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
should at the same instant sit whole at the Table and be in each of their Stomachs and whole in every one of them whole in Peter whole in John whole in James and so in the rest What may they not believe that can believe these things Verily he must first resolve to believe any thing things past belief who resolves to be a Papist 4. It is against Scripture as well as Sense Reason and Faith. The Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is clearly against it and affirms the Elements to be Bread and Wine both before and after the Consecration In the Institution it is expresly said that Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the Disciples and said Take eat this is my Body Mat. 26.26 Here that which he took was Bread that which he blessed was Bread that which he brake was Bread that which he gave was Bread and that he spake of when he said This is my Body was Bread for by this he meant that which he then held in his Hands and when he spake these Words he held nothing but Bread in his Hands And therefore by this he meant that Bread and consequently by This is my Body he meant this Bread is my Body that is a Sign of my Body So also in the Institution of the Cup that which he calls his Blood v. 28. he calls the Fruit of the Vine v. 29. Plainly declaring that it was not his proper Blood but Wine as a Sign of his Blood that he gave The Apostle Paul repeating the Institution as he had received it of the Lord calleth it Bread four times over 1 Cor. 11.23 26 27 28. and 1 Cor. 10.16 The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ and v. 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread. So Acts 2.46 The Disciples brake Bread from House to House And Acts 20.7 The Disciples came together to break Bread. Now this as themselves confess is meant of the Eucharist Moreover that Transubstantiation is repugnant to the Scripture is plain for if it were admitted then it would follow either 1. That Christ is not ascended to Heaven Or 2. That he descendeth daily from Heaven Now both these are contrary to express Articles of the Christian Faith and plain Testimony of the Scripture 1. If we say he ascended not It is contrary to Mark 16.19 Luke 24.51 Acts 1.9 10. Acts 2.33 Eph. 4.8 9 10. Col. 3.1 1. Tim. 3.16 Heb. 4.14 Heb. 8.1 Heb. 9.24 c. And to his own express Declaration John 16.28 I leave the World and go to the Father 2. If we say that he descendeth daily from Heaven it is no less repugnant to the Testimony of the Angels Acts 1.10 11. This same Jesus which is taken up from you into Heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven i. e. clearly visibly gloriously as Mat. 24.30 and 25.31 1 Thess 4.16 And to the Testimony of the Apostle Peter Acts 3.19 20 21. and of our Saviour himself Mat. 26.11 Joh. 12.8 Me ye have not always Upon which Words Augustin Tract in Joan. 50. Loquitur de presentia corporis Nam secundum Majestatem suam secundum Providentiam secundum ineffabilem in Visibilem Gratiam impletur quod ab eo dictum est Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi Secundum carnem vero quam verbum assumpsit secundum quod de virgine natus est secundum id quod a Judaeis comprehensus est quod ligno crucifixus quod de cruce depositus quod Linteis involutus quod in Sepulchro conditus quod in Resurrectione manifestatus non semper habebitis me vobiscum hath these Words He speaketh of his Corporal Presence For in respect of his Majesty Providence ineffable and invisible Grace that which he said is fulfilled Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World. But according to the Flesh which was assumed by the Word according to that which was born of the Virgin according to that which was apprehended by the Jews which was Crucified which was taken down from the Cross which was wrapped in Linen which was laid in the Sepulchre which was shewed in the Resurrection Ye have not me alway with you When Jeffrey Hurst of Shakerley in Lancashire was brought before Justice Leland he caused a Mass to be Sung and bad Jeffrey first go and see his Maker and then he would talk with him Jeffrey answered Sir my Maker is in Heaven Christians the Body of Christ is in Heaven Transubstantiation in contradiction to the Scripture places it in the Earth This is the first Transubstantiation is made up of many Absurdities against Sense Reason Faith and Scripture Secondly It is compounded of many manifest Impossibilities and Contradictions Transubstantiation is an impossible Paradox It is impossible that there should be any such thing 1. It is impossible that one and the same Body should simul semel all at once or at one time be both visible and invisible divisible and indivisible one and many in Heaven and upon the Earth all here and all in a thousand other places All these are plain Impossibles yet Transubstantiation carries them all in its Womb. 2. It is impossible that Christ should eat Himself his own Body Now the Papists confess that he ate and drank with the Disciples in the Sacrament whence it necessarily followeth granting Transubstantiation that Christ did eat Himself and was all at once whole at the Table whole in his own Hands whole in his own Mouth whole within Himself whole without Himself devoured by Himself and untouched All these are apparent Contradictions and of such a nature as nothing can be said that is more monstrous or liker to expose Christianity to more open Obliquy and Reproach Yet I say by this Doctrine Christ ate Himself sat at the Table and was in his own Mouth and in his own Stomach Oh Prodigious The Body of Christ was in the Body of Christ Others have told us of Men-eaters but never any but Papists of any Self-eaters who at once eat his whole Self 3. It is impossible that the Body of Christ should be eaten over-night by the Disciples and yet be crucified the next Day What! Could it be both eaten and not eaten It brings to mind the Story of Alice Driver Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 887. She conferring with Dr. Gascoign asked him whether it was Christ's Body that the Disciples did eat over-night He answered Yea. What Body was it then said she that was Crucified the next Day He replied Christ's Body How could that be said she when his Disciples had eaten him over night Except he had two Bodies as by your Argument he had one they did eat over-night and another was Crucified the next Day Such a Doctor such Doctrine This put her Examiners to that Shame that one looked on another and had not another Word to
