Notes Upon Texts of Scripture and Popish Errors, Part 8
Of the Lord's Supper.
CHAP. XXV.
That after the Conſecration, there remains no more of the Subſtance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament; but that there is a Tranſubſtantiation, or a change of the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine into the proper ſubſtance of the Body and Blood of Chriſt. Council of Trent. Seſſ. 13. chap. 4. & Can. 2.
THE Foundation upon which this portentous Doctrine is built, are our Saviour's words of Inſtitution, Mat. 26. 27, 28. and Luke 22. 19. Jeſus Chriſt took Bread and brake it, and gave unto them, ſaying, This is my Body, which is given unto you; this do in remembrance of me. Now we do not queſtion but that our Saviour made his words good; but the Queſtion is, In what ſenſe our Saviour's Words are to be underſtood? whether in a literal and proper, or in a figurative Senſe? The Church of Rome ſaith, in the literal and proper; we ſay, in the figurative Senſe; and ſo conſequently that in them there is no Foundation of Tranſubſtantiation.
Now to make this clear, we argue thus. If there be no neceſſity to underſtand them in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation; and there be a great deal of Reaſon to underſtand them in the figurative Senſe in which we underſtand them; and that it is very abſurd and unreaſonable to underſtand them otherwiſe; then they ought to be underſtood in the Senſe in which we underſtand them. For we ought certainly to underſtand them in that Senſe, which it is moſt reaſonable to underſtand them in. Now that there is no neceſſity to underſtand them in the Senſe of Tranſubſtantiation, and that there is a great deal of Reaſon to underſtand them otherwiſe, may appear by theſe following Obſervations.
The Senſe in which we underſtand them, is very agreeable to the Cuſtom, and Uſage, and Manner of ſpeaking, which was very familiar among the Jews, with whom ſuch figurative Expreſſions were very common. For we have many of this ſort in Scripture, it being uſual in the Hebrew Language to ſay, Things are that which only thy ſignify and repreſent. As, Gen. 41. 26. Joſeph tells Pharaoh, The ſeven good Kine are ſeven Years, i. e. they ſignify and repreſent them; And the ſeven good Ears of Corn are ſeven Years. And ſo in the matter of the Sacraments; as Circumciſion is called the Covenant, Gen. 17. 9. and yet in the following Verſe is expounded to be only the Token of it. So the Paſchal Lamb is called the Lord's Paſſover, Exod. 12. 11. Yet by Verſe 13. appears, as in all reaſon it was to be only a ſign of it. So Baptiſm is called the waſhing of Regeneration, becauſe it was the Sign and Seal of it. And the Cup is by our Saviour called the New Teſtament, becauſe likewiſe it was the Seal of it; where the Cup is alſo taken for the Wine in the Cup. Our Saviour ſpeaking of himſelf, ſaith, I am the Door, Joh. 10. 9. and, I am the true Vine, Joh. 15. 1. (the Church of Rome would have mightily triumphed in it, if it had been ſaid, This is my true Body) yet no Body takes theſe Expreſſions properly. This manner of ſpeaking then being ſo common and familiar with that Nation, well may we interpret our Saviour's words, This is my Body, in the ſame manner, according to the nature of a Sacrament, and the ſubject Matter thereof. So it is ſaid, that the Rock which followed the Iſraelites, was Chriſt; 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of the Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Chriſt. Sure there can be no neceſſity of underſtanding our Saviour's Words in another manner, when this form of Speech was ſo common among them; but it is very agreeable to underſtand them as we underſtand them.
Beſides, it is but the ſame form of Speech which was uſed by the Jews in celebrating the Paſſover, which our Saviour and his Diſciples had been juſt now about. And he inſtituted this Sacrament for the like End, as the Paſſover had been; and it was now for ever to ſucceed in its place. This Paſſover is our Saviour and our Refuge, we are told, was the form among the Jews; meaning, that it did put them in mind, and repreſent to them the Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt; and did likewiſe foreſhew the Salvation of the Meſſias, the true Paſchal Lamb, that was to take away the Sins of the World. And at the Paſſover, the Maſter of the Houſe likewiſe took Bread and brake it, and gave it to them, ſaying, This is the Bread of Affliction, which our Fathers ate in Egypt; not the very Bread ſure, but only a Type or Figure of it. So our Saviour in like manner, accommodating himſelf to their Cuſtoms and Phraſes, uſed the very ſame Symbols, and expreſs'd himſelf accordingly, This is my Body, which is broken for you; which our Saviour appointed in remembrance of himſelf ever after, in the room of the Paſchal Lamb. Now how ſhould we underſtand our Saviour's words then, but agreeably to the old form in the like caſe?
Beſides, it is plain from the words themſelves▪ about the Inſtitution, that it was very Bread, of which he ſaid, This is my Body. For it is ſaid, He took Bread, and gave Thanks, and brake it, and gave to his Diſciples, ſaying, Take, eat, This is my Body. What he took, he bleſſed; that which he bleſſed, he brake▪ that which he brake, he gave to his Diſciples: What he gave to his Diſciples, of that he ſaid, This is my Body. But he took Bread; therefore of the Bread he ſaid, This is my Body. And if it was Bread▪ then it could not be his very Body, but only a Symbol or Sign o… it, becauſe it was Bread ſtill.
And that it was Bread ſtill, ever after the Conſecration, we have alſo the Apoſtle's words for it; 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body; for we are all partakers of that one Bread. So that it is Bread ſtill▪ which they are partakers of▪ which was after the Conſecration. So again, Chap. 11. 26, 27, 28. As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do ſhew the Lord's 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. Where he calls it Bread three times, in three Verſes together, even after the Conſecration.
In like manner our Saviour ſpeaking of the Cup▪ when he had ſaid, Mat. 26, 28. This is my Blood of the New Teſtament, immediately after adds, … unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this … Vine, until I drink it new with you in—my Father's Kingdom. From whence it is plain, that it was the Fruit of the Vine, and real Wine, which he drank with his Diſciples; and that was after the Conſecration.
