very Antichrists Oh that none of your Souls may come into their secret or have fellowship with them but yet this is not all in which they declare plainly that they erre grosly from the Faith and Truth of Christ and the true way of his Worship Behold it still in other particulars For 4. Whereas the Lord Jesus in the Night in which he was betrayed instituted his Holy Supper to be Celebrated in commemoration and remembrance of him In which He gave to his Disciples and ordered his Apostles to do the like to the Churches afterwards a Commemoration of his death and passion in two distinct Elements of bread and wine the one before and the other after and bad them all expresly drink of the cup and the Apostles plainly tell us that they delivered to the Churches that which they also received of Christ Jesus and so that they both gave the bread to be eaten and the cup to be drunk by them Witness the writings of the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 10.15 16. Where not directing them to some eternal infallible Judge Determiner of their understanddings he bids them as wise men to judge of his sayings and mentions both the cup of blessing which they blessed calling it the communion or fellowship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the blood of Christ and the bread that they brake calling it the communion of the body of Christ and in chap. 11.23 24 25 26. Where repeating the words and order of Christs instituting his Supper in both branches or parts of it he saith for as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew forth the Lords death till he come and let a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any man of the Church indefinitely Lay or Clergy as they are now a days distinguished examine himself and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this Cup. He saith not only let him eat of this bread but also let him drink of this cup. And whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself And the Apostle saith also in chap. 14.37 as we noted before that the things He wrote were the Commandments of the Lord yet this Church of Rome most audaciously and with a non obsunt or notwithstanding all this presume to deny the cup to the Laity yea and to the Clergy too say some if any of them be present beside the Priest that celebrates or saieth Mass making nothing of Gods or Christs authority to the contrary Surely therefore to them may most truly and fully be applyed those words of our Saviour spoken by him against the Scribes and Pharisees in whose steps they walk viz. well hath Isaiah prophesied of you Hypocrites as it is written this People honoureth me with their lips but their hearts are far from me Howbeit in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrines the Commandments of men For laying aside the Commandments of God ye hold the Tradition of men c. And full well ye reject the Commandments of God that you may keep your own Tradition making the word of God of none effect through your Tradition which ye have delivered Mar. 7.6 7 8 9 13. For what is their doctrine of Concomitancy but their own Tradition wherein they teach their Followers to believe that the Cup is in the bread as it were the blood of Christ is in his body and they as well taken together For were they not so when Christ being yet alive instituted the Supper And after his Resurrection when the Apostle and the Primitive Christians observed it in both kinds And can the supposal of both together in one be so lively a resemblance representation and commemoration of his death as when they are given seperately The end of our Saviours instituting and of the Churches observing this Ordinance is to shew forth the Lords death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 And is not his death more lively set forth and represented when the Elements are given apart and so the body represented as without it's blood and the blood as separated from the body than when both are supposed to be given together in one In Christs state of death his blood was shed forth from his body and in the supper as instituted of Christ the cup was given by it self as a representation of his blood shed for the remission of our sins So that here is in this bold contradiction to our Saviours precept and practice both a rejecting of his commandment and a making null the end of his institution the shewing forth of his death Though yet neither is this all nor the half of that in which this bad Church dares to confront the authority of God For 5. They also leave out in their Catechismes the second Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image c. And to make up the number of ten they divide the last into two both contrary to the express voice and command of God who gave the second as audibly as any of the rest and with more express sanction by way both of threatning added as a jealous God punishing the Offenders and promise of blessing to them that love him and keep his Commandments and to the practise and manner of the Christian Church in all it 's Primitive times Because they confront Gods Commandment in their practise setting up and injoyning Images and the Likenesses and the Representations of things and Persons to be erected and worshipped though God hath expresly commanded the contrary Oh audacious Church and Congregation of evil doers And can any be so blind as not to see palpably in this and the other particulars that they both can and do err And how then can it be possibly imagined that they are Infallible Nay rather verily it is far righter to say that they are incorrigible impenitent and impudent in their notoriously evil Principles and Practises God saith thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven thing nor the likeness or similitude of any thing either in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And these men do make the similitude of many things in Heaven and Earth as of the Virgin Mary the Saints deceased the Cross of Christ yea as they pretend of God himself c. bow down to them worship them yet they say they are innocent so did the adulterous Church of Judah when they upon every high Hill under every green tree wandred play'd the Harlot yet they said they were not polluted they had not gone after Baalim they were innocent and therefore surely Gods anger would turn away from them Jer. 2.23,35 Even so doth this corrupt and erroneous Church plead not only that she is innocent but also that she cannot err But we shall have occasion to say more to this anon Besides all this 6. What is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation but a
