Heaven and sat on the right hand of God. And there St. Stephen afterwards saw him Acts 7. 56. In which place as St. Peter testifies Acts 3. 21. he must remain till the times of the restitution of all things When and not before he shall so come in like manner as he was seen to go into Heaven Acts 1. 11. Now I suppose you know the last shift they that believe this Doctrine are fain to fly to is God's Omnipotency and this they know we dare not contradict But we know that though God is able to do any thing yet 't is evident in many things he does not apply his Will to his Ability And on this account though John Baptist told the Jews Matth. 3. 9. That God was able of the Stones of the Earth to raise up Children unto Abraham we must not presently make the Fable of Deucalion and Pyrrha an Article of our Faith. For if this wou'd do the bus'ness how soon wou'd the World be fill'd with Absurdities and yet all pass for Miracles But if we consult the Sacred Writings we shall find that though God is sufficiently declar'd to be Omnipotent yet he never acted any thing contrary to himself his Power never appear'd contrary to his Will. Now in the present case if we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and that his Will is declar'd in his Word it sufficiently appears that Christ must be Corporally present in Heaven 'till the end of the World and then to say that he is Corporally present on Earth too and in so many Thousand places at the same time because nothing is impossible with God is to say in effect that God to shew his Power does some things which are repugnant to his Will and to preserve the Prerogative of his Omnipotence inviolate will upon occasion contradict his own Word But the Apostles had no such thoughts some of 'em saw Christ ascend Bodily into Heaven and others as St. Stephen and St. Paul afterwards saw him Bodily present there Accordingly St. Paul tells the Hebrews Chap. 8. Verse 1. that he is set on the Right Hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the Heavens And Chap. 10. Verse 12. After he had offer'd one Sacrifice for Sins for ever he sat down on the Right Hand of God. Where be pleas'd to observe two Errors confuted in one Text The Sacrifice of the Mass in that Christ has offer'd one Sacrifice for Sins for ever and the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in that after he had offer'd the Sacrifice he sat down on the Right Hand of God. Therefore his Advice to the Colossians Chap. 3. Verse 1. is If they are risen with Christ seek those things which are above where Christ sitteth at the Right Hand of God. For Phil. 3. 20. our Conversation says he is in Heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ Wherefore Madam I think the Counsel of our Lord himself is best to be follow'd Matth. 24. 23. If any Man shall say unto you Lo here is Christ or there believe it not Secondly Another Argument deducible from Scripture against this Doctrine I told you was That we eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ only by Faith. John 6. 47 c. Verily verily I say unto you he that believeth on me hath Everlasting Life I am that Bread of Life Your Fathers did eat Manna in the Wilderness and are dead This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a Man may eat thereof and not die 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. Where we are to consider First That Faith in Christ is made the Condition of having Everlasting Life Verse 47. Secondly The Bread of Life which Verse 51. is call'd his Flesh is only that Spiritual Nourishment of the Soul which comes by that Faith in Christ And therefore he says that if any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever Whence I think it plainly appears that eating Christ's Flesh and believing on him are only terms used promiscuously one for t'other and so make nothing at all for Transubstantiation But the chief of the Argument is to come Verse 52 c. The Jews therefore strove among themselves saying How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat Then Jesus said unto them 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 Whoso eateth my Flesh and Drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last Day For my Flesh is Meat indeed and my Blood is Drink indeed He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him As the Living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is that Bread which came down from Heaven not as your Fathers did eat Manna and are dead He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Perhaps you may think Madam that these reiterated expressions are Indications plain enough that our Saviour here intends Transubstantiation But I assure you they mean nothing less For first he says Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you And on the contrary Whoso eateth his Flesh and drinketh his Blood hath Eternal Life and he will raise him up at the last Day Now if our Saviour speaks all this of his natural Flesh and Blood with which he was cloathed and which was nail'd to the Cross and split on the Ground and lastly which he carried with him into Heaven and if according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation his natural Flesh and Blood are as really eaten and drunk in the Lord's Supper Then all Men bad as well as good nay any living Creature that is but capable of eating and drinking may be in as fair