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
same Facility This is the first Answer 2. This Reason plainly everts Transubstantiation For if a Consecrated Wafer do retain the Properties and Effects of Bread then it cannot be transubstantiated because the Properties of Bread are founded in the Substance of Bread and the Effects of Bread rise from the very Nature of Bread. So that if the Bread did by Consecration lose its Substance it should therewith also lose both its Properties and Effects They have yet one shift more and say it is called Bread. Fourthly By a Hebraism because phrasi hebraicâ in the Hebrew Idiom or Form of Speech all Meat is called Bread. This is Bellarmin's last Reason and that which he likes best It may says he be called Bread meo judicio optimè quia phrasi hebraicâ nomine panis intelligitur generatim omnis Cìbus But 1. Till Bellarmine have proved that our Saviour and his Apostles called this Sacramental Element by the name of Bread for this reason or more hebraico he doth but beg the question and if we list to grant it him upon his begging we may but if not he hath not nor any of the Tribe of Cardinals or Jesuits can ever prove it 2. The Apostle doth not only call it Bread but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 panem hunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Bread 1 Cor. 11.26 27. plainly shewing that he had not respect to that general Signification but spake of it in its most proper sense as it was Food made of Corn or proper Bread as Bread is distinguished and differenced from all other kinds of Meat As in the same place he speaks of Wine as it was the proper Fruit of the Vine by way of distinction from all other sorts of Liquors Thus the Apostle calls it Bread not in the general Signification of the Word but from its own particular Nature and Kind among all other sorts and kinds of Meat that is proper Bread and not any other Fish or Flesh c. We have now the Reasons of Bellarmine and other Papists whereby they do go about to elude and evade this clear and full Argument against Transubstantiation And you may yet further take notice of these four things in general That these Reasons assigned by them why the Bread after its essential Mutation is still called Bread 1. Are divers one from another wherein they fluctuate at great uncertainty Vel quia ex pane conficitur accidentia panis retinet c. Vel alio aliquo modo qui a Doctoribus comprehendi potest a nobis non potest as not knowing where or upon what to fix One while they will have it called Bread because it was Bread another while because it hath the Form and Figure of Bread then because it hath the Effects of Bread. Next not so but by a Hebraism And thus they rove about at uncertainty now say one thing then another It is called Bread in this sense or in that sense or as one of them if not more knowing yet more modest than the rest having reckoned up several Opinions about it concludes or some other way which the Doctors may understand but we do not 2. Are not only divers one from another but adverse and contrary one to another insomuch as they cannot consist and stand one with another but do mutually destroy one another For if it be called Bread 1. Tropically and Figuratively according to the First and Second then not because of its nutritive Property according to the Third 2. Because of its nutritive Virtue then not Figuratively as the First and Second 3. If by a Hebraism then none of the other three ways And 4. If any of the other ways then not more hebraico 3. Are all Figurative and improper And so they who insist so much on and contend so hotly for the literal Signification of our Saviour's Words This is my Body and exclaim on us for departing from it do themselves depart from the literal Signification of this Word Panis Bread and bring in a tropical figurative and improper sense of it For if it be called Bread only because it is made of Bread or hath the Form of Bread or the Properties and Effects of Bread or from the Idiotism of the Hebrews then it is Bread only in an improper Sense And so I say they that will not admit of a Figure in this Proposition This is my Body tho it be necessary and ordinary and constant in the Scripture in this Subject of Sacraments are forced for the Support of their Transubstantiation and literal Signification of this Proposition This is my Body to forge a Figure in this Term Bread and not one but four one on the back of another if they will have their Reasons to signify any thing Besides that by Bread here they will have us to understand Flesh Blood and Bones by some new and uncouth Figure which I understand not 4. The Romanists at this Day cannot endure this form of Speech or to hear the consecrated Wafer called Bread. Should a Priest in the Popish Countreys who is going to sing Mass but say I go to break Bread it might come to cost him his Life 2. Arg. If the Bread be converted into the real Body of Christ the Wine is also