Beſides, if the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine are changed in the Sacrament, into the very ſubſtance of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, when is it done? Is it done before thoſe words were pronounc'd, This is my Body? or in them? or after them? If it was done before; When was it done? or by what Command? or in what way? If it be not done till after they are all pronounc'd, or till after the word Is is pronounc'd, then it is falſe to ſay, This is my Body, before the change is wrought; which is not till after▪ the word Is is pronounc'd; for theſe words are only declarative of what is before, and are not imperative of what ſhould be. And if it was not before theſe words were pronounc'd, then a thing is pronounc'd to be, which was not; which is a falſe Propoſition: And if it had been intended, that the change ſhould have been wrought by theſe words, then it ſhould have been, Let this be my Body, or, This ſhall be my Body, and not, This is my Body, which only declares what a thing was before, and doth not command it to be what it was not. So that in truth it only means, that the Bread was ſet a-part by our Saviour for the Sign and Token of his Body, when he bleſſed it and gave Thanks.
Again, our Saviour gave to his Diſciples his Body as broken. But then his Body was really whole and unbroken, for it was before his Paſſion, and it was the Bread only that was broken. Therefore our Saviour did not give his very Body, but the Bread broken, only as a Symbol of his Body which was to be broken. So that it was really Bread which he gave, and not his very natural Body; but the Bread as a ſign of his Body, and for that reaſon called his Body, becauſe ſignifying it And ſo theſe words are to be underſtood only in a Figure.
Are not theſe words to be underſtood in a Figure? 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many, are one Bread and one Body, for we are partakers of that one Bread: Or are all Chriſtians turn'd into Bread firſt, and then into the Body of Chriſt, by their being made partakers of the Bread in the Sacrament? It is as good an Argument to argue ſo from theſe words, as to argue from our Saviour's, This is my Body, that therefore the ſubſtance of the Bread is turned into the ſubſtance of his Body.
But the figurative way of ſpeaking is evident and undeniable in the other part of the Sacrament about the Cup, Luke 22. 20. And therefore why may not we ſuppoſe the like in the former about the Body? This Cup, ſays our Saviour, is the New Teſtament in my Blood, which is ſhed for you. Here is Figure upon Figure, the Cup for the Wine: But neither Cup nor Wine is the New Teſtament, nor yet our Saviour's Blood neither, but the Seal of it. But as our Saviour's Blood was the Seal of the New Teſtament, and of all the Promiſes and Benefits contained in it. So was the Wine a ſign of his Blood, and as ſuch was given to the Diſciples, as a Seal of the New Covenant confirmed by our Saviour's Blood. And that this muſt be ſo, is alſo plain, becauſe our Saviour gave it to his Diſciples as his Blood ſhed. But his own natural Blood then was not ſhed; unleſs they will ſay, it was ſhed before he ſuffered; for this was before his Suffering. So that it muſt needs be underſtood only figuratively, that the Wine poured forth did ſignify and repreſent the Blood of his which was ſhortly to be ſhed for Sinners, and by which the New Teſtament was confirmed. And for that end, and becauſe of the uſe of it mentioned, it has the name of the Blood given to it, the Sign having the name of the thing ſignified.
And though it be thus only in a figurative and not in a proper ſenſe, that we are to underſtand the words of the Inſtitution, yet the Benefit and Comfort of the Sacrament will be nevertheleſs: For it may be of equal efficacy and advantage to us, if we outwardly receive only the Symbols, as if we received the very Body and Blood of Chriſt themſelves; for the efficacy doth not lie in the thing received, but in the Bleſſing that goes along with the Inſtitution. As the Water in Baptiſm, without a ſubſtantial change in the Element, with the Divine Bleſſing, is equally ſerviceable to the Ends of that Sacrament, as if there were a ſubſtantial change. So, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we brake, is it not the Communion of the Body of Chriſt? We may have Communion with the Body of Chriſt, by partaking of the Bread. As Idolaters may have fellowſhip with Devils, by partaking of the Sacrifices offered to them, without having the ſubſtance of the things ſacrificed to them, turned into the ſubſtance of Devils, 1 Cor. 10. 20. So Believers may have fellowſhip with Chriſt, by partaking of the Bread and Wine inſtituted for that End, without having the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine changed into the ſubſtance of the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt.
We ſee then it is highly reaſonable and neceſſary to underſtand the words of Inſtitution, as other figurative Expreſſions of the like nature are to be underſtood. And there is not the leaſt inconvenience or abſurdity will follow upon it. But to underſtand them in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation, is highly unreaſonable, and is againſt the being and deſign of the Scripture, and is alſo monſtrouſly abſurd.
If the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, be turned into the Body and Blood of Chriſt, then Chriſt muſt be with us ſtill with his bodily Preſence, which is againſt the whole current of Scripture; for he is aſcended into Heaven, and therefore he is not here. Acts 3. 21. The Heavens muſt receive, or retain him, until the time of reſtitution of all things▪ And how is he then in the hands of the Prieſt? Col. 3. 1. Chriſt ſits at the right Hand of God, and there we muſt ſeek him, and not in the hands of a Prieſt, or upon the Altar. For, ſaid he, John 16. 28. I leave the World, and go to the Father. And therefore in his abſence he promiſed the People another Comforter, who ſhould abide with them, and ſupply his place, John 14. 10. But, Henceforth, ſaith the Apoſtle, 2 Cor. 5. 16. we know him no more after the Fleſh, he abiding in us only by his Spirit, and we know him only by Faith. We are not like the Diſciples of the Prophet Elijah, who ſought on Earth for their Maſter, whom God had taken up into Heaven, 2 King. 2. Our Saviour ſ…ith, Mat. 26. 11. The Poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always. Whereas if he be every where in the Maſs, we may have him with us always, as much as the Apoſtles had him. And when our Saviour told them, they had always the Poor with them, whom they might ſhew kindneſs to, but not him, and therefore they ſhould not grudg at the expence of a box of Ointment upon him▪ If they had been of the Mi…d of the Church of Rome, they might have anſwered, Lord▪ we ſhall have thee with us as long as we ſhall have the Poor; and this coſt which this poor Woman hath been at, is nothing in compariſon of what ſhall one day be laid out upon Thee, in h…ging the Streets with Tapeſtry, in …ecking the Altar…, … incloſing▪ Thee in rich and …oſtly Pieces, and in ſ…ting▪ Thee up … ſtately and magnificent Manſions.