most gross and palpable error against the Verdict of Sence and Reason and the Word of God therefore must needs be without any substantial reason therefrom And me thinks it 's strange that men will believe Lies that are so evident and notorious that their very sences may convince them thereof If Christ should have told his Disciples that a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as they see him have and yet might impose upon their sences and make them to believe that to be flesh and bones upon the Verdict of their sences which yet in truth for all that might be other-wise had he not been really what his Adversaries falsly accused him to be And what weight would there be in that argument so often made use of by the Apostles to assure us of the truth of their Doctrine viz. that they were Eye-witnesses of the things they delivered for truths to the Church and see and heard and felt what they testified if things might be quite otherwise than the most plain and constant evidence of them to our sences represent them Now we may see the substance of bread in the Sacrament as plainly as our eyes can discern any substance we may feel it with our hands tast it with our mouths smell it with our nostrils And when we have so many evidences that it is bread yea and the word of God and Scriptures of the Apostles call it bread too as they do after the words of Consecration when it is broken yea and eaten too for they say the bread which we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ and so often as ye eat this bread c. 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.26 to be perswaded upon this Church's or it's Priests authority that there is no bread there but the very natural body and the substance of the flesh and bones of Jesus Christ is the most palpable imposture upon our faith and the most unreasonable credulity that ever was heard of not to be parallel'd in any Histories Oh but say they our Saviour said this is my body and therefore it must be his very natural body As if our Saviour never spake in Parables or used not similitudes and figures in his speaking and so must be understood to speak Literally when the understanding his words so contradicts our sences yea and our reason too For if the substance of bread be gone and the very substance of his body flesh blood and bones be there really present under the forms of bread and wine upon the Consecration or pronunciation of those words this is my body how many absurdities must follow thereupon As then Christ must have many bodies distinct from one another or the same to be multiplied beyond all possibility to say into how many yea then while Christs body sate by his Disciples whole and untouched it must be at the same instant in their hands and mouths yea his whole body in every one of their hands and mouths in it's mortal state and yet his whole body visibly before them all and distinct from them all and from all their hands and mouths and what was therein yea then his body must be broken by himself before it was broken and he was as it were his own Crucifyer before he was crucifyed slain and while as yet nothing of that nature was done to his body For if that bread which he took and blessed was transubstantiated into his body then he saying of it that it was broken for them in that he brake the bread it must then be broken by himself and yet for all it was broken and eaten too yet it was as whole after that yea and in the very time of it's being broken and eaten as ever and was taken and broken and crucified on the Cross by his enemies after every one of his Disciples had eaten it in it's natural substance Then also he must have a thousand and a thousand bodies at once in the several places where the Mass is Celebrated and the Host eaten and the whole body eaten by every Communicant in it's substance corporally yet his body whole entire in Heaven and the Heavens must receive or contain it till the time of the restitution of all things spoken of by the Prophets Yea and when the Hosts is reserved in the Pix or Box the same body must be in the same time in Heaven Glory and shut up in a narrow box in diverse places where possibly it may mould or if the Mice can come to it be eaten too by them except the Mice can eat accidents without the substance they can be accidents without substance to inherein that are in such case mouldy or the like and all the absurdities that the Prophets cast upon the Heathen Idolaters when they tax them with making a God that cannot help or save it self but may be carried to and fro as men please may be all justified as rational or warranted as possible enough by this one Doctrine For do not the Priests they say make of a piece of bread the person of Christ God and man even their Maker And when a Baker hath of the same dough made diverse cakes or wafers and divers of them being caught and taken and eaten by men the Priest takes one or more of them and Consecrates and makes a God of it and falls down and worships it and perswades the people to worship it telling them it is very God and their Saviour Though yet when it is in their hands it is in their power if they will to cast it away or to burn it in the fire if they secretly reserve it and it cannot rescue it self from them and their power no more than the God made of a piece of a Tree could May it not as well be said to these as to those Heathen Idolaters remember this and shew your selves men bring it again to mind O ye Transgressors Isai 46.8 For are not these men every whit as much infatuated as those persons or worse For there they took a piece of a Tree the workmanship of God more immediately and having burnt part of it in the fire and roasted meat and warmed themselves with it they made another part of it into an Image or similitude of something and set it up and Consecrated it with some words or charms and then they called it their God they prayed to it and said deliver me for thou art my God Isa 44.14 15 16 17. Giving it Divine worship Perhaps they might think as the Papists do that after they had Consecrated it it was transubstantiated too and ceased to be wood the matter and substance of that was gone and it was thenceforth not a Block or wood but really a God and had power to help and save it's Worshippers As the Poet deridingly sings of their Priapus Olim truncus eram ficulnus inutile lignum Cùm Faber incertus scamnum faceret né Priapum Maluit esse Deum Whence it might say
