Transubstantiation, Text

Transubstantiation · Text

p. 1MATTH. xxvi. 26.

This is my Body.

THE Church of Rome hath brought in the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, and made it an Article of the Chriſtian Faith, that all Perſons in her Communion are required to give their Aſſent unto, and receive as neceſſary to Salvation. Yea it is an Article of the Romiſh Faith that they are moſt hot in, and have now for ſome Centuries contended for with Fire and Sword, to the diſturbing of the Peace of Chriſtendom, and ſhedding of Rivers of Chriſtian Blood; Anathematizing, Curſing, Damning, and (where their Arms are long enough) Murthering and Butchering all, without difference, that refuſe to give their Aſſent unto it. And the owning of it (together with the Sacrifice of the Maſs, that is bottomed on it, and riſeth out of it) is the Mark of the Papal Religion, and foreign, or foreign, i. e. Mark or Note of Diſtinction betwixt a Papiſt and a Proteſtant. And therefore this was the particular and main Point, that moſt of our Bleſſed Martyrs, in the Days of Queen Mary, were firſt called to anſwer unto, and declare their Judgment about, and then burned at Stakes all over the Nation, for denying of it, and bearing witneſs againſt it. And I wiſh, that if ever the Romaniſts gain another like Opportunity, they do not take the ſame Meaſures, proceed in the ſame Method, and make uſe of their old Argument, Fire and Faggot, againſt whoſoever ſhall not admit and embrace this Doctrine. It is therefore the great Concern of all Proteſtants, who would not make Shipwrack of their Faith, when it comes to a Fiery Tryal, to make it their Buſineſs to have their Minds rightly informed, and Judgments eſtabliſhed in this Matter, that ſo they may ſtand faſt in the Faith.

Now theſe Words of our Saviour, are the Foundation upon which they would build this monſtrous Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation. Of which they ſay,

1. That before the Act of Conſecration, the Elements are true and proper Bread and Wine.

2. That after the Conſecration there remaineth no Subſtance of Bread, or Wine, or any other Subſtance, but the Subſtance of Chriſt, God and p. 2Man: Or the very Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt, as he was born of the Virgin Mary, and did hang upon the Croſs. The Subſtance of the Bread (by the Strength and Efficacy of Chriſt's mighty Word, ſpoken by the Prieſt) being converted into the Natural Body, and the Subſtance of the Wine into the Natural Blood of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, under the Terms of Bread and Wine.

3. This Tranſmutation, Converſion, or turning of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Chriſt, is that which they call Tranſubſtantiation.

4. This Tranſubſtantiation is made by the Prieſt pronouncing (with an intention to conſecrate) theſe five Words over the Bread, viz. Hoc eſt enim Corpus meum, For this is my Body: Hereby this ſtrange Change is made, yet ſo, as the moſt Learned of them are not agreed among themſelves about the Manner of it; that is, whether the Subſtance of the Bread be turned into the Subſtance of Chriſt's Body productive, ſo as the Body of Chriſt is made ex materia panis, as one thing is made of another; or whether it be adductivè, by a Receſſion of the Subſtance of the Bread, and an Adduction or Succeſſion of the Body of Chriſt into the room of it, as one thing ſucceeds in the place of another, the firſt being voided. Thomas is for the former, par. 3. p. 75. Art. 3. and Suarez and Bellarmine are for this latter: which indeed is no Tranſubſtantiation, but a meer Succeſſion. But leaving them to wrangle this out among themſelves, (tho I believe it is a Matter wherein they will never accord together) we ſhall proceed to take a view of this new and amuſing, or amazing Paradox.

Now that Tranſubſtantiation is a moſt prodigious and monſtrous Opinion, or Fiction, will be very evident from theſe Three Particulars.

I. The Original and Riſe of it.

II. The Nature or Conſtitution of it.

III. The Products, Conſequences, and Fruits of it.

I. Conſider the Original and Riſe of Tranſubſtantiation, from what Root or Fountain it is derived. And if Enquiry be made after the Birth and firſt appearing of it in the World, it will appear that this monſtrous Opinion crept in, and came up by degrees in an Age of univerſal Darkneſs and Debauchery, wherein an eaſy Entrance and Admittance was given not onelyonly to this, but alſo unto a Deluge of many other corrupt Doctrines and Practices. It is confeſſed by all that the 9th, 10th, and 11th Centuries were overſpread with Ignorance and Profaneneſs, inſomuch that Baronius, Platina, Genebrard, Bellarmine and other approved p. 3Writers of the Romiſh Church (Men we may be ſure that would not ſay the worſt) make very ſad Exclamations and Complaints. Baronius (ad An. 900) hath theſe Words, In the nine hundredth year of Chriſt, the third Indiction, a new Age begins, which by reaſon of its Aſperity and Barrenneſs of Good, is wont to be called the Iron Age; from the Deformity of abounding Wickedneſs, the Leaden; and from the Scarcity of Writers, the obſcure Age. And (ad An. 974) he ſaith, That the whole World was overſpread with Darkneſs, as thick as that in Egypt; and again (ad An. 992) that at that time (as it was reported) there were ſcarce any Learned Men at Rome. And abundance more to the ſame Purpoſe. Platina calls the Popes of thoſe days monſtra & portenta hominum. Genebrard (in Chron. of the 9th Century) calls it the unhappy Age, being barren of ingenions and learned Men: and complains that the Popes were altogether fallen from the Vertue of their Predeceſſours, and were rather Apoſtates than Apoſtles. Bellarmine cries out, vide Seculum infelix! Behold the unhappy Age, in which were not to be found any famous Writers, or Councils. Pope Sergius was a Slave to all Vices, and a moſt wicked Man. Baronius ad An. 908. Severall ſucceeding Popes were of the Breed of this Sergius, and his famous Strumpet Murazia, who had a great Hand in making and unmaking of Popes. John the 13th, one of Murozia's Brats, made Deacons in his Stable among his Horſes, and Boys Biſhops, drank a Health to the Devil, and was given to Sacriledge, Perjury and Adultery; as Baleus, from Sylveſter the 2d, An. 999, to Hildebrand or Gregory the 7th incluſively (An. 1075.) The Popes (ſays Benno) were all Negromancers. This Gregory (or Lurva Diaboli, as Luther ſtiled him) poyſoned 6 or 7 Popes before he could obtain the Chair: he threw the Sacrament into the Fire; and was at laſt depoſed for his intolerable Enormities. It were eaſy to proſecute this to a great Length, and produce Multitudes of Inſtances out of their own Authors, of the lamentable Ignorance and Wickedneſs both of Clergy and Laity in thoſe Ages. Now in this time when Darkneſs and Profaneneſs were grown over the Face of the Church, and Church-men minded nothing but the Advancement of their Luſts and ſecular Intereſts, this deformed and miſhapen Monſter firſt appeared. And Diſputes aroſe about the real Preſence, which ſome begun then to aſſert, but were oppoſed by Bertram, Erigena, Rabanus, and others in the 9th Century, and by Berengarius in the 11th. About the year 1170, Lombard begun to aſſert that the Subſtance of the Bread was turned into the Body, and the Subſtance of the Wine into the Blood of Chriſt. Sent. L. 4. diſt. 10. p. 4Lit. D. yet Diſtinct. 11 Lit. A. He confeſſeth, that he was not able to define the Manner of it: But having reckoned up ſeveral Opinions, he concludes, that there is no Subſtance left but the Body and Blood of Chriſt; and therefore, Diſtinct, 12. Lit. A. determines that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine exiſt ſine Subjecto. After Lombard this Subject became the great Apple of Contention among the School-Men, who ventilated it to and fro by many Diſputations, whereby it was kept alive, till at laſt in the fourth Council of Lateran, under Innocent the 3d, An. 1215. It was eſtabliſhed as a Decree of the Sacred Council, and Point of Faith, That the Body and Blood of Chriſt were truly contained under the kinds of Bread and Wine, the Bread being tranſubſtantiated into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of Chriſt. This Decree the Council of Trent, Seſſ. 13. Can. 2 hath confirmed with an Anathema, thundered out againſt all that deny Tranſubſtantiation.

And thus this Monſter was brought forth, and came out in the Midnight of the Church, when (upon the Matter) all Men were faſt aſleep.

II. The monſtrouſneſs of this Opinion will appear from the Conſideration of the Conſtitution and Nature of Tranſubſtantiation. Look upon it in this reſpect, and it will be found to be the moſt prodigious Monſter that ever was brought forth. A Monſter that is conſtituted and compounded of many.

1. Groſs and inextricable Abſurdities.

2. Manifeſt Impoſſibilities and Contradictions.

3. Open and abominable Impieties.

4. Horrible Blaſphemies.

There is ſuch a Colluvies, Cloaca, or Sink of all theſe meeting in Tranſubſtantiation, as never met together in any of the moſt abſurd Opinions that the Pagan World hath been given up unto.

Firſt, It is compounded of many groſs Abſurdities. Abſurdities againſt Senſe, Reaſon, Faith, Scripture.

1. It goes againſt Senſe. Senſe when duly diſpoſed, or rightly circumſtantiated (that is, when the Organ is ſound and right, the Medium or Mean fitly qualified, and the Object duly proportionated) is a competent Judg of things that are the proper Objects of Senſe. St. Luke therefore brings this as the great Evidence and Proof of the Truth and Certainty of thoſe things which he communicated by Writing, unto the p. 5World, concerning our Saviour's Perſon, Doctrine and Miracles, Luke. 1.1, 2, 3. And St. John uſeth the ſame Argument, 1 Joh. 1.2, 3. Yea our Lord Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, when he would convince the Apoſtles (who thought he had been a Spirit, at his appearing to them after his Reſurrection) that it was he himſelf, ſends them for Conviction and Satisfaction to their own Senſes, Luk. 24.36, 37, 38, 39, 40. 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 Joh. 20.27. he uſeth the ſame Argument to doubting Thomas. Reach hither thy Finger, and behold my Hands; and reach hither thy Hand, and thruſt it into my Side, and be not faithleſs, but believing. Thus Senſe is a competent Judg of matters of Senſe. But now if we receive Tranſubſtantiation, we muſt renounce and go againſt, or clean croſs to all our Senſes. For if we make our Senſes (when beſt diſpoſed) Judges in this Caſe, and bring a Popiſh Hoſt, or Wafer to this Bar, they will all, with one accord, conclude that it is Bread, and not Fleſh; Bread and nothing elſe. The Eye, the Touch, the Taſte, the Smell will all agree in this. Yea if Indians, or Americans (who are perfectly unconcerned in theſe Matters, and know nothing of our Differences) be called in to give their Vote in this Controverſy, they will without all Controverſy forthwith determine againſt Tranſubſtantiation: For it is plainly contrary to the common Senſe of all Mankind. He muſt have ſomething more than his five Wits about him, nay go quite out of all his Senſes, that finds another Subſtance and Body, than that of Bread, in a conſecrated Wafer. If it be ſaid, But our Senſes may be deceived, and repreſent things to us otherwiſe than they are. I ſay, true, it may be ſo, when there is ſome indiſpoſition of the Organ, or Medium, or Object. But then if Tranſubſtantiation be true, and there be a deception in this Caſe, it muſt be granted that the Senſes of all Men are deceived; and that the Senſes of all Men are deceived not for once, or at ſome times, but conſtantly Day after Day, and Year after Year. And that they are thus deceived when, and while they are in every reſpect beſt diſpoſed and fitted for performance of their proper Acts. And further, that they are deceived after this manner, about a moſt ſenſible Object, and in a matter wherein it is as hard to think how they ſhould be thus univerſally deceived, as in any one thing whatſoever, that is, the Object of Senſe. And now if this be once granted, it takes away and quite overthrows all certainty of Senſe, and conſequently all certainty of Faith and Belief in the main Points of Religion; as of our Saviour's Perſon, Doctrine, Miracles, Paſſion, Reſurrection, Aſcenſion: And ſo undermines the very Foundation, and ſhakes the chief Pillars of Chriſtianity.

p. 62. It is againſt Reaſon. Reaſon goes beyond Senſe, but this Tranſubſtantiation goes beyond Reaſon; and not only beyond Reaſon, but againſt Reaſon: And is contrary to the broadeſt Light of Reaſon. For Tranſubſtantiation.

(1.) Makes the Body of Chriſt to be in Heaven, on the Earth, and in Millions of places of the Earth at one and the ſelf-ſame Time.Non poteſt unum corpus eſſe localiter in duobus locis, quia ita idem a ſeipſo divideretur. Thom. part. 4. diſt. 44. q. 2. Art. 2. Now this is againſt Reaſon. Reaſon dictates this, that all corporal Subſtances or Bodies, are in loco circumſcriptivè circumſcribed in a certain Place, and cannot be in more than one, at one time. It is wholly inconſiſtent with Reaſon to ſay, that the ſame Man is at London and at Rome, ſitting in his Houſe and walking in his Fields, at the ſame time: And is it not as abſurd to ſay, that the Body of Chriſt is locally in Heaven, and yet at the ſame time really, ſubſtantially and locally in a thouſand thouſand different and diſtinct places of the Earth?

(2.) Gives a nutritive vertue unto meer Accidents. That the Elements received in the Sacrament do nouriſh the Bodies of the Communicants, cannot be denied. Now according to their Doctrine, there remains no Subſtance of Bread and Wine, but the Accidents only, as length, breadth, thickneſs, whiteneſs, redneſs: And therefore it muſt be theſe that refreſh and nouriſh. But what can be more abſurd and irrational than ſuch a Fancy? Can a Body receive nouriſhment from Length, and Colour, and other bare Accidents? This is above Reaſon Yet if Tranſubſtantiation be true, this (whatever Reaſon may ſuggeſt to the contrary) is moſt true. The Monk Amonius (lib. 5. de geſtù Franc. cap. 29.) reports that Ludovicus Pius received nothing but the Euchariſt for 40 Days together. And other Authors among them have reported, that they have had ſome Holy Men who would feed upon nothing but the Euchariſt; and ſo (according to their Opinion) lived on meer Accidents: And thus all the Romaniſts may live on bare Accidents. For (as Tolet de inſtruct. Sacerd. l. 2. c. 25.) a Prieſt may tranſubſtantiate at once a whole Pantrey of Bread, and a whole Cellar of Wine.

(3.) Sets up the Accidents of Bread, as Colour, Figure, Smell, Taſte, without any Subject or Body in which they ſubſiſt. They affirm that the Subſtance of the Bread and Wine is totally avoided, yet confeſs that the Accidents of the Bread and Wine remain, ſuch as Whiteneſs, Redneſs, Moiſture. Now where, or in what Subject do theſe Accidents ſubſiſt? In the Elements: This cannot be, for the Elements are quite annihilated, or voided at leaſt. Do they exiſt in the Body of Chriſt? By no means, this they all deny: Where then? Why, certainly no where. Here is color, & nihil coloratum, ſapor, & nihil ſaporatum, quantitus, & nihil quantum, qualitas, & nihil quale. Whiteneſs, p. 7and nothing white, Savour, and nothing that ſavoureth, Length, and nothing long, Breadth, and nothing broad. Now this is ſuch Divinity as croſſes Reaſon, and offers violence to Nature. For accidens eſt ens in alio. Accedentis eſſe, eſt in eſſe, i. e. eſſe in ſubjecto. The very Being of an Accident conſiſteth in its exiſting in a Subſtance or Subject; and it can be no longer than its Subject is in being.

(4.) Makes that which is plain Bread to be no Bread. This again puts Reaſon to a Nonplus, to conceive how a Wafer, that hath the form of Bread, the quantity of Bread, the whiteneſs of Bread, the ſmell of Bread, and the taſte of Bread, ſhould yet be no Bread; but very Fleſh, and a whole Human Body. This amuſeth Reaſon, and is ſo contrary to it, that every Chriſtian who will but make uſe of his Reaſon muſt ſay, as Thomas Spurdance the Martyr, when the Chancellor of Norwich asked him, Do'ſt thou not believe that after the Words of Conſecration in the Sacrament of the Altar, there is the ſame Body of Chriſt as was born of the Virgin Mary? No, ſaid Spurdance, for that Body conſiſted of Fleſh, Blood, and Bones; and here is no ſuch thing.

Thus Tranſubſtantiation is againſt Reaſon, and brings in ſuch things to be received, as no Man can receive without doing open violence to his Reaſon.

3. It is againſt Faith. As Reaſon goes beyond Senſe, ſo Faith goes beyond Reaſon, and ſees farther than Reaſon can reach when moſt elevated. But Tranſubſtantiation outgoes them all, Senſe cannot reach it, Reaſon cannot overtake it, Faith cannot fathom it. It impoſes things upon the Belief of Men, that are not only very hard to be believed, but things that are wholly incredible, paſt Credit or Belief. It is altogether incredible,

(1.) That a Prieſt can make a Body that was made and exiſtent long before he himſelf had any Being. Can make the Body of Chriſt now in a Wafer, which was made more than ſixteen hundred Years agoe in the Womb of the Virgin. Can a Father beget a Son that is already begotten and born? Can a Man that was born at London 40, 50, or 60, Years ſince, be born to Day or to Morrow at Lancaſter? Who can believe this? For as one ſays, factum facere, & factum intectum facere, are equally both incredible and impoſſible.

(2.) That our Saviour had two Bodies, two contrary Bodies, and both theſe at one and the ſame Time. Is not this incredible? Yet whoſoever will believe Tranſubſtantiation, muſt believe this. Believe that when he inſtituted, and celebrated his laſt Supper with the Diſciples he had two Bodies.

p. 81. One ſpeaking, moving, acting in bleſſing, breaking, and giving the Bread; another without motion or action.

2. One viſible and palpable, another altogether inviſible, and hidden under the forms of Bread and Wine.

3. One mortal, weak, and ready to be crucified, another impaſſible, and obnoxious to no Suffering.

4. One ſitting at the Table among the Diſciples, another at the ſame time in the Mouths and Stomachs of the Diſciples.

5. One Body breaking another Body, and dividing it among them; or rather one giving another whole and entire Body to every one of them. Are not all theſe hard things? Is it not paſt Belief, that Chriſt, whole Chriſt, ſhould be eaten by every one of them, and yet ſit among them? That he ſhould at the ſame inſtant ſit whole at the Table, and be in each of their Stomachs, and whole in every one of them, whole in Peter, whole in John, whole in James, and ſo in the reſt? What may they not believe that can believe theſe things? Verily he muſt firſt reſolve to believe any thing, things paſt belief, who reſolves to be a Papiſt.

4. It is againſt Scripture, as well as Senſe, Reaſon, and Faith. The Word of God (foreign) is clearly againſt it, and affirms the Elements to be Bread and Wine both before and after the Conſecration. In the Inſtitution it is expreſly ſaid, that Jeſus took Bread, and bleſſed it, and brake it, and gave it to the Diſciples, and ſaid, Take, eat, this is my Body; Mat. 26.26. Here that which he took was Bread, that which he bleſſed was Bread, that which he brake was Bread, that which he gave was Bread, and that he ſpake of when he ſaid, This is my Body, was Bread; for by this he meant that which he then held in his Hands, and when he ſpake theſe Words, he held nothing but Bread in his Hands. And therefore by this he meant that Bread, and conſequently by This is my Body, he meant this Bread is my Body; that is, a Sign of my Body. So alſo in the Inſtitution of the Cup, that which he calls his Blood, v. 28. he calls the Fruit of the Vine, v. 29. Plainly declaring that it was not his proper Blood, but Wine, as a Sign of his Blood, that he gave. The Apoſtle Paul repeating the Inſtitution, as he had received it of the Lord, calleth it Bread four times over, 1 Cor. 11.23, 26, 27, 28. and 1 Cor. 10.16. The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Chriſt? and v. 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread. So Acts 2.46. The Diſciples brake Bread from Houſe to Houſe. And Acts 20.7. The Diſciples came together to break Bread. Now this, as themſelves confeſs, is meant of the Euchariſt.

Moreover, that Tranſubſtantiation is repugnant to the Scripture, is plain: for if it were admitted, then it would follow, either, 1. That p. 9Chriſt is not aſcended to Heaven. Or, 2. That he deſcendeth daily from Heaven. Now both theſe are contrary to expreſs Articles of the Chriſtian Faith, and plain Teſtimony of the Scripture.

(1.) If we ſay, he aſcended not; It is contrary to Mark 16.19. Luke 24.51. Acts 1.9, 10. Acts 2.33. Eph. 4.8, 9, 10. Col. 3.1. 1. Tim. 3.16. Heb. 4.14. Heb. 8.1. Heb. 9.24. &c. And to his own expreſs Declaration, John 16.28. I leave the World, and go to the Father.

(2.) If we ſay, that he deſcendeth daily from Heaven; it is no leſs repugnant to the Teſtimony of the Angels, Acts 1.10, 11. This ſame Jeſus which is taken up from you into Heaven, ſhall ſo come, in like manner as ye have ſeen him go into Heaven, i. e. clearly, viſibly, gloriouſly, as Mat. 24.30. and 25.31. 1 Theſſ. 4.16. And to the Teſtimony of the Apoſtle Peter, Acts 3.19, 20, 21. and of our Saviour himſelf, Mat. 26.11. Joh. 12.8. Me ye have not always. Upon which Words, Auguſtin (Tract. in Joan. 50.Loquitur de preſentia corporis. Nam ſecundum Majeſtatem ſuam, ſecundum Providentiam, ſecundum ineffabilem & in Viſibilem Gratiam, impletur quod ab eo dictum eſt, Ecce, ego vobiſcum ſum uſ que ad conſummationem ſeculi. Secundum carnem vero quam verbum aſſumpſit, ſecundum quod de virgine natus eſt, ſecundum id quod a Judaeis comprehenſus eſt, quod ligno crucifixus, quod de cruce depoſitus, quod Linteis involutus, quod in Sepulchro conditus, quod in Reſurrectione manifeſtatus: non ſemper habebitis me vobiſcum.) hath theſe Words, He ſpeaketh of his Corporal Preſence. For in reſpect of his Majeſty, Providence, ineffable and inviſible Grace, that which he ſaid is fulfilled. Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the World. But according to the Fleſh which was aſſumed by the Word, according to that which was born of the Virgin, according to that which was apprehended by the Jews, which was Crucified, which was taken down from the Croſs, which was wrapped in Linen, which was laid in the Sepulchre, which was ſhewed in the Reſurrection: Ye have not me alway with you. When Jeffrey Hurſt of Shakerley, in Lancaſhire, was brought before Juſtice Leland, he cauſed a Maſs to be Sung, and bad Jeffrey firſt go and ſee his Maker, and then he would talk with him. Jeffrey anſwered, Sir, my Maker is in Heaven. Chriſtians, the Body of Chriſt is in Heaven, Tranſubſtantiation, in contradiction to the Scripture, places it in the Earth.

