make a different Religion To instance in particular those that own General Councils to be Infallible must take their Decrees as part of the Rule of their Faith but now they that own the Pope for Infallible must besides take in all his solemn Determinations and so have a much larger Rule of their Faith than the other and in many Cases very different and what may be much more different than it is now for if he be indeed Fallible as many of them say that he is he may determine Vice to be Vertue and Vertue to be Vice he may fall into great Errors as other Fallible Men may do and as some of them in fact have done and yet those of that Church who own him to be Infallible must take these things as part of the Rule of their Faith and Manners These I take to be undeniable Consequences from the differences among them about their Infallible Judge and I think from all together I may well inferr that there is no such thing since it so much concerns the World if there be any to be at a certainty about it and yet the greatest part of Christians know nothing at all of the Matter and those who do pretend to know it are in truth as much at a loss about it as those that do not only they agree in a Name which leads them different ways perhaps all wrong and only more Infallibly secures them in Error But I would now speak a word or two to the several Pretences to it The first Pretender is the Pope who seems indeed to have the best Pretence for if God do think sit to appoint such a one a single Person who is always ready to hear and determine Matters seems most proper at least much more proper than a number of Men to be sent from all Parts of the World who can seldom meet and never without a great deal of trouble and this seems to be the most genuine Doctrine of the Church of Rome which makes the Pope the Center of Vnity makes Communion with him necessary and a Mark of a True Church and makes his Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches which is hardly Sense without Infallibility But as to his Pretence I shall consider it presently when I come to examine his Supremacy for if that fall his Infallibility must fall along with it One thing only I would observe here That it seems apparent from hence that the Primitive Church knew nothing of his Infallibility in that they took to that troublesome and chargeable and tedious way of ending their Disputes by Councils which supposing he be appointed by God to determine them and inabled to do it infallibly were not only useless and impertinent but indeed dangerous and very apt to turn Men from the way by which God had appointed the Church to be Guided A number of Men may be good for Counsel and Assistance of one that is Fallible but must be utterly unnecessary and an incumbrance to one that is Infallible And therefore since the Church has always made use of Councils either General or Provincial to determine Matters of Faith I may certainly conclude they knew nothing of his Infallibility Infallibility of General Councils As to General Councils it is not our present Business to enquire of what use they may be to the Church or what External deference is due to them if we could have those that are truly General but whether they are Infallible or not Now as to this I would only propose this one short Consideration That they are not of the appointment of Jesus Christ but begun 300 Years after Christ by Constantine now whatever Wisdom there may have been in calling so many Bishops together to endeavour by their Authority to Compose the Differences of the Church or to Establish good Discipline yet it was still a Humane Constitution and I know no way to annex Infallibility to what is so If 3 or 400 Men meet together each of which is confessedly Fallible they must altogether be so unless you can shew a Promise from Jesus Christ to secure them from Error Now if there be such a Promise as this we Protestants expect to find it in Scripture but however you your selves cannot pretend to it unless it be in Scripture or comes down to you by Tradition from Christ and his Apostles As to Scripture the very Name and Thing of a General Council is quite unknown to it and as for Tradition that could as little convey down any such Promise for the whole Thing was unknown in the Church for 300 Years not so much as the Name ever heard of As for the Meeting at Jerusalem of which we have an account in the 15 of the Acts of the Apostles it was only a Meeting of those that were then at Jerusalem upon occasion of a Complaint that was brought to them And it was a Meeting of Men most of which were by immediate Inspiration singly Infallible and therefore can be no President for a Meeting of Bishops from all Parts of the World And much less does this which was an accidental Meeting contein an Institution for the future and a Promise to make them Infallible when met in a Body together who singly are but like other Men. If it be said that they must be Infallible because they represent the Vniversal Church which is Infallible the Difficulty will still return for tho' we should grant the Church to be Infallible yet who appointed this Representations did Jesus Christ Has he annexed a Promise of Infallibility to it Without such a Promise as this there may be Infallibility in the Church and yet 3 or 400 Bishops or the Majority of them may be mistaken they may be a Number of Men packed together to serve a Turn they may be guided by Faction or Interest by their own Interest or the Interest of those who send them as in fact it has been more than once or if they are good Men that will not make them Infallible We may contrive as wisely as we please but we can never be certain to annex the Supernatural Assistance of God to our own Schemes To conclude this Head If the Infallibility you boast of be fixed in General Councils there was none in the Church for 300 Years when yet there was the most need of them there having been a greater number of dangerous Heresies in that Time than have been in the Church ever since But what is worse either there was no true Faith and Religion all that while or else it must be granted that we may have it without an Infallible Guide Christians were then at least in this respect in the same Condition that Protestants are now And I hope it will be granted that we need not desire to be in a better than they were The Last refuge for Infallibility is that it is in the diffusive Body of the Church But this I believe must be at last reduced to one or other