But then if Chriſt's Body be with us, it ſeems he muſt be inviſible alſo, and not to be felt; which is contrary to the nature of an humane Body. In which he is made like unto us, Heb. 2. 17. To be inviſible, is to be more like a Spirit which hath not Fleſh and …, Luke 24. 39, 40.
If the Body of Chriſt be alſo in the ſmall Wafer of the Sacrament, he muſt be without proper extenſion, ſuitable to the nature of an humane Body.
And if he be whole in every Wafer of the Sacrament, he muſt be whole in many places at once. Which is a contradiction, for then he would have a Body which is one, and not one, but many, as the places are in which he wholly is. And it is againſt the reaſoning of the Angel, Mat. 28. 5, 6. He is not here, for he is riſen. But according to this Doctrine, he might be there and riſen too; and then the Angel's reaſoning was not good. And then Chriſt might be diſtant from himſelf, as that Body now which is at London would be diſtant from that that is at Rome many hundred miles; and that Body which is at Rome, may meet that Body which is at London; and ſo it would be the ſame, and not the ſame, and the ſame would move towards and meet it ſelf. And then Chriſt's Body might move, and not move at the ſame time, and it might be carried and not carried; and it might be eaten and not eaten; in one place eaten with Rats, and at another place worſhip'd; and might be glorious and not be glorious; and innumerable ſuch Abſurdities follow upon this ſenſleſs and unreaſonable Doctrine.
Beſides the barbari…y and bloodineſs of eating and drinking humane Fleſh and Blood, and devouring ones God. And then the moſt wicked Men may receive Chriſt with the mouths of their Body, and likewiſe eat his Fleſh, and drink his Blood. But Chriſt tells us, this we only do now by believing in him, John 6. For the Fleſh profiteth nothing. The Wicked having not Faith, have no part in him, they do not dwell in Chriſt, nor Chriſt in them, as they that eat his Fleſh and drink his Blood do, John 6. 56. And therefore it muſt be underſtood ſpiritually and by Faith.
To conclude, We have as much aſſurance that Tranſubſtantiation is falſe, as that Chriſtianity is true; that is, our Senſe and Reaſon in concurrence with the Holy Scripture. And is not this a goodly Doctrine, which if granted, would raze the Foundation of the Chriſtian Faith, and reduce us to the vaſteſt Uncertainty, ſo that we could reaſonably believe nothing? For what can we be certain of at all, if not that which we perceive clearly with all our Senſes, and which we can reaſon as plainly about, as about any thing whatſoever? Or if our Saviour and his Apoſtles were now preaching or working Miracles in the World, how ſhould we judg of all they ſaid or did, but by thoſe Mediums, which about Tranſubſtantiation we muſt entirely renounce?
CHAP. XXVI.
That the Maſs is not only a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Croſs; but that the ſelf-ſame Chriſt is therein offered, that offered himſelf upon the Croſs; and that this Sacrifice performed by the Prieſt, is truly propitiatory for the Remiſſion of Sins of the Quick and Dead. Council of Trent, Seſſ. 22. chap. 2. Can. 1, 2, 3.
THis is a conſequent of the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation; and the corporal Preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament, without which it cannot ſubſiſt. For if the very Body of our Saviour be not ſubſtantially and properly preſent in the Sacrament, then how can there be a proper Oblation of the Body of Chriſt there? For how can there be a proper Oblation of that that is not properly and ſubſtantially there? The Body of Chriſt being there in a Figure or Repreſentation, there is a commemoration of the Sacrifice of his Body which he offered on the Croſs, and there is a repreſentation of the Sacrifice of his Body made there; upon which account it may be called a Commemorative Sacrifice. But there being no proper or corporal Preſence of his Body, there can be no proper Oblation of it. So that the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation being refuted before, this being a Conſequent of it, muſt fall with it.
There is the Sacrifice of Chriſt in a Figure indeed, that is, there is a Repreſentation of the Sacrifice of Chriſt, by the Bread broken, and the Wine poured forth, which repreſents to us the breaking of his Body, and the ſhedding of his Blood, in the Offering which he made of himſelf on the Croſs. So the Apoſtle ſpeaks, 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do ſhew the Lord's Death till he come. So that therein the Death of Chriſt is ſhewed forth, and we have Communion with him in his Benefits by an Act of Faith, when we partake of the Symbols of his Body and Blood. And it was for this End, for the nouriſhing and confirming our Faith, and the expreſſing our gratitude to our dying Lord, by keeping up a grateful remembrance of his Death, that this holy Rite was inſtituted. But read the Inſtitution entire, Luk. 22. there is not the leaſt intimation of any ſacrificial Act there performed by our Saviour, or commanded the Diſciples, He took Bread and brake it, and gave it to them, ſaying, Take, eat, this is my Body, which is given for you; Do this in remembrance of me. A Sacrifice is offered to God; but here is nothing offered to God, but a repreſentation of that… Body that was to be broken and offered, and the Bread diſtributed to the Diſciples to nouriſh their Faith.
And indeed that which our Saviour did then, could not poſſibly be a propitiatory Sacrifice, unleſs they will ſay, that Propitiation was made by Chriſt before he ſuffered on the Croſs; for this that Chriſt did was certainly before his Suffering. And what need then of the following Oblation on the Croſs, if Propitiation was made before? For what need that be done again, that is ſufficiently done already? So that we conclude, that there was no propitiatory Sacrifice offered in the Supper, becauſe there was no Propitiation made before the Oblation on the Croſs. And if there was no Propitiation made in the Sacrament then, neither is there now, the Inſtitution being always the ſame; and that only being required to be done by the Diſciples, which was then done and appointed by our Saviour, and for the ſame Ends and no other.
And we in many places find, that the purging away of our Sin, and our Sanctification and Redemption, which is the Fruit and Conſequent of Propitiation, is entirely attributed to that offering of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, which was made by himſelf on the Croſs, and which was offered but once; and that by this once offering all this was done, ſo that there is to be no more offering then for Propitiation.