This is the firſt; Tranſubſtantiation is made up of many Abſurdities, againſt Senſe, Reaſon, Faith, and Scripture.

Secondly, It is compounded of many manifeſt Impoſſibilities and Contradictions. Tranſubſtantiation is an impoſſible Paradox. It is impoſſible that there ſhould be any ſuch thing.

1. It is impoſſible that one and the ſame Body ſhould ſimul & ſemel all at once, or at one time be both viſible and inviſible, diviſible and indiviſible, p. 10one and many, in Heaven and upon the Earth, all here and all in a thouſand other places. All theſe are plain Impoſſibles; yet Tranſubſtantiation carries them all in its Womb.

2. It is impoſſible that Chriſt ſhould eat Himſelf, his own Body. Now the Papiſts confeſs that he ate and drank with the Diſciples in the Sacrament, whence it neceſſarily followeth, granting Tranſubſtantiation, that Chriſt did eat Himſelf, and was all at once whole at the Table, whole in his own Hands, whole in his own Mouth; whole within Himſelf, whole without Himſelf, devoured by Himſelf and untouched. All theſe are apparent Contradictions, and of ſuch a nature, as nothing can be ſaid that is more monſtrous, or liker to expoſe Chriſtianity to more open Obliquy and Reproach. Yet I ſay, by this Doctrine Chriſt ate Himſelf, ſat at the Table, and was in his own Mouth, and in his own Stomach. Oh Prodigious! The Body of Chriſt was in the Body of Chriſt. Others have told us of Men-eaters, but never any but Papiſts of any Self-eaters, who at once eat his whole Self.

3. It is impoſſible that the Body of Chriſt ſhould be eaten over-night by the Diſciples, and yet be crucified the next Day. What! Could it be both eaten, and not eaten? It brings to mind the Story of Alice Driver (Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 887.) She conferring with Dr. Gaſcoign, asked him, whether it was Chriſt's Body that the Diſciples did eat overnight? He anſwered, Yea. What Body was it then (ſaid ſhe) that was Crucified the next Day? He replied, Chriſt's Body. How could that be (ſaid ſhe) when his Diſciples had eaten him over night? Except he had two Bodies, as by your Argument he had, one they did eat over-night, and another was Crucified the next Day. Such a Doctor, ſuch Doctrine. This put her Examiners to that Shame, that one looked on another, and had not another Word to ſpeak.

Thirdly, It is compounded of many abominable Impieties, even ſuch as deſerve to be had in utter Deteſtation and Abomination among all them that name the Name of Chriſt. It is execrable Impiety to ſay,

1. That the Son of God, and Saviour of Man, and the Devil, both entered into Judas together.

2. That the Body and Blood of Chriſt may kill and deſtroy the Bodies of Men. Yet this ſuppoſed, viz. that Tranſubſtantiation is true, it may be, yea hath been ſo: the Emperor Henry the 7th, was poyſoned in the Hoſt, and Pope Victor the 3d was poyſoned in the Chalice. Now they muſt grant that the Poyſon which killed them, was either, 1. In the Elements, or in the bare Accidents, or in the Body and Blood of Chriſt. The firſt they muſt flatly deny, if they will be conſtant to p. 11their own Hypotheſis; the ſecond is groſly abſurd; and therefore they muſt grant the third, and that is horribly impious.

3. It is execrable Impiety to ſay, that the Body of Chriſt, 1. May be incloſed in a Wafer. 2. May be devoured and eaten by wicked Men. 3. May be gnawed and torn with the Teeth of Men. 4. May be mangled and cut in pieces with Swords or Knives. 5. May be eaten by Mice and Rats, and other Vermin. 6. May grow mouldy and rot away. 7. May breed Worms and Maggots. 8. May be ſtolen, as Laban's Gods, Gen. 31.30. and never found again. 9. May be thrown into the Mire, and trodden under the Feet of Men and Beaſts. 10. May be caſt out into the Draught or Jakes. 11. May be ſwept to the ſtinking Dunghil. All theſe are horrible to be once named, yet, granting Tranſubſtantiation, they may be done, are done, and many of them cannot but be done almoſt every Day. If Tranſubſtantiation be true, then the Body of Chriſt is incloſed in a Wafer, eaten by wicked Men, may be torn with Teeth, mangled with Swords, gnawed by Vermin &c. Whatſoever entereth in at the Mouth, goeth into the Belly, and is caſt out into the Draught, Mat. 15.17. I ſhall ſhut up this with the Saying of Margery Baxter, to one who told her that ſhe believed, that the Sacrament of the Altar, after Conſecration was the very Body of Chriſt in form of Bread. Margery anſwered, your Belief is naught: for if every ſuch Sacrament were God, and the very Body of Chriſt, there ſhould be an infinite Number of Gods. Becauſe that a thouſand Prieſts and moe, do make a thouſand ſuch Gods, and afterward eat them every day, and void them out again by their hinder parts, filthily ſtinking under the Hedges, where you may find a great many ſuch Gods, if you will ſeek for them. Act. and Mon. 610.

Fourthly, It is compounded of many horrible Blaſphemies. Tranſubſtantiation is a name and thing that is full of Blaſphemy. For,

1. It overthrows the Humanity of Chriſt. Jeſus Chriſt hath not a true human Body, if it want a human Shape, the Figure, Quantity, and eſſential Properties of a Body. Now a Body that is inviſible, impalpable, without Extention or Quantity, Parts or Members ſcituated apart in their places, due diſtance of Parts, juſt Dimenſions, Place or Room taken up by it, wants the Figure and eſſential Properties of a Body, and is foreign. And ſuch a Body is Chriſt's Body made by Tranſubſtantiation. It is true, they are not agreed in what manner the Body of Chriſt is in the Hoſt. Some will have it to be there abſque magnitudine, without quantity. Others will have it to be there in quantity, but without Figure, Extenſion, or Diſtinction of Parts. See p. 12Bellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 5. We have a remarkable inſtance of this, in the diſſention betwixt Dr. Kenall, and Dr. Chadſey, as they were examining one Thomas Wood. Kenall having asked Wood this queſtion, Doſt thou not believe that after the Prieſt hath ſpoken theſe Words, This is my Body, that there remains no more Bread and Wine, but the very Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt, as he was born of the Virgin, and did hang upon the Croſs? Wood anſwered, I pray you, Maſter Chancellor, give me leave to ask you another: When God commanded Ezekiel to ſhave off his Hair, and to burn a third part in the Fire, and this,Ezek. 5.5.Ezek 5:5 ſaith he, is Jeruſalem; I pray you, was it Hair that was burnt, or Jeruſalem? Kenall anſwered, It did ſignify Jeruſalem. Even ſo theſe Words of Chriſt are to be underſtood, ſaid Wood. Upon this Chadſey replyed, I will prove that Chriſt is here preſent under the Form of Bread and Wine, but not in quantity and quality. Yes, ſaith Kenall, he is here preſent in quantity and quality. Chadſey returned, he is here preſent under a Form, but not in quantity and quality. And thus the one ſaid Yes, the other ſaid No: Till the Contention grew ſo hot, that they foamed again, and Kenall departed in a great Rage. Whereupon Wood ſaid, Behold, good People, they would have us to believe that which they do not believe themſelves, nor can agree upon. Yet tho they cannot agree in what Manner the Body of Chriſt is preſent in the Sacrament, they are thus far at one, viz. That the Body of Chriſt is incloſed in the Wafer, and not only ſo, but that the Body of Chriſt is whole and entire in every Crum and Point of the Wafer, and Drop of the Wine: And whole and entire, as many times as there are Crumbs and Drops in the Bread and Wine. Now this muſt neceſſarily deſtroy his Humanity. For a Body in all Points, like unto ours (Sin only excepted) as our Saviour's was. (Heb 2.17.) I ſay, a Body of ſuch Dimenſions cannot be in ſo ſmall a room as a little thin Wafer, and ſo often over alſo, as there are ſmalleſt Points in that Wafer: But it muſt be without Figure, diſtinct Parts, Extenſion, &c. A Body without bigneſs, long without length, broad without breadth, thick without thickneſs. A Body with two Eyes, two Hands, two Feet, all in one ſelf-ſame Point.

2. It turneth the Body of Chriſt into a Monſter or miſhapen Thing; into the Figure and Form of a round Cake, that hath neither Shape nor any Part of a human Body. If a Woman ſhould bring forth a round Cake of Bread, when ſhe is in Travail, inſtead of a Manchild of right Shape, all the Countrey would preſently ring of it, as a very ſtrange and monſtrous Birth: and is it not much more monſtrous to hear this of the Body of our bleſſed Lord? What Chriſtian Ear can endure ſuch Blaſphemy?

p. 133. It inveſteth Man with a Power to make God, and the Creature with a Power to create his Creator. This every ſilly and filthy maſſing Prieſt pretends to do each day, viz. make Jeſus Chriſt. Hence proceedeth their Manner of ſpeaking. He that created me, hath given me Power to create him; and he that created me without my Help, is created by me. And ſo of lifting up God, when the Prieſt lifts up the Hoſt, and going to ſee their Creator when they go to Maſs, and to receive their Creator, when they are to receive at Eaſter, and ſo alſo the Prieſt carries it to the Sick with theſe Words, Behold, my Friend, God thy Creator, whom I have brought unto thee. Thus they aſcribe a Power to Man to make God. And Biel ſetteth every Prieſt, in this reſpect,Virgo Maria, & ſi in gratiae plenitudinae creaturas ſupergrediatur univerſas, Hierarchis tamen cedit Eccleſiae in commiſſi myſterii executione. Illa nempe prolatis octo verbulis, Ecce Ancilla Domini, fiat mihi ſecundum verbum tuum, ſemel concepit Dei filium & Mundi Redemptorem. Iſti a Domino conſecrati quinque verbis contextam conſecrationis formam, cum debita intentione proferentes eundem Dei Virginiſque filium invocant quotidie corporaliter in ſacrificium & criminum purgationem. Biel Lect. 4. in Can. Miſſae. above the Bleſſed Virgin. She conceived and bare Chriſt but once, but a Prieſt can make him as often as he will. But let thoſe Wretches go on in their God-making as long as they will, let us ſay of this breaden God, as Katharine Hut, Martyr, to Bonner, I deny it to be God, becauſe it is a dumb God, and made with Mens Hands.

4. It carrieth this Blaſphemy alſo in it; that as a Prieſt can make God, ſo he can make God of a Piece of Bread; of that, which was but a little before growing in the Field, cut by the Reapers, threſhed out with a threſhing Inſtrument, ground in the Mill, kneaded and made by the Baker, and baken in the Oven. Fit Cibus, ex Pane Caro, Deus ex Elemento. What can be more monſtrous than this? The Athemans ſentenced Anaxagoras to Death, for affirming, that the Sun was nothing elſe but a fiery Stone: thoſe Idolaters counting it a great Blaſphemy, to make their God a Stone: and ſhall we conſent to them, who would make our God a Piece of Bread? I ſhall ſay to you, as the holy Martyr, John Noyes, to the People, when he was at the Stake, Good People, they tell you, that they can make a God of a piece of Bread, but believe them not. When the Chancellor of Norwich asked Cicely Ormes, what it was that the Prieſt held up over his Head, ſhe ſaid, Bread: and if you would make it any better, it is worſe.

I mention the Sayings of our Engliſh Martyrs, and I do profeſs that I mention them with great Content, and eſteem them worthy to be graven with an Iron Pen and Lead, in the Rock for ever. Being the Sayings of thoſe (more than Conquerours) who ſealed the Truth with p. 14their deareſt Blood; and by it, they being dead, yet ſpeak; every drop of their Blood preaching this Truth to us, which they ſacrificed it in the Defence of, dying not only with invincible Courage and Conſtancy, but alſo with an Exuberancy of Joy and Comfort; profeſſing that if they had a hundred Lives, they ſhould all go in this Cauſe.

5. Yet it is big with another Blaſphemy, which is worſe, if there can be a worſe. And that is, that Man may eat his Maker, the Creature his Creator, and a People may devour their God. This is their conſtant Practice, firſt they lift up the Hoſt, next they adore it as God, and then forthwith eat it up. But Cicero could ſay, Quem tam amentem eſſe putas, who doſt thou think is ſo mad and beſide himſelf, as to believe that to be a God that he eats? Surely it is no leſs than amazing Madneſs in any to believe that that they eat, can be a God: but it is ſomething worſe than Folly and Madneſs, for any to eat that which they believe is their God. When Pharaoh, King of Egypt, gave way that the Hebrews ſhould ſacrifice to their God in the Land, Moſes returned this Anſwer, It is not meet ſo to do; for we ſhall ſacrifice the Abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God; Lo, ſhall we ſacrifice the Abomination of the Egytians before their Eyes, and will they not ſtone us? Exod. 8.26. that is to ſay, if we ſhould ſacrifice thoſe Beaſts to the Lord our God before the Eyes of the Egyptians, which they do worſhip, and give Divine Honour unto; (animalia quae abominando cultu colunt, & quae abominantur occidi) they would be ſo enraged with this Fact, as they would certainly ſtone us: Will they not ſtone us? doubtleſs they will. They will never abide to ſee their Gods ſacrificed. But tho the Egyptians would not have born this, yet the Papiſts can, yea inſtead of ſtoning others, they daily ſacrifice their God with their own Hands, eat him when they have done, and ſacrifice thoſe in Flames, that will not do as they do.

6. Once more; it is a Doctrine that puts God into the Power, and makes him ſubject to the Will and Pleaſure of every ſorry Prieſt. Who can, 1. Make God when he will. 2. Carry him whither he will, 3. Keep him where he will, in his Pocket, or Purſe, or Trunk, or Cheſt, or Box, or any where elſe. 4. Do with him what he will, tread him under foot, caſt him to Dogs or Hogs to be devoured by them, throw him into Fire or Water, as Pope Gregory the 7th, who caſt the Sacrament, or Hoſt, into the Fire, becauſe it anſwered not his Demands concerning his Succeſs againſt the Emperour. Yea, he may pawn him for Security of Debts: As Lewis the 9th of France, who being conquered and taken Captive by the Turks in Egypt, was reſtored on Condition that he ſhould pay a great Ranſom: Lewis for Security of the Mony, p. 15pawned to the Turk his**The Pyx is a Box wherein the Hoſt or Conſecrated Wafer is put, and preſerved. Pyx and Hoſt, and he was four Years before he could get his Ranſom and redeem his God, by which time, we may ſuppoſe, it was in a very pitiful Pickle. Fuller's holy War ad An. 1249.

Thus Tranſubſtantiation is a Doctrine that carries Blaſphemies in Capital Letters upon its Forehead.

We have now finiſhed the ſecond Particular, and from what is ſaid may ſee, that Tranſubſtantiation is conſtituted of many Abſurdities, Impoſſibilities, Impieties, and Blaſphemies.

III. The Abominableneſs of this Doctrine will appear from the Conſideration of the Conſequents, Products, and Fruits of it. And certainly nothing but what is monſtrous, can come out of the Womb of ſuch a Monſter. It is the Mother of Abominations, that hath brought forth and bred up (among many others) theſe Seven Monſters of Abomination and Impiety.

Firſt, The real Preſence in the Sacrament; or the Carnal and Corporal Preſence of Chriſt's Body and Blood as born of the Virgin:The Efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all that is here preſented to be received, as is confeſſed by the true Proteſtant Churches of our Confeſſion: But firſt and principally Chriſt himſelf — for there is a Participation, ſaith the Apoſtle, of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, who is exhibited, as really and truly preſent, not oppoſing real to ſpiritual, but to chimerical or phantaſtical; nor intending his preſence in the Elements, as contained in them, but to the Faith of the Receiver, who hath Ʋnion with him, &c. Vines on the Sacrament, p. 118. We hold that the Body and Blood of Chriſt is really, that is, truly exhibited and preſent to the Faith of the Receiver; and we might expreſs the real Preſence, as real is oppoſed to imaginary or chimerical, were it not for Caption and Miſunderſtanding. None of ours deny the Body of Chriſt to be really, the ſpiritually eaten by a Believer, &c. Id. 125. We do poſitively and conſtantly aſſert and believe, that the Body and Blood of Chriſt are preſent in the Sacrament in the following Senſe, that is, that Chriſt is preſent, not only in regard of,

1. His Divinity, or Divine Nature, which is in all Places, and indiſtantly preſent with every Being.

2. His Spirit, by whoſe Operation the Benefits of Chriſt are applied to Believers.

3. Our Commemoration of him, and ſhewing forth of his Death in this Action: As things that are paſt and abſent, are made in a ſort preſent to us by a Solemn Commemoration.

4. Our Meditations and Contemplations of him in this Action: As Contemplation brings the Object of it before the Eyes of the Mind, and preſents it to them.

p. 165. Our Affections that are (or ſhould be) here fixed upon him. The Heart and Affections fixing upon an Object, make it preſent, bring it to have a kind of Being with them. The Apoſtle Paul, Phil. 1.7. tells the Philippians, that he had them in his Heart: Tho in regard of his Perſonal Preſence, he was at a great diſtance from them, yet in regard of his dear Affection unto them, they were in his very Heart. And ſo in this Ordinance Jeſus Chriſt and the Affections of true Chriſtians do meet. I add, that,

6. The Body and Blood of Chriſt are preſent, yet not,

1ſt. Locally, per indiſtantium; as included in, or affixed to the Elements, as the Wine is in the Cup. In this Senſe they are as far diſtant from the Elements, as the place where the Sacrament is celebrated is diſtant from Heaven. Nor,

2dly. Subſtantially or Corporally. This follows on the former. The Signs are with us, but the Subſtance is in Heaven.

But they are thus truly and really preſent.

(1.) Sacramentally and Symbolically, in the ſacred Signs and Symbols of them. His real Body is in Heaven, but we have his repreſentative Body preſent with us in the Sacrament. Here the corporal Signs of it are corporally preſent.

(2.) Vertually; in their Vertue and Efficacy, or by a Vertual Preſence and an Efficacious Influence; as the Body of the Sun is preſent not only upon the Surface, but in the Bowels of the Earth, Deut. 33.14. Thus there is a true and real Vertue, Power, and Efficacy of his Body and Blood really preſent: Yea the Vertue and Efficacy of his Body and Blood (the benefits of his Paſſion) are no leſs preſent, and communicated to Believers, than if he were locally preſent.

In actione Coenae praeſens eſt Dominus, non in Signo, nec pani participato, ſed cordi participantis, non exhibitione carnis vel animae ſuae, ſed exhibitione ſpiritus & gratiae, quae non ore excipiantur, ſed fide, cujus eſt id ſibi praeſens reddere quod apprehendit, ut oculus quod videt. Spanh. Dub. Evang. part, 3. Dub. 143. p. 839. The Preſence with or under the Elements is one thing, and the preſence to the Soul and Faith of a Believer is another. Vines 125.(3.) Spiritually; that is, not in reſpect of their Eſſence, but of our perceiving and receiving of them, and their Vertue and Efficacy in nouriſhing us. The Spirits or Souls of Believers by Faith only do receive them, and by them, through the Efficacy of the Holy Spirit, are truly and really nouriſhed to Spiritual and Eternal Life. Thus the Body and Blood of Chriſt are really preſent. Non pani & ori, ſed fidei & cordi credentium. As Auguſt. Nos Chriſtum in Coelis ſedentem manu contrecture non poſſumus, ſed Chriſtum fide contingere poſſumus. Et haec praeſentiae ſpiritualis corporis Chriſti eſt veriſſima & realiſſima. Wend. Theol. 516.

p. 17And thus we aſſert and believe that the Body of Chriſt is truly and really preſent in this threefold Senſe; but we do utterly diſown and deteſt this real or corporal Preſence of the Papiſts in or under the Signs, which is the Daughter of Tranſubſtantiation, a Daughter like her Mother, i. e. a very Monſter, repugnant to the nature of a Sacrament, the end of the Lord's Supper, to the nature of a true Human Body, to the ſtate of Chriſt's glorious Body, to the Aſcenſion of Chriſt to Heaven, and, as is before ſhewed, to the expreſs Teſtimony of the Scriptures. And this is the Firſt-born of Tranſubſtantiation; and I may ſay of it as the Martyr Elizabeth Folks ſaid, who when asked, Whether ſhe believed the Preſence of Chriſt's Body to be in the Sacrament ſubſtantially and really or no? anſwered, That ſhe believed it was a ſubſtantial Lye, and a real Lye. Or, as Thomas Watts, Martyr, who being examined by Biſhop Bonner about the Sacrament of the Altar, told him, That he believed Chriſt's Body to be in Heaven, and no where elſe; and that he would never believe that it was in the Sacrament: And that the Maſs was abominable Idolatry.