more about it for there are so many Absurdities and gross Contradictions in the contrary Opinion that we ought to lay hold of any thing that can but make sense of the Words and avoid those Monstrous Absurdities But I shall now indeavour to prove from the Words themselves that the sense which the Church of Rome puts upon them cannot be the true sense of them 1. The Doctrine of the Church of Rome is that our Saviour by pronouncing these words this is my Body made that to be his Body which before was only Bread but certainly the literal sense of the words does not import any thing of this and it 's the literal sense which they must stick to or else the whole support of their cause is gone now according to all the Rules of speaking it ought to have been his Body before he could truly pronounce it to be so but this they deny and say it was only Bread till these words were pronounced and that the calling it his Body made it become so which is a form of Speech quite unknown to the World and I challenge them to bring any Author either Sacred or Prophane that ever made use of words of this kind in such a Sense Since therefore it is confessed that what our Saviour took into his Hands was Bread and that it remained Bread till the speaking of these words This is my Body and since those words in their natural construction cannot be understood to effect any Change it must remain Bread still and be only the Body of Christ in such a sense as Bread may be called his Body that is in such a sense as the Lamb they eat of but just before was called the Passover by being a Representation and Commemoration of it 2. Another Argument I would make use of is this that our Saviour did not by pronouncing those words make what he gave them to be his very Body and Blood because after the pronouncing of them he calls what he gave in the Cup the Fruit of the Vine Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God In which words are contained these three I think plain Reasons which prove that it was Wine and not his Blood that he gave them 1. That He expresly calls it the fruit of the Vine and the Words they say are to be taken in the literal Sense and literally nothing else is the fruit of the Vine but Wine at least the Blood of Christ is not 2. In his saying that he would drink no more of it till he drank it new in the Kingdom of God it is supposed that he had heretofore drank of what he then gave them But I suppose it will hardly be said that he ever before drank his own Blood 3. As the Words suppose that he had drank before of what he then gave them so they do that he would drink of it again which very likely must be understood of his eating and drinking with them after his Resurrestion for then the Kingdom of God that is the new State of the Christian Church was come And therefore unless the Blood of Christ can be properly called the fruit of the Vine unless it can be supposed that he had drank his own Blood before and did design to drink it afterward these Words must evince that it was Wine which he then gave them I would not conceal that tho' St. Matthew and St. Mark recite the Words which I have Quoted after the Consecration of the Cup yet one of the Evangelists St. Luke recites them before and so they may seem to relate to a Cup that went about the Table at the Paschal Supper But this Objection if well considered does rather the more confirm what I have been proving for two of the Evangelists do place it immediately after the Consecration and delivery of the Sacramental Cup and in them it is apparent they can referr to nothing else but that Now if our Opinion about this Sacrament be true the difference betwixt the Evangelists in this Case is not material as importing no difference at all in the Doctrine of the Sacrament though our Saviour's Words are reported different ways and so this secures the Honour and Authority of all the Evangelists But if our Saviour's Words are to be understood as the Church of Rome understands them it 's impossible in any tolerable manner to reconcile the Evangelists for St. Matthew and St. Mark must upon this supposition not only put his Words wrong together and out of that order he spoke them but must also quite misrepresent his meaning and that in a Point of great Consequence Which I believe can be no way consistent with the Opinion which the Church of God has always had of these Gospels But I shall consider this Matter a little more fully in that which I have to urge in the Third Place 3. I desire it may be considered that the Words of our Saviour in the Institution of this Sacrament cannot be understood literally because as they are recited by the Evangelists they are not literally the same but differ as to the literal meaning very materially Mat. 26.28 Mark 14.24 Luke 22.20 St. Matthew and St. Mark in the Instistution of the Cup recite our Saviour's Words thus