. The Uncharitableness of Christians toward the Poor 2. The Multitude of Images in the Temples of Christians And 3. The Sacrament of the Altar A piece of Bread says he baken on the Ashes ye adore and worship and say that it is your God. Acts and Mon. 1156. The Turks are no less scandalized by it who use to call the Roman Pope Rex Morionum the King of Idiots for this reason And Averroes the Arabian Mahometan cryed out Quandoquidem Christiani manducant Deum quem adorant sit Anima mea cum Philosophis Let my Lot be among the Philosophers rather than the Christians who eat that God which they adore And upon the Fact of Lewis the 9th mentioned before who pawned his Pyx and Host the Egyptians wrought a Wafer Cake and a Box in the Borders of their Tapestry which may yet be seen in the Tapestry which is brought out of Egypt And this was done in perpetual Memory of this thing viz. Ridente Turca nec dolente Judaeo That they had the Christian God in Pawn and to make Christianity a Deridiculum a matter to be derided and laughed at all over the World. And so I may allude to Hosea 7.16 This shall be or is their dirision in the Land of Egypt These are some of the Births that Transubstantiation hath blessed the World with And we have viewed it now in its Rise and Original Nature and Constitution Fruits and Consequents From which we may see that it is not only a most stupid and absurd Fiction but also a most gross and monstrous Abomination In the next place we shall consider the chief Foundations that the Romanists would build this Doctrine upon or the principal Arguments they go about to prove it by Now they endeavour to set it up and maintain it four Ways I. By the Scriptures II. By the Fathers III. By Councils and IV. By Reasons First The first sort of Arguments are taken from the Holy Scriptures And so they argue 1. From these Words of our Saviour This is my Body On these Words they bottom Transubstantiation and their chief strength lieth in them And the whole strength of the Argument taken from them rests on this Basis or Bottom viz. That Christ said This is my Body Hence Bellarmine lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 19. argues thus These Words This is my Body do necessarily inferr either a real mutation of the Bread as Catholicks hold or a metaphorical as Calvenists but can in no wise admit the Lutheran Sence For our Lord took Bread into his Hands and blessed it and gave it to his Disciples and said of it This is my Body Therefore he took Bread he blessed Bread he gave Bread and of Bread he said This is my Body either therefore by blessing he changed it into his Body truly and properly or improperly and figuratively by adding a new Signification or he made no Change of it if he changed it properly then he gave changed Bread and of Bread truly changed he said most truly This is my Body that is that which is contained under the form of Bread is not Bread now but my Body And this says he is that which the Catholicks hold to prove that this is the true and genuine Sence of the Word They say 1. That our Saviour spake plainly clearly and properly so as the Disciples might understand him and not figuratively darkly and obscurely 2. That we must keep to the literal Sence and proper signification of our Saviour's Words and he said expresly This is my Body In answer to this Argument I would say 1st That many of the Romanists themselves acknowledg that Transubstantiation cannot be proved from these Words both Cardinals and famous Schoolmen as Cardinal Cajetan in 3 Thom. q. 75. Art. 1. Petrus de Aliaco Card. Cameracensis in 4 Sent. dist 11. q. 6. Art. 1. Card. Roffensis or Fisher of Rochester contra Capt. Bab. Lutheri c. 10. and Perron the great Cardinal of France professeth That he believed Transubstantiation not by virtue of any necessary Consequence or Reason brought by their Doctors but by the Words of Christ as they are expounded by Tradition And Schoolmen as Biel Lec 40. in Can. Missae Occam lib. 4. sent dist 11. q. 6. Vasquez Tom. 3. in 3. dist 180. Canus loc Commun l. 3. c. 3. Cassand in Consult de Trans p. 66. Tannerus in compend relat Colloq Ratisbon par 2. c. 6. p. 37. reckons up Transubstantiation among the Points Non est improbabile non extare locum in Scriptura tam expressum ut sine Ecclesiae declaratione evidenter cogat Transubstantiationem admittere quae in scriptura sola non continentur nec ea sola evidentur deducuntur Yea Bellarmine after that he had wearied himself on this Argument concludes it with these Words Albeit there were some obscurity or ambiguity in the Words of our Lord yet that is taken away by many Councils and the Consent of the Fathers A Tacit Confession But afterwards Chap. 23. he is more express when he says It is not improbable that there is not any place extant in the Scripture so express as may without the declaration of the Church evidently enforce the admission of Transubstantiation Thus their own greatest Divines have not been satisfied that this Scripture nor yet any other doth afford a Foundation for Transubstantiation 2. The Popish Sense is not true Our Saviour by these Words This is my Body did not change the Bread into his real Body 1. The order of our Saviour's Words doth evince and evidence this For he took Bread and had them Take and Eat before he pronounced these Words This is my Body which doth plainly imply and import that the Bread was his Body before the pronouncing of these Words and not made or transubstantiated into his Body by the pronunciation of them
2. The manner of our Saviour's expressing himself in this matter doth also prove it For that he directed his Speech to the Disciples and spoke these Words to them of the Bread is past all dispute But common Sense will tell us That if our Saviour had intended any such thing as a Popish Consecration and Transubstantiation by them he would have directed his Speech to God the Father in this or the like Form Let this Bread be my Body or to the Bread saying Be thou my Body and not to the Disciples 3. The Words of our Saviour This is my Body are Words of Signification not of Transubstantiation assertive and declarative not operative and conversive Words I say they are declarative Words of that which is signifying what the Bread is before the Words be pronounced and not imperative and effective of that which is not but shall be after they are pronounced that is they signify that the Bread is his Body before and not only after they are pronounced The Romanists being pluched with this do some of them as is shewed by Duâ—and Rut. l. 4. r. 41. n. 15. and Thom. par 3. q. 78. Art. 1. make this Evasion That Christ in the institution of this Sacrament used these Words twice first secretly to consecrare the Communion and then openly to instruct the Communicants in this order 1. He took the Bread 2. He blessed it by saying This is my Body and then 3. He brake it and gave it saying Take eat This is my Body first he used it to Consecrate and then the second time to shew his Apostles the form of Consecration This they say but if we will not be so kind as to take their bare word they can never prove it 4. There is as good ground to infer and conclude that our Saviour is really and