converted into the real Blood of Christ But the Wine is not transubstantiated into his Blood Therefore neither is the Bread transubstantiated into his Body For the Confirmation of this Argument this only is to be proved That there is no Transubstantiation of the Cup or Wine For they grant that if both be not neither of them is transubstantiated Now in order to a clearing of this That there is no Transubstantiation of the Wine I shall I. Lay the Words of Institution together as they are recorded by three Evangelists and the Apostle Paul. II. Shew how the Papists would prove Transubstantiation from them III. Shew that there is no such Transubstantiation I. The Words of Institution Mat. 26.28 This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins Mark 14.24 This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many Luke 22.20 This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood. II. From this Institution they argue for the Transubstantiation of the Cup. 1. In General on this Principle that we must keep unto the literal Signification of the Words and take them as they sound Two things they say necessitate this 1. The Nature of a Sacrament And 2. The quality of a Testament The Eucharist is both a Sacrament and a Testament and nothing ought to be expressed in more plain and naked Terms than these that all Obscurity and Ambiguity may be prevented For if Sacramental or Testamentary Terms be improper and figurative then their Signification is uncertain and consequently the Sacrament or Testament delivered in such Terms is vain and uncertain This
they are thus deceived when and while they are in every respect best disposed and fitted for performance of their proper Acts. And further that they are deceived after this manner about a most sensible Object and in a matter wherein it is as hard to think how they should be thus universally deceived as in any one thing whatsoever that is the Object of Sense And now if this be once granted it takes away and quite overthrows all certainty of Sense and consequently all certainty of Faith and Belief in the main Points of Religion as of our Saviour's Person Doctrine Miracles Passion Resurrection Ascension And so undermines the very Foundation and shakes the chief Pillars of Christianity 2. It is against Reason Reason goes beyond Sense but this Transubstantiation goes beyond Reason and not only beyond Reason but against Reason And is contrary to the broadest Light of Reason For Transubstantiation 1. Makes the Body of Christ to be in Heaven on the Earth and in Millions of places of the Earth at one and the self-same Time. Non potest unum corpus esse localiter in duobus locis quia ita idem a seipso divideretur Thom. part 4. dist 44. q. 2. Art. 2. Now this is against Reason Reason dictates this that all corporal Substances or Bodies are in loco circumscriptivè circumscribed in a certain Place and cannot be in more than one at one time It is wholly inconsistent with Reason to say that the same Man is at London and at Rome sitting in his House and walking in his Fields at the same time And is it not as absurd to say that the Body of Christ is locally in Heaven and yet at the same time really substantially and locally in a thousand thousand different and distinct places of the Earth 2. Gives a nutritive vertue unto meer Accidents That the Elements received in the Sacrament do nourish the Bodies of the Communicants cannot be denied Now according to their Doctrine there remains no Substance of Bread and Wine but the Accidents only as length breadth thickness whiteness redness And therefore it must be these that refresh and nourish But what can be more absurd and irrational than such a Fancy Can a Body receive nourishment from Length and Colour and other bare Accidents This is above Reason Yet if Transubstantiation be true this whatever Reason may suggest to the contrary is most true The Monk Amonius lib. 5. de gestù Franc. cap. 29. reports that Ludovicus Pius received nothing but the Eucharist for 40 Days together And other Authors among them have reported that they have had some Holy Men who would feed upon nothing but the Eucharist and so according to their Opinion lived on meer Accidents And thus all the Romanists may live on bare Accidents For as Tolet de instruct Sacerd. l. 2. c. 25. a Priest may transubstantiate at once a whole Pantrey of Bread and a whole Cellar of Wine 3. Sets up the Accidents of Bread as Colour Figure Smell Taste without any Subject or Body in which they subsist They affirm that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is totally avoided yet confess that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine remain such as Whiteness Redness Moisture Now where or in what Subject do these Accidents subsist In the Elements This cannot be for the Elements are quite annihilated or voided at least Do they exist in the Body of Christ By no means this they all deny Where then Why certainly no where Here is color nihil coloratum sapor nihil saporatum quantitus nihil quantum qualitas nihil quale Whiteness and nothing white Savour and nothing that savoureth Length and nothing long Breadth and nothing broad Now this is such Divinity as crosses Reason and offers violence to Nature For accidens est ens in alio Accedentis esse est in esse i. e. esse in subjecto The very Being of an Accident consisteth in its existing in a Substance or Subject and it can be no longer than its Subject is in being 4. Makes that which is plain Bread to be no Bread. This again puts Reason to a Nonplus to conceive how a Wafer that hath the form of Bread the quantity of Bread the whiteness of Bread the smell of Bread and the taste of Bread should yet be no Bread but very Flesh and a whole Human Body This amuseth