Full and Easy Satisfaction, Part 4 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Arg. 6. From the Nature of a Sacrament.
Arg. 6. THat Doctrine which by conſequence denyeth the Lords Supper to be a true Sacrament, is falſe.
The Papiſts doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation by conſequence denyeth the Lords Supper to be a true Sacrament: Therefore the Papiſts doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation is falſe.
The Major I know no man that will deny that we have now to deal with.
The Minor needeth no other proof, than the common definition of a Sacrament, and Chriſts own deſcription of this Sacrament in the Scripture.
I. Aquinas concludeth 3. q. 60. a. 1. that a Sacrament is a ſign; and a. 2. that it is a ſign of a thing ſacred as it ſanctifieth men; and a. 3. that it is a Rememorative ſign of Chriſts paſſion, a demonſtrative ſign of Gods Grace, and a prognoſticating ſign of future Glory: And a. 4. that it muſt be Res ſenſibilis a ſenſible thing, it being natural to man to come to the knowledge of things intelligible by things ſenſible, and the Sacrament ſignifieth to man ſpiritual and intelligible Goods: and a. 5. that they muſt be things of Divine determination, &c.
But, 1. If the Bread and Wine be gone, there is nothing left to be a ſign, a Real ſenſible ſign, to lead us to the knowledge of ſpiritual and intelligible things. If they ſay that the ſpecies of Bread and Wine is the ſenſible ſign, what mean they by that cheating word [ſpecies?] Not the ſpecifying form or matter, but only the outward appearance. And is it a true or a falſe appearance? If True, then there is Bread and Wine: If falſe, it is a falſe ſign: And what is that falſe appearance which God maketh a Sacrament of? It is plainly nothing but the Accidents of Bread and Wine without the ſubſtance. But, 1. When they take the Cup from the Laity, and deny them half the Sacrament, ſure there are then no Accidents of Wine. Is there either Quantity, Colour, Smell, Taſte, &c. of Wine? They will not ſay it. So that here is no ſenſible ſign as to one half.
2. And herein they deal far more inhumanely with us than the Infidels themſelves: For when they plead againſt Chriſt and Scripture, they grant that the common principles and Notitiae, which all mankind acknowledge, are the certain unqueſtionable light of Nature. See my More Reaſons for the Chriſtian Religion, and the Lord Herbert de Veritate.But the Papiſts deny not only the Notitias communes, but common ſenſe. It is nothing with them to damn all the world, that will not believe contradictions. They ſay that the Quantity of Nothing endued with the Qualities, the Actions, the Paſſion, the Relations, the quando, ubi, ſitus of nothing, is the Sacramental ſign. Inhumane contradiction! 1. Gaſſendus and others ſay truly, that an Accident is not properly Res, but Modus Rei, (vel Qualitas, as he calleth it.) 2. Quantity doth not Really differ a re quanta: and to ſay, [The Length, Breadth, Profundity of Nothing] is a notorious contradiction. And ſo it is of the other Accidents. There is no Real ſenſible ſign, and therefore no Sacrament, where there is nothing, but the quantity, colour, taſte, ſmell, &c. of Nothing.
3. And they cannot, they dare not ſay, that Chriſts Real Fleſh and Blood, is the Sacramental ſign: For, 1. It is not ſenſible; 2. It ſhould be then the ſign of it ſelf: The ſign and the thing ſignified cannot be the ſame.
II. The very ſubſtantiality or corporeity of the Bread and Wine as ſuch, is part of the ſign: As Chriſt ſaith, Behold and handle me, a ſpirit hath not fleſh and blood, as ye ſee me have: So he taketh Corporeal bread and wine in their ſight, and breaketh it, and poureth it out, and giveth it them to ſee, to feel, to taſte, to eat, that they may know it is true bread and wine, the ſigns of his True Body and Blood. So that to deny the Corporeity is to deny Chriſts Corporeity in its ſigns; and tendeth to the old Hereſie of them that held that Chriſt had but a phantaſtical body, or was not indeed Crucified, but ſeemed ſo to be: They teach Hereticks to argue, The ſign was no Real ſubſtance: Therefore neither the thing ſignified.
III. The nutritive uſe of the bread and wine was another part of the ſign, as all confeſs: As bread and wine are the Nutriment of the body and life of man, ſo is Chriſt crucified meritoriouſly, and Chriſt glorified efficiently, the life of the ſoul. And he that denyeth the Nutritive ſign, denyeth the Sacrament: But it is not the falſe appearance, or phantaſm, or accidents of bread and wine, that are the natural nouriſhers of man: Therefore he that denyeth the nouriſhing ſubſtance, denyeth the Real ſenſible Sacramental ſign.
Saith Bellarmin de Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. [In the Euchariſt we receive not corporal food that the fleſh may be thence nouriſhed and made fat: but only to ſignifie inward refection.] So that he acknowledged this to be part of the Sacramental ſign. So Gregor. Valent. ſaith that [The chief and eſſential ſignification of this Sacrament is that which by external nouriſhment is ſignified, the internal ſpiritual refection of the ſoul by the body of Chriſt.] So that denying the nouriſhing ſign is deſtroying the eſſence of the Sacrament.
IV. The breaking of the Bread and pouring out the Wine is confeſſedly another part of the Sacramental ſenſible ſign. But, 1. When there is no Wine, there is no pouring it out: 2. And if there be no Bread neither, there is no breaking it: Can that be broken which is not? They that deny (as the Papiſts do) that the Bread is broken (ſaying that only the Quantity of Nothing is broken) deny the ſenſible Sacramental ſign.
And here I may note, that we do not well to contend with them for denying the Cup only to the Laity, and granting them only the Bread, when indeed they grant neither, but deny them both: There is (ſay they) no more Bread than Wine, but only a falſe appearance of it.
V. Laſtly, The Apoſtle 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. ſheweth that one Sacramental uſe of the Bread was to ſignifie the Ʋnity of Chriſtians, who are one Bread, and one Body, as one Loaf is made of many Corns. But that cannot be One, which is Nothing: Ens, Ʋnum & Verum convertuntur. To ſay with Greg. Valent. and Bellarmine, that becauſe it was Once bread, and one bread, therefore the accidents of it remaining now ſignifie that we are one bread; is but to ſay, that There was once a fit ſign, but then there wanted the form: Now after Conſecration, there is no Sacramental ſign, but yet there is a Sacramental form: And in what Matter is that form? Doubtleſs it can be no where but in the Brain or Mind of man: That is, man can Remember that once he ſaw Bread: This is the ſpecies of bread in his Intellect: This ſpecies is the ſign: And ſo we have found out another ſenſe of the ſpecies of bread, than many think on; viz. It is that which is called The ſpecies intentionalis, or the Idea or conception of bread in a mans fantaſie and mind: And ſo indeed the Sacrament is with them an inviſible thing: for it is only in mens minds: There is no Sacrament on the Altar, but in the thoughts: And ſo who hath a Sacrament, and who not, we know not: And a man may by thinking make a Sacrament when he will.