a way to Heaven as the devoutest Professor of Christianity For if eating the Flesh of Christ will carry one to Heaven give a Dog a piece of the Transubstantiated Bread and why may not he by eating it go thither too However to seclude Beasts it wou'd be a blessed World certainly if the worst of Men were in as sure a way to Salvation as the best which must be if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and our Saviour's Words hold together For he says his Flesh is Meat indeed and his Blood is Drink indeed And Transubstantiation gives all Men the real Flesh and Blood of Christ and by eating and drinking them we get Salvation which is here call'd Eternal Life But Secondly He that eateth Christ's Flesh and drinketh his Blood dwelleth in Christ and Christ in him Now can Christ dwell in a Wicked Man or Unbeliever What fellowship hath Christ with
Belial Thirdly This is that Bread which came down from Heaven not as our Fathers did eat Manna and are dead he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Whence observe If one thing is to be understood according to the Letter another is also And then if the Letter intends Transubstantiation according to the Letter likewise they who eat the Flesh of Christ presently become Immortal And thus the Jews understood our Saviour when they cried out Lord evermore give us of this Bread Verse 34. But 't is appointed for all Men once to die Therefore eating the Flesh of Christ and drinking his Blood can mean nothing but our feeding on him by Faith unto Salvation And if by eating the Flesh of Christ and drinking his Blood we shall live for ever and yet no Man can be saved unless he believes in him either our Saviour must be thought to contradict himself or else this overthrows the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and proves that we only eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ by Faith. And I appeal to your self Madam to judge which of the two 't is most reasonable to believe But that what our Saviour says here is not to be understood according to the Letter will appear if we pursue it a little farther Verse 60. Many therefore of his Disciples when they heard this said This is a hard Saying who can hear it When Jesus knew in himself that his Disciples murmured at it he said unto them Doth this offend you What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life But there are some of you that believe not From all which I cou'd tell you Madam and upon good ground too that there is nothing in this Chapter or very little at most touching the Eucharist but all that our Saviour says concerning his Flesh and Blood is to be understood of his exemplary Life and wholsome Doctrine which is Meat and Drink indeed But supposing the whole discourse to be upon that subject yet there can be nothing of Transubstantiation contain'd in it Which will yet more fully appear by considering how often he urges the necessity of believing on him in order to Salvation Verse 29. This says he is the work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath sent So Verse 35. He that believeth on me shall never thirst But I said unto you that ye also have seen me and believe not Again Verse 40. And this is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have Everlasting Life and I will raise him up at the last Day So likewise Verse 47. He that believeth on me hath Everlasting Life And this believing on him in other places of the Chapter he calls coming to him as Verse 35 37 44 45. And in other places again it is call'd eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood. Whence 't is evident they are all Synonymous terms used to express one and the same thing But to proceed The Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 1. tells us that all our Fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea 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 Now the Paschal Lamb was as lively a representation of Christ the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World as our Bread and Wine are of the breaking his Body and shedding his Blood upon the Cross yet 't was never thought that they in the Passover did eat and drink Christ's real Flesh and Blood but only in that Feast they fed on him by Faith. And so when we come duly prepar'd to the Lord's Table we are Partakers of his Body and Blood by Faith by which also Christ dwelleth in our hearts Ephes 3. 17. Our Saviour Joh. 15. 5. says I am the Vine ye are the Branches he that abideth in me and I in him the same bringeth forth much fruit for without me ye can do nothing Now if all our Saviour's words must be taken according to the letter which must we rather believe that his Flesh is Bread to be eaten by us as we do our ordinary Food or that he is a great Tree and we Christians are so many Branches growing from him or that we are mere Sheep feeding on a Common and he the Shepherd to look after us or lastly that he is a Door hung upon Hinges thro' which we Sheep must enter into our Pasture I wou'd fain know if all these were to be taken literally what we shou'd do to know which was true and which not Such Expressions as these must be taken Metaphorically and so As we usually enter into a House by the Door so we go to Heaven by Christ As a Shepherd takes care that none of his Sheep go astray so Christ the good Shepherd of our Souls will lose none of all them that are his As a Vine gives Nourishment to its Branches so is Christ a Vine to us by whom we live and grow ripe for a joyful Harvest or Vintage And lastly as Bread is eaten to sustain this Temporal Life so Christ is that Spiritual Food on which we feed by Faith unto life Everlasting To what has been said on this Subject we may add many Texts of Scripture which assert the Elements which are the Matter of this Feast to be the same after Consecration as they were before Thus the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 16 The cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ So again Chap. 11. v. 26 As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's death till he come But that which is chiefly insisted on is what our Lord himself said at the Institution of his Supper Matth. 