in English I some time since a Block of Figtree was But now I for a God do firmly pass And do not the Papists after the same sort while that which was as to it's matter Corn growing in the field and after that was reaped threshed ground in the Mill kneaded in the Trough and baked in the Oven some parts of the same dough or mass being taken and eaten another part of it is taken and consecrated by the Priest with some words said over it and then thenceforth it is called taken for and worshipped as God The very Person of Immanuel God with us though it be equally in the hand and power of men to dispose of it as they please to cast it away or burn it in the fire as to the power of possibility as the Trunk or stock of the Consecrated Tree was for it 's some time shut up in a Box while it may mould Nay Fryar Aegan in his Recantation Sermon preached in London April the sixth 1673. having been Confessor General in the Kingdom of Ireland and Guardian of the Friory of Monasterioris in the Province of Lemster tells us pa. 6th That coming to a publick house to refresh himself he found that a Lewd Priest had pawned the Consecrated Host to the woman of the house for five thirty shillings possibly enough as the price of his drunkenness or of some worse prankwith the Hostess that he the said Fryar Aegan redeemed it with this remark as he saith that Christ was made by him not an Offering for sin but a Sacrifice for his Lust See here if those latter persons are not worse than the former the Heathen Idolaters For they did not either teare their Block in pieces when they had made him a God these teare him with their teeth as the Lateran Councel exprest it nor did they use to pawn them as this Priest pawned what he called his Saviour so as had not the Fryar redeemed him which they worship as their Redeemer might have laine in captivity and bondage till he had been utterly lost or spoiled Oh sottish error and ignorance Oh but our Saviours words together with the Omnipotency of God must be made to bear the burthen of all these absurdities But why must these words this is my body be prest to so undue and absurd a service when many others of like import are lest at liberty therefrom Did our Saviour call the bread or that thing he gave his Disciples God-man or did he require them to kneel down and worship it as these men do That would have been to the purpose indeed but in that he said take eat not take worship this is your God it may be well apprehended that they go herein besides his Warrant in what they do and that his words afford no ground for it Oh but he said this is my body and he is true and his words are to be believed Do these men think then that where ever our Saviour or the Holy Ghost calls one thing by the name of another to which it hath some reference or relation as is usual in Sacramental matters the thing is transubstantiated into the being and substance of that thing which it is named I suppose not For then the cup must be transubstantiated into the New Testament For our Saviours words are as express in the other part of the Sacrament for that as they are for this they so grosly understand and impose upon the understanding of all others for so St. Luke and the Apostle Paul expresly render and relate his words likewise after supper the Cup saying this Cup is the New Testament in my blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hic Calix Not this wine or this that is in this Cup but this CUP is the New Testament Would the word Is and the Omnipotency of God do such a Miracle in the bread as to transubstantiate it into the very body of Christ and will not the same do a Miracle here to transubstantiate the Cup into the New Testament No but here they are forced to grant a Figure Though the Omnipotency of God is able to make as great a change upon the golden or silver Chalice as upon the bread And I suppose the change is somewhat less For the New Testament is somewhat less than God himself a Covenant or Will made by him with us And may not a Divine Writing be as easily hid under the form of a silver Chalice as the Christ God man under the form of bread And yet here they notwithstanding Gods Omnipotency and Christs express saying allow a figure in the expressions and leave us the substance of the Cup entire and command not men to worship that thinking that by the Cup is meant that in the Cup though they think or would have others so simple as to think that what is in the Cup is transubstantiated into the blood of Christ that was shed for us and not into the New Testament and so that the Disciples drunk the blood of Christ really and verily out of that Cup though it was all as then in his veins But there is no more ground for their imposing the one than the other the wine more than the Cup except that it 's their pleasure so to do for both St. Luke and St. Paul render it so this Cup is the New Testament in my blood and they spake certainly the words and mind of Christ as truly as St. Mathew and St. Mark who render them thiâ— is the Blood of â—he New Testament and God is as able to effect the one as the other and the one is no less absurd than the other For if the wine in the cup or what was so be now really and substantially blood even that blood that was shed out of Christs â—â—de for us Must not then the blood of â—â—rist while his body is in Heaven be really and substantially separated from his body and so his body in Heaven is a bloodless body as oft as the Priest Consecrates the Cup and drinks what is in it or do they say that the body is in and with the blood as they say the blood is in the bread or body and therefore that alone is enough to be given to the people If so then flesh and blood and bones and all are in the Chalice too And no marvel then that they give not the Cup to the people if they believe verily that the flesh and bones of Christ are in it even the same that was born of the Virgin Mary and hung upon the Cross Nay it 's rather to be marvelled how the Priest dare venture upon them all to swallow them down They might as easily believe that the matter of the Cup be it silver or gold is turned into the New Testament and become a real Hand-writing of God though it appear still to our sences to be a cup as that the Priest swallows down his throat or the people eat very flesh bones and the same Miracle and
