Faith Grounded Upon the Holy Scriptures Against the New Methodists, Part 3 · Chapter 4 – Chapter 5
CHAP. IV. That the pretended Tranſubſtantiation of the Holy Euchariſt is not taught in the Scriptures.
SO it appears that the pretended Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Maſs is not in the Scriptures, it being as impoſſible to draw it from thence by Conſequences, as to read it there in formal terms.
Let us ſee if this marvellous change which they preſuppoſe of the Subſtance of the Conſecrated Bread into that of the body of Chriſt, may be found more eaſily there.
Firſt then, Matth. 26.26. Macrk. 14.22. Luke 22.19. 1 Cor. 11.24.They ſeek it in the words which the Lord pronounced in his inſtituting the Euchariſt: for having taken and bleſſed it, he ſaid, This is my Body. From whence they conclude, that the bread hath then loſt the Subſtance of bread, becauſe otherwiſe it could not be the body of Chriſt. But what neceſſity is there in this Conſequence. St. Paul ſaid of the Church, the ſame which is ſaid of the bread of the Euchariſt, that ſhe is the body of the Lord; 1 Cor. 12.27. Eph. 1.23. 1 Cor. 6, 15.and ſaith particularly of the Corinthians, that they are the body of Christ; and nevertheleſs, no one concludes from thence that the Church hath loſt its firſt Subſtance, nor the Corinthians theirs. The ſame ſaith well, that our bodies are the members of Chriſt; and every one confeſſeth that they have not changed their Subſtance, becauſe of that. And then why ſhall one conclude that the Euchariſt is not bread, becauſe it is called the body of Chriſt? Cajetan in Thom. q. 75. art. 1. Scot. cite per Bellard. l. 3. c. 23. of the Euchariſt.The Cardinal Cajetan one of the moſt famous Writers of the Church of Rome, confeſſeth himſelf that there was no neceſſity for it there: There appears nothing in the Evangeliſt (ſaith he) which conſtrains us to take the words literally. Scotus holds it likewiſe. And it will avail nothing to reply, that the Lord ſaid, that it was his body which ſhould be delivered for us, which cannot be underſtood but of his true body. Cajetan ibid.From whence (ſaith Cajetan) one cannot evidently conclude that the words mentioned ought to be underſtood properly, ſince that theſe relative words (which are given for you) do not ſhew us that it is properly the body. For the relative, which doth not ſignifie the conjunction of the predicate with the Subject, but this relates to the predicate only, viz. My Body: and with the truth of this relation remains the true propoſition mentioned, This is my Body, taken only in a Metaphorical ſenſe, as it appears by the example, now the Stone was Chriſt. For if the Apoſtle had added, who hath been crucified, who is riſen, and who is aſcended into Heaven, in ſaying, now the Stone was Chriſt, which hath been crucified, &c. nevertheleſs the underwritten Propoſition, now the Stone was Chriſt, ſhould be underſtood Metaphorically and not properly. Even ſo in our diſpute are the words of the Lord, This is my Body which ſhall be delivered for you. This addition, which ſhall be delivered for you, doth not reſtrain the precedent Propoſition to a literal ſenſe; for it is nevertheleſs as true, though it were ſpoken in a Metaphorical ſenſe only. Thus far Card. Cajetan.
So all that one can lawfuily and neceſſarily conclude from the words of the Lord, is that the bread of the Euchariſt is the Myſtery, the Sacrament, and the memorial of his body; which we believe and confeſs with all Chriſtians, and which the Lord expreſly pronounceth himſelf in the following words, in ſaying, Do this in remembrance of me; as from the words of St. Paul, the Church is the body of Chriſt, one cannot evidently infer any thing, Mat. 13.37, 38, 39. 1 Cor. 10. Apoc. 4.1, 20. & 17.9, 28. Gen. 17.15. & 40.12. & 41.27. Exod. 12.11. Judg. 7.14. 2 Kin. (Heb. 2 Sam.) 12.7. Ezt. 37.11. Dan. 2.38. & 4.19. & 7.24.except that the Church is the Myſtery of the natural body of Chriſt, and (as they ſay ordinarily) his Myſtical body. For it is an ordinary Phraſe in the New Teſtament to ſay, That the ſigne is the thing which it ſignifieth, and the Image that which it repreſents, drawn from the ſtile of the Old Teſtament, which gives always to the Signe the name of the thing ſignified; and reciprocally, the name of the Signe to the thing ſignified.