26. 26. And as they were eating Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body And he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of it For this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins If here is not plain Transubstantiation I know not where to find it Our Saviour himself in the presence of his Disciples takes a piece of Bread and plainly affirms that 't is his Body and shall not we believe him yes surely But what follows Vers 29 But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom I think he tells
Whether there is any such Place as Purgatory VI. Whether the Mass is a Sacrifice for Quick and Dead VII Whether the Doctrin of Transubstantiation can be maintain'd by Scripture The first Enquiry must be whether any Man can do more than he ought to do Where we are to consider That though a Man as a Christian is in the state of Grace yet he is not in the state of Innocence nor can be till he arrives at the state of Glory where all Infirmities will be done away For as he is Flesh and Blood liable to be tempted to evil and apt to commit it he must expect to meet with Afflictions and Crosses from the World without and the Suggestions and Temptations of the Devil from within And being naturally more prone to Evil than Good I think it a hard thing to say That 't is in his power to do more Good than is requir'd he should do and a harder to prove it Under the Law Men were not able to keep the Law perfectly nor to walk in the Commandments of God as they ought For Moses himself who took them from God's mouth and gave them to the Israelites err'd in so much that he must not enter the promised Land. That Text Josh 11. 15. has been objected by some Gentlemen of the Church of Rome but plainly to no purpose For any one may see that Joshua's keeping the Commandments was only his doing those things he was commanded to do in order to establish the Israelites in the Inheritance of the Land of Canaan And we find the same Joshua in another place asserting the impossibility of serving God Josh 24. 19. at least he did not believe Men could do more It may be objected That the light of the Gospel is much clearer than that of the Law and the burthen easier to be born c. But for all that 't is certain the Gospel requires as full and perfect Obedience as ever the Law did Nay it proceeds farther for under the Law Men thought it no great Crime to murther their Neighbour in his good Name so they let his Body alone They also thought it no Sin to Lust after a Woman provided they did not come to Action But under the Gospel our Saviour tells us the contrary Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time Thou shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the Judgment But I say unto you That whosoever is angry with his Brother without a cause shall be in danger of the Judgment and whosoever shall say unto his Brother Racha shall be in danger of the Council but whosoever shall say Thou Fool shall be in danger of Hell Fire Again Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time Thou shalt not commit Adultery But I say unto you That whosoever looketh on a Woman to lust after her hath committed Adultery with her already in his heart Matth. 5. 21 22 27 28. So that we may see though the Law was such a yoke as neither we nor our Fore-fathers were able to bear Act. 15. 10. yet the Yoke of the Gospel is not so light as to be run away with As easie as it is 't is very irksom to Flesh and Blood yet 't is what we must bear so long as we live and then it is God's mere Mercy if the heavier yoke of Everlasting Misery is not laid on us instead of it If Man has Free-will to do good as well as evil yet I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing for to will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not For the good that I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do Now if I do that I would not it is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me And on the contrary if I do that good I would it is no more I that do it but the grace of God that is in me 1 Cor. 15. 18. I find then a Law that when I would do good evil is present with me For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members says the Apostle Rom. 7. 18. And he at last concludes So then with the mind I my self serve the Law of God but with the flesh the law of sin To which we may add what the same Apostle says 1 Cor. 2. 