This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you St. Luke recites them thus This is the New Testament in my Blood Now from this difference among them I would observe these Two Things 1. That the Evangelists being so little curious to recite the very same Words that our Saviour spake could not have any Notion of a strict necessity of a literal meaning and of such a strange Doctrine which could have no foundation but in the literal interpretation of the very Words that he spake this had been at best very strange negligence in a Matter of so great Consequence 2. I would observe that if our Interpretation of the Words be true the Evangelists are easily reconciled as agreeing in the same general Sense tho' differing in the Expressions because both of them denote a Commemoration of the Blood of Christ and of the New Testament or Covenant founded upon it and it is not then very material which is placed first but if they are to be taken literaly it's impossible ever to make them agree and so one of the Evangelists must not only have mis-recited our Saviour's Words but quite have mis-understood his meaning and have done what he could to lead People wrong in a great Point of Faith For certainly the true real Blood of Christ is a very different thing from the New Covenant or Testament which is founded upon it But it will appear still of greater Consequence to keep to the very Words which Christ spake if the Opinion of the Church of Rome be true that it is the repeating the Words of our Saviour which effects the
Transubstantiation For I would ask Supposing a Man should Consecrate with the Words of St. Luke This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood would that change the Wine not to say the Cup into the very Blood of Christ Certainly it would not do it by force of those Words for they intimate no such thing and it is not unlikely but those were the very Words our Saviour spake for not only St. Luke uses them but St. Paul and that upon a solemn occasion when it concerned him much to give a true Representation of this Sacrament as you may see 1 Cor. Chap. 11. The occasion of his mentioning the Institution of this Sacrament was very great Irreverence which some were guilty of in receiving of it indeed such as it was almost impossible for them to be guilty of had they believed what the Church of Rome now believes about it it was therefore very necessary that the Apostle should speak clearly and plainly out in this matter and we see he does solemnly usher in what he says with the Authority of Christ For I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you in c. And then he repeats the Words as St. Luke does and not only so but calls the other part of the Sacrament Bread near Ten times in that Chapter 4. The Last Argument I shall make use of upon this Head is this That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome upon another account does not agree with the Words of our Blessed Saviour The Opinion of that Church is That under each Species as they call it whole Christ is contained Body Blood Soul and Divinity so that both are but just the very same Thing in nothing different but in outward appearance which only deceives our Senses And it is upon this Opinion chiefly that they ground the denyal of the Cup to the People because say they should they have the Cup they would have no more but just the very same thing they had in the other Kind And supposing their Opinion true the Argument may for any thing I know have some force in it but then they ought not to deny us leave to Argue the other way That that Opinion must needs be false which makes our Saviour guilty of a great Absurdity in appointing Two Kinds but both really the same thing and one of them perfectly unnecessary But that which I would chiefly take notice of is That this Doctrine of theirs contradicts the Words of our Saviour for what they make but One Thing he plainly makes Two and calls them by Two different Names The one he calls his Body the other he calls his Blood which supposes them to be Two different Things as plain as Words can express them They say indeed That in the Glorified Body of Christ the Body and Blood cannot be separated and therefore were the Words to be taken in such a sense as to consider them separated they would contain a great Absurdity so that wherever the one is the other by concomitancy must be there too But who told them that the Glorified Body of Christ is in the Sacrament The Words of the Institution intimate no such thing but speak of his Body given and his Blood shed which certainly was separate from his Body But however this is arguing from Reason against the Words and is just the very same thing which they condemn as Heretical in us And if this be once allowed they must throw off the whole Doctrine for we can shew them Ten times as many Absurdities in the Doctrine of Transustantiation as they can in supposing the Body and Blood of Christ to subsist separately In short either we must stick to the very Words of our Blessed Saviour or we must not if we must their Opinion must be false which makes what our Saviour calls Two Things to be but One if we must not stick to the very Words but interpret them according to right Reason and other Places of Scripture they then give up their Cause To conclude this Head What Reason can there be imagined why our Saviour should in a solemn manner at different Times and under different Names give the very same thing call the one his Body and the other his Blood when according to the Nature of the Thing he might as well have inverted the Names and have called that his Blood which he calls his Body and so on the other