Reason and is so contrary to it that every Christian who will but make use of his Reason must say as Thomas Spurdance the Martyr when the Chancellor of Norwich asked him Do'st thou not believe that after the Words of Consecration in the Sacrament of the Altar there is the same Body of Christ as was born of the Virgin Mary No said Spurdance for that Body consisted of Flesh Blood and Bones and here is no such thing Thus Transubstantiation is against Reason and brings in such things to be received as no Man can receive without doing open violence to his Reason 3. It is against Faith. As Reason goes beyond Sense so Faith goes beyond Reason and sees farther than Reason can reach when most elevated But Transubstantiation outgoes them all Sense cannot reach it Reason cannot overtake it Faith cannot fathom it It imposes things upon the Belief of Men that are not only very hard to be believed but things that are wholly incredible past Credit or Belief It is altogether incredible 1. That a Priest can make a Body that was made and existent long before he himself had any Being Can make the Body of Christ now in a Wafer which was made more than sixteen hundred Years agoe in the Womb of the Virgin. Can a Father beget a Son that is already begotten and born Can a Man that was born at London 40 50 or 60 Years since be born to Day or to Morrow at Lancaster Who can believe this For as one says factum facere factum intectum facere are equally both incredible and impossible 2. That our Saviour had two Bodies two contrary Bodies and both these at one and the same Time. Is not this incredible Yet whosoever will believe Transubstantiation must believe this Believe that when he instituted and celebrated his last Supper with the Disciples he had two Bodies 1. One speaking moving acting in blessing breaking and giving the Bread another without motion or action 2. One visible and palpable another altogether invisible and hidden under the forms of Bread and Wine 3. One mortal weak and ready to be crucified another impassible and obnoxious to no Suffering 4. One sitting at the Table among the Disciples another at the same time in the Mouths and Stomachs of the Disciples 5. One Body breaking another Body and dividing it among them or rather one giving another whole and entire Body to every one of them Are not all these hard things Is it not past Belief that Christ whole Christ should be eaten by every one of them and yet sit among them That he
spiritual but to chimerical or phantastical nor intending his presence in the Elements as contained in them but to the Faith of the Receiver who hath Vnion with him c. Vines on the Sacrament p. 118. We hold that the Body and Blood of Christ is really that is truly exhibited and present to the Faith of the Receiver and we might express the real Presence as real is opposed to imaginary or chimerical were it not for Caption and Misunderstanding None of ours deny the Body of Christ to be really the spiritually eaten by a Believer c. Id. 125. We do positively and constantly assert and believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Sacrament in the following Sense that is that Christ is present not only in regard of 1. His Divinity or Divine Nature which is in all Places and indistantly present with every Being 2. His Spirit by whose Operation the Benefits of Christ are applied to Believers 3. Our Commemoration of him and shewing forth of his Death in this Action As things that are past and absent are made in a sort present to us by a Solemn Commemoration 4. Our Meditations and Contemplations of him in this Action As Contemplation brings the Object of it before the Eyes of the Mind and presents it to them 5. Our Affections that are or should be here fixed upon him The Heart and Affections fixing upon an Object make it present bring it to have a kind of Being with them The Apostle Paul Phil. 1.7 tells the Philippians that he had them in his Heart Tho in regard of his Personal Presence he was at a great distance from them yet in regard of his dear Affection unto them they were in his very Heart And so in this Ordinance Jesus Christ and the Affections of true Christians do meet I add that 6. The Body and Blood of Christ are present yet not 1st Locally per indistantium as included in or affixed to the Elements as the Wine is in the Cup. In this Sense they are as far distant from the Elements as the place where the Sacrament is celebrated is distant from Heaven Nor 2dly Substantially or Corporally This follows on the former The Signs are with us but the Substance is in Heaven But they are thus truly and really present 1. Sacramentally and Symbolically in the sacred Signs and Symbols of them His real Body is in Heaven but we have his representative Body present with us in the Sacrament Here the corporal Signs of it are corporally present 2. Vertually in their Vertue and Efficacy or by a Vertual Presence and an Efficacious Influence as the Body of the Sun is present not only upon the Surface but in the Bowels of the Earth Deut. 33.14 Thus there is a true and real Vertue Power and Efficacy of his Body and Blood really present Yea the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Blood the benefits of his Passion are no less present and communicated to Believers than if he were locally present In actione Coenae praesens est Dominus non in Signo nec pani participato sed cordi participantis non exhibitione carnis vel animae suae sed exhibitione spiritus gratiae quae non ore excipiantur sed fide cujus est id sibi praesens reddere quod apprehendit ut oculus quod videt Spanh Dub. Evang. part 3. Dub. 143. p. 839. The Presence with or under the Elements is one thing and the presence to the Soul and Faith of a Believer is another Vines 125. 