2. They alledge in the Second place, the words of the Lord in St. Luke, This Chalice is the New Teſtament in my Blood, which ſhall be ſhed for you, ſaying, that becauſe the Cup, that is to ſay, the Liquor which is in the Cup) is ſhed for us, it is then the blood of Chriſt (and not Wine) really and in Subſtance; it being clear that is the blood of the Lord, and not Wine which hath been ſhed for us. But we have already ſhewed above, that we ought to apply this word ſhed, to the blood of Chriſt ſhed really for us on the Croſs, and not to the Cup, notwithſtanding the diſagreeing of the Gender, which is found between theſe words in the Original Texts; & although the Lord ſaid, that this wch is in the Cup is ſhed for us, it doth not follow nevertheleſs that it is not Wine in ſubſtance, ſince that without putting any Tranſubſtantiation in the water of the Holy Baptiſm; one may as well ſay, that it is ſhed for thoſe who are baptized with it.
3. They uſe in the third place the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10.16.The bread which we break is the communication of the body of the Lord, and the Chalice of Benediction which we bleſs the communication of his blood. For (ſay they) How is it that the Bread and the Chalice conſecrated, ſhould communicate to us the body and blood of Chriſt, if they are not in ſubſtance the body and blood of Chriſt? But this Conſequence is ridicule. For 'tis unlikely that it ſhould follow from theſe words, that the bread conſecrated, is no more bread, but quite contrary; the words evidently expreſs that it is bread, the Apoſtle ſaying expreſly, that it is bread broken for us, which is the communication of the body of the Lord; in the ſame manner as he adds in the following Verſe, Ibid. ver. 18.That thoſe of Iſrael which eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar; it evidently follows, not that the Sacrifices, by the eating whereof they participated of the Altar, were changed into the Subſtance of the Altar (which would be abſurd and prodigious) but that they were Sacrifices, having a Subſtance different from that of the Altar: and what an extragavant ſpeech would it be to ſay that thoſe who eat the Sacrifices participate of the Altar, as if the Sacrifice & the Altar were one & the ſame thing in ſubſtance; (for this would be to ſay, that thoſe who eat of the Altar are partakers of the Altar) ſo would it alſo be a cold and impertinent Propoſition, to ſay, that the bread which we break is the communication of the body of Christ; as if this bread is in Subſtance one and the ſame thing with the Body of Chriſt. For upon this account it ſhould be ſaid that the body of Chriſt is the communication of the Body of Chriſt. As then the Sacrifices of the Hebrews communicated the Altar upon which they had ſacrificed to thoſe who eat them (for thoſe who eat, were, ſaid the Apoſtle, partakers of the Altar) without loſing their ſubſtance, foreign.or being changed into that of the Altar; even ſo the Bread and the Chalice of the Euchariſt, foreign.communicates to us the Body and blood of the Lord, of which they are the Sacraments, without loſing their firſt Subſtance, or being changed into that of the body and blood of the Lord. And as thoſe who eat the Sacrifices of the Hebrews communicated to the Altar, in as much as they had part in the vertue and ſanctification of the Altar, without neceſſity of touching corporally the ſubſtance of the Altar it ſelf: So thoſe who eat the bread and drink the Chalice of the Lord communicate of his body and of his blood, in as much as they have part in the vertue and efficacie of his body and of his blood, broken and ſhed for the remiſſion of our ſins, without neceſſity of touching corporally their ſubſtance.
4. But they lay great force upon that which the ſame Apoſtle ſaith in the following Chapter, where ſpeaking of the Euchariſt: 1 Cor. 11.27, 29.Whoſoever (ſaith he) ſhall eat of the bread or drink of the Chalice of the Lord unworthily, ſhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. And in the Verſe beneath he adds, that they diſcern not the body of the Lord. How can that be (ſay they) if the body and blood of the Lord be not really preſent in the Euchariſt? But firſt, they conclude not that which is in Queſtion. The Queſtion is, whether the bread and wine change Subſtance? and they conclude that the body and blood of the Lord are preſent in the Euchariſt; now they may be preſent there, and yet the bread and wine not loſe their Subſtance. And 'tis very unlikely, that theſe Propoſitions of the Apoſtles infer, that that which he calls bread and Chalice, ſhould be in Subſtance one and the ſame thing with the body and blood of the Lord, that contrarily they evidently preſuppoſe that they are different Subjects. For if the bread which one eats unworthily were the very body of Chriſt, this language would be cold and impertinent; he who eats of this bread unworthily, is guilty of the body of Chriſt, and doth not diſcern the body of Christ, ſince upon this account it would be to ſay, that he who eats the body of Chriſt unworthily, is guilty of the body of Chriſt and doth not diſcern the body of Chriſt.