side There cannot I believe be any Reason thought of but only this That the one Kind the Bread was very proper to represent the breaking of his Body the other the Wine to represent the shedding of his Blood which is the very thing that we would have for then there is a sufficient Reason for these Names without any Bodily Presence at all I have been the longer in considering the Sense of the Scripture in this Matter because your Writers commonly boast more of the Scripture being for you in this Case than in any other Controversies betwixt us And I think I have proved more than I need have done in proving that the Sense your Church puts upon the Words of our Saviour cannot be the true Sense of them It being sufficient in a Matter of this Nature which is loaded with so many Absurdities to have shewed that they did fairly admit of another Interpretation But having so fully Confuted this Doctrine out of the Scriptures I am now more at liberty to shew you the gross Absurdities and the monstrous Contradictions that are involved in it tho' in truth it is so full fraught with Contradictions that it 's a hard matter to know where to begin I shall therefore content my self just to repeat some of them which are ready Collected to my hand by a Great Divine of our own Chilligworth p. 165. That there should be Accidents without a Subject that is That there should be length and nothing long breadth and nothing broad thickness and nothing thick whiteness and nothing white roundness and nothing round weight and nothing heavy sweetness and nothing sweet moisture and nothing moist fluidness and nothing flowing many actions and no agent many passions and no patient that is that there should be a long broad thick white round heavy sweet moist flowing active passive nothing That Bread should be turned into the Substance of Christ and yet not any thing of that Bread become any thing of Christ neither the Matter nor the Form nor the Accidents of Bread be made either the Matter or the Form or the Accidents of Christ That Bread should be turned into nothing and at the same time with the same Action be turned into Christ and yet that Christ should not be nothing That the same thing at the same time should have it's just dimensions and just distance of it's Parts one from another and at the same time should not have it but all its Parts together in the felf-same Point That the Body of Christ which is much greater should
Opinion of the Mercy of God to invincible Ignorance be true this is Comfort to us supposing we are mistaken as it is to you supposing you are so and on the other side if your Damning Doctrine be true this is as dangerous to you as it is to us It lies therefore upon you even from the Opinion of your own Divines to be very impartial in examining the Grounds of your Religion tho' indeed our Obligation to search after Truth does not arise chiefly from the danger of being mistaken but from that desire that every good Man should have to please God and to serve him as well as he can and the want of this desire has more danger and malignity in it than a great many mistakes in Matters of meer Belief To be only concerned to avoid those Errors that may Damn us is the same undutiful Temper toward God as it would be in a Son to have no concern to please his Father but only so far as that he may not be dis-inherited Many Errors that may not be fatal to Ignorant People may yet be very dishonourable to God bring a great Scandal to our Holy Religion and do a great deal of mischief in the World and these are things which a good Christian would have a great care of tho' at the same time he might hope that God would pardon him should he ignorantly fall into them This I hope may be sufficient to convince you that you ought to examine well the Grounds you go upon in your Religion I shall now endeavour to shew you some of the Errors which we charge upon your Church and the Reasons why we Renounced them and why we think it your Duty to do so too As to the particulars I shall chiefly confine my self to those which the present Act mentions those to be renounced in the Test and in the Oath of Supremacy But before I proceed to them I would speak a little to that which is the great ground and support of all your other Errors the Infallibility of your Church which if I can shew you to be a meer pretence without any Warrant or Authority from Jesus Christ you will then more easily hearken to what can be said in the other Matters It cannot be expected that I should handle these Controversies in their full extent in the short compass which it 's fit this present Address should have but if you find what is said here to have weight in it and that it gives you just cause of doubting I hope you will be so kind to your selves as to come to some of our Divines who may inform you more fully or to read some of those Books which have at large examined these Matters About the Infalibility of the Church of Rome Infallibility is the thing in the World which a good Christian should have the least prejudice against for tho' I do now believe since I see plainly that God has appointed no Infalliable Judge that it is best all things considered that there should be none Yet I must confess were I to judge of things by my own Reason without any regard to what God has done I should be apt to think such a Judge would be a great Blessing to the World I could not but be very glad to find an Infallible way to end Disputes among Christians but Christianity has now been in the World near 1700 Years and I do not know any Age in which there have not been great Contests and Disputes except some few that were so stupidly Ignorant that Men hardly