Secondly, The Multipreſence, or manifold Preſence of Chriſt's Body.

This is another Birth of Tranſubſtantiation, and it is fruitful this way to a Wonder, yea to a Miracle. It is recorded in Story as a thing that was very monſtrous and miraculous, that Margaret of Holland, Counteſs of Hausburg, brought forth 364 Children at one Birth. Belg. Com. Wealth, p. 127. But this was a ſorry thing to be ſtranged at: Behold here Tranſubſtantiation bringing forth ten times ſo many Chriſts on a Day, and Day after Day, without any intermiſſion for one Day, in a whole Year. By this miraculous power of Tranſubſtantiation, and the wonderful fecundity of her Womb, it comes to paſs,

1. That Chriſt is not only in Heaven, but upon the Earth at the ſame time.

2. That he is not only both in Heaven and Earth, but alſo in many parts and places of the Earth at the ſame time: In England, France, Spain, Italy, America, and no Body knows in how many places at once. Yea,

3. That he is in ſeveral Parts and Corners of the ſame Church at once, in one Man's Hand, in another Man's Mouth, in a third Man's Pyx and Pocket, &c. And in their private Maſſes which are celebrated in ſeveral Corners of the ſame Church, and the Body of Chriſt created in ſix or ſeven Corners at once. Nay,

4. That he is in ſeveral parts of the ſame Hoſt at once. For they tell us in plain Engliſh, and without any Circumlocution, that he is whole p. 18in every Crumb and Point of the Hoſt, and in every Drop of the Wine. And if ſo, who can tell, how may Chriſts there may be in the compaſs of one Hoſt, or in the Wine of one Flaggon?

This is the ſecond, it produces a Multipreſence, makes Chriſt to be Carnally, Subſtantially and Corporally preſent in a thouſand thouſand places at one and the ſame time.

Thirdly, The Oral, Carnal, Corporal, or Bodily eating of the Body of Chriſt, whereby it entreth in at the Mouth, and goeth into the Belly. This is another Monſter like its Fellows that comes out of the Womb of Tranſubſtantiation … they that believe Tranſubſtantiation, believe that they eat Chriſt's real Body, Fleſh, Blood, and Bones orally in the Sacrament of the Altar.

In this Sacrament,

1. We eat the Body of Chriſt Sacramentally, when we receive the ſacred Sign of his Body. This is manducatio ſigni. Et manducatio corporalis & oralis. This may be done by Unbelievers and Wicked, who eat the Bread of the Lord.

2. We eat the Body of Chriſt Sacramentally and Spiritually, when we do not only receive the ſacred Sign by the Hand into our Mouths, but Chriſt alſo by Faith into our Hearts. Thus true Believers eat him in this Sacrament, receiving not only the Bread of the Lord orally, but the Bread which is the Lord ſpiritually.

3. Beſides that Sacramental eating only, proper to Unbelievers, and this Sacramental and Spiritual eating, ſimul & conjunctim, jointly and together, proper to Believers: There is a ſpiritual eating only out of the uſe of the Sacrament. This is done as often as a Chriſtian by Faith applies Chriſt, and derives Spiritual Nouriſhment from him. Of this our Saviour treats John 6. and of this Auguſtin ſpeaks, when he ſays, Ʋt quid puras dentem & ventrem? Crede, & manducaſti: credere enim in cum, hoc eſt panem vivum manducare.

But this Carnal, Corporal, Oral eating, introduced by the Papiſts, and growing out of Tranſubſtantiation, is,

(1.) Horribly impious and abominable. Turning Chriſtians into Canibals, Man-eaters, Savages, that for this are juſtly loathed and abhorred by Mankind.

(2.) Utterly impoſſible. How is it poſſible that Chriſt's glorious Body now immortal and impaſſible in Heaven, ſhould be eaten by poor ſinful Mortals upon Earth?

(3.) Wholly unprofitable. If it were poſſible, yet I would ask what profit or benefit ſhould we obtain by a Carnal and Capernaitical eating p. 19of his Fleſh in the Sacrament? The Papiſts confeſs, that it is a Spiritual Feaſt, a Feaſt for the Soul, not for the Body. Con. Triden. Seſſ. 13. cap. 2. Now how can the Food of the Soul be received by the Mouth of the Body? Or how can that which entreth by the Mouth, into my Stomach and Belly, nouriſh my Soul? This is a great Myſtery.

(4.) Groſly abſurd. For, on this it will follow, that Chriſt did orally eat his own Fleſh and drink his own Blood, and died twice, once in the Adminiſtration of the Supper, and again upon the Croſs.

(5.) Plainly inconſiſtent with the Spiritual Manducation or eating of his Body in the Sacrament. And,

(6.) Manifeſtly repugnant to the Scriptures.

Fourthly, The Sacrifice of the Maſs, or Miſſal Oblation of a piece of Bread (which they believe to be the true and proper Body of Chriſt, under the kind or form of Bread) unto God the Father as a propitiatory and expiatory Sacrifice both for the quick and dead. This is another Birth of the ſame Belly, or Product of Tranſubſtantiation. A blaſphemous Sacrifice.

1. Directly contrary to the Scripture, Heb. 9.26, 28. and Chap. 10.10, 12, 14.

2. Highly opprobrious to the Perſon, Prieſthood, and Sacrifice of Chriſt: Evacuating the Sacrifice of his Death, overthrowing his perpetual Prieſthood, and putting his Perſon under a lower degree of Humiliation, than the loweſt that he condeſcended unto in his ſtate of Humiliation. Then he took upon him the forth of a Servant, was made in the likeneſs of Men, and was found in faſhion as a Man, Phil. 2… 7, 8. But now he is put into the form of a Wafer, the likeneſs of a piece of Bread, and is found every where, (upon their Altars, in the Prieſts Hands, and Peoples Pockets) in faſhion as a bit of Bread.

3. Intolerably injurious to Chriſtians. As taking away the Lord's Table, or driving the Lord's Supper out of the Church. For the Sacrifice of the Maſs and the Lord's Supper are diametrically oppoſite one to the other in many reſpects:Ego medicus, tu aegrotus, ille miniſter, gratia Antidotum, vas Sacramentum. So hereby Chriſtian Congregations are quite deprived of this laſt and great Ordinance of their dying Lord, which is a Mirror of the ineffable Love of God and Chriſt, a viſible Word, preaching Chriſt to the Eye, an Epitome of the Goſpel, the Seal of Chriſt's Teſtament; and as a ſacred Diſh, wherein the Father exhibits Chriſt with all his Fulneſs unto Believers.

Fifthly, The Superſtitious Reſervation of the Hoſt or Wafer; after Conſecration, omitting the diſtribution, receiving, and eating in remembrance p. 20of Chriſt,Nihil habet rationem Sacramenti exrra uſum divinitûs inſticutum. it is repoſited and kept to be carried about, and accommodated to other Uſes, contrary to the inſtitution of Chriſt, example of the Apoſtles, practiſe of the Primitive Church, and nature of the Sacrament. For a Sacrament out of the uſe appointed by God, hath not the nature of a Sacrament. This is another practiſe of the ſame Deſcent and Race, and confirmed by the Council of Trent, Seſſ. 13. Cap. 6.

Sixthly, The Theatrical Circumgeſtation, or carrying of the Hoſt in Proceſſion: This came in at the ſame Door. Tranſubſtantiation is the Mother of Popiſh Proceſſions, wherein the Hoſt is carried about with great Solemnity, for ſtaying of Fires, laying of Tempeſts, driving away Devils, &c. Yea they have a ſtated Annual Feaſt, Corporis Chriſti, i. e. Sacramenti Corporis Jeſu Chriſti, of the Body, or Sacrament of the Body of Jeſus Chriſt, kept for the Honour of the Sacrament. This Feaſt was inſtituted by Ʋrban the 4th about the Year 1264, to be obſerved the 5th Day after the Octaves of Whitſunday, upon the pretended Revelation of one Eva (then an Anchoreſs, or rather the Bawd of Ʋrban, as Baley confeſſeth) as is evident from the Bull of Ʋrban to this Eva, whereby he ordains this new Feſtivity to be obſerved devota Turba fidelium throughout the World: It is celebrated with great Pomp and Ceremony. The Body of Chriſt (as they call it) being placed in a rich Coffer, upon a coſtly Cuſhion, is carried on a white Horſe gorgeouſly attired and trapped, &c. through the Streets, Lanes, and High-ways to be beheld and adored by all People. Thomas Aquinas made the Office for this Day, for which the Pope gave him a Silver Dove, whence it is, that he is pictured with a Dove at his left Shoulder.

Seventhly, The Idolatrous Adoration of the Hoſt. Tranſubſtantiation hath brought an Idol into the Church: As the bleſſed Martyr Ann Askew ſaid, The Maſs, as it is now uſed in our Days, I do ſay and believe it to be the moſt abominable Idol that is in the World. And certainly it is ſo, for in the Maſs a God is ſet up to be adored,

1. That is made by a Creature, a filthy Prieſt.

2. That is made by a Creature of a Creature, a piece of Bread.

3. That is made by a Creature of a Creature, by a kind of magical muttering over of five Words.

This God made of Bread, and riſing out of Tranſubſtantiation, is the Idol ſet up in the Maſs, and the great Idol that is worſhipped by Papiſts, with bowing of Heads, bending of Knees, elevating of Hands, knocking Breaſts, proſtrating of Bodies, burning of Tapers, ringing of p. 21Bells, playing on Inſtruments, &c. And it is the moſt abſurd, horrible, abominable, and monſtrous Idol that is, or ever was in the World. An Idol that makes the Chriſtian Religion to become a Scorn and Deriſion, a matter of greateſt Deteſtation and Execration both to Jews and Pagans. This, I ſay, is the great Scandal and Stumbling-block to both, That Chriſtians worſhip a God made of Bread, and eat their God. A Jew conferring with Mr. Wiſeheart, gave him three Reaſons why the Jews could not be perſwaded to turn Chriſtians. 1. The Uncharitableneſs of Chriſtians toward the Poor. 2. The Multitude of Images in the Temples of Chriſtians. And, 3. The Sacrament of the Altar. A piece of Bread (ſays he) baken on the Aſhes, ye adore and worſhip, and ſay, that it is your God. Acts and Mon. 1156. The Turks are no leſs ſcandalized by it, who uſe to call the Roman Pope, Rex Morionum, the King of Idiots, for this reaſon. And Averroes the Arabian Mahometan cryed out, Quandoquidem Chriſtiani manducant Deum quem adorant, ſit Anima mea cum Philoſophis. Let my Lot be among the Philoſophers rather than the Chriſtians, who eat that God which they adore. And upon the Fact of Lewis the 9th (mentioned before) who pawned his Pyx and Hoſt, the Egyptians wrought a Wafer Cake and a Box in the Borders of their Tapeſtry, which may yet be ſeen in the Tapeſtry which is brought out of Egypt. And this was done in perpetual Memory of this thing, viz. Ridente Turca, nec dolente Judaeo.That they had the Chriſtian God in Pawn, and to make Chriſtianity a Deridiculum, a matter to be derided and laughed at all over the World. And ſo I may allude to Hoſea 7.16. This ſhall be, or is their diriſion in the Land of Egypt.

Theſe are ſome of the Births that Tranſubſtantiation hath bleſſed the World with.

And we have viewed it now in its Riſe and Original, Nature and Conſtitution, Fruits and Conſequents. From which we may ſee, that it is not only a moſt ſtupid and abſurd Fiction, but alſo a moſt groſs and monſtrous Abomination.

In the next place we ſhall conſider the chief Foundations that the Romaniſts would build this Doctrine upon, or the principal Arguments they go about to prove it by.

Now they endeavour to ſet it up and maintain it four Ways,

p. 22I. By the Scriptures.

II. By the Fathers.

III. By Councils, and

IV. By Reaſons.

Firſt, The firſt ſort of Arguments are taken from the Holy Scriptures. And ſo they argue,

1. From theſe Words of our Saviour, This is my Body. On theſe Words they bottom Tranſubſtantiation, and their chief ſtrength lieth in them. And the whole ſtrength of the Argument taken from them reſts on this Baſis or Bottom, viz. That Chriſt ſaid, This is my Body. Hence Bellarmine (lib. 3. de Euchar. cap. 19.) argues thus, Theſe Words, This is my Body, do neceſſarily inferr, either, a real mutation of the Bread, as Catholicks hold: or a metaphorical, as Calveniſts: but can in no wiſe admit the Lutheran Sence. For our Lord took Bread into his Hands, and bleſſed it, and gave it to his Diſciples, and ſaid of it, This is my Body: Therefore he took Bread, he bleſſed Bread, he gave Bread, and of Bread he ſaid, This is my Body, either therefore by bleſſing he changed it into his Body truly and properly, or improperly and figuratively, by adding a new Signification; or he made no Change of it: if he changed it properly, then he gave changed Bread, and of Bread truly changed, he ſaid moſt truly, This is my Body, that is, that which is contained under the form of Bread, is not Bread now, but my Body? And this (ſays he) is that which the Catholicks hold, to prove that this is the true and genuine Sence of the Word: They ſay,

(1.) That our Saviour ſpake plainly, clearly, and properly, ſo as the Diſciples might underſtand him, and not figuratively, darkly, and obſcurely.

(2.) That we muſt keep to the literal Sence, and proper ſignification of our Saviour's Words, and he ſaid expreſly, This is my Body.

In anſwer to this Argument I would ſay,

1ſt. That many of the Romaniſts themſelves acknowledg that Tranſubſtantiation cannot be proved from theſe Words, both Cardinals and famous Schoolmen, as Cardinal Cajetan, in 3 Thom. q. 75. Art. 1. Petrus de Aliaco. Card. Cameracenſis in 4 Sent. diſt. 11. q. 6. Art. 1. Card. Roffenſis, or Fiſher of Rocheſter, contra Capt. Bab. Lutheri c. 10. and Perron the great Cardinal of France profeſſeth, That he believed Tranſubſtantiation not by virtue of any neceſſary Conſequence, or Reaſon, brought by their Doctors, but by the Words of Chriſt as they are expounded by Tradition. And Schoolmen, as Biel Lec. 40. p. 23in Can. Miſſae. Occam. lib. 4. ſent. diſt. 11. q. 6. Vaſquez Tom. 3. in 3. diſt. 180. Canus, loc. Commun. l. 3. c. 3. Caſſand. in Conſult. de Tranſ. p. 66. Tannerus in compend. relat. Colloq. Ratisbon. par. 2. c. 6. p. 37. reckons up Tranſubſtantiation among the Points,Non eſt improbabile, non extare locum in Scriptura tam expreſſum, ut ſine Eccleſiae declaratione evidenter cogat Tranſubſtantiationem admittere. quae in ſcriptura ſola non continentur, nec ea ſola evidentur deducuntur. Yea Bellarmine after that he had wearied himſelf on this Argument, concludes it with theſe Words, Albeit there were ſome obſcurity or ambiguity in the Words of our Lord, yet that is taken away by many Councils, and the Conſent of the Fathers. A Tacit Confeſſion. But afterwards, Chap. 23. he is more expreſs, when he ſays, It is not improbable that there is not any place extant in the Scripture ſo expreſs, as may, without the declaration of the Church, evidently enforce the admiſſion of Tranſubſtantiation.

Thus their own greateſt Divines have not been ſatisfied that this Scripture, nor yet any other, doth afford a Foundation for Tranſubſtantiation.

2. The Popiſh Senſe is not true. Our Saviour by theſe Words, This is my Body, did not change the Bread into his real Body.

(1.) The order of our Saviour's Words doth evince and evidence this, For he took Bread, and had them Take and Eat, before he pronounced theſe Words, This is my Body, which doth plainly imply and import, that the Bread was his Body, before the pronouncing of theſe Words, and not made or tranſubſtantiated into his Body, by the pronunciation of them.

(2.) The manner of our Saviour's expreſſing himſelf in this matter doth alſo prove it. For that he directed his Speech to the Diſciples and ſpoke theſe Words to them of the Bread, is paſt all diſpute: But common Senſe will tell us, That if our Saviour had intended any ſuch thing, as a Popiſh Conſecration and Tranſubſtantiation by them, he would have directed his Speech to God the Father, in this or the like Form, Let this Bread be my Body, or to the Bread, ſaying, Be thou my Body, and not to the Diſciples.

3. The Words of our Saviour, This is my Body, are Words of Signification, not of Tranſubſtantiation, aſſertive and declarative, not operative and converſive Words. I ſay, they are declarative Words of that which is, ſignifying what the Bread is, before the Words be pronounced, and not imperative and effective of that which is not, but ſhall be after they are pronounced, that is, they ſignify, that the Bread is his Body before, and not only after they are pronounced. The Romaniſts being pluched with this, do ſome of them (as is ſhewed by Du…and. Rut. l. 4. r. 41. n. 15. and Thom. par. 3. q. 78. Art. 1.) make this Evaſion, That p. 24Chriſt in the inſtitution of this Sacrament uſed theſe Words twice, firſt ſecretly to conſecrare the Communion, and then openly to inſtruct the Communicants, in this order, 1. He took the Bread, 2. He bleſſed it, by ſaying, This is my Body, and then, 3. He brake it and gave it, ſaying, Take, eat, This is my Body: firſt he uſed it to Conſecrate, and then the ſecond time to ſhew his Apoſtles the form of Conſecration. This they ſay, but if we will not be ſo kind as to take their bare word, they can never prove it.

4. There is as good ground to infer and conclude, that our Saviour is really and ſubſtantially changed into a Door, a Vine, a Rock, a Foundation, a Lamb, a Lion, a Roſe, a Star, a Sun, &c. from Joh. 10.7. Joh. 15.1. 1 Cor. 10.4. Iſa. 28.16. Joh. 1.29. Revel. 5.5. Cant. 2.1. Rev. 22.16. Mal. 4.2. as there is to infer Tranſubſtantiation from theſe words.

5. If it were true (as it is not) that our Lord Jeſus Chriſt did convert the Bread into his Body, by pronouncing theſe words over it, yet how doth it follow, That the maſſing Prieſt doth the ſame, by ſaying over the ſame words? Till they can prove that their Prieſts have this Power from Chriſt lodged in them, it may more rationally be inferred, that as often as they read theſe words, Let there be Light, they make Light by reading of them, becauſe God did make it by them.

6. The true meaning of the words, This is my Body, is not then as the Romaniſts ſay, this that was Bread, is now tranſubſtantiated into my Body: For when he ſaid, This is my Body, by [This] he meant and underſtood that which he then held in his Hands, now when he pronounced the word [This] he held nothing but Bread in his Hands; and therefore by [This] he meant the Bread that he had in his Hands; and gave and commanded them to eat, as before.

But the meaning is, This Bread I have taken, bleſſed, broken, and give you to take and eat, is my Body, that is, a ſacred Sign of my Body, my Body Sacramentally and Symbolically, as much as to ſay, a Repreſentation and Memorial of my Body.

The Change is in Signification, not of Subſtance, in regard of Uſe and Office, not of Nature and Being. It remains to be Bread as it was before, in Nature and Subſtance, and is the Body of Chriſt in Signification and Repreſentation, which it was not before. Yet this is not a bare Significative Form, as this, The Field is the World, Mat. 13.38. i. e. ſignifies the World: Or, as that Rev. 1.20. The ſeven Stars are the Angels of the ſeven Churches, and the ſeven Candleſticks are the ſeven Churches; i. e. do ſignify the ſeven Angels and Churches; and many ſuch like. But it is a Sacramental Form, wherein together with p. 25the Repreſentation and Signification there, is a real Exhibition of the Thing ſignified. The Bread is his Body, a repreſenting, exhibiting and conveying Sign of his Body, at once both repreſenting and exhibiting, and conveying Chriſt crucified, with the Benefits of his Croſs and Paſſion, to the Faith of a true Chriſtian or Believer.

We come to the Reaſons alledged for the Popiſh Senſe.

Firſt; They ſay, Chriſt ſpoke clearly and plainly, ſo as the Diſciples might eaſily underſtand his meaning.

1. And I ſay ſo alſo. It is not to be called once into queſtion, whether our Lord ſpoke plainly and apertly, ſo as the Diſciples might underſtand him or no.

2. I ſay moreover, that it is as unqueſtionable, that the Diſciples did both readily and well underſtand our Lord's words, and alſo in the Senſe that we underſtand them,Cum iſtis verbis non ſint turbati, planum eſt intellexiſſe ea metonymicè ex more Scripturae, praeſertim cùm paulo antè comediſſent Agnum, qui eodem ſenſu, Paſcha, id eſt, tranſitus appellatur. Exod. 12.27. Bucan. Loc. Com. Loc. 48. q. 50.Exod 12:27 this can be no more doubted of by any that are not prepoſſeſſed with their own Senſe, than the other: For they were both acquainted with the Language of the Scripture, wherein our Senſe of theſe Words of our Saviour is very ordinary and frequent in many Propoſitions and Expreſſions; and they were alſo acquainted with their own Language, that hath not (as is obſerved) any proper word for [ſignify] but makes uſe of [is] inſtead thereof, whence this Stile and Senſe was uſual and common among them, an ordinary form of Speech. Beſides all this, the Diſciples never queſtioned their Lord and Maſter about the meaning of this Propoſition, whereas we find them often asking him of the meaning of Speeches that he uſed, which were incomparably more eaſy for them to underſtand, than the meaning of theſe words, if they had apprehended, or ſuſpected them to carry any thing of ſuch a meaning in them, as the Papiſts put upon them. And therefore I ſay again,

3. That this Reaſon they bring for their Senſe of them, doth quite deſtroy and overthrow their Senſe of them; if he ſpoke plainly, and ſo as the Diſciples might well underſtand his meaning, when he ſaid, This is my Body, as they ſay he did, then certainly he did not mean, that the Bread he had in his Hand was tranſubſtantiated and converted into his real Body, and that his very Body was contained under that Form of Bread in his Hand: For verily this is a Senſe not eaſie to be underſtood, but muſt without all queſtion have ſtartled, amuſed, and poſed them all exceedingly to conceive or underſtand, how he could fit at the Table with them, as they ſaw he did; and at the ſame time give to every one of them his whole Body to be eaten, and his Blood p. 26to be drunk; yea to eat his own Body, and drink his own Blood before their very Faces; this would have been hard indeed to underſtand, yea, a matter paſſing all Underſtanding, that could never have been beaten into their Brains.