3. Spiritually that is not in respect of their Essence but of our perceiving and receiving of them and their Vertue and Efficacy in nourishing us The Spirits or Souls of Believers by Faith only do receive them and by them through the Efficacy of the Holy Spirit are truly and really nourished to Spiritual and Eternal Life Thus the Body and Blood of Christ are really present Non pani ori sed fidei cordi credentium As August Nos Christum in Coelis sedentem manu contrecture non possumus sed Christum fide contingere possumus Et haec praesentiae spiritualis corporis Christi est verissima realissima Wend. Theol. 516. And thus we assert and believe that the Body of Christ is truly and really present in this threefold Sense but we do utterly disown and detest this real or corporal Presence of the Papists in or under the Signs which is the Daughter of Transubstantiation a Daughter like her Mother i. e. a very Monster repugnant to the nature of a Sacrament the end of the Lord's Supper to the nature of a true Human Body to the state of Christ's glorious Body to the Ascension of Christ to Heaven and as is before shewed to the express Testimony of the Scriptures And this is the First-born of Transubstantiation and I may say of it as the Martyr Elizabeth Folks said who when asked Whether she believed the Presence of Christ's Body to be in the Sacrament substantially and really or no answered That she believed it was a substantial Lye and a real Lye. Or as Thomas Watts Martyr who being examined by Bishop Bonner about the Sacrament of the Altar told him That he believed Christ's Body to be in Heaven and no where else and that he would never believe that it was in the Sacrament And that the Mass was abominable Idolatry Secondly The Multipresence or manifold Presence of Christ's Body This is another Birth of Transubstantiation and it is fruitful this way to a Wonder yea to a Miracle It is recorded in Story as a thing that was very monstrous and miraculous that Margaret of Holland Countess of Hausburg brought forth 364 Children at one Birth Belg. Com. Wealth p. 127. But this was a sorry thing to be stranged at Behold here Transubstantiation bringing forth ten times so many Christs on a Day and Day after Day without any intermission for one Day in a whole Year By this miraculous power of Transubstantiation and the wonderful fecundity of her Womb it comes to pass 1. That Christ is not only in Heaven but upon the Earth at the same time 2. That he is not only both in Heaven and Earth but also in many parts and places of the Earth at the same time In England France Spain Italy America and no Body knows in how many places at once Yea 3. That he is in several Parts and Corners of the same Church at once in one Man's Hand in another Man's Mouth in a third Man's Pyx and Pocket c. And in their private Masses which are celebrated in several Corners of the same Church and the Body of Christ created in six or seven Corners at once Nay 4. That he is in several parts of the same Host at once For they tell us in plain English and without any Circumlocution that he is whole in every Crumb and Point of the Host and in every Drop of the Wine And if so who can tell
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
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
is the Foundation that they lay and upon this Foundation they would build Transubstantiation from these three Terms or Expressions in the Words of Institution which prove that the Cup or that which is contained in the Cup is the true and proper Blood of Jesus Christ 1. It is expresly called his Blood. This is my Blood. 2. It is expresly called the New Testament in his Blood. But Wine cannot be the New Testament in his Blood. 3. It is expresly said to be shed for them for the Remission of Sins Now it was not Wine but his true and proper Blood that was shed for them for the Remission of Sins Answ 1. That the Foundation here laid is not only precarious weak and sandy but false and erroneous For 1. Nothing is more frequent and familiar than improper and figurative Terms in the Institution of Sacraments This we have seen before in the Institutions of both Testaments And were not their Brows of Brass they could never have the Face to deny it and to contradict themselves as we shall see in denying of it But nothing is more frequent with them than this to say and unsay to affirm and deny maintain or disclaim any Position as may make most for the advantage of the Cause that they defend 2. Terms and Phrases may be improper and figurative and yet plain and easy to be understood A figurative and an obscure or ambiguous Term are not all one The Papists themselves do confess that there are several tropical Terms as I shall shew in the Institution of the Cup and yet affirm That they have the certain and true Interpretation of them And therefore by their own Confession the certain Signification of figurative Phrases and Forms of Speech may be known But in this they do not only contradict and condemn themselves but reflect on and accuse the God of Heaven as delivering his Mind to Men in matters of eternal Concernment in terms of an ambiguous uncertain and unintelligible Signification 3. Testamentary Dispositions ought to be plain and may be so tho there be some improper Terms in them Jacob's Testament was full of Figures Gen. 49. yet without doubt well understood by his Sons and their Posterity 4. The Eucharist is not the Testament of Christ but a Sign and Seal of his Testament The new Testament was in being before the Institution of the Supper and Baptism which is a Sacrament and Seal of the New Testament was then already instituted And therefore the Instance of a Testator here brought by them is impertinent and to no purpose