Heb. 7. 26, 27. For ſuch an High Prieſt became us, who needed not as the legal Prieſts, to offer up Sacrifices, firſt for his own Sins, and then for the Peoples, and to do this often, as they did it every Year▪ and often; For this he did once, when he offered up himſelf. And that once in him was ſufficient, to all the Ends of a propitiatory Offering. Chap. 9. 12. For by his own Blood he entred in once into the Holy Place, having obtain'd …ternal Redemption for us, by that once Offering. If the Blood of Chriſt ſhed once upon the Croſs …e of ſuch infinite and eternal efficacy and merit for our Redemption, what need can there be of more? For, v. 13, 14. How ſhould not the Blood of Chriſt▪ who through the eternal▪ Spirit offered himſelf without ſpot to God, purge your Conſcience from dead Works? And, Chap. 10. 10. We are ſanctified, and our Sins expiated, by the offering of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt on…e for all. And, verſ. 13. This Man, Chriſt Jeſus, after he had offered one Sacrifice for Sin, for ever ſat down on the right Hand of God, as having fulfilled his Offering. Verſ. 14. For by one Offering he hath perfected for ever them that are ſanctified. Therefore, ſaith God, in conſideration of this once Offering of Chriſt, Verſ. 17. 18. Their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more. Now, where Remiſſion of theſe is, there is no more Offering for Sin. There is Faith and Repentance indeed required on our part, that we may have benefit in the Offering made; but there is no more Offering for Sin, that being ſufficiently done already by Chriſt's own Offering.
So that to talk of the neceſſity of more, or repeated Offerings and Sacrifices for Propitiation, is in the neceſſary conſtruction of the Fact, whatever is pretended, to impeach the once Offering of Chriſt, which he made himſelf for us, of inſufficiency for the Ends of Propitiation. And by this the Apoſtle argued the inſufficiency of the legal Offerings, Heb. 10. 1, 2. For the Law having only a weak ſhadow of good things to come, and not the very Image and ſolidity of the things, can never with thoſe Sacrifices which they offered Year by Year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect, as touching remiſſion of Sin. For then would they not have ceaſed to be offered? becauſe that the Worſhippers once purged, ſhould have had no more Conſcience of Sins, for which there had been made ſufficient atonement. So that according to the Apoſtle, the repetition and reiteration of Sacrifices, is a note of their Imperfection. And by the ſame reaſon, the Sacrifice of Chriſt once offered upon the Croſs would be imperfect, if there were a neceſſity of its being frequently offered. Which is manifeſtly contrary to all thoſe places before, which aſſert the perfection and ſufficiency of Chriſt's one Offering made on the Croſs.
Beſides, there can be no Propitiation made by any Offering, without the deſtruction of the Offering, in the ſtead of him for whom the Offering is made. But now in the Sacrifice of the Maſs there is no deſtruction of the Offering, as our Adverſaries themſelves allow. Heb. 9. 22. Almoſt all things are by the Law purged with Blood; and without ſhedding of Blood there is no remiſſion. But now in the Maſs there is no ſhedding of Blood; for they ſay, That is an unbloody Sacrifice. And how can that be a Sacrifice for Propitiation and Remiſſion then? An unbloody, undeſtroyed Sacrifice, and yet a propitiatory Sacrifice, cannot ſtand together, but are inconſiſtent. And the Apoſtle argues, verſ. 25, 26. That it was not needful, that Chriſt ſhould offer himſelf often, as the high Prieſt entreth into the holy Place every Year with the Blood of others, (quite contrary to what the Church of Rome pretends, which teacheth, that Chriſt doth offer himſelf often by the hands of the Prieſt in the Maſs, & the very ſelf-ſame Offering too that he offered himſelf upon the Croſs) for then muſt he often have ſuffered ſince the Foundation of the World. Offering and Suffering are join'd together; ſo that if there be an Offering, there muſt be a Suffering; and if there be no Suffering of Chriſt in the Maſs, then there can be no Offering. But now ſaith the Apoſtle, Once hath he appeared in the end of the World, to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himſelf. And as it is appointed to all Men once to die, but after this the Judgment; ſo Chriſt was once offered, when he ſuffered and died as a Sacrifice, to bear the Sins of many; and unto them that look for him, he ſhall appear the ſecond time without Sin, or ſuffering for Sin, unto Salvation. So that the time of Chriſt's Suffering is paſt, and ſo therefore is the time of his Offering, to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himſelf. And there is no more Offering of Chriſt to be to the end of the World, becauſe there is no more dying or ſuffering. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Maſs then is a meer vain pretence.
Neither hath Chriſt inſtituted a Prieſthood upon Earth to offer ſuch a Sacrifice as is pretended; for he himſelf is the only Prieſt. Heb. 7. 23, 24. They truly (under the Law of Moſes) were many Prieſts, becauſe they were not ſuffered to continue by reaſon of death. But this Man, (Jeſus Chriſt) becauſe he continueth for ever, hath an unchangeable Prieſthood: That is, The Levitical Prieſts were a number of Men ſucceeding one another; by which Succeſſion, proviſion was made for the continuation of the Prieſthood, which otherwiſe muſt have expired through the mortality of the Prieſts. But Chriſt hath no Succeſſor in his Prieſthood, which does not paſs from him to any other (for that is the meaning of the word foreign here rendred unchangeable) becauſe he himſelf is not mortal, but continueth for ever. So that as he continues for ever, ſo he continues the only Prieſt for ever. Verſ. 25. Wherefore he is able alſo to ſave them to the uttermoſt that come unto God by him, ſeeing he ever liveth to make interceſſion for them. The Salvation which he works, is not by virtue of any new Sacrifice, or the repetition of what he hath offered, but by virtue of his Interceſſion, which is founded upon the Sacrifice which he offered on Earth. He ever living to make this Interceſſion, thereby obtains and applies to us the infinite Merit of his Death, without the repetition of the Sacrifice for our Salvation. And it is the Spirit of Chriſt, which he hath obtained by his Sacrifice and Interceſſion, to be his Vicegerent now upon Earth in his abſence, that by his Grace enables us to believe, and ſo applies to us the benefit of our Saviour's Death; without which ten thouſand Sacrifices repeated would be of no value to us.