Secondly; They ſay, the literal Senſe, and proper Signification of our Saviour's Words muſt be kept, and he ſays of that he gave, This is my Body, this is the foreign, the very plain Letter of the Words, and from this literal Senſe we muſt not depart in this matter.

Anſwer.

2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1.21.2 Tim 3:162 Pet 1:211. All Scripture is given by Inſpiration of God; and holy Men of God ſpake as they were moved by the Holy Ghoſt; inſpiring not only the Matter, but the Words and Phraſes delivered by them; which Words and Phraſes do always ſignify and expreſs his Mind unto us about the Matter ſo delivered in them.

2. When the proper and literal Signification of Words and Phraſes in the holy Scripture, doth contain and carry in it manifeſt Abſurdities, Contradictions, or Impoſſibilities, that cannot be the Senſe and meaning of the Holy Ghoſt in thoſe Words and Phraſes; but they muſt neceſſarily be taken in an improper and figmative Senſe. Hence,

3. In interpreting of many Scripture-Words and Forms of Speech, we muſt depart from the Letter of the Words, if we will underſtand and take them according to the true and proper ſenſe and meaning of the Holy Ghoſt in them. (And the Senſe of the Scripture is the Scripture). Thus we muſt underſtand Gen. 40.12. The three Branches, are three Days. And Verſ. 18. The three Baskets are three Days. Gen. 41.26. The ſeven Kine are ſeven Years; and the ſeven Ears are ſeven Years. Ezek. 37.11. Theſe Bones are the whole Houſe of Iſrael. Dan. 7.17. The four Beaſts are four Kings. Mat. 11.14. This is Elias. Mat. 13.38. The Field is the World. John 10.9. I am the Door. Joh. 15.1. I am the true Vine. Rev. 1.20. The ſeven Candleſticks are the ſeven Churches. Rev. 17. The ſeven Heads are ſeven Mountains, &c. In all which we muſt depart from the literal Senſe, and by the Signs figuratively ſignifying, underſtand the Things ſignified and repreſented. And ſo we muſt go from the literal Signification in all thoſe places which ſpeak of God, as having a Mouth, Eyes, Ears, Hands, and other Parts of a Human Body, &c.

4. In Sacramental Propoſitions, nothing is more frequent and familiar, than improper and figurative Forms of Expreſſion (qua ſigno tribuitur nomen rei ſignificata) wherein the Sign is called by the Name of the Thing ſignified; this we may ſee in the Sacraments of both p. 27Teſtaments, in the Inſtitution whereof the Lord uſed improper Expreſſions. The Rock that followed the Iſraelites, is called Chriſt,1 Cor. 10.4.1 Cor 10:4 now it was but a Figure of Chriſt.

In the Inſtitution of Circumciſion, Circumciſion is called the Covenant, Gen. 17.10. which properly was but a Seal or Sign of the Covenant, Ver. 11. In the Paſſeover, the Lamb is called the Paſſeover, Exod. 12.11. which properly was only the Sign of the Lord's paſſing over the Houſes of the Iſraelites. And ſo in the Inſtitution of this Sacrament, there are (as the Papiſts cannot deny) ſeveral improper and figurative Terms; as when the Cup is put for the Wine in the Cup, 1 Cor. 11.25. Drinking of the Cup, for drinking of the Wine, Mat. 26.27. The Cup which is the Seal of the New Teſtament, is called the New Teſtament, Luke 22.20.

And ſo here, when he ſaith of the Bread, This is my Body, he ſpeaks of it not in a proper and literal, but in a ſacramental and figurative Senſe, calling the Sign by the Name of the Thing ſignified thereby, viz. his Body; and this is the true Senſe of the Words, this Bread is the Sign of my Body; which Senſe whoſoever gainſays and rejects, to take the Popiſh Senſe, bringeth all the fore-named Abſurdities, Contradictions, Impieties, and Blaſphemies into our Saviour's Words: But certainly this could never be the meaning of our Lord in them.

5. The Papiſts, who contend thus earneſtly for the literal Signification, do not keep foreign, the plain Letter of our Lord's Words, for he ſays foreign expreſly, This is my Body; but they underſtand it as ſpoken of that which is contained under the Accidents of Bread, and reſolve this Propoſition, This is my Body, thus; This that is contained under the form of Bread, is my Body: Or thus, Hoc complexum Accidentium Panis & Corporis mei, eſt Corpus meum; this Compound of the Accidents of Bread and my Body, is my Body; a plain departure from the Letter. Moreover, Chriſt meant his own true and natural Body, ſignified by the Bread; they underſtand an inviſible Body, without human Shape, juſt Dimenſions, diſtance of Parts, &c. hid under the Accidents of Bread.

6. The Words of our Saviour are againſt Tranſubſtantiation, and being taken in their own Senſe, do overturn it. For they ſay, 1. That they muſt be taken in their proper Senſe, uti ſonant. 2. That thus taken, they do infer Tranſubſtantiation. But now take them ſo, and (according to their Principles) they neither infer Tranſubſtantiation, nor can there be any Tranſubſtantiation: For if there be any ſuch a thing, it muſt be either,

p. 281ſt, Before the Words are pronounced. Or,

2dly, Not until the Words are fully pronounced. Or,

3dly, Together with the Pronunciation, and while the Words are in pronouncing. Or,

4thly, In an inſtant and uncertain moment of Time.

But it can be in none of theſe, and therefore there can be no Tranſubſtantiation. Scharp. Curſ. Theol. de Coena, p. 1482.

Tranſubſtantiation cannot be,

1ſt, Before the Pronunciation of the Words, This is my Body. For tho they diſagree (not a little) among themſelves about the Form of Conſecration, yet they are moſt generally of this mind, That it is done by the Virtue of theſe Words canted over the Bread; and that before they are uſed, it is very Bread.

2dly, Nor not until the Words are fully pronounced: For if ſo, this Propoſition would be falſe, This is my Body; and inſtead of ſaying, This is my Body, it ſhould be ſaid, This ſhall be my Body: For eſt [is] in its proper Senſe ſignifies a thing then in being, and preſuppoſeth that to be whereof it is ſpoken. So that if the Bread be not tranſubſtantiated before the Prieſt have ſaid over theſe Words, then he lies every time he ſaith them, in calling that which is very Bread and nothing elſe, the very Body of Chriſt.

3dly, During the Pronunciation of the Words, or while they are in pronouncing: For then it ſhould not be in an inſtant, but ſucceſſively, pedetentim, by little and little, as the words are ſucceſſively pronounced by Letters, Syllables, and Words one after another: but this they all deny.

4thly, In an inſtant; this they are for. Bellarmin determines that it is done ſimul, in the time of the pronunciation of the words of Conſecration, but not in the whole time that the Pronunciation takes up, but in an inſtant or moment of that Time. To this it may be ſaid,

1. Then the Prieſt lies in ſaying, This is, and ſhould ſay, This ſhall be my Body.

2. Then the great operative and converſive Virtue of theſe mighty Words lies in the laſt Syllable [um]: this ſeems to be the Opinion of Thomas. Converſio Panis in Corpus Chriſti fit in tèrmino prolationis horum verborum. Tunc enim completur ſignificatio hujus locutionis; in 1 Cor. 11.24.

3. Then as the Body of Chriſt is created in an inſtant, ſo the Bread is annihilated, or ceaſeth to be in an inſtant.

p. 294. Then it is either at one and the ſame inſtant, that the Bread vaniſheth, and the Body of Chriſt ſucceedeth in the room, or another inſtant: but it is neither of theſe.

(1.) Not the ſame inſtant: For then the Bread and Body of Chriſt ſhould be both together, and at the ſame time under the ſame Accidents: But this the Papiſts will not hear of, but affirm conſtantly, That firſt the Bread only, and ſecondly, the Body of Chriſt alone is under the Accidents one after the other, but never together.

(2.) Not another inſtant: For then in the interſpace, the Accidents ſhould ſubſiſt without either the Subſtance of the Bread, or Body of Chriſt under them; but they ſay it is never thus, but either the Bread or Body of Chriſt is contained under the Accidents; and to ſay otherwiſe would be moſt abſurd.

And thus if they will be conſtant to their own Sentiments, tho we ſhould grant them their own Senſe of our Saviour's Words, they will not ſerve their turn, nor be a Foundation to build Tranſubſtantiation upon, but contrary-wiſe, will quite ſubvert this Dagon.

For there can be no Tranſubſtantiation,

1. Before the Words are pronounced.

2. After they are pronounced.

3. In the time of Pronunciation.

4. In any other inſtant; and therefore there can be none at all.

We have done with their firſt Argument.

Secondly; They argue from the Sermon which our Saviour preached unto the Capernaits, John 6. wherein they ſay, he opens the great Meat and Myſtery of the bleſſed Sacrament of the Altar: In which his true Body and Blood, or Himſelf is eaten and drunken under the forms of Bread and Wine, which doth neceſſarily infer a Tranſubſtantiation of the Bread and Wine into his very Body and Blood. The places urged for this are Verſ. 41. unto Verſ. 59. but they inſiſt eſpecially on Verſ. 51, 53, 55. here, ſay they, our Saviour expreſly affirms;

1. That his Fleſh is Bread. Verſ. 51. I am the living Bread, which came down from Heaven. If any Man eat of this Bread, he ſhall live for ever: and the Bread that I will give, is my Fleſh, which I will give for the Life of the World.

2. When the Jews contended about this Saying, as abſurd, or impoſſible, Verſ. 52. How can this Man give us his Fleſh to eat? he again with an ingeminated aſſeveration affirms, That what he had aſſerted p. 30was not only true (and no way abſurd nor impoſſible) but alſo, that this eating of his Fleſh, and drinking of his Blood, was moſt neceſſary and beneficial; Verſ. 53, 54. Verily, verily I ſay unto you, except ye eat the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. Whoſe eateth my Fleſh, and drinketh my Blood, hath eternal Life, and I will raiſe him up at the laſt day.

3. That his Fleſh is Meat, and his Blood is Drink indeed foreign, vere, Verſ. 55. For my Fleſh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed, i. e. true Meat and Drink, or truly Meat and Drink, or very Meat and Drink; ſo that (ſay they) it is plain, that here he doth not ſpeak improperly, but moſt properly of his Body as proper Meat, and of his Blood as proper Drink, and of the proper and bodily eating and drinking of his very Body and Blood with the Mouth in the Euchariſt. And this doth undeniably prove Tranſubſtantiation, that the Bread is turned into his real Body, and the Wine into his Blood.

This is the Argument for Tranſubſtantiation, drawn form this Sermon of our Saviour preached at Capernaum. Our Saviour having miraculouſly fed five thouſand with five Loaves and two Fiſhes, a great Multitude flocked after him, whereupon he took an occaſion to preach to them of Spiritual Meat under a Metaphor taken from the preſent matter, as in Chap. 4. he had taken occaſion from the Water of Jacob's Well, to preach to the Samaritan Woman of the Water whereof whoſoever drinks, ſhall never thirſt. And in this Sermon he ſhews them,

1. That there was a kind of Meat which would endure to everlaſting Life, which they ſhould ſeek for rather than the Meat which periſheth.

2. Who it is that giveth this Meat.

3. What this Meat is, viz. his Fleſh and Blood.

4. That this is a more excellent Meat, than that Corporal Food which they had been fed with, and followed him for; and than the Manna which their Fathers had eaten in the Wilderneſs, as it was Corporal Food only, and received by the Mouth into the Belly, and ſo he here ſpeaketh of it, and not as it was a Temporary Sacrament to their Fathers.

But to come to the Matter lying before us; In order to a clear and ſatisfactory Anſwer to the Argument drawn hence, which they place great Confidence in, I ſhall endeavour to ſhew,

1. our Saviour's Senſe in this Sermon.

2. The Popiſh Senſe that is put upon it.

3. That our Saviour, in this Sermon, is not treating of the Sacrament, and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Body and Blood.

p. 31But, 4. That our Saviour is here treating of the Spiritual eating and drinking of his Body and Blood, out of, or without the Sacrament.

And ſo Tranſubſtantiation will fall to the Ground, if they have no better Foundation to fix it upon.

Firſt, Our Saviour's Senſe in this Sermon, and how we muſt underſtand him if we will underſtand him in the Senſe intended by him. And here are four Things to be enquired into.

1. What kind of Meat this is which our Saviour diſcourſes of to the Capernaits in this Sermon. And it is not Corporeal Meat, but Spiritual Meat. Even as Chap. 4. He ſpeaketh to the Samaritan Woman of a Water, whereof whoſoever ſhall drink, ſhall never thirſt; which is not meant of a Material Water, but Spiritual Grace, as the Papiſts do confeſs. Yea this they do freely grant here. For tho they will have it to be Material Food, and to be eaten Orally and Corporally, yet they confeſs that it is Spiritual Meat, Meat for the Soul, not for the Belly. Mentis, non ventris; animae, non corporis.

2. What this Spiritual Meat properly is. Now this is Chriſt himſelf with all the Benefits and Fruits of his Croſs and Paſſion. This Meat is made up of, and conſiſteth in the ſaving Benefits, prepared for us by the Body and Blood of Chriſt crucified, and riſing out of his Paſſion. This is the Food, Meat, Bread which he here ſpeaketh of, that giveth Life to the World, and whereof he that eateth, ſhall live for ever. If it be ſaid this cannot be his Meaning, for he delivered this Sermon before his Paſſion, yet ſpeaks of an eating and drinking that was a preſent Duty, ſo that he could not have this Meaning. I ſay, it is true,Paſſiō Chriſti profuit, antequam fuit. Beneficia Chriſti valent tam antrorſum quam retrorſum. Ex eo tempore valet ad ſervandum genus humanum, ex quo in Adam eſt vitiatum. Aug. both that Chriſt ſpake this before his Paſſion, and the eating he ſpeaks of was a preſent Duty. But what then? diſtinguiſh between the Time of his Death, and the Merit of his Death, and the Difficulty is ſolved. He is the Lamb ſlain from the Foundation of the World. Rev. 13.8. i. e. In regard of the Merit, Fruits and Efficacy of his Death, and the Faith of Believers. Not only before his Paſſion, but before his Incarnation; the Fathers did all eat the ſame Spiritual Meat, and did all drink the ſame Spiritual Drink. For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them: And that Rock was Chriſt. 1. Cor. 10.3, 4. Abraham ſaw his Day. Joh. 8.56. And the Apoſtle giveth this Account of him, Jeſus Chriſt the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever, Heb. 13.8.

3. In what Reſpect he here calls them by the Names of Bread, Meat, and Drink.

(1.) Not in regard of their Nature and Subſtance: As if the very Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt were (according to the bare ſound of the p. 32Words) very Meat and Drink, ſuch as our Corporeal Food is, But,

(2.) In regard of their Effect: the ſaving Benefits of his Fleſh and Blood, or Paſſion, nouriſh the Souls of the Faithful, and preſerve them unto Eternal Life; even as Corporal Meat that we eat doth miniſter Aliment to our Bodies, and preſerve our Natural Lives. And thus as it is the Property of Meat and Drink to maintain the Lives of them that eat and drink thereof, and as whatſoever being eaten and drunk doth maintain Life, is therefore called Meat and drink: So it is the proper Nature of the Fruits and Effects of his Body and Blood to nouriſh the Souls of them that partake thereof to Eternal Life. And therefore for their performing that to Souls, which Meat and Drink do to Bodies, he calls them by the Names of Meat and Drink.

4. What kind of eating and drinking this is that he ſpeaks of: Or, what our Saviour means by eating of his Fleſh, and drinking of his Blood? What this Manducation of this Spiritual Meat is?Per manducationem nihil aliud intelligit quam actum fidei, qui conſiſtit in apprehenſione & applicatione beneficiorum Chriſti. And this is only Spiritual eating by Faith, extra Sacramentum, without the uſe of the Sacramental Signs. The Romaniſts confeſs that he ſpeaks of this kind of eating in this Chapter from the 32d to the 50th verſe; but then from ver. 50. to 59. of eating Orally and Corporally. But we ſay he ſpeaketh only of Spiritual Manducation in this Chapter; which doth conſiſt in a partataking by Faith of the Merit, and Virtue of his Death, the Fruits and Effects of his Paſſion for us. And thus a true Believer eats the Fleſh and drinks the Blood of Chriſt Spiritually, when he,

(1.) Believes that Chriſt's Body was Crucified, and his Blood ſhed for him for the Remiſſion of Sins. And,

(2.) Believeth that by this Paſſion Jeſus Chriſt hath obtained Remiſſion of Sins, and Eternal Life, for them that do unfeignedly believe in him. And when

(3.) By this true and lively Faith he doth embrace and cloſe with Jeſus Chriſt, apply him to himſelf, and from him thus received or manducated receiveth a daily Confirmation and Increaſe of Spiritual Life and Growth.

Thus then, 1. The Meat our Lord ſpeaketh of, is Spiritual Meat. 2. This Spiritual Meat is the ſaving Good prepared for us, by the Body and Blood of Chriſt crucified for us. 3. He calls theſe Fruits of his Paſſion, his Body and Blood; becauſe they are obtained by, and riſe out of his Fleſh and Blood ſacrificed on the Croſs. 4. This eating of his Fleſh, and drinking of his Blood (which he calls by the Names of Bread, Meat, and Drink) is a Spiritual manducating or eating by Faith.

This is our Saviour's Senſe, which is embraced by the true Proteſtants, or Calviniſts, as Bellarmine calls them.

p. 33Secondly, The Popiſh Senſe of this Sermon. This is hinted before. And in ſhort,

1. They confeſs that the kind of Meat he ſpeaketh of, is Spiritual Meat. But then they affirm,

(1.) That this Meat is truly and properly the true and proper Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt. And,

(2.) That this eating, is an Oral and Corporal eating of his true and proper Fleſh and Blood. A Manducation that is performed by Mouth.

(3.) That the Fleſh and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt is thus eaten orally and corporally by the Communicants in the Euchariſt. This is their conſtant Tenet, that in the bleſſed Sacrament of the Altar, under the Forms of Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood of Jeſus Chriſt are received orally and corporally, and that is eaten, this is drunk.

(4.) That this Bodily eating and drinking in the Sacrament, is the eating and drinking that is properly and primarily meant by our Lord in this Sermon. Et de quâ agitur.

This is the Mind of the Romaniſts. Now in the next Place I am to ſhew,

Thirdly, That our Lord Jeſus Chriſt in this Sermon, is not treating properly of the Sacrament, and Sacramental eating and drinking of his Fleſh and Blood; much leſs is he here teaching the Popiſh Doctrine of Oral and Bodily eating and drinking his true and proper Fleſh and Blood in the Sacrament.

In this Point we have the Conſent of the Lutherans; Hoc caput non proprie & per ſe ad doctrictrinam de Coena pertinet. Chemn. Harm. p. 1134. De ſpirituali comeſtione Dominus ait, niſi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis ejus ſanguineni, non habebitis vitam in vobis. De Myſt. Miſſae. l. 4. c. 14.yea we have the Suffrage of divers learned Papiſts who quit this Argument, and poſitively affirm, That our Saviour in this Chapter doth not treat of the Sacrament. As Biel in Can. Miſſae. Card. Cajetan in Thom. par. 3. q. 80. Art. 8. Card Cuſan Ep. 7. ad Bohemos, and many others. Inſomuch that Maldonatus on John 6.53. complains ſadly, that ſome Catholicks choſe to think and ſpeak in this Controverſy, as Hereticks, rather than as the Orthodox; and tho he forbear to name them, yet he gives their Character in theſe Words, Scio Catholicos, ſcio Doctos, ſcio Religioſos ac Probos Viros eſſe. So that by the Jeſuits own Confeſſion, we have Catholicks, and Catholicks that are Learned, and Religious, and Honeſt good Men on our ſide. Yet if this be nothing, we have not only learned Men, but an Infallible Pope voting for us, and expounding our Lord's Words as we do, viz. Innocent the 3d. (under whom Tranſubſtantiation was firſt decreed) who ſpeaking of our Saviour's Words John 6.53. hath theſe Words. The Lord ſpeaketh of Spiritual eating, ſaying, Except ye eat p. 34the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you.

Now that our Lord Jeſus Chriſt is not here ſpeaking of the Participation of the Sacrament, or eating of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament, will be evident from theſe:

1. The Sacrament of the Euchariſt was not then inſtituted; nor, as ſome think, of two years after this; or, as others (who make the Paſsover, (v. 4.) the third Paſsover after his Baptiſm) not until more than a full year after: And therefore he could not ſpeak of an eating of his Fleſh and drinking of his Blood in the Sacrament, that was not then in being nor of ſo long a time after.

If it be ſaid, True indeed, it was not then in being, but yet he ſpoke with reference to it, and to inſtruct them beforehand in the Myſtery of this Meat which was to be prepared for them in the Euchariſt. To this I ſay,

(1.) How could they to whom he ſpake poſſibly underſtand any thing of his meaning, when ſpeaking with relation to a thing that was not, nor whereof they had either then, or before, any intimation, or leaſt inſinuation that ſuch a thing ſhould be? They ſay elſewhere, that he ſpoke plainly and intelligibly, and it may very reaſonably be ſuppoſed that now he ſpake to be underſtood, and of a matter that might be underſtood by them, but it can hardly be imagined how they could underſtand this Diſcourſe to be meant of a Sacrament, a Sacrament neither before, nor then once mentioned, nor inſtituted and in being of a Year or two after.