knew any thing of Religion and then no wonder if there were not many Disputes from whence I cannot but conclude that either it is the Will of God for wise Reasons that Controversies should not be ended or that an Infallible Judge cannot end them or that there has all this while been no Infallible Judge But to consider this Matter more methodically I have these Two I think strong Reasons which make me conclude there is no such Judge I. That you your selves are not agreed who he is And II. That the Reasons commonly brought to prove that there is or ought to be such a one do if well weighed rather prove against it 1. That you your selves are not agreed who he is and this is a mighty prejudice in a thing of this Consequence certainly that which it appointed by God to end all Controversies ought to be a thing out of Controversy it self There ought to be a plain Commission a plain Designation of the Person or Persons that Christians might know where to repair in their Difficulties But is this Matter plain Can you assign us any Man or number of Men that have I won't say such a Commission but that in fact only have ever since the Apostles Days been repaired to by Christians and looked upon as their Judge and their Determinations thought to be Infallible If you can I for my part shall very thankfully submit and own the Authority But let us see what the People of your own Church say about it You are sure that you have Infallibility but you don't know where it is Some say it is in the Pope as Head of the Church and Vicar of Jesus Christ others say it is in a General Council but these differs Some say they are Infallible if Confirmed by the Pope others that their Determinations do not need his Confirmation But besides these there are others that say it is they don't know how in the diffusive Body of the Church Now pray Gentlemen does this sound like the Voice of Truth or a Method appointed by God to end all Controversies In Matters of smaller moment we allow Men to abound in their own Sense and to differ from one another at least we cannot conclude they are all in the wrong because they differ but in this we may and ought because if there were any such thing as Infallibility in the Church and that designed to be the Guide of all Christians it could not be a Secret or matter of Controversie where it was lodged we should see the plain Appointment of God or at least we should see in the History of the Church to whom Christians had appeal'd in all Ages And for the Christian Church to be at uncertainty where to go for so long a time to end their Disputes is the same sort of Absurdity that it would be in a Nation for 1700 Years together not to know where to go for Justice But this Absurdity will appear the greater if we consider besides this that tho' the Church of Rome be united together in a strong Bond of External Government and Polity yet in truth and reality this Difference about the Guide of their Faith makes them different Churches and of different Religions For a different Guide and Judge if he be esteem'd Infallible must make a different Rule of Faith because his Determinations must be part of the Rule of Faith and a different Rule of Faith must
Protestants examining the Scriptures now but what would have held as well against the Command of our Saviour here to the Jews unless they can shew us a positive Institution of an Infallible Guide but all the Arguments from Reason and the imperfection of our Understanding are perfectly the same in both Cases The truth is all our Saviour's Preaching did suppose this for it had been a vain thing to Preach to People who had not abilities to understand And if we go further to the Preaching of the Apostles we shall find that they endeavoured to prove the truth of what they said out of the Scriptures by which they appealed to the Understanding of their Hearers and made them proper Judges of what they said as far as their own Salvation was concerned in it We see in Acts 17.11 The Bereans were commended as more noble than those of Thessalonica because they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether the things the Apostles preached were so or not The Apostle St. John commands Christians to try the Spirits that is to examine the pretences that any should make to the Spirit of God which supposes that their Understanding how fallible soever was sufficient to judge in these Matters In a word the Writers and Emissaries of the Church of Rome do themselves when they don't think of it in effect confess this for when they bring Scripture and other Arguments to persuade us to come over to their Church I would ask them are we proper Judges of these things or are we not Will our Faith be a true Faith that is founded upon these Scriptures or these Reasons that you here bring If it be so then we may understand for our selves and there is no necessity in order to true Faith of an Infallible Judge but if it be not so there ought to be then an end of Disputes for it 's in vain to Dispute where it 's supposed that we cannot understand or judge and all offering of Scripture or Reason to prove the truth of their Opinions is only affront and mockery But it may be it will be said Don't we see People differ about the Interpretation of Scripture some go one way and some another and yet all are consident of their own how can we be sure that we are in the right any more than they who are as confident in what they say as we are Now this Objection is founded upon this that we cannot have certainty of what is once Disputed which is contrary to the Common Opinion of Mankind who would have done Disputing if they thought they could not be certain when once