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
and whereof he that eateth shall live for ever If it be said this cannot be his Meaning for he delivered this Sermon before his Passion yet speaks of an eating and drinking that was a present Duty so that he could not have this Meaning I say it is true Passiō Christi profuit antequam fuit Beneficia Christi valent tam antrorsum quam retrorsum Ex eo tempore valet ad servandum genus humanum ex quo in Adam est vitiatum Aug. both that Christ spake this before his Passion and the eating he speaks of was a present Duty But what then distinguish between the Time of his Death and the Merit of his Death and the Difficulty is solved He is the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. Rev. 13.8 i. e. In regard of the Merit Fruits and Efficacy of his Death and the Faith of Believers Not only before his Passion but before his Incarnation the Fathers 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 1. Cor. 10.3 4. Abraham saw his Day Joh. 8.56 And the Apostle giveth this Account of him Jesus Christ the same yesterday to day and for ever Heb. 13.8 3. In what Respect he here calls them by the Names of Bread Meat and Drink 1. Not in regard of their Nature and Substance As if the very Flesh and Blood of Christ were according to the bare sound of the Words very Meat and Drink such as our Corporeal Food is But 2. In regard of their Effect the saving Benefits of his Flesh and Blood or Passion nourish the Souls of the Faithful and preserve them unto Eternal Life even as Corporal Meat that we eat doth minister Aliment to our Bodies and preserve our Natural Lives And thus as it is the Property of Meat and Drink to maintain the Lives of them that eat and drink thereof and as whatsoever being eaten and drunk doth maintain Life is therefore called Meat and drink So it is the proper Nature of the Fruits and Effects of his Body and Blood to nourish the Souls of them that partake thereof to Eternal Life And therefore for their performing that to Souls which Meat and Drink do to Bodies he calls them by the Names of Meat and Drink 4. What kind of eating and drinking this is that he speaks of Or what our Saviour means by eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood What this Manducation of this Spiritual Meat is Per manducationem nihil aliud intelligit quam actum fidei qui consistit in apprehensione applicatione beneficiorum Christi And this is only Spiritual eating by Faith extra Sacramentum without the use of the Sacramental Signs The Romanists confess that he speaks of this kind of eating in this Chapter from the 32d to the 50th verse but then from ver 50. to 59. of eating Orally and Corporally But we say he speaketh only of Spiritual Manducation in this Chapter which doth consist in a partataking by Faith of the Merit and Virtue of his Death the Fruits and Effects of his Passion for us And thus a true Believer eats the Flesh and drinks the Blood of Christ Spiritually when he 1. Believes that Christ's Body was Crucified and his Blood shed for him for the Remission of Sins And 2. Believeth that by this Passion Jesus Christ hath obtained Remission of Sins and Eternal Life for them that do unfeignedly believe in him And when 3. By this true and lively Faith he doth embrace and close with Jesus Christ apply him to himself and from him thus received or manducated receiveth a daily Confirmation and Increase of Spiritual Life and Growth Thus then 1. The Meat our Lord speaketh of is Spiritual Meat 2. This Spiritual Meat is the saving Good prepared for us by the Body and Blood of Christ crucified for us 3. He calls these Fruits of his Passion his Body and Blood because they are obtained by and rise out of his Flesh and Blood sacrificed on the Cross 4. This eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood which he calls by the Names of Bread Meat and Drink is a Spiritual manducating or eating by Faith. This is our Saviour's Sense which is embraced by the true Protestants or Calvinists as Bellarmine calls them Secondly The Popish Sense of this Sermon This is hinted before And in short 1. They confess that the kind of Meat he speaketh of is Spiritual Meat But then they affirm 1. That this Meat is truly and properly the true and proper Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ And 2. That this eating is an Oral and Corporal eating of his true and proper Flesh and Blood. A Manducation that is performed by Mouth 3. That the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ is thus eaten orally and corporally by the Communicants in the Eucharist This is their constant Tenet that in the blessed Sacrament of the Altar under the Forms of Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are received orally and corporally and that is eaten this is drunk 4. That this Bodily eating and drinking in the Sacrament is the eating and drinking that is properly and primarily meant by our Lord in this Sermon Et de quâ agitur This is the Mind of the Romanists Now in the next Place I am to shew Thirdly That our Lord Jesus Christ in this Sermon is not treating properly of the Sacrament and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood much less is he here teaching the Popish Doctrine of Oral and Bodily eating and drinking his true and proper Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament In this Point we have the Consent of the Lutherans Hoc caput non proprie per se ad doctrictrinam de Coena pertinet Chemn Harm p. 1134. De spirituali comestione Dominus ait nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis biberitis ejus sanguineni non habebitis vitam in vobis De Myst Missae l. 4. c. 14. yea we have the Suffrage of divers learned Papists who quit this Argument and positively affirm That our Saviour in this Chapter doth not treat of the Sacrament As Biel in Can. Missae Card. Cajetan in Thom. par 3. q. 80. Art. 8. Card Cusan Ep. 7. ad Bohemos and many others Insomuch that Maldonatus on John 6.53 complains sadly that some Catholicks chose to think and speak in this Controversy as Hereticks rather than as the Orthodox and tho he forbear to name them yet he gives their Character in these Words Scio Catholicos scio Doctos scio Religiosos ac Probos Viros esse So that by the Jesuits own Confession we have Catholicks and Catholicks that are Learned and Religious and Honest good Men on our side Yet if this be nothing we have not only learned Men but an Infallible Pope voting for us and expounding our Lord's Words as we do viz. Innocent the
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