(2.) Jeſus Chriſt was the Bread of Life at that very time when he preached this Sermon, v. 35. I am the Bread of Life; v. 48. I am the Bread of Life. And again, v. 50. Thus he ſpeaks of that which then was, before the Sacrament of his Supper was inſtituted.

(3.) Our Saviour propoſeth and preſſeth the eating of his Fleſh and drinking of his Blood, as a preſent and neceſſary Duty: A Duty that all thoſe that were preſent and heard him, were then obliged unto. And therefore it muſt neceſſarily be granted, that this Meat was then in being, and might be eaten by the Faithful, but they could not then eat it in the Sacrament, which had no being, nor was inſtituted.

This is the firſt thing, that plainly proves, that our Lord and Saviour is not here treating of Sacramental eating and drinking; the Sacrament was not inſtituted.

2. The eating and drinking which he here ſpeaks of, are neceſſary to Salvation; Acts that he makes ſo neceſſary Conditions of Life, as no Man can be ſaved without them. V. 53. Except ye eat the Fleſh of the p. 35Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye have no Life in you. It is an eating and drinking without which none can have Life: So that if our Saviour mean it of Sacramental eating and drinking, no Man can be ſaved that hath not received the Sacrament. And from hence it was that the Fathers, who took this Sermon to be meant of the Sacrament, being moved by theſe Words, ordered the Euchariſt to be given, and gave it to Infants as ſoon as they were baptized, as neceſſary to their Salvation: And indeed this doth neceſſarily follow this Expoſition of our Saviour's Words. But from this very thing it is evident that our Saviour's Words cannot be meant of Sacramental eating; becauſe that Sacramental eating is not abſolutely neceſſary to Salvation, ſo as no Man can be ſaved except he have, once at leaſt, taken the Sacrament: For many, who never ate his Fleſh nor drank his Blood in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, are certainly ſaved. All the Faithful that lived and dyed before the Incarnation of Chriſt, ate the ſame Spiritual Meat, and drank the ſame Spiritual Drink, and are ſaved, as our Adverſaries will not deny; yet none of them did ever once eat it in the Euchariſt. The penitent Thief went from the Croſs to Paradiſe immediately, yet had never eaten the Sacrament. Many thouſand Infants and Children of Chriſtian Parents dye one Generation after another before they have once taſted of the Sacrament. Are all theſe Damned? There have been, and are, abſtemious Perſons who cannot brook the leaſt ſup or drop of Wine; Muſt all theſe (who are ſuſpended from Drinking, by a natural and ſinleſs Infirmity, or Antipathy to Wine) be given up for Loſt?

They think to evade the Force of this Argument, that falls ſo convincingly upon them, by this ſorry ſhift, viz. That our Saviour here ſpeaks of them only who have Means and Opportunities of receiving his Fleſh and Blood in the Euchariſt, which thoſe here inſtanced in, never had.

But I anſwer, That the Words of Chriſt are true, ſimply, and abſolutely without Exception or Limitation. And no one can have Life, or be ſaved without a real and actual participation of the ſaving Benefits prepared for Souls by the Body and Blood of Chriſt Crucified: And this Participation is the only manducation or eating that is meant in this place.

3. The eating and drinking of his Fleſh and Blood, which he here ſpeaks of, is always accompanied with Life and Salvation to all thoſe who ſo eat his Fleſh and drink his Blood. See v. 50, 51, 54, 58. A Man may eat thereof and not dye. If any Man eat of this Bread, he ſhall live for ever: And whoſo eateth hath Eternal Life. Mark, this is an eating whereby all Men whoſoever, have Life, and are certainly ſaved: And therefore this eating is not Sacramental eating with the Mouth, p. 36nor doth ſtand in partaking of the Euchariſt. For many eat and drink in the Sacrament who have no Life, nor are ſaved. It is believed by many that Judas did partake in the Sacrament, as well as the other eleven, yet was the Son of Perdition. And it is plain in the caſe of Hypocrites and Wicked Men, who receive the Sacrament again and again, may be a hundred times over, yet have no Life, nor dying ſo (as we may fear not a few do, after many a Sacrament) are ſaved. But if our Saviour had indeed meant this of Sacramental eating, then it would follow, that the worſt of Men, by participating (if but once in all their Lives) of the Sacrament, ſhould thereby have their Salvation infallibly ſecured.

Yet here again the Papiſts would creep out by the help of a pretended Implication in our Saviour's Words; viz. That eating and drinking worthily is implyed, and to be underſtood as neceſſary to the ſenſe of the Words: And ſo when our Saviour expreſſeth himſelf in thoſe Terms uſed, v. 50, 51, 54, 58. he means all, and only, of them who eat and drink his Fleſh and Blood worthily. But,

(1.) This [worthily] is their own Addition to our Saviour's Words. For our Saviour neither hath it, nor any thing that implieth it in theſe Verſes, or in this whole Sermon on this Subject.

(2.) As it is their Addition, ſo it is built upon a falſe Suppoſition, viz. That Men may eat the Fleſh and drink the Blood of Chriſt (in his Senſe) unworthily. Whereas he is here ſpeaking of ſuch eating and drinking of his Fleſh and Blood as muſt certainly and neceſſarily be worthily done, and cannot be done otherwiſe. A Man may take the Signs of his Body and Blood unworthily. And therefore the Apoſtle ſpeaks of eating the Bread and drinking the Cup of the Lord unworthily in the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11.27. But no Man can either in, or out of the Sacrament, receive the thing ſignified unworthily, viz. Chriſt and his Benefits, or truly believe in, and apply Chriſt to himſelf unworthily. If this be done at all, it is done worthily, and cannot be otherwiſe.

4. The eating and drinking he here ſpeaks of, is ever followed with his dwelling in them, and they in him, who ſo eat his Fleſh and drink his Blood; v. 56 He that eateth my Fleſh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. He in me, and I in him. As much as to ſay, as there is a near and inſeparable Union betwixt us, he is united to me, and I am united to him; as there is a Union of the Body and Food. And this again makes it plain, that he ſpeaks not of the Sacramental eating with the Mouth, or of receiving the Euchariſt. For then when wicked Men, who are Enemies to the Croſs of Chriſt, have once received the Sacrament, they ſhould thenceforth dwell in him, and he in them, have a Spiritual p. 37Union to, and Communion with him: Yet it is certain there is no ſuch a thing, as he will one Day make them all to know; Mat. 7.23.

Theſe four plainly prove this, viz. That our Saviour is not here ſpeaking of the participation of the Sacrament, or of Sacramental eating and drinking, and much leſs of the Popiſh Oral and Corporal eating and drinking of his true and proper Fleſh and Blood in the Sacrament, under the forms of Bread and Wine. I may add farther,

5. That our Lord Jeſus Chriſt plainly obviates and prevents this groſs and carnal Senſe of his Words; v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Fleſh profiteth nothing: the Words that I ſpeak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are Life. Here, I ſay, he expounds his meaning in this Diſcourſe.

It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Fleſh profiteth nothing;Deitas in Chriſto, ſeu vis illa Deitatis in Chriſto, eſt cauſa propriè, cur caro ſit vere cibus, & vivificet. Ille Ieſus Chriſti ſolus, qui eſt totius Chriſti, & utriuſque naturae, valet ad vitam, is autem non corporalis, ſed ſpiritualis eſt per fidem. Nec audent dicere ſe unà cum humana Chriſti natura devorare quoque Deitatem ipſam. Rolloc. in loc. Caro quidem Coeterorum omnium quicquam vere non prodeſt. Caro autem Chriſti, quia in ipſe unigenitus Dei filius habitat ſola vivificare poteſt. Cyril. l. 4. in Joh. c. 23. See Bucan. loc. 48. qu. 112. i. e. the Humanity profits nothing without the Divinity. The Fleſh or Human Nature, of it ſelf and alone, hath no quickning Efficacy, but in conjunction with the Spirit, or Divine Nature, from which it receives this quickning Power and Efficacy. The Divinity is the Fountain from which this Vertue flows, the Humanity is the Chanel by which it is derived unto us.

The Words that I ſpeak unto you, i. e. of eating my Fleſh,Verba quae locutus ſum ad vos, ſpiritus & vita ſunt, intellexiſtis ſpiritualiter? Spiritus & vita ſunt. Intellexiſtis carnaliter? etiam. ſic illa ſpititus & vita ſunt, ſed tibi non ſunt ſpiritus eſt vita, qui non ſpiritualiter non intelligis. Ib. ex Auguſtino. and drinking my Blood, they are Spirit, and they are Life: 1. They are to be underſtood, not after a groſs and carnal manner, but in a ſpiritual Senſe, and ſo they are Life, or confer Life. To this the Decretal of the Romiſh Church agrees, in the 2d. diſtinction of Conſecration, in the Canon prima quidem: where we have theſe Words. Underſtand that which I ſay ſpiritually. You ſhall not eat that Body which you ſee, nor drink the Blood which thoſe that crucify me will ſhed; I have recommended a ſacred Sign to you, which being underſtood ſpiritually, will quicken you.

6. If we ſhould grant them thus much, that our Saviour here ſpeaketh of the Bodily eating of his real Body, yet this would not ſerve their turn. For they will have the Bread to be tranſubſtantiated into the Body of Chriſt; but this Diſcourſe would prove the quite contrary, and that (if there be any Tranſubſtantiation) it is not the Bread that is tranſubſtantiated into the Body of Chriſt, but the Body of Chriſt that is tranſubſtantiated p. 38into Bread. For our Saviour here expreſly calls himſelf Bread ten times over. v. 32, 33, 35, 48, 50, 51, 58. So that there is far more ground to believe, that the Body of Chriſt ſhould be turned into Bread, than, that Bread ſhould be turned into the Body of Chriſt.

7. When they are driven from all their other Artifices whereby they would make this Sermon of our Lord to ſpeak for them, they betake themſelves to their laſt Refuge, and that is, that we muſt believe the naked Words of Chriſt without any Diſputation or Queſtion about them. Thus the Romaniſt, when at a pinch, ſays, This one Word of Chriſt is enough to me, when he calls his Fleſh Meat indeed: I will not deny, doubt, diſpute. This was the great Sin of the Capernaits here, v. 52. How can this Man give us his Fleſh to eat? It came not to their Mind (ſay the Rhemiſts on the Words) that nothing was impoſſible to God, that wickedly ſaid, How can this Man give us his Fleſh? But we may make great Profit of their Sin, believing the Myſteries, and taking a Leſſon, never to ſay, or once think, How? For it is a Jewiſh Word, and worthy of all Puniſhment. To this I ſay, the Sin of the Jews here was,

1. That they denied the Matter of Chriſt's Words, viz. that there could be any ſuch thing as the eating and drinking of his Fleſh and Blood. Their How, was a How of denying the Truth of his Words.

2. That they underſtood not, but groſly miſtook the true meaning of his Words, when he had before plainly enough ſhewed them, that this eating (he was ſpeaking to them of) ſtood in believing▪ and had promiſcuouſly uſed the Phraſes of eating, coming, believing, for the ſame thing.

But it was not their Sin,

(1.) To deny that Oral Manducation (whereof they took him to ſpeak) as a thing groſly abſurd and monſtrous. Nor,

(2.) To enquire humbly and modeſtly after the true meaning of our Saviour's Words, and manner of eating and drinking his Fleſh and Blood. And ſo we, believing Chriſt Words to be true, may and ought to inquire in what Senſe they are true, and after what manner Corporally or Spiritually his Fleſh is to be eaten, and his Blood drunk. And it is a vain pretence of Humility that leads Men to ſwallow down the moſt groſs Abſurdities under a pretence of believing.

But in the mean time the Papiſts ſin moſt inexcuſably.

1ſt. In their wilful underſtanding of our Saviour (as the Capernaits did) to ſpeak of his Material Fleſh and Blood, and of a Bodily manner of eating and drinking thereof.

2dly. In their violent defending and maintaining of this that the Capernaits denied and condemned.

p. 39We have done with the third thing that was propoſed, namely, That our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament, &c.

Fourthly; We ſhall add a word of the fourth, That our Saviour is here treating of the ſpiritual eating and drinking of his Body and Blood extra Sacramentum, without the Sacrament. And this will be evident, if we conſider that the Manducation here ſpoken of, is an eating,

1. That was before the Sacrament was inſtituted; and true Believers did eat his Fleſh and drink his Blood, when there was no Euchariſt to eat and drink them in.

2. That is to everlaſting Life unto all that ſo eat, Verſ. 54.

3. That is abſolutely neceſſary to Life and Salvation, Verſ. 53.

4. That unites the Soul unto Chriſt, and Chriſt unto the Soul, Verſ. 56. Theſe have been brought before, to prove that he is not ſpeaking of bodily eating, and would come in again here to confirm this.

5. The Fleſh of Chriſt is eaten only as it is Meat: Now it is not Meat for our Body and Corporal Nouriſhment, but Meat of our Souls and Spiritual Nouriſhment, and only eaten of the Soul ſpiritually by Faith. In ſhort, ſuch as our Hunger is, that makes us deſire this Meat; ſuch as this Meat is, that we deſire; and ſuch as the Life is, that is maintained by it; ſuch alſo is our eating of it. But the Hunger that makes us deſire this Meat is ſpiritual, and the Meat we feed on here is ſpiritual, and the Life that is nouriſhed by it is ſpiritual; and therefore our eating is only ſpiritual, not corporal.

6. Our Saviour doth put the matter out of queſtion by expounding his meaning to them, and declaring that this eating ſtands in believing. Thus what he calls eating,Hic edere Chriſtum eſt credere in eum, at que applicare eum magis magiſ que ad animos noſtros. Audita devorandus eſt: intellectu ruminandus: & fide digerendus. Tertul. de Reſur. Carnis. Haec quoties agimus, non dentes ad mordendum acuimus, ſed fide ſincerè panem ſanctum frangimus & partimur. Cyprian. that he plainly expounds to be nothing elſe but believing; and uſeth without difference the terms of Eating, Coming, Believing as ſynonimous, or Words of the ſame Signification, V. 35. here he uſeth Coming for Eating, Believing for Drinking. And the proper and natural Conſequents of theſe words, I am the Bread of Life, are, He that eateth me, ſhall never hunger; and he that drinketh me, ſhall never thirſt. But he ſaith, He that cometh to me, ſhall never hunger; and he that believeth on me, ſhall never thirſt; to teach us that he ſpeaks of an eating and drinking which is by Faith. So Verſ. 47, 48. he ſhews to eat (in this Myſtery) is nothing elſe but to believe.

p. 40Now I have done with this Argument, and from what is ſaid, I hope it may be plain and evident to us, that our Saviour in this Sermon is not treating of the Sacrament, and a ſacramental eating and drinking of his Fleſh and Blood, but of a ſpiritual eating and drinking without the Sacrament; and ſo here can be no colour of a Foundation for Tranſubſtantiation.

Yet before I leave this, I muſt add a word to prevent the miſtaking of my meaning in what is here ſaid, as if I had denied that Believers in the participation of the Sacrament, do ſpiritually eat and drink the Body and Blood of Chriſt. This I have not ſaid, but that which I have aſſerted is, That our Saviour in this Chapter is not treating of the Sacrament, nor of eating and drinking his Fleſh and Blood in the Sacrament. Yet (tho he doth not here ſpeak of it) Believers in the due uſe of the Sacrament do that which he here ſpeaks of, i. e. really and truly eat his Fleſh and drink his Blood in the Senſe here intended, i. e. ſpiritually by Faith. There is a threefold eating, as hath been hinted.

1. Sacramentally only.

2. Spiritually only.

Corpus Chriſti accipitur non Sacramentaliter tantum quod ſolum Symbolum, ſed ſimul ſpiritualiter quoad rem ſignificatam.3. Sacramentally and Spiritually together. And thus the Sacramental eating and drinking of the ſacred Symbols, when performed in a due manner by true Believers, is ever accompanied with this ſpiritual eating. And ſo, tho in this whole Sermon he treats not of the Sacrament, yet whatſoever he ſpeaks in it of eating and drinking, &c. may be accommodated and applied to the Sacrament; wherein, I ſay, this that our Lord preſſeth on the Jews, is performed by all true Chriſtians, and without which the Sacrament is but an empty Ceremony.

Thirdly; They argue from the words of our Saviour, Mat. 19.26. With Men this is impoſſible, but with God all things are poſſible. From hence they ſay, altho Tranſubſtantiation be hard for Human Reaſon to underſtand, yet it is not hard for Divine Omnipotence to effect: And Chriſt made the Bread his Body by the ſame Omnipotent Power, whereby the World was made, and the Word was incarnate and made Fleſh in the Womb of the Virgin. Thus they argue from the Divine Omnipotence, and oppoſe Omnipotence to all the Abſurdities, Contradictions, and Impoſſibilities that Tranſubſtantiation is clogged with, and exclaim againſt us, as ſetting our natural Reaſon in oppoſition to the Omnipotence of Jeſus Chriſt; and even denying his Omnipotence, becauſe we deny their Tranſubſtantiation.

p. 41This is their laſt Argument from the Scripture: The Argument wherewith they do moſt delude ſimple People, and draw them into a blind Belief of Tranſubſtantiation, and conſequently to the Belief and Practice of all the Abominations and abominable Idolatries that are daily practiſed in the Maſs. Now in Anſwer to it, I ſay,

1ſt. That we do not deny, or once doubt of Chriſt's Omnipotence, but conſtantly believe and openly profeſs according to the Scripture, that, Whatſoever the Lord pleaſed, that did he in Heaven and in Earth; Pſal. 135.6. Eph. 3.20.Ps 135:6Eph 3:20in the Seas, and all deep places: And that he is able to do exceeding abundantly above that we ask or think. But then,

2dly.A potentia ad actum ſeu a poſſe ad eſſe non valet conſequentia. We deny that it is warrantable to argue from the Power of Chriſt to the Act, or being of a thing, without ſufficient Indications, Significations, and Evidences of his Will to perform ſuch an Act, or effect ſuch a thing. Or, that becauſe he can by his abſolute Power do ſuch and ſuch things, they are therefore done. The Pſalmiſt ſays, He hath done whatſoever he pleaſed, not whatſoever he could. He can do whatſoever he will, but he will not do whatſoever he can.Pſ. 115.3. Omnia quae voluit non quae potuit. Omnia quae vult, poteſt, non vero quae poteſt, vult. Poteſt enim perdere mundum, ſed non vult. Damaſ. Omnipotens eſt Deus ad facienda majora & minora. Omnipotens eſt ad Coeleſtia & Terreſtria. Omnipotens eſt ad mortalia & immortalia. Omnipotens eſt ad facienda ſpiritualia & corporalia, viſibilia & inviſibilia. Omnipotens eſt ad facienda omnia quae voluerit. Alias aliqua non poteſt, non poteſt mori, non poteſt peccare, non poteſt mentiri, non poteſt falli. Aug. Serm. 119, de Temp.Ps 115:3 We may at this rate fancy any thing of God, as if he had done it, becauſe it was in his Power to do it. He could have made Men with Wings to flie as Birds, and as Angels are painted; or with Horns, as ſome Beaſts, and as Moſes is pictured, doth it follow that he hath? He could have made the Horſe, or the Ox to go upright as Man: it doth not follow that he hath. He is able of Stones to raiſe up Children unto Abraham, Mat. 3.9. but we do not find that he ever hath turned, or will turn Stones into Children. By this way of arguing, the Alcaran, and all that is contained in it, may be maintained; yea, this is the compendious and ſure way to prove any thing that the wildeſt Heads in the World can invent. God is omnipotent.

3dly. We affirm that Arguments may not be drawn from the Omnipotence of Chriſt to confirm Doctrines that are,

(1.) Contrary to the Scriptures. Or,

(2.) Carry in them manifeſt Contradictions, or plain Impoſſibilities.

(1.) Contrary to the Scriptures: For Chriſt is not Yea and Nay, 2 Cor. 1.19. nor can he deny himſelf, 2 Tim. 2.13. and therefore to ſet that up by the Power of Chriſt, which is contrary to the Word of p. 42Chriſt; is to ſet his Omnipotence in oppoſition to his Veracity, and by his Power to deſtroy his Truth, and make him a Liar. And this is the Fraud whereby the Papiſts ſeek to delude the ſimple. What Is not Chriſt Omnipotent? Will you queſtion the Omnipotent Power of Chriſt's Word? Look, look at the many and mighty Miracles that were done by it, and be not faithleſs, but believing. What ſay you (ſaid Bonner to Mr. Philpot) to the Omnipotency of God? Act. & Mon. 3 vol. p. 555.Is not he able to perform that which he ſpoke? This is my Body. I tell thee that God by his Omnipotency, may make himſelf to be this Carpet, if he will. But hold a little:

That our Lord Jeſus Chriſt is Omnipotent we no way doubt; but we are as ſure that he is alſo moſt true, and cannot lie or deceive? And therefore muſt (notwithſtanding his Omnipotence) peremptorily deny your Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe it is inconſiſtent with the Truth, and contrary to the expreſs Word of Chriſt, which plainly declares (as is ſhewed before) that he is aſcended into Heaven, and that the Heavens muſt receive him; ſo as he ſhall deſcend no more, before that great Day when he ſhall deſcend from Heaven with a Shout, with the Voice of the Arch-angel, and with the Trump of God.