substantially changed into a Door a Vine a Rock a Foundation a Lamb a Lion a Rose a Star a Sun c. from Joh. 10.7 Joh. 15.1 1 Cor. 10.4 Isa 28.16 Joh. 1.29 Revel 5.5 Cant. 2.1 Rev. 22.16 Mal. 4.2 as there is to infer Transubstantiation from these words 5. If it were true as it is not that our Lord Jesus Christ did convert the Bread into his Body by pronouncing these words over it yet how doth it follow That the massing Priest doth the same by saying over the same words Till they can prove that their Priests have this Power from Christ lodged in them it may more rationally be inferred that as often as they read these words Let there be Light they make Light by reading of them because God did make it by them 6. The true meaning of the words This is my Body is not then as the Romanists say this that was Bread is now transubstantiated into my Body For when he said This is my Body by This he meant and understood that which he then held in his Hands now when he pronounced the word This he held nothing but Bread in his Hands and therefore by This he meant the Bread that he had in his Hands and gave and commanded them to eat as before But the meaning is This Bread I have taken blessed broken and give you to take and eat is my Body that is a sacred Sign of my Body my Body Sacramentally and Symbolically as much as to say a Representation and Memorial of my Body The Change is in Signification not of Substance in regard of Use and Office not of Nature and Being It remains to be Bread as it was before in Nature and Substance and is the Body of Christ in Signification and Representation which it was not before Yet this is not a bare Significative Form as this The Field is the World Mat. 13.38 i. e. signifies the World Or as that Rev. 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches i. e. do signify the seven Angels and Churches and many such like But it is a Sacramental Form wherein together with the Representation and Signification there is a real Exhibition of the Thing signified The Bread is his Body a representing exhibiting and conveying Sign of his Body at once both representing and exhibiting and conveying Christ crucified with the Benefits of his Cross and Passion to the Faith of a true Christian or Believer We come to the Reasons alledged for the Popish Sense First They say Christ spoke clearly and plainly so as the Disciples might easily understand his meaning 1. And I say so also It is not to be called once into question whether our Lord spoke plainly and apertly so as the Disciples might understand him or no. 2. I say moreover that it is as unquestionable that the Disciples did both readily and well understand our Lord's words and also in the Sense that we understand them Cum istis verbis non sint turbati planum est intellexisse ea metonymicè ex more Scripturae praesertim cùm paulo antè comedissent Agnum qui eodem sensu Pascha id est transitus appellatur Exod 12.27 Bucan Loc. Com. Loc. 48. q. 50. this can be no more doubted of by any that are not prepossessed with their own Sense than the other For they were both acquainted with the Language of the Scripture wherein our Sense of these Words of our Saviour is very ordinary and frequent in many Propositions and Expressions and they were also acquainted with their own Language that hath not as is observed any proper word for signify but makes use of is instead thereof whence this Stile and Sense was usual and common among them an ordinary form of Speech Besides all this the Disciples never questioned their Lord and Master about the meaning of this Proposition whereas we find them often asking him of the meaning of Speeches that he used which were incomparably more easy for them to understand than the meaning of these words if they had apprehended or suspected them to carry any thing of such a meaning in them as the Papists put upon them And therefore I say again 3. That this Reason they bring for their Sense of them doth quite destroy and overthrow their Sense of them if he spoke plainly and so as the Disciples might well understand his meaning when he said This is my Body as they say he did then certainly he did not mean that the Bread he had in his Hand was transubstantiated and converted into his real Body and that his very Body was contained under that Form of Bread in his Hand For verily this is a Sense not easie to be understood but must without all question have startled amused and posed them all exceedingly to conceive or understand how he could fit at the Table with them as they saw he did and at the same time give to every one of them his whole Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk yea to eat his own Body and drink his own Blood before their very Faces this would
have been hard indeed to understand yea a matter passing all Understanding that could never have been beaten into their Brains Secondly They say the literal Sense and proper Signification of our Saviour's Words must be kept and he says of that he gave This is my Body this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very plain Letter of the Words and from this literal Sense we must not depart in this matter Answer 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 1. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost inspiring not only the Matter but the Words and Phrases delivered by them which Words and Phrases do always signify and express his Mind unto us about the Matter so delivered in them 2. When the proper and literal Signification of Words and Phrases in the holy Scripture doth contain and carry in it manifest Absurdities Contradictions or Impossibilities that cannot be the Sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those Words and Phrases but they must necessarily be taken in an improper and figmative Sense Hence 3. In interpreting of many Scripture-Words and Forms of Speech we must depart from the Letter of the Words if we will understand and take them according to the true and proper sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in them And the Sense of the Scripture is the Scripture Thus we must understand Gen. 40.12 The three Branches are three Days And Vers 18. The three Baskets are three Days Gen. 41.26 The seven Kine are seven Years and the seven Ears are seven Years Ezek. 37.11 These Bones are the whole House of Israel Dan. 7.17 The four Beasts are four Kings Mat. 11.14 This is Elias Mat. 13.38 The Field is the World. John 10.9 I am the Door Joh. 15.1 I am the true Vine Rev. 1.20 The seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches Rev. 17. The seven Heads are seven Mountains c. In all which we must depart from the literal Sense and by the Signs figuratively signifying understand the Things signified and represented And so we must go from the literal Signification in all those places which speak of God as having a Mouth Eyes Ears Hands and other Parts of a Human Body c. 4. In Sacramental Propositions nothing is more frequent and familiar than improper and figurative Forms of Expression qua signo tribuitur nomen rei significata wherein the Sign is called by the Name of the Thing signified this we may see in the Sacraments of both Testaments in the Institution