Full and Easy Satisfaction, Part 4 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. The fourth Argument. This Miraculous Tranſubſtantiation is expreſly contrary to the Word of God, in Scripture.
Arg. 4. THe Papiſts ſay that there is no bread after the words of Conſecration: Gods word ſaith, There is Bread after the Conſecration: Therefore the Papiſts ſpeak contrary to the Word of God.
I. In 1 Cor. 11. It is called expreſly BREAD after conſecration no leſs than three times in three verſes together, 26, 27, 28. [For as oft as ye eat this Bread and Drink this cup, ye ſhew the Lords death till he come. Wherefore whoſoever ſhall eat this Bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily ſhall be guilty of the Body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup]: Here they that call for expreſs words of Scripture for our doctrine, without our conſequences, may ſee their own faith expreſly contradicted, and our oppoſition juſtified: The Holy Ghoſt here expreſly calleth it Bread: And yet no expreſneſs nor evidence will ſatisfie them.
P.
By Bread is meant that which was Bread before, or elſe that which nouriſheth the ſoul as Bread doth the body: And ſo it is metonymically only called Bread, as Chriſts Fleſh is called Bread in Joh. 6.
R.
Why then do you call for expreſs texts of Scripture as our proof, when that expreſneſs ſignifieth nothing with you; but you can ſay, It is a metonymie or a metaphor at your pleaſure. But you ſay ſo againſt notorious Evidence: The Apoſtle calleth it Bread ſo often over and over, as if he had foreſeen your inhumane hereſie: He calleth it The Bread which is to be Eaten, joyned with Drinking the Cup; never once calling either of them the Fleſh or Blood of Chriſt, but as he reciteth Chriſts words which he expoundeth. Yea he telleth us that eating this bread, and drinking this cup, is to ſhew the Lords death till he come; where he calleth us to look back at Chriſts death as paſt, in our Commemoration, and to look forward to his perſonal coming as future; but never telleth us that we muſt kill Chriſt and eat him our ſelves (when we have made him), nor that his body is there preſent under the accidents of Bread and Wine.
But the reſt of the Scriptures as expreſly juſtifie our doctrine. 1 Cor. 10.15. The Cup of bleſſing which we bleſs, is it not the Communion (or Communication) of the blood of Chriſt: And the Bread which we break, is it not the communion (or participation) of the body of Chriſt?] Here it is the Cup and the Bread after Conſecration, if the Holy Ghoſt may be believed.
And in the next words the Apoſtle repeateth it in his reaſon [For we being Many are One Bread, and One Body▪ For we all partake of one Bread (or Loaf).] Is not here expreſs proof?
So Act. 20.7. When we came together to break Bread — And v. 11. He aſcending, and breaking bread, and eating &c. Here it is twice more called Bread after the Conſecration (which ever went before the Breaking).
So Act. 2.42, 46. It is twice more called Breaking of Bread.
And what elſe can the recitation of Chriſts inſtitution mean, 1 Cor. 11.23, 24. Panem accepiſſe, fregiſſe; to have taken Bread, and having given thanks, to have broken? What is it that he brake? Its non-ſence if it have no accuſative caſe that it reſpects? And plain Grammatical conſtruction tells us then, that it muſt be that before mentioned, What he Took he bleſſed, and brake and gave: But he took Bread and the Cup —. The ſame is in Mat. 26, 26, 27. and the other Evangeliſts.
II. The Scriptures expreſly (Act. 2, &c.) make the Killing of Chriſt, and drawing his blood, to be the heynous ſin of the Jews, for which ſome Repented and others were caſt off: Therefore it is not to be believed that Chriſt did firſt kill or tear himſelf, and ſhed his own blood; or that his diſciples did kill him, or tear his fleſh and ſhed his blood, before the Jews did it. And if they tore his fleſh and drank his blood, and yet killed him not, the event altered not the fact: The Jews did but break his fleſh and ſhed his blood. If you fly to a good intention, Paul will come in for ſome further excuſe for his perſecution.
III. 1 Cor. 10.21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of Devils: Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Devils. — Here note 1. That the ſame phraſe is uſed of the Participation of the Lords myſteries and the Devils. But it was not the fleſh and blood or the ſubſtance of Devils which the Idolaters ever intended to partake of: but only their ſacrifices.
2. It is here called only the Table and the Cup, and not the fleſh and the blood.
3. It is ſaid that They could not partake of both: whereas according to the Papiſts doctrine, if a man ſhould partake of the Idols ſacrifice in the morning, and of the Lords Table in the evening (without repentance,) he ſhould really partake of Chriſts own fleſh and blood; which the Text ſaith cannot be done.
P.
It meaneth only, You cannot Lawfully, or you ought not to partake of both, but not that it is impoſſible or never done.
R.