viz. The Words of a Testator wherein he says to his Legatee I bequeath a House to thee may not be interpreted I leave the Sign of an House to thee no more may the Words of Christ's Testament viz. This Cup is the New Testament be expounded This Cup is the Sign of the New Testament This I say is impertinent For there is a manifest Dissimilitude in the Examples That of the Testator is a proper Testament this of our Saviour is but a Seal of his Testament Now if a Testator who hath in his Testament given a House to his Heir should give this Testament with the Seal annexed unto it into the hand of his Heir saying This is the House which I give unto thee It would be evident and easy enough for any to understand that the thing so put into his Hand is not the House it self but the Assurances and Confirmations of it And it is no more difficult to understand the meaning of our Lord in these Words This Cup is the New Testament i. e. I have in my Testament bequeathed all my Goods unto you and this Cup is instituted to be a visible Seal of this my Testament unto you 5. The Papists forsake their own Foundation or depart from the proper Signification of the Words in several things As 1. When it is said That he took the Cup after Supper Luke 22.20 They say and truly the Cup is put for and signifies the Wine in the Cup. 2. When it is said That he took the Cup c. saying This Cup is the New Testament Luke 22.20 here they say the Cup is put for and signifies his Blood in the Cup. 3. When he saith of that in the Cup This is my Blood they say it is meant of that which is hidden under the Form and Accidents of Wine and resolve this Proposition thus This compound of my Blood and the Accidents of Wine is my Blood. Again 4. When he calls that which he drank the Fruit of the Vine Mat. 26.29 They say That by the Fruit of the Vine we must understand his Blood. This is their keeping to the Letter of the Words 6. The proper and literal Sense of the Words of Institution cannot be the true and proper Meaning of our Saviour in them because if they be so taken they carry in their very Face the grossest Absurdities that can be imagined and such as make our Saviour's Words to contain and hold forth a ridiculous and monstrous Sense If we take them properly uti sonant Then 1. The Cup whether it be of Gold Silver Wood Stone c. is truly and properly the Blood of Christ for he saith expresly This is my Blood. 2. The Blood of Christ is the New Testament Now a Testament is made up and consisteth of Letters Syllables Words and Sentences written in Paper or Parchment Is the Blood of Christ Letters Words Lines c. Besides this both Matthew and Mark call it the Blood of the New Testament therefore it is not the New Testament for how can it be both the Testament and the Blood of the Testament 3. The Blood of Christ is the New Testament in the Blood of Christ As if he should have said This Blood is the New Testament in my Blood. But this is not easy to understand viz. how the Blood of Christ is in the Blood of Christ the Blood of the Cup in the Blood of the Cross or the Blood of the Cross in the Blood of the Cup unless Christ have two kinds and sorts of Blood. 4. The New Testament is shed for in for the Remission of Sins Thus if we take the Words as they sound they come to this Sense viz. That 1. The Cup whether Gold Silver Wood or Stone is Blood And 2. This Blood is the Blood of Christ And 3. This Blood of Christ is the New Testament And 4. This New Testament is shed for the Remission of Sins And so in short a Cup that is made of Gold c. is at once 1. Blood. 2. The Blood of Christ. 3. The New Testament 4. Shed for us And what can be more gross and absurd If yet we allow them a Trope here and that by the Cup is meant that which is in the Cup the Contents of the Cup which is most true in our Saviour's sense yet still the proper sense will be most absurd and dissonant For the express Words of Christ
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
2. The manner of our Saviour's expressing himself in this matter doth also prove it For that he directed his Speech to the Disciples and spoke these Words to them of the Bread is past all dispute But common Sense will tell us That if our Saviour had intended any such thing as a Popish Consecration and Transubstantiation by them he would have directed his Speech to God the Father in this or the like Form Let this Bread be my Body or to the Bread saying Be thou my Body and not to the Disciples 3. The Words of our Saviour This is my Body are Words of Signification not of Transubstantiation assertive and declarative not operative and conversive Words I say they are declarative Words of that which is signifying what the Bread is before the Words be pronounced and not imperative and effective of that which is not but shall be after they are pronounced that is they signify that the Bread is his Body before and not only after they are pronounced The Romanists being pluched with this do some of them as is shewed by Duâ—and Rut. l. 4. r. 41. n. 15. and Thom. par 3. q. 78. Art. 1. make this Evasion That Christ in the institution of this Sacrament used these Words twice first secretly to consecrare the Communion and then openly to instruct the Communicants in this order 1. He took the Bread 2. He blessed it by saying This is my Body and then 3. He brake it and gave it saying Take eat This is my Body first he used it to Consecrate and then the second time to shew his Apostles the form of Consecration This they say but if we will not be so kind as to take their bare word they can never prove it 4. There is as good ground to infer and conclude that our Saviour is really and substantially changed into a Door a Vine a Rock a Foundation a Lamb a Lion a Rose a Star a