14. But the natural man that is flesh and blood receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned And then certainly our Free-will can do us little good towards making us do more than we should when by reason of the stubborness of our Flesh we can't do what we would But the Apostle tells us That we are not able to do any thing of our selves but 't is God that worketh in us both to will and do after his good pleasure Phil. 2. 13. And our Saviour himself says That no man can come unto him unless the Father draw him Joh. 6. 44. Therefore I think it strange that a Man should be able to do more than he can 'T is a Contradiction Certainly he that made us can tell best what we can do And he says That the heart of man is only evil continually Gen. 6. 5. 8. 21. If then we are naturally more prone to do evil than good how is it possible for us to be better than we should be And if under the Gospel we must observe every Punctilio so strictly as not to be angry with our Neighbour not to look on a Woman to lust after her c. how are we able to do all that 's required of us The Apostle St. James goes a step farther If ye fulfil the Royal Law according to the Scripture Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self ye do well But if ye have respect to persons ye commit sin and are convinced of the Law as Transgressors Jam. 2. 9. To have respect to Persons in civil Conversation one would think a small matter to make one guilty of the breach of the Law but so it is And our Saviour goes farther yet Matth. 5. 43. Ye have heard that it hath been said Thou shalt love thy Neighbour and hate thine Enemy But I say unto you Love your Enemies bless them that curse you do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despightfully use you and persecute you This is a hard lesson and not agreeable to Flesh and Blood yet 't is made the condition of becoming the Children of our Father which is in Heaven From what has been said we may gather That if any Man can do what he is required to do he cannot do more And if as we are told Jam.
though the sence of the Text may be hid in a Figure But he that can assert the Doctrine of Purgatory from such a Text as this may as well say that the Apostle was a Mason or Carpenter because he calls himself a Builder or that he Preach'd to Houses and Walls because he calls the Corinthians God's Building or that our Saviour himself was a Stone because he is expresly call'd the head stone of the corner But whither wou'd such absurdities hurry us I assure you Madam 't is very unreasonable to suppose the Doctrine from such a Text as this and I think they can find none plainer than one of these two Which being made thus plain to the contrary I shall only briefly hint a few Texts against the particular Doctrine of Purgatory and so conclude this Point Eccl. 11. 3. If the clouds be full of rain they empty themselves upon the Earth and if the tree fall toward the South or toward the North in the place where the tree falleth there it shall lie This Text is a Metaphorical intimation of the state of the Soul after this life As a Tree that is falling must fall one way either to the South or to the North c. So the Soul when it leaves the Body must go to some certain place and as the Tree shall remain in the place where it fell so the Soul must abide in the place whither she first goes when she leaves the Body But the Preacher is more plain to the purpose Chap. 12. 7. where he says The Dust that is Man's Body shall return to the Earth as it was and the Spirit shall return to God who gave it And the Prophet says Isai 57. 3. The Righteous shall enter into Peace Now according to the Practice of the Church of Rome in this particular unless the special favour of the Bishop of Rome intervene all both good and bad must pass through Purgatory in order to their Perfection tho' according to the Doctrine of the first Query they may be more than perfect before they come thither But what then becomes of the many Promises made to the Godly both in the Old and New Testaments if before they can enjoy the Rewards promis'd they must undergo so severe a Punishment by the way Revel 14. 13. And I heard a voice from Heaven saying unto me write Blessed are the Dead which die in the Lord from henceforth And if there is any such place as Purgatory wherein the best of Men must endure Torment for a Time how can the Blood of Christ be said to cleanse any from all Sin 1 Joh. 1. 7 Certainly God does not require that his Servants shou'd pass through the Fire to purify 'em and make 'em fit for Heaven after they are wash'd in the Blood of his Son. We are taught by the Apostle Heb. 9. 14 that the Blood of Christ purges our Consciences from dead Works but we quite destroy the belief of this if we admit the least thought of any other Purgation Our Saviour tells us Joh. 3. 18. that He that believeth on him is not condemned And if God does not condemn 't is hard to think he 'll punish which he must do if the best of Men must pass through Purgatory before they can come to Heaven But we can meet with no such place in the Scriptures We find but two ways mention'd a narrow and a broad a strait gate and a wide into one of which we must enter And the Apostle says expresly All shall appear before the Judgment 2 Cor. 5. 