Omnipotency will make the one as possible as the other Or that the same thing that is shut and hung up in the Pix being a Consecrated Host is the same numerical body that is glorified and gloriously appears in Heaven also what was eaten by the people in their receiving eating what of it was given them But we may see how these men straining the words of Christ where they please as they do also some expressions of the Ancient Fathers make the word of God subject to their wills and pleasures and where they please they will grant a Figure and where they please they shall be properly and literally understood yea and strained beyond their litteral expression for Christ said no such thing as this is transubstantiated into or is the substance of my very body as they say though the like absurdities following upon the litteral sence of or collection from it as would from taking the other expressions litterally makes it necessary to understand them figuratively and sacramentally in the one place as well as in the other It 's true that in this Supper Christ would have us and it 's necessary for us to abstract or withdraw our minds from the consideration of the bread and wine in their own proper substances and to fix them only upon the body and blood of Christ whereof they are a communion or communication 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so to have no more to do with those Elements in our thoughts in a manner than as if there were no such matters only as they may occasion us to meditate and consider that his flesh is meat indeed the true bread and everlasting nourishment of our Souls and his blood or the New Testament confirmed by it Drink indeed a most comfortable matter of refreshing for the Soul to take into it's believing consideration and so spiritually and sacramentally to feed upon his flesh and blood But to impose upon peoples Faith that the things which they see with their eyes to be very bread and wine are very Christ his very flesh and blood yea God-man their Saviour and to cause them to worship them is a very gross departure from and abuse of Christ's institution and of his command for our observation of it And why may they not as well impose upon mens faith that St. Peter after he Confessed Christ was transubstantiated into a hard stone and his flesh blood and bones yea his Soul and body and all was metamorphiz'd into a Rock For our Saviour said unto him Tues Petrus in the Syriac Cephas which in our English Language signifies a stone Mat. 16.18 with Jo. 1.42 here is Christs assertion as plainly of Peter as there of the bread And if the word Est is imply the substantial change of the bread in the one why may not the word Es thou art imply the substantial change of Simon Bar-Jonah in the other And why may it not be as rationally believed that his flesh and bones yea Soul and body were immediately and substantially turned into stone living stone as that the bread was changed into the body of Christ substantially seeing the Omnipotency of God was as well able to do the one as the other And that is pleaded as sufficient for our Faith to believe this And so St. Peter was a living walking Stone that had not the substance of either flesh or blood or bones in him though the appearance of them all to the sences Yea and why may it not be as well imposed upon mens Faith that Christ himself is so changed in his substance into stone too For he is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the living stone 1 Pet. 2.4 and that the Altar that Jacob built at Shechem was transubstantiated into the Essence of God because Jacob Consecrating it called it El Elohe Israel God the God of Israel Gen. 33.20 Surely they are strangely infatuated or obstinately wilful that cannot or will not see the absurdity of this Doctrine of theirs so contrary both to sence and reason and so void of any solid ground for it in the Holy Scriptures Object Oh but they will say they are the Church and their judgment is to be taken as the infallible truth and therefore if they did assert the like changes and transubstantiations in other things then they were to be believed too For our Faith is to be resolved into their sayings as our Saviour tells us that they that hear not the Church are to be accounted as Heathens and Publicans Ans But to that it 's said and shewed before that they are not the Church Catholique but only a part of the Church and a very corrupt part too To which I add that I find it injoyned to us that we should hear Christ the great Prophet of God in all things which he shall say unto us but I find it no where injoyned us that we should hear the Church in all that she shall say unto us And that the Scripture here quoted by them to serve their design is perverted by them from it's true and genuine intent rnd scope For our Saviour did not there intend nor speak any thing as signifying an intent to teach us to build our Faith or belief of the Scripture-sayings or the Exposition of the Scripture upon the Authority of the Church or it's sayings much less of any uppermost party that unduely challenge to themselves the title and appellation of the whole Church much less the Church of Rome But his discourse is evidently about offences given by any sinning Brother which being evident in themselves might by any particular person against whom they were committed be reprehended and faulted and in case the party offending would not hear a private admonition then it should be reproved by the same person again taking one or two persons as witnesses with him who might also join in reproving or admonishing him And if still he harden his heart and retain his offensive or evil way or practice then they should declare it to the Church who might all testifie their dislike or give him a joint admonition of the same fault And if he hear not them in such joint admonition given them by the Church then the offended Brother might disclaim communion with him and leave him as no more to be owned by him than an Heathen man or a Publican Here is nothing of the Church's giving the object of faith to be believed or of her being to be heard in whatsoever she shall say though never so contrary to sence or reason or to the Scripture sayings or to the commands of God and Christ but of the Chuch's admonishing an offending Brother who being admonished by her ought to hear the Church therein But that 's in no other thing than in what he ought to have heard first the offended Brother in upon his own private admonition or the offended Brother with one or two joining with him upon his slighting the admonition given by the offended Brother alone But