Thus Tranſubſtantiation is contrary to the Word of Chriſt. And therefore, till they have proved that Chriſt will act in Contradiction to his own Word, and (like unto us ſinful Men) ſay one thing, and then do quite and clean contrary; let them tell us no more what Chriſt can do by his Omnipotence in this caſe. Divine Omnipotence is to be called in for a Confirmation of the Scripture-Revelations, and Articles of Faith grounded on the Scriptures, and not for the overthrowing of them, which would be the readieſt way to overthrow all Chriſtianity.

2. Carry in them manifeſt Contradictions, or plain Impoſſibilities. We may not thus make Divine Omnipotence an Argument to prove and eſtabliſh things that imply plain Contradictions; or argue from the Divine Power to the Being of Impoſſibles. Now things are impoſſible in a threefold reſpect.

(1.) Simpliciter, ſimply and abſolutely; that is, ſuch things as are contrary unto, and inconſiſtent with the Nature and infinite Perfection of God: As for God to die, lie, ſin, deceive. Theſe are ſimply impoſſible,Magna in Deo potentia eſt non poſſe mentiri. Aug. l. 1. de Symbol. c. 1. and to ſay, That becauſe God is Omnipotent, he may therefore die, lie, &c. is no leſs than Blaſphemy: Nor doth this derogate any thing from his Omnipotence, becauſe they are things that ſuppoſe and argue Impotence and Imperfection. And this Impoſſibility is not from Impotency, but immenſe Perfection in God.

p. 43(2.) Ex Hypotheſi ſeu Preſuppoſito, upon a Pre-ſuppoſition: That is, ſuch things as are contrary unto, and inconſiſtent with his immutable Counſel and Will revealed in his Word. Thus it is not a thing ſimply impoſſible with God to annihilate the Devils, or to ſave the Damned. Yet this is impoſſible ex ſuppoſito, upon this Suppoſition, that God hath decreed and revealed the contrary, viz. That he will never annihilate the one, or ſave the other. Thus, I ſay, this is impoſſible in regard of his conſtant and immutable Truth.

(3.) Ex natura rerum, in regard of the Nature of the Things themſelves: that is, ſuch things as imply a Contradiction. Theſe are not only impoſſible, Naturae, to Nature, and the Power of Secondary Cauſes: But they are impoſſible, Naturâ, in Nature, or in the Nature of the things themſelves: And ſo impoſſible with God,Arrowſ. Chain. 247, 248. yet it is not through defect of Power in God, that ſuch things cannot be done; but through want of Capacity in the things which are ſimply impoſſible. The Popiſh Schoolmen confeſs,Thom. 1. q. 25. Art. 3 & 4. that things which imply Contradiction fall not under the Divine Power, and grant that God cannot make Contradictories to be true, together; quia Contradictio ponit eſſe, Qui diceret idem ſimul eſſe & non eſſe poſſe, nemo omnium poſt homines natos unquam repertus fuit. Quodlibet eſt vel non eſt. foreign. 3. Metaph. 3. affirmatio & negatio, (ut homo non homo, ens non ens) non ſunt ſimul verae. Contradictoria nec ſimul vera, nec ſimul falſa eſſe poſſunt, prima ſunt iſta principia, & mentibus hominum naturaliter inſita.& non eſſe & ſimul. It makes a thing to be, and not to be, and to be, and not to be at the very ſame time; a thing that is impoſſible: For every thing is, or is not: Nothing can both be, and not be at the ſame time. It is impoſſible that the ſame Body ſhould be in many places, or in more than one place at one time: That a Man ſhould be both alive and dead at once: That a Child ſhould be before, and beget his own Father, &c.

We may not argue from the Divine Power to the Being of Things that are impoſſible any of theſe ways. But Tranſubſtantiation is impoſſible all theſe ways.

1. Simply. It is a thing contrary unto,Potenter non poteſt efficere, ut corpus Chriſti fit ſimul actu corpus & non corpus, ſimul actu circumſcriptum, & non circumſcriptum, quia ſunt iſta contradictoria. Aug. and inconſiſtent with the Nature of God, who cannot lie.

2. From a ſuppoſition of his Will manifeſted in his Word. So it is a thing moſt contrary unto, and inconſiſtent with his immutable Truth.

3. As implying a Contradiction, and not only ſo, but big with many Contradictions, and thoſe as groſs, obvious, and notorious as can be imagined, as hath been ſhewed. When Bonner had affirmed to Philpot, That God by his Omnipotence may make himſelf a Carpet. Philpot anſwered, God is able to do whatſoever he willeth, but he willeth p. 44nothing which is not agreeable to his Word: Non poteſt Deus facere quae ſunt naturae ſuae contraria. It is contrary to the Nature of God to be a Carpet, for the Creator to be a Creature.

4thly. We ſay, Arguments taken from the Omnipotent Power of God to prove the being of a thing, are only concluſive, and cogent, or valid, when we have a Signification of his Will to do ſuch a thing. In this caſe they conclude. For whatſoever he will do, that he can do; and what he hath ſignified that he will do, we may firmly build upon it, that it ſhall be done whatſoever Difficulties or Impediments may lie in the way. Omnipotence can eaſily level the higheſt Mountains, roll away the greateſt Stones, dry up deepeſt Seas. It was Tertullian's ſaying, Credo quia impoſſibile, I believe becauſe it is impoſſible; a ſtrange Expreſſion, as one would think, Yet thus muſt we (ſays Dr. Stillingfleet) taking Impoſſibility as relating to Second Cauſes; when the thing exceeds all probabilities and poſſibilities of Second Cauſes, and the ground of Faith, to be ſome Divine Prediction. Orig. Sacr. p. 184.

But where we want this Evidence of his Will, we ſhall but unwarrantably, and without ground, expect the Effect in reſpect of his Power: For he can do many things that he will not do. He could have made many Worlds at once, when this was made; he could have made many Suns as well as one, he could have prevented the Fall of Man, recovered the lapſed Angels; but he hath done none of theſe, nor of Miriads of other things eaſy to have been done in regard of his Power. He can maintain our Lives without the uſe of Meat or Drink, give us Bread-corn without ſowing and reaping, and make our Bodies immortal, never to ſee Death; but he doth none of theſe: And that Man would be thought to reaſon very weakly and abſurdly, who ſhould argue on this manner. God is Omnipotent, therefore I ſhall live without eating, or reap without ſowing, or be immortal, and live for ever.

Arguments from the Power of God, only conclude the Being of thoſe things, which he hath declared it to be his Will to give a Being unto. But here in this matter of Tranſubſtantiation, we do not only want the Evidence of his Will for it, but have moſt evident Indications and Manifeſtations of his Will againſt it. I add,

5thly. That if we would grant this to them, that muſt never be granted, that is, That Tranſubſtantiation is no way impoſſible, nor doth imply any Contradiction; yet it would reſt on them to prove, that Jeſus Chriſt doth exert and put forth his Almighty and Infinite Power in changing a bit of Bread into his very Body, Blood, and Bones, p. 45as born of the Virgin: For we can in no wiſe, on no faſhion ſee it.Bernard was wont to ſay, that there are tria mirabilia mirabiliſſima. 1. Deus & homo. 2. Virgo & Mater. 3. Fides & Cor Hominis. This (if true) might well be added as a fourth, being as great, and far greater than any of the three. If there be ſuch a Tranſmutation, we muſt ſay, that it is a very ſtrange Change, nay a miraculous Change: A Miracle, a great Miracle, as great, if not much greater than his Incarnation. That God ſhould become Man was a great wonder, as all confeſs: and we cannot but think it a greater wonder, and more ſtrange, that a piece of Bread ſhould become God; that that which was Bread in the Baker's Hand half an hour before, is now very God, our Creator, Redeemer, and Saviour in the Prieſt's hand. But we cannot for our Hearts believe this, that there is any ſuch a wonderful and miraculous Tranſmutation. For,

1. It is contrary to the nature of all Miracles that ever were known to be done. It was never known, that any Miracle did at once deſtroy and take away the Subſtance, or natural Properties of the Subject whereupon it was wrought, and alſo leave them remaining. When Moſes's Rod was turned into a Serpent, it was not both a Rod and a Serpent at once, aſſuming the form of a Serpent, yet keeping the perfect form of a Rod. When the Water was turned into Wine, it was not both Wine and Water, or Wine under the Accidents of Water. But this new Miracle both deſtroys the whole Subſtance of the Bread, and at the ſame time preſerves and continues in their former place all the Properties and Accidents of Bread, without the leaſt change one way or other.

2. In true and real Miracles, where a Change is made from one thing to another, the Change is obvious to the Eye, and manifeſt to the other Senſes, ſtriking Men ordinarily with great wonder and amazement. The Miracles of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt were very viſible and conſpicuous; as when he raiſed the Dead, diſpoſſeſſed the Devils, cleanſed the Lepers, ſtopped the Flux, healed the Palſie, reſtored Sight to the Blind, Hearing to the Deaf, Speech to the Dumb, Legs to the Lame, &c. they were all very conſpicuous, evident and plain to be ſeen. Both they upon whom the Miracles of healing were wrought, and others, who were Spectators, ſaw them, and were taken with great wonder at the beholding of them. Mat. 15.30, 31. Great Multitudes came unto him, having with them thoſe that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and caſt them down at Jeſus feet, and he healed them: Inſomuch that the Multitude wondred, when they ſaw the dumb to ſpeak, the mained to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to ſee: and they glorified the God of Iſrael. John 6.2. A great Multitude followed him, becauſe they ſaw his Miracles which he did on them that were diſeaſed. When he wrought that Miracle on the Fig-tree, the Diſciples p. 46ſaw it, and marvelled, Mat 21.19, 20. Yea, his Miracles were ſo open and evident, that his greateſt Adverſaries could not deny them. John 11.47. the Council that was called againſt him, gave in this Teſtimony, This Man doth many Miracles.

But now here forſooth is a Miracle of Chriſt, a great Miracle, a greater Miracle than any that he did, and greater than all that he did in the days of his Fleſh, viz. A bit of Bread changed in a moment into Fleſh, Blood, and Bones. A ſorry Creature (that a little Mouſe may carry away and eat at once) turned into the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth: and yet all this done without the leaſt indication or appearance of any Change at all. For when this bit of Bread is thus changed, if we look upon it as fixedly, intently, earneſtly as ever we can, we can ſee no Change; if we handle it, it is the ſame, the very ſame that it was; if we ſmell it, why! the Smell is the ſame; if we taſte it, it hath no other taſte; and if we break and crumble it as ſmall as we can deviſe, ſtill neither Fleſh, Blood, nor Bone is to be found nor the leaſt appearance of any other Subſtance than the Subſtance of Bread.

3. When our Lord Jeſus Chriſt took a Human Nature and became Man, he plainly ſhewed himſelf to be God, by ſuch real Miracles as were convincing Arguments of his Deity. But now when a piece of Bread, or a Wafer, is become God, this Wafer manifeſts no Deity for the Conviction of the World. Nay, inſtead of doing Miracles that might convince us of a Deity, it is ſtill liable to thoſe things that do prove and proclaim it to be no God. For when a Wafer is made a God, by Tranſubſtantiation, we may ſtill eat it, throw it to the Ground, caſt it into Fire or Water, unto Dogs or Hogs, no leſs than when it was but a Wafer, or bit of Bread; and it can no more reſiſt or hinder us, than it could while it was but a piece of Bread. And are theſe things Marks and Indications of a Deity?

This may ſuffice to be ſaid to this Argument taken from divine Omnipotence. And I have alſo done with their Scripture Proof, or Arguments drawn from the Scripture.

L. 3. de Euchar. c. 20.II. They argue from the Fathers: From the Teſtimony and Authority of the Fathers. Here Bellarmine brings in 17 Fathers for it.

I ſhall not enter into this Debate between them and us, having cleared the Holy Scriptures of it, it may ſuffice to ſay, as to the Fathers,

Eph. 2.20.Eph 2:201. That our Faith muſt be grounded upon the Word of God, not upon the Sayings or Writings of Men: The Opinion of the Fathers p. 47without the Word of God is not ſufficient for us to build our Faith upon.

2. That tho the Fathers were Learned and Holy Men (which we readily grant) yet they were but Men, Men ſubject to Errors and Miſtakes; yea and Men (as none will deny) that had their Errors and Miſtakes.

3. That no Authority of Man ought to prevail in matters of Faith, unleſs it have the Authority of God to back it. It is not their Judgment, or Authority, that muſt ſway us, but the ground of their Judgment; i. e. if they have Scripture-Warrant for what they ſay. We gladly hear the Fathers, when they ſpeak the Language of our heavenly Father: But in whatſoever they depart from this, we muſt depart from them.Si quis de anteceſſoribus vel ignoranter vel ſimpliciter non hoc obſervavit, quod nos Dominus facere exemplo & magiſterio ſuo docuit, poteſt ſimplicitati ejus de indulgentia Domini venia concedi, nobis vero non poterit ignoſci, qui nunc a Domino admoniti & inſtructi ſumus, ut ubique lex Evangelica & traditio Dominica ſervetur, & ab eo quod Chriſtus & docuit & fecit, non recedatur. Cypr. L. 2. Ep. 3. Sine divina Literatura nullius momenti eſt antiquitas. Tertul. Apol. c. 47. When the Donatiſts urged Auguſtine with the Writings and Authority of Cyprian, he replied, Whatſoever in them agreeth with the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, I receive it with his Praiſe; but whatſoever agreeth not, I refuſe it with his Leave. And ſo muſt we. For (as one) tho Antiquity be for a Thing, yet if Scripture be againſt it, the Cauſe is as good as ought to be wiſh'd, Antiquity it ſelf ſitting Judg. Omnes Patres & tota Schola (as another) are not the Old and New Teſtament.

4. But in this Controverſy about Tranſubſtantiation, and the real Preſence, the Fathers are moſt expreſs, plain, and full againſt them. It is true indeed that they beſtowed all their Eloquence on this Subject of the Euchariſt, and ſpake many things very Rhetorically and Hyperbolically, both to procure more reverence to the Ordinance, and raiſe the Affections of the Communicants: which Hyperbolles and high Expreſſions (as in other Matters) muſt have their grains of Allowance: But when they come down from theſe high and lofty Strains of Rhetorical Floriſhes, they deliver themſelves as poſitively, plainly, and fully, againſt Tranſubſtantiation as can be: Calling the Elements Bread and Wine, Commemorations, Types, Figures, Symbols, Signs, &c. of Chriſt's Body and Blood. For this I might refer to many who have fully handled this Subject: As Dr. Crackenthorp, Defence c. 73. againſt Marcus Antonius de Dominis, Archbiſhop of Spalato, who came into England, An. 1616. And here aſſerted, that all the Fathers are againſt the real Preſence, but after his laſt revolt revoked this, and affirmed the p. 48contrary. And Dr. Burnet's Diſcourſe, annexed to the Relation of a Conference, held at London, April 3, 1676. by Dr. Stillingfleet and Dr. Burnet with ſome of the Church of Rome, &c.

L. 3. de Euchar. cap. 21. Una apex verbi ratione valentior omni eſt. Milleque decretis conciliiſque prior.III. They argue from Councils; from the Authority, Definitions, and Decrees of Councils. Bellarmine makes this another Argument, and tells us that for 500 Years before that time, the truth of Tranſubſtantiation was defined, ſub Anathemate, in ſix Councils one after another. But this is of leaſt weight, for Bellarmine's ſix Councils were of the Pope's making, and ſuch as decreed more Errors than this.

IV. In the laſt place Bellarmine argues for it, from its agreeableneſs to Reaſon. But in Articles of Faith we muſt draw our Concluſions, not from the Dictates of Reaſon, but, from the Rule of the Scripture: Yet his Reaſons are very frivolous and ludicrous. It is (ſays he) moſt Conſentaneous to Reaſon to admit it:

1. Becauſe otherwiſe the ſimple will be expoſed to the danger of Idolatry in adoring the Bread.

2. Becauſe it ſeems not very agreeable to Reaſon, that the ſame Sacrament ſhould be both Corporal and Spiritual Food; Meat, both mentis & ventris.

3. Becauſe otherwiſe a Chriſtian taking the Sacrament (on a Faſting-Day ſure) ſhould break his Faſt.

This Stuff needs no anſwer. Only inſtead of bringing in Tranſubſtantiation, to prevent the Adoration of Bread by the Ignorant, he might have done better, to have put them in a way of avoiding the peril of Idolatry, as often as they worſhip the Hoſt: For if there be no real Preſence, they confeſs that it is abominable Idolatry. Coſterus ſaith, that the Bread-worſhip was the greateſt Idolatry that ever was in the World, if the Bread be not turned into the true and natural Body of Chriſt. Now Biel, Lec. 49. in Can. ſaith, That there can be no evident certainty of the Converſion of the Bread into the Body of Chriſt, by reaſon of ſome Defects that may happen. Thus (ſays he) neither the Prieſt that celebrates, nor the People that joyn can be certain.

1. Not the Prieſt, becauſe he cannot certainly know that he was truly Baptized, or lawfully Ordained; and if not, he is no Prieſt, nor can Tranſubſtantiate.

2. Nor the People that Joyn; becauſe they cannot certainly know that the Prieſt hath an intention to Conſecrate; or if he have, that he commits not ſome Errour in omitting ſomething neceſſary to Conſecration in Matter or Form. And from hence he concludes, that Adoration p. 49ought to be performed always under an expreſs or tacit Condition, that we adore only, if all things have been obſerved that were neceſſary to Conſecration.

I have now done with the Arguments brought by the Romaniſts for Tranſubſtantiation.

I ſhall in the next place offer a few Arguments againſt it.

1. If the Bread, by Tranſubſtantiation, be turned into the real Body of Chriſt, then its no longer Bread, but both the Evangeliſts and the Apoſtle Paul, call it Bread expreſly in this action of the Supper, and this both before and after Conſecration; but none of them once call it (as the Papiſts will have) Fleſh, Blood, and Bones, or a bare Form, and the naked Accidents of Bread. We may ſee this if we caſt our Eyes upon,

Matth. 26.26. Jeſus took Bread, &c.

Mark 14.22. Jeſus took Bread, &c.

Luke 22.19. He took Bread, &c.

1 Cor. 11.23. Took Bread. V. 26. As often as ye eat this Bread. V. 27. Whoſoever ſhall eat this Bread. V. 28. So let him eat of that Bread.

1 Cor. 10.16. The Bread which we break. V. 17. We are all partakers of that one Bread. And ſo the whole Celebration of this Ordinance is called breaking of Bread. Acts 2.42. and 20.7. Thus it is ſtill ſtiled Bread. But if by Conſecration it were turned into the Body of Chriſt as born of the Virgin, then it ſhould not be Bread, nor could be called by the Name of Bread any more.

Now here Bellarmine and other Papiſts ſeek out ſeveral Evaſions whereby they think to enervate, and take away the force of this plain and cogent Argument, giving divers Reaſons, why after its eſſential mutation, it keeps its former Name of Bread. And they ſay, it is called Bread;

Firſt, Becauſe it is made of Bread, or was Bread before its Tranſubſtantiation into the Body of Chriſt, and keeps its old Name, or takes its Name from what it was. And they give us ſundry Examples of ſuch Forms of Speech in Scripture; as Adam called his Wife Bone, becauſe made of a Bone; Gen. 2.23. Moſes calls the Rods that were turned into Serpents, Rods; Exod. 7.12. Matthew calls the Blind, Lame, Dumb, &c. who were healed, Blind, Lame, Dumb, &c. after that they ſaw, and walked, and talked, becauſe they had been blind, &c. Mat. 15.31. To this I ſay,

p. 50(1.) Bellarmine himſelf confeſſeth, That this Solution doth not ſeem to be very ſolid; for the Adverſaries may object againſt it, That becauſe ſometimes a thing is called by the Name of that whereof it is made; therefore Words are every where to be taken in that Senſe. And I may add that well we may; for if there be two or three places in the Scripture, wherein things are for once named from what they were, yet there are ſcores and hundreds that call things that which they are, for one that calls them that which they have been, but now are not, nor ever ſhall be again.

(2.) Tho things are ſometimes denominated from what they have been; yet it cannot be ſo here, for Chriſt's Body never was Bread. And in this reſpect the Examples produced by them are wholly impertinent. For the Woman who is called a Bone, once was ſo; the Serpents that are called Rods, had been Rods, and were preſently Rods again: And the Seeing, who are called Blind, had been ſo, really Blind. But that which is properly and really the Body of Chriſt, never was, never ſhall be Bread. Nay, this is their Firſt and Fundamental Errour in this matter, viz. That Chriſt's Body is made of Bread; and here they run into the Error that Logicians call petitio principii. Hoc eſt ejus quod in principio quaeſitum fuit, or into a plain begging (inſtead of ſolid proving) of that that is the main Queſtion; and taking that for granted, which we muſt for ever deny. Let the Papiſts but once prove, that the true and real Body of Chriſt, was once Bread, and is made of Bread, by as fair Evidence as we will prove that the Woman was made of a Bone, and the Serpents of Rods, and the Seeing of them that had been Blind: And then they do ſomething, and we ſhall yield, that this Solution, Anſwer, or Interpretation of theirs may be allowable, but yet not certain, by Bellarmine's own Confeſſion. But that they can never do; and therefore we cannot grant, that the Body of Chriſt that never was Bread, nor ever ſhall be Bread, is called Bread; becauſe ſometimes things are called what they were, not what they are. We may obſerve by the way, that tho every new Vicar of Chriſt muſt have a new Name; yet by this new Divinity the old Name (tho very mean and contemptible) is good enough for the Body of Chriſt. Bread it was, and Bread it is at Rome.