It is to be obſerved, that while the Chief Prieſt was in the Sanctuary, there was never any Sacrifice offered, Levit. 16. But now Jeſus Chriſt is in Heaven, prefigured by the Sanctuary, Heb. 9. Therefore whilſt Chriſt is in Heaven, there is no other true and proper Sacrifice to be offered; for now the Offering is ceaſed.
The Sacrifices now are Prayers and Praiſes, which Chriſt hath made all his People Prieſts ſo far, as to offer theſe Spiritual Sacrifices, 1 Pet. 2. 5. Rev. 1. 6. and, Rom. 12. 1. the Sacrifice of Chriſtians conſiſts in offering themſelves to God by an holy Life, and not in offering Jeſus Chriſt, who having offered himſelf over upon the Croſs, is now at the right Hand of God, where he makes interceſſion for us, but is never more to be offered for us.
As for Melchiſedeck's pretended Offering of Bread and Wine, which they ſay did but typify the Offering of Chriſt under the Species of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, and ſo is to be continued by it. Gen. 14. 18. 'Tis plain that he brought forth Bread and Wine, not to offer to God, but to refreſh Abraham's Men. What he did as a Prieſt, was in his prieſtly bleſſing of Abraham. The Apoſtle makes not the leaſt mention of his Offering, when he compares him with Chriſt, but makes Chriſt to be of his Order upon other accounts. Beſides, tho Chriſt himſelf be a Prieſt after the Order of Melchiſedeck, yet it is plain before, that Chriſt had no Succeſſor in his Prieſthood, but is the only Prieſt himſelf after this Order.
From 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. it cannot be inferred, that in the Sacrament there is an Altar and Sacrifice, as there was among the Jews and Heathens, but only that they who partake of the Lord's Supper, have as truly Communion with him, and thereby do teſtify their Communion with him, and owning his Religion, as they who fed upon the Sacrifices of the Gentiles, that were offered to Devils, did thereby teſtify their Communion with Devils. The Compariſon is made, not between the things themſelves, which are in themſelves of a different Nature, but between the Actions of the Men, and their ſignification, which is the ſame in both ſides, and bears the ſame conſtruction.
CHAP. XXVII.
That the Hoſt is to be worſhipped in the Sacrament with Divine Worſhip, and to be ſolemnly carried about, and ſhewed to the People to be worſhipped. Council of Trent, Seſſ. 13. Chap. 5. Can. 6.
WE do not deny, but that Chriſt may be lawfully adored and worſhipp'd by us in the time of the celebration of the Lord's Supper; but this doth not ſerve the turn of the Church of Rome, which defines that Adoration be given to the Sacrament: That the Sacrament is nevertheleſs to be adored, becauſe it was inſtituted to be received. And the Adoration is not fix'd in the Perſon of Chriſt, as ſeparate from the Hoſt, but as making one Object of Worſhip together with it.
But it is plain to any one's Obſervation, that there is a total ſilence in the Scripture about this Matter; that there is not the leaſt hint or intimation given of it, where ever there is any thing ſpoken of the Supper. The Evangeliſts, in the relation of the Inſtitution, and St. Paul in the repetition of it, are very punctual in ſetting down what our Saviour did and injoin'd at that time. They declare minutely every particular Action and Expreſſion of our Saviour; How he took Bread, and brake and bleſſed it, and gave it to them, ſaying, Take, eat, this is my Body. In like manner he took the Cup, &c. But in all, not one word of worſhipping it, or carrying it in proceſſion to that End: Which queſtionleſs would have been done, if any ſuch Adoration had been intended to it.
St. Paul eſpecially had a moſt fit occaſion to have inſiſted on it, when he ſet himſelf on purpoſe to correct the Irreverence of the Corinthians in their carriage about this Ordinance, 1 Cor. 11. For this would have been the higheſt aggravation of their Fault that could be poſſible, to carry themſelves ſo very irreverently to their deareſt Lord, corporally and ſubſtantially preſent before them. And how could he have inſiſted on a better Topick, to create in them a greater reverence? But behold, there is nothing of all this; he only minds them of the Inſtitution, and that it was done in commemoration of the Death of their Redeemer, who gave himſelf for them; but he hath not one word of all this Popiſh Doctrine of Adoration, Elevation, and Proceſſion, or any thing in the leaſt that hath a tendency to it.
The Scripture alſo almoſt every where is ſpeaking of Chriſt, and informs of his Excellency, and the Divinity of his Perſon; and tells us of the wiſe Mens adoring of him; and gives a Command to honour him, as we honour the Father, John 5. and tells us, that every Knee ſhould how to him, Phil. 2. And that the Angels of God worſhip him, Heb. 1. But why doth it no where tell us, that he is ſubſtantially preſent in the Sacrament, under the ſpecies and form of Bread, that we may worſhip him there, to make the Ordinance more auguſt and ſolemn; eſpecially conſidering that he lies there ſo obſcured under the ſpecies of the Elements, in an unactive and inviſible and inglorious State, where he works no Miracles to atteſt his Divinity as he did in the World, nor gives out the leaſt Ray of his Glory, to engage us to this Worſhip and Adoration?
This is only the Conſequence of that porte…ous Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation taught by the Church of Rome, which is refuted before, and therefore muſt needs fall with it; for it is upon the Tranſubſtantiation of the Bread and Wine into the very Body and Blood of Chriſt, and upon the preſumption of whole Chriſt being there ſubſtantially preſent by this Converſion, that the Adoration of the Hoſt is founded by them. But if Tranſubſtantiation be falſe, and there be no Converſion; if the Bread be Bread ſtill, and the Wine be Wine ſtill▪ then they cannot but confeſs themſelves, ſome of them, that the Worſhip that is given to it is meer down-right Idolatry.
And indeed, what is there in the Idols that the Prophets mention, and the Character that they give of them, but may be every way moſt aptly applied to this God of the Papiſts?