Secondly, I ſay that that which they draw from this Text (beſides its not being the Queſtion) cannot be concluded from thence. For he who receives the Baptiſm unworthily (as Simon the Magitian did) doth wrong to Chriſt and is guilty of it; and nevertheleſs no body can conclude from thence that the Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt is really preſent in the Baptiſm. They who ſin voluntarily after they have received the knowledge of the Truth, Heb. 10.26.put the Son of God under their feet, and hold the blood of the Teſtament for a prophane thing. And no body can conclude from hence that the Son of God or his blood is really preſent under the feet of theſe wicked wretches. Luke 10.12. John 13.20.He who deſpiſeth the Apoſtles deſpiſeth him that ſent them, and who receiveth him that he hath ſent, receiveth the ſame that ſent him; and nevertheleſs every one confeſſeth that the Subſtance of Jeſus Chriſt was not really, becauſe of this, preſent in the Apoſtles nor in thoſe whom he ſent. They who ſin againſt their Brethren, Mat. 18.5.and wound their weak Conſciences, ſin againſt Chriſt. 1 Cor. 8.12.And nevertheleſs every one avoweth that the Subſtance of Chriſt is not for all this really preſent in their Conſciences or in their perſons. And then why ſhould one any more infer that the body and the blood of the Lord are really preſent in the Euchariſt, becauſe they who take it unworthily are guilty of his body, and do not diſcern it? who ſeeth not that this is an abuſing of the Lord, to reject thoſe who appertain to him, or to deſpiſe that which he hath inſtituted, and that which hath relation to himſelf: As 'tis an abuſe to a Prince to deſpiſe his Embaſſadors, his Seal, his Arms, or his Eſſigies? And it is not ſufficient that the Euchariſt be the Sacrament of Chriſt the communication of his body, and of his blood, & the memorial of his death (that which all confeſs) to render this Propoſition true; whoſoever receives it unworthily is guilty of the body of the Lord, and doth not diſcern it, without affirming (as our Adverſaries do) that this body and this blood are really preſent there.
5. Finally, They produce the meaning of the Lord, in the 6th of St. John, John 6.51 and ſo on.I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, if any one eats of this bread, he ſhall live eternally; and the bread which I ſhall give is my fleſh for the life of the world: and that which followeth to the 59 Verſe, preſuppoſing that the Lord ſpake of the Euchariſt; they conclude from thence that the Euchariſt is not then bread and wine in Subſtance, but the body and blood of the Lord. But this Argument is ſo weak, that it hardly deſerves to be conſidered. For it ſuppoſeth a dubious thing, and concludes wrong, which are the moſt irregular faults, that can be in reaſoning. Firſt then, he ſuppoſeth that the Lord ſpeaks of the Euchariſt in the 6th of St. John, which appears in no place in that Text, where the Evangeliſt makes no mention any where of the Holy Sacrament; it ſeemeth rather that one might induce the contrary from it. For the eating, upon which the Queſtion is, is neceſſarily efficacious to Salvation; if any one eats of this bread he ſhall live eternally. Joh. 6.50.He that eats my fleſh and drinks my blood, he hath eternal life, and I will raiſe him up at the last day: He dwells in me, and I in him: Verſ. 54. Verſ. 56.As the living Father hath ſent me, ſo I live becauſe of my Father, and he whr ſhall eat me, ſhall live alſo becauſe of me. Now the eating of the Euchariſt is not neceſſarily efficacious to Salvation, many eating it to their judgment and condemnation. Verſ. 57. 1 Cor. 11.29.This is not that then about which the Queſtion is in the 6th of St. John. Moreover the eating which the Lord means, was neceſſary to thoſe to whom he ſpoke, for the obtaining Salvation; Joh. 6.53.if you eat not the fleſh of the Son of man, and drink not his blood, you have no life in you; now the eating of the Euchariſt was not neceſſary to thoſe to whom he ſpoke for the obtaining Salvation, it being clear, that according to the Doctrine, even of our Adverſaries, Baptiſm, Faith, and good Works are ſufficient for them for the obtaining Salvation. It is not then the eating of the Sacrament, which our Lord ſpoke of in the 6 of St. John, as many very famous Interpreters have conſidered both Antient and Modern, and even amongſt our *Aen. Syl. ſince Pius II. Epiſt. 