whereof the Lord used improper Expressions The Rock that followed the Israelites is called Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 now it was but a Figure of Christ In the Institution of Circumcision Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 which properly was but a Seal or Sign of the Covenant Ver. 11. In the Passeover the Lamb is called the Passeover Exod. 12.11 which properly was only the Sign of the Lord 's passing over the Houses of the Israelites And so in the Institution of this Sacrament there are as the Papists cannot deny several improper and figurative Terms as when the Cup is put for the Wine in the Cup 1 Cor. 11.25 Drinking of the Cup for drinking of the Wine Mat. 26.27 The Cup which is the Seal of the New Testament is called the New Testament Luke 22.20 And so here when he saith of the Bread This is my Body he speaks of it not in a proper and literal but in a sacramental and figurative Sense calling the Sign by the Name of the Thing signified thereby viz. his Body and this is the true Sense of the Words this Bread is the Sign of my Body which Sense whosoever gainsays and rejects to take the Popish Sense bringeth all the fore-named Absurdities Contradictions Impieties and Blasphemies into our Saviour's Words But certainly this could never be the meaning of our Lord in them 5. The Papists who contend thus earnestly for the literal Signification do not keep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the plain Letter of our Lord's Words for he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresly This is my Body but they understand it as spoken of that which is contained under the Accidents of Bread and resolve this Proposition This is my Body thus This that is contained under the form of Bread is my Body Or thus Hoc complexum Accidentium Panis Corporis mei est Corpus meum this Compound of the Accidents of Bread and my Body is my Body a plain departure from the Letter Moreover Christ meant his own true and natural Body signified by the Bread they understand an invisible Body without human Shape just Dimensions distance of Parts c. hid under the Accidents of Bread. 6. The Words of our Saviour are against Transubstantiation and being taken in their own Sense do overturn it For they say 1. That they must be taken in their proper Sense uti sonant 2. That thus taken they do infer Transubstantiation But now take them so and according to their Principles they neither infer Transubstantiation nor can there be any Transubstantiation For if there be any such a thing it must be either 1st Before the Words are pronounced Or 2dly Not until the Words are fully pronounced Or 3dly Together with the Pronunciation and while the Words are in pronouncing Or 4thly In an instant and uncertain moment of Time. But it can be in none of these and therefore there can be no Transubstantiation Scharp Curs Theol. de Coena p. 1482. Transubstantiation cannot be 1st Before the Pronunciation of the Words This is my Body For tho they disagree not a little among themselves about the Form of Consecration yet they are most generally of this mind That it is done by the Virtue of these Words canted over the Bread and that before they are used it is very Bread. 2dly Nor not until the Words are fully pronounced For if so this Proposition would be false This is my Body and instead of saying This is my Body it should be said This shall be my Body For est is in its proper Sense signifies a thing then in being and presupposeth that to be whereof it is spoken So that if the Bread be not transubstantiated before the Priest have said over these Words then he lies every time he saith them in calling that which is very Bread and nothing else the very Body of Christ 3dly During the Pronunciation of the Words or while they are in pronouncing For then it should not be in an instant but successively pedetentim by little and little as the words are successively pronounced by Letters Syllables and Words one after another but this they all deny 4thly In an instant this they are for Bellarmin determines that it is done simul in the time of the pronunciation of the words of Consecration but not in the whole time that the Pronunciation takes up but in an instant or moment of that Time. To this it may
be said 1. Then the Priest lies in saying This is and should say This shall be my Body 2. Then the great operative and conversive Virtue of these mighty Words lies in the last Syllable um this seems to be the Opinion of Thomas Conversio Panis in Corpus Christi fit in tèrmino prolationis horum verborum Tunc enim completur significatio hujus locutionis in 1 Cor. 11.24 3. Then as the Body of Christ is created in an instant so the Bread is annihilated or ceaseth to be in an instant 4. Then it is either at one and the same instant that the Bread vanisheth and the Body of Christ succeedeth in the room or another instant but it is neither of these 1. Not the same instant For then the Bread and Body of Christ should be both together and at the same time under the same Accidents But this the Papists will not hear of but affirm constantly That first the Bread only and secondly the Body of Christ alone is under the Accidents one after the other but never together 2. Not another instant For then in the interspace the Accidents should subsist without either the Substance of the Bread or Body of Christ under them but they say it is never thus but either the Bread or Body of Christ is contained under the Accidents and to say otherwise would be most absurd And thus if they will be constant to their own Sentiments tho we should grant them their own Sense of our Saviour's Words they will not serve their turn nor be a Foundation to build Transubstantiation upon but contrary-wise will quite subvert this Dagon For there can be no Transubstantiation 1. Before the Words are pronounced 2. After they are pronounced 3. In the time of Pronunciation 4. In any other instant and therefore there can be none at all We have done with their first Argument Secondly They argue from the Sermon which our Saviour preached unto the Capernaits John 6. wherein they say he opens the great Meat and Mystery of the blessed Sacrament of the Altar In which his true Body and Blood or Himself is eaten and drunken under the forms of Bread and Wine which doth necessarily infer a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into his very Body and Blood. The places urged for this are Vers 41. unto Vers 59. but they insist especially on Vers 51 53 55. here say they our Saviour expresly affirms 1. That his Flesh is Bread. Vers 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the Life of the World. 