Read the Character that the Prophet Iſaiah gives, Chap. 44. 9, to 20. And what is there there, that may not with the ſame likeneſs be ſpoken of the Hoſt? Firſt, the Country-man ſows Wheat, and reaps it, and gathers it into Barns, and threſheth it out; then 'tis groun'd and ſifted, and the Baker makes it a Wafer, and bakes it, and ſome of it he puts to other uſes; then the Prieſt Conſecrates it, and behold it is a God. Is not this now as ſenſleſs as the former, and juſt ſuch another deſcription as that? And how is that an Idol then, and not this? Do not the Reproaches and Ironies that the Holy Prophets thrown on Idols▪ fall full as heavy upon this that …s adored at the Maſs?
So, Chap. 46. 1, 6, 7. ſee what he ſaith of Idols, and how eaſily it may be applied. For this God too may ſometimes fall to the Ground▪ which then muſt be ſcraped to take up all clean. Men carry it upon their Shoulders, and ſometimes it hath been taken Captive. And may not one caſt the ſame kind of Reproaches on this, as the Prophet Jeremy doth on thoſe, Jer. 10. 2, 3, 4? Surely the Prophets did not urge the Matters pertinently, or did not foreſee that the like might in time be caſt in the Chriſtians Teeth for their Worſhip; or elſe if thoſe were meet and proper Characters of the Idols then, and the ſame agree to the Hoſt, then the Hoſt is an Idol as well as they.
So how doth the Pſalmiſt decipher the Idols of the Heathen, Pſal. 115. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But the Hoſt doth not look near ſo well; it is a little Dough made into a Wafer, the work of the Baker, that doth not carry ſo much likeneſs to a Man, as to have the ſimilitude of Members.
This is liable alſo to the ſame Caſualties and Miſhaps, as thoſe that the Prophets declaim ſo much againſt. Theſe Wafer-Gods are not able to ſave themſelves, they are not able to eſcape from Wars, and Thieves and Robbers. The Prieſts make faſt their Temples with Locks, leſt they ſhould be ſtolen. They are liable to be gnawed upon by things creeping out of the Earth; and when they are eaten, they feel it not. Therefore if the Hoſt be taken by a Mouſe, or any other Creature, and cannot be found, then they do endeavour to take, kill, and burn that Creature, and caſt the Aſhes under the Altar. And if either Flies or Spiders chance to fall into the Chalice, becauſe theſe little Creatures cannot drink ſo little but they drink whole Chriſt, and have him in their little Guts, the Prieſt muſt by all means ſwallow down theſe Flies and Spiders, if he can do it without danger of his Life, or fear of Vomiting. But whereas God doth in Scripture threaten a wicked Church or Nation, that he would ſpue them out of his Mouth; Were this Doctrine true▪ … as a Reverend Perſon ſaith) they might do the like to him; nay, and not only vomit up their God, but cauſe him to be burnt. For if the Prieſt do vomit up the Euchariſt, and find the Species whole, then he muſt reverently eat or ſwallow the Vomit again; but if the Species appear no…, then he is to burn it. In a word, this God of the Papiſts is liable to all thoſe Abuſes that any thing in the World can be, and yet cannot help himſelf. And what greater Indications or Characters can there be of an Idol than what belongs to this? And if the Worſhip of this may be excuſed from Idolatry, then why may not the Worſhip of all others as well, there being as little Godhead in the conſecrated Wafer, (as hath been proved) as in their conſecrated Statues and Images, and therefore Divine Worſhip belongs to it as little.
And whoſe Heart now would not riſe at this? that a Wafer ſhould be adored and reverenced as God himſelf, with the very ſame Worſhip? That that muſt be worſhipped for God, which may be eaten, or burnt, or loſt, or carried away by Mice? or muſt be ſupported or carried about by Men, and cannot ſuſtain it ſelf? That that is to be the Object of Divine Worſhip, that hath neither Eyes to ſee, nor Ears to hear, neither Senſe or Reaſon to feel or underſtand what is done to it? Is this a God that is the work of Mens hands, that the Plow-man ſows, and the Miller grinds, and the Baker bakes? when of the ſame Meal ſome may be uſed to other purpoſes, and this is by the Prieſt made into a God to be worſhipped: Who can think on this without exceeding horror?
For ſuppoſing Tranſubſtantiation not true, as is proved before, then they worſhip that for Chriſt, by a miſtaken ſuppoſition, as if it were very Chriſt, when it is not ſo, but really the Elements of Bread and Wine; and ſo do give that Worſhip to a Creature, whatever their miſtaken ſuppoſition of it be, which is due to God alone; which is properly Idolatry. Neither will it excuſe them to ſay, that they ſuppoſe it to be Chriſt, and that they worſhip the Sacrament only upon ſuch ſuppoſition, and that elſe they ſhould not do it. For if that would excuſe their practice from Idolatry, then it would ſerve as well to excuſe the Idolatries of the blindeſt Heathens, and moſt heretical Idolaters that ever were in the World; who when they worſhipp'd the Sun or Fire, or any other Creatures for Gods, they always did it upon this ſuppoſition, that they were Gods, or elſe they would not have done it neither. And if a Papiſt ſhould happen upon a miſtake, to worſhip an unconſecrated Wafer, yet if he ſhould do it upon the ſame ſuppoſition, it ſeems that it would excuſe him from Idolatry alſo; which yet they themſelves will not allow, becauſe his ſuppoſition is falſe. And if there be no Tranſubſtantiation, ſo is theirs falſe alſo, though the Wafer be conſecrated. And therefore upon their own Doctrine, this ſuppoſition being falſe, will not excuſe them from Idolatry. And it is not their good Intention will excuſe their unlawful Act, no more than it did the Jews in worſhipping the Molten Calf, when they kept a Feaſt unto the Lord. And in crucifying the Lord of Glory, out of ignorant Zeal which they had, Rom. 10. 2. And no more than it doth thoſe that kill the Diſciples of Chriſt, and think that they do God ſervice therein, John 16. 2. For to have an Action morally good, it muſt be conformable to the Rule, both as to the Matter and other Circumſtances, as well as the End. And it is not a good Intention or End alone by it ſelf, that is enough to conſtitute any Action morally good.
CHAP. XXVIII.
That theſe Maſſes are to be approved and commended, where the Prieſt communicates alone. Council of Trent. Seſſ. 22. chap. 6. Can. 8.