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
they go to Mass and to receive their Creator when they are to receive at Easter and so also the Priest carries it to the Sick with these Words Behold my Friend God thy Creator whom I have brought unto thee Thus they ascribe a Power to Man to make God. And Biel setteth every Priest in this respect Virgo Maria si in gratiae plenitudinae creaturas supergrediatur universas Hierarchis tamen cedit Ecclesiae in commissi mysterii executione Illa nempe prolatis octo verbulis Ecce Ancilla Domini fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum semel concepit Dei filium Mundi Redemptorem Isti a Domino consecrati quinque verbis contextam consecrationis formam cum debita intentione proferentes eundem Dei Virginisque filium invocant quotidie corporaliter in sacrificium criminum purgationem Biel Lect. 4. in Can. Missae above the Blessed Virgin. She conceived and bare Christ but once but a Priest can make him as often as he will. But let those Wretches go on in their God-making as long as they will let us say of this breaden God as Katharine Hut Martyr to Bonner I deny it to be God because it is a dumb God and made with Mens Hands 4. It carrieth this Blasphemy also in it that as a Priest can make God so he can make God of a Piece of Bread of that which was but a little before growing in the Field cut by the Reapers threshed out with a threshing Instrument ground in the Mill kneaded and made by the Baker and baken in the Oven Fit Cibus ex Pane Caro Deus ex Elemento What can be more monstrous than this The Athemans sentenced Anaxagoras to Death for affirming that the Sun was nothing else but a fiery Stone those Idolaters counting it a great Blasphemy to make their God a Stone and shall we consent to them who would make our God a Piece of Bread I shall say to you as the holy Martyr John Noyes to the People when he was at the Stake Good People they tell you that they can make a God of a piece of Bread but believe them not When the Chancellor of Norwich asked Cicely Ormes what it was that the Priest held up over his Head she said Bread and if you would make it any better it is worse I mention the Sayings of our English Martyrs and I do profess that I mention them with great Content and esteem them worthy to be graven with an Iron Pen and Lead in the Rock for ever Being the Sayings of those more than Conquerours who sealed the Truth with their dearest Blood and by it they being dead yet speak every drop of their Blood preaching this Truth to us which they sacrificed it in the Defence of dying not only with invincible Courage and Constancy but also with an Exuberancy of Joy and Comfort professing that if they had a hundred Lives they should all go in this Cause 5. Yet it is big with another Blasphemy which is worse if there can be a worse And that is that Man may eat his Maker the Creature his Creator and a People may devour their God. This is their constant Practice first they lift up the Host next they adore it as God and then forthwith eat it up But Cicero could say Quem tam amentem esse putas who dost thou think is so mad and beside himself as to believe that to be a God that he eats Surely it is no less than amazing Madness in any to believe that that they eat can be a God but it is something worse than Folly and Madness for any to eat that which they believe is their God. When Pharaoh King of Egypt gave way that the Hebrews should sacrifice to their God in the Land Moses returned this Answer It is not meet so to do for we shall sacrifice the Abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God Lo shall we sacrifice the Abomination of the Egytians before their Eyes and will they not stone us Exod. 8.26 that is to say if we should sacrifice those Beasts to the Lord our God before the Eyes of the Egyptians which they do worship and give Divine Honour unto animalia quae abominando cultu colunt quae abominantur occidi they would be so enraged with this Fact as they would certainly stone us Will they not stone us doubtless they will. They will never abide to see their Gods sacrificed But tho the Egyptians would not have born this yet the Papists can yea instead of stoning others they daily sacrifice their God with their own Hands eat him when they have done and sacrifice those in Flames that will not do as they do 6. Once more it is a Doctrine that puts God into the Power and makes him subject to the Will and Pleasure of every sorry Priest Who can 1. Make God when he will. 2. Carry him whither he will 3. Keep him where he will in his Pocket or Purse or Trunk or Chest or Box or any where else 4. Do with him what he will tread him under foot cast him to Dogs or Hogs to be devoured by them throw him into Fire or Water as Pope Gregory the 7th who cast the Sacrament or Host into the Fire because it answered not his Demands concerning his Success against the Emperour Yea he may pawn him for Security of Debts As Lewis the 9th of France who being conquered and taken Captive by the Turks in Egypt was restored on Condition that he should pay a great Ransom Lewis for Security of the Mony pawned to the Turk his * The Pyx is a Box wherein the Host or Consecrated Wafer is put and preserved Pyx and Host and he was four Years before he could get his Ransom and redeem his God by which time we may suppose it was in a very pitiful Pickle Fuller's holy War ad An. 1249. Thus Transubstantiation is a Doctrine that carries Blasphemies in Capital Letters upon its Forehead We have now finished the second Particular and from what is said may see that Transubstantiation is constituted of many Absurdities Impossibilities Impieties and Blasphemies III. The Abominableness of this Doctrine will appear from the Consideration of the Consequents Products and Fruits of it And certainly nothing but what is monstrous can come out of the Womb of such a Monster It is the Mother of Abominations that hath brought forth and bred up among many others these Seven Monsters of Abomination and Impiety First The real Presence in the Sacrament or the Carnal and Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood as born of the Virgin The Efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all that is here presented to be received as is confessed by the true Protestant Churches of our Confession But first and principally Christ himself for there is a Participation saith the Apostle of the Body and Blood of Christ who is exhibited as really and truly present not opposing real to
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
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