2. When the Jews contended about this Saying as absurd or impossible Vers 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat he again with an ingeminated asseveration affirms That what he had asserted was not only true and no way absurd nor impossible but also that this eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood was most necessary and beneficial Vers 53 54. Verily verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you Whose eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day 3. That his Flesh is Meat and his Blood is Drink indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vere Vers 55. For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed i. e. true Meat and Drink or truly Meat and Drink or very Meat and Drink so that say they it is plain that here he doth not speak improperly but most properly of his Body as proper Meat and of his Blood as proper Drink and of the proper and bodily eating and drinking of his very Body and Blood with the Mouth in the Eucharist And this doth undeniably prove Transubstantiation that the Bread is turned into his real Body and the Wine into his Blood. This is the Argument for Transubstantiation drawn form this Sermon of our Saviour preached at Capernaum Our Saviour having miraculously fed five thousand with five Loaves and two Fishes a great Multitude flocked after him whereupon he took an occasion to preach to them of Spiritual Meat under a Metaphor taken from the present matter as in Chap. 4. he had taken occasion from the Water of Jacob's Well to preach to the Samaritan Woman of the Water whereof whosoever drinks shall never thirst And in this Sermon he shews them 1. That there was a kind of Meat which would endure to everlasting Life which they should seek for rather than the Meat which perisheth 2. Who it is that giveth this Meat 3. What this Meat is viz. his Flesh and Blood. 4. That this is a more excellent Meat than that Corporal Food which they had been fed with and followed him for and than the Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the Wilderness as it was Corporal Food only and received by the Mouth into the Belly and so he here speaketh of it and not as it was a Temporary Sacrament to their Fathers But to come to the Matter lying before us In order to a clear and satisfactory Answer to the Argument drawn hence which they place great Confidence in I shall endeavour to shew 1. our Saviour's Sense in this Sermon 2. The Popish Sense that is put upon it 3. That our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Body and Blood. But 4. That our Saviour is here treating of the Spiritual eating and drinking of his Body and Blood out of or without the Sacrament And so Transubstantiation will fall to the Ground if they have no better Foundation to fix it upon First Our Saviour's Sense in this Sermon and how we must understand him if we will understand him in the Sense intended by him And here are four Things to be enquired into 1. What kind of Meat this is which our Saviour discourses of to the Capernaits in this Sermon And it is not Corporeal Meat but Spiritual Meat Even as Chap. 4. He speaketh to the Samaritan Woman of a Water whereof whosoever shall drink shall never thirst which is not meant of a Material Water but Spiritual Grace as the Papists do confess Yea this they do freely grant here For tho they will have it to be Material Food and to be eaten Orally and Corporally yet they confess that it is Spiritual Meat Meat for the Soul not for the Belly Mentis non ventris animae non corporis 2. What this Spiritual Meat properly is Now this is Christ himself with all the Benefits and Fruits of his Cross and Passion This Meat is made up of and consisteth in the saving Benefits prepared for us by the Body and Blood of Christ crucified and rising out of his Passion This is the Food Meat Bread which he here speaketh of that giveth Life to the World
2. As it is their Addition so it is built upon a false Supposition viz. That Men may eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ in his Sense unworthily Whereas he is here speaking of such eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood as must certainly and necessarily be worthily done and cannot be done otherwise A Man may take the Signs of his Body and Blood unworthily And therefore the Apostle speaks of eating the Bread and drinking the Cup of the Lord unworthily in the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.27 But no Man can either in or out of the Sacrament receive the thing signified unworthily viz. Christ and his Benefits or truly believe in and apply Christ to himself unworthily If this be done at all it is done worthily and cannot be otherwise 4. The eating and drinking he here speaks of is ever followed with his dwelling in them and they in him who so eat his Flesh and drink his Blood v. 56 He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him He in me and I in him As much as to say as there is a near and inseparable Union betwixt us he is united to me and I am united to him as there is a Union of the Body and Food And this again makes it plain that he speaks not of the Sacramental eating with the Mouth or of receiving the Eucharist For then when wicked Men who are Enemies to the Cross of Christ have once received the Sacrament they should thenceforth dwell in him and he in them have a Spiritual Union to and Communion with him Yet it is certain there is no such a thing as he will one Day make them all to know Mat. 7.23 These four plainly prove this viz. That our Saviour is not here speaking of the participation of the Sacrament or of Sacramental eating and drinking and much less of the Popish Oral and Corporal eating and drinking of his true and proper Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament under the forms of Bread and Wine I may add farther 5. That our Lord Jesus Christ plainly obviates and prevents this gross and carnal Sense of his Words v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life Here I say he expounds his meaning in this Discourse It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing Deitas in Christo seu vis illa Deitatis in Christo est causa propriè cur caro sit vere cibus vivificet Ille Iesus Christi solus qui est totius Christi utriusque naturae valet ad vitam is autem non corporalis sed spiritualis est per fidem Nec audent dicere se unà cum humana Christi natura devorare quoque Deitatem ipsam Rolloc in loc Caro quidem Coeterorum omnium quicquam vere non prodest Caro autem Christi quia in ipse unigenitus Dei filius habitat sola vivificare potest Cyril l. 4. in Joh. c. 23. See Bucan loc 48. qu. 112. i. e. the Humanity profits nothing without the Divinity The Flesh or Human Nature of it self and alone hath no quickning Efficacy but in conjunction with the Spirit or Divine Nature from which it receives this quickning Power and Efficacy The Divinity is the Fountain from which this Vertue flows the Humanity is the Chanel by which it is derived unto us The Words that I speak unto you i. e. of eating my Flesh Verba quae locutus sum ad vos spiritus vita sunt intellexistis spiritualiter Spiritus vita sunt Intellexistis carnaliter etiam sic illa spititus vita sunt sed tibi non sunt spiritus est vita qui non spiritualiter non intelligis Ib. ex Augustino and drinking my Blood they are Spirit and they are Life 1. They are to be understood not after a gross and carnal manner but in a spiritual Sense and so they are Life or confer Life To this the Decretal of the Romish Church agrees in the 2d distinction of Consecration in the Canon prima quidem where we have these Words Understand that which I say spiritually You shall not eat that Body which you see nor drink the Blood