BUT this is a meer perverſion of the Inſtitution of the Supper, and contrary to the Ends and Deſign of it. Mat. 26. 26. Jeſus took Bread, and bleſſed it, and brake it, and gave it to the Diſciples; He did not keep it to himſelf; and ſaid, Take, eat; He gave it them to eat, and did not ſet it out, or hold it up to be gazed or look'd on by them, whilſt they were to have no part or ſhare in it themſelves. And he took the Cup, and gave Thanks, and gave it to them, ſaying, Drink ye all of it. Not as the Prieſt doth in the Church of Rome, who drinks all himſelf.
The Sacrament is a viſible Right or Sign, deſigned on purpoſe to expreſs our gratitude to Chriſt, and to keep up a viſible Memorial of his Love in ſuffering for us, to encreaſe and nouriſh our Faith in him, for the receiving of the Benefits of his Death and Paſſion. But how ſhall this be done in it, or attained, by thoſe that are not concerned about the adminiſtration? How do they expreſs their Gratitude, when they do nothing? or how is their Faith advantaged by others uſing the Symbols which Chriſt hath inſtituted, without the applicatory uſe of them for themſelves.
Beſides, the Sacrament is deſigned to ſignify and confirm our Chriſtian Communion one with another, as Brethren partaking of the ſame Benefits, and united and joined together in Chriſtian Love; and therefore it hath been called a Communion. But how can there be a Communion, where the Prieſt is alone by himſelf.
Acts 2. 42. 'Tis ſaid of the Primitive Chriſtians, They continued ſted…aſtly in the Apoſtles Doctrine and Fellowſhip, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. This breaking of Bread was in fellowſhip with one another, and with the Apoſtles in Church-Communion. By breaking of Bread being underſtood the whole Celebration of the Supper, the part being taken to expreſs the whole.
So, 1 Cor. 10. 17. For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body; for we are all partakers of that one Bread. As many Grains of Corn make up one Loaf, being …oulded and joined together, and many Members together make up the Body: So Chriſtians …ited and joined, become one Body in this Sacramental Communion. And it is plain from the Apoſtle, that one deſign of the Supper, is to expreſs and teſtify this Communion; ſo that the Supper then is for Chriſtian Communion. And when the Supper is adminiſtred, there ought to be a Communion. But when the Prieſt receives alone, there is no Communion.
1 Cor. 11. 20, 21. The Apoſtle cenſures them for their uncommunicating kind of celebration of the Lord's Supper. When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. Their coming together in one place, ſignifies, that there ought to have been a Communion together there. But this they failed in; For in eating, every one taketh before other his own Supp…r. Which he cenſures, and then he repeats the Inſtitution, to ſhew that Chriſt intended that an Holy Communion together ſhould be obſerved in theſe their Church-Meetings, for the obſervation of the Feaſts of Charity, and the Lord's Supper. Verſ. 33. Wherefore, my Brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another; to preſerve Unity and Charity with the Brethren, and with one another.
As for the Maſs being a Sacrifice, and that that may be offered alone by the Prieſt; that is refuted before. But however, as a Sacrament it ought not to be adminiſtred alone, but in Chriſtian Communion and Fellowſhip. 'Tis not the Prieſt alone can celebrate it as ſuch; but other faithful People with him are likewiſe to meet and join together to hold this Sacramental Communion.
As for the Spiritual Communion by Faith in Chriſt, which they ſay may be had by thoſe who only look on, and do not communicate in the Sacrament. We do not deny this Spiritual Communion, without which the other is ineffectual. But our Saviour appointed not only a Spiritual Communion, but a Sacramental Communion; and this Sacramental Communion cannot be had without the Sacramental Action, that is, without communicating in the Sacrament: Which therefore, by our Saviour's Commandment, all Chriſtian People ſhould do, and not the Prieſt alone by himſelf.
CHAP. XXIX.
That the Sacrament is to be adminiſtred in one kind only, and that the People are not to have the uſe of the Cup. Council of Trent. Seſſ. 21. chap. 2, 3. Can. 1, 2, 3.
AGainſt that which is written, Mat. 26. 27. And he took the Cup and gave Thanks, and gave it to them, ſaying, Drink ye all of it. Note then, that the Cup is contained in our Saviour's Inſtitution, as well as the Bread, and is as eſſential a part of it. And if by virtue of the Inſtitution, all Chriſtians are obliged to the uſe of the Bread, then by virtue of the ſame Inſtitution, they are likewiſe obliged to the uſe of the Cup. Or if, notwithſtanding the Inſtitution, they may take away the Cup; then, notwithſtanding the ſame Inſtitution, they may take away the Bread alſo; and ſo they may make void the whole Sacrament. Note alſo, that in the ſame quality that the Apoſtles received the Cup, in the ſame quality alſo they received the Bread. If they received the Cup as Prieſts, (and ſo that belongs only to Prieſts) then they received the Bread as Prieſts likewiſe; for there was no alteration made in them, between the two Receivings, of the Cup and the Bread. And by the ſame reaſon they may take away the Bread …oo from all but Prieſts, as well as the Cup. But indeed the Apoſtles were not there at the Supper, in the quality either of Apoſtles or Prieſts. But Jeſus Chriſt did the Office of a Paſtor, and they were the Flock, and ſo partak'd of the Supper, as Chriſt's Diſciples, and not as Apoſtles or Prieſts.
Again, verſ. 28. For this is my Blood of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many for the Remiſſion of Sins. Here we have the Reaſon of our Saviour's Command, why all ſhould drink of the Cup, becauſe this repreſents his Blood, which is ſhed for many for the Remiſſion of Sins. Now to all Chriſtian People there belongs pardon of Sins by the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, and not only to the Prieſt: And therefore all Chriſtian People are to partake of the Cup, and not the Prieſts only. For to whom the reaſon of the Command belongs, to all ſuch belongs the Command. Again note, It is by the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt ſhed and ſeparated from his Body, that Remiſſion of Sins is obtained, of which they are to keep up a Commemoration in the Sacrament. And this Commemoration therefore cannot be kept up by the uſe of the Bread alone without the Cup, which hath a particular relation to his Blood ſhed, or poured out. So that there is a proper and peculiar uſe of the Cup in the Sacrament, as well as of the Bread. And the uſe of it, as it is ſaid, belongs to all thoſe to whom Remiſſion of Sin by Chriſt's Blood ſhed and poured out belongs, which is here in this way repreſented and ſealed to them.