Secondly; Becauſe it retains the external Figure and Form of Bread, and the Scriptures call things often as they appear, and ſeem to be. Here again they give us Examples of this in the Braſen Serpent, Numb. 21.8, 9. Emerods and Mice, 1 Sam. 6.4, 5. Solomon's Cherubims, 1 Kings 6.23. Solomon's Lyons, 1 King. 10.20. This is their ſecond Solution. Now to this I ſay,

p. 511. That the Scripture often ſpeaketh of things, not as they are, but as they ſeem and appear to us, and giveth the Names of the things themſelves to thoſe things that are only the Similitudes and Reſemblances of them. As in the Examples given, &c. But then,

2. This Rule doth not hold in this caſe, nor are the Examples brought to purpoſe. For,

(1.) All thoſe were true and proper Images and Repreſentations of the things whoſe Names they bare. But the Bread in the Euchariſt is not an external Form, Image, or Shadow of Bread, but very Bread it ſelf. The Braſen Serpent was not a Serpent, but the likeneſs of a Serpent; the carved Cherubims were not Cherubims, but the likeneſs of Cherubims, &c. But the Bread is true and proper Bread, and not the likeneſs of Bread.

(2.) The Scripture no where hinteth this, that it is called Bread, not becauſe it was Bread, but becauſe it hath the Form and Likeneſs of Bread; as it is evident that the Serpent, &c. are ſo called, becauſe they had the Form and Faſhion of a Serpent, &c. Nor,

(3.) Doth the Scripture any where teach us to call the bare Accidents of Bread by the Name of Bread. And Accidents are all that the Papiſts here allow.

(4.) The Body of Chriſt never was in the Form of Bread, or had the Likeneſs of Bread. I ſay moreover,

(5.) In ſaying that the Body of Chriſt is called Bread, becauſe being made of Bread, it doth ſtill retain and keep the Form of Bread, they with their own Hands throw down this Structure of Tranſubſtantiation, which they would rear up. For if the Bread were really turned into the Body of Chriſt, it would in this Tranſmutation loſe the external Form and Accident of Bread, and take the Form and Accident of a true human Body. Thus in all the Tranſmutations and Transformations that we read of in Scripture, the things transformed loſt their former Form, Shape, and Accident, and took new ones. The Rib, out of which Eve was formed, loſt its own Shape and Form when turned into Woman. When Lot's Wife was turned into a Pillar, ſhe loſt the Form of a Woman. Moſes's Rod loſt the Form of a Rod, when it took the Form of a Serpent. And the Water turned into Wine loſt its former Colour, Savour, Taſte. In all theſe there was a real and viſible Mutation, that changed the external Form, Faſhion, and Accidents. And ſo whatſoever is tranſubſtantiated, doth thereby loſe its former Form. And ſo it would be here, if there were any ſuch a Tranſubſtantiation as the Romaniſts would obtrude upon us. But this Key whereby they would looſe themſelves out of the Chains of this Argument, inſtead of looſing them, locks p. 52them cloſer and faſter up. But they have more Keys for this Lock that may fit better. As,

Divino miraculo fieri, ut accidentia panis nutriant, ita tamen ut in magna copia ſumantur. De Euch. c. 23.Thirdly, Becauſe it hath the Properties and Effects of Bread. But what are theſe? Bellarmine only names one, viz. Nutrition, it doth nouriſh our Bodies as Bread. But if it be not Bread, how comes it to miniſter Nouriſhment? Why, he tells us that, by a Divine Miracle, Accidents may nouriſh, when taken in a great Quantity. Mark here,

1. Accidents of Bread nouriſh Mens Bodies.

2. Yet it is by a Divine Miracle, and this alſo. Only,

3. When they take a full Doſe of them. He might have done well to have preſcribed a juſt Quantity, how many Grains, Scruples, Drams, Ounces, Pounds or Quarts of Accidents muſt be taken at once to make the Receipt work. But this is left to the Baker's Diſcretion, who may (for any thing I know) put in more or leſs at his own Pleaſure.

But in anſwer to this Reaſon produced by them, to prove that it may be called Bread, I ſhall ſay two things,

1. That this Reaſon plainly proves it to be Bread. For,

(1.) That which hath the Effects and Properties of Bread in nouriſhing our Bodies, is a Subſtance. Bare Accidents, as Length, Bredth, Colour, &c. cannot nouriſh. And therefore if the whole Subſtance of the Bread be gone, and nothing of Bread (as they ſay) remain but the bare Accidents, there can come no Nouriſhment to our Bodies from them, but they ſay (and it is true) that they do nouriſh: And from thence I ſay it muſt follow that not only the Accidents, but the Subſtance of Bread remains. For meer Accidents do not nouriſh. It is confeſſed that Odours may and do miniſter ſome refreſhing, and Examples may be given of thoſe that have been refreſhed by the Smell of Meats and Odours. But the Reaſon of this is, that Smells and Savours iſſue with the Emiſſion of ſome Corporeal Subſtance from the Bodies they iſſue from. Therefore an Odour, according to Ariſtotle, is fumida quaedam Evaporatio; according to Galen, Effluxus quidam Corporum. But this cannot beſtead the Papiſts in this Caſe, for according to their Hypotheſis, there is no Subſtance of Bread in the Hoſt,Omnes Theologi & Philoſophi communi ſenſu docent, quod alimentum in rei nutritae ſubſtantiam vere convertatur. 1 De Genar. & Corr. c. 5. q. 11. Art. 2. and therefore there can be no Emiſſion of any Material Savour or Subſtance from it, that can afford the leaſt Degree of Nouriſhment.

(2.) That which doth nouriſh our Bodies, is converted into the Subſtance of our Bodies. The Colledge of Conimbre tells us, that both all Divines and Philoſophers with one Conſent agree in this, that Food is truly converted into the Subſtance of the Body that is nouriſhed by it. But bare Accidents cannot be turned into Subſtance, and therefore cannot p. 53nouriſh; if there be Nouriſhment, then there muſt be the Subſtance of Bread.

But Bellarmine hath a Reſerve here, that it may be done by a Miracle: and ſo indeed it muſt, if it be done.

But why ſhould we deviſe and feign Miracles, when and where there is no need of them, nor occaſion for them?

1. It is not once doubted, but God can, by a Miracle, nouriſh our Bodies without any Meat at all, when there is need, and he ſees it meet. But then,

2. What need is there of a Miracle to nouriſh our Bodies by bare Acdents, Length, Breadth, Quantity, Colour, &c. when we have our Tables furniſhed and ſtored with all Plenty and Variety? Doth the Lord uſe to work Miracles, where there is no want of ordinary means, and this ordinarily?

3. I would fain know of them, for what end this Miracle is done. Is it to confirm the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation? or to declare and manifeſt the Deity of Chriſt? Then certainly this ought to be viſible and conſpicuous, or openly diſplayed, that it is not any Subſtance of Bread, but only Accidents of Bread; that we are thus miraculouſly fed and nouriſhed by. But this is not in the leaſt apparent, nor to be any way diſcerned by our ſelves or others.

4. But the Limitation or Condition which Bellarmine puts in, doth in my Opinion quite marr this pretended Miracle, viz. That the Accidents may by a Divine Miracle nouriſh us upon this Condition, that they be taken in magna copia, or a great Quantity. What means this Proviſo? Why muſt they be taken in magna copia, to make the Miracle take? Is there Reſtraint upon the Divine Omnipotence, ſo that he can feed us with many Accidents of Bread, but not with a few? Is this the Cardinal's Divinity? Strange! Here is in his Words a feigned Miracle, but a real Blaſphemy, in limiting the moſt High, and tying up the Hands of Omnipotence. And I may, with ſome Variation, inform the Jeſuit in the Words of Jonathan to his Armour-bearer, there is no Reſtraint to the Lord, to ſave by many, or by few; 1 Sam. 14.6. So I ſay, there is no Reſtraint to the Lord, to feed by many Accidents or by few, if he can by many, he can alſo by few, and with the ſame Facility.

This is the firſt Anſwer.

2. This Reaſon plainly everts Tranſubſtantiation. For if a Conſecrated Wafer do retain the Properties and Effects of Bread, then it cannot be tranſubſtantiated, becauſe the Properties of Bread are founded in the Subſtance of Bread, and the Effects of Bread riſe from the very Nature of Bread. So that if the Bread did, by Conſecration, loſe its Subſtance, it ſhould therewith alſo loſe both its Properties and Effects.

p. 54They have yet one ſhift more, and ſay, it is called Bread.

Fourthly, By a Hebraiſm, becauſe phraſi hebraicâ, in the Hebrew Idiom or Form of Speech, all Meat is called Bread. This is Bellarmin's laſt Reaſon, and that which he likes beſt. It may, ſays he, be called Bread, & meo judicio optimè, quia phraſi hebraicâ nomine panis intelligitur generatim omnis Cìbus. But,

1. Till Bellarmine have proved that our Saviour and his Apoſtles called this Sacramental Element by the name of Bread, for this reaſon, or more hebraico, he doth but beg the queſtion, and if we liſt to grant it him, upon his begging we may; but if not, he hath not, nor any of the Tribe of Cardinals or Jeſuits can ever prove it.

2. The Apoſtle doth not only call it Bread, but foreign, panem hunc, foreign, this Bread, 1 Cor. 11.26, 27. plainly ſhewing that he had not reſpect to that general Signification, but ſpake of it in its moſt proper ſenſe, as it was Food made of Corn, or proper Bread, as Bread is diſtinguiſhed and differenced from all other kinds of Meat: As in the ſame place he ſpeaks of Wine as it was the proper Fruit of the Vine, by way of diſtinction from all other ſorts of Liquors. Thus the Apoſtle calls it Bread, not in the general Signification of the Word, but from its own particular Nature and Kind among all other ſorts and kinds of Meat; that is, proper Bread, and not any other, Fiſh, or Fleſh, &c.

We have now the Reaſons of Bellarmine, and other Papiſts, whereby they do go about to elude and evade this clear and full Argument againſt Tranſubſtantiation.

And you may yet further take notice of theſe four things in general. That theſe Reaſons (aſſigned by them) why the Bread after its eſſential Mutation is ſtill called Bread,

1. Are divers one from another, wherein they fluctuate at great uncertainty,Vel quia ex pane conficitur, & accidentia panis retinet, &c. Vel alio aliquo modo, qui a Doctoribus comprehendi poteſt, a nobis non poteſt. as not knowing where, or upon what to fix. One while they will have it called Bread, becauſe it was Bread; another while becauſe it hath the Form and Figure of Bread; then, becauſe it hath the Effects of Bread. Next not ſo, but by a Hebraiſm. And thus they rove about at uncertainty, now ſay one thing, then another. It is called Bread in this ſenſe, or in that ſenſe, or as one of them (if not more knowing, yet more modeſt than the reſt) having reckoned up ſeveral Opinions about it, concludes, or ſome other way, which the Doctors may underſtand, but we do not.

p. 552. Are not only divers one from another, but adverſe and contrary one to another; inſomuch as they cannot conſiſt and ſtand one with another, but do mutually deſtroy one another. For if it be called Bread,

(1.) Tropically and Figuratively, according to the Firſt and Second, then not becauſe of its nutritive Property, according to the Third.

(2.) Becauſe of its nutritive Virtue; then not Figuratively, as the Firſt and Second.

(3.) If by a Hebraiſm; then none of the other three ways. And

(4.) If any of the other ways, then not more hebraico.

3. Are all Figurative and improper. And ſo they (who inſiſt ſo much on, and contend ſo hotly for the literal Signification of our Saviour's Words, This is my Body, and exclaim on us for departing from it) do themſelves depart from the literal Signification of this Word, Panis, Bread, and bring in a tropical, figurative and improper ſenſe of it. For if it be called Bread, only becauſe it is made of Bread, or hath the Form of Bread, or the Properties and Effects of Bread, or from the Idiotiſm of the Hebrews, then it is Bread only in an improper Senſe. And ſo I ſay, they that will not admit of a Figure in this Propoſition, This is my Body, (tho it be neceſſary, and ordinary and conſtant in the Scripture in this Subject of Sacraments) are forced (for the Support of their Tranſubſtantiation, and literal Signification of this Propoſition, This is my Body) to forge a Figure in this Term, Bread, and not one, but four, one on the back of another, if they will have their Reaſons to ſignify any thing. Beſides that, by Bread here, they will have us to underſtand Fleſh, Blood, and Bones by ſome new and uncouth Figure which I underſtand not.

4. The Romaniſts at this Day cannot endure this form of Speech, or to hear the conſecrated Wafer called Bread. Should a Prieſt in the Popiſh Countreys, who is going to ſing Maſs, but ſay, I go to break Bread, it might come to coſt him his Life.

2. Arg. If the Bread be converted into the real Body of Chriſt, the Wine is alſo converted into the real Blood of Chriſt. But the Wine is not tranſubſtantiated into his Blood: Therefore neither is the Bread tranſubſtantiated into his Body. For the Confirmation of this Argument, this only is to be proved, That there is no Tranſubſtantiation of the Cup, or Wine. For they grant that if both be not, neither of them is tranſubſtantiated.

Now in order to a clearing of this, That there is no Tranſubſtantiation of the Wine, I ſhall,

p. 56I. Lay the Words of Inſtitution together, as they are recorded by three Evangeliſts, and the Apoſtle Paul.

II. Shew how the Papiſts would prove Tranſubſtantiation from them.

III. Shew that there is no ſuch Tranſubſtantiation.

I. The Words of Inſtitution,

Mat. 26.28. This is my Blood of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many for the Remiſſion of Sins.

Mark 14.24. This is my Blood of the New Teſtament, which is ſhed for many.

Luke 22.20. This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood, which is ſhed for you.

1 Cor. 11.25. This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood.

II. From this Inſtitution they argue for the Tranſubſtantiation of the Cup.

1. In General on this Principle, that we muſt keep unto the literal Signification of the Words, and take them as they ſound. Two things they ſay neceſſitate this,

(1.) The Nature of a Sacrament. And,

(2.) The quality of a Teſtament. The Euchariſt is both a Sacrament, and a Teſtament: and nothing ought to be expreſſed in more plain and naked Terms than theſe, that all Obſcurity and Ambiguity may be prevented. For if Sacramental, or Teſtamentary Terms be improper and figurative, then their Signification is uncertain; and conſequently the Sacrament, or Teſtament; delivered in ſuch Terms is vain and uncertain.

This is the Foundation that they lay, and upon this Foundation they would build Tranſubſtantiation, from theſe three Terms or Expreſſions, in the Words of Inſtitution, which prove that the Cup, or that which is contained in the Cup, is the true and proper Blood of Jeſus Chriſt.

1. It is expreſly called his Blood. This is my Blood.

2. It is expreſly called the New Teſtament in his Blood. But Wine cannot be the New Teſtament in his Blood.

3. It is expreſly ſaid to be ſhed for them for the Remiſſion of Sins. Now it was not Wine, but his true and proper Blood that was ſhed for them for the Remiſſion of Sins.

Anſw. 1. That the Foundation here laid, is not only precarious, weak, and ſandy; but falſe and erroneous. For,

p. 571. Nothing is more frequent and familiar than improper and figurative Terms in the Inſtitution of Sacraments. This we have ſeen before in the Inſtitutions of both Teſtaments. And were not their Brows of Braſs, they could never have the Face to deny it, and to contradict themſelves (as we ſhall ſee) in denying of it. But nothing is more frequent with them than this, to ſay, and unſay, to affirm, and deny, maintain, or diſclaim any Poſition, as may make moſt for the advantage of the Cauſe that they defend.

2. Terms and Phraſes may be improper and figurative, and yet plain and eaſy to be underſtood. A figurative, and an obſcure or ambiguous Term are not all one. The Papiſts themſelves do confeſs that there are ſeveral tropical Terms (as I ſhall ſhew) in the Inſtitution of the Cup, and yet affirm, That they have the certain and true Interpretation of them: And therefore (by their own Confeſſion) the certain Signification of figurative Phraſes and Forms of Speech may be known. But in this they do not only contradict and condemn themſelves, but reflect on, and accuſe the God of Heaven, as delivering his Mind to Men, in matters of eternal Concernment, in terms of an ambiguous, uncertain, and unintelligible Signification.

3. Teſtamentary Diſpoſitions ought to be plain, and may be ſo, tho there be ſome improper Terms in them. Jacob's Teſtament was full of Figures, Gen. 49. yet without doubt well underſtood by his Sons and their Poſterity.

4. The Euchariſt is not the Teſtament of Chriſt, but a Sign and Seal of his Teſtament. The new Teſtament was in being before the Inſtitution of the Supper; and Baptiſm, which is a Sacrament and Seal of the New Teſtament, was then already inſtituted. And therefore the Inſtance of a Teſtator, here brought by them, is impertinent and to no purpoſe, viz. The Words of a Teſtator, wherein he ſays to his Legatee, I bequeath a Houſe to thee, may not be interpreted, I leave the Sign of an Houſe to thee, no more may the Words of Chriſt's Teſtament, viz. This Cup is the New Teſtament, be expounded, This Cup is the Sign of the New Teſtament. This, I ſay, is impertinent: For there is a manifeſt Diſſimilitude in the Examples. That of the Teſtator is a proper Teſtament, this of our Saviour is but a Seal of his Teſtament. Now if a Teſtator, who hath in his Teſtament given a Houſe to his Heir, ſhould give this Teſtament with the Seal annexed unto it, into the hand of his Heir, ſaying, This is the Houſe which I give unto thee; It would be evident and eaſy enough for any to underſtand, that the thing ſo put into his Hand, is not the Houſe it ſelf, but the Aſſurances and Confirmations of it. And it is no more difficult to underſtand the meaning of our Lord p. 58in theſe Words, This Cup is the New Teſtament, i. e. I have in my Teſtament bequeathed all my Goods unto you, and this Cup is inſtituted to be a viſible Seal of this my Teſtament unto you.

5. The Papiſts forſake their own Foundation, or depart from the proper Signification of the Words in ſeveral things. As,

(1.) When it is ſaid, That he took the Cup after Supper, Luke 22.20. They ſay, and truly, the Cup is put for, and ſignifies the Wine in the Cup.

(2.) When it is ſaid, That he took the Cup, &c. ſaying, This Cup is the New Teſtament, Luke. 22.20. here they ſay, the Cup is put for, and ſignifies his Blood in the Cup.

(3.) When he ſaith of that in the Cup, This is my Blood, they ſay, it is meant of that which is hidden under the Form and Accidents of Wine; and reſolve this Propoſition thus, This compound of my Blood and the Accidents of Wine, is my Blood. Again,

(4.) When he calls that which he drank, the Fruit of the Vine, Mat. 26.29. They ſay, That by the Fruit of the Vine, we muſt underſtand his Blood.

This is their keeping to the Letter of the Words.

6. The proper and literal Senſe of the Words of Inſtitution cannot be the true and proper Meaning of our Saviour in them; becauſe if they be ſo taken, they carry in their very Face the groſſeſt Abſurdities that can be imagined, and ſuch as make our Saviour's Words to contain and hold forth a ridiculous and monſtrous Senſe. If we take them properly, uti ſonant. Then,

(1.) The Cup (whether it be of Gold, Silver, Wood, Stone, &c.) is truly and properly the Blood of Chriſt, for he ſaith expreſly, This is my Blood.

(2.) The Blood of Chriſt is the New Teſtament. Now a Teſtament is made up, and conſiſteth of Letters, Syllables, Words and Sentences written in Paper, or Parchment: Is the Blood of Chriſt Letters, Words, Lines, &c.? Beſides this, both Matthew and Mark call it the Blood of the New Teſtament, therefore it is not the New Teſtament, for how can it be both the Teſtament, and the Blood of the Teſtament?

(3.) The Blood of Chriſt is the New Teſtament in the Blood of Chriſt: As if he ſhould have ſaid, This Blood is the New Teſtament in my Blood. But this is not eaſy to underſtand, viz. how the Blood of Chriſt is in the Blood of Chriſt, the Blood of the Cup in the Blood of the Croſs, or the Blood of the Croſs in the Blood of the Cup, unleſs Chriſt have two kinds and ſorts of Blood.

(4.) The New Teſtament is ſhed for in for the Remiſſion of Sins.

p. 59Thus if we take the Words as they ſound, they come to this Senſe, viz. That, 1. The Cup, whether Gold, Silver, Wood or Stone, is Blood, And 2. This Blood is the Blood of Chriſt, And 3. This Blood of Chriſt is the New Teſtament, And 4. This New Teſtament is ſhed for the Remiſſion of Sins: And ſo in ſhort, a Cup that is made of Gold, &c. is at once,

1. Blood.

2. The Blood of Christ.

3. The New Teſtament.

4. Shed for us. And what can be more groſs and abſurd?

If yet we allow them a Trope here, and that by the Cup is meant that which is in the Cup, the Contents of the Cup (which is moſt true in our Saviour's ſenſe) yet ſtill the proper ſenſe will be moſt abſurd and diſſonant: For the expreſs Words of Chriſt concerning the Cup are, This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood, which is ſhed for you: Take theſe properly, and then 1. The New Teſtament is the Contents of the Cup. and 2. The New Teſtament is ſhed for us. And could this be? Can it be ſaid without monſtrous Abſurdity, that the New Teſtament was ſhed for us? Or that it was Letters, Words, Syllables, Lines that were ſhed for us for the Remiſſion of Sins?

Thus which way ſoever they turn them, the literal Senſe is abſurd, and makes our Saviour's Words ridiculous.