which those that crucify me will shed I have recommended a sacred Sign to you which being understood spiritually will quicken you 6. If we should grant them thus much that our Saviour here speaketh of the Bodily eating of his real Body yet this would not serve their turn For they will have the Bread to be transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but this Discourse would prove the quite contrary and that if there be any Transubstantiation it is not the Bread that is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ but the Body of Christ that is transubstantiated into Bread. For our Saviour here expresly calls himself Bread ten times over v. 32 33 35 48 50 51 58. So that there is far more ground to believe that the Body of Christ should be turned into Bread than that Bread should be turned into the Body of Christ 7. When they are driven from all their other Artifices whereby they would make this Sermon of our Lord to speak for them they betake themselves to their last Refuge and that is that we must believe the naked Words of Christ without any Disputation or Question about them Thus the Romanist when at a pinch says This one Word of Christ is enough to me when he calls his Flesh Meat indeed I will not deny doubt dispute This was the great Sin of the Capernaits here v. 52. How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat It came not to their Mind say the Rhemists on the Words that nothing was impossible to God that wickedly said How can this Man give us his Flesh But we may make great Profit of their Sin believing the Mysteries and taking a Lesson never to say or once think How For it is a Jewish Word and worthy of all Punishment To this I say the Sin of the Jews here was 1. That they denied the Matter of Christ's Words viz. that there could be any such thing as the eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood. Their How was a How of denying the Truth of his Words 2. That they understood not but grosly mistook the true meaning of his Words when he had before plainly enough shewed them that this eating he was speaking to them of stood in believing and had promiscuously used the Phrases of eating coming believing for the same thing But it was not their Sin 1. To deny that Oral Manducation whereof they took him to speak as a thing grosly absurd and monstrous Nor 2. To enquire humbly and modestly after the true meaning of our Saviour's Words and manner of eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood. And so we believing Christ Words to be true may and ought to inquire in what Sense they are true and
after what manner Corporally or Spiritually his Flesh is to be eaten and his Blood drunk And it is a vain pretence of Humility that leads Men to swallow down the most gross Absurdities under a pretence of believing But in the mean time the Papists sin most inexcusably 1st In their wilful understanding of our Saviour as the Capernaits did to speak of his Material Flesh and Blood and of a Bodily manner of eating and drinking thereof 2dly In their violent defending and maintaining of this that the Capernaits denied and condemned We have done with the third thing that was proposed namely That our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament c. Fourthly We shall add a word of the fourth That our Saviour is here treating of the spiritual eating and drinking of his Body and Blood extra Sacramentum without the Sacrament And this will be evident if we consider that the Manducation here spoken of is an eating 1. That was before the Sacrament was instituted and true Believers did eat his Flesh and drink his Blood when there was no Eucharist to eat and drink them in 2. That is to everlasting Life unto all that so eat Vers 54. 3. That is absolutely necessary to Life and Salvation Vers 53. 4. That unites the Soul unto Christ and Christ unto the Soul Vers 56. These have been brought before to prove that he is not speaking of bodily eating and would come in again here to confirm this 5. The Flesh of Christ is eaten only as it is Meat Now it is not Meat for our Body and Corporal Nourishment but Meat of our Souls and Spiritual Nourishment and only eaten of the Soul spiritually by Faith. In short such as our Hunger is that makes us desire this Meat such as this Meat is that we desire and such as the Life is that is maintained by it such also is our eating of it But the Hunger that makes us desire this Meat is spiritual and the Meat we feed on here is spiritual and the Life that is nourished by it is spiritual and therefore our eating is only spiritual not corporal 6. Our Saviour doth put the matter out of question by expounding his meaning to them and declaring that this eating stands in believing Thus what he calls eating Hic edere Christum est credere in eum atque applicare eum magis magisque ad animos nostros Audita devorandus est intellectu ruminandus fide digerendus Tertul. de Resur Carnis Haec quoties agimus non dentes ad mordendum acuimus sed fide sincerè panem sanctum frangimus partimur Cyprian that he plainly expounds to be nothing else but believing and useth without difference the terms of Eating Coming Believing as synonimous or Words of the same Signification V. 35. here he useth Coming for Eating Believing for Drinking And the proper and natural Consequents of these words I am the Bread of Life are He that eateth me shall never hunger and he that drinketh me shall never thirst But he saith He that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst to teach us that he speaks of an eating and drinking which is by Faith. So Vers 47 48. he shews to eat in this Mystery is nothing else but to believe Now I have done with this Argument and from what is said I hope it may be plain and evident to us that our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament and a sacramental eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood but of a spiritual eating and drinking without the Sacrament and so here can be no colour of a Foundation for Transubstantiation Yet before I leave this I must add a word to prevent the mistaking of my meaning in what is here said as if I had denied that Believers in the participation of the Sacrament do spiritually eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ This I have not said but that which I have asserted is That our Saviour in this Chapter is not treating of the Sacrament nor of eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament Yet tho he doth not here speak of it Believers in the due use of the Sacrament do that which he here speaks of i. e. really and truly eat his Flesh and drink his Blood in the Sense here intended i. e. spiritually by Faith. There is a threefold eating as hath been hinted 1. Sacramentally only 2. Spiritually only Corpus Christi accipitur non Sacramentaliter tantum quod solum Symbolum sed simul spiritualiter quoad rem significatam 3. Sacramentally and Spiritually together And thus the Sacramental eating and drinking of the sacred Symbols when performed in a due manner by true Believers is ever accompanied with this spiritual eating And so tho in this whole Sermon he treats not of the Sacrament yet whatsoever he speaks in it of