Men differed from them This does indeed overthrow all Reason and Religion Some have ventured to Dispute the Being of God and many more the Truth of the Christian Religion and yet I hope we may be very certain of the Truth of both these But I would only urge at present this one Consideration Are all the World agreed about their Infallible Judge If not how can they be certain of that But to press this Matter a little more plainly they say for instance that we can't from Scripture be certain of the Divinity of our Saviour because the Socinian's a small number of Men dispute that Matter But the same Socinians deny their Infallible Judge and therefore that must at least be as uncertain as the other And not only the Socinians but all Protestants deny it which must make it still more uncertain and not only all the Protestants but the Greek Armenian Aethiopian Churches a vast Body of Men which must still add to the uncertainty and not only all these but all that in any Age or Nation have ever differed from the Church of Rome for whoever differs from them must deny their Infallibility and consequently this must have been Disputed not only as much as any one Point but as much as all the rest together This I think is a demonstrative Answer to this whole way of Arguing and shews the manifest Absurdity of it for it makes things uncertain because they are Disputed and yet makes the most Disputed thing in all the World the Foundation of all the certainty they have I have been the longer in examining this Point of the Infallibility of your Church as being that which is the great support of all your other Errors I now proceed to speak something to the particulars I promised and first I shall begin with Transubstantiation which is the first thing Renounced in the Test The Sense of the Church of England in this Matter seems to be this That tho' Believers in the faithful and due receiving of this Holy Sacrament are made Partakers of the Benefits of the Death of Christ that is of the breaking of his Body and the shedding his Blood and so may be properly enough said to be partakers of his Body and Blood yet that which they take into their Mouths is really but Bread and Wine but Bread and Wine set apart for a holy Use to represent the breaking of the Body and the shedding of the Blood of our Blessed Saviour and therefore in a Sacramental sense may be called his Body and Blood tho' in truth and reality they are but Bread and Wine Both Sides do in some Sense own a real Presence of Christ in this Sacrament but this one thing if observed will sufficiently shew the difference That Protestants say that in the devout and holy Use of this Sacrament Christ will be present with his Grace and Assistance to the Souls of good People but that the Things which appear before us which we eat and drink are not Christ but Bread and Wine Those of the Church of Rome on the other side say That the Thing which lies before them which they put into their Mouths tho' before Consecration they are Bread and Wine yet upon pronouncing those Words This is my Body and this is my Blood they lose their own Nature and Substance of Bread and Wine and become very Christ the very same Christ that was Born of the Virgin Mary and that suffered upon the Cross And therefore pay them the same Divine Honour and Worship as if God or Christ did truly and openly appear before them Now the whole ground of this Dispute lies in the Words of the Institution This is my Body and this is my Blood They say that the Words ought to be understood in the plain literal Sense we say they ought to be understood as used by Christ in his Instituting a Sacrament that is appointing one thing to be a representation and a memorial of another and which because it does represent may very well be called by the Name of that Thing which is represented by it which we think to be a very natural easy way of speaking and agreeable as to that present occasion so to other terms of Speech of the same nature which had been in use among those People to whom our Saviour spoke But in particular the time in which
our Saviour Instituted this Sacrament was when they had been eating the Passover which was a Feast much of the same Nature among the Jews that this is among Christians that was appointed by God in memory of thier Deliverance when the Angel of God destroyed the First-born of all the Egyptians and this in memory of that much greater Blessing to Christians by the Death and Sufferings of Jesus Christ As therefore the Master of the Family when he distributed the Paschal Lamb was to say This is the Lord 's Passover as being Instituted in memory of the Lord 's passing over the Houses of the Israelites so now being to Institute a new Sacrament for his Church of Christians as that was for the Jews he appoints a memorial of the breaking of his Body and the shedding of his Blood and in the very same figure of Speech that the other was This is my Body or this is the Lord's Body could be no strange form of Speech to them who just before had heard him say This is the Lord's Passever and who had been constantly used to that form of Speech And accordingly we do not find that they were in any difficulty or surprize in the Matter which they could not have avoided if the Words are to be understood just as they sound for it was a Matter more than a little amazing especially to those who never had been used to such sort of Mysteries that their Master should take a piece of Bread in his Hand and with speaking a few Words should make it become without any apparent change that very Body which was then standing before them That he should hold his own Body whole and entire in his own Hand