And this may be enough to ſhew the Sandineſs and Unſoundneſs of the Foundation whereon they bottom this Doctrine. Now the Foundation being overturned, the Super-ſtructures fall therewith of themſelves. To wit, that that which is in the Cup, is real Blood, or Wine turned into the very Blood of Jeſus Chriſt: becauſe,

1. He calls it his Blood.

2. He calls it the New Teſtament in his Blood. And,

3. Saith of it, that it is ſhed.

I ſay, this Interpretation falls with the Foundation that it is built on, and needs no Anſwer. Yet I ſhall ſay a Word,

1. In general; that all theſe Forms of Speech are Sacramental Terms, and muſt not be taken in a literal and proper Senſe, but in a Sacramental and improper Signification, whereby the Names of the things ſignified are given to the Signs that do ſignify them.

2. In particular.

(1.) When he ſaith of that in the Cup, This is my Blood, the meaning is, this is that which ſignifieth or repreſenteth my Blood; the Sign of my Blood.

(2.) When he ſaith, This Cup is the New Teſtament in my Blood; p. 60the meaning is, the Wine in this Cup is the Sign and Seal of the New Teſtament eſtabliſhed in my Blood ſhed upon the Croſs; or the Sign of my Blood whereby the New Teſtament is confirmed.

(3.) When he ſaith, it is ſhed, the meaning is, it is the Sign of the ſhedding of my Blood. The Effuſion made in the Sacrament, was a Sign or Repreſentation of the Effuſion which was to be made the next day upon the Croſs.

I have now done with the Plea they make for the Tranſubſtantiation of the Wine from the Words of the Inſtitution.

III. We ſhall now come to the 3d in a word, to ſhew that the Wine is not tranſubſtantiated into the Blood of Chriſt.

And this may be evinced,

Firſt, From the Abſurdities, Contradictions and Blaſphemies that it carrieth in it. Theſe are too many to be enumerated here, beſides thoſe even now named, (ariſing out of the literal Conſtruction of the Words) and thoſe mentioned before, that attend the Tranſubſtantiation of the Bread, (which come in again here.) It labours with theſe four great) Abſurdities. Grant but Tranſubſtantiation, and then, according to their own Principles,

1. The Wine is tranſubſtantiated into the Cup.

2. The Cup is tranſubſtantiated into the Blood of Chriſt.

3. The Blood of Chriſt is tranſubſtantiated into a Teſtament.

4. The Teſtament is ſhed for the Remiſſion of Sins.

All theſe are abſurd enough.

Secondly, From its plain Contrariety unto, and Inconſiſtency with the great End and Fruit of Chriſt's Death. Nothing is more plain in Scripture than theſe two, 1. That Chriſt died, or ſhed his Blood on the Croſs to merit and obtain for us Remiſſion of Sins; 1 Cor. 15.3. Gal. 1.4. Eph. 5.2. Rom. 4.25. Iſa. 53.10. &c. And 2. That by his Death and Blood-ſhed on the Croſs, Remiſſion was obtained: Coloſ. 1.20. and 1.14. Eph. 1.7. Revel. 1.5. But if (as Tranſubſtantiation ſuppoſeth) the Wine in the Cup was turned into the Blood of Chriſt, and this Blood of Chriſt was ſhed in the Sacrament for the Remiſſion of the Sins of the World, then the Paſſion, Death, and Bloodſhed of Chriſt upon the Croſs was both needleſs and fruitleſs. He attained not his End in dying, his Death profited nothing; for that which he died for, was obtained, before he died to obtain it. So that, as the Apoſtle ſaid of Juſtification by works, Gal. 2.21. If Righteouſneſs come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain; ſo I may ſay, if Remiſſion of Sins come by the Blood ſhed in the Sacrament, then Chriſt is dead in vain. Thus p. 61it takes away the End and Fruit of Chriſt's Death, the Love of God in giving him to die for our Sins, the Love of Chriſt in laying down his Life for us, and makes him die in vain.

Thirdly, From the expreſs Words of Chriſt: Matt. 26.29. Mark 14.25. Verily I ſay unto you, I will drink no more of the Fruit of the Vine, until the day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God. Theſe are our Lord's own Words, after he had inſtituted and celebrated this Sacrament, and they put the Matter out of queſtion, for he could not more plainly and clearly have ſaid, that it was Wine which he had drunk, and not Blood.

3. Arg. If in the Euchariſt the Elements be tranſubſtantiated into the proper Body and Blood of Chriſt, then the Church of the Jews in the Old Teſtament did not eat the ſame Meat, and drink the ſame Drink in their Sacrament, that the Chriſtian Church now in the New Teſtament eats and drinks in her Sacrament. But the Church of the Jews did eat the ſame Meat, and drink the ſame Drink, that the Chriſtian Church now doth. And therefore there is no Tranſubſtantiation.

Here are two things to be proved;

1. That if there be any ſuch a Tranſubſtantiation as the Papiſts maintain, then the Church of the Jews did not eat the ſame Meat, and drink the ſame Drink that Chriſtians now do in the Sacrament.

And this is plain and evident, for (granting Tranſubſtantiation) the Chriſtian Church now eats the Body, and drinks the Blood of Chriſt, as he was born of the Virgin Mary. But ſo did not the Church of the Jews, nor could, for Chriſt was not then Incarnate, nor had either Body or Blood.

2. That the Church of the Jews did eat the ſame Meat, and drink the ſame Drink that the Chriſtian Church now doth.

And this is as plain and evident from the expreſs Words of the Apoſtle; 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. And did all eat the ſame Spiritual Meat, and did all drink the ſame Spiritual Drink: For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. Obſerve,

1ſt. They did eat the ſame Meat, and drink the ſame Drink. That is,Eandem eſcam & potum non tantum inter ſe, ſed & nobiſcum habuerunt. Quid eſt eandem, niſi quia eam quam etiam nos? Eandem ergo cibum & eandem potum, ſed intelligentibus & credentibus, non intelligentibus autem Manna ſola & Aqua: Credentibus autem idem qui nunc. Tunc enim Chriſtus venturus, modo Chriſtus venit: venturus & venit, diverſa verba ſunt, idem autem Chriſtus. Aug. Tract. 26. in Joh.

(1.) Not in regard of the external and viſible Symbols, or Signs. For they ate Manna, and drank Water. We eat Bread, and drink Wine.

p. 62(2.) But in regard of Signification, or reſignificata, the Manna and Rock were the ſame to them, that the Bread and Cup are to us, to wit, Sacramental Symbols of the ſame Things, differing only ſignis & modo ſignificandi.

2. This ſame Meat which they did eat, and Drink which they did drink, was Spiritual Meat and Drink, i. e. not in Nature or Subſtance, but in Signification and Repreſentation. Ob ſpiritualem ſignificationem.

3. This ſame Spiritual Meat and Drink was Chriſt.

(1.) Not Corporally, Subſtantially, and Eſſentially.

(2.) But Symbolically. Symbolum erat Chriſti, repreſenting and exhibiting the ſame Chriſt, and Grace of Chriſt to them, that the Supper doth to us.

4. They ate this ſame Spiritual Meat, and drank this ſame Spiritual Drink. That is,

(1.) All of them ate this ſame Meat Sacramentally, Ore.

(2.) Some of them (i. e. Believers) ate it Spiritually alſo, Fide.

Thus the Church of the Jews ate the ſame Spiritual Meat that we do. And this doth evidently prove the Popiſh Tranſubſtantiation to be a meer Fiction.

4. Arg. If the Bread be converted into the Body of Chriſt; then not only wicked Men, but Dogs and Hogs, Rats and Mice may eat the real Body of Chriſt, and conſequently (according to their Principles) have Eternal Life. That they may eat the true Body of Chriſt, is plain, for they may eat that that remains after the Conſecration, and after this there remains nothing, but

(1.) The Accidents of the Bread; theſe cannot be eaten.

(2.) The Body of Chriſt; this therefore muſt be eaten by them. What ſay they to this?

1. None of them deny but the Conſecrated Hoſt may be eaten by any of theſe, or other Vermin. As is evident from the Cauteles of the Maſs, wherein they do not deny theſe groſs Abſurdities, or (as they call them) Inconveniences; but appoint certain Rules to be obſerved about them, and go about to ſalve them.

2. But yet they are miſerably divided and confounded among themſelves. Some ſay that the Mice, Rats, &c. do not eat the Body of Chriſt; others ſay they do: Some that the Body of Chriſt vaniſhes as ſoon as 'ere the Teeth of the Mouſe touch the Hoſt; ſome that the Subſtance of the Bread returns: Others, that a new Subſtance is created which the Mouſe eats; and others, God only knows quid mus ſumat, vel quid manducet, what the Mouſe eats, and what becomes of the Body of p. 63Chriſt when the Mouſe eats the Hoſt. Thus they are driven to monſtrous Shifts. And as ill are they ſet with the Worms and Vermin that breed in the Hoſt, when it is over-long kept, which are generated either of the Air about the Hoſt, or the Accidents of the Bread, or of the Subſtance of the Bread returned, or of Matter then created, or introduced from ſome other Body, or they know not how. Portentu Opinionum.

5. If there be any Tranſubſtantiation: Then the Body of Chriſt is daily created: Either,

1. Out of the Subſtance of the Virgin. Or,

2. Out of the Subſtance of the Bread. Or,

3. Out of nothing. But they will not tell us of which.

6. If the Bread be turned into the Body of Chriſt; then, as often as they Communicate, the Body of Chriſt is,

1. Turned into the Subſtance of their Bodies. Or,

2. Totally annihilated. Or,

3. Flyes away to Heaven. Or,

4. Unknown what becomes of it. But,

(1.) Not the Firſt, for then they ſhould be Hypoſtatically united to the Divine Nature.

(2.) Nor the Second, as ſome of them grant.

(3.) Not the Third, for then who can tell how many Millions of Chriſts are this Day in Heaven.

Therefore no Body knows what becomes of it.

I have now given as plain a Repreſentation of Tranſubſtantiation as I could, as it is received in the Church of Rome, with the Sandy Foundations it is built upon; and a few (of the many) Arguments that do clearly evert and overturn it.

I ſhall now ſhut up all in a few Words. If it be asked, What need was there of this, or what uſe may it be of unto us? I ſay, this ſtrange Monſter, Tranſubſtantiation ſetteth before us matter,

First, Of Information; and may inform us,

1. Of the amazing Apoſtacy of the Church of Rome, and thoſe that are devoted to her Communion. Here was once a famous and flouriſhing Church, a Church honoured by the Apoſtle with this high Teſtimony, that her Faith was ſpoken of throughout the whole World, Rom. 1.8. i. e. in all the Churches through the World. And that her Obedience was p. 64come abroad unto all Men, Rom. 16.19. Thus ſhe was once famous all the Chriſtian World over, for her exemplary Faith and Obedience. Who could have thought that ever ſuch a Monſter as this ſhould have had its Conception in, and been born of her Womb; and being born, have been owned by her, taken into her Belief, and made one of the moſt important Articles of her Faith? Yet alas! ſo it is. Oh how is the Gold become dim? How is the moſt fine Gold changed? How is ſhe that was once a pure Virgin, and the chaſte Spouſe of Chriſt, become the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth, Rev. 17.5.

2. Of the Genius and Nature of Popery, or Rome's Religion at this Day. It would be a tedious work to deſcribe it, in the ſeveral Parts and Members of it. But we may know a Lion by his Paw; and ſo what Popery is (a Religion more after Homer than after the Scripture: As Mr. Broughton) by this one piece or part of it, or from this Monſter that is maintained in it. This alone (if what is ſaid be conſidered and weighed impartially) may give any Man enough of Popery. Be a ſufficient Diſſwaſive from Popery. For if all were well to this, and nothing but Tranſubſtantiation with its Appendices lying in the way, yet Tranſubſtantiation alone is ſuch a foul, miſhapen, terrible, and dreadful Spectrum, Hagg, or Night-Ghoſt, as is ſufficient to fright all that are not either ſtark blind, or ſtark mad & out of their witts already, from a thought of looking that way.

3. How ſadly the Common People are miſled, and what ſtrange Abſurdities and Contradictions they do ignorantly receive, and implicitly believe in the thick Darkneſs they are brought into, and kept in. What can be more ridiculouſly abſurd than this Fiction? Yet through their own wonderful Ignorance, and the thin Sophiſtry of their Leaders, it is received without any heſitation by them as a great Myſtery; and ſo indeed it is, but of Iniquity.

4. What ſtrange and ſtrong Deluſions Men, and Men of Parts and Learning, may be given up unto. It is not to be denied, that many of the Romaniſts have been Men of vaſt Parts, and Learning; nor to be doubted but many of them are ſo: Yet they (not receiving the Truth, but minding their Secular Advantages, and making Religion to ſerve a corrupt, carnal, worldly Intereſt) have been given up to ſuch a ſtrong Deluſion, as to believe this grand Cheat, and impoſe it upon the Faith of others. Oh! to what a height of Deluſion Men may be left, to believe a Lie, a Lie that hath ſcarce any Vail to cover it, a Lie that hath no Senſe or Reaſon in it, a Lie that bears upon its Forehead monſtrous Abſurdities, and portentous Contradictions. Verily in this (according as was foretold 2 Theſſ. 2.11.) we have a viſible and tremendous Inſtance of one of the greateſt depths of the Judgment of God upon them. Let it p. 65warn to beware, to watch and pray, that we enter not into Temptation. Some are confident enough, and think they can never ſo far loſe themſelves, as to take up the Doctrines and Practiſes of Rome: But Sirs, we have need to ſhake off Carnal Security, to maintain a holy Fear and watchful Care, and live in a continual dependence on God for preventing and preſerving Grace and Help, in an hour of Temptation, and day of Tryal: For if once we begin to warp but a little, to leave God, his Truth and Way, and God leave us, I know no Deluſions ſo ſtrange and monſtrous, but we may be given up to believe them, even to this that is made up of nothing but portentous Abſurdities, &c.

5. How juſt a Cauſe our bleſſed Martyrs in the Marian Days were engaged in, and ſuffered for. Some Proteſtant Pens and Tongues in our Days have made unhandſome and ſiniſter Reflections upon that noble Army of Martyrs, of whom the World was not worthy: But a Reflection upon this monſtrous Fiction, that moſt of them went to the Stake, and ſacrificed themſelves in Flames in oppoſition to, is enough to clear their Innocency, and juſtify them in their Sufferings, in the Conſciences of all that are not given over to a Reprobate Mind.

Secondly, Tranſubſtantiation ſets before us matter of juſt Admiration. And we may wonder and ſtand amazed,

1. At the monſtrous Impudency of the firſt Founders of it. That ever Men bearing the Name of Chriſtians, ſhould arrive at ſuch a height of Impudence, as to obtrude upon the Chriſtian World, the Entertainment and Belief of a Tale and feigned Deviſe ſo portentous and prodigious even beyond all the Poetical Fictions of the Pagans. I may without any Breach of Charity paſs the Cenſure on Tranſubſtantiation, that Ludovicus Vives paſſed on the Golden Legend, viz. That it was written by a Man, ferrei oris & plumbei cordis, who was loſt to all Shame, and whom nothing could daſh out of Countenance. So I ſay, Tranſubſtantiation was minted by Men to be wondered at for their Confidence and Impudence.

2. At the lamentable Simplicity and Credulity of the firſt Receivers and Believers of it. As it is a matter to be wondered at, that any Men could be ſo impudent to invent it, ſo it is no leſs wonderful that any Men ſhould have been ſo very ſottiſh and ſimple as to receive ſuch a putid Trump into their Belief. It is unimaginable how this could be poſſible if Men had been waking when it came upon them.

3. At the horrible Induration of the preſent Supporters and Maintainers of it. This is yet the greateſt and moſt amazing Wonder of all, that now after the breaking out of the clear Light of the Goſpel, and the p. 66frequent expoſing of this Monſter by ſuch a number of learned Men of the Reformed Churches, there ſhould ſtill any appear in the patronizing, defence, and ſupportation of it. Here is infinite Cauſe to wonder, and we might wonder our ſelves into an inextricable maze, if the Holy Ghoſt had not given us a Clew to lead us out, 2 Theſſ. 2.11.

Thirdly, Tranſubſtantiation preſents unto us matter of Commiſeration. Matter that calls lowd on us for Bowels of Pity and Compaſſion towards Myriads of Souls in the Papacy.

1. That have ſuch grievous Impoſitions laid upon them, and have no other choice left them, but either to ſwallow down ſuch Contradictions and monſtrous Doctrines as this, or to be ſacrificed in mercileſs Flames.

2. That are compaſſed about with ſuch a thick Miſt of Popiſh Darkneſs, that they do not in the leaſt ſee or diſcern this and other Myſteries of Iniquity that fill the Synagogues of Antichriſt. This is a moſt deplorable Caſe, and God knows, it is the Caſe of Multitudes at this day in the midſt of the Papacy.

3. That are running ſuch infinite hazards of their Souls and eternal Eſtates from one Generation to another. It is far from me to think of uſing that Uncharitableneſs towards them, which they with one Conſent practiſe againſt us, viz. To pronounce all that are in that Communion, to be in a State of Damnation. This is a Piece of Cruelty that doth no way become Chriſtians. There is a Diſtinction to be made of Perſons, Times, Places and Practices. See the excellent Diſcourſe of Mr. Durham on Revel. 14. Lect. 3, about the Salvation of Papiſts. But this I ſay, they run an extreme Hazard (on many accounts) that live and dye in this Communion, tho they do not give an explicite Aſſent to the complex Body of her Doctrine and Worſhip. Even the Adoration of a piece of Bread, (riſing out of Tranſubſtantiation) as very God, is the groſſeſt Idolatry that can be uſed.

Now in all theſe Reſpects, the common Multitude are the Object of our Compaſſion, and the Conſideration of their hard and hazardous Condition ſhould move our Pity. Oh Chriſtians! Pity them, and pray, pray that God would open their Eyes, reveal this great Myſtery of Iniquity unto them, and bring them out of Babylon, where they are running ſuch an Adventure. Pray down the Antichriſtian State, and pray home the poor loſt Sheep into Chriſt's Fold, that are in the Pope's Pinfold, and Tents of Antichriſt.

Fourthly, Tranſubſtantiation brings matter of great Gratitude and Thankfulneſs unto all our Doors. Sirs, when we think of this, how p. 67can we be enough thankful unto our God for his Goodneſs!

1. That we were brought forth from under the Clouds and Darkneſs of Popery, and in the days of the glorious breakings out of the Goſpel.Diis gratias agere debeo, non quia natus eſt mihi filius, ſed quod tuis temporibus ipſum naſci contingit. When Alexander was born, his Father Philip bleſſed the Gods, not ſo much that he had a Son, as that he had him in Ariſtotle's Days. But how ſhould we bleſs God for bringing us forth in Goſpel-Times? This is the Priviledge which that eminent German Divine Abraham Buchol… zer was ſo affected with, that he always accounted it his great Happineſs, that he was born after the Light of the Goſpel break forth, and bred up under Melancthon. And Chytreus acknowledged it as a ſingular Mercy, that God had made him a Man, a Chriſtian, and that he had his Education under thoſe excellent Lights of the Church, Luther and Melancthon. Let this be thy Song, O Chriſtian, and ſay with the Pſalmiſt, I will ſing unto the Lord as long as I live, Pſal. 104.33.Ps 104:33I will ſing Praiſe unto my God, while I have my Being, who hath brought me forth, not in days covered with the diſmal Darkneſs of Popery, but crowned with a clear Diſcovery of the Goſpel.

2. That we have enjoyed a Freedom from theſe Popiſh Impoſitions, while other poor Proteſtants have had bitter and bloody Storms falling on them. If we look back to the laſt hundredth of Years now paſt, who can reckon up a thouſand Part of thoſe Sufferings that have fallen heavily upon the French, German, Bohemian, Hungarian, Netherland, Poliſh and Iriſh Proteſtants, for refuſing to admit of, and ſubmit to theſe things. Oh! Tranſubſtantiation, and other Romiſh Abominations, have coſt Millions of Lives, and Rivers of Blood, while we have ſat in a Calm, and not once taſted of the Popiſh Fury and Cruelty.

3. That to this day we are delivered from this, and the many other grievous Impoſitions of Rome. O what a Complication of Mercies, have we in this one great Mercy, that after all the Contrivances and Attempts of the Papiſts for this hundred years, we may at this day ſet up our Stone, and call it Eben-ezer, ſaying, 1 Sam. 7.12.1 Sam 7:12Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.

Fifthly, Tranſubſtantiation doth moreover ſuggeſt unto us matter of daily Supplication, and calls us to our Knees, to beg with Eyes, Hands and Hearts lifted up to Heaven, for Protection, Preſervation and Deliverance from the return and re-enterance of the Religion of this degenerated and Apoſtate Church, that brings this Monſter in its Womb, which, if embraced, will deſtroy and damn our Souls; and if rejected, will deſtroy and burn our Bodies to Aſhes; and coſt us no leſs than our Souls or our Lives. I find that there was in the Liturgy of Edward the ſixth a Prayer to be delivered p. 68from the Uſurpation, Tyranny, and Enormities of the Biſhop of Rome, which was afterwards taken out, to take away (as is ſaid) the Offence that it gave unto the Papiſts: but verily, how much ſoever it may offend them, we have much need to put it into our daily Litanies or humble Supplications, and to pray without ceaſing, that we may never fall back into that moſt woful, lamentable, and forlorn Eſtate that a Return of Popery will quickly plunge and ſink us into. The Pope ſolemnly curſeth us upon Good-friday; whereupon one prayed, that he may ſo curſe us ſtill, and never bleſs us more, as he bleſſed us in Queen Marie's Time. To this Prayer let all, that have any Love for their Religion, any Deteſtation of the worſt of Errors and Idolatries, any Concernment for their Souls, any Care of their Eſtates, Lives, and Poſterities, and would not run unſpeakable Hazards for both Worlds, ſay▪

AMEN.

FINIS.

End of the text · Henry Pendlebury, Transubstantiation (1687)