eating and drinking c. may be accommodated and applied to the Sacrament wherein I say this that our Lord presseth on the Jews is performed by all true Christians and without which the Sacrament is but an empty Ceremony Thirdly They argue from the words of our Saviour Mat. 19.26 With Men this is impossible but with God all things are possible From hence they say altho Transubstantiation be hard for Human Reason to understand yet it is not hard for Divine Omnipotence to effect And Christ made the Bread his Body by the same Omnipotent Power whereby the World was made and the Word was incarnate and made Flesh in the Womb of the Virgin. Thus they argue from the Divine Omnipotence and oppose Omnipotence to all the Absurdities Contradictions and Impossibilities that Transubstantiation is clogged with and exclaim against us as setting our natural Reason in opposition to the Omnipotence of Jesus Christ and even denying his Omnipotence because we deny their Transubstantiation This is their last Argument from the Scripture The Argument wherewith they do most delude simple People and draw them into a blind Belief of Transubstantiation and consequently to the Belief and Practice of all the Abominations and abominable Idolatries that are daily practised in the Mass Now in Answer to it I say 1st That we do not deny or once doubt of Christ's Omnipotence but constantly believe and openly profess according to the Scripture that Whatsoever the Lord pleased that did he in Heaven and in Earth Psal 135.6 Eph. 3.20 in the Seas and all deep places And that he is able to do exceeding abundantly above that we ask or think But then 2dly A potentia ad actum seu a posse ad esse non valet consequentia We deny that it is warrantable to argue from the Power of Christ to the Act or being of a thing without sufficient Indications Significations and Evidences of his Will to perform such an Act or effect such a thing Or that because he can by his absolute Power do such
same Facility This is the first Answer 2. This Reason plainly everts Transubstantiation For if a Consecrated Wafer do retain the Properties and Effects of Bread then it cannot be transubstantiated because the Properties of Bread are founded in the Substance of Bread and the Effects of Bread rise from the very Nature of Bread. So that if the Bread did by Consecration lose its Substance it should therewith also lose both its Properties and Effects They have yet one shift more and say it is called Bread. Fourthly By a Hebraism because phrasi hebraicâ in the Hebrew Idiom or Form of Speech all Meat is called Bread. This is Bellarmin's last Reason and that which he likes best It may says he be called Bread meo judicio optimè quia phrasi hebraicâ nomine panis intelligitur generatim omnis Cìbus But 1. Till Bellarmine have proved that our Saviour and his Apostles called this Sacramental Element by the name of Bread for this reason or more hebraico he doth but beg the question and if we list to grant it him upon his begging we may but if not he hath not nor any of the Tribe of Cardinals or Jesuits can ever prove it 2. The Apostle doth not only call it Bread but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panem hunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27. plainly shewing that he had not respect to that general Signification but spake of it in its most proper sense as it was Food made of Corn or proper Bread as Bread is distinguished and differenced from all other kinds of Meat As in the same place he speaks of Wine as it was the proper Fruit of the Vine by way of distinction from all other sorts of Liquors Thus the Apostle calls it Bread not in the general Signification of the Word but from its own particular Nature and Kind among all other sorts and kinds of Meat that is proper Bread and not any other Fish or Flesh c. We have now the Reasons of Bellarmine and other Papists whereby they do go about to elude and evade this clear and full Argument against Transubstantiation And you may yet further take notice of these four things in general That these Reasons assigned by them why the Bread after its essential Mutation is still called Bread 1. Are divers one from another wherein they fluctuate at great uncertainty Vel quia ex pane conficitur accidentia panis retinet c. Vel alio aliquo modo qui a Doctoribus comprehendi potest a nobis non potest as not knowing where or upon what to fix One while they will have it called Bread because it was Bread another while because it hath the Form and Figure of Bread then because it hath the Effects of Bread. Next not so but by a Hebraism And thus they rove about at uncertainty now say one thing then another It is called Bread in this sense or in that sense or as one of them if not more knowing yet more modest than the rest having reckoned up several Opinions about it concludes or some other way which the Doctors may understand but we do not 2. Are not only divers one from another but adverse and contrary one to another insomuch as they cannot consist and stand one with another but do mutually destroy one another For if it be called Bread 1. Tropically and Figuratively according to the First and Second then not because of its nutritive Property according to the Third 2. Because of its nutritive Virtue then not Figuratively as the First and Second 3. If by a Hebraism then none of the other three ways And 4. If any of the other ways then not more hebraico 3. Are all Figurative and improper And so they who insist so much on and contend so hotly for the literal Signification of our Saviour's Words This is my Body and exclaim on us for departing from it do themselves depart from the literal Signification of this Word Panis Bread and bring in a tropical figurative and improper sense of it For if it be called Bread only because it is made of Bread or hath the Form of Bread or the Properties and Effects of Bread or from the Idiotism of the Hebrews then it is Bread only in an improper Sense And so I say they that will not admit of a Figure in this Proposition This is my Body tho it be necessary and ordinary and constant in the Scripture in this Subject of Sacraments are forced for the Support of their Transubstantiation and literal Signification of this Proposition This is my Body to forge a Figure in this Term Bread and not one but four one on the back of another if they will have their Reasons to signify any thing Besides that by Bread here they will have us to understand Flesh Blood and Bones by some new and uncouth Figure which I understand not 4. The Romanists at this Day cannot endure this form of Speech or to hear the consecrated Wafer called Bread. Should a Priest in the Popish Countreys who is going to sing Mass but say I go to break Bread it might come to cost him his Life 2. Arg. If the Bread be converted into the real Body of Christ the Wine is also converted into the real Blood of Christ But the Wine is not transubstantiated into his Blood Therefore neither is the Bread transubstantiated into his Body For the Confirmation of this Argument this only is to be proved That there is no Transubstantiation of the Cup or Wine For they grant that if both be not neither of them is transubstantiated