that they should put the same one Body whole and entire into each of their Mouths that they should eat him first and drink him afterwards and yet that he should stand by them untouched all the while besides the very uncouthness and horror of the Institution to eat their Master a Person whom they loved and had reason to love and to drink Human Blood these are things one would think should at least surprize them a little and make them ask some Questions about it for they are indeed strange monstrous Absurdities whereas the sense we give to the Words is natural and easy especially to the Persons to whom they were spoken as being used to such expressions and who had heard the like but just before in a like Case I have this one thing more to add in this Matter That as the Jewish Sacraments were Signs and Representations as well as ours and so were commonly called by the Name of what they represented so the inward Blessings conveyed to them was the same that is conveyed by the Christian Sacraments and therefore the Apostle tells us they did all eat of the same spiritual meat and drank of the same spiritual drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.3,4 Now here is altogether as plain evidence that the Jews did eat and drink Christ before he was Born as the Christians do since But that is a way of Transubstantiation which those of the Church of Rome don't yet acknowledge and we may conclude that if the Apostle had known any thing of that Doctrine among Christians he would have been more wary in his Expressions and not have weakned the credit of it by using the same sort of Words where nothing of the same thing was meant From hence we may give an account of that large Discourse of our Saviour in the Sixth Chapter of St. John My Flesh is Meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed c. For if he were Meat and Drink to the Jews so long before he was born he might in the same manner be Meat and Drink to them still without the portentous way of putting his Body into their Mouths Christ is said to be a Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World and in the same sense was Meat and Drink to all good People from the Foundation of the World that is the benefits of his Death reach backward even to the beginning of the World though he were put to death several Thousand Years after And they are the Benefits of his Death which are the great Food of Souls that which gives and preserves Life in them as the Life of the Body is kept up by Meat and Drink And this suggests another Consideration That we may know what sort of eating this is if we only consider what sort of Life is kept up by it The eating and drinking of a Body is proper to keep up the Life of a Body but it 's only the inward Grace and Assistance of God that keeps up the Life of a Soul and therefore we then eat and drink for that when we do by Faith or any other method take in that Spiritual nourishment In a Word Our Saviour says He gave his flesh for the life of the World and we may then not improperly be said to eat his Flesh when we receive in that Spiritual Life and Nourishment procured by it And that this is the Sense is apparent from several expressions in that Discourse as in v. 35. And Jesus saith unto them I am the Bread of Life he that cometh to me shall never hunger and he that believeth in me shall never thirst in which words there are Two things which directly contradict this gross sense of eating his very Body First that he alters here the expression of Eating and so explains himself whosoever comes to me and whosoever believes in me which shews that this Blessing comes by Believing in Christ and not by gross carnal Eating Secondly The Blessing it self is such as does not belong to all that only externally receive the Sacrament but to such only as come to Christ with true Faith as may be seen not only in this Verse but every where through that Discourse thus v. 51. If any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever And v. 53. 54. Verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of he Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you whosoever eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal life and I will raise him up at the last day Which words are very true if understood of the feeding our Souls by the Benefits received from the Body and Blood of Christ but cannot be understood of external eating of him in the Sacrament for very wicked Men often do that according to the Opinion of the Romish Church and are only the worse instead of being the better for it This I believe is abundantly sufficient to shew that the Sense we put upon the Sacramental words This is my Body c. is natural and easie agreeable to the design of a Sacrament and other expressions of the same kind in Scripture and if it be so we need not be solicitous to prove any thing