No doubt but it meaneth that They ought not, or cannot Lawfully; but thats not all: The text plainly meaneth, You cannot have communion with both: You may take the bread and wine at your peril; but you cannot partake of it as a ſacramental feaſt which God prepareth you, and ſo partake of Chriſt therein.
And the ſame is ſaid (expounding this) 2 Cor. 6.15. What concord hath Chriſt with Belial— and what agreement hath the temple of God with Idols?] Intimating that Communion with God and Idols, Chriſt and Belial, are (ſo far) inconſiſtent: But by the Papiſts doctrine an Idolater and Son of Belial may partake of the very ſubſtance of Chriſts body and blood, into his body, as verily as he partaketh of his meat and drink.
IV. The Scripture teacheth us expreſly to judge of ſenſible things by ſenſe. Luk. 24.39. [Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my ſelf: handle me, and ſee; for a ſpirit hath not fleſh and bones as ye ſee me have. And when he had thus ſpoken, he ſhewed them his hands and his feet.] And v. 43, [he did eat before them] to confirm their faith. But they could have no more ſenſible evidence of any of this, than we have of the being of Bread and Wine, or ſome ſenſible ſubſtance after Conſecration. Joh. 2.9. they taſted the water turned into Wine, and were convinced.
P.
But the Body of Chriſt here is not a ſenſible thing.
R.
But Bread and Wine are ſenſible things.
P.
But They are not There; and ſo are no objects of ſenſe.
R.
But all our ſenſes ſay that They are there; and by them we muſt judge.
P.
Your ſenſes perceive nothing but Accidents: and your underſtanding muſt believe God, and ſo (as you noted out of Aquinas before) there is no deceit either of ſenſe or Intellect.
R.
Though this be anſwered fully before, I will again tell you, That theſe two notorious falſhoods are all that you have to ſay againſt Humanity in this caſe, thats worth the noting. I. It is falſe that you ſay that ſenſe perceiveth not ſubſtance: When I take up a ſtaff or ſtone in my hand, I do not only feel Roughneſs or Smoothneſs, &c. but a ſubſtance: It is a quantitative, and qualitative ſubſtance, which I feel, taſte, ſmell, ſee and hear: And this I perceive by ſenſation it ſelf, as the medium to the Intellect. It is not the ſenſe indeed, but the Intellect that giveth it the Logical notion or definition of a ſubſtance; but it is the ſenſe it ſelf that by ſenſation perceiveth it; and to deny this is to deny all ſenſe.
And if it were not ſo, How could any ſuch ſubſtance be known? when it cannot come into the Intellect but by the ſenſe?
II. ☞ Your great cheat (or errour) is by confounding the firſt and natural-neceſſary perception of a ſenſibile ſenſatum or incomplex object, by the Intellect, with the ſecond conception of the Names of things, or of Organical ſecond notions, and the third conception of them Artificially by the uſe of theſe names and Organical notions, and the fourth perception of Conſequents from thoſe conceptions. To know by Believing is but the third or fourth ſort of knowledge, and preſuppoſeth the two firſt. If a man had never heard a name or word in his life; yet by ſenſation as ſoon as he ſaw, ſmelt, taſted, heard, handled things, his Intellect would have had a perception of the Thing it ſelf as it was ſenſate; And this is the Intellects firſt perception: And this is it which falleth under our queſtion, Whether the Intellect in this firſt perception of a ſubſtance or Thing as ſenſate, be deceived or not, when the Thing hath the Conditions of an object before mentioned. 2. Next this we learn or invent Names and organical notions for things: And whether theſe be true or falſe, and whether they be apt or inept is all one. This is but an arbitrary work of art. 3. Next this we conceive of things by the Means of theſe Names and ſecond notions, and examine the Congruence: and ſo we define them: And this is but a work of Artificial Reaſoning, and preſuppoſeth the firſt Natural neceſſary perception. Now Faith belongeth partly to this, and partly to the fourth, which is The raiſing of Concluſions, and the weaving of methods; and preſuppoſeth the firſt, yea and the ſecond: It is but an aſſent given by the means of an Extrinſick Teſtimony of God, that this particular Word is True, &c. Now if the Intellect in its firſt Perception (natural and neceſſary) of the Thing it ſelf, as ſenſate, be deceived, if faith ſhould be contrary to it, 1. It muſt be ſuch a Faith which is the immediate contrary perception of a ſenſate object; which is no faith, nor is any ſuch poſſible, (properly called faith): 2. And if faith can come after and undeceive the Intellect, by ſaying that God ſaith otherwiſe, yet this would be no prevention of its deception, but a cure, preſuppoſing the ſaid deception as the diſeaſe to be cured. So that to ſay as Aquinas that faith preventeth the deceit of the Intellect, is a falſhood contrary to the nature of man, and his natural way of acting, as he is compoſed of ſoul and body.
I have ſaid this over again, leſt errour get advantage by the brevity and unobſervedneſs of that which I ſaid before.