Now in order to a clearing of this That there is no Transubstantiation of the Wine I shall I. Lay the Words of Institution together as they are recorded by three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul. II. Shew how the Papists would prove Transubstantiation from them III. Shew that there is no such Transubstantiation I. The Words of Institution Mat. 26.28 This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Mark 14.24 This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many Luke 22.20 This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. II. From this Institution they argue for the Transubstantiation of the Cup. 1. In General on this Principle that we must keep unto the literal Signification of the Words and take them as they sound Two things they say necessitate this 1. The Nature of a Sacrament And 2. The quality of a Testament The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Testament and nothing ought to be expressed in more plain and naked Terms than these that all Obscurity and Ambiguity may be prevented For if Sacramental or Testamentary Terms be improper and figurative then their Signification is uncertain and consequently the Sacrament or Testament delivered in such Terms is vain and uncertain This
concerning the Cup are This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Take these properly and then 1. The New Testament is the Contents of the Cup. and 2. The New Testament is shed for us And could this be Can it be said without monstrous Absurdity that the New Testament was shed for us Or that it was Letters Words Syllables Lines that were shed for us for the Remission of Sins Thus which way soever they turn them the literal Sense is absurd and makes our Saviour's Words ridiculous And this may be enough to shew the Sandiness and Unsoundness of the Foundation whereon they bottom this Doctrine Now the Foundation being overturned the Super-structures fall therewith of themselves To wit that that which is in the Cup is real Blood or Wine turned into the very Blood of Jesus Christ because 1. He calls it his Blood. 2. He calls it the New Testament in his Blood. And 3. Saith of it that it is shed I say this Interpretation falls with the Foundation that it is built on and needs no Answer Yet I shall say a Word 1. In general that all these Forms of Speech are Sacramental Terms and must not be taken in a literal and proper Sense but in a Sacramental and improper Signification whereby the Names of the things signified are given to the Signs that do signify them 2. In particular 1. When he saith of that in the Cup This is my Blood the meaning is this is that which signifieth or representeth my Blood the Sign of my Blood. 2. When he saith This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood the meaning is the Wine in this Cup is the Sign and Seal of the New Testament established in my Blood shed upon the Cross or the Sign of my Blood whereby the New Testament is confirmed 3. When he saith it is shed the meaning is it is the Sign of the shedding of my Blood. The Effusion made in the Sacrament was a Sign or Representation of the Effusion which was to be made the next day upon the Cross I have now done with the Plea they make for the Transubstantiation of the Wine from the Words of the Institution III. We shall now come to the 3d in a word to shew that the Wine is not transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ And this may be evinced First From the Absurdities Contradictions and Blasphemies that it carrieth in it These are too many to be enumerated here besides those even now named arising out of the literal Construction of the Words and those mentioned before that attend the Transubstantiation of the Bread which come in again here It labours with these four great Absurdities Grant but Transubstantiation and then according to their own Principles 1. The Wine is transubstantiated into the Cup. 2. The Cup is transubstantiated into the Blood of Christ 3. The Blood of Christ is transubstantiated into a Testament 4. The Testament is shed for the Remission of Sins All these are absurd enough Secondly From its plain Contrariety unto and Inconsistency with the great End and Fruit of Christ's Death Nothing is more plain in Scripture than these two 1. That Christ died or shed his Blood on the Cross to merit and obtain for us Remission of Sins 1 Cor. 15.3 Gal. 1.4 Eph. 5.2 Rom. 4.25 Isa 53.10 c. And 2. That by his Death and Blood-shed on the Cross Remission was obtained Colos 1.20 and 1.14 Eph. 1.7 Revel 1.5 But if as Transubstantiation supposeth the Wine in the Cup was turned into the Blood of Christ and this Blood of Christ was shed in the Sacrament for the Remission of the Sins of the World then the Passion Death and Bloodshed of Christ upon the Cross was both needless and fruitless He attained not his End in dying his Death profited nothing for that which he died for was obtained before he died to obtain it So that as the Apostle said of Justification by works Gal. 2.21 If Righteousness come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain so I may say if Remission of Sins come by the Blood shed in the Sacrament then Christ is dead in vain Thus it takes away the End and Fruit of Christ's Death the Love of God in giving him to die for our Sins the Love of Christ in laying down his Life for us and makes him die in vain Thirdly From the express Words of Christ Matt. 26.29 Mark 14.25 Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine until the day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God. These are our Lord 's own Words after he had instituted and celebrated this Sacrament and they put the Matter out of question for he could not more plainly and clearly have said that it was Wine which he had drunk and not Blood. 3. Arg. If in the Eucharist the Elements be transubstantiated into the proper Body and Blood of Christ then the Church of the Jews in the Old Testament did not eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink in their Sacrament that the Christian Church now in the New Testament eats and drinks in her Sacrament But the Church of the Jews did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that the Christian Church now doth And therefore there is no Transubstantiation Here are two things to be proved 1. That if there be any such a Transubstantiation as the Papists maintain then the Church of the Jews did not eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that Christians now do in the Sacrament And this is plain and evident for granting Transubstantiation the Christian Church now eats the Body and drinks the Blood of Christ as he was born of the Virgin Mary But so did not the Church of the Jews nor could for Christ was not then Incarnate nor had either Body or Blood. 2. That the Church of the Jews did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink that the Christian Church now doth And this is as plain and evident from the express Words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.3 4. And did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all drink the same Spiritual Drink For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. Observe 1st They did eat the same Meat and drink the same Drink That is Eandem escam potum non tantum inter se sed nobiscum habuerunt Quid est eandem nisi quia eam quam etiam nos Eandem ergo cibum eandem potum sed intelligentibus credentibus non intelligentibus autem Manna sola Aqua Credentibus autem idem qui nunc Tunc enim Christus venturus modo Christus venit venturus venit diversa verba sunt idem autem Christus Aug. Tract 26. in Joh. 1. Not in regard of the external and visible Symbols or Signs For they ate Manna and drank Water We eat Bread and drink Wine 2. But in