Sun c. from Joh. 10.7 Joh. 15.1 1 Cor. 10.4 Isa 28.16 Joh. 1.29 Revel 5.5 Cant. 2.1 Rev. 22.16 Mal. 4.2 as there is to infer Transubstantiation from these words 5. If it were true as it is not that our Lord Jesus Christ did convert the Bread into his Body by pronouncing these words over it yet how doth it follow That the massing Priest doth the same by saying over the same words Till they can prove that their Priests have this Power from Christ lodged in them it may more rationally be inferred that as often as they read these words Let there be Light they make Light by reading of them because God did make it by them 6. The true meaning of the words This is my Body is not then as the Romanists say this that was Bread is now transubstantiated into my Body For when he said This is my Body by This he meant and understood that which he then held in his Hands now when he pronounced the word This he held nothing but Bread in his Hands and therefore by This he meant the Bread that he had in his Hands and gave and commanded them to eat as before But the meaning is This Bread I have taken blessed broken and give you to take and eat is my Body that is a sacred Sign of my Body my Body Sacramentally and Symbolically as much as to say a Representation and Memorial of my Body The Change is in Signification not of Substance in regard of Use and Office not of Nature and Being It remains to be Bread as it was before in Nature and Substance and is the Body of Christ in Signification and Representation which it was not before Yet this is not a bare Significative Form as this The Field is the World Mat. 13.38 i. e. signifies the World Or as that Rev. 1.20 The seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches and the seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches i. e. do signify the seven Angels and Churches and many such like But it is a Sacramental Form wherein together with the Representation and Signification there is a real Exhibition of the Thing signified The Bread is his Body a representing exhibiting and conveying Sign of his Body at once both representing and exhibiting and conveying Christ crucified with the Benefits of his Cross and Passion to the Faith of a true Christian or Believer We come to the Reasons alledged for the Popish Sense First They say Christ spoke clearly and plainly so as the Disciples might easily understand his meaning 1. And I say so also It is not to be called once into question whether our Lord spoke plainly and apertly so as the Disciples might understand him or no. 2. I say moreover that it is as unquestionable that the Disciples did both readily and well understand our Lord's words and also in the Sense that we understand them Cum istis verbis non sint turbati planum est intellexisse ea metonymicè ex more Scripturae praesertim cùm paulo antè comedissent Agnum qui eodem sensu Pascha id est transitus appellatur Exod 12.27 Bucan Loc. Com. Loc. 48. q. 50. this can be no more doubted of by any that are not prepossessed with their own Sense than the other For they were both acquainted with the Language of the Scripture wherein our Sense of these Words of our Saviour is very ordinary and frequent in many Propositions and Expressions and they were also acquainted with their own Language that hath not as is observed any proper word for signify but makes use of is instead thereof whence this Stile and Sense was usual and common among them an ordinary form of Speech Besides all this the Disciples never questioned their Lord and Master about the meaning of this Proposition whereas we find them often asking him of the meaning of Speeches that he used which were incomparably more easy for them to understand than the meaning of these words if they had apprehended or suspected them to carry any thing of such a meaning in them as the Papists put upon them And therefore I say again 3. That this Reason they bring for their Sense of them doth quite destroy and overthrow their Sense of them if he spoke plainly and so as the Disciples might well understand his meaning when he said This is my Body as they say he did then certainly he did not mean that the Bread he had in his Hand was transubstantiated and converted into his real Body and that his very Body was contained under that Form of Bread in his Hand For verily this is a Sense not easie to be understood but must without all question have startled amused and posed them all exceedingly to conceive or understand how he could fit at the Table with them as they saw he did and at the same time give to every one of them his whole Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk yea to eat his own Body and drink his own Blood before their very Faces this would
have been hard indeed to understand yea a matter passing all Understanding that could never have been beaten into their Brains Secondly They say the literal Sense and proper Signification of our Saviour's Words must be kept and he says of that he gave This is my Body this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very plain Letter of the Words and from this literal Sense we must not depart in this matter Answer 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 1. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God and holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost inspiring not only the Matter but the Words and Phrases delivered by them which Words and Phrases do always signify and express his Mind unto us about the Matter so delivered in them 2. When the proper and literal Signification of Words and Phrases in the holy Scripture doth contain and carry in it manifest Absurdities Contradictions or Impossibilities that cannot be the Sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those Words and Phrases but they must necessarily be taken in an improper and figmative Sense Hence 3. In interpreting of many Scripture-Words and Forms of Speech we must depart from the Letter of the Words if we will understand and take them according to the true and proper sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in them And the Sense of the Scripture is the Scripture Thus we must understand Gen. 40.12 The three Branches are three Days And Vers 18. The three Baskets are three Days Gen. 41.26 The seven Kine are seven Years and the seven Ears are seven Years Ezek. 37.11 These Bones are the whole House of Israel Dan. 7.17 The four Beasts are four Kings Mat. 11.14 This is Elias Mat. 13.38 The Field is the World. John 10.9 I am the Door Joh. 15.1 I am the true Vine Rev. 1.20 The seven Candlesticks are the seven Churches Rev. 17. The seven Heads are seven Mountains c. In all which we must depart from the literal Sense and by the Signs figuratively signifying understand the Things signified and represented And so we must go from the literal Signification in all those places which speak of God as having a Mouth Eyes Ears Hands and other Parts of a Human Body c. 4. In Sacramental Propositions nothing is more frequent and familiar than improper and figurative Forms of Expression qua signo tribuitur nomen rei significata wherein the Sign is called by the Name of the Thing signified this we may see in the Sacraments of both Testaments in the Institution whereof the Lord used improper Expressions The Rock that followed the Israelites is called Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 now it was but a Figure of Christ In the Institution of Circumcision Circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.10 which properly was but a Seal or Sign of the Covenant Ver. 11. In the Passeover the Lamb is called the Passeover Exod. 12.11 which properly was only the Sign of the Lord 's passing over the Houses of the Israelites And so in the Institution of this Sacrament there are as the Papists cannot deny several improper and figurative Terms as when the Cup is put for the Wine in the Cup 1 Cor. 11.25 Drinking of the Cup for drinking of the Wine Mat. 26.27 The Cup which is the Seal of the New Testament is called the New Testament Luke 22.20 And so here when he saith of the Bread This is my Body he speaks of it not in a proper and literal but in a sacramental and figurative Sense calling the Sign by the Name of the Thing signified thereby viz. his Body and this is the true Sense of the Words this Bread is the Sign of my Body which Sense whosoever gainsays and rejects to take the Popish Sense bringeth all the fore-named Absurdities Contradictions Impieties and Blasphemies into our Saviour's Words But certainly this could never be the meaning of our Lord in them 5. The Papists who contend thus earnestly for the literal Signification do not keep 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the plain Letter of our Lord's Words for he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresly This is my Body but they understand it as spoken of that which is contained under the Accidents of Bread and resolve this Proposition This is my Body thus This that is contained under the form of Bread is my Body Or thus Hoc complexum Accidentium Panis Corporis mei est Corpus meum this Compound of the Accidents of Bread and my Body is my Body a plain departure from the Letter Moreover Christ meant his own true and natural Body signified by the Bread they understand an invisible Body without human Shape just Dimensions distance of Parts c. hid under the Accidents of Bread. 6. The Words of our Saviour are against Transubstantiation and being taken in their own Sense do overturn it For they say 1. That they must be taken in their proper Sense uti sonant 2. That thus taken they do infer Transubstantiation But now take them so and according to their Principles they neither infer Transubstantiation nor can there be any Transubstantiation For if there be any such a thing it must be either 1st Before the Words are pronounced Or 2dly Not until the Words are fully pronounced Or 3dly Together with the Pronunciation and while the Words are in pronouncing Or 4thly In an instant and uncertain moment of Time. But it can be in none of these and therefore there can be no Transubstantiation Scharp Curs Theol. de Coena p. 1482. Transubstantiation cannot be 1st Before the Pronunciation of the Words This is my Body For tho they disagree not a little among themselves about the Form of Consecration yet they are most generally of this mind That it is done by the Virtue of these Words canted over the Bread and that before they are used it is very Bread. 2dly Nor not until the Words are fully pronounced For if so this Proposition would be false This is my Body and instead of saying This is my Body it should be said This shall be my Body For est is in its proper Sense signifies a thing then in being and presupposeth that to be whereof it is spoken So that if the Bread be not transubstantiated before the Priest have said over these Words then he lies every time he saith them in calling that which is very Bread and nothing else the very Body of Christ 3dly During the Pronunciation of the Words or while they are in pronouncing For then it should not be in an instant but successively pedetentim by little and little as the words are successively pronounced by Letters Syllables and Words one after another but this they all deny 4thly In an instant this they are for Bellarmin determines that it is done simul in the time of the pronunciation of the words of Consecration but not in the whole time that the Pronunciation takes up but in an instant or moment of that Time. To this it may