Mark 14. 23. And he took the Cup, and when he had given Thanks, he gave it to them, and they All drank of it. Note, that as Jeſus Chriſt ſaid, Drink ye all of this, ſo it is here expreſly obſerved by this Evangeliſt, that they All drank of it. This Communion of All is particularly obſerved touching the Cup, and not touching the Bread; ſurely, not without Reaſon, but as if the Holy Spirit would thereby purpoſely forewarn us againſt this ſacrilegious preſumption of the Church of Rome, in debarring the People the uſe of the Cup.
John 16. …3. Verily verily I ſay unto you, Except … at the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, … have no li…e i… you. Our Adverſaries believe, that in this place he ſpeaks of the Lord's Supper; and by conſequence they deprive, as much as in them lies, all the poor People of Eternal Life, (if it be to be meant as they interpret it) becauſe they do not permit them to drink of the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt.
1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. They did all eat the ſame ſpiritual Mea… and did all drink the ſame ſpiritual Drink; for they drank of that ſpiritual Rock that followed them; and this Rock was Chriſt. The Iſraelites did not only eat of the Manna, which was a Figure of the Body of Chriſt, but they alſo drank of his Blood in a Myſtery. And why ſhould they with-hold from Chriſtian People the ſame priviledg, when our Saviour hath allowed it to them? For, verſ. 16. The Cup of Bleſſing which we bleſs, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Chriſt? It is the Cup, that is, the Communion of the Blood of Chriſt. And why will they hinder the Chriſtian People then from the Cup, which is the Communion of his Blood. For if the Cup be the Communion of his Blood, it is in vain to pretend that whole Chriſt is contained and communicated under the Species of Bread. Verſ. 17. For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body, for we are all partakers of that▪ one Bread, and of that one Cup, as it is added in ſome Copies. But whether theſe words were in the beginning, or were added afterwards, 'tis plain, that whenſoever they were inſerted, the Cup was then in uſe among the People.
1 Cor. 11. 25. This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood. Here the Apoſtle repeating the Inſtitution of the Supper, lets us know, that it is the Cup that is the Seal of the New Teſtament confirmed by the Blood of Chriſt. And ſhould not thoſe then, who have part in the Covenant, have part alſo in the Seals of the Covenant▪ Now all Believers have part in the Covenant, therefore they ought alſo to partake of the Cup, that is the Seal of the Covenant. And upon this the Command follows, Do this, as o…t as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. So that all thoſe who are in the Covenant, and ſo ought to celebrate the memory of the Death and Paſſion of Jeſus Chriſt in the Sacrament, where the Covenant is confirmed, ought to partake of the Cup for this End. But all true Chriſtians ought to do this, and conſequently ought to partake of the Cup: For if the Command of Doing this in remembrance of Chriſt, added after the Bread, Luke 22. 19, 20. make it the Duty of all Chriſtians to partake of the Bread for that End. Then the ſame Command added after the Cup, which is here mentioned by St. Paul, makes it their Duty in like manner to partake of the Cup. And if they are not obliged by this to the uſe of the Cup, neither are they obliged by that to the uſe of the Bread; and ſo they may take away from them the uſe of the Bread too as well as the Cup; or elſe they ought to continue both, a… there is the ſame Command for both; Verſ. 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do ſhew the Lord's Death till be come. So that they muſt drink this Cup, as well as eat this Bread, to ſhew the Lord's Death. This is to be done by both together, and not by either ſingly. And all thoſe for whom Chriſt died then, are obliged to ſhew his Death in the Sacrament, by the uſe of the Cup, as well as by the uſe of the Bread. But Chriſt died not only for the Prieſts or Miniſters of the Goſpel, but alſo for the People. And therefore this order concerns both.
Verſ. 28. But let a Man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. This is ſpoken to the People of Corinth; and it is plain, from many Paſſages in this and the foregoing Chapter, that the People of the Church of Corinth did drink of the Cup, and committed great exceſs in their drinking. But notwithſtanding this Abuſe, the Apoſtle doth not preſume to alter the Inſtitution, or to take it away. And what ſhall we think… then of the preſumptuous boldneſs of the Church of Rome, that dares to do this in manifeſt defiance of, and open contradiction to our Saviour's Command and Inſtitution, and without the leaſt colour of any good reaſon?
If they ſay, whole Chriſt is contained in the Bread: was it not ſo in the beginning of our Saviour's Inſtitution, as well as now? And if our Saviour notwithſtanding inſtituted the Cup, how do they dare to take it away upon this vain Preſumption, as if they knew better than our Saviour what was fit to be done? This Doctrine of Concomitancy of the Blood with the Body, did not keep our Saviour from inſtituting the Cup; and how comes it to be ſo good a Reaſon now, to take away what he was inſtituted? He hath appointed different Symbols, one for his Body alone, and another for his Blood, as ſhed and ſeparated from his Body; the one to eat, and the other to drink. And how ſhould the Bread, which is to be eaten, which repreſents his Body without the Blood, repreſent to us the Blood as ſhed and ſeparated from his Body, by way of concomitancy, when they are conſidered as aſunder? If ſo, then the Blood of Chriſt muſt be eaten too with the Bread, but is not drank; whereas our Saviour inſtituted the Cup as a Symbol of his Blood ſhed, and ſo to be drank apart, as the Symbol of it, and not eat by way of concomitancy with the Bread, which is the particular Symbol or Figure of his Body.
But ſome have urged, that ſome of the Blood may be apt to hang upon Mens Beards, and ſo be profaned; and therefore for this reaſon the People ought not to have the uſe of the Cup. As if there were not Beards in our Saviour's Time alſo as well as now; but they were new ſprung up, or new come in faſhion in theſe latter Ages. But it ſeems our Saviour did not conſider this very weighty Reaſon.