3d. under whom Transubstantiation was first decreed who speaking of our Saviour's Words John 6.53 hath these Words The Lord speaketh of Spiritual eating saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you Now that our Lord Jesus Christ is not here speaking of the Participation of the Sacrament or eating of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament will be evident from these 1. The Sacrament of the Eucharist was not then instituted nor as some think of two years after this or as others who make the Passover v. 4. the third Passover after his Baptism not until more than a full year after And therefore he could not speak of an eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood in the Sacrament that was not then in being nor of so long a time after If it be said True indeed it was not then in being but yet he spoke with reference to it and to instruct them beforehand in the Mystery of this Meat which was to be prepared for them in the Eucharist To this I say 1. How could they to whom he spake possibly understand any thing of his meaning when speaking with relation to a thing that was not nor whereof they had either then or before any intimation or least insinuation that such a thing should be They say elsewhere that he spoke plainly and intelligibly and it may very reasonably be supposed that now he spake to be understood and of a matter that might be understood by them but it can hardly be imagined how they could understand this Discourse to be meant of a Sacrament a Sacrament neither before nor then once mentioned nor instituted and in being of a Year or two after 2. Jesus Christ was the Bread of Life at that very time when he preached this Sermon v. 35. I am the Bread of Life v. 48. I am the Bread of Life And again v. 50. Thus he speaks of that which then was before the Sacrament of his Supper was instituted 3. Our Saviour proposeth and presseth the eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood as a present and necessary Duty A Duty that all those that were present and heard him were then obliged unto And therefore it must necessarily be granted that this Meat was then in being and might be eaten by the Faithful but they could not then eat it in the Sacrament which had no being nor was instituted This is the first thing that plainly proves that our Lord and Saviour is not here treating of Sacramental eating and drinking the Sacrament was not instituted 2. The eating and drinking which he here speaks of are necessary to Salvation Acts that he makes so necessary Conditions of Life as no Man can be saved without them V. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you It is an eating and drinking without which none can have Life So that if our Saviour mean it of Sacramental eating and drinking no Man can be saved that hath not received the Sacrament And from hence it was that the Fathers who took this Sermon to be meant of the Sacrament being moved by these Words ordered the Eucharist to be given and gave it to Infants as soon as they were baptized as necessary to their Salvation And indeed this doth necessarily follow this Exposition of our Saviour's Words But from this very thing it is evident that our Saviour's Words cannot be meant of Sacramental eating because that Sacramental eating is not absolutely necessary to Salvation so as no Man can be saved except he have once at least taken the Sacrament For many who never ate his Flesh nor drank his Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist are certainly saved All the Faithful that lived and dyed before the Incarnation of Christ ate the same Spiritual Meat and drank the same Spiritual Drink and are saved as our Adversaries will not deny yet none of them did ever once eat it in the Eucharist The penitent Thief went from the Cross to Paradise immediately yet had never eaten the Sacrament Many thousand Infants and Children of Christian Parents dye one Generation after another before they have once tasted of the Sacrament Are all these Damned There have been and are abstemious Persons who cannot brook the least sup or drop of Wine Must all these who are suspended from Drinking by a natural and sinless Infirmity or Antipathy to Wine be given up for Lost They think to evade the Force of this Argument that falls so convincingly upon them by this sorry shift viz. That our Saviour here speaks of them only who have Means and Opportunities of receiving his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist which those here instanced in never had But I answer That the Words of Christ are true simply and absolutely without Exception or Limitation And no one can have Life or be saved without a real and actual participation of the saving Benefits prepared for Souls by the Body and Blood of Christ Crucified And this Participation is the only manducation or eating that is meant in this place 3. The eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood which he here speaks of is always accompanied with Life and Salvation to all those who so eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. See v. 50 51 54 58. A Man may eat thereof and not dye If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever And whoso eateth hath Eternal Life Mark this is an eating whereby all Men whosoever have Life and are certainly saved And therefore this eating is not Sacramental eating with the Mouth nor doth stand in partaking of the Eucharist For many eat and drink in the Sacrament who have no Life nor are saved It is believed by many that Judas did partake in the Sacrament as well as the other eleven yet was the Son of Perdition And it is plain in the case of Hypocrites and Wicked Men who receive the Sacrament again and again may be a hundred times over yet have no Life nor dying so as we may fear not a few do after many a Sacrament are saved But if our Saviour had indeed meant this of Sacramental eating then it would follow that the worst of Men by participating if but once in all their Lives of the Sacrament should thereby have their Salvation infallibly secured Yet here again the Papists would creep out by the help of a pretended Implication in our Saviour's Words viz. That eating and drinking worthily is implyed and to be understood as necessary to the sense of the Words And so when our Saviour expresseth himself in those Terms used v. 50 51 54 58. he means all and only of them who eat and drink his Flesh and Blood worthily But 1. This worthily is their own Addition to our Saviour's Words For our Saviour neither hath it nor any thing that implieth it in these Verses or in this whole Sermon on this Subject