10. seat of Christ there to receive according to what we have done in the Body and then certainly if there is any such place as Purgatory God must be thought unjust in calling Men to account for their Sins when they are purg'd from ' em But 't is much safer to believe there is no such place Virgil indeed tells us of some such kind of place in the Sixth Book of his Aeneas in his Account of Aeneas's Progress into the infernal World to visit his Father When he came to the Stygian shore he saw Old Charon about his wonted Bus'ness plying the Oars to carry such over as came thither for Passage But he saw some miserable Ghosts on the Banks and in dark Woods thereabouts to whom the old Ferry-man was very surly and deny'd 'em Passage tho' without doubt they 'd have paid him as well for his pains as others did Aeneas as we may suppose was amaz'd at this partiality and ask'd his Guide What was the meaning of Charon ' s rough behaviour to those poor Souls To which she answers Those you see him take into his Boat are buried and by that means challenge his Service But those he beats away are not None must pass these Streams 'till the Ceremonies of their Funeral are perform'd but they must abide in these dismal Shades on this side the River an Hundred years unless they are buried sooner and then I suppose buried or not buried they obtain their Passage Then the Poet sets down a Dialogue between Aeneas and his old Pilot Palinurus who being unfortunately cast away was kill'd in Italy and by the cruel Murtherers left unburied for which reason he must be confin'd to this Purgatory 'till those People mov'd by Prodigious Omnes shou'd Solemnize his Funeral Now not to make a Parallel between this Fiction of the Poet and the Purgatory of the Church of Rome I shall only tell you that I have seen the place represented by them of that Church not much unlike it They have a River in which many are plung'd up to the Neck and labouring very hard to get out at one side of the River is Hell's mouth open to terrifie the poor Souls and over their heads Heaven for their Encouragement Whether they intend this River for Styx or Acheron is not to the purpose 't is enough to suppose the Doctrine of Purgatory very ancient because in vogue with the ancient Romans before Christ's coming into the World tho' of late years it has got a Name which it wanted before and as it was formerly known by the Stygian shore Black shades c. now Purgatory is the Proper name of the place and is therefore deservedly written with a Capital P. 6. The Sixth Enquiry proposed was Whether the Mass is a Sacrifice for the Quick and Dead This Doctrine is built upon the other of Purgatory and 't is to be deliver'd from that place that Men are so willing to trade for Masses and Indulgences which has added so much to the Revenue of the Church that it can now very hardly be laid aside But I have often thought it strange that Men professing Christianity shou'd be so far bewitch'd to Gain as to deny the Efficacy of Christ's Sufferings For if Indulgences will make amends for Sin and the Mass atone for unrighteousness what becomes of the All-sufficiency of Christ's Merits the Satisfaction made by his Death What need have Men to go
there can be no other Offerings needful but such as every Man must offer for himself the Sacrifice of Righteousness And as the Mass is not a Sacrifice for the Living neither can it be suppos'd a Sacrifice for the Dead If Christ Jesus has made satisfaction for the Sins of all that are call'd by his Name and if that satisfaction is certainly appli'd to all who are true Christians and Die in the Faith of Christ Crucified and if this is made the absolutely necessary Condition of having a Title to that satisfaction I can see no ground Wicked Men have to hope for pardon if they forfeit that The Scriptures are altogether silent as to any thing that can be done for us after Death To which purpose I 'll give you the trouble of the following Instances 1. Holy David when God struck the Child he had by Bathsheba pray'd for its recovery and fasted and lay all Night upon the Earth His sorrow for the Child's Sickness was intolerable But when the Child was Dead he arose from the Earth and Washed and Anointed himself and changed his Apparel and came into the House of the Lord and Worshipped then he came to his own House and having Bread set before him he did eat Then said his Servants to him What thing is this that thou hast done thou didst fast and weep for the Child while it was alive but when the Child was dead thou didst arise and eat Bread. And he said While the Child was yet alive I fasted and wept For I said who can tell whether God will be gracious unto me that the Child may live 2 Sam. 12. 22. We read nothing here of any Sacrifice offer'd for the Child which certainly wou'd have been recorded if such a thing had been done but he did not so much as pray for him or weep after his Death For 2. No Man can by ANY means redeem his Brother or give to God a ransom for him Psal 49. 7. I think this is plain enough against any thing that is pretended to be done for the benefit of the Dead and if no Ransom can deem a Man from the State he immediately passes into out of this World what signifie the many Masses that are sent up daily for one or other in the Church of Rome I think it wou'd not be impertinent to add that of our Saviour What shall it profit a Man if he shall gain the whole World and lose his own Soul Or what shall a Man give in exchange for his Soul Mark 8. 