130. Cuſan. ep. 7. ad Boh. John de Raguſ. Orat. cor. Concil. Bazil. Cajet. in Joh. part. 3. q. 80. art. 8. Gabriel. in Can. John Heſſeltus l. de commun. ſub una ſpecie Janſen. concord. Evang. c. 59. Ruard. Tapper. Art. 15. Vald. T. 2. de Sacram. c. 91. Armac. l. 9. c. 8.Adverſaries, and underſtand it a ſpiritual eating of the Body and Blood of Chriſt Jeſus, which is done by Faith. And indeed the Lord ſhewed evidently that by eating his fleſh and drinking his blood, he ſignified coming to him, believing in him, and meditating on him, ſince in his own diſcourſe he aſcribes the ſame effects to theſe actions, as to thoſe of eating his fleſh & drinking his blood. Who comes to me (ſaith he) ſhall not hunger, John 7.35.41, 47.and who believes in me ſhall never thirſt. Whoſoever ſeeth the Son and believeth in him hath eternal life, and therefore I will raiſe him up at the laſt day. But although that which they preſuppoſe, viz. that the Lord in the 6 of St. John ſpake of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, were as clear and true, as it is obſcure and doubtful, I always ſay, that they do not argue pertinently. Firſt, they do not conclude that which is in Queſtion. For the Queſtion is not, whether the body and blood of Chriſt are preſent in the Euchariſt (which is that which they conclude) but, whether the bread and the wine loſe their nature there, and are there changed into the ſubſtance of the body and blood of the Lord, which they cannot infer from it, although one ſhould grant them what they could draw from it, it being clear (as we ſaid before) that the body and blood of the Lord may be preſent in the Euchariſt, and the bread and wine not change their Subſtance. But I ſay laſtly, that this which they would conclude from it cannot lawfully be inferred. For if becauſe we eat the body of the Lord and drink his blood in the Supper, it follows that the ſubſtance of his body and his blood is really preſent there; then in the ſame manner it will follow alſo, that it is preſent in the Souls of all thoſe who believe in him: ſince that according to many Fathers, and the moſt part of the Doctors of Rome, to believe in Jeſus Chriſt is to eat his fleſh and drink his blood; Eph. 2.17.and ſince according to St. Paul, it is by faith that Chriſt dwells in our hearts: it will follow that the Subſtance of Chriſt is really preſent in our Baptiſm, ſince that thoſe who are baptized put on Jeſus Christ, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3.and are buried with him in his death: it will follow that the Subſtance of his blood is really preſent in the Souls of all the truly faithful, choſen according to the Providence of God, ſince they are ſprinkled with the blood of Jeſus Chriſt; 1 Pet. 1.2. Apoc. 7.14and in the Souls of thoſe who are come from tribulation, ſince they have waſhed their long robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Now if one can eat the fleſh and drink the blood of Jeſus Chriſt in believing, and have him dwelling in his heart, and put him on, and be buried with him, and be ſprinkled with his blood, and be waſhed and made white in his blood, and nevertheleſs not touch really the ſubſtance, why may not one in the like manner eate his fleſh and drink his blood in the Euchariſt, without his being there bodily? Who ſeeth not that theſe ways of ſpeaking ſignifie only vertue of the death of the Lord in them to whom he communicates himſelf by faith, and the Spirit giving them the ſame effects in reſpect of the ſpiritual life, which Meats, Veſtments, Liquors and Water with which one is cleanſed in reſpect of the temporal life gives us, ſuſtaining and preſerving us, making ſin die in us, covering the nakedneſs of our Souls, fortifying our hearts, cleanſing and purging us from all ſpiritual filthineſs? let us conclude then that this famous Tranſubſtantiation the principal piece of the Roman Religion, is neither expreſſed nor preſuppoſed in Scripture, it being not leſs impoſſible to diſcover it there by the light of Reaſon, than by that of Senſe.
CHAP. V. That the Adoration of the Conſecrated Euchariſt is not taught in the Scriptures.
FRom whence it follows that the Adoration of the Hoſt (the Sovereign Service of their Religion) cannot be proved by Scripture, ſince it hath no other ground than Tranſubſtantiation, it being clear that they ſhould not adore this Subſtance covered with the Accidents of Bread and Wine, if they believe it to be a true Subſtance of Bread and Wine, and not that of the body and blood of Chriſt Jeſus.