Fathers they would be as confidently quoted for the Proof of Transubstantiation as any Sayings of the Fathers now are And this shews us how this Doctrine tho' monstrous in it self might under the Covert of such General Expressions without any great stir or bustle insensibly creep into the Church especially in very Ignorant and Superstitions Times tho' after all our Divines have sufficiently traced the footsteps of it and shewed the progress it made and the opposition it met with in the World before it could be Established The next thing to be spoken to is the Idolatry of the Church of Rome In the Sacrfice of the Mass and in the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and of other Saints as it is practised in that Church Now Idolatry may be of two sorts I. When People worship any thing for the Supreme God which really is not so II. When they give that Worship to any Creature which is due only to God and which he has appropriated to himself As to the first sort of Idolatry that of Worshiping some thing as the Supreme God which realy is not so we do not charge the Church of Rome with it unless perhaps the worshipping of what is but Bread and Wine in the Sacrament instead of Jesus Christ may come under that head I say perhaps here because I would not enter into any thing besides the main cause that may be contested for tho' Jesus Christ be God and they worship some thing as Jesus Christ which is not so yet the mistake being chiefly about his Human Nature I would not positively affirm a thing which may bring on any dispute which is not to our purpose This they do not deny that they give the highest Divine Worship which they call Latria to that Object which they take into their hands and put into their Mouths in receiving this Sacrament which I shall at present call Idolatry but with a promise to recant it whensoever they shall answer the Reasons I have given to prove that what they thus Adore is only Bread and Wine or whenever they shall give me a more proper Name by which I may call that great Sin of giving the highest Divine Worship to a Creature The truth is that such a Worship may not only be called Idolatry but the most absurd and senseless Idolatry that ever the World fell into But this I shall not now insist upon having spoken so much already to that which is the foundation of it the Doctrine of Transubstantiation The other Matter in which we charge them with Idolatry is the Invocation of the Blessed Virgin and other Saints Now in this we do not charge them with owning any of those to be God but only with giving them that Worship and Honour which cannot lawfully be given to any thing which is but a Creature In speaking to this I shall consider these Two Things 1. Whether the giving to a Creature the Worship due only to God may not be properly termed Idolatry tho' at the same time we pay that Worship we own it not to be God but a Creature 2. Whether the Worship given to Saints by the Invocation practised in the Church of Rome be of that sort such as God has appropriated to himself and consequently such as becomes Idolatrous when applied to a Creature 1. As to the first of these Those of the Roman Church cannot deny but it must be a very great Sin to give the Worship of God to Creatures but they deny it to be properly Idolatry We on the other side grant that it is not Idolatry in the highest sense of the Word and in the sense in which they commonly understand it viz. The owning a Creature to be God So that so far we are agreed but then we say that Word may be used in a lower sense to denote what they grant to be a Sin as well as we but will not call it by that Name so that our difference in this Matter is only about the use of a Word Now we think our selves in the right in the use of this Word upon these Accounts 1. Because we have no other Name to express that which is not denied to be a very great Sin The giving God's Worship to Creatures and having no peculiar Name for it we think it not improper to give it the Name of that Sin which is of nearest affinity to it and of the same general kind as is done in many other Cases Thus our Saviour calls looking upon a Woman to lust after her by the name of Adultery and the like The next step to owning a Creature to be God is to give it the Worship due to God and therefore we think it not at all improper to call these two Sins by the same general Name especially having no Word in our Language more proper by which we may express it 2. We think our selves fully justified in the expression because the Scripture does every where charge the Heathen Worship of their Gods and Images in general with the Crime of Idolatry tho nothing can be more apparent than that many of the Heathen owned only one Supreme God and that all of them looked upon many of the Gods whom they Worshipped not as Supreme but as Gods of an Inferior Nature and had much the same Opinion of them as the Romanists have now of Saints and Angels and had the very same pretences and excuses for the Worshipping of them which the Romanists make use of to defend themselves They owned many of their Gods to have been born and to have dyed and it was hardly possible to look upon any such to be the Supreme God In a Word There is nothing more evident than this that they had several Ranks and Orders and Degrees among their Gods and it was impossible to look upon all these to be Supreme And yet the Scripture every where without any distinction charges their whole Worship with Idolatry and so do the Primitive Fathers as well as the Scriptures particularly they thought it to be Idolatry to throw a little Incense into the Fire before the Statues of their Emperors From whence we may plainly inferr these Two Things First That they thought that there might be Idolatry in giving such Worship as was appropriated to God to Creatures tho' they were not pretended to be any thing else but Creatures only Creatures highly exalted and in high Favour with God as Saints and Angels are supposed to be Secondly That they looked upon the offering of Incense to be a part of Worship appropriated to God and that could not be given to a Creature without the Crime of Idolatry which is a Matter the Church of Rome have reason to consider well of who offer it every Day to those who however they may have been better Men are certainly no more Gods than the Heathen Emperors were To conclude this Matter The sense of the Primitive Church in the business of Idolatry is plainly seen in this that they every