36. Which shews the impossibility of Redemption from a State after this Life And this is farther evident in Luke 16. in the Discourse between Abraham and Dives where Abraham tells him Verse 26. That between them there is a great Gulf fixed So that they which wou'd pass from one to t'other cou'd not And then I wou'd fain know how they can say that any can be fetch'd out of Purgatory as Hell is more mildly call'd to Heaven But 3. The Apostle tells the Thessalonians 1 Thes 4. 13. that he wou'd not have 'em to be ignorant concerning them which are asleep nor to sorrow as others which have no hope For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him The Apostles and the Primitive Christians had their hopes in the Resurrection they had no thought of a state of Punishment after Death from which they were to be freed by the Sacrifice of the Mass but they built all upon the Merits of Christ's Blood the full satisfaction which he had made and on that score made it their constant endeavour to become worthy partakers of it The Scriptures make no mention of Offertories for the Dead but in many places they argue clear the contrary That there is no time or place of calling on God in the Grave or for those that are in their Graves All shall at the Day of Judgment receive according to what they have done in the Body There 's no Expiation of Guilt after Death but he that is not absolv'd in this Life must be miserable for ever Therefore these performances on the behalf of the Dead are no better than a breach of the Third Commandment a taking God's Name in vain by calling on him for those for whom he cannot be intreated Upon the whole therefore we may truly say with the Preacher Eccl. 9. 4. To him that is join'd to all the living there is hope But to him that is dead there is no hope but what his way of living here will administer to him I conclude this with the words of the Apostle Heb. 13. 7 c. Remember them which have the Rule over you who have spoken unto you the word of God whose Faith follow considering the end of their Conversation Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to day and for ever Be not carried about with divers and strange Doctrines For it is a good thing that the heart be established with Grace not with Meats which have not profited them which have been occupied therein We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the Tabernacle For the Bodies of those Beasts whose Blood is brought into the Sanctuary by the High-Priest for Sin are burnt without the Camp. Wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctifie the People with his own Blood suffer'd without the Gate Let us go forth therefore unto him without the Camp bearing his reproach For here we have no continuing City but we seek one to come By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God continually that is the fruit of our Lips giving thanks to his Name But to do good and to communicate forget not for with such Sacrifices God is well pleased 7. Now I come to the Seventh and last Enquiry propos'd viz. Whether the Doctrine of Transubstantiation can be maintain'd by Scripture This has been endeavour'd by our Adversaries but to no purpose And the Scriptures furnish us with two very good Arguments to the contrary Which are 1. That Christ's Body can be in but one place at once 2. That we eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ only by Faith. Against both which Transubstantiation makes Christ's Body visible in a Thousand places at once and asserts that we eat the very natural Flesh of Christ and gnaw it with our Teeth as we do our common Meat And since in this Case we are denied the use of our Senses we must be judg'd by the Sence of the Scriptures And first The Scriptures testifie That Christ's Body can be in but one place at once Our Saviour Matth. 26. 11. tells us We have the Poor always with us but him we have not always For John 16. 28. As he came forth from the Father into the World so again he will leave the World and go to the Father Accordingly Mark 16. 19. when he had spoken to his Disciples he was received up into
us as plainly here that the Wine was still the Fruit of the Vine after Consecration as before he did that it was his Blood. But to this we may add what St. Luke says of his instituting his Supper Luk. 22. 19 And he took Bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my Body which is given for you and so of the Cup This is the New Testament of my Blood which is shed for you Where if I were given to Criticism I might take notice as Beza has done that Christ says This is my Body which is given for you not to you But to let that pass we know that Christ was not yet Crucified till after the institution of this Feast So that here 's another figure he makes use of the Present Tense instead of the Future instead of this is my Body which shall be given for you he says which is given for you as if it was a thing already done Now in my opinion it wou'd have been much more for Transubstantiation if he had us'd the Future Tense and told 'em plainly This is my Body which shall be crucified for you and his acting the contrary nulls all Pretences to the Doctrine from his words But Bellarmin has wittily suggested another kind of Argument which I shall the rather mention because it has lately been started afresh and that is If these words Hoc est corpus meum do not intend Transubstantiation they must want a Grammatical Construction For the Pronoun Hoc cannot Adjectively agree with Bread as its antecedent Substantive for Bread is of the Masculine Gender Neither can Hoc be spoken Substantively of a thing that is seen and openly known unless that thing be of the Neuter Gender But Bread is of the Masculine both in the Greek and Latin. No man going to shew another his Brother wou'd say Hoc est frater meus neither wou'd any man say of the King's Image Hoc est Caesar But all this is but a sly Insinuation to cajole those that know no more of Grammar than this Argument wou'd teach ' em And I have so much Charity for that great Man as to believe him too good a Grammarian to be gull'd by so poor an Artifice I suppose he cou'd not be ignorant if he knew any thing almost of the invalidity of such a shift he knew well enough I dare say that Hoc is here us'd as a Relative and as such that it might very well refer to either of the two Substantives Bread or Body and in this case the seeing or not seeing the Bread signified nothing but as the Relative wou'd refer to both Bread and Body it was in his Power to make it agree with which of the Substantives pleas'd him And so Hic est Corpus meum wou'd have made as much for Transubstantiation as Hoc c. and wou'd have been as liable to Cavil and Dispute yet he that spake the words wou'd shew himself a good Grammarian either way And so tho' 't is true 't wou'd be improper to say of a man's Brother Hoc est frater meus yet it may well enough be said of the King's Image Hoc est Caesar because as Hoc relates to the Image and not to Caesar immediately the Image being a thing without life for that reason the Relative is of the Neuter Gender But to take a Simile nearer to the present question Suppose a little Girl as like her Father as t is possible for her to be she being among more of her Sisters any Person shou'd single her out from the rest and say of her This is the Father himself I wou'd know how we shou'd make this Sentence into Latin to avoid a Metamorphosis I must confess if it had been spoken thus This Girl c. Hoec Puella the Article of the Feminine Gender had been most proper but as the word Girl is only included for understood and Father exprest the Article of the Masculine Gender is as proper because the Article may indifferently be referr'd to either the Girl or the Father And this suggests to me another Argument against taking these words of our Saviour literally The Girl here by reason of her being so like her Father is said to be the very Father himself Now wou'd not the By-standers be call'd Fools or worse if they shou'd presently vindicate the Poet's Metamorphosis of Iphis by believing the Girl is at that instant turn'd into a Man and yet the Expression is no Hyperbole but as the common way of speech is to call the Picture or Representative of a Man the Man himself and thus our Saviour might say This is my Body and yet only intend the sign for the thing signified All this while I think I have not made the least appeal to our Sences tho' in a Matter so obvious to 'em and yet can find no ground for the belief of Transubstantiation But as in things that are obvious to sence our Senses cannot be deceiv'd so neither did our Saviour ever deny us the Evidence of our Senses in such cases but thus he expostulates Have ye not seen the Miracles which I did openly And in order to convince us of the reallity of his Resurrection he appeals constantly to our Senses Reach hither thine hand and thrust it into my side a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have He is not here says the Angel but is risen as he said see the place where they laid him There 's none of him And why might not he have had two Bodies then one in the Grave and another to shew to his Disciples as well as so many Thousand now No then his Resurrection wou'd have been taken as a Trick that some body like him had personated him for 't wou'd be contrary to sence that the same Body shou'd be whole and entire in two places so far distant at the same time ' Twou'd be a Miracle but against reason and that no Miracle ever was but the Miracle of Transubstantiation Some Articles of Faith are above our Reason or Sence but none contrary to both Reason and Sence And thus Madam I have endeavour'd to prove the great Disagreement between some of the Principal Doctrines of the Church of Rome and the Holy Scriptures And this I presume I may say for my self that wherein I have meddl'd in the clearing of an obscure Text I have done nothing out of a design'd Endeavour to run down an Opinion but as I thought in my Conscience it was Erroneous One thing only I desire at your hands if you let any of the adverse Party have a sight of these Papers that you wou'd desire 'em to be upon the square and not quote Humane Testimonies against the Holy Scriptures And if they can make good those Doctrines here censur'd from the Word of God notwithstanding what is here produc'd I my self will become a Roman Catholick with the first appearance of Truth in those Doctrines I have hitherto thought False But as I think that can never be done so I humbly recommend this plain but I hope faithful Piece to your serious Perusal and hope it may prove to your compleat Satisfaction and that you may reap the full Benefit of a sincere Believer of the Gospel in the end Which that God of his infinite Grace and Mercy through his Son Christ Jesus will grant to you and yours is and ever shall be the